Bob La Trémouille reports.
The following is a comment I left on the Cambridge Chronicle’s web site in response to their endorsements:
***********
Well, let's see, we have a bunch of people who claim to be saints on civil rights and the environment.
We have a judge who has called the City of Cambridge / City Manager 'reprehensible' for destroying the life of a black female department head, Malvina Monteiro. See http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. Her report does a very good job demonstrating that the city manager should be fired without pension. Apparently Civil Rights is 'different' when it comes to the Cambridge City Manager.
We have 'green' candidates who UNANIMOUSLY dump poisons on Magazine Beach, and have no problems with destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive, apparently thousands at Fresh Pond, and the entire reservation at Alewife. Plus massive destruction of animal habitat and heartless animal abuse.
You combine 'reprehensible' records with claims of sainthood and you have a really bad bunch of incumbents.
Their following explain their environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse with noises that sound like Michelle Obama's first husband. Fortunately they do not make the same noises about Malvina Monteiro.
The ONLY person on the ballot who appears to be meaningfully pro environment is Kathy Podgers. One challenger is endorsed by a Sierra Club which very visibly has people who have records of close contact with the 'reprehensible' city manager. Mr. Sullivan could be as bad as the incumbents on the environment.
Kathy Podgers, then throw the other challengers (minus two) in a hat.
The incumbents? Do you really think that 'neutrality' on destroying a woman's life in retaliation for filing a civil rights complaint is sainthood on civil rights? And massive destruction of the green and belligerently heartless animal abuse is sainthood on the environment.
