Articles by Flipside:
Race Hustler Pam Geller Retains Shyster Lawyer to Beat Money out of MBTA if they Refuse to Run Racist Ad
by Flipside

My article is in response to this one.

Pam Geller is a cunt. Let me define that, because she works for an outfit that, like Scientology, likes to sue people for defamation if they explain in frank terms to the public what they do as scammers. Cunt, here means woman who attacks an ethnic or racial group, or persecutes a religious minority for personal gain. Therefore, no defamation occurs. Pam Geller is a cunt. QED.

The cunt, Pam Geller is expanding her roadshow of racist-religious-ethnic-complex defamatory bus slogans to Boston MA. Here, again, the word "defamation" might not apply. Ms. Geller believes she can illustrate why Muslims are inferior to Jews. She and her partner in internet hustle, Robert Spencer, enumerate daily the reasons for their allegedly superior intellectual, cultural, religious or nationalistic ideologies on the websites Atlas Shrugs and Jihad Watch. Jihad Watch is bankrolled via David Horowitz, the alleged founder of the New Left, and last rat on the sinking ship of Ramparts Magazine to gnaw the gunwales. The money actually comes from Aubrey Chernick and his wife Joyce who presides over a racist news aggregator frequented by Kach party terrorist sympathizers. I did not hear this. I checked it out personally.

Ms. Geller's bus ad reads: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel, Defeat Jihad" bracketed in Magen Davids, and then "paid for by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Atlasshrugs.com Jihadwatch.org."

The ad is a quote by Ayn Rand, appended to it a carefully worded sentence that says that Jews are superior to Muslims because they are more civilized. Up the Jews, Down the Muzzies. The cunt, however, has worded her ad so that she cannot be sued for defamation. It is, in fact second order defamation. She is running the ads, she claims, to generate awareness. She is not. She is running the ad to drive business to her site. Her business is harassing and insulting people, starting streetfights, and shrilly haranguing college students in Afro-American pantomime on her lecture tours with Robert Spencer and Nonie Darwish. All of these lectures focus on Israeli Supremacy cloaked as Counterjihadism.

Ms. Geller was investigated for actions, which she plausibly denied and evaded,  involving steering toxic auto loans to crack dealers and gangsters at her husband's car dealership. Then she teamed up with the Aubrey Chernick, Raphael Shore political cash machine to promote the British Nazi Party "British Defense League" and enable speaking engagements by its leader Tommy Robinson, aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who had entered the United States with false passport after being barred from entry to promote a variety of anti-Muslim Nazism that works well with Zionist Fundamentalism and also Dutch racism. So, cunt.

By now, many people are familiar with this ad campaign to run racist ads in garbled language, and to run deeply offended, loudmouthed reactions to anyone who objects to this mealymouthed Gobbels campaign. One of the principal loudmouthed stage reactors is the squealy-voiced, portly, and diminutive hirsute barbarian, Robert Spencer, a former Communist who moonlights as a deacon (with alias misspelled) at Our Lady of the Cedars Melkite Greek Catholic church in Manchester, NH. Most of the time, he is living in Bedford, NH, running a racist, religious bigotry site thinly veiled as an anti-terror nonprofit, Jihad Watch.org. Really, Jihad Watch.org is Spencer, his laptop, any number of Holiday Inns, and the UPS Store in Manchester, where his nonprofit organization fits neatly into a rental P.O. box. His "The Lobby" associate, Charles Jacobs, of the Benador Group, a pro-war blowback outfit is similarly structured in commercial P.O. box fronts. Spencer also has the honor of working with Walid Shoebat and therefore companies himself with, and speaks at functions with the financiers of Mark Nikoula Basseley whose meth contact in Jerusalem is Shoebat's cousin Salameh. He also has the honor of providing much of the text for the Anders Breivik manifesto.

Like Scientology, all of these people like to claim persecution while threatening lawsuit, while forging news stories, while funneling money between West Bank real estate financiers into and sideways between owners of anti-Iran, anti-Muslim, and anti-American smear columns.

Who you are really not supposed to talk about are any of these hustler's shitbag shyster lawyers. For the purpose of avoiding libel and defamation, a "shitbag shyster lawyer" is a Zionist lawyer who with advance knowledge works on an aggravated campaign of "Lawfare" to entrap and exhaust the finances of predetermined victims who, deliberately attacked by their clients, attempt to retaliate verbally or in print. Shitbag shyster lawyers are racial chauvinists retained by racial propagandists as an iron wall to protect people whose primary goal is to incite riots for profit. Therefore, David Yerushalmi, and Robert Muise are shitbag shyster lawyers. QED. "Lawfare" is a term invented by shitbag shyster lawyers to attack goyim shitbag shyster lawyers, especially Iranian. Goyim shitbag shyster lawyers are treif. Not permitted. If there is any question whether Robert Muise is a shitbag shyster lawyer, just run his name in the search engine with either Charles Jacobs and see that he comes up immediately with Geller. Run him with Spencer and see that he comes up with Geller and Yerushalmi. It's a fucking racket. And now its playing in my city. So, I'm speaking up.

My opinion on this matter is not that Islam is awesome and Muslims rock my face off. I don't give a shit. My opinion is that scumbags should not run Gobbels propaganda on buses that I have to look at as they drive through my neighborhood. Ms. Geller and her army of slimy defenders should have to do what all other of their ilk do; spraypaint on the fronts of peoples houses and desecrate their tombstones. This running an ad on a bus is too much like "Kauft Nicht Bei Juden." It's the same thing. This cunt and her shitbag shyster lawyers are running Nazi propaganda on the MBTA, and they are also hitting the MBTA in the only place they understand, the wallet. So, in effect, Pam Geller is trying to get the MBTA to go Nazi, and her lawyer is threatening to take everyone's bus fare if they don't.

What a disgusting travesty. I don't think this warrants my less than explicit description.

There's No Brooking David Brooks
by Flipside

By writing his nonsense article The Solitary Leaker, David Brooks has finally motivated me to stop thinking about what a slimeball he is and finally just write a thorough article about it. By nature, my first line is a confession that this description is an ad hominem attack, and therefore invalid for submission to an Aristotelian logic contest. On the other hand, my rationale is first that David Brooks personally disgusts me for several specific reasons, and secondly that although ideas, arguments, and reasons motivate politicians and pundits, it is the men themselves that do the obnoxious deeds that we revile. So, I will speak to the man primarily.

I did not intend to get bogged down in a massive exegesis of Brooks' smear piece on Edward Snowden, nor defend Edward Snowden, though that is my opinion. To do so would be to draw precious time and energy from the more important task of unmasking David Brooks. I do chew up the article though, as part of my assessment. Call it a smear piece if you like, but in my angle of special pleading, that is to say my actual view, I find Mr. David Brooks to be spurious and his attacks on any individual to be cut from that cloth. To touch upon the indignities perpetrated in his recent article, please allow me condense the slurs Mr. Brooks employs against Mr Snowden:

Edward Snowden [is] the ultimate unmediated man.
[He is] terrifically bright [but] could not successfully work his way through high school.
[He] failed to navigate his way through community college.
[He] has not been a regular presence around his mother’s house.
[He] wanted no neighborly relationships.
[He] went to work for Booz Allen Hamilton and the C.I.A., BUT he has separated himself from them, too.
[He] is thoughtful, morally engaged and deeply committed to his beliefs,
[BUT He is] a product of one of the more unfortunate trends of the age: the atomization of society, the loosening of social bonds, the apparently growing share of young men in their 20s who are living technological existences in the fuzzy land between their childhood institutions and adult family commitments.

(Translation: He is an idealistic sociopathic baby, like most young men nowadays).

Mr. Brooks then issues a series of if-then statements such that:

If you [are not mediated by] civil society [then you become a] solitary naked individual [against] the gigantic and menacing state [and you adopt] libertarianism [which is a product of the] fragmenting age. [This is your fault.]

