Here's a cool new Faith Based marriage amendment from the folks at Landover and Whitehouse.org:

Constitutional Amendment on Marriage

Sorry it's been like, a month. Here's a cool email that showed up in the bag today!


The Circus Is Back in Town
by Butler Shaffer

When I was a child and the circus came to town there was a big parade.
Clowns, wild animals, and side show "freaks" teased our attentions, while
jugglers, animal trainers, and trapeze artists persuaded us to come out to
the big tent with promises of stunts like we had never seen. Traveling
circuses are largely a thing of the past, but a similar spectacle is still
available to us on television, with various carnival acts soliciting our
attention. Though they may appear to be competing with one another - much
as
clowns, high-wire walkers, and trained-dog acts vie for our interest - they
are integral parts of a greater enterprise that depends upon our fears,
curiosity, and willingness to be bamboozled.
As with other circuses, numerous side show attractions help keep our minds
focused on the bizarre and the ludicrous. The two-headed horse and the
bearded lady have been replaced by the celebrity transgression feature and
the murder-of-the-year trial. The O.J. Simpson circus of a few years ago
was
such a crowd pleaser because it managed to combine both draws into a
center-ring main attraction. More recently, we have had to put up with such
lesser distractions as the Jackson family's alleged indiscretions, the
question of gay marriages, or the content of Howard Stern's radio programs.
But it is to the center-ring that our attentions are always drawn. Men
being
shot out of cannons, lion-tamers, trapeze artists, and other dangerous acts
attract our interest because of their potentials for death. The other rings
may provide us with amusement, but we expect the center-ring to entertain
us
by exciting our fears. In modern society, the center ring has long been the
world of politics, or what H.L. Mencken referred to as the "carnival of
buncombe."
It has often been said that entertainment is a form of "escapism," but I
believe that it is often used to reinforce social conditioning. Our social
and political thinking, indeed our very identities, are wrapped up in
firmly-entrenched illusions upon which we insist. We need to believe that
"our" group - whatever that may be - is better than "their" group, and that
"we" have been victimized by "them." The entertainment industry - of which
politics is a part - feeds on such thinking, providing us with movies and
television programs that bolster our worldview. They remind us of the
lessons in which the schools have already trained us: that the policies,
systems, and beliefs upon which our politically structured society is based
are precisely what we require in order to live well. Entertainment serves
the pragmatic, real-world purpose of confirming our illusions so that we
may
more energetically fashion the world to make it reflect our mindset.
How else does one account for the raging anger associated with Mel Gibson's
movie "The Passion"? I have no case to make either for or against the
film's
message. I do share one trait with many of the critics and supporters of
the
film, however: I have not yet seen it! But judging from the irrational
responses of many critics - one Israeli politician is reported to have
suggested that Gibson should be criminally prosecuted for having produced
the film! - it seems that Gibson's "offense" is to have presented a movie
that raises questions that may challenge an established mindset.
Good art often has an anarchistic quality to it, challenging the accepted
rules, norms, and tastes of a culture. Art moves our eyes beyond the canvas
itself, causing us to become aware of our more limited perspectives of
life.
A good artist is a practitioner of Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle,"
which informs us that the observer is the observed. Art - like freethinking
and speculative philosophy - is forever challenging the status quo,
reminding us of the need to remain creative if we are to survive.
But the state has an aversion to inconstancy and changefulness, which is
why
it has always been at war with individual liberty and its social
expression,
the free market. The state is preoccupied with the defense of the status
quo, because it is the status quo. Anything that challenges the thinking
upon which its permanency is grounded - be it in the form of art,
scientific
discoveries, inventions, new ideas - is a threat to be opposed. This is why
political systems are so inextricably tied up with the kinds of
entertainment that reinforce the illusions upon which their power depends.
Do you ever wonder why motion picture actors and actresses play such
central
roles in addressing the "issues" that the political establishment would
like
you to mistake for important questions? Such people are as well paid as
they
are because they have honed the skill of pretending to be whom they are
not,
imaginary characters performing in scripted, make-believe situations. In a
word, they are professional illusionists, just the sort of people upon whom
political systems depend.
And why are so many of us attracted to such entertainers? Why are cable
"news" networks increasingly populated with former comedians,
sportscasters,
quiz show hosts, and pro wrestlers, to provide social and political
commentary? Why have senators and congressmen - and even a president - been
culled from Hollywood sound stages? And is it a matter of coincidence that
voters in Minnesota and California have selected, as governors, men whose
previous entertainment careers had cast them in the roles of muscle-bound
strong men?
Politics and entertainment both depend upon a willingness to suspend our
judgments about reality, and to be distracted by sleight-of-hand tricks
that
cloud deceptions. Political systems are grounded in such an abundance of
lies and contradictions that the speaking of truth becomes a subversive
