Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Karen Parker.
2. Your Editor. Not just this one problem.
a. General.
b. Tree Destroyer who wants to destroy Canadas.
(1) His achievement. Destruction of excellent trees.
(2) "Replacements" loudly promised. Casually destroyed.
(3) Wife on board of reprehensible Charles River conservancy.
(4) "Fight" for Swimming in the Charles River.
(5) Destroy the Canadas.
(6) Possibly a few isolated events.
c. Summary.
1. Karen Parker.
Now the pitbulls are invading our state right? You heard about that on the news I guess, some people want to be able to question to ban pitbulls, my brother's girlfriend has a pitbull that is the sweetest dog in the world. Our old dog Bobbie was part pitbull.
My mother and I joked we will have to hide my brother's girlfriends dog Skippy in the attic, just like they did to the Jews, that is awful, these people are sick. How obnoxious can people get.
Pitbulls attack because bad people train them to be aggressive, its not the dog. Obviously the people that are behind this are not too bright.
Pitbulls are wonderful pitbulls that attack are victims of violence and they are not bad, they are victims of abuse by human beings. We should put the people in jail that abuse these animals, not ban the pitbulls.
2. Your Editor. Not just this one problem.
a. General.
It not just the people who abuse pit bulls who are part of the problem.
The problem is the destructive people running around trying to destroy whatever they can that is living and is non-human.
I was at the public hearing on pit bulls (and other animal regulations) at the state house. The opponents of the bills clearly communicated the problem.
b. Tree Destroyer who wants to destroy Canadas.
What interested me was a person who sat down next to me on the subway either then or on a following day.
(1) His achievement. Destruction of excellent trees.
He achieved destruction of a park containing truly massive trees in Cambridge (after I got an preliminary injunction under nearly impossible circumstances). The trees which he did not destroy are an example of just how irresponsible this person and his buddies are.
(2) "Replacements" loudly promised. Casually destroyed.
When the Cambridge pols destroyed these ancient, irreplaceable trees, the destroyers promised a large number of saplings half a block away.
Now the Cambridge pols have destroyed the saplings they provided as "replacements."
(3) Wife on board of reprehensible Charles River conservancy.
This individual bragged that his wife is on the board of the reprehensible Charles River Conservancy.
(4) "Fight" for Swimming in the Charles River.
The leader of the CRC was part of a group that conducted a "swim in" at Magazine Beach in 2005.
In September 2004, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge started starving the Charles River White Geese by walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River for this project. At pretty much exactly the same time, the City of Cambridge walled off the rest of their 25 year food across from the Hyatt Regency as Cambridge LEFT a sewerage project.
The DCR and Cambridge, at Magazine Beach, installed a wall of designer bushes blocking access to an from the Charles River, aggressively fighting to prevent swimming.
The "activist" was absolutely shocked that we should expect the Charles River Conservancy to HONESTLY state that a project is doing EXACTLY the opposite of what their photo opportunity says the project is doing.
(5) Destroy the Canadas.
When I mentioned the Charles River Conservancy's five year poisoning of every goose egg they can get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River, he gave the knee-jerk and inane responses.
First he came back with "we are not poisoning. We are oiling."
Then he spouted "Too many Canadas." The fact that these are water fowl being destroyed because they are living on a water way was totally irrelevant.
Then objected to the fact that animals defecate. English translation: kill each and every animal living anywhere near human beings.
(6) Possibly a few isolated events.
Now, it is entirely possible that these examples are a few, very isolated events. It is much more likely that these examples are not.
I honestly cannot say. But I would be silly to call him the opposite of his actions.
c. Summary.
This is part of a culture of destruction.
The people attacking pit bulls are part of the culture.
The City of Cambridge is part of the culture. So many state bureaucrats are part of the culture.
Most people are neutral. A very, very tiny number of people are aggressive destroyers.
When aggressive destroyers find neutral people, the destructive people who know what they want have a distressing tendency to bully their way into dominance, especially if you have two who get together and reinforce each other, falsely praising each other's "achievements."
Destroy, destroy, destroy.
What is the excuse this time?
