Environmental Destruction and Lying on the Charles River
Bob La Trémouille reports:
2. Objection to lying on the Charles River, long form.
In my prior blog report, I passed on a letter printed by the Cambridge Chronicle, and commented on a response published on line and probably printed in today's paper.
The response to my letter may, for now, be found at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/homepage/x2032091241/Guest-commentary-Should-the-Charles-be-a-private-cooling-pond-for-power-plant.
After an exchange, I submitted an op ed response. The Chronicle editor has asked me to cut it down to a 400 word letter.
The following is the full version. I will work on cutting it down to 400 words for the Chronicle.
2. Objection to lying on the Charles River, long form.
I have a great deal of difficulty with the Guest Commentary entitled “Should the Charles be a private cooling pond for power plant?”
The difficulty very strongly comes from the fact that one week before the submission of this article, I, yet again in the Cambridge Chronicle, condemned the environmental destructiveness of Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation on the Charles River .
In my letter, I used an indelicate comment with regard to my years of standing up to environmental destruction by these people on the Charles River: “The only thing that has been consistent on the Charles River has been lies and suppression of the truth.”
The variety of lies, deliberate or otherwise, which I have seen has been incredible. The subset of lies to which I have been subjected includes the approach of this op-ed piece, whether deliberate or not:
Friends of the DCR and Cambridge love to point fingers at the Mirant Power Plant, people who are cleaning up their act on the Charles River .
The fact that the DCR and Cambridge are aggressively going in the wrong direction is something that Friends of the DCR and Cambridge DO NOT want to hear about.
Two years ago, in late summer, all of a sudden, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge .
THE DAY BEFORE the Charles River was dead, the DCR applied Tartan fungicide to Ebersol Fields, across the river from the Mirant Plant. Tartan is marked with prohibitions against use near water. But the DCR had replaced GREEN maintenance with CHEMICAL maintenance at Ebersol Fields and their beloved CHEMICALs did not work. So the DCR tossed on Tartan and THE NEXT DAY the Charles River was dead.
Cambridge and the DCR are doing the same thing at Magazine Beach . Cambridge and the DCR have a location which works perfectly well with GREEN maintenance. Cambridge and the DCR want to put in their beloved CHEMICAL maintenance.
Magazine Beach has seen the contempt for the environment practiced by the DCR and Cambridge . The DCR and Cambridge destroyed the wetlands and animal habitat to install a bizarre wall of bushes. Friends of the DCR and Cambridge publicly called this bizarre wall blocking the Charles River from Magazine Beach a way to improve swimming on the Charles River .
This bizarre project walled off the Charles River White Geese from their principal source of food for 25 years. Simultaneous with this project, Cambridge put up a wall barring access from the Charles River to their alternate source of food of the Charles River White Geese for 25 years, the grass across from the Hyatt.
These heartless, cruel people have isolated these beautiful, valuable animals in their nesting area, perhaps 5% of their 25 year habitat. Now these heartless people want to destroy half their nesting area in a project called a sidewalk project.
I complained on the pages of the Cambridge Chronicle. The Cambridge Chronicle got a response which talks about the Mirant plant.
Friends of Cambridge and the DCR do not want to know reality.
Friends of Cambridge and the DCR do not want to know that Mirant is decreasing pollution.
Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know that Cambridge and the DCR are aggressively increasing pollution.
Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know that the DCR and Cambridge certainly look like the only current aggressive destroyers of the Charles River environment.
Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know about DCR’s five years of destroying as many eggs of water fowl as is possible.
Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know about the DCR’s five years of destroying as much protective vegetation on the Charles River as is possible.
Friends of the DCR belligerently want to believe the DCR’s promise repeated over many years: We will not harm the Charles River White Geese.
Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know the caveat given after starvation commenced. Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know the caveat that the DCR does not consider starvation harmful to the Charles River White Geese.
As far as I am concerned, whether knowing or not, loudly yelling about Mirant and not wanting to know about Cambridge and the DCR destructiveness on the Charles River is flat out lying.
As far as I am concerned the litany of skillful lying techniques used by the DCR, Cambridge and their stand-ins are all just lying.
The lying techniques I have observed over the years include the technique in this op ed piece, whether the writer is "consciously" aware or not. The lying techniques I have observed include working through agents and denying responsibility. The lying techniques I have observed include playing games with funding.
I object to the ongoing destruction on the Charles River . I object to the decade of lies of so many different techniques which has helped make the destruction possible.
I object to holier than thou’s from Cambridge and the DCR, people who are most definitely not holier than thou.