[IF you develop a] deep suspicion of authority, [a suspicion of the ruling] hierarchies and organizations, [a zealotry for] transparency, [the false premise that] individual preference [is] supreme, [THEN you give money] to Ron Paul as Snowden did.

[Snowden is therefore understandable]

[He is inarticulate and vague, un]able to point to any specific [clandestine/Contra government] abuses,
[He was intellectually and morally unsuited to] the confidentiality endemic to military and intelligence activities [of tapping Americans' phones].

And then after all that smarmy disagreement, Brooks shifts:

"Of course, he’s right that the procedures he’s unveiled could lend themselves to abuse in the future."

This is Hasbara plain and simple. Snowden has damaged the PR of the Spook Complex, and David Brooks has appeared with a formulaic attack on Snowden, beginning with insults about his temperament, his education, his Freudian relationship to his mother, his socialization, his alleged sociopathy, his misplaced idealism, his "characteristic" being a sign of the times in which men like David Brooks posing in front of bookcases are purportedly superior, and men like Snowden purported inferior. This is a standard, post-Ramparts, neoconservative character assassination in defense of a tribe. Yet, it is weasel-worded with the term "apparently," and the more bold accusation is muted into innuendo, certain words avoided to make the attack look like a work of academic intellectual concern and philosophical discourse. That's another reason why David Brooks is a consummate jerk.

Brooks continues:

"Big Brother is not the only danger facing the country.
[Bigger threats are:] the rising tide of distrust [of the US government by its citizens], the corrosive spread of cynicism [as opposed to Mr. Brooks' infinitely wiser form of idealism], the fraying of the social fabric and the rise of people who are so individualistic in their outlook that they have no real understanding of how to knit others together and look after the common good.

(Translation: Mr. Brooks is making the standard argument on behalf of the Platonic Greater Good. By rights, The Ayn Rand Institute should have him lynched. Yaron Brook should do it, if there is anywhere a god of irony).


"Snowden is [not addressing the Greater Evils]. In fact, he is making everything worse."

David Brooks then pontificates that:

"For society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures. By deciding to unilaterally leak secret N.S.A. documents, Snowden has betrayed all of these things."

David Brooks, sociologist. David Brooks, Philosopher. David Brooks, Deus Ex Machina.

More like David Brooks, Focal Point operative.

Here, Brooks shifts the substance of his accusations to: Edward Snowden is a Traitor. Note that Brooks, almost channeling Todd Gitlin blames the straw disenfranchised, conscientious young idealist (with computer) of today for this absence of trust, and not the private and military entities that were just exposed for wiretapping the entire United States population (with supercomputer). Note that David Brooks does not state that the social fabric is becoming frayed because political and business leaders are doing things to the Citizens that were previously considered Nazi or Communist. The social fabric is not unraveling from years of implementing the Clean Break Strategy for Securing the Realm, nor for extracting the wealth from the United States and linking it into the European Central Bank.

Corzine isn't unraveling the social fabric. Bernanke isn't. DHS isn't. The NSA isn't. According to David Brooks, only breaking ranks from the corporate intelligence and banking mainframe is what is unravelling the social fabric. This is specifically where David Brooks is a conniving asshole mistaken for a moderate. In reality, he is defending the 1%er monopoly on wiretapping the 99%, and calling that "the common good."

Back to that in a moment. The final flower of Brooks' attack on Snowden is:

[He] betrayed honesty and integrity, the foundation of all cooperative activity.
[He] made explicit and implicit oaths to respect the secrecy of the information with which he was entrusted.
[He] betrayed his oaths.
[He] betrayed his friends. Anybody who worked with him will be suspect.
[He betrayed all future] young people [seeking] positions [in domestic spying.]
[He] betrayed his employers. Booz Allen and the C.I.A. [who] took a high-school dropout and offered him positions with lavish salaries.

(Translation: He betrayed his financial benefactors, presumably Mortimer and Randolph Duke, the manufacturers of hordes of Oliver Norths, and all the people who eat off of Bradley, Scaife, and Olin's dime).

[He] is violating the honor codes of all those who enabled him to rise.

This last part is laughably obscene and weirdly phallic.

[He] betrayed the cause of open government. Every time there is a leak like this, the powers that be close the circle of trust a little tighter. They limit debate a little more.

That's a crafty argument. Exposing wrongdoing leads to a closed government.

(Mistrust amongst dirtbags. Government as necessary cock-ring. Leaking causes government erectile dysfunction. Disclosure of bedroom secrets).

[He] betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security agencies can’t do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods.

This is just plain lying.

[He] betrayed the Constitution. The founders did not create the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed. Snowden self-indulgently short-circuited the democratic structures of accountability, putting his own preferences above everything else.

David Brooks must be talking about the Constitution of Israel. Oops. They don't have one. Maybe the Constitution of Plato's Republic.

The chutzpah of asserting a Framers' intent to run a Panopticon is breathtaking.

And now the Apocalypse according to Brooks:

[He] faced a moral dilemma. [He chose morality over oath loyalty].

See Kriemhild's Revenge.

[He acted without the group, violating the laws of entropy] unilaterally exposing secrets that can never be reclassified.
[He is] oblivious toward the damage he has done to social arrangements and the invisible bonds that hold them together.

The contents of David Brooks' article alone damn him. I gather that some people just don't read his articles, or else they just swallow his Siskel and Ebert routine with Mark Shields on PBS News Hour, or they don't keep abreast of how his articles coalign with similar articles by David Horowitz or William Kristol, or how they fit in with the Poynter Foundation and the Hoover Institution whose mission seems to be to keep the Casino's Edge at pro-war footing while simulating open debate within a strongly bounded input, bounded output (BIBO) stability. David Brooks is not "a moderate," rather he is "the moderate" appointed to be "the moderate." Moderately pro Clean Break Startegy. Moderately pro Meyrav Wurmser. Moderate muggers who say "stick 'em up" because just stabbing the victim in the back is impolitic. Striking the balance between collective vampire feedings and individualistic werewolf guttings. Striking the balance between freedom and security. Striking the balance between rape and consensual sex. Striking the balance between national collapse and WWIII.

Should we get in a war, he'll be the most ferocious man in the rear guard. David Brooks is a hedge fund analyst for the carefully constrained differential equation that is a pro-war, pro-oil, pro-cryptocracy media complex. These all need a moderate, benign face. He rents his out. They need well-tempered words to deliver the poison to a collapsing society doped out on middles, on rationality and factfinding. He's the right hooker for the job.

Who Will Be The New Doctor
by Phoolproof

In the question of “Who should be the next Doctor?”, the next question is “What do the writers and producers of the show think of humanity?” Or even more specifically, “What do the writers and producers of the show think their audience thinks of humanity?” What are the qualities and characteristics that the audience of Doctor Who wants to send out into the void, (quite literally), like those golden records placed aboard the Voyager probes?

It’s an important question. Many people take great solace from the Doctor’s adventures, because he represents them as they would like to be, or as they would like someone out there to be. In “The Girl in the Fireplace”, Stephen Moffat has Madame de Pompadour say “One may tolerate a world of demons for the sake of an angel.” The audience can accept that they will never be the Doctor as long as his character, his authority, is recognizable, familiar, not too alien. That’s why there has been a general humanizing of the character since the show’s beginnings, why the FOX pilot in the 1990s went so far as to make the Doctor himself half-human. The new series has settled for having the Doctor possess alien biology and knowledge, while his motivations, morals, and especially his speech, are all deeply human. So whoever gets to pilot the Tardis has to be humanity’s best foot forward. Their smiling face turned towards the cosmos.

The show’s production team has a tricky job, since the character they are casting has to embody so much. It’s not like casting a police show in the USA, where all you have to do is make one of the detectives a white dude who looks unkempt but handsome, the other detective a busty woman with a no-nonsense look on her face, and give them a boss who’s black/Latino/Asian with a square jaw and an I’ve-seen-it-all demeanor. Casting the Doctor is you saying “This is what I think people should be like.” It might help their decision if we look back at the previous incarnations, their hits and their misses.

