theory: America has been trolled

[justdrew]

theory: America has been trolled

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

... everyone, but the main target has been so-called "conservatives" not all of them have fallen for it but a lot have. And it's possible that the "forces" behind this may not be the "usual suspects."

The possible outcome, is that their push for ever greater levels of Fundamentalism will end up seriously damaging the electability of their party long term. Resulting in a major "realignment" in US politics.

some bits that fit into this mosaic... see the "Reminder of differences" thread... and please add more related bits...

and...

Back to Krugman’s extremely important column!
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012

How should this story be told: In the past week, we have continued to read and reread Paul Krugman’s very important column from February 13.

We hate it here when Krugman snarks. In this case, we thought the snark he marbled all through his piece undermined its effectiveness (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/13/12).

That said, the column dealt with the most important fact in modern American politics. “Something has clearly gone very wrong with modern American conservatism,” Krugman wrote at one point in his piece. In the following passage, he asks a very important question, setting aside the snark:

KRUGMAN (2/13/12): How did American conservatism end up so detached from, indeed at odds with, facts and rationality? For it was not always thus. After all, that health reform Mr. Romney wants us to forget followed a blueprint originally laid out at the Heritage Foundation!

We think Krugman’s premise is right. In various ways, contemporary American conservatism really is “detached from, indeed at odds with, facts and rationality.”

In our view, the corporate world is now creating institutions which are designed to take us liberals in similar directions. But in many ways, the conservative world has been devoted to disinformation and nonsense for three or four decades now. We liberals are working hard to catch up. But the other side has a large head start, and the process has created the state of affairs Krugman described.

It’s very important to explain these facts to the wider electorate. In our view, snark tends to undermine that process. Beyond that, we would offer three complaints about Krugman’s column, which had to be shortened because he burned so much time being snide:

Who’s to blame for this state of affairs: Krugman blames this state of affairs on Republican politicians. That’s part, but only part, of this story. How do you write a column like this without naming Limbaugh and Hannity?

When did this situation start: Krugman implies that this lunacy is a fairly recent manifestation. In the passage we have quoted, he implies that thing weren’t this way in the early 1990s, when the Heritage folk laid out that good solid health care blueprint. Please! Spin-tanks like Heritage had been active for many years at that point, convincing us rubes that (to cite one example) we were more likely to see a UFO than to ever get Social Security. Why understate this point?

What crazy beliefs are at issue: If you’re going to say that tens of millions of voters believe a bunch of crazy things, you ought to be careful when you list those beliefs. You also have to ask yourself who you’re trying to persuade. For our money, Krugman did a fairly lazy job listing the crazy beliefs in question. Question: How do you list crazy claims from the current GOP campaign without even mentioning Newt Gingrich? Gingrich’s lunacy got a pass. But Krugman did include this:

KRUGMAN: Then there’s Ron Paul, who came in a strong second in Maine’s caucuses despite widespread publicity over such matters as the racist (and conspiracy-minded) newsletters published under his name in the 1990s and his declarations that both the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act were mistakes. Clearly, a large segment of his party’s base is comfortable with views one might have thought were on the extreme fringe.

Can we talk? In reality, Ron Paul didn’t get popular among conservatives pimping those racist newsletters twenty years ago. This type of presentation may make us liberals feel good. But who are we trying to influence?

That was a very important column. It tells a very important story. We liberals should try to learn how to tell it.

Who are we trying to persuade? Assuming we aren't just pleasing ourselves, how should this story be told?

Advanced Social Engineering: The Mind Hacks Behind Brainwashing
Brainwashing is something that happens to us every day, whether you believe it or not. It doesn't take fancy tools or space-age technology. Even if our country didn't intentionally brainwash people (believe me, they do), our country's media is brainwashing people nonstop. Just sit back and think about it for a second—about the way things work in the world and media. But before you do that, let's learn what brainwashing really is.

