David Baillie, Gordon Arnaut &|
by <email@example.com> 2010-07-24
this page is at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2010-07-24.htm
This posting continues the strenuous dispute between my long-time trusted Canadian friend Gordon Arnaut and my recent contact David Baillie in the Boston, Massachusetts area. David initiated this exchange with an e-mail to me on 28 June. I believe he wrote me because my recent website postings had become virulently anti-Zionist, and he thought I might be an ally in his own efforts.
Palestina somos todos — We are all Palestine. Aug 28,
2009 foto of G.S. by Nancy Davies
My view of the situation in the “Greater Middle East”, which includes far more than the so-called “Israel/Palestine conflict”, hinges on the joint U.S.-Israeli colonial imperial campaign to eradicate Palestine.
The entire project to take the land of Palestine for a Jewish state was illegitimate from the start. This project is at the core of Zionism. Being “nice” to the Palestinians, as I’m certain many good and decent (but misguided) Jewish people favor, simply is not a cure for the cancer of conquest. The same for all conquests — of the Americas by Europeans and so on. The northern European/American project to retake the Ottoman Empire needs to be scrapped, completely given up. Jewish would-be conquerors of Palestine should be forced to leave and live elsewhere. Conquest is ALWAYS wrong, immoral, unethical and must be rejected. Great Britain was, throughout its imperial dominance, a leading curse of humanity, whose criminal history leaves a terrible legacy. Our task ought to be to clean it up as soon as possible. And of course the other European powers should leave Africa, probably the most despoiled population group in the world. What world-class monsters we so-called Whites have been, imposing “our” anti-civilization on the world.
This, my basic stance on this conflict, is the context in which my comments should be understood. On one point Gordon, David and I are in solid agreement — the earth is being rapidly destroyed as a hospitable habitat. That is beyond question. It’s the common concern that brought us together. However, this by no means indicates that our agreement extends very far. David is convinced that the source
— the basic source of all the serious global problems — is “The Jews”, by which he means everyone whose ethnic heritage is Jewish, wholely or even partially. Neither Gordon nor I accepts that. Gordon’s position, as he wrote on 22 July, is his statement to David, “. . . [I]f you really want to channel your anger in the right direction, then start digging against the banks and Wall Street and the financial sector which own the government and all of us with it.” My view is that neither one of them has a correct understanding. I believe that David is quite correct in focussing on control of the mass media in the U.S. by very wealthy Zionist Jews and their pro-Israel allies, but totally missing the boat in believing that “The Jews” constitute a mass of people with underlying commitment to the Israeli (Zionist) nation-state. His assumption, for example, “I’d wager that it is through [Jeffrey Blankfort’s] Judaism that he has found common ground with you [meaning George] in the present” is so off-the-wall that it would be laughable if it was not to be taken seriously. I think David, who wrote that on 17 July, actually believes it must be true.
Imagine a 48-year-old man who is “positive” (that’s what “I’d wager” means) that only through Judaism could Jeffrey Blankfort and I have found common ground. He’s sure that underneath our “liberal” rhetoric is a hidden commitment to protect the Zionist state of Israel. In fact, on this count he’s full of shit. If he had made the slightest effort to see what the relationship between Blankfort and me actually was he would have discovered that years ago I was very impressed by Blankfort’s knowledge of the history of the Zionist/Palestinian conflict, which he used in his criticism of Noam Chomsky, who he saw as a “closet Zionist”. I was at that time critical of Blankfort for not sticking to factual errors in Chomsky’s work rather then also questioning his motives. In fact, Blankfort had had years of experience of being sandbagged by the Zionist-aligned network, mostly of Jews and their allies, in California, and he had no illusions of what they were up to. Eventually I realized that he was right about Chomsky, the thrust of whose efforts was to direct anger against American imperialism, thus diverting attention away from the nefarious effect of Israeli Zionists on U.S. policy.