I’ll skip blithely over the first two Doctors. They were old craggy-cheeked men who looked good in B/W television. The character of the Doctor didn’t mean what it does now, they were daft grumpy mad scientists who made the monsters go away, they didn’t embody any integrated ideas about humanity’s place in the universe.

The Third Doctor was when the show starts to get good, by general agreement. Part of that is that it hit the ground running with a really good first episode, “Spearhead from Space”. This episode broke the usual rules in some important ways. At first, the Doctor himself is on the run. Not from Daleks, from us, humans, on contemporary Earth. (I won’t address the UNIT dating controversy here.) The alien invasion he eventually thwarts is genuinely scary. It’s the Autons, for the first time. They aren’t robots or random blobs, they are simulated humans. They don’t slowly lumber across the landscape, they RUN at you. They are shown KILLING random extras, real civilian cross-fire. There is a sense of real loss and consequences that is generally absent from the first two Doctors’ stories. It’s also here that the Doctor really takes on the avuncular attitude towards humanity which characterizes him for a long time, the “You’re young and brash and you don’t understand a lot yet, but I’ll help get you through these early days in the Universe if you’ll just be patient and listen and not ask too many questions.” How did this much improved vision of the Doctor and his authority over the events in the stories come to be?

The answer is World War Two.

The production team that put together this new vision were veterans, if not of the war, than at least of military service. Barry Letts served on a submarine during the war, Robert Holmes fought in Burma, Terrance Dicks and Douglas Camfield did national service. They shared a common sense that conflict has consequences, that things get dirty and out of control fast, that hidebound HQ types never listen to you. Time and again, the Doctor is ignored or sabotaged by “higher” authorities, like that guy Chinn who’s auditing UNIT during “Claws of Axos”. They shared, too, a sense that evil is as diverse in its malice as good is in its virtues, and out of that sense came the Master, the Doctor’s greatest antagonist. Yeah yeah Daleks, Davros, fine, but they’re always reductive where the Master is creative, inventive. He’s as ardent for evil as the Doctor for good.

The vision this team created, of the Doctor struggling against incompetent/inconsistent allies, insufficient information, bad luck, his only constant ally a courageous young woman, this is an infantryman’s Doctor. He’s been stranded on Earth by his superiors, not allowed to come home, and his key piece of equipment is malfunctioning. Sound like the infantry to anybody else?

This Doctor leads from ahead, not behind. He pushes into worse and worse danger, in order to discover vital truths. And most importantly for this vision of the Doctor, sometimes BAD things happen, and they have visible and irreversible consequences. No free rides on the time-wipe-everything-back-the-way-it-was merry-go-round. In “Day of the Daleks”, the Dalek plan to sabotage the future peace conference is only defeated in the end through Shura’s use of a suicide bomb. The Third Doctor is unable to elude the truth that some die so that others might live.

The Fourth Doctor inherited this vision and extended it. Where the Third Doctor struggled to correct and challenge the abuses of large groups, the Fourth Doctor is more comfortable playing a lone hand in the dark. The Fourth Doctor’s adventures took place in hidden corners of the universe, underneath Victorian London, on forgotten derelict spaceships. His self-reliance and confidence and anti-authority attitude emerged through conflict with covert villains, whose lairs he usually entered as a prisoner, the quicker to discover their secrets. This vision of the Doctor as a scientist carrying light into dark places was displayed openly in “The Brain of Morbius”, when the Doctor saves himself and the occult Sisterhood of Karn from crisis by showing how their “sacred flame”, the hidden center of their cult which has been extinguished, has a scientific origin and can be re-lit from the soot that lines its chimney. The Fourth Doctor embodied Carl Sagan’s description of science as “a candle in the dark.” Even as his later stories got campy, with a focus on the unpredictable and alien elements of his character, this basic vision held good.

The Fifth Doctor was a significant step towards humanizing the Doctor even further. He was younger in appearance than any Doctor so far, his facial and emotional reactions were the most human. During most of his tenure, he had more than one companion, and he tended to behave towards them like a teacher on the ultimate field trip. He was always very concerned that they not wander off and get into trouble. He held the authority established by the previous Doctors, and he struggled with many of the same antagonists, but he was much less willing (able?) to conceal his emotions. You could see his hunger for justice and peace, his empathy with all concerned. Even when Omega’s return to our universe in “Arc of Infinity” threatens to destroy everything, the Doctor cannot pick up a gun to destroy him without regret. His expression in that moment is full of responsibility and pain, it’s a good parallel to the Tenth Doctor’s similar scene in “The End of Time”, confronting the return of Rassilon.

This was a good take on the character after the Fourth Doctor, whose bohemian self-regard often made him exasperating and cryptic. He did not often reveal his feelings, notably in his final scene with Sarah Jane Smith, where he is unable to open his heart to her or acknowledge her sense of the moment. The Fifth Doctor did not guard himself like this. He had the passions and fearlessness to match his youthful style.

The Sixth and Seventh Doctors were two different attempts to extend and variegate that vision of the Doctor’s authority, established by the preceding three. Neither was wholly successful. The Sixth Doctor placed the Doctor’s superior knowledge and mastery directly in the foreground of the show. He’s always arguing, insulting and belittling people, especially Peri, his companion, whose tone of voice reminds me now of my six-year-old daughter explaining why she needs another chocolate bar. It could have worked, the Third Doctor could certainly be masterful and dismissive. But it got mean, too mean. There was a sullenness about the events the audience witnessed, a sense that the universe wasn’t living up to the Doctor’s standards. The first half of “Revelation of the Daleks”, for example, is nonstop complaints, from every character on screen. Adventures can be slow or fast, thrilling or creeping, but not sullen.

The Seventh Doctor was a more successful attempt. These shows focused on the cryptic, hypnotic and generally uncanny elements of the Doctor’s authority. It helped that this was mostly done through comic turns and moments. I’m particularly fond of when Sabalom Glitz tells the Doctor to distract a guard in “Dragonfire” and his response is to ask the guard, “Tell me, do you have any thoughts on the nature of existence? Any strong religious or philosophical beliefs?” The Seventh Doctor took the Doctor’s general disinclination to answer questions about as far as it could go, responding with puns and wordplay to any serious attempt. His popular companion, Ace, was a teenager from our time whose maturation was a subtext of the episodes, and pairing her teenage naivete and general indifference to specific details with his mature blather worked fine.

That said, the Seventh Doctor was a fairly small development of the Doctor’s character. The production took previous established elements of his authority, his wit, his games-playing, his traps and bluffs, and set them in new faster-paced scenarios. It was worth doing, but it’s no surprise that the new show’s vision of the Doctor’s authority looked back to the Third, Fourth and Fifth Doctors to please their audience.

Russell T Davies has been very open about his fondness for the scripts written by Robert Holmes, who wrote “Spearhead from Space”, “The Ark in Space”, “Carnival of Monsters”, and “The Caves of Androzani”, among other fan favorites. Davies clearly took from Holmes and his co-producers those elements of the Doctor’s authority that were vital, like his curiosity, his general intellectual mastery, his deep impatience with boredom, his need to influence events and make a difference. Davies’ genius in re-launching the show was to place the Doctor as the last Time Lord, the only survivor of a massive war, so that all these characteristics became exaggerated by trauma. Where the Third Doctor disliked being bored, the Ninth found it intolerable. Where the Fourth Doctor was curious about everything, the Ninth could hardly sit still in a room. Where the Fifth Doctor was moved to protect decency from malice, the Ninth had such a profound sense of the cost and cruelty of evil, since he had seen just how bad things can get, that each contact with it was taken very, very personally.

