Media

I have argued for a while that Repubicans need to pick up the mantle of transparency. It is useful tactically and strategically. On the tactical level, the guys in leadership always play "hide the ball with what they are doing". This gives Republicans a morally secure high-ground to attack whatever the Democrats do. Strategically, it gives us an issue that can both rally our base and makes good sense to independents and many Democrats.

On Friday, House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement on transparency. The key passage:

It’s just common sense: Americans should be allowed to read the text of major bills before Congress votes on them.  Previous Congresses, including Republican ones, failed to live up to this standard.  But never before has the failure been as blatant as it has been in the past nine months under Speaker Pelosi.   Things have to change.

There are two key parts to this. First, he grabbed the policy issue and framed it in the adult and serious way "Americans" (not "Members of Congress", which seems like only a populist argument, although some in the media have grabbed the straw man to give the Democrats aircover) should know what Congress is doing so that we can hold them accountable.

The second part is, perhaps, more important. John Boehner has now explicitly rejected the way that he ran the House, said "we have learned", and established a new line in the sand. Furthermore, one of the reforms that he advocates, in this case, a waiting period before legislation can be acted on, actually may impact many of the wasteful spending concerns that actually helped drive him out of office. 

What is so fascinating is the rejection by Senate Democrats and the silence of lefty advocacy groups other than the Sunlight Foundation. In an effort to get a public copy of the healthcare bill before a vote, John Kerry said:

"This is fundamentally a delay tactic," the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate said. "I mean, let's be honest about it. The legislative language, everybody knows, is relatively arcane, legalistic, and most people don't read the legislative language."

That's right. But people who are interested do. People who are experts or people being impacted do, or they hire people to.

And this gets to the final point. Where is the press? Huffington Post is being sent around by Demcorats, because they are giving cover to Democrats. But they aren't really press. But where is the Fourth Estate demanding that they have the information to tell the American people what the debate is about.

Crickets.

You would think that John Boehner repudiating how Republicans ran the House would be worthy of news.

Crickets.

You would think that John Kerry giving cover to the Senate acting without even having legislation (I'm not talking about reading the bill here ...) would be newsworthy.

Crickets outside of Fox and the Washington Times.

Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Sean Haniti cannot be pushed aside as just “right wingers” with no voice. It’s their work, and the work of some on the internet, and mainly Fox News (which includes Haniti and Beck), that gave President Obama and the left the run for their money in recent weeks, despite the tireless attempts of the old media outlets to ignore it.

Following are just a few instances where Fox News and others held President Obama accountable, and/or had the power to adjust the state of affairs in this country. More so: it forced the old media to report news that they otherwise ignored.

Here it is:

       The White House had an email address where people from all over the country had the chance of reporting “fishy” activities against the WH agenda of Health Care Reform. After an outcry from the right, the email address was scrapped.

       President Obama was about to give a speech to school kids. From my perspective, I didn’t see any problem with it. However, some on the right did, and had the administration and its apologists in the media sweat about it a few days.

       A self-admitted communist racist served as the so-called Jobs Zar for Obama. After the right pounced on it and the old media ignored it for weeks, Jones resigned in shame.

      ACORN was busted time and again by a crew of two and was reported and debated by the right wingers. The old media had limited to no mention of it, yet before anyone (relying on the old media for information) knew, the House voted overwhelmingly to strip that fraudster group from getting federal funds.

All these instances took place in a matter of weeks. It proves clearly that the old media no more controls the minds of the American people, or the discourse of this nation. Better yet, it is “the right” that creates news these days and the old media need to follow inline, sooner rather than later.

Five to one, baby...one in five....

No one here gets out alive...

The late Jim Morrison wrote and sang this over 40 years ago, and it seems rather poignant now that we have passed the anniversary of the Woodstock Nation and consider the divisive national health care debate.

For one thing, it does point out the limitations of salesmanship. Medicine will never fully solve the fact life is a terminal condition. It may prolong life, and improve life, but mere mortals are not "partners with God"; and only He can grant life beyond the here and now.

And the term Five to One applies clearly to the imbalance in media spending between the unions and industries looking to pass the government health care takeover, and the relatively impoverished opposition.

