Saturday, December 03, 2005

DCR/MDC denies taking away their food “harms” the Charles River White Geese.


After several years of inhuman treatment of the Charles River White Geese indirectly and directly, Thursday night, the key “planner” for the DCR/MDC went before a neighborhood group in Cambridgeport to present their “plans” for Magazine Beach.

One of the most telling published reports on the reprehensible situation on the Charles River was a photo printed by the Boston Sunday Globe in September 2004, featuring

1. The very hungry Charles River White Geese barred from their 25 year feeding ground at Magazine Beach.

2. Kind people feeding them.

3. A monstrous earthmoving machine in the background in the process of destroying their feeding grounds at Magazine Beach.

4. A wall barring the Charles River White Geese from their feeding ground.

Next to the photo, this DCR/MDC representative was quoted saying he had no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese.

Thursday night, he expanded on his definition of “harm.” In his secret definition of “harm,” starving them is not harming them.

The lies got thicker.

Since September 2004, the Charles River White Geese have been walled off from their habitat of 25 years by Cambridge and the MDC/DCR.

The walls have been massive and indisputable, both in the eastern and western end of the habitat.

All you have to do is look at those walls and understand their impact on access from the river.

There is nothing complicated. There is nothing confusing.

This reprehensible hypocrite had the nerve to say he and his fellows in Cambridge are not denying the Charles River White Geese their food.



Since Cambridge, the MDC/DCR and their friends started their heartless attacks on the Charles River White Geese, the level of variety in the falsehoods they have put out has been striking.

The falsehoods have varied from

1. Outright lies to

2. Undisclosed “redefinitions” of key terms such that use of those redefined terms without the undisclosed secret meanings can only honestly be called lying.

3. Loud proclamations of environmental sanctity on matters which have nothing to do with the areas where only they control.

4. A claim of a search for some sort of superanimal which does not defecate.

5. Lovely promises of a great new world on the Charles River which are belied by their true record.

6. Loud claims of environmental sanctity based on some sort of overall plan

a. While shouting down opponents to their destructiveness who have the nerve to place particular examples of destruction in the context of their overall destruction.

b. While failing to communicate the fact that the “planners” have such contempt for the natural environment that they are unfit for their positions, let alone for planning in environmentally sensitive areas.

7. Creation of fake cheerleading groups which are dominated by environmentally destructive entities and which run around praising environmental destruction as environmental sainthood.

8. Refusal to discuss the context of any particular change with regard to the overall plan.

And I could go on and on.

This unending pattern of lies has been the biggest problem in standing up to these reprehensible entities.