Brainwashing is when an outside influence, usually a person or group of people, systematically manipulate another person or group of people to conform to the thoughts and ideas of the "brainwasher(s)". This is accomplished by manipulating the human mind through methods it uses normally for learning and information reception. The whole process is done over an extended length of time... it's very gradual. Essentially, you're being molded at the neurological level to receive your manipulator's input, and to believe it's your own thought (sound familiar?).

Stop them from thinking—essentially reprogramming that organic CPU in your head—is the ultimate goal of brainwashers.
Prerequisites

Confident demeanor
Moderate degree of intelligence
Friend to try the tactics on

Techniques Behind Brainwashing

Think of all of the examples you see in the media every day. Advertising companies are one of the biggest infringers, right along with major news networks like Fox. When you are being force-fed opinions and ideas from the news, like which groups of people you should label as "evil" or which shampoo works the best, you are being brainwashed. Just think about it. Did you do the research that came to those conclusions? Did you try that advertised shampoo? Probably not... but you likely already agree with those opinions, don't you. Brainwashing at its finest.

There are actually very few basic outlines to successfully brainwashing people. The funny part is, you'll recognize a lot of these tactics being used on you in your everyday life.

Encouraging laziness - This promotes a passive lifestyle in which the person is a couch-locked bimbo, allowing easier manipulation.
Manipulating choices - Leaving people with choices, but making sure that those choices give the same result no matter what, is a good way to get into someones head. For example, instead of asking someone "Would you like some dinner?", say "Would you like pizzas or eggs for dinner?" instead. When you do this over and over, it gives the person the illusion of choice and freedom, which brings us to the next tactic.
Repetition - Repetition is key. The more you hear something, the more subliminal it becomes. If you were told day in and day out that your spouse was cheating, you would probably start to suspect something. So the same goes for other things, as well. If you are told your shoes smell daily, yet you don't believe it, eventually you will because you are inconveniencing another human, which is something humans don't like to do.
Play emotions - Emotions allow easy manipulation, especially when the emotions are associated with fear and sadness. Making a person feel bad when they don't comply with wishes, or making someone scared to not do the "right" thing can coerce them into doing what is desired by the mind-hacker.
Remove self-awareness and responsibility - Make people think their instinct is always wrong, and eventually they will believe it. Make them believe that they are powerless without the help of others, but stronger than anyone with it. Independence inspires intelligence and will, which inspires revolt.
Children in advertising - Utilizing children to give flash vibes of innocence is common. If you show a funny commercial of a group of children pushing down an old lady for fruit rolls, it would go unquestioned because of the children and atmospheric music telling you that it's okay.
Intense intelligence-dampening - When people are fed information, keep the information in small snippets about many subjects. Like a television. This actually induces ADD by promoting short-term learning, which will train your brain to have a short memory. Try to not even use rationale in your teachings to skew things even more, like the infamous "war is peace" idea. A stupid populace is a brainwashed one.
Keep them scared - Making people think the world could explode under them at any moment is a great way to control someone. If you offer someone your wing, they will feel safe, making a manipulator's ideas seem like the correct ones.

Scary, isn't it? We're all under control...

If you'd like to learn more about brainwashing, I cannot recommend "Brain-Washing" by the Church of Scientology enough. Most, if not all of the content in this book was written by the late L. Ron Hubbard (according to his son), one of the ultimate masters of brainwashing.

[IanEye]

I noticed this article concerning brainwashing on Gawker yesterday.

*



*

[Harvey]

The fact that there's a name for this is part of the clue, Terror Management Theory.

When the prospect of mortality is magnified, individuals seek people who espouse their worldview; they reject anyone who counters their worldview. Hence, their inclination to differentiate members of their own group from members of other groups is amplified. Their suspicion of other groups is increased. The interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect is thus exacerbated

http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia ... .asp?id=74

In fact reading between the lines throughout that site, one begins to suspect the enormous resources directed toward one single goal, understanding how to use the secrets of the soul against life itself.

In fact it’s a good question, just how much practical psychology is devoted to the search for mind rape? Anyone have a clue?

