1. Chronicle Article on Representative Wolf.
2. Wolf's hypocritical press release.
3. Key omission in Wolf on line biography.
4. Environmental outrage starting with the School Committee, continuing to last year.
5. Summary.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Chronicle Article on Representative Wolf.
This morning, I noticed a good sized article in the Cambridge Chronicle's on line edition concerning State Representative Alice Wolf. It is perhaps a precursor to tomorrow's hard copy. They print weekly on Thursdays.
You will recall that, last Saturday, I responded to an on-line, reprehensible piece of hypocrisy from Wolf in which she claimed to be defending the Charles River.
Today's article included not a single word on Wolf's attempted claim to environmental sainthood.
2. Wolf's hypocritical press release.
I followed up by checking her website. She has a press release there which shows the level of hypocrisy to which she will stoop. It may be found at: http://www.alicewolf.org/index.cfm?cdid=10608&pid=10266. This press release gives her outrageous claim to environmental sainthood.
3. Key omission in Wolf on line biography.
I found this outrageous item there looking for Alice Wolf's biography. In particular, I was looking for Alice Wolf's period of service on the Cambridge School Committee.
I think it is telling that Alice Wolf's on line biography does not state when Representative Wolf joined the Cambridge School Committee.
4. Environmental outrage starting with the School Committee, continuing to last year.
Elsewhere on this blog, I thought we had a link to Roy Bercaw's photos of the Public Library site. Right now I cannot find it. After I could not find the link, Roy was kind enough to provide another. It is readily available. Thank you again, Roy.
The Public Library was an environmental masterpiece UNTIL THE CAMBRIDGE CITY GOVERNMENT WITH LEADERSHIP FROM THE CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL COMMITTEE destroyed that environmental masterpiece.
Between the Public Library and Cambridge Street was a magnificent grove of 30 or more ONE HUNDRED YEAR OLD TREES. It created an excellent frame for the Public Library and visually linked Broadway to Cambridge Street.
The Cambridge School Committee and the Cambridge City Government destroyed two-thirds of those trees for a building which did not have to go on top of those trees.
When the Cambridge School Committee and the Cambridge City Government accomplished this destruction they displayed contempt for the gift of the library site by Frederick Rindge.
Rindge gave the city the Public Library site for use as a library and not for use for regular city purposes "such as a school building." Rindge gave adjacent sites for school construction.
The School Committee and the Cambridge City Government bragged that they were "replacing" the HUNDRED YEAR OLD TREES with saplings on Broadway.
The Cambridge City Government destroyed pretty much all of the saplings for the obvious phase 2 of the project last year.
5. Summary.
So, was Alice Wolf, self-proclaimed and extremely hypocritical environmentalist part of yet another environmental outrage?
The repeated environmental vileness of Cambridge pols is most definitely not limited to the Library site and the Charles River. Wolf is a long time Cambridge pol.
Could the clearly reprehensible behavior on the library site be why Alice Wolf does not give the period during which she served on the Cambridge School Committee?
If it was before her tenure, does she have filthy hands anyway?
The Cambridge Pols, a well organized group of environmentally very destructive hypocrites.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Representative Wolf Saving the Charles River?
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Introduction. Claim of Wolf to be defending the Charles River.
2. Reconstruction of my Post. I strongly disagreed.
A. Wolf’s Current Record, Ongoing and Continuing Environmental Destruction at Magazine Beach.
B. Related outrage – poisoning the Charles River.
C. Suggestion for constructive action by Representative Wolf — Resign.
3. Explanation of terms. I used the word "lie." It is well intended.
A. Councilor’s Seidel’s Analysis.
B. Comparison of Wolf’s words to Wolf’s Record.
4. Summary. Possible favorable explanation of missing posting.
1. Introduction. Claim of Wolf to be defending the Charles River.
Saturday morning, January 12, 2008, I checked out the Cambridge Chronicle's website at the suggestion of Roy Bercaw. I found a report on an email from Alice Wolf to reporter Erin Smith in which Wolf was claiming that she was getting aggressive in defending the Charles. I filed a response to Representative Wolf. An hour or so later, I checked the Chronicle on line and I was able to find the exchange.
An hour or so after that, I checked it again. At that point, I could not find the exchange, and as of the end of the day, I still could now find the exchange. If anybody reading this report can find the exchange on the Cambridge Chronicle website, I would be very pleased to modify this report accordingly.
2. Reconstruction of my Post. I strongly disagreed.
A. Wolf’s Current Record, Ongoing and Continuing Environmental Destruction at Magazine Beach.
Wolf was claiming that she was getting aggressive in defending the Charles.
I responded that, if Representative Wolf were meaningfully concerned about people destroying the Charles River, she should look in the mirror.