The lyrics of "Five to One" depict rebellion against a distant establishment :"they got the guns, but we got the numbers" which sure seems like the attitude of angry citizens screaming at smug incumbent officeholders eager to label their own constituents a mob. 

One of the major problems I think that the Obama team and the Hill Democrats have is they fundamentally don't understand the mentality of most of the 1960's protesters, who are now today the 60-somethings opposing Obamacare with fervor reminscent of that era.

Perhaps Bill Ayres wanted a "revolution"; but most Americans agreed with John Lennon that if you were carrying pictures of Chairman Mao you weren;t gonna make it.  The rebelliouness of the 1960's was largely spurred by opposition to a "mandatory government program"--to wit--the Draft. 

Sure ,some people of that era wanted communes and socialism--but a huge number--especially bikers and druggies--wanted the government to "leave them alone".

Don't send then to Vietnam. Don't bust them for pot. Don't tell them how to live their lives.

So when the military draft ended in 1973  much of the fuel of the counterculture was taken away. Free from government coercion, young people were then accused of becoming part of  a "me decade"

True, there was a huge cadre of earnest lefties who entered government as a result of the "Watergate election". But the relentless expansion of government demanded by the likes of Chris Dodd. Henry Waxman, David Obey, and Tom Daschle  was dealt a huge setback by the decisive 1980 election.

Some observers have noted that while voters under 30 in 1972 were slightly inclined towards McGovern (as he lost nationally by 21 points)   the same age cohort of voters (i.e. voters DOB 1942-1954) were inclined towards McCain as he lost to Obama by 7 points.  Clearly in the interim these voters became less entralled with "change" candidates.

I would suspect a substantial part of this has to do with the fact these Americans rebelled against statism and much as they may support "their" entitlement programs, they will never sign on to new forms of big government without profound skepticism.  Remember, they saw with their own eyes the extravagant promises and expensive failure of the Great Society. Those eyes are jaundiced now.  

If the government told you 40 years ago you had to go fight in Vietnam, you might not be too keen on having your kid told by the government what kind of health insurance he is required to have. We are taking people open to the "leave us alone" coalition.

Remember, Dennis Hopper was the prototypical hippie in "Easy Rider". He is a Republican now.

So, it appears the Obama team has started an era of divisive national unrest over a program which it cannot sell, promises to bankrupt the nation, and where there is no definition of victory. Sounds, hmmm like a quagmire.   

Back to "No one here gets out alive". I think this will end in one of only two ways. 

The Obamacare fiasco will collapse in a heap, and then next phase will be investigations into the sleazefest employed to try and sell the debacle, including a "pay to play'"scheme between Billy Drugbucks and David Axelrod.  and Axelrod's improper e-mail spamming. 

Note to Mr. Axelrod. Transactions your firm performed in northern Illinois are within this gentleman's legal jurisdiction.   Perhaps you ought to acquaint yourself with this law   .   or this law.  Some politicians around here  found out it's not good to mix business and politics. Don't worry. These laws run a lot less than a thousand pages to read. You'll have plenty of time to call white collar counsel.

The alternative will be Obama and his allies win an absolutely  Pyyrhic victory  decimating the ranks of Democratic moderates in 2010 elections and creating a huge radicalized political movement even more and more ardent to fight the socialization of American culture. Perhaps the Greater Great Society is enacted; only to rip  to shreds the nation it was meant to heal. Or maybe we become France, except with more debt.. Which might be worse.

I've had my differences with Peggy Noonan, but now she's spot on.  A prudent leader would pull the plug   and stop sinking deeper into the health care quagmire

But our President is insistent on making the worst mistakes of 1960's Democrats, accusing critics of merely being  irresolute . History lesson, folks.  No one there got out alive, either. 

From the moment of her selection as the vice presidential nominee, we non-Alaskans heard a lot about what made Sarah Palin different from your average lower-48 woman, from moose-hunting on down the line - you know the story.   The "maverick" storyline, a variation on the McCain standard, worked very well in around the time of the convention, but her numbers began to sink for some of the vary same reasons that the GOP as a whole is in a ditch.  Here's why:

1. The obsession with media bias.  Palin went on and on about the "gotcha media" and the unfair shake she got in the press.  Yes, she was often treated dismissively and with the same sense of curiosity usually reserved for lost tribes of the Amazon.  Still, the media is what it is and whining about it won't change that.  In addition, she did no favors for herself, completely bombing one open-ended softball after another in the famous Katie Couric interview that, in retrospect, marked the beginning of the end of her political career.  And no, "what news sources do you read," is not a "gotcha" question.