Which colours work best with which products to induce or appeal to particular impressionable states of mind, (including politics, no different than any other product) which words and symbols will unlock or impress a given emotion, especially in what context and with what lighting or what combination of symbols, what messages, which hidden springs and coils of the psyche can be wound up like clockwork? How do we properly deracinate the shopper until we can reach through the veneer of civilisation to the frightened, acquisitive, ape, to the cold calculating reptile and pull the spirit right out of him. Then he'll buy any amount of stupid plastic crap, straight off the boat from China.

The modern alchemists of the soul are turning the lead of fear and desire into the gold of power and material riches, 'wealth' the like of which they can never live long enough to spend. In any case gold is nothing but lead that glitters and you can't take it with you into death, unless they know something we don't..

Start by wondering why sweets and fast foods come adorned in natures colours of attraction and follow it on from there really.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Is Daily Howler affiliated with Lakoff? Tone was more specific than usual but they don't have any of the nomenclature of someone who's actually worked the field. This is an interesting thread -- or at least, far more interesting than the usual self-congratulatory stuff that gets written about the Red State/IQ situation.

For starters, I think it's important to remember that this is a rescue mission and these folks are no different from any other victims of the Kali Yuga. The question is ethical treatment, and many Buddhist observers have concluded that only compassion and patience can do the job. Being an American who likes to work outside, I can definitely understand that kind of fatalism -- gardens are never fully weeded -- but there's a huge spectrum between the active Judo of permaculture and the passive Aikido of Masanobu Fukuoka's famous "no till" approach. I think we can do a lot to improve conditions, though.

Background conceptual and scientific literacy projects are important. Fundamental learning needs to be engaging and sexy, and while I'm hip to every argument from Neil Postman through my homies Kozol & Gatto for Why That is Disgusting and Wrong, I also know for a fact it can be done, people are doing it. There's a lot of televisual multimedia that successfully grabs kids and manages to program them with content that matters & prepares them for better living.

Breaching social taboos is important. As profane and fallen as this Spectacle culture is, I think there's a great opportunity in all of it, too: the walls are broken down to the point where we can talk about very important anchors of human psychology. Family and sexuality especially -- Alice Miller's book For You Own Good should be a textbook for this whole conversation -- not recent "neuromarketing" studies being done by political science undergrads with university MRI equipment. I think we do a disservice to our fellow mammals, generalizing from surveys and papers in learned journals...we might be better served by a bottom-up, Jungian and subjective approach.

Besides, embracing bias is always better form than pretending you're not chained to it.

My suspicion is that the entire political axis is a ruse. You can make the data sets tell that story, it's true, but that doesn't mean it's "What's Really Happening" in terms of real causality. I think the actual medium of the Electronica Spectacle is toxic -- televisions, computer screens and mobile phones. I think that all of us are very finely attuned homo sapiens and our bodies absolutely know this. I think that fundamental disconnect that has to happen in order to be a calmly functional adult surrounded by this slow death is a single epidemic with mental and physical symptoms.

We cope differently, is all.

[Grizzly]

How is Emotional Blindness Created, by Alice Miller
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd4rz2 ... ted_webcam

[JackRiddler]

Is Daily Howler affiliated with Lakoff? Tone was more specific than usual but they don't have any of the nomenclature of someone who's actually worked the field. This is an interesting thread -- or at least, far more interesting than the usual self-congratulatory stuff that gets written about the Red State/IQ situation.

For starters, I think it's important to remember that this is a rescue mission and these folks are no different from any other victims of the Kali Yuga. The question is ethical treatment, and many Buddhist observers have concluded that only compassion and patience can do the job. Being an American who likes to work outside, I can definitely understand that kind of fatalism -- gardens are never fully weeded -- but there's a huge spectrum between the active Judo of permaculture and the passive Aikido of Masanobu Fukuoka's famous "no till" approach. I think we can do a lot to improve conditions, though.

SNIP

I think your whole comment is brilliant and speaks to the better angels. Do I agree? Don't know, because I have a pretty powerful devil in me. You're right about what would constitute ethical treatment, but what is more effective as a rescue mission for the greatest number? Some ideas just need to die. Snark doesn't work too well, but is general mockery really that ineffective compared to compassion?