The Ninth Doctor is a very open Doctor, his emotions are as close to the surface as the Fifth’s, but where the Fifth Doctor led his emotions with his reason, the Ninth lets his reason serve his emotions. He lets Cassandra die in “The End of the World”, (he thinks) because he’s just lost a new friend and is not in control of his grief about her loss, as he is not in control of his grief about the Time War and the loss of Gallifrey. He has lost so much that he is not sure that life is worth living at all. “Everything has its time and everything dies”, he says, watching Cassandra stretch to the breaking point. He embraces pure action as a way to avoid the reflection needed to incorporate his grief. It’s no coincidence that his very first word in the series is “Run!”. The character subtext of his whole series is recovery, recovery from immense loss, recovery of the distinction between mere loss and meaningful sacrifice. He and Rose Tyler developed a neat reciprocal exchange, where, as she says, “The Doctor showed me a better way to live your life” and in return, she shows him, as in “Dalek”, that his deepest need currently is to examine himself, to recover his joy in existence.

The Tenth Doctor took that ball and ran with it. If there’s one Doctor who represents a pure delight in existence, it’s the Tenth. As he says to the Master near the end of his tenure, “You don’t have to rule the universe, just see it.” The joy he feels is nicely balanced between himself, other sentient beings, inanimate objects, and Being in the abstract, he’s able to see joy everywhere. He’s a very psychically resilient and flexible character. The only problem for him at first is that he falls in love.

It fits completely that the Tenth Doctor would fall in love with Rose, out of gratitude to her for helping to restore his sense of belonging in the universe. It also was one of the main unexplored areas for the Doctor’s authority. Although Davies added some sex and general lustiness to the show under the Ninth, especially with Captain Jack Harkness, romantic love was never an element of the older Doctors, let alone with their companions. As part of the general project of humanizing the Doctor, of making him our face on the cosmos, romantic love has to come in somewhere. I don’t think we’re so jaded yet as to omit it entirely as part of what we want people to be.

The Tenth Doctor was a successful addition and summation of the Doctor’s authority to date. Wit, brilliance, courage, self-sacrifice, empathy, love, curiosity, the delight in Being, irreverence, he had everything his predecessors had and more. So where does one go from here, Stephen Moffat must have asked himself at the start of the Eleventh Doctor’s tenure, what do I do to make the Doctor grow?

His answer was to grow boyish. Not just in appearance, although the Eleventh Doctor is certainly boyish looking, but in general esprit de Tardis. Where the Tenth Doctor took joy in the universe, the Eleventh takes glee. He has all the qualities of his predecessors, but his general perspective on those qualities is a boy’s perspective. He has no taste for complicated abstractions, he likes puzzles and games even more than the Seventh, (he plays Live Chess, for sheesh). His attitude towards tragic matters is to ignore and gloss over them, as when asked about the Time War. “It was a bad day, bad stuff happened.” This is a boy talking.

That’s why when Moffat decided to continue to include romance and love in the Doctor’s adventures, it had to be romance and love from a boy’s point of view. And as boys see it, these days, the girls call the shots when it comes to love. Amy Pond calls the Doctor and Rory “her boys”, River Song calls him “sweetie.” River can fly the Tardis better, she gets to carry guns, she’s more assertive about everything, and she knows what’s going to happen. Amy forces the Doctor to focus on what she considers relevant, she’s the one who frames the problem of an episode for the Doctor to solve it. When Rory reminds her that the Doctor is a “Time Lord”, she retorts “It’s just what they’re called. It doesn’t mean he actually knows what he’s doing.” In this regard, the Doctor is just Rory writ alien, dependent on Amy and River to point him in the right direction and say “Go, fix.” The scenes where the Doctor and Rory are alone together, talking about Amy, are unusually poignant for scenes between two men in a science-fiction show, or any show, and it’s because they are talking to themselves.

As an aside, anyone who’s seen Coupling could have expected this when Stephen Moffat took over the show. Coupling is a general hymn to a world where women have all the authority that matters, and men fight a desperate rearguard action to preserve their boyish hobbies, like video games and pornography and fantasizing about celebrities. What else could such a man do with a show built around a strong male lead than invent a stronger female lead, better yet, TWO of them, and then write the strong male lead as much like a precocious child as possible?

Anyone who doubts that this is what Moffat did, and it didn’t fail or anything, it was fun and displayed Matt Smith’s talents for playfulness very well, should rewatch “The Doctor’s Wife”. In this episode, we find out that the Tardis is sentient, that it’s a woman, that it knows a helluva lot more about the future than the Doctor does, and that it’s the only thing that’s been keeping him alive all these years. Neil Gaiman has Amy say “A boy and his box, off to see the universe.” The Doctor replies, “It’s the best thing there is.”

Now what? The show added trauma and recovery under the Ninth, joy and romance under the Tenth, boyish and sentimental zaniness under the Eleventh. What do we need from the new production, where can we continue to extend the Doctor’s authority and that vision of the Doctor as the best humanity can offer?

My answer is not a new character trait, but a shift in perspective. What we need is for the Doctor to take the initiative. The Doctor needs to stop letting the bad guys play white, waiting for them to lay schemes and ploys, so that he can disrupt them at the eleventh hour and restore the status quo. In a word, the Doctor needs a goal. Not just for him/herself or a companion, but for reality. It doesn’t need to appear in every episode, the Doctor can still be a traveling medicine show, but he needs to move towards improving the universe, rather than just seeing and defending it. So my suggestion for the production team is, whoever you cast and whatever they look like, let the Doctor go on the offensive.

Lessons from WIATI

by Phoolproof

A key lesson from the Wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Terror Itself, (May we rip her dull claws straight from the collective amygdala, never to return to our realm!), is that it is even easier to control the public narrative in the age of the Internet then it was in the age of print (WWI), radio (WWII), or television (Vietnam). The clumsy techniques of print forgery and newspaper censorship and propaganda that were used by Wilson's Committee on Public Information have been entirely superseded by simple omission, the refusal to discuss unwanted elements, and by outsourcing the job of propagation, rumor and antagonism onto private parties online. These private parties have two goals. The first is to preserve the freedom of the virtual to criticize the real, endlessly and without regard for any limits. The second, and of far greater consequence, is to preserve the virtual from any serious responsibility for the real. To this end, they will assume all manner of trivial responsibilities (Kickstarter, Etsy, online petitions to get old TV shows re-broadcast, etc.) in the interest of avoiding physical action. A good example is the online fundraising drives to compensate the man in whose boat was found one of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers. The appearance of responsible behavior, without the weight. The virtual seeks levity.

Another lesson from WIATI is how the US public forum has thoroughly entangled issues of principle with issues of efficacy and expediency. Good examples of this abound, but the first that springs to mind is the use of targeted cruise missiles over gravity bombing. This has been portrayed in the media as both an example of principled warmaking, a conscious attempt to minimize civilian casualties, and as more effective warmaking, "only breaking as much as we need to break." The documentary Control Room, which focuses on the Al-Jazeera newsroom in the first quarter of 2003, features a Marine PR officer contrasting the US's bombing campaign to liberate Iraq with the far more destructive aerial bombing that took place in WWII. The same case was made to me by a veteran non-com back in 2006, and he expressed surprise that Americans continued to foot the much larger bill for targeted ordnance. (I think he said that a cruise missile was 40 times the equivalent untargeted ordnance in cost, although I’m sure that figure is misleading, since it doesn’t allow for the costs of the plane and the training and so forth. The economic analysis of destruction is a piece of our WWII heritage that seems likely to thrive.)

The question here isn't whether targeted ordnance is more principled, more effective, or both. Here it is simply a superior example of how contemporary discussions of WIATI have any side of any issue tacking back and forth between principle and efficacy, using either as the base for offense or defense whenever it seems attractive. The internal consistency of cause which Aquinas and Augustine insisted on as the basis of just war is no longer seen as a desired end. What is now desired is an optimum outcome, in any given circumstance. Not as simple as “the ends justify the means”, the guiding maxim is “Don’t admit to any ends until they occur. Maintain the means and ignore both start and finish.” This is why there has been no strong effort to place WIATI in a larger context of the country’s founding principles or its future desiderata. It would set boundaries on an unbounded war.