If one theme has unified the right's blogs, magazines and radio shows, it has been an endless stream of media criticism.  Most of it is richly deserved.  But to paraphrase our former SecDef, "you go to war with the media you have, not the media you wish you had."

2. The victim mentality.  Am I the only person around here who thinks Palin milked the Letterman controversy for too long?  When something like that happens, you demand an apology (not two) and try to act like the better person.  Instead, there were several TV interviews over the course of a week.  Does she really think that the problem voters had with her is that she wasn't sufficiently sympathetic?  If liberals have showed us anything over the past half-century, it's that the victim mentality doesn't do much for the victims.  Same goes here, both for Palin and the party.

Every day, I read on this site and others about how the deck is always stacked against the right.  First, there is a horde of brainwashed Obamabots ready to follow Dear Leader's wishes (paranoid much?).  Then, we didn't lose by millions of votes across many formerly-red states, it was ACORN.  When it comes to independents, lean-republicans and the other people who really matter, this comes off as whining and conspiracy-mongering.  A wellspring of leadership, it is not.

3. It's not always an issue of motives.  I don't think I'm the only person who has grown tired of Palin defenders claiming anyone who criticizes her of being part of an elite, Ivy League, cocktail-sipping fraternity that simply will not accept an out-of-towner who went to sub-par schools.  Is it that hard to imagine that reasonable people who seek common goals can say that a particular politician is not well-suited for national office?  The knee-jerk appeals to class resentment are akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and singing.  Palin has a very different campaign style and some serious gaps in her policy knowledge.  Acknowledge that or dispute that, but don't cast aspersions.

The main reason that the Bill Ayers material towards the end of the campaign didn't stick is because people looked at Obama and didn't believe what the critics were saying - namely, that he's really some sort of secret radical closer in alignment to 60s hippie terrorists than to middle class America.  A better strategy would have been to take the man at his words, showing good faith, and then going after his policies based on the ample problems they had on their face.  It comes off as conspiratorial and paranoid to assign unseen motives to a political candidate.

What will we learn from the Palin story?  If we continue to blame the media, Letterman, Frum and the Harvard Alumni Association, perhaps nothing.

Drawing on the concept of the "Four Estates" of Republican France, it has been popular to call the press the "Fourth Estate," a non-governmental entity whose independence made it one of the pillars which supported liberty, and an important check on the power of government. In a free press the people had a way to express their concerns about government and a relatively unbiased advocate for truth independent of the self-serving assertions of political parties and leaders. In America that great tradition of a free press which truly stood out as a Fourth Estate began with the publication of Publick Occurances in 1690 and lasted for over 300 years before dying with a whimper this Wednesday at the hands of ABC News.

On Wednesday the 24th of June ABC will give over most of its programming schedule to custom programming, much of it direct from the White House, dedicated to promoting and publicizing the Obama administration's multi-trillion dollar healthcare plan. This programming will begin first thing in the morning with a Good Morning America interview with the president and continue throughout the day's newscasts, culminating in a primetime special touting the benefits of government run healthcare. The network has been given unprecedented access to the White House, where it has even been encouraged to set up an office in the East Wing. ABC and the White House are collaborating on the content of the special, few opposing voices or alternative plans will be heard, and they are refusing any advertising from groups advocating patients rights or opposing socialized medicine.

Just a few years ago Democrats were crying foul and demanding investigations when the Department of Education sent out a few Video News Releases to promote the No Child Left Behind Program, yet now they are willing to do the same thing on a much larger scale when it is their program which is being promoted. At a time when Democrats are talking about reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine and demanding a balance to right wing talk radio, turning over an entire network to government propaganda seems particularly hypocritical.

The left has long derided the right for complaining about media bias, insisting that the corporate nature of the media automatically biases it to the right, but here we see a corporate media giant deliberately whoring itself to become the propaganda outlet for a left-wing administration, and there is no question where ABC's loyalties lie. ABC News employees overwhelmingly supported Obama in the last election, donating 80 times as much to his campaign as they did to John McCain. In addition, a study by the Media Research Center shows ABC giving a disproportionate amount of coverage to the Obama healthcare plan compared to other health care options by a 3 to 1 margin.