Wolf clearly supports the pending project at Magazine Beach to destroy the GREEN playing fields there and replace the GREEN playing fields with phosphate / poison supported playing fields.
Wolf clearly supported Phase 1 of this outrage commencing in September 2004, in which all wetlands at Magazine Beach, all the protective vegetation at the Magazine Beach playing fields and all the animal habitat at the playing fields were destroyed. The Charles River White Geese commenced to be starved.
Wolf's friends in the Department of Conservation and Recreation had spent four years denying any intent to harm the Charles River White Geese. Wolf's friends say that they, with Wolf's clear blessing, are not harming the geese, they are only starving them.
Wolf's supports this heartless and destructive behavior.
Wolf rather clearly supported and may have participated in a swim-in the following September (not certain of the month) by a bunch of non-profits (at least one with major developer contributors). This swim-in occurred at Magazine Beach and was a well organized photo opportunity. The people in the photo-op bragged that phase 1 would improve swimming in the Charles River.
Phase 1 replaced meaningful environmental entities with a wall of bizarre designer bushes which prevents access between the Magazine Beach playing fields and the Charles River. As is common with the liars so actively destroying the Charles River, phase 1 did exactly the oppositte of "improv[ing] swimming on the Charles River."
These bizarre designer bushes were claimed to be native. These bizarre bushes proved the word "native" false by repeatedly dying.
B. Related outrage – poisoning the Charles River.
The soon to come furtherance of outrage at Magazine Beach by destroying its GREEN character and introducing poisons is not the first such action by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
The last such action was at Ebersol Fields on the Boston side of the Charles River near Mass. General Hospital.
The DCR apparently destroyed a GREEN environment and replaced that GREEN environment with an environment sustained by their beloved poisons. The beloved poisons did not work.
About 18 months ago, the DCR applied Tartan herbicide to Ebersol Fields. Tartan’s label prohibits use of Tartan near bodies of water.
THE NEXT DAY, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge. So now, the Cambridge pols, the DCR and Representative Wolf, want to extend the benefits of replacing GREEN environment maintenance with their beloved poisons at Magazine Beach.
So now, Representative Wolf, who supports this outrage, is making noises about looking into entities damaging the Charles River environment.
C. Suggestion for constructive action by Representative Wolf — Resign.
If Alice Wolf is meaningfully concerned about protective the environment of the Charles River, the best thing she can do is resign in favor of somebody who has not been involved in the environmental lies keyed on the Charles River.
3. Explanation of terms. I used the word "lie." It is well intended.
A. Councilor’s Seidel’s Analysis.
I think Councilor Siedel did the best job imaginable of condemning Cambridge Pols as a bunch of liars on environmental matters in the article he published in the Alewife newspaper which is published elsewhere in these reports. There is a link at the top of the blog page. The URL is http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
Siedel, in the Cambridge pol manner, bragged about using words which conveyed the opposite of reality.
Basically Siedel brags that the Cambridge pols have their own SECRET definition of environmentalism. Seidel sniffs that this editor is out of touch when this editor keeps on using the English language definition of environmentalism.
My interpretation of Siedel is that he is accurately branding the Cambridge Pols as a bunch of liars. You do not use secret definitions which exactly reverse the meaning of the words you are using and be anything other than a liar.
B. Comparison of Wolf’s words to Wolf’s Record.
Wolf has been and continues to be on the wrong side of the reprehensible environmental destruction at Magazine Beach. Now she claims to be looking into and trying to prevent damage to the Charles.
The two are mutually inconsistent.
4. Summary. Possible favorable explanation of missing posting.
The Cambridge Chronicle seems to be behaving in a responsible manner in general.
That puts the Cambridge Chronicle at variance with the Cambridge pols.
I hope the Cambridge Chronicle uses this occurrence to provide meaningful reporting on the outrage going on on the Charles River including the participation / willful lack of knowledge of Representative Wolf.
Wolf’s attempt to claim sainthood is very clearly inappropriate.
1. Introduction. Claim of Wolf to be defending the Charles River.
2. Reconstruction of my Post. I strongly disagreed.
A. Wolf’s Current Record, Ongoing and Continuing Environmental Destruction at Magazine Beach.
B. Related outrage – poisoning the Charles River.
C. Suggestion for constructive action by Representative Wolf — Resign.
3. Explanation of terms. I used the word "lie." It is well intended.
A. Councilor’s Seidel’s Analysis.
B. Comparison of Wolf’s words to Wolf’s Record.
4. Summary. Possible favorable explanation of missing posting.
1. Introduction. Claim of Wolf to be defending the Charles River.
Saturday morning, January 12, 2008, I checked out the Cambridge Chronicle's website at the suggestion of Roy Bercaw. I found a report on an email from Alice Wolf to reporter Erin Smith in which Wolf was claiming that she was getting aggressive in defending the Charles. I filed a response to Representative Wolf. An hour or so later, I checked the Chronicle on line and I was able to find the exchange.
