Sometimes I just love my profession.
A Tennessee prosecutor in the case of State v. Powell apparently moved to preclude the defense from referring to his side as “the government.”
Boo! Hiss! Dumb Prosecutor! Cringe-worthy!
But then the defense counsel replied in part:
Should this Court disagree, and feel inclined to let the parties basically pick their own designations and ban words, then the defense has a few additional suggestions for amending the speech code. First, the Defendant no longer wants to be called “the Defendant.” This rather archaic term of art, obviously has a fairly negative connotation. It unfairly demeans, and dehumanizes Mr. D.P. The word “defendant” should be banned. At trial, Mr. P. hereby demands to be addressed only by his full name, preceded by the title “Mister.”
Alternatively, he may be called simply “the Citizen Accused.” This latter title sounds more respectable than the criminal “Defendant.” The designation “That innocent man” would also be acceptable.
Moreover, defense counsel does not wish to be referred to as a “lawyer,” or a “defense attorney.” Those terms are substantially more prejudicial than probative. See Tenn. R. Evid. 403. Rather, counsel for the Citizen Accused should be referred to primarily as the “Defender of the Innocent.” This title seems particularly appropriate, because every Citizen Accused is presumed innocent.
Alternatively, counsel would also accept the designation “Guardian of the Realm.”
Further, the Citizen Accused humbly requests an appropriate military title for his own representative, to match that of the opposing counsel. Whenever addressed by name, the name ”Captain Justice” will be appropriate. While less impressive than “General,” still, the more humble term seems suitable. After all, the Captain represents only a Citizen Accused, whereas the General represents an entire State.
Along these same lines, even the term “defense” does not sound very likeable. The whole idea of being defensive, comes across to most people as suspicious. So to prevent the jury from being unfairly misled by this ancient English terminology, the opposition to the Plaintiff hereby names itself “the Resistance.” Obviously, this terminology need only extend throughout the duration of the trial — not to any pre-trial motions. During its heroic struggle against the State, the Resistance goes on the attack, not just the defense.
WHEREFORE, Captain Justice, Guardian of the Realm and Leader of the Resistance,
primarily asks that the Court deny the State’s motion, as lacking legal basis. Alternatively, the Citizen Accused moves for an order in limine modifying the speech code as aforementioned, and requiring any other euphemisms and feel-good terms as the Court finds appropriate.
The Judge denied the State’s motion.
Tocqueville’s analysis presents a discomfiting fact—that the basic inclinations toward progressivism were there at the creation. As Nisbet recognized, “the real conflict in modern political history has not been, as is so often stated, between the State and individual, but between the State and social group.” Conservatives should eschew the “false antipathy” in their assertion that salvation is to be found in individualism; rather, what is needed is a renewed defense of the institutions and memberships aside from, and distinctly placed, to that of the State—family, community, local markets, Church. Not because these constitute “lifestyle choices,” but because they are the true sources of human liberty—liberty through reforging the chains that democracy shatters in the pursuit of liberation in the name of individual autonomy, culminating with the rise of the modern, Progressive State to which we finally sacrifice our individuality.
(Patrick Deneen) Whereas “[m]ost conservatives … believe that America was well-founded by the Framers of the Constitution, but that something bad happened that corrupted the sound basis of the Founding,” Deneen says the corruption was in the roots – individualist roots that invariably lead to collectivism.
I probably should mention that I doubt the immaculate conception of any regime this side of the Eschaton.
In honor of Reformation Day, Arthur Rossman at CosmosTheInLost promised to
resist the temptation to take unjustified swipes at our heretical brothers and sisters in Christ. This is why I won’t be dredging up passages like this one from G.K. Chesterton’s The Thing:
“If it be profane that the miraculous should descend to the plane of matter, then certainly Catholicism is profane; and Protestantism is profane; and Christianity is profane. Of all human creeds or concepts, in that sense, Christianity is the most utterly profane. But why a man should accept a Creator who was a carpenter, and then worry about holy water, why he should accept a local Protestant tradition that God was born in some particular place mentioned in the Bible, merely because the Bible had been left lying about in England, and then say it is incredible that a blessing should linger on the bones of a saint: why he should accept the first and most stupendous part of the story of Heaven on Earth, and then furiously deny a few small but obvious deductions from it—that is a thing I do not understand; I never could understand. I have come to the conclusion that I shall never understand. I can only attribute it to Superstition.”
Amen, brother! Don’t preach it!
If conservatives fail to offer alternatives to the failures of Obamacare, the left will be able to offer single-payer as the only viable alternative to the problems caused by Obamacare. Whether or not conservatives can offer an alternative will determine if Obamacare is the high point of government control of medicine or just another step toward a complete public takeover.
(Pete Spiliakos) I think Spiliakos is right, and I expect to see single-payer in my lifetime. I’m not yet prepared to welcome it joyfully, but it may be the best we can do. The Republicans sure as heck haven’t shown anything better.
Rationing? We ration healthcare already based on ability to pay. Is that the best basis? Is that even neutral (especially when being an economic winner almost always means you’ve been at government’s feeding trough)?
Would you buy insurance for oil and filter changes on your car?! Well, of course not!
Therefore, comprehensive, non-catastrophic health insurance is dumb and perverse. Q.E.D.
Or is it? Scott Galupo thinks we should stop comparing health insurance and auto insurance.
Just to make sure I don’t start getting too optimistic about the future, the Atlantic collected a bunch of funeral selfies.
Don’t know what that means? Neither did I. Read it and weep. And remember, as politicians are wont to remind us, “Our children are our future.” (Hat Tip Jeffrey Polet)
* * * * *
“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 