Another lesson from the WIATI is how completely the US may ignore the policymakers of Europe in defense policy, let alone the wishes of its people. Having underwritten the last 65 years of European economic growth by subsidizing its defense needs at the expense of our domestic development, a subsidy that continues to this day, we can rightly dismiss their anti-American contingent as the whingeing of dependency, and their pro-American contingent as suckups and kissasses. The first is exemplified by France and some of Italy, the second by Poland, Britain and the industrial areas of Germany. This unimportant spectrum of opinion lets Europe think it matters, and that is all to the good, since fictional outlets for impotence have been shown to work as well as real ones.

Another lesson from WIATI is that popular assemblies, whether in streets or halls, are less effective than ever before as an expression of civic will. Whether pro or anti or nuanced, all public assemblies from this era have served purely as fodder for televisual media, whose bias towards sensation in the short term have served not only to negate political effect, but to taint the entire idea of direct civic action with the idea that its participants are simply obsessives of one sort or another. The response from that section of the nation to whom this is their introduction to the nation's shared life has been overwhelmingly in favor of indifference, irony and the weary sigh of "Can't someone else do it?" The long term effects suggest that the next wars for the US will be ever more expensive, since citizens will have to be motivated purely by self-interest to engage in them, but much less cantankerous, since people will not have the energy to spare for contention, nor the will to sort competing truth claims for a conflict they expect to be over almost before it starts.

Another lesson from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is how effectively a nation can shift blame for its actions onto a single person. "Bush lied" should provide good cover for the consequences of the wars for generations. For those who pride themselves on a thoughtful and in-depth look at the issues surrounding the wars, you may add "Rumsfeld screwed up the execution." If you are teaching foreign policy at the undergrad level, feel free to go with "National economic interests intersected with the desire to overthrow a tyrant." If at the grad level, revert to "Bush lied."

Another lesson from WIATI is how self-importance and two-facedness have become the dominant attitudes of US professional organizations towards their government and especially their military. Groups like the AMA, the NYRB, academics and nonprofits and religious groups of every kind, have publicly and hollowly condemned varied aspects of WIATI since its inception, despite their opinion not being solicited nor their charter demanding such condemnations. The hollowness is the vital element to be noted in this trend. Even a few decades ago, no President could have brought about a war to which so much of the country's varied authorities were at least nominally opposed. WIATI has shown the essential freedom of action of the Pentagon, and the US President as its head, unbound by any foreign or domestic agency, as President Bush's handling of the funding for the Iraq war through Congress displayed. Anti-war opposition in the US now appears much as it has been in Europe for decades, as a social class marker of "sensitivity" and "historically conscious" and all the other glad stories. There does not appear to be any place left in the US where opposition to war, as a matter of principle, can command any social acceptance at all.

Another lesson from WIATI is how the fundamental rule of US domestic spending, "Put the money where people can see it", is easily applied to security issues. Police sedans, helicopters, security checkpoints and the like stand out from the visual chaos of a modern city, at least partly for their novelty. This suggests that as citizens get used to their presence, ever more exotic and expensive “security elements” will be purchased with public dollars to maintain the picture of collective security through a powerful state.

Another lesson from WIATI is how thoroughly the US public has accepted the idea that criminals are essentially inhuman beings, to whom any treatment is acceptable and limited only by practical necessity and funding. The shock over the Abu Ghraib photos and the testimony of former Gitmo detainees was solely grounded in the exposure to non-US citizens of the normal conditions of US prisons. It was the shock born out of shame. The juxtaposition of US military uniforms, normally presented only in the context of blameless praise, or at least respect for force, with the cruelty of US correctional procedures was glaring enough to provoke a public whitewash of the former and a further burying of the latter.

Another lesson from WIATI is how a large segment of the US public is repelled and disgusted by stories of heroism and sacrifice. The repulsion and disgust is increased tenfold if those stories are of real events and if they involve people they consider their inferiors or peers. The problem for this segment of the public is that their automatic response to any achievement is to denigrate the achievement, point out hypocrisy, or in some other way suggest that the achievement was not worth the time and calories. Since pointing out hypocrisy and exposing false achievements is, in theory, a worthwhile endeavor, this response passes for "critical assessment" or "not just believing whatever you hear".

This attitude, however, has become the uncritical rejection of all achievement, all sacrifice, all heroism, as untenable and impossible. A flat undistinguished world of various kinds of obsessives who take no joy or pride in their obsessions, this is the endgame for this attitude, exemplified by a great deal of US television and Web media. In this world, the standing examples of heroism and self-sacrifice which appear in wartime are anathema. To believe that there are things worth killing for, worth dying for, is a primal sin to this attitude, and much of the shallow anti-war rants and musings should be seen as really saying "How dare you suggest that there's anything better out there?"

A New Declaration of Independence
by Flipside

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to reestablish the freedoms which have connected them with their Liberty loving heritage and to reclaim from usurping Oligarchs the powers of natural and self-assured human beings, the right to self-defense, and even the use of basic Promethean skills, a hearty  disrespect for hubris and a heartier camaraderie in Liberty require that they should declare, as did their forebears, the reason for which they withdraw their allegiance from a Government that is nothing more than an agent of corruption.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men have an innate sense of their own authority, that they are born with, or quickly discover certain unalienable Rights, their own internal directives, for which they would strive and suffer no deprivation or infringement on penalty of death, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, which may include but are are not limited to their minima: Survival, Escape, and Remittance. — That to secure these rights, inherently temporary Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just and limited powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes permanent, institutional, and finally overrun by scoundrels and thereby destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect or restore their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. They are even more disposed to place their brethren in harm's way to avoid suffering, enrich themselves and prolong the inevitable. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce enough of them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide or become new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present corporate Shadow Government of America is a history of piecemeal infringements and cleverly exploited or manufactured crises, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:

It has refused its Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good, while also construing those laws in a manner intended to squelch the Liberty of those who enacted said laws and their limits in good faith.

It has forbidden its Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless emasculated in their efficacy, taking effect only when those elected officials responsible have left office and cashed out, and always with a design to embezzle and redirect the rights and property of the Citizens into the private stock of Oligarchs.

It has subjected large districts of people to the false choice of relinquishing their property, their funds, their privacy and their freedom of movement in exchange for use of the Common or the Common right of way. It has steadily suspended or eliminated the rights of the Citizen under Common Law, rights inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

It has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, on foreign soil, at strange hours, out of session, with the absence of a quorum, contemptuous of the Rules of Order, distant from the depository of their Public Records, or simply in secret, for the sole purpose of passing wholly rejected and baneful legislation or gutting key elements of the Bill of Rights under cover of darkness.

It has suspended or circumvented the Constitution repeatedly and awarded itself indefinite emergency powers to suppress the Citizenry for opposing with manly firmness its invasions on the rights of the people, under the guise of providing security.

It has refused for a long time, after such circumventions, to revoke the system of override, whereupon the Legislative Powers might once again be elected and removed by election by the People at large; the State remaining in the meantime in a state of siege by its supposed Guardians, its Citizens exposed to all the same dangers of invasion from within as purported to originate from without.

It has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States from flourishing; for that purpose abusing the Commerce Clause, obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, setting up internal checkpoints and blockades, tracking the movements of every Citizen, obstructing Citizens traveling between, or abroad from the States, raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands, and severely restricting land use. In most cases, transfer of property, or even of Citizens is cause for their complete burgling by the Oligarchs under the color of law.

It has obstructed the Administration of Justice by appointing politically biased Justices to the Supreme Court, and by subserviating the Supreme Law of the Land to international banking and private trade treaties.

It has made Judges dependent on its Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and thereby made the Constitution the pliable rubber of oligarchical interests instead of the bedrock and columns of a limited but necessary shelter of the interests of the People.