Apparently it was essentially impossible for David to conceive of the possibility that “these two old Jews”, Blankfort and Salzman, could simply be horrified at the murders and torture of Palestinians, including Palestinian children. It had to be, David assumed, Judaism that brought us together. What does that say about David? Now I have to conjecture, because David, like a skilled demagogue, generally tries to paint himself as a reasonable and forthright person in his personal communications. He is quite capable of doing this when he makes the effort, as his letter to Debra Sweet demonstrates. Even in his more openly demagogic efforts he uses code words in order to then claim, for example, that he’s not a racist, which is blatantly false. A recent example of his demagoguery is an e-mail that focuses on some horrific crimes by Blacks. David’s assumption that Blankfort and I had to be acting not because we were each compassionate towards the suffering Palestinians but because we were Jews reflects in all likelihood the paucity of love and respect he received when he was a child.
David is a complex and sensitive person who wishes to be accepted as an intelligent and principled fighter for a good world. It is evident from his reflections about the suffering of his mother, and the possible suffering of Terry Schiavo, in the last paragraph of his letter datemarked Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:45:52 -0400, namely
All of humanity was subject to the laws of nature for hundreds of thousands of years. Nature’s laws, God’s laws. My sister was born with a congenital heart defect and died when she was three. My mother to this day can’t mention her name without crying, my life was shaped by an overly sensitive and protective woman as a result. Yet, this is nature. My parents did everything they could to prolong her life. A year after she died, 1968, doctors perfected the surgery necessary to seal the heart properly. I was too young to remember much of her and how often she may have had discomfort, yet I am sure that she did. Who was better served, my parents clinging to hope or my sister kept alive and no doubt sometimes suffering? Reminds me of the Terry Schiavo case, my parents took her parents’ side in the case, naturally. These people allowed their own daughter to live a destroyed body and brain for 14 years. Imagine if you will that Terry’s mind actually functioned as do yours and mine for that whole time, and only her motor skills and communication abilities were broken. Can you imagine the 14 years of hell you would experience? And this was to serve the selfishness of the parents who refused to accept that their daughter’s time had come, in this case because the poor girl was obsessed about weight loss. Even more shocking to me was that Conservatives, especially Christians, had a problem with allowing the girl to finally die in peace. If one believes in God, then one must accept the afterlife and eternal reward for the innocent. What was THEIR problem with allowing the girl to go to God? So you see, people are not rational when they reject nature.
So far as I know, this paragraph concluded a private letter David wrote to Gordon and me, unintended for anyone else. It is eminently reasonable. Gordon, how should we understand David’s ongoing effort to communicate with us in this way? Clearly it consumes his time and energy, and gains him mainly very critical responses, especially from you, but also from me. At the same time he maintains his very active website with its unremitting demagogic promotion of Jew-hatred. My guess is that he’s far more successful in stirring and fortifying blind hatred for “The Jews”, Blacks, undocumented Latinos and other “illegals” than in his efforts directed at us. So why does he persist? Does he believe our propaganda contributes significantly to the (in his view) “dilution” of White people’s imagined genetic/cultural ‘purity’? In looking for an explanation I’m inclined to do just what I had early-on criticized Jeffrey Blankfort for doing — trying to delve into the psychology of an opponent. I advised Blankfort to contest Chomsky only on factual issues, a mistake on my part I later realized. Their dispute didn’t cause me to lose my respect for either one, and I still consider them both my friends, though Chomsky has cooled since I criticized his evident unwillingness to include Israel as a culpable party along with the U.S., one perhaps deserving equally strong de-legitimation because of its aggression.
As for Jeffrey’s attitude towards having anything to do with David, clearly I think that is a mistaken position, but it doesn’t have any impact on my feelings towards Jeff. About David, I’m uncertain. His ideological position is in some important respects self-contradictory. He writes with evident sincerity about his parents and those of Terry Schiavo being irrational “when they reject nature.” We can understand both the parents’ emotional drive to save their children’s lives, and also the reason in David when he argues that we should accept nature. I see the issue as being quite complex, needing in each instance to be carefully weighed. As it happens I would not be here to argue with David if my own maternal grandparents had refused to accept their physician’s judgment that their oldest daughter could not survive the spinal meningitis she had contracted. That was long before antibiotics. They could not give up without trying to save her, and they succeeded. My mother lived her entire adult life disfigured by partial facial paralysis, a terribly heavy burden in a culture that so prizes female beauty. I was the first of her two children. David contradicts his argument for accepting nature by his advocacy that the U.S. strive for self-sufficiency in petroleum by mining the vast tar sands of the mid-continent and extracting and refining the oil. The ecological destruction such a program would entail is colossal, yet David ignores it. He’s ready to reject nature in order to serve his highly nationalistic patriotism.
