Bob La Trémouille reports:
On September 27, 2010, The Cambridge Chronicle published a letter on line supporting the world wide distribution of mercury containing light bulbs. I presume it is in the September 30, 2010 hard copy. I have not seen the paper yet.
The responses on line have been about 4 to 1 against splattering mercury around the world, particularly as some sort of way to “improve” the environment.
I submitted the following letter on September 28. The responses have been so broadly and intelligently critical of mercury distribution that I would anticipate the editor will have perfectly good letters to choose from. As a result, I anticipate that the editor will not need to print a letter from a person who has been published as much as I have.
So here is my response. The original may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x552736722/Letter-Column-on-CFLs-filled-with-inaccuracies.
***********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I see an “environmentalist” has written a letter supporting the massive distribution of a mercury containing product, a fancy light bulb. She says there is just a little mercury in each bulb. She neglects to mention the millions of bulbs she wants distributed or the amount and harm of the mercury in those millions of bulbs.
It is interesting watching these activists. I have yet to see a single one concerned about massive environmental destruction in their home city of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
There is no concern about plans to destroy the excellent trees of the Alewife reservation for flood storage that belongs under a nearby massive parking lot. There is no concern about the ongoing destruction of perhaps thousands of trees at Fresh Pond. There is no concern about the plans for destruction of hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive.
There is no concern about the ongoing dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach to feed introduced grasses which needs poisons to live. There is no concern about the perfectly healthy grass which survived most of a century without poisons and was destroyed for the sickly stuff. There is no concern that the only thing needed to return this environmentally responsible grass is to stop spending money on poisons and start spending money on responsible grass seed. There is no concern about the major destruction of playing fields to create a drainage system to drain off poisons that should not be dumped on the banks of the Charles.
There is no concern about the introduced wall of bushes walling off the Charles from Magazine Beach by a government which twice a year destroys all other vegetation bordering the Charles, and which has bragged that the introduced vegetation starves the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese. There is no concern that the responsible approach to this introduced wall is to chop it down like the environmentally protective vegetation is regularly chopped down.
There is no concern about the excess environment damage and animal harm in the BU Bridge project or the refusal to remediate because the governments want to destroy all animals living on the first ten miles of the Charles.
But there is loads of support for splattering mercury all over our world in millions of light bulbs which replace perfectly functional light bulbs.
I think these “environmentalists” should change sides.
I think they should start protecting the environment.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Monteiro postings resume at the Appellate Level
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The dockets on the Malvina Monteiro case at the Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court levels have not been available for several days.
They are now available again.
For several days, as I reported, the case was not findable through the appellate site. It is now.
During the period of absense, only two cases were visible on search through the appellate site. Now six, including Monteiro at Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court levels, are visible. That seems to be about right for the situation as it was before.
I see no difference in the filings.
The dockets on the Malvina Monteiro case at the Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court levels have not been available for several days.
They are now available again.
For several days, as I reported, the case was not findable through the appellate site. It is now.
During the period of absense, only two cases were visible on search through the appellate site. Now six, including Monteiro at Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court levels, are visible. That seems to be about right for the situation as it was before.
I see no difference in the filings.
Reminder of Dormant Urban Ring Project
Archie Reports:
Tuesday's [ed: Sept. 14, 2010] Boston Globe Metro Section (page B1) has an article illustrated with a photo of several of the 60-foot long articulated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) buses that the T is using on its Route 28 through Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan. Apparently some residents of the areas served by Route 28 are not pleased that their inputs were not sought or considered. These BRT buses are the same buses proposed for the now dormant Urban Ring project's Phase 2.
Curiously, area residents did not want designated bus lanes. A major failing of Phase 2 of the Urban Ring was a lack of adequate designated bus lanes to avoid mixed traffic issues on narrow streets. Perhaps if and when Phase 2 of the Urban Ring is revived, the experiences of T Route 28 BRT buses in mixed traffic may prove valuable.
