1. Introduction.
2. Version printed by Chronicle different from what I gave you.
3. An honor to be printed based on the context of the editorial and op-ed pages.
4. Councilor Davis’ letter.
5. Version of my letter printed.
Bob Reports:
First of all, we have reached a milestone. This is the 400th posting on this blog. It pairs very nicely with the fact that, a few days ago, I performed the 390th visibility at the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese, although the latter number is probably understated.
1. Introduction.
A few days ago, I passed on to you an op ed I submitted to the Cambridge Chronicle concerning yet another fake environmental initiative coming out of the environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council, an “Environmental Congress” scheduled for this coming Saturday. Its primary importance is to lie that this environmentally destructive entity is the opposite.
That will be done through a whole bunch of pious mouthings about the environment with very major omissions: the ongoing environmental destruction being inflicted on the City of Cambridge by the Cambridge City Council and its friends.
They have been doing this for years. The lies simply do not stop coming and the environmental destruction simply does not stop coming.
2. Version printed by Chronicle different from what I gave you.
The version of my communication which the Chronicle printed in its December 10, 2009 edition, was an alternate, 400 word version. I gave them an 800 word version and a 400 word version and told the editor it was his choice.
Oddly, the 400 word version is probably written better. The 800 word version is technically more accurate, including quite a few more facts that the vast majority of readers will not notice, but I think they have importance. Additionally, the extra words were used to try to communicate the reality of the situation better.
The short version is below.
3. An honor to be printed based on the context of the editorial and op-ed pages.
However, this was a very striking editorial / op ed page since the editor included almost every major issue he could hit, and he did me the honor of including my letter in this presentation.
On the left of the two pages, to the far left, is an editorial encouraging people to give to the Salvation Army in this time of need.
The other four columns are headed with an editorial cartoon lampooning the process by which the Cambridge City Council chooses its mayor.
Below the cartoon is an op ed by the gentleman who was the only newcomer elected to the City Council during the election. He speaks on the choosing of the mayor.
Below this are two letters to the editor occupying the balance of the four columns in shortened height since they are below the editorial cartoon and the op ed on the mayor selection. My letter, reproduced below, fills the first two shortened columns and part of the third. The balance of the space is occupied by a letter written by Cambridge City Councilor Henrietta Davis.
The oped page is pretty much occupied by two articles entitled “Reflections on rent control” and “Eight years of protesting the war.”
4. Councilor Davis’ letter.
Davis’ letter was most definitely properly paired with mine. Davis’ letter is highly important because of what it might say.
How do you compare levels of destructiveness among a bunch of people who are all doing the same very destructive stuff?
Davis, in my personal opinion, is the worst member of the City Council environmentally because she has very loudly praised the destruction on the Charles, because she seems to be a leader in the destructiveness, and because she has combined this with non stop holier than thou falsehoods of her claims of being an environmental saint.
A careful reading of her letter might indicate a leveling of her rhetoric.
I do not see a leveling of the destructiveness or even any signs of common decency such as changing sides and becoming pro-environment, or changing sides and being something other than a heartless animal abuser.
I do see a leveling of the rhetoric.
The letter is written as a late thank you to the voters for her reelection. I do not believe in coincidences. I deliberately transmitted my submittals very early, and I deliberately posted the long version very early.
My submittals are clearly controversial and are loaded with facts.
My early transmittal and publicizing of my early transmittal was deliberately intended to allow or even provoke a response.
Davis’ letter reads like a response, if you are accustomed to reading extreme statements such as are the norm in the City of Cambridge.
Davis’ letter reads like a response because she talks about “guid[ing] Cambridge to become a national leader in energy innovation”, not environmentalism, not greenness, energy innovation.
This is the field she has been working on. This is her con game that she is, in spite of a very destructive reality “pro environment.”
The rhetoric may or may not have changed.
The destructiveness is not changed but can be reversed.
The destructiveness can be reversed because what we need is for a truly reprehensible City Council to switch sides to the side it claims to be on.
Don’t hold your breath.
5. Version of my letter printed.
Interestingly, my oped included a lot of bullets which I went through a lot of bother to communicate. The short version did not, but the editor added a number of bullets, making it parallel. Frankly, I have not compared the version printed to what I sent. I presume it is the short version.
***********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The City Council is sponsoring yet another environmental event. They will save the world and ignore the environmental destruction being done by Cambridge and its friends.
Ignored will be:
The coming destruction of the Alewife reservation for flood storage that should be placed about 500 feet away.
The destruction of perhaps thousands of trees at Fresh Pond for a thousand saplings.
Environmental destruction as a normal part of too many Cambridge projects, particularly healthy trees.
Hundreds of healthy trees and animal habitat being destroyed between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, apparently using Obama money.
Heartless animal abuse of the 28 year resident Charles River White Geese: the ongoing starving of them and the near total destruction of their habitat.
Poisons being dumped on Magazine Beach to feed sickly grass after destroying healthy grass which survived the better part of a century without poisons.
A bizarre wall of introduced bushes at Magazine Beach which has no value except starving native animals.
Decrease of playing fields at Magazine Beach for a drainage system to drain off the poisons, sure to fail in severe weather.
The meeting’s chair brags of Lorenz Park on Broadway. His people destroyed more than twenty 100+ year old trees on Cambridge Street for buildings that should have been placed at Lorenz Park. His and his friend [ed: typo, should have been plural] filed many “downzonings” with undisclosed fine print that limited or reversed the descriptions claimed for the proposals.
He was the biggest single problem in my three downzonings of Mass. Ave. between Harvard and Central Squares.
In the first initiative, he and his friends demanded an upzoning by destroying first floor open space and first floor housing throughout half the area. The neighborhood association they claimed to be representing voted to reject the chair and his friends, after the group essentially destroyed the initiative. This outrage created the canyon on Bay Street. This outrage allowed one or more large buildings which the chair later condemned when selling a zoning petition named after him.
Then there is the Inn at Harvard which another of my petitions forced on Harvard in spite of the chair’s nonsense. The chair almost got the Inn at Harvard constructed 72% larger, probably without grass.
The city council will conduct yet another con game in which the most important achievement will be the false impression given to people that the councillors are, as they constantly declare, saints on environmental issues.