I see David as what I term a “hater”, as was Hitler. But he is a human being, born as we all were without preprogrammed emotions. Our emotions are developed by the particular culture, the environment in which we were immersed, beginning at the time of our birth, and maybe even prenatally, if the learning process begins to function then. I believe firmly that in order to develop into an emotionally secure and healthy child it is essential that the infant, from the start, be loved and respected as the tiny person he/she is. The knowledge that his/her position in the “family” — whoever the older people are that make up the “family” with which the infant lives — is absolutely secure is in my view essential for the growing youngster to be emotionally healthy. This is not to say that someone who suffers from early childhood emotional insecurity cannot eventually become a self-confident, emotionally secure person, but overcoming the painful earliest years is not the usual course. Certainly contemporary U.S. culture, like the Germanic culture in Braunau, Austria  where Hitler was born have in common that boys are raised to be extremely aggressive and unloving, i.e. to be proud of their toughness, seen as true masculinity.
Just about everyone I know harbors some contradictions in his/her beliefs. In that respect David is far from unique. Each of us attempts to formulate a more or less coherent set of hypotheses that are the basis for our effort to understand the world and our place in it. My experience indicates that most people are fairly committed to holding on to their world view, even when strong indications would indicate that some of the hypotheses are not quite right. I think this is true for many religious people, and of course for David and me. In my case I cling to my belief that the human species is not genetically programmed to be harmful to other people or destructive of the biosphere. It is a matter of faith on my part, a fundamental belief on which my confidence in anarchism is based. Of course in order to maintain it in the face of all the terrible things happening in the world due to human activities I have to rationalize how that can be consistent with people being “fundamentally good”. David’s belief system is based on postulates that contradict mine. He separates the human species into distinct “races” with social behavior patterns that are inherent in each “race”. He identifies with the “Whites”, although at times he says he’s not “pure”, as when he wrote, “To start, I am a mutt, Czech, Ukrainian, Scottish and Native American. You need not tell me about the British Empire, as a Scot I am well aware. Or the Communists, I am well aware of what they really did as well. Some day I will tell you what my grandmother endured with two small children in post-war Prague.”
A paper David wrote on 10 Feb 2010 titled, “My Views on the News” is an example of the complexity, and what I see as the inconsistency, of a good deal of his thoughts. I came upon it only the other day. Not only the text but the supposedly “tough guy” picture of David says a lot about him. I posted his paper with various parts highlighted in several colors: 1. bright green for portions I think are undoubtedly correct; 2. turquoise for parts I tend to agree with, i.e. that I think are probably correct, and 3. red for ideas I’m unsure about — i.e. which may be doubtful. For example, he says, “actions taken by the power structure . . . have led to the murders of several million innocent people in the Middle East, the complete bankruptcy of the US and the dissolution of the US Constitution for the sake of ‘protecting the American People’.” My comment, also highlighted in bright green, followed: [No question about this part.] In the initial paragraph of his article he speaks of “much discussion regarding what is ‘really’ going on in the world today that involves occultism, psychology, a veritable panoply of ‘insights’ as to who runs things in the sphere of the shadow government”, which he sees as having kept a consensus opinion from forming as a solid block in opposition to the ‘given’ wisdom from the powers that be. I highlighted it in turquoise, because I think he is probably correct in disparaging such pseudo ‘insights’. His statement, “it is common knowledge that THE world banking oligarchy is PRIMARILY Jewish” I’ve highlighted in red because I am unsure about it — in fact I am doubtful that it is correct. As despicable as I believe wealthy Jewish bankers and money manipulaters are, they are in the company of equally despicable Gentile bankers and money manipulaters, who I believe are in all likelihood the overwhelming numerical majority.
