cartel of defiance (noun): 1. In medieval combat, a formal declaration, delivered by herald, of a combatant's intention to fight and refusal to submit. 2. An electronic assemblage of engaged and enraged citizens. 3. An intertextual mode of reading, writing, and thinking that puts the current political, cultural, and personal moment in dialogue with text/art from the past in counterargument to the ahistorical Memory Hole into which America seems to have slipped.
1560 Sir T. Chaloner Let. 15 Jan. in Froude Hist. Eng. VI. 313 "Our professed enemies... instead of cartels of defiance, will send us solemn letters of congratulation."
posted by awol | 10:35 PM
4 Comments:
From the floor: "As I sat in church this morning I prayed, I prayed for a lowering of the rhetoric . . ." --
Representative Tom Price, GA 6th
Late-night deseparation of powers:
President Bush said in a statement just after 1 a.m.: "In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo, who live at the mercy of others."
Judicial presumptions now formulated by White House speechwriters . . .
This case, unlike other current matters that are much more pressing and urgent, is remarkable for being something new: I can't remember the last time I watched a debate -- or a political moment -- that was so scarily unfamiliar as the one last night in the Congress.
Any reporting on this is actually a challenge. The House Republicans acted so quickly, and with such a lack of precedent, that it is difficult to know "where to start" any representation of it. What is the most vital information to include? What framework is most necessary to understand what has just transpired?
Indeed: what does the collapse of the separation of powers even look (or feel) like? What consequence does it have? What name does it have? Can there be such a thing as a "small" collapse of the separation of powers?
The best piece I've read today about this is from Dahlia Lithwick at Slate, who balances the need for precision and generalization, and tries to make sure that her outrage doesn't fall too early or late to miss the real point. The unbelievable attacks, by a legislative body, against a single citizen whose only crime was to stand before a court of law (the patient's husband); the remarkable way in which the legislature's aggresive desire to play judge also leads individual legislators (including actual MDs) to play doctor, travestying the most basic norms of medical ethics -- these things are some of the fallout from the core issue -- a "de-separation" of powers (for lack, again, of a better word).
I think the lead quote speaks worlds.
Our system of government is being put to a throrough-going test...as is our national character. Folks on the benefitting end have to realize that something isn't quite right when the Democratic Senators get more votes....just from fewer states.
One of the disturbing thoughts I've had lately is that the American Left, the Big City Democrats have been on the outs for so long...that it's almost like we've internalized this dynamic. The internalization of a kind of "outsiderness / inevitable failure" in Washington hides the bald power grab by the Religious Right in D.C.
Our government belongs to all of us. There are plenty of moderates and independents out there who understand the danger of this situation.
The center cannot hold. And in American politics that is not good.
Post a Comment
<< Home