Context is everything

Anyone who's known me for any length of time knows that I think context is essential. It's impossible to properly understand the meaning or import of anything that's said or written without understanding the context in which the utterance is, well, uttered. Not knowing the context often paves the way to misunderstandings. Sometimes those misunderstandings are tiny, sometimes they're huge, and sometimes they're just hilarious.

To wit: I was looking up a few articles online to get more info on the numerous ethics complaints that have been filed against Sarah Palin over the past months. Predictably, the chattering classes and the blogosphere are all atwitter over the bona fides of the accusations and what she should do, or should have done, about them. (Just as an aside, now that "twitter" has taken on an entirely new and somewhat different meaning, are we going to have to redefine "atwitter"? I'm just sayin'...)

Anyhoo, I stumbled across a recent column by Timothy Shriver in the Washington Post that caught my attention. At least the first paragraph of it did. I quote:

Amid all the babble about Sarah Palin's recent resignation as Alaska's governor and amid all the speculation about her potential presidential bid, few have noted a new job for which she is eminently qualified: civil rights leader for people with intellectual disabilities.

If I'd been drinking coffee I would have done a spit-take. Was this guy serious? Was he actually suggesting that Palin become the poster child for stupid people?

Then I went on and read the rest. Ohhhh, I get it now: Shriver goes on to explain that because the Palins have a child with Down Syndrome and Sarah has a high public profile, she should use him as the poster child and herself as a shill. Hardly better, in my view, but ever so slightly more noble.

I have to admit - to my shame - that I like my initial context-free interpretation better. If anyone thinks that's defamatory, go ahead and sue me.