The picture I mentioned above, which of course David selected for his website, obviously was intended to portray him as a shrewd “tough guy”. A “Don’t mess with me kind of guy”. Why? To what purpose? From what I know of David, admittedly
David Baillie, photo from his article posted
on his website, http://www.nemw.net/
very little, I’m inclined to guess that he chose it to camouflage his psychological vulnerability. From what I have seen David is a sensitive, intelligent, intellectually quick person, skilled as a writer. If I am correct, then why should he be psychologically vulnerable? It is not because of a gnawing sense of being an incompetent person — clearly he is very competent in his propaganda work (just yesterday - the 26th July he posted his July Headlines list with links to 21 items). In all likelihood he’ll add some additional ones. His list for June has 107 items. It appears to be a passionate pursuit rather than something he does for money. Because of the many things he criticizes, including a slew of supposedly “right wing” groups (e.g. his June list includes Robert Fisk’s piece from The Independent of June 1st, “Western leaders are too cowardly to help save lives”. Western leaders are a “right wing” group), it seems not too likely he would be funded by a so-called “right wing” group.
If my conjecture is correct that David is psychologically vulnerable, then, given his capabilities, the question is Why? I think that in a very competitive society like the U.S., where cooperation and sharing are not valued, each person is indoctrinated with the importance of “being Number 1”. Almost everyone in the U.S. is subjected to that indoctrination, mostly without even being aware of their indoctrination. We all got into the pattern of continually ranking ourselves compared to all our close associates — Who is the most beautiful girl in the class?, Who is the best swimmer? Who has the best grades? Who is most popular? Who has the most desirable car? And on and on it goes, into adulthood. Material wealth is envied above almost everything else because people are indoctrinated with, and come to hold, the false belief that it is the key to happiness. Certainly my parents didn’t have even a clue about these things, and unless I’m badly mistaken, neither did (or do) David’s parents. In my case I think I escaped the “competitive trap” because of my mother’s thankfulness that in spite of her spinal meningitis and resulting ungainliness due to her effort to prevent people from seeing the paralyzed side of her face (a hopeless task at any rate), she was still able to give birth to an evidently normal healthy baby. I was her certificate of wholeness, and thus her Number 1. I was simply adored, even during tantrums in the very early years. There was nothing I could do to shake her total acceptance and love. My father, the would-be “Russian”, who was actually ashamed of his Jewish heritage, was gratified to have a male child who would insure that the name Salzman would not disappear. My father too was a very loving parent. He never, as far as I can remember, struck me, even in moments of extreme exasperation, of which there were a good number. I believe it was the self-assurance my parents gave me, albeit without understanding their role, that enabled me to remain secure in the competitive environment that I entered in later years — throughout my schooling, graduate studies and postdoctoral periods, each contrived to be a gruelling experience.
My brother’s experience was quite different. He is a gifted person, with natural abilities considerably greater than mine.
[These comments are not yet completed.]
 David Baillie correspondence. The exchange instigated by David is essentially in three posts of mine:
I think I’ve managed to include most of the important parts, but if more material comes to mind I’ll add it. And make corrections as folks call errors and/or omissions to my attention.
 David Baillie’s website. http://www.nemw.net/
 Baillie’s age is inferred from the posting at http://www.nhinsider.com/nhigb/2009/5/2/shaheen-responding-to-your-message-on-the-federal-budget.html#
comment3926537, on the New Hampshire Insider website, which contains the following: . . . Being 47 years old I have heard this kind of rhetoric all of my life . . . Nothing . . . will change until the American people . . . start lynching these vermin . . . one of the contributing factors to the complacency of the American people can be placed squarely on the shoulders of those in the mainstream controlled media . . . if they had as much concern for their country and fellow citizens as they do for their wallets and status we could focus a true majority of Americans on how to straighten out this Republic . . . --David Baillie, New England MediaWatch, firstname.lastname@example.org, http://www.nemw.net, May 3, 2009.
If David was 47 in May 2009, he’s most likely 48 now (or possibly 49).