It should be noted that apparently institutional stakeholders are not that involved in the areas served by the T's Route 28, unlike the areas served by the Urban Ring. The T, according to the Globe article, seems to have ignored residents whereas major institutions have dominated the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Urban Ring project: apparently, residents be damned.
Meantime, the BU Bridge repairs continue. When the work is completed, there will be one less lane (down from four to three) for motor vehicles. What will that do for traffic? Will the Phase 2 Urban Ring project include the BU Bridge as part of its route? Or will the Grand Junction Rail Line under the BU Bridge be augmented to provide two BRT bus lanes AND an active commuter rail line from Worcester through streets of Cambridge to perhaps North Station? Surely the institutions are being consulted; but are the residents?
Meantime, the Charles River White Geese continue to pay the price for inadequate planning.
Tuesday's [ed: Sept. 14, 2010] Boston Globe Metro Section (page B1) has an article illustrated with a photo of several of the 60-foot long articulated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) buses that the T is using on its Route 28 through Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan. Apparently some residents of the areas served by Route 28 are not pleased that their inputs were not sought or considered. These BRT buses are the same buses proposed for the now dormant Urban Ring project's Phase 2.
Curiously, area residents did not want designated bus lanes. A major failing of Phase 2 of the Urban Ring was a lack of adequate designated bus lanes to avoid mixed traffic issues on narrow streets. Perhaps if and when Phase 2 of the Urban Ring is revived, the experiences of T Route 28 BRT buses in mixed traffic may prove valuable.
It should be noted that apparently institutional stakeholders are not that involved in the areas served by the T's Route 28, unlike the areas served by the Urban Ring. The T, according to the Globe article, seems to have ignored residents whereas major institutions have dominated the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Urban Ring project: apparently, residents be damned.
Meantime, the BU Bridge repairs continue. When the work is completed, there will be one less lane (down from four to three) for motor vehicles. What will that do for traffic? Will the Phase 2 Urban Ring project include the BU Bridge as part of its route? Or will the Grand Junction Rail Line under the BU Bridge be augmented to provide two BRT bus lanes AND an active commuter rail line from Worcester through streets of Cambridge to perhaps North Station? Surely the institutions are being consulted; but are the residents?
Meantime, the Charles River White Geese continue to pay the price for inadequate planning.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Op ed on proposed sign ordinance changes compared to environmentalism.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The following letter to the editor by me was printed on line by the Cambridge Chronicle on September 13, 2010, under the heading “Cambridge Sign op-ed ‘Refreshingly Well Written’”.
It was printed in the hard copy on September 17, 2010, page 12, the editorial page. It was the middle of only three letters printed, all on the editorial page, same title. An op ed was printed two pages later. Very nice handling.
I note in brackets a typo deleted by the editor. I appreciate the correction.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The oped you printed opposing the proposed sign ordinance amendments was refreshingly well written and thought out.
The arguments I have been seeing more commonly are highly misleading.
Opposing this zoning change has been branded as “defending” the Charles River.
These self-proclaimed defenders of the Charles River certainly look like the same old environmentally destructive group, and they certainly look like they are playing yet another con game.
Loudly calling themselves “environmentalists” for initiatives which distract from their environmental destruction.
The same old group has no problems with destroying hundreds of trees on the Charles River. This group has no problems with poisons being dumped on Magazine Beach. This group has no problems with the ongoing killing off of all resident animals on the first ten miles of the Charles River. This group has no problems with decreasing the size of Magazine Beach to drain off poisons which should not be dumped there in the first place. This group has no problems with walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River with bizarre introduced bushes which have no business on the Charles River. This group has no problems with heartless animal abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese as part of the long series of bizarre projects on the Charles River.
But they sure do[ing] run around praising their supposed defense of the Charles River.
Thank you to the writer for a well written, informative piece.