The Obama administration has made state-corporatism a cornerstone of its economic plans, taking over businesses, forcing them into bankruptcy and handing out the spoils to their cronies and allies. But at least in the financial and auto industries there was some effort to resist, and many of those companies are still trying to buy back their freedom. What ABC is doing is many times worse, because they are volunteering willingly for a government takeover, offering themselves up as propagandists without considering the consequences. Perhaps they see a future where the state controls all media and they want to get in on the ground floor and have a favored status, but that just makes them like the slave who turns in the runaways hiding in the barn to the slave-catchers. He may get more scraps from the master's table but he's still a slave and he's also a traitor.

Journalists used to believe that they had a responsibility to keep politicians honest and hold their feet to the fire. Woodward and Bernstein didn't go to Nixon looking for ways they could help him promote his pet projects. When the press becomes nothing more than another arm of government, promoting the party line and dishing out propaganda, the people have lost one more essential safeguard of their liberty. ABC has decided to leave integrity and objectivity behind and become nothing more than shills for an ideology and a style of government which they believe in. Whether you support socialized medicine or not, this trend in the media should scare you. It's the death of the independent press and the beginning of state-run media. I halfway expect to hear the strains of "Moscow Nights" over the credits on ABC as I did on every radio or television newscast when I lived in the Soviet Union formally confirming that the media has gone from watchdog to lapdog.

Join me and many others in boycotting ABC, starting on Thursday and continuing through their summer line-up of very little but tawdry reality shows. You won't be missing much and you might be striking a blow for freedom. Though it's entirely possible that if we manage to dry up their advertising revenue they'll just get bailed out and taken over completely by the government.

The agonizingly close relations between the GOP establishment and the loonier elements in the right wing media who have been on an increasingly mainstream basis feeding the hatred of the far right extremists who have been committing violence has been receiving increased attention. This has been discussed recently by Judith Warner, Paul Krugman, and Frank Rich. Krugman recently wrote, “Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.” Frank Rich discussed this topic at length in his latest column:

Conservatives have legitimate ideological beefs with Obama, rightly expressed in sharp language. But the invective in some quarters has unmistakably amped up. The writer Camille Paglia, a political independent and confessed talk-radio fan, detected a shift toward paranoia in the air waves by mid-May. When “the tone darkens toward a rhetoric of purgation and annihilation,” she observed in Salon, “there is reason for alarm.” She cited a “joke” repeated by a Rush Limbaugh fill-in host, a talk-radio jock from Dallas of all places, about how “any U.S. soldier” who found himself with only two bullets in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden would use both shots to assassinate Pelosi and then strangle Reid and bin Laden.

This homicide-saturated vituperation is endemic among mini-Limbaughs. Glenn Beck has dipped into O’Reilly’s Holocaust analogies to liken Obama’s policy on stem-cell research to the eugenics that led to “the final solution” and the quest for “a master race.” After James von Brunn’s rampage at the Holocaust museum, Beck rushed onto Fox News to describe the Obama-hating killer as a “lone gunman nutjob.” Yet in the same show Beck also said von Brunn was a symptom that “the pot in America is boiling,” as if Beck himself were not the boiling pot cheering the kettle on.

But hyperbole from the usual suspects in the entertainment arena of TV and radio is not the whole story. What’s startling is the spillover of this poison into the conservative political establishment. Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan G.O.P. chairman who ran for the party’s national chairmanship this year, seriously suggested in April that Republicans should stop calling Obama a socialist because “it no longer has the negative connotation it had 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago.” Anuzis pushed “fascism” instead, because “everybody still thinks that’s a bad thing.” He didn’t seem to grasp that “fascism” is nonsensical as a description of the Obama administration or that there might be a risk in slurring a president with a word that most find “bad” because it evokes a mass-murderer like Hitler.