It has erected a multitude of New Offices and surveillance devices on our dime and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, grope our children, confiscate our goods, control our diets, restrict our movements, steal our commonwealth, squander our gross domestic product, beat down our doors, peer into our windows, open our mail, humiliate our dignity, pry into our social relationships, dictate our thoughts, punish our innate sense of authority, nullify our sense of gain, dash our hopes, and eat out our substance.

It has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies or their Automatons and unmanned drones with merely the Consent of a bribed legislature. It has legalized torture, opened a gulag in Cuba, erected concentration camps, privatized the prison system, suspended Posse Comitatus and paramilitarized the police force, trained it overseas, merged it with the standing army, granted itself an unregulated global militia and deprived the people of the inalienable right to form and have ONLY a well-regulated militia. It has stocked up on ammunition while moving to deprive its Citizens, (now Subjects) of the same.

It has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. It has gone so far as to restructure the national military, without public input or approval, into a transnational Command of the Northern Hemisphere and a Cybercommand. It has duplicated many of the offices of state and moved them from a City on a Hill to a Kingdom under a Hill, and a Panopticon of the Sky.

It has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For Simony of the national resources, national debt and national gold supply.

For disarming the public.

For training our domestic Police force in Jerusalem.

For allowing Mexico to police US highways and weigh stations.

For allowing Dubai to control US ports.

For training the Russian Army on American soil for domestic repression and riot control.

For spying on the American Public via Canada, Israel, and England.

For protecting them, or their Ambassadors and spies by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders or black marketing which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For subjecting the United States and its Citizens to an international prosperity scheme of economic bandwidth restriction or exchange rate mechanism constraint, forcing the country into a depression.

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For destroying the stock exchange:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent, even secretly:

For banning or restricting plants and farming, organic chemistry, and electronic or automotive engineering for non-oligarchs.

For moving to a permanent and undeclared war footing:

For circumventing Congress by writ:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried, tortured, or executed for pretended offences:

For training terrorists for shipment abroad while accusing American Citizens at large of being the same.

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a many Provinces, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into every corner of the United States and also the world.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments from a Representative Republic to a non-Representative Oligarchical Collectivist or Corporatist Technocracy.

For erasing the Constitution by encroachments and emergency expediencies in the domains of schools, airports, roadways, borders and other points of necessary contact.

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever, or doing so under the guise of safeguarding State Secrets, or protecting the Public from terrorists.

It has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of budget, bankrupt, over a cliff, beyond some imaginary pale, just outside "the Homeland" under FEMA Protection, Maritime Law, in a "no fly zone," "management area," or "insurgency area" and waging War against us.

It has plundered and polluted our seas, degraded our food supplies, ravaged and also privatized our coasts, burnt, neglected, boondoggled, or otherwise wasted our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. It has then become fearful of rightful retribution and enacted various emergency codes to protect its own continuity from interruption by a visibly overtaxed and unrepresented and also severely disgusted Citizenry.

It is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head or even of a Hydra Heads of a civilized nation.

It has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the informants against, or executioners of their friends and Brethren, to fall themselves by their Hands, or simply to serve as public spectacle and fuel for the further curtailment of Civil and Human rights by the State.

It has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our cities, the specter of real and imagined terrorists: kamikaze planes, anthrax, depleted uranium, and other methods of shadowy mercenaries whose claimed rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Freedom of Information, and also Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury, such as being blasted with sonic weapons, shot in the head with chemical gas canisters, strafed with heat rays, cast into nets and electrocuted. A Prince or cabal, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant or a Council of Tyrants, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our American

Transnationalist brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their opaque and seedy corporate and intelligence legislatures to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here, and the golden freedoms we established which enabled them immoderately and feverishly to gorge and overextend themselves. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity, preferring instead to issue titles of nobility to themselves and bills of attainder to us. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to Human Judgment for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of this formerly bright and free, now oligarchically retrograded Tax Farm, solemnly publish and declare, That these Federal Emergency Management Areas are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States again, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the World Bank, Northcom, the NSA and Fusion Centers, FEMA, the TSA, Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Federal Reserve, the two Party Duopoly, and that all political connection or similarity between them and the State of Great Britain, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, USSR, the KGB, the CIA, the Mossad, the MI6, ASIS, or the Stasi, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States and Citizens, they have full Power to levy or oppose War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States or People may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Human Ingenuity, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Who protects us from you? Combatting Joe Biden's anti-gun patronage

by Flipside

Vice president Biden appointed Thomas Nee, now President of the National Association of Police Organizations to his anti-gun task force, but Thomas Nee is exactly the kind of guy who would defend the stormtroopers who kick down your door and kill you in the act of arresting you for whatever they find/plant in your underwear drawer. You know, the guys the 2nd Amendment is here for so we can shoot them in self-defense after we shrug off the first concussion grenade?

Here is Thomas Nee's Track Record, compiled by a Bostonian, Robert Goodwin, aka Flipside:

10/16/1998: **WHAT ME WORRY?**

Thomas Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmens' Association, has promised to cooperate if investigators decide to dig up the basement of the city policemens' union building to look for the body of a mobster's girlfriend. BPD Attorney Mary Jo Harris promises taxpayers will reimburse them for it.



"[Pax Centurion] column by BPPA president Thomas Nee, in which he praises Mayor Tom Menino and Police Commissioner Paul Evans for not enforcing the residency requirement. Nee uses the occasion to blast Boston Herald reporter Maggie Mulvihill -- who recently exposed the residency violations"



"Boston Police Patrolmen's Association yesterday called for Commissioner Paul F. Evans to resign, saying his planned restrictions on the use of deadly force - outlined after the fourth fatal police shooting this year - are ''deadly and irresponsible'' and could lead to ''officers killed in the line of duty.'' In a statement posted on its website, the union said Evans is ''unfit to lead this department'' because he wants to ban officers from shooting at moving vehicles. Evans announced the changes on Monday, a day after an officer shooting at a fleeing car killed a 25-year-old Dorchester woman who was riding in the back seat. Despite their turbulent, often bitter relationship, the statement is the first time the union has asked Evans to step down since he became commissioner in 1994. BPPA president Thomas Nee could not be reached for additional comment last night."



“Thomas J. Nee, president of the patrolmen's association, said that after months and months of the city [e.g. MUMBLES] not scheduling bargaining sessions, the union is not comfortable with handing over its right to negotiations to an arbitrator.” [As he tried to snarl construction before the Democratic National Convention]




After the Victoria Snelgrove pepperball in the eye killing, Thomas Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmens' Association, had no comment Tuesday night on the announcement of the independent panel including former US Attorney Donald Stern (The Winter Hill Gang / Whitey Bulger Investigator).



Thomas Nee said he was very disappointed by the way he said the MPD turned on his son, first congratulating him for coming forward and then charging him for having a role in the crime. Marcolini testified that Joe Nee never asked for immunity, money or any other incentive in exchange for his testimony. (for plotting a Columbine style attack in Marshfield). http://www.southshoreforums.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2714

12/__/2004: **THE LOST BOYS**

The big story on Joe Nee. The Nees are a fucked up family. Thomas Nee manufactured a Joe Nee.


06/25/2006: **I'M AS SHOCKED AS YOU ARE**

“ ‘This is not a good day for us’ moaned the acting police commissioner, understating the blackness around him. Union boss Thomas Nee, usually first with a testy quote, suddenly had lockjaw. Kathy O'Toole, the former boss, was smartest of all. She fled to a gig in Ireland more than three weeks ago.” (The disappointment was racketeering by three BPD).



"It was back in September that Joe Biden publicly thanked a prominent local figure for finally endorsing his ticket. ‘Tommy, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate it,’ the vice president-elect said. ‘I take this personally as well as practically. You know, you and I have been working together for 30 years.’ Before you start scratching your head, let me explain: Tommy is Thomas Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmens' Association. And he does go way back with the soon to be ex-senator from Delaware, who has long been a friend of police. Many believe Biden is about to come through for the cops again - and also for his buddy Tommy, who helped Obama-Biden win the backing of the 287,000-member National Association of Police Organizations."