And thanks to the writer for not making her oped part of the non stop con games in which environmental destroyers try to fool people into looking away from the Charles River and their destruction of the Charles River.
It takes reality to be an environmentalist, not shell games. In Cambridge, altogether too often, we get shell games.
The following letter to the editor by me was printed on line by the Cambridge Chronicle on September 13, 2010, under the heading “Cambridge Sign op-ed ‘Refreshingly Well Written’”.
It was printed in the hard copy on September 17, 2010, page 12, the editorial page. It was the middle of only three letters printed, all on the editorial page, same title. An op ed was printed two pages later. Very nice handling.
I note in brackets a typo deleted by the editor. I appreciate the correction.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The oped you printed opposing the proposed sign ordinance amendments was refreshingly well written and thought out.
The arguments I have been seeing more commonly are highly misleading.
Opposing this zoning change has been branded as “defending” the Charles River.
These self-proclaimed defenders of the Charles River certainly look like the same old environmentally destructive group, and they certainly look like they are playing yet another con game.
Loudly calling themselves “environmentalists” for initiatives which distract from their environmental destruction.
The same old group has no problems with destroying hundreds of trees on the Charles River. This group has no problems with poisons being dumped on Magazine Beach. This group has no problems with the ongoing killing off of all resident animals on the first ten miles of the Charles River. This group has no problems with decreasing the size of Magazine Beach to drain off poisons which should not be dumped there in the first place. This group has no problems with walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River with bizarre introduced bushes which have no business on the Charles River. This group has no problems with heartless animal abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese as part of the long series of bizarre projects on the Charles River.
But they sure do[ing] run around praising their supposed defense of the Charles River.
Thank you to the writer for a well written, informative piece.
And thanks to the writer for not making her oped part of the non stop con games in which environmental destroyers try to fool people into looking away from the Charles River and their destruction of the Charles River.
It takes reality to be an environmentalist, not shell games. In Cambridge, altogether too often, we get shell games.
Medeiros Oddity in Appellate Docket
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I anticipate there is some sort of computer problem, but I just did a search of the appellate court docket for “Medeiros” filed in “2010" as I have many times.
I get Edmund and Steven. No Malvina Monteiros came up after repeated tries.
I anticipate there is some sort of computer problem, but I just did a search of the appellate court docket for “Medeiros” filed in “2010" as I have many times.
I get Edmund and Steven. No Malvina Monteiros came up after repeated tries.
Drug Dealing at Magazine Beach Playground
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The following email was sent to a neighborhood listserve on Saturday, September 11.
It is reprinted with permission:
********
I just wanted to let folks know that my school-aged kids saw an apparent drug deal in the playground at Magazine Beach yesterday afternoon. They saw two adults, one waiting for the other. Money was exchanged for a snack-sized baggy containing green material.
I find this very disturbing, especially since it was across the street from Morse School, just around when school was going to be let out, and lots of kids use Magazine Beach. I did call the cops at the time and described the guys to them. Is there anything we can do to increase police presence around our parks and schools? This is not the kind of education I want my kids to have!
Melissa
Chalk Street
The following email was sent to a neighborhood listserve on Saturday, September 11.
It is reprinted with permission:
********
I just wanted to let folks know that my school-aged kids saw an apparent drug deal in the playground at Magazine Beach yesterday afternoon. They saw two adults, one waiting for the other. Money was exchanged for a snack-sized baggy containing green material.
I find this very disturbing, especially since it was across the street from Morse School, just around when school was going to be let out, and lots of kids use Magazine Beach. I did call the cops at the time and described the guys to them. Is there anything we can do to increase police presence around our parks and schools? This is not the kind of education I want my kids to have!
Melissa
Chalk Street
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Patrick administration brags about environment destruction, neglects to mention the environmental destruction.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation publishes a weekly on line newsletter. It very prominently features a photo of Governor Patrick.