Do people have conversion experiences more often when they're treated nicely, or when they just wake up one day and realize they've lost, they've been stupid, they've always been wrong, and they should adapt now? Neither, actually. Older people generally don't have conversion experiences. They die, and the youth replace them.

Look how well it worked for the right wing to associate the left with words like old, uncool, weak, elite, insular, academic, smelly, etc. If you can successfully attach words like "stupid," "ignorant," "stubborn," "intolerant" and "woman-hating" to "Republican," "conservative," and "Christian" (at least, the fundamentalist version), this will cause more of the youth to run away. Right now I'd like the long-term trend, if the potentials for fast global disasters weren't so high.

I guess I don't buy into the idea that the more complex self-deception is the worse one. The world-view called "liberal" must be as at least as wrong as the Copernican model with its static space frame, sun-centered universe and perfectly circular orbits, but that called "conservative" isn't even the Ptolemaic model (which was in its own way scientific: they kept trying to adapt to observation until it fell apart) but some kind of Satanic Jehovah breathing stupid-fire over a flat earth.

My suspicion is that the entire political axis is a ruse. You can make the data sets tell that story, it's true, but that doesn't mean it's "What's Really Happening" in terms of real causality. I think the actual medium of the Electronica Spectacle is toxic -- televisions, computer screens and mobile phones. I think that all of us are very finely attuned homo sapiens and our bodies absolutely know this. I think that fundamental disconnect that has to happen in order to be a calmly functional adult surrounded by this slow death is a single epidemic with mental and physical symptoms.

We cope differently, is all.

Now this is very real to me. We're all zombies from different combinations of stress overload, trauma, or long-ago training.

.

[Simulist]

America has been trolled

Indeed. And the trolling began when the Europeans arrived, calling the place "America."

[justdrew]

from the Krugman article in the OP...

How did American conservatism end up so detached from, indeed at odds with, facts and rationality? For it was not always thus. After all, that health reform Mr. Romney wants us to forget followed a blueprint originally laid out at the Heritage Foundation!

My short answer is that the long-running con game of economic conservatives and the wealthy supporters they serve finally went bad. For decades the G.O.P. has won elections by appealing to social and racial divisions, only to turn after each victory to deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy — a process that reached its epitome when George W. Bush won re-election by posing as America’s defender against gay married terrorists, then announced that he had a mandate to privatize Social Security.

Over time, however, this strategy created a base that really believed in all the hokum — and now the party elite has lost control.

The point is that today’s dismal G.O.P. field — is there anyone who doesn’t consider it dismal? — is no accident. Economic conservatives played a cynical game, and now they’re facing the blowback, a party that suffers from “severe” conservatism in the worst way. And the malady may take many years to cure.

source

perhaps Murdock never really changed his stripes, he's just egging it all on, selling "the base" enough rope...

a comment from the NYT site...

After losing in shame, hobbled by the GWB mess, Republicans had to put up with a smart and black democratic President. That was enough, for them to declare that "beating Obama" was their first priority. If you think about what that implies, it really was a uniquely unpatriotic statement. I think in the beginning, it was mainly bluster. But what really sent Republicans over the edge that defines the outer border of sanity, were Obamas determined efforts to compromise with them. Often, what was an incredibly generous last offer in the name of peace in the eyes of the Democrats, was a blatant invasion of their territory in the eyes of Republicans. Their reaction has invariably been to abandom ground that they formerly held themselves, and move to better defendable higher ground. So there they sit now in the Lala mountains.

Feb. 12, 2012 at 11:48 p.m.
Recommended 699

[crikkett]

I think your whole comment is brilliant and speaks to the better angels. Do I agree? Don't know, because I have a pretty powerful devil in me. You're right about what would constitute ethical treatment, but what is more effective as a rescue mission for the greatest number? Some ideas just need to die. Snark doesn't work too well, but is general mockery really that ineffective compared to compassion?