act.
Lest you dismiss this remark as hyperbole, consider the plight of Martha
Stewart, whose criminal prosecution was based, in part, upon her publicly
denying her guilt!
There is a paradox in Martha Stewart - also an entertainer - being used by
the political establishment as a scapegoat, to deflect attention from the
falsehoods and deceptions whose revelations might be fatal to the illusions
upon which state power depends. The corrupt nature of corporate-state
neo-mercantilism that has long permitted some business interests to obtain
advantages unavailable in a free market must remain hidden from view: let
the state use Martha Stewart as a scapegoat for the "offense" of selling
her
own stock! George Bush can lie to the world about Iraqi "weapons of mass
destruction" or connections to Al Qaeda - lies that have led to the deaths
of thousands of innocent people - but it is Martha Stewart who will be the
sacrificial lamb for allegedly lying to government investigators!
Andre Malraux has stated that "a civilization can be defined at once by the
basic questions it asks and by those it does not ask." Thomas Pynchon
offered the correlative observation that "If they can get you asking the
wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." These two
commentaries tell us all we need to know about the sad state of modern
society. What are the questions you bring into the world each day, and who
formulated them? Are you the author, or do you allow the media to direct
your inquiries, as they do other fashions?
As the presidential circus returns for its quadrennial road show - having
already played to the bumpkins in such places as New Hampshire, Iowa, and
South Carolina - those who choose to buy tickets will be treated to the
same
predictable acts as in prior years. The routine of half a dozen clowns
exiting a tiny car was replaced by a half-dozen Democratic party hopefuls
emerging from little New Hampshire.
And in the center ring, John Kerry, the establishment's official challenger
to George Bush, in his high-wire performance, carefully balancing himself
so
as to avoid doing or saying anything that might be interpreted as a
fundamental questioning of state policies. Such a misstep would surely
produce a fatal fall, with the circus owners having to call upon a
stand-in.
And so, when confronting an administration whose lies and deceptions have
reached sociopathic levels; whose military threats against any nation who
is
"not with us" - threats that might include first-strike use of nuclear
weapons - make the United States a menace to humanity itself; whose
police-state measures continue to expand; and whose arrogance in the
employment of such measures is rendered all the more dangerous by delusions
that "God wants George Bush to be president," what challenge can you expect
from John Kerry?
The answer is "none." The truth is that Kerry has supported most of what
President Bush has done, giving you some idea of the paucity of differences
between the candidates. Has Kerry made any campaign promises to end the war
in Iraq, or to work to repeal the Patriot Act, both of which he voted for?
Has he proposed freeing the "suspected terrorists" who have been held for
over two years, without a trial, by the Bush administration; or to
dismantle
the Department of Homeland Security; or to conduct a real inquiry into the
causes of the 9/11 attacks? Kerry will propose no fundamental changes in
Washington, because change is anathema to the status quo interests of the
political establishment that runs the circus. In the end, Kerry and Bush
will agree upon the same sort of mindless non-issues seen in previous
campaigns. Should Willie Horton have been paroled? Should we have a
constitutional amendment to prohibit burning the American flag? Are you for
or against the "pledge of allegiance?" There will be no discussion of
neocon
warmongering, or of an American police state or imperialism. I suspect that
the "defining issue" will be whether we should have a constitutional
amendment prohibiting gay marriages. Those who dream of a third party
should
realize that America does not even have a two party system!
Whether John Kerry is "Tweedledee" or "Tweedledumber" in this year's circus
act will be up to the voters to decide.
But the outcome of the voting is irrelevant to the interests of the
establishment that is running the circus. Their system owes its existence
to
the insight offered by the greatest of all circus masters, P.T. Barnum:
"there's a sucker born every minute." Millions of Americans will confirm
this observation in November, as they stumble into voting booths across the
nation to reaffirm their commitment to the illusions upon which the
destruction of their lives and wealth depend. And these same people will
proudly advertise their foolishness to their neighbors and coworkers by
wearing lapel stickers reading "I voted," a message reminiscent of the high
school stunt of putting a sign on a guy's back that said "kick me!"
But there is some hope to be drawn from the fact of the continuing decline
in the rate of voting. For whatever reason, more and more people are
refusing to participate in this sham exercise. Perhaps, like the man who
was
fleeced one-too-many times by side show sharpies who promised wonders but
delivered the ordinary, or whose "solid-gold" watches left green stains
upon the wrist, more of our neighbors have managed to transcend their innocence.
Whatever the explanation, there might be some hope for the country if
sizeable numbers of men and women decided to vote, not with ballots or
voting machines, but with their feet, by staying away from a system that is
designed to do nothing more than reinforce our illusions that "we" run the
state. To paraphrase a slogan that arose during the Vietnam War years,
"what
if they gave an election, and nobody came?"
March 4, 2004
Butler Shaffer [send him e-mail] teaches at
the
Southwestern University School of Law.