The Anuzis “fascism” solution to the Obama problem has caught fire. The president’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and his speech in Cairo have only exacerbated the ugliness. The venomous personal attacks on Sotomayor have little to do with the 3,000-plus cases she’s adjudicated in nearly 17 years on the bench or her thoughts about the judgment of “a wise Latina woman.” She has been tarred as a member of “the Latino KKK” (by the former Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo), as well as a racist and a David Duke (by Limbaugh), and portrayed, in a bizarre two-for-one ethnic caricature, as a slant-eyed Asian on the cover of National Review. Uniting all these insults is an aggrieved note of white victimization only a shade less explicit than that in von Brunn’s white supremacist screeds.

Obama’s Cairo address, meanwhile, prompted over-the-top accusations reminiscent of those campaign rally cries of “Treason!” It was a prominent former Reagan defense official, Frank Gaffney, not some fringe crackpot, who accused Obama in The Washington Times of engaging “in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain.” He claimed that the president — a lifelong Christian — “may still be” a Muslim and is aligned with “the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood.” Gaffney linked Obama by innuendo with Islamic “charities” that “have been convicted of providing material support for terrorism.”

If this isn’t a handy rationalization for another lone nutjob to take the law into his own hands against a supposed terrorism supporter, what is? Any such nutjob can easily grab a weapon. Gun enthusiasts have been on a shopping spree since the election, with some areas of our country reporting percentage sales increases in the mid-to-high double digits, recession be damned.

Violence committed by right wing (or left wing) extremists is the more serious problem. But a similar, even if less violent, mindset can be seen in the recent outrage against David Letterman: despite agreement from Letterman that he should not have told a joke which was clearly about Bristol Palin, and despite the fact that Bristol Palin has been the target of jokes from multiple comedians largely because of the manner in which Sarah Palin has intentionally placed her children in the public spotlight for political gain, many of them continue to attack with outright lies as to what Letterman actually said.

There was no point in attacks on David Letterman once he conceded that he should not have told the joke, with many of these conservatives proceeding to over play their hand and ultimately discrediting themselves. The controversy is about the desire of the authoritarian base of the Republican Party, which has hijacked the right, to prevent any criticism of their extremist agenda and has little to do with any real concern about sexist jokes. They tend to wage their war with little regard for fact, with such distortions being common place. This has included a similar distortion of a joke told by John Kerry in 2006, the fabrications of the Swift Boat Liars, all the lies about Obama which were spread during the presidential campaign, and the recent lies about Sotomayor such as that sixty percent of her decisions have been overturned (& not surprisingly though, even a Next Right editor repeated it.) While less extreme and violent than those who have been committing violence, the conservative movement has increasingly become dominated by those who show hostility towards reason, freedom of expression, and the contemporary culture.

I wonder to what extent Sarah Palin is being primed (and by whom) to be a serious contender for the 2012 GOP nomination. She is definitely a “candidate” at this early stage and is looking towards a run in 2012. Whether she turns into a serious candidate remains to be seen. She both has a real base of support and a lot of serious negatives. If Obama is still popular in 2012 and looks unbeatable, I also wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of other Republicans sit back and allow her to be a sacrificial lamb.

The controversy over the poor taste of a few of David Letterman's recent jokes continues to receive attention in the media and blogosphere, but the actual jokes have become overshadowed by the manner in which Sarah Palin has decided to sacrifice the good of her children for political gain, along with the mob mentality expressed by some on the right wing.

In the most benign reaction from the right, ditto heads repeat endlessly how Letterman’s jokes were in poor taste. True, but this is hardly worth spending any more time on. Everyone agrees that the jokes were in poor taste. Even Letterman agrees that he should not have told the ones about Bristol Palin (but he sticks by the reference to Sarah Palin as looking like a slutty flight attendant).

The Columbia Journalism Review has a good piece on the state of media on the Right - particularly what's happening online.  This strikes me as a very clear-headed view of where we are and what our problems are.

For roughly the last twenty-five years, conservative opinion journalism has generally followed Ronald Reagan’s eleventh commandment: thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. [...] And when they have criticized Republicans, it has usually been from the right. [...] 