Tease, don't mock. You win your subject over by giving him a way to save face and join in the laughter.

Do people have conversion experiences more often when they're treated nicely,

Yes. It works so effectively it would make your head spin.

or when they just wake up one day and realize they've lost, they've been stupid, they've always been wrong, and they should adapt now?

No.

Neither, actually. Older people generally don't have conversion experiences. They die, and the youth replace them.

I work with older people who change their minds. It helps to frame things so that they change on their own vs. at someone's suggestion. Older people are insecure about losing autonomy (and mental capacity).

Anyway, DH's first rule of sales, lets see if I remember how he said it, is to find the people who agree with you and sell to them. Second rule of sales was to warm up your cooler prospects by giving them reasons to agree with you, and then sell to them. The idea is to be an attractor and not a proselytizer, and kindness plays a big part in it.

[eyeno]

The same kid who set Pi and the Golden Mean ratio to music in the boy who played with fusion thread wrote this.




https://afrankangle.wordpress.com/2012/ ... n-context/

On Context

February 20, 2012 by aFrankAngle

Context, the events setting; the circumstances in which an event occurs; the part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage that determines its meaning (The Free Dictionary)

Context is an interesting word as it conveys the situation in which the text/statement occurred. I think of context as the setting where the content interacts with the observer.

I’m not a Biblical scholar, but I realize that many use its text out of context, thus aiding to a misinterpretation by many. Whether it’s the verses preceding and following, or the understanding of the writers intent and the situation at the time, all of this is part of context. I also imagine this is also true across texts of other religions besides Christianity.

In the image to the right, do you initially see the old lady or the young lady?



Whichever, can you see the other? Would you have even considered the other if I didn’t mention it? Besides context, the observer’s perception influences their context of an event. A person sometimes is so influenced by what they initial observe, they fail to open their mind for other observations. Besides the surrounding context, the initial perception and subsequent interpretation influences a personal point of view.

The observer also brings their own experiences and biases to the interpretation table. The news media is simply one example. With all the talk about media bias, how many of us have a preferred media source based on their delivery of the information we want to hear? In other words, we tend to assemble information into a favorable and similar explanation (and presumably agreeable) over the complex, unfamiliar, and disagreeable.

All this brings me to the current election season. Politicians make statements, and each has a particular context. Good reporters will also set the context of that statement, yet with the proliferation in electronic media, I wonder how many fail to set the context or rely on their own perceptions and biases to set a context favoring their position?

So that leaves the observers – the ones who need to judge the statement based on the context – but can the observer make a judgment without (or at least limiting) their bias?

In the recent Florida primary, reports indicate that over 90% of the political ads were negative. Given the current political climate and role of Super PAC money, in the days ahead the parties, the candidates, and the supportive minions will inundate Americans with statements taken out of context and planted in the incorrect context, thus deliver false information in order to gain votes.

While the majority of voters will judge the information on their individual perceptions and biases, including their own sense of right and wrong, who will do the research to sort through the piles of crap? Better yet, if found, who will listen?

PS: Associated past posts applicable to this topic”

On Media Bias (Jan 14, 2009)
On Pausing for Context (June 23, 2009)

[Nordic]

Interesting timing, this thread. For as I was starting to muck about in the Santorum thread with my own half-baked version of this notion, this OP was probably being written.

Over there, Simulist and I had this exchange:

Nordic:

Okay, it's starting to get weird.

Is the GOP really going to go with Santorum as their "official" candidate?

Seriously?

I mean, of course they don't want to throw anyone out there who could actually defeat Mr. Perfect Republican -- Obama that is, but .... Santorum?

Usually in the mid terms they go with the safe choices, like the Bob Doles, and the Dems with the Mondales. McCain would have been perfect for this one, but the timing was all wrong.

Santorum?

I really don't see how they're gonna let this happen.

Or, maybe, they just don't really care any more about appearances, and, well, it will be Santorum and Obama will be a landslide, and that will be that. Which is what's gonna happen anyway. You know, Obama being in for another four years.