 Letter to Debra Sweet. It is posted at http://www.nemw.net/html/twcw/DebraSweetTWCWorganization.html
 Example of David Baillie’s demagoguery. I responded with a note to David and Gordon on 7 July at 2:09 p.m. as follows:
Hi David and Gordon,
David, Did you send your e-mail to Gordon too. If not, here it is, Gordon. Second question, Is your statement, “I’d like a Lib to read and reply” supposed to include me? I.e., are you labelling me a ‘Lib’? If so, you are quite mistaken. Lib, I suppose, is your derogatory term for liberal, like my Nazi for National Socialist. At any rate, I think your bit of propaganda is partly justified (your attack on mass media) and partly despicable (your attack on Blacks) because of its implication that the actions of a few Blacks are representative of the nature of all Blacks. Also, it’s very sloppily done, showing how rapidly you shoot stuff off. You must know very well that it will only incite people who already hate Blacks (and all the other categories of people you hate) to believe their hatred is once again justified. You may claim you don’t hate Blacks, etc., but that is so obviously not true that I don’t see how you could believe anyone would be taken in by it. What is so foolish about this approach is that there is genuine reason (not hate-based) to advocate for the “natural separation” of groups of differing “ethnicities”, separation which has been implemented in the largely Aymara City of El Alto, Peru. I am reading a fascinating book by the Uruguayan writer/activist/analyst Raúl Zibechi translated by a solid-as-a-rock Irishman Ramor Ryan. The book, Dispersing Power: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces, explores the social developments that enabled the indigenous Aymara to mobilize to protect their access to water (against the Bechtel Corporation, in April 2000) and against the entire neo-liberal drive of the IMF and the World Bank (Jew institutions, you will undoubtedly insist). Ramor, a good friend, is as White as you can imagine. His mind isn’t even partly fucked-up by ruling-class propaganda. Like you, Ramor and Zibechi see tremendous social value in “natural separation” into small neighborhoods of “ethnically homogeneous” people protecting their own interests, but they understand it as a natural development in opposition to state/capitalist exploitation and not, as you see it, as a natural part of a giant governing nation state. The only way to know the truth is to open one’s mind. Ramor’s mind got opened early, by the British massacre of peaceful Irish protestors on Bloody Sunday, when he was still a boy. Another honest White Irishman you might read is one of my favorite journalists, Robert Fisk. He’s got an article on Bloody Sunday in a recent issue of the Independent at http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-innocent-became-the-guilty-the-guilty-innocent-2001678.html
I started to write this just to let you know that I’ve written a bit more of the comments at the end of the posting at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2010-07-19.htm
but then I got sidetracked. David, I’ll try to answer your questions, and I hope you’ll take seriously my questions and answer them with the same respect with which I treat yours. Sincerely, and with good wishes, --George
Gordon wrote to David and me on 22 July at 6:18 a.m. as follows:
David, your take on the media is simply out of whack. While the media do push an agenda of mass indoctrination — some of those points include the supposed democracy and rule of law in Western nations, as opposed to the rest of the world, the need for US hegemony for the “good” of the world, the positive reinforcement of law enforcement and a culture of obedience, and many others — downplaying crimes committed by people of color is certainly not among that agenda. Here you are simply out in fantasyland. I could take apart your flimsy case point by point, but I have limited time to devote to foolishness. I am now having my morning coffee and a full day of toil awaits, from sunup to sundown, like every other day. I will just make a few simple points here.
Number one, the US has nearly 3 million people behind bars, more than any other country, including China which has FIVE times as many people — and where human rights are supposedly poor. That is one person out of 100. Recently a senior US senator observed, “we either have the worst people on earth, or we are really doing something wrong.” Now an overwhelming majority of those behind bars are people of color. The system is absolutely architected to produce this outcome, including harshly differing punishment for crack versus powder cocaine, for example.
Fact two is that 400 civilians are extrajudicially executed in the US each year. That is how many people are killed by police — without trial, without any legal process whatsoever. Again comparing to China, this is a higher rate per capita than the amount of convicts being executed legally in China, after a trial. Killings by cops in China are exceedingly rare, as in most countries. Again, the victims of these extrajudicial killings are mostly people of color. On top of that number another 800 die in unnatural deaths in the prison system. Taken in total, America’s treatment of its colored minority is a milestone in cruielty that has never ben equaled in the history of civilization, not in the Dark Ages, nor any other time and place on earth. That is the fact.