An hour or so after that, I checked it again. At that point, I could not find the exchange, and as of the end of the day, I still could now find the exchange. If anybody reading this report can find the exchange on the Cambridge Chronicle website, I would be very pleased to modify this report accordingly.
2. Reconstruction of my Post. I strongly disagreed.
A. Wolf’s Current Record, Ongoing and Continuing Environmental Destruction at Magazine Beach.
Wolf was claiming that she was getting aggressive in defending the Charles.
I responded that, if Representative Wolf were meaningfully concerned about people destroying the Charles River, she should look in the mirror.
Wolf clearly supports the pending project at Magazine Beach to destroy the GREEN playing fields there and replace the GREEN playing fields with phosphate / poison supported playing fields.
Wolf clearly supported Phase 1 of this outrage commencing in September 2004, in which all wetlands at Magazine Beach, all the protective vegetation at the Magazine Beach playing fields and all the animal habitat at the playing fields were destroyed. The Charles River White Geese commenced to be starved.
Wolf's friends in the Department of Conservation and Recreation had spent four years denying any intent to harm the Charles River White Geese. Wolf's friends say that they, with Wolf's clear blessing, are not harming the geese, they are only starving them.
Wolf's supports this heartless and destructive behavior.
Wolf rather clearly supported and may have participated in a swim-in the following September (not certain of the month) by a bunch of non-profits (at least one with major developer contributors). This swim-in occurred at Magazine Beach and was a well organized photo opportunity. The people in the photo-op bragged that phase 1 would improve swimming in the Charles River.
Phase 1 replaced meaningful environmental entities with a wall of bizarre designer bushes which prevents access between the Magazine Beach playing fields and the Charles River. As is common with the liars so actively destroying the Charles River, phase 1 did exactly the oppositte of "improv[ing] swimming on the Charles River."
These bizarre designer bushes were claimed to be native. These bizarre bushes proved the word "native" false by repeatedly dying.
B. Related outrage – poisoning the Charles River.
The soon to come furtherance of outrage at Magazine Beach by destroying its GREEN character and introducing poisons is not the first such action by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
The last such action was at Ebersol Fields on the Boston side of the Charles River near Mass. General Hospital.
The DCR apparently destroyed a GREEN environment and replaced that GREEN environment with an environment sustained by their beloved poisons. The beloved poisons did not work.
About 18 months ago, the DCR applied Tartan herbicide to Ebersol Fields. Tartan’s label prohibits use of Tartan near bodies of water.
THE NEXT DAY, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge. So now, the Cambridge pols, the DCR and Representative Wolf, want to extend the benefits of replacing GREEN environment maintenance with their beloved poisons at Magazine Beach.
So now, Representative Wolf, who supports this outrage, is making noises about looking into entities damaging the Charles River environment.
C. Suggestion for constructive action by Representative Wolf — Resign.
If Alice Wolf is meaningfully concerned about protective the environment of the Charles River, the best thing she can do is resign in favor of somebody who has not been involved in the environmental lies keyed on the Charles River.
3. Explanation of terms. I used the word "lie." It is well intended.
A. Councilor’s Seidel’s Analysis.
I think Councilor Siedel did the best job imaginable of condemning Cambridge Pols as a bunch of liars on environmental matters in the article he published in the Alewife newspaper which is published elsewhere in these reports. There is a link at the top of the blog page. The URL is http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
Siedel, in the Cambridge pol manner, bragged about using words which conveyed the opposite of reality.
Basically Siedel brags that the Cambridge pols have their own SECRET definition of environmentalism. Seidel sniffs that this editor is out of touch when this editor keeps on using the English language definition of environmentalism.
My interpretation of Siedel is that he is accurately branding the Cambridge Pols as a bunch of liars. You do not use secret definitions which exactly reverse the meaning of the words you are using and be anything other than a liar.
B. Comparison of Wolf’s words to Wolf’s Record.
Wolf has been and continues to be on the wrong side of the reprehensible environmental destruction at Magazine Beach. Now she claims to be looking into and trying to prevent damage to the Charles.
The two are mutually inconsistent.
4. Summary. Possible favorable explanation of missing posting.
The Cambridge Chronicle seems to be behaving in a responsible manner in general.
That puts the Cambridge Chronicle at variance with the Cambridge pols.
I hope the Cambridge Chronicle uses this occurrence to provide meaningful reporting on the outrage going on on the Charles River including the participation / willful lack of knowledge of Representative Wolf.
Wolf’s attempt to claim sainthood is very clearly inappropriate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)