**********
Simulist:


Re: Don't Fuck Santorum
Obama has delivered everything to the 0.0000063% that they ever might have hoped for — while keeping the so-called "left" in America notably quiet throughout.

As far as the 0.0000063% is concerned, why not reward him with a landslide?

He's earned it.

_________________
“What if the point of life, the primary reason for existence, is to lie naked with your lover in a shady grove of trees?”
– Derrick Jensen


************

Nordic:

Yes, but remember 1992, when Buchanan got a pretty good head of steam, and everybody seemed to kind of freak out about it, and it seemed that the Repubs really didn't want someone that extreme to be their Official Candidate? It was embarrassing?

Well, things sure have changed. Santorum makes Buchanan look like Abraham Lincoln, an intellectual heavyweight and a moderate, sober and mature statesman.

So weird.

Somewhere, someone in that .00016 % of the ruling class is saying "maybe we pushed things a little too far?" I mean, the "base" of the Repub Party actually does support this freakazoid nutjob. He actually represents their views!

*************

Simulist:


That's true. And it's really not so weird when the sorts of "magical" techniques the people seem enthralled to are seriously considered — not actually "magic" at all really (more akin to mass hypnosis), but the effects are no less magical.

Seals can be trained, dogs and horses can be trained, so too can humans. And most humans are trained; of this much, I am quite certain.

If the masters who own the human stock under consideration in this thread were ever to want some real entertainment from their homosapien pets, they should try promoting Mr. Bean as president. If done seriously and with the help of such paid opinion-makers (trainers' assistants, really) as Anderson Cooper, Rush Limbaugh, and Jon Stewart, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mr. Bean were suddenly catapulted to the very top of the party ticket — and few on the right would even question the obvious fact that President Bean isn't even a native-born American.

(Not-enough "questioners" to matter, anyway.)

I think people are probably just that manipulable. At the very least, it would be an interesting experiment.

The fact that Santorum seems to actually represent the "base" of the Republican Party in this country is something that we've all seen coming, but now that it's here? It's pretty astounding.

And I can't help but think that come Convention time, somebody in the brotherhood of the PTB might sorta want someone different as the official Party representative.

I mean, not because they want to beat Obama. They don't. This is, after all, just part of the script.

But haven't they pushed the Overton Window a little too far into La-La Land?

To where the clothes have suddenly just vanished off the old Emporer (Empire)?

[NeonLX]

But haven't they pushed the Overton Window a little too far into La-La Land?

I no longer think that's possible. There's nothing anchoring that Overton Window anymore; it's apparently mounted on a frictionless surface so it can just keep on a-slidin'.

[Sounder]

Right on crikkett

Jack wrote...

We're all zombies from different combinations of stress overload, trauma, or long-ago training.

Given that conditioning effects are so pervasive, it doesn’t seem quite right to hold this against folk to the point of using mockery and derision as tools of influence.


A split model for reality naturally embraces coercion. We should not be surprised that we all become trolls as our very success (and self-image) is measured by how well we influence our surroundings to conform to our individual and often petty beliefs and pretences.

[Nordic]

Yes, trolling begets trolling. Which is why I'm so intrigued by this thread, because I think its brilliant to realize this -- that the point of trolling is to turn everyone into a troll.

In my years of troll fighting on the various high-profile " dem"-based forums, I got really good at it myself. Fighting with words, and fighting to win. Taking no prisoners, etc.

But the end result is a verbal version of the old "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" maxim.

We're all blind now -- the Santorum supporters, and those of us who are blinded by our own hatreds to whatever good might actually be in our fellow human beings who have been brainwashed into thinking that Santorum actually makes sense!

[eyeno]

Speaking of trolling...

Lawmakers receive threatening letters -- officials

UPDATED 7:03 p.m ET

A handful of lawmakers, including House Speaker John Boehner, have received threatening letters in the last few days with an unidentified white powdery substance and more may be on the way, law enforcement officials told CBS News Wednesday.
In addition Boehner, at least one lawmaker from Wisconsin and a senator from Indiana have received the letters at their district offices, with more expected to receive additional letters, the officials said.

