Everything in context

I found myself reading the paper on Wednesday and wondering: hadn't I seen this all before on TV? In fact, hadn't I seen this on Saved by the Bell?

Of course, it was not the content of the news that recalled the saccharine NBC sitcom, but the structure. The Bell screenwriters often juxtaposed scenes to make a point. For instance, the "No Hope with Dope" episode initially depicts movie star Jonny Dakota participating in an anti-drug ad. Soon after, Dakota is shown smoking pot at a party.

The moral couldn't be clearer: Dakota is a hypocrite and stars aren't always what they seem.

This past Wednesday, the news seemed similarly juxtaposed to make equally obvious points. First, I read about Israel opening the Erez Crossing on the border between Gaza and Israel. The move came after a U.N. envoy said Israel was opening Gaza's borders too slowly, thereby hurting the Palestinian economy and impeding the peace process.

Later, I read an article about a Qassam rocket fired from the Gaza Strip (near the Erez Crossing) into Netiv Ha'asara, an Israeli town. The rocket was fired right after the Israelis opened the Erez.

The moral couldn't be clearer: Israel closes certain borders because there are terrorists with missiles on the other side.

Clearly, a functioning Palestinian economy would facilitate peace. But Israel can't be expected to facilitate anything if doing so endangers its citizens. It's clear from this rocket attack (and similar fatal attacks near the Erez in July and February) that opening certain borders severely endangers Israel now. So Israel shouldn't have to.

If that seems like a black-and-white conclusion in a gray world, then please understand: I don't believe the overall Israel-Palestinian conflict is simple or that one side is right. But I do believe that certain aspects of the conflict are black and white -- because certain aspects of life are black and white. No one should have to sacrifice immediate safety for an incipient economy jeopardized by its own participants' rocket attacks.

And that's just easier to see when one views the news in context, when he sees not just the border closing, but the terrorism that precipitated it. It's not just about the most recent news, but about the events leading up to the recent news.

Moreover, context is not limited to past events. Understanding today's news requires one to look ahead and consider the future consequences.

Out of context, Jonny Dakota would seem like a mere stoner -- instead of the huge fraud he is -- if the Saved by the Bell writers hadn't shown him smoking immediately after telling kids not to. For hardcore Bell fans watching reruns, the knowledge that Dakota will ultimately smoke colors their perception of him even before he lights up.

And it was with consideration of the future that I read a New York Times editorial on Wednesday condemning Dick Cheney's attempt to legalize torture. Taken alone the issue seemed to lack urgency. After all, what are Cheney's chances of succeeding?

Given the political climate, perhaps the vice president is fighting a losing battle. But viewed in context, this battle is one that humanitarians cannot afford to lose.

Several prominent conservatives have recently made an argument for torture as a counterterrorism tactic. They cite its efficacy in coercing information from suspects. This reasoning makes sense in a utilitarian vacuum. It certainly seems better to torture one and save hundreds than leave one person alone and jeopardize a building of people.

But what are the future implications of legalized torture? To see that, you'd have to look at the news in context.

On Wednesday, The Associated Press wrote about a "proven-beyond-a-doubt" Japanese device that can remotely control humans. By sending electric currents through a headset into ear nerves, the device can manipulate humans. Their legs, their arms, their heads. Everything.

The device was designed to make video games more realistic (so that you really do move when your virtual race-car crashes), but even the article's author said the device could be used to make someone "follow orders."

Actually, the AP reporter tried the device herself in Japan. "It's as though an invisible hand were reaching inside your brain," she said.

Read those words slowly. And then suddenly, as if Jonny Dakota were lighting a spliff, feel the context at work. The moral here? In light of our collective technological future, our generation had better stop Cheney's torture legislation. Because if you thought Lynndie England was bad with a leash, just imagine her with a remote control.

Gabriel Oppenheim is a College freshman from Scarsdale, N.Y. Opp-Ed appears on Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.