An even more interesting—and potentially important—aspect of this emerging ethos in conservative journalism is an acknowledgement of the need to close the reporting gap that has long existed between liberal and conservative publications. Many liberal journals, most notably Mother Jones, prize muckraking investigative reporting. The Nation funds in-depth reporting at numerous publications through its Nation Institute Investigative Fund. The Washington Monthly has a long history of burrowing deep into the public-policy-making process and lobbying. Talking Points Memo, one of the more evolved liberal news sites, won a Polk award in 2007 for its work unraveling the U.S. Attorneys firing scandal. 
 Conservative publications, in contrast, have generally opined, with the occasional whimsical reported dispatch. Breaking hard news was simply not in their DNA. Politico’s Jonathan Martin, who briefly worked at National Review, wrote an article suggesting that this gap hurt Republicans in the election because they were not as able to drive news stories, and that it has also led to more liberal journalists than conservatives joining mainstream publications. Martin attributed the difference to one of tradition: liberal journalists grew up aspiring to be hard-nosed investigative reporters like Woodward and Bernstein, while conservatives grew up suspicious of mainstream papers and aspiring to be the next William F. Buckley Jr.

The whole thing is worth reading, but it boils down to this: The Right has been busy criticizing the media; the Left has gotten busy building it.  The Left's new movement is making the news that the Right's old movement spends its time reacting to.

Do people who you might think of as fundamentalist consider themselves to be fundamentalist? Is it a label held with pride and identity or is it only a negative given by non-fundamentalists?

Certainly the term is used so negatively by the media that most of the Christians I know don't use the term(anymore) to self-identify. They're more likely to identify themselves as Biblical Christians, conservative Christians, evangelical Christians etc.

That the term is extended to describe people in many religions is probably part of the reason that the people in those religions don't seem to identify with it.

'Fundament':

Dictionaryfundament

1 the foundation or basis of something.

2 humorous: a person's buttocks.

ORIGIN: Middle English (also denoting the base of a building, or the founding of a building orinstitution): from Old French fondement, from Latin fundamentum, from fundare `to found.'

So, the 'fundamentalist' is so, because of a firm belief in the validity of the 'thing as it was founded'.

In the case of religion, this pertains to the 'original' version of scripture.

But strangely, we see that even older versions of the same 'foundation' exist, but are ignored,in favor of latter revision. It is then the 'update' which is claimed to be 'fundamental'.

I can safely say, that most people are 'fundamentalist' when it comes to their own self-perceived 'identity'; this is 'what it is' and there is no questioning of its validity or veracity.

Next, we have the issue of the 'meme'; it works by process of adoption via perceived affiliation, or as some would say, it 'resonates' with the recipient.

The meme infiltrates memory, and co-opts something close to the root of identity. This positioning allows or causes the person to strongly 'identify' with the payload of the meme; in other words, the meme, once established, is able to marshal the 'defense systems' of the psyche and to use those to maintain its dominance.

It is unlikely that the meme (eg, monotheism, etc) will be seen as foreign to the psyche, by the possessor thereof; but others may take notice, and question the propriety of such ideas and positions taken by the one possessed. It is at those times, that the meme defends itself, calling into play the entire force of the psyche; and thus will express itself, both to repel attack, and also to transmit itself whole into the nearby 'attacker'.

Keeping in mind that even a small expression of 'doubt' is bound to trigger defense, we can see that any internal doubt will trigger a massive psychic auto-immune event, as the defenses 'owned' by the meme, will turn against the source of its own power, eg, the person possessed. In some cases, the meme vs psyche 'battle' devours all available energy ('libido',in Jungian terms) and leads to grave illness, and sometimes even death by auto-immune disease, or by suicide.

Such is the dilemma of the 'fundamentalist'. Always on the precipice of doubt, he is motivated to banish all competing ideas, to establish the 'ultimate purity'; and so importantly, to push upon others, the same routine. And the more 'believers' exist, the more likely 'conversion' becomes. We can see this process in action in our world today, as masses of humansbattle other humans on real battlefields, memes firmly in control, exactly as generals.

Fundamentalism then, reveals the existence of a potentially deadly 'parasite' which is perfectly adapted to possess and seize control of humans, even entire populations of us.

Is there any remedy for this human affliction?

In brief, yes. Advaita(nonduality) affords a convenient 'brain-wipe' procedure, with choose-able levels of retention of prior contents. During the Advaita processes, memes are shaken out of the psyche sooner rather than later; the pain and bleeding of the event of their leaving, varies, according to the depth and chronicity of the infection. Advaita also stands as prophylaxis, serving to already-satisfy the otherwise 'questing' mind.