"Mayor Thomas M. Menino has appointed nine people to a task force charged with reviewing the tax-exempt status and [SQUEEZING FOR MORE] contributions in lieu of taxes paid by medical and educational institutions in the city. The panel includes Boston University President Robert Brown, Wentworth Institute of Technology President Zorica Pantic, Partners Healthcare chief executive Thomas Glynn, and Patricia McGovern, a Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center vice president. It will also include City Councilor Stephen Murphy, police officers' union president Thomas Nee"



“It’s disconcerting,” said Thomas Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmens' Association. “Everything is being cut . . . the whole package is a nightmare.”



"Union officials cast aside the budget blueprint’s gloomy design. Boston Police Patrolmens' chief Thomas Nee said he isn’t convinced that such deep cuts would play out. ‘We continue to work with them on both a national and local level,’ Nee said. ‘And we’re sure at the end of this process there will be no legitimate reason to lay off a Boston police officer.’”



“The Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association is balking at Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s ultimatum that unions agree to forgo their contractual raises by March 15 or face layoffs. ‘It’s a fictitious deadline,’ said Thomas Nee, president of the union”



"Thomas Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, said he was stunned by the misuse of the system."[That's: misuse of the Massachusetts Police Department's state CORI database BY POLICE to look up details on celebrities and high profile citizens, such as where do they live, what do they buy, and do they own a gun?]



“‘[Restructuring the Civil Service Commission] sets the stage for Tammany Hall,’ said Thomas Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association (BPPA)



"Boston police union boss Thomas Nee called City Council President Mike Ross a ‘fraud’ today over his comments that police use of force captured in a YouTube video was ‘offensive.’ “



“ ‘We have no concern about the outcomes of this investigation,’ said BPPA president Thomas Nee. ‘That’s the training.’ [Investigation was of officer, Michael T. McManus punching a 16 year old boy while 7 other officers held him down during an arrest at RCC.A previous arrest by McManus and subsequent death of a 22 year old student led to a $3 million dollar civil rights payout by the state.]



"Thomas Nee, president of the Boston police union, warned that a push to place civilians instead of full-fledged officers at the front desks at some neighborhood police stations is putting police at risk."



CHECK: BPPA 9-11 Shetland St Boston, MA 02119 Thomas Nee $500.00 to Linehan Committee http://www.efs.cpf.state.ma.us/PrintFullReport.aspx?reportId=133175

12/19/2012: **PROFIT!!!**

Thomas Nee appointed by Joe Biden to Obama's National Gun Control Task Force so by depriving us of our rights, he can prevent another Marshfield, er.... Newtown.

Rebuttal to:
Embassy Protestors Use the Palestinian Playbook
by Bruce Thornton on 9/21/2012

by Flipside

While Mr. Thorton's argument seems formidable at first glance, it is really most heavily weighted at the forehead. It has intellectual trimmings, but it weaves sensible truths of the classics with some hopeful argumatics and then this is shakily overlaid upon the facts like a really nice couch cover over a broken and moldy couch.

We have to set aside immediately the phrase "the Obama administration’s foreign policy debacle unfolding in the Middle East," because while this looks like the case, it is really the couch cover on the fact that the Middle East has picked up pace in its impetus to federate since the collapse of the USSR. It is also the case that the Neocons want Egypt's revolution reversed, pan-Arabism squashed, and Barack Obama ousted from office and replaced with a more pro-Likud President. To this effect, Mr. Thorton is attempting to Carterize the President like one marbleizes a table.

The reference to Thucydides, while correctly used in and of itself, is strongest in the first sentence, still strong in the second sentence, begins to become a myth in the third sentence, an argument from silence in fourth sentence, and in the fifth sentence, merely a semantic argument. The fifth sentence deserves to be addressed anyway. It posits that it is impossible to "occupy" disputed territory, specifically, territory that is not a state.  This falls flat because, at an even simpler level, all battles are over territory. People take up positions on said territory and other people try to repel them. Statehood is not essential to the process of invading and occupying or repulsion, only occupiers and opposition are needed in the form of actual bodies and fortifications and siege engines. Those are present in the territory that Mr. Thornton meta-disputes.

Mr. Thornton's semiotic deconstruction of the occupied territory, Palestinians, and statehood are well constructed apologetics, but still apologetics and they hearken back to the Fanon and Adorno-thick academic treatises of the mid-1990s where a defeated -ism was still trying to wage war through the college book press. He can't resist. He even says Fanon at the end of the article. Setting this style over substance aside, and to paraphrase Jean Baudrillard, we cannot let the simulacrum of Mr. Thornton's argumatics precess relative to the actual disputed territory. OR, we must view Israeli and Palestinian desires to occupy the same land as competing simulacra. If they are competing simulacra, then Israeli claims to historicity must be discarded as well. Claims to historicity must be discarded for both Israelis and for Palestinians on the basis that two competing teams of live bodies are fighting to install two competing kitsch ethnic decors and two competing rationales for living on the same territory while depriving the others of it. This also demolishes Mr. Thornton's second paragraph.

It may be true that nationalism is a concept alien to Islam. However, Mr. Thornton equates Islam with Arabs and tries to evade the idea that there have been separate blocs or Kingdoms or principalities in the Arab world, or that states have existed in the footprint of the former Ottoman Empire. The man denies a lot. We cannot proceed from the axiom that nationalism is alien to Islam to the statement "Arabs cannot form nations."  Thus we can also never get to the statement "Arabs shalt not federate" which is Mr. Thornton's destination statement. We must observe that in the real world, not merely the world of good academic arguments, Palestinians have now made repeated attempts to form a state, and the closer they get to actually declaring a state, and the closer they get to having actual elections, the more angry, the more vehement, and the more psychotically the Israelis protest, resembling the Zealots from the fall of Jerusalem. This was also true of Egypt, for which pro-Israeli Hasbara spin doctors are trying to make quite a bigger spectacle of the Islamic spectacle and use it to depose the US President and issue apocalypses for US-as-Rome. In actual recent history, we have been reading the outrage by Israelis at the fall of Mubarak, and the anger of writers like Caroline Glick that Obama has neither turned back the clock nor attacked Iran as payment for Jewish votes. Mr. Thornton then pops back over to the "there is no such thing as Palestinians argument" though by now, we have all either seen them or seen a reasonable enough facsimile of them to believe that they have a right to live in their own houses.  Mr. Thornton just wants to delete them.

As Israel tries to physically delete the Palestinians, Mr. Thornton wants us to delete them historically, delete the idea of Arab nations as such, delete the known fact that the Nakoula video did have a profound role in the recent embassy protests, delete Muslim desire for influence over US foreign policy (but retain Israeli desires for the same), delete the recent apologies to foreign countries, delete the First Amendment and overwrite it with some strange amendment protecting identity thieves and their anonymous speech, and lastly, delete one side of the fact that both Palestinians and Israelis are trying to write themselves to the same sector of the world's hard drive. He does this with the fervor of Muslims embracing Allah and smashing the statues of Al-Lat.

After paying lip service to the First Amendment, Mr. Thornton goes on, wishing to delete also the words "imperialism" and "colonialism" from the lexicon. Ironically, he makes the appeal to complexity by again resorting to the competing simulacra of Palestinian semiotics and Israeli semiotics. In so doing, he reduces the verbal expression of both sides back down to stones and spears that these knuckleheads are trying to wrest away from one another. This leads to the quite different axiom "These people will fight over anything" and inadvertently makes a strong argument for peace imposed by a third party, e.g. Carterism.