Now that is the background context to the issue your are harping on here. And you have chosen two crimes that are completely dissimilar with no connecting strings whatsoever. The crime committed by the black, while awful and horrible, was a spontaneous robbery attempt. A car jacking where he was after the car. Now first of all we do not know the facts of the case that were brought out in court. Was he aware that the youngster was stuck to the car and being dragged? How could he even see this from his vantage in the driver’s seat? The other crime, a race crime committed by your kind of haters and cowards, is well familiar to me. Here an innocent man who had done nothing to provoke his attack was deliberately lynched in a most horrible fashion. You like dogs. There was a case here in Canada a few years ago where a man tied his dog to the back bumper and pulled him around. The animal was severely injured and I do not remember if it was put down.
This is a deliberate act. There is no comparison and any school kid could understand that. The fact that you don’t tells me that you are not very bright, your alleged IQ of 150 notwhithstanding.
I will also say a word here on the proud history of lynching. Go and do a search on lynching postcards. These were postcards made using photos of lynching victims that were then sold and mailed around the country. There was an art exhibit of these gruesome “cultural” artifacts in a New York gallery a few years ago. Lynching was legally practiced in the US until the 1930s. These were public spectacles that were announced beforehand in the local newspaper, so that huge crowds would sure to be on hand. Once the victim was dead, the crowds would tear off pieces of his clothing as “trophies,” and even slice off a finger or ear, a tuft of hair or whatever. This is the real cultural history of the US. Racism is still alive and well in US society, it has just become passe to talk about it and practice openly. Of course haters like you long for the days of open hate and racism.
Now I have devoted about 15 minutes of my time to answering a person who I would not give the time of day to. That is way too much. Please do not include me in your correspondence from here on in. George, I ask you to do the same. I see absolutely nothing that can come from this exchange. I have debunked the supposed “facts” he previously stated with regards to Slavs and WW2, but he has not acknowledged his error.
Now he is garbling facts like a complete nitwit. I do not have time for this. Nor do I like to see race hate in my inbox. Regards, --Gordon.
I attempted to preface these last two letters with the inflamatory item David circulated, but was unable to copy it into the htm posting using my Thunderbird Mozilla program, a technical difficulty. If you would like to see it, a note to David or to me should get you a forwarded copy in short order.
 Acceptance of Nature. In his letter datelined Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:37:44 -0400, David wrote, “There is an ocean of oil under the Dakotas. Why would the GOP AND the Democrats allow potentially hazardous Gulf drilling when there is enough oil in the middle of this country on dry land to last 200 years? And why shouldn’t that natural asset be used by the nation to pay off debt and rebuild US infrastructure. It does not belong to one man. An oil company can be paid handsomely for extracting it, but it is a natural asset that COMES WITH THE PROPERTY. In fact, I support the notion that the Lakota Nation revoke any treaty and reclaim the states involved and THEY can extract the oil to sell back to us. It would be better than allowing Jewish lawyers to con Indians into opening casinos which helps destroy people's lives.” The letter is in http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2010-07
 Emotional development. David Baillie and Adolph Hitler. The realization that Hitler was a human being with all his faculties, someone to be understood rather than just loathed, as though there was nothing to be gained by thinking about him, didn’t come early to me. That’s natural for someone growing up in the climate of his Jewish-American culture. Though I bought Mein Kampf on 1 Oct 1978 (in Brookline, Massachusetts at the Coolidge Corner Booksmith), it sat unread for nearly 30 years. It was a source of information when I was working on my essay, Changing History in early 2006 (months before the great Oaxaca uprising). The essay is at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/2006-03-18.htm
 Hitler’s birthplace, Braunau, Austria. Mein Kampf begins “. . . [T]hislittle town lies on the boundary between two German states which we of the younger generation at least have made it our life work to reuite by every means at our disposal. German-Austria must return to the great German mother country, and not because of any economic considerations. No, and again no: even if it were harmful, it must nevertheless take place. One blood demands one Reich.” Braunau is 68 miles east (and a trifle north) of Munich in a part of Austria which my 1965 National Geographic Society map labels Upper Austria.
 David Baillie’s statement on his diverse lineage is in his letter datemarked Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:37:44 -0400 which is in the posting at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2010-07-19.htm
 David Baillie’s article with my marked-up parts highlighted to show agreement, likely agreement, and disagreement. It is at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2010-07-25.doc
George Salzman is a former American Jew living in Oaxaca, Mexico, an Emeritus Prof of Physics, Univ of Massachusetts-Boston.
All comments and criticisms are welcome. <email@example.com>