Unfortunately, one who 'believes' he is 'an Advaitin', but who has retained the meme of monotheism, will still play by the rules of the meme, but now, naming the deity as 'Self', and so on. I think it was inevitable that there should arise, a 'fundamentalist Advaita', given the profoundly pernicious persistence of the meme of monotheism. That meme merely hides behind a cloak of 'alternative' ideas, but always ready to spring forth in defense and self-replication.

Note: The state or concept of 'notheism' does not 'deny the existence of god', it denies the existence of 'gods'.

As my old buddy Dane quipped;

"I not only don't believe in God, I hate him, too!"

J.R. Hoeft (of Bearing Drift) is the most important conservative political blogger in Virginia.  Virginia congressional Republicans should be talking to him and many other Virginia bloggers all the time.  If they are not doing so, that is gross communications negligence.  But it's a problem that persists among many Republican politicians.  That needs to change.  Republicans need to grow much more comfortable with online communications, and they've got to do it fast.  The internet is the modern public square, and if you do not show up to defend and define yourself online, you will be defined by those who do show up. - Jon Henke

The Republican Party of Virginia has had a rather up-and-down relationship with Virginia’s conservative bloggers. Fortunately, conservative bloggers have strong relationships with state-level elected officials and candidates, such as Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, Bill Howell, and the three AG campaigns.

However, while the state and local relationships are good, the outreach from the GOP at the federal level has been largely non-existent. Consider:

Bill Bolling hosts a “Bloggers’ Day” at the capitol, and includes strategy seminars and exclusive briefings.

Congressional staffs do very little outreach, and, generally, have to be contacted by the blogger.

Tucker Martin, Bob McDonnell’s spokesman, calls up bloggers, peppers them with emails and tips them to stories throughout the week.

Congressional staffs send out press releases.

The Virginia House GOP Caucus has a blog and posts videos, podcasts, and other exclusive content.

The National Republican Campaign committee sends out press releases that attack sitting House members.

Notice the difference?

There is a chasm between the level of media engagement of the state Republicans and the federal Republicans.

Federal Republicans are passive. They are willing to answer questions from bloggers, they send press release materials, and they produce an occasional cute video that lampoons Democratic leadership. But, by and large, federal officeholders ignore the new media as another outreach tool to their constituency. Or at least, they ignore Virginia blogs.

At Bearing Drift, we’re lucky to have a relationship established with the communications directors for each Republican member of the Virginia congressional delegation. When there is a national issue that we have an interest in, we generally are able to communicate with these staffers and they give us quotes and other material for our posts. They also ensure that we receive their releases. And, for the most part, we’ve been able to schedule interviews with the congressmen.

But that’s generally the extent of our relationship. The staffers wait for the phone call or email - they almost never reach out, unless they are trying to sell the blogger on something.

This past week, when North Korea detonated their nuclear device…..nothing from any congressional office.

When Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA09) makes news on energy issues, or Rep. James Moran (D-VA08) proposes legislation to limit the scope of ED ads on TV, or Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA03) is rumored as a possible SCOTUS appointment, or Sen. Mark Warner (D) proposes legislation to limit robo-calls, nothing from any Virginia Republican Congressman for conservative bloggers in Virginia.

When Pres. Barack Obama delivers a major address on national security, no response for Virginia’s conservative blog readers from any staff member.

Compare this to the constant and conscientious engagement being done by Republicans at the state level, and it’s like night and day.

Our Virginia Republican Representatives and their staff are sitting just a stone’s throw from Capitol Hill at the Rayburn Office building…if not wandering the gallery or the halls of Congress themselves. They know what’s being discussed. They know the issues that are going to become national news and how it might affect Virginia. But it’s only rarely being shared.

One would think there would be more friendly outreach to bloggers throughout Virginia on a wide range of issues. They love to take time for the “District Work Periods”, so one would think they would be eager to engage their constituency online, as well.

But other than on a few occasional issues, Congressional Republicans are not really talking to conservative bloggers in Virginia.

Virginia’s Congressional Republicans should take a lesson from the state and local Republican elected officials. Listen to us, talk to us. Show up.

The media are not your constituents. We are. And so far, the message we get from Virginia’s Republican Congressional delegation is “we don’t really have anything to say.”

Cross-posted at BearingDrift.com