Mr. Thornton's review of the denouement of colonialism overlooks the period of Israeli terrorism against the British and leaves the "retreat of the West" hanging on no causal hook. He then goes back to the trope (which I taught him, but he attributes to Robert Conquest because he is older and dustier) of banishing the stultifying, apodictic words. This is the third example, the first being Thucydides, the second being the First Amendment, of Mr. Thornton using a classic as a frieze upon which to hang his rococco embellishments and Randianisms. This art style is dated to the late Ayn Rand Institute, 1990s Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook style of Hellenized Zionism. It is of note that his article is purely aesthetic in nature and that this aesthetic serves only one side of the simulacrum.
Rebuttal to:
Reflections of a Diaspora Jew on Zionism, America and the Fate of the Jews
by David Horowitz on 9/7/2012

by Flipside

David Horowitz's article is erudite but incorrect and rife with exaggeration.

For one thing Jews are not "the oldest surviving indigenous people in the world." Australian Aborigines with a history of 50,000 - 100,000 years to the present are. The "indigenous people" argument is merely a knockoff jacket, a trope, and a catgut heartstring. It is one of many.

Mr. Horowitz is now pulling from The Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary. He calls the Palestinians "occupiers," calls their aims a "judenrein" Palestine, as opposed to Israel's goal of a muslimrein West Bank and a concentration camp in Gaza. He says "No other country in the world is expected to suffer such genocidal assaults" while in fact, they are not expected or tolerated to inflict them either. He says Israel must secure "borders that are defensible," when the old ones clearly were not only defensible but scalable as Israel steamrolled and bulldozed well past them, mainly through preemptive strikes. This quest for border "security" resembles the security goals of the USSR which might have felt "safe" once it annexed France, but probably not. The palpable and comic weakness here though is academic. That the pro-Israel orators need to synchronize their propaganda around a common, centrally published lexicon and prior restrained wordbase hearkens back to Marxism and Geoff Waite.

It seems odd to call Theodore Herzl's willed dream a Fairy Tale and then turn around and say that only half of it has come true. That is a slap in the face to Sun Ra, Jim Henson, John Lennon, Mel Stuart, Neil Armstrong and anyone who did anything imaginative and bold. It is also odd to say that globalism or Fabianism are denuded religions or "modern faiths," but Zionism is not, when Zionism at its best pragmatized and utilitarianized the better elements of Jewish identity, and at its worst, namely in the past 20 years, has reabsorbed the apocalyptic and pariah visions of Millennialists, Branch Davidians, neo-Confederates, Fascists and Evangelicals. "Muscular" Judaism is not to be distinguished from Hondas with Iron Crosses for hubcaps. We are witnessing the Caterpillar with the Iron Magen David hubcaps. As Ayn Rand might note, we are witnessing a return to bone-in-the-nose Dionysian tribalism rather than Apollonian innovation, paeans to the Technion notwithstanding. It devolves into a beauty contest with the Netanyahus and the Gellers trying to prove themselves less oonga boonga than the Abbases. That is the one peculiar contradiction, the other is Mr. Horowitz's wistful rejection of Cervantes but insistence that the world still tilt at the Muslim windmill. Cantar de Mio Cid reduced to Man of La Mancha, and then decayed further into 9-11 The Movie, the Diane Eskenazi animated version. It wants to be a fable with a moral, but isn't.

Isaac Deutscher's allegory about the falling man is compelling, but in real life the falling man and the landed-on man did choose the path of irrationality, and then the falling man, after having broken the arms and legs of the landed-on man, decided also that he was famished after his fall and ate the fallen-on man's liver, kidneys and spleen consoling himself with the fact that the guy hated him anyway. Now there is a campaign to find everyone just like him and eat their liver, kidneys, and spleen as well, while wailing all the while how much the diner's organs hurt. Sympathy for Grendel.

Mr. Horowitz indulges in aporia when he rhetorically laments the tragic failure of Israel to be embraced upon achieving Bizarro Nationalism. Wherefore the failure to embrace this bright new star among nations? No answer given. True to the genre of Hasbara apologetics, or just-so-stories, and strikingly true to the Jewish religious narrative as such, we are left to fill in the blank that it must be jealousy, unchosenness, or Schlemazel's Outrage. It is like a person with an irritable bowel wondering aloud why all these people accuse his kind of the "blood libel" of being flatulent. Perhaps they just live downwind.

I recall the Cold War, and I recall when Mr. Horowitz's description in paragraphs 23 and 24 of how Muslim hatred is not only worldwide but embedded in the very religion they espouse, used to be the indictment of Christianity. The argument went, "they believe in their very texts that Jews killed Christ, and that salvation will only come when the world is destroyed and Jesus comes back to establish Heaven on Earth in New Jerusalem." Not but 30 years ago, Christianity, specifically Christian Zionism was the proclaimed eternal persecutor of Israel, with Abe Foxman still fighting it and "Catholic Traditionalism" or Pre-Vatican II Catholicism just six years ago. Now all of this nonsense has been brushed aside and these kooky lost-found tribalists have been adopted, along with the Luton soccer hooligans into Zionism and into neo-Templarism. It is instructive that that has happened as it is instructive that folks like Daniel Pipes and William Kristol are fighting much, much smaller bugbears than their fathers were, and doing so with the same sense of giant panic and self-import. I personally feel the diminishing marginal utility of the cry of "anti-Americanism" and "anti-semitism" and it dulls me to inertia, then pushes me even further into wanting to suck the life out of it and embrace all of the post-Zionists. Begone, Liferaft Israel. The better among all of us are excellent swimmers, and the water is only three feet deep anyway.

Mr. Horowitz still holds fast to 9/11 as Maoist Year Zero, the Cultural Revolution that upholds the Fortress State for America as if it were merely a larger Israel. Not only fortress, but forfeiture. Palestinians must forfeit Palestine, the Muslim Student Union must forfeit the same organizational rights as the Jewish Student Union, American students must forfeit seating in their own auditoriums and full page editorials in their own student papers as well as forfeit their anger at being outspent and outbillboarded by Hasbara. Apparently, even Hillel House must forfeit the prerogative to deny Mr. Horowitz a breastplate. Again, it is instructive that Hillel finds Mr. Horowitz a nuisance and embarrassment. I admit that this endeared me to Hillel, also because they push genuine Judaism, not fast food nationalism.

It was President Kennedy who said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Mr. Horowitz seems to want to make violent revolution inevitable by going out of his way to oppose peaceful revolution in the Muslim world. The controlled demolition of Cold War era dictatorships is in fact helping the Muslim Brotherhood. So does an oxygenated Earth. The MB is the world's largest islamic movement. One would think that a large movement like that will just have to burn itself out, and that for the most part, attacking American college campuses, and stalking a tiny minority of Lebanese and Khwarazmian men in Congress is not going put a serious dent in the MB. Certainly Americans should not tolerate racist bus ads, Likud partisan Presidential litmus tests, checkpoints, and groping as part of the theater of fighting the Brown Menace of invisible Islamic space ninjas. We should always reduce this specter to its real size and refuse to give up our Americanness in the face of hysteria. We should also allow world dictatorships to collapse and not try to turn back the clock simply because losers get elected in their place. Mr. Horowitz chooses writers like Caroline Glick whose hands are white-knuckled on the second hand of the broken doomsday clock. It is perverse. It is alien to an American mind that we are consistently on the knife's edge of apocalypse. This was a bane in the 1950's and it is a bane now. If Herzl's dream was an impossible one, then the Founding Fathers' dream was impossible too. Do we also believe that?

The rest of Mr. Horowitz's article is a witch hunt. He says that he is comfortable being a Diaspora Jew, but I channel A.B. Yehoshua when I say that I think he is simply playing at being Jewish and changing his jacket a lot, that his comfort comes from ghettoizing America into feeling like it has to resist and insurrect against what is really a much tinier and half-imagined enemy modeled upon discredited stereotypes of Jewishness.


            Flipside is a rap musician and political activist from Boston, MA,
               former publisher of Haters' Magazine and opinionist under the name
               Schlomotion, Maturin20, Contextflexed, and Flipside. He has also
               published this book:

                             Check It Out