"Those letters (already received) were tested and the substance found to be harmless," said Terrance Gainer, Senate
Sergeant at Arms.

In a letter to the Senate community, Gainer, the chamber's chief law enforcement official, said the author of the letters suggested some of these letters yet to arrive at Senate offices "may contain an actual harmful material."

"Although all letters received thus far have proved harmless, it is essential that we treat every piece of suspicious mail as if it may, in fact, be harmful," Gainer wrote in his memo to the Senate community.

The letters make vague complaints about too much money in politics and had a Portland, Oregon return address from an organization listed as "The MIB, LLC," a law enforcement official told CBS News.

In addition to the letters to the lawmakers, officials said television comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert received letters mentioning the letters to senators.

The author told the comedians he would send letters to all 100 senators and ten percent of them would contain "lethal pathogens," an official told CBS News.

The author wanted an end to corporate money and lobbying, an end to "corporate personhood," and called for a new constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution.

The author also told the comedians he would tell the senators they are "working for the wrong side" and there is a ten percent chance they have been exposed to a lethal pathogen. The author also said he "randomized" which letters would contain the pathogen and even he did not know who would get which letter.

The letters come more than a decade after five people, including two Washington postal workers, were killed when anthrax was mailed to the Washington offices of a pair of Democratic senators and a number of media personalities. The mail system to the U.S. Capitol was completely overhauled in the wake of those attacks and letters are now sent through and off-site processing facility before arriving at lawmakers' offices.

Additional reporting by Bob Orr, Nancy Cordes, Rob Hendin and Jenna Gibson.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... officials/
February 22, 2012 5:07 PM

what a coinkydink...

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg tells Egypt: Don't use the U.S. Constitution as a model
By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
2/10/2012

During a recent trip to Egypt, U.S Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had some advice for the leaders -- don't use the U.S. Constitution as a model in penning your own governing document. Ginsburg traveled to Egypt in late January to meet with that country's judges, legal experts, law professors, and others in Cairo and Alexandria, answering questions about the U.S. legal system and Constitution.

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012." Ginsburg instead pointed to countries whose people look to government - rather than the Almighty - as the creator of their rights.
"I might look at the constitution of South Africa," Ginsburg suggested. "It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done," she said. Ginsburg seemingly turned a blind eye to the nearly one million South Africans who have fled the country since the implementation of "democracy."

Ginsburg suggested such U.N.-modeled documents as the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms implemented by Canada along with the Convention on Human Rights of the European Union, or EU that is in the midst of economic disunity and struggle.

"Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?" Ginsburg told her Egyptian audience.
Ginsburg assured told the faculty and students of the university's law school that "this is the most wonderful time in which to live and be among the young people who are helping your country and bringing about change during this exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state. Think of the people who lived before you and did not have this opportunity because they lived under a dictatorial regime. And they did not have the opportunity that you have had to be part of this social transformation."

Alluding to the U.S. Constitution, Ginsburg counseled her audience to do their best "to achieve the goals of this revolution and to continue to strive to create a government of the people, by the people and for the people."

When asked later about the process of drafting a new constitution, Ginsburg was firm. "Let me say first, that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom," Ginsburg pointed out during a nearly 20-minute interview on Egypt's Al Hayat TV. "If the people don't care, then the best constitution in the world won't make any difference.

"The spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor."

Ginsburg's comments received negative reaction from conservatives. Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of the conservative Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law, said that Ginsburg's comments were nothing less than an insult to the venerable document she is commissioned to protect.

"When given the opportunity to promote American liberty abroad, Justice Ginsburg did just the opposite and pointed Egypt in the direction of progressivism and the liberal agenda," Staver said.

"For a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice to speak derisively about the Constitution she is sworn to uphold is distressing, to say the least. Justice Ginsburg's comments about our Constitution undermine the Supreme Court as an institution dedicated to the rule of law, as well as our founding document."
http://catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=44734