Featured this week is a report on the pedestrian bridge between the north and south sides of Memorial Drive in Cambridge at Magazine Beach.
Earlier this blog published Phil Barber’s photo report on all the trees destroyed for this project.
Somehow, the destruction of trees failed to make the Governor’s report.
The newsletter is at: http://www.eot.state.ma.us/massdotnewsletter/vol49.htm.
This links a more detailed report at: http://transportation.blog.state.ma.us/blog/2010/09/pedestrian-bridge-project-moves-forward.html.
Nobody mentions the destruction. Odd is it not.
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation publishes a weekly on line newsletter. It very prominently features a photo of Governor Patrick.
Featured this week is a report on the pedestrian bridge between the north and south sides of Memorial Drive in Cambridge at Magazine Beach.
Earlier this blog published Phil Barber’s photo report on all the trees destroyed for this project.
Somehow, the destruction of trees failed to make the Governor’s report.
The newsletter is at: http://www.eot.state.ma.us/massdotnewsletter/vol49.htm.
This links a more detailed report at: http://transportation.blog.state.ma.us/blog/2010/09/pedestrian-bridge-project-moves-forward.html.
Nobody mentions the destruction. Odd is it not.
Globe supports Patrick’s environmental destruction?
Archie reports, on September 12:
Today's Globe in its Starts & Stops section (page B2) features the GJRL [ed.: Grand Junction Railroad, the track that runs by the Destroyed Nesting Area and under the BU Bridge.] through Cambridge, ending with the reporter's "humorous" comments as the trip approached the BU Bridge. What might a restored, revitalized GJRL do for (or to) Cambridge?
Ed: The following is the on line link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/09/12/little_used_rail_line_a_key_link_to_worcester.
Today's Globe in its Starts & Stops section (page B2) features the GJRL [ed.: Grand Junction Railroad, the track that runs by the Destroyed Nesting Area and under the BU Bridge.] through Cambridge, ending with the reporter's "humorous" comments as the trip approached the BU Bridge. What might a restored, revitalized GJRL do for (or to) Cambridge?
Ed: The following is the on line link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/09/12/little_used_rail_line_a_key_link_to_worcester.
Monteiro Update, City files its brief in Appeals Court, why this blog follows Monteiro
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. On line dockets.
2. Analysis of more recent filings.
3. Why report this civil rights case on the Charles River White Geese Blog?
1. On line dockets.
I have been keeping up on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge primarily from on line dockets. These on line dockets list, at minimum, the title of the action which is the subject of the docket entry.
The Superior Court docket is only available to attorneys who have requested access. This docket frequently has posted full text of actions by the judge.
The Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court dockets are available to the public on line.
To give you a feel for the situation, the following are the appellate entries. I have tried to put this data in table form, but have not been successful because of limitations of the blog software.
The docket at the Supreme Judicial Court consists of three entries:
Date Paper # Entry Text
08/05/2010 Docket opened.
08/05/2010 #1 DAR [Ed: Request for Direct Appellate Review] APPLICATION of City of Cambridge filed by Joan A. Lukey, Esquire, Dan Krockmalnic, Esquire, Jacob Scott, Esquire.
08/17/2010 #2 OPPOSITION (LIMITED) to DAR application filed for Malvina Monteiro by Ellen J. Zucker, Esquire.
I have previously given my analysis of these papers.
The docket at the Appeals Court consists of the following entries.
Date Paper # Entry Text
7/16/10 #1 Entered.
07/16/2010 Notice of entry sent.
08/05/2010 Copy of DAR application of City of Cambridge.
08/18/2010 #2 Motion for leave to file principal brief in excess of fifty pages filed by City of Cambridge.
08/19/2010 #3 Notice of withdrawal as counsel for City of Cambridge, filed by Jennifer L. Carpenter.
08/19/2010 #4 Notice of appearance of Jacob Scott for City of Cambridge.
08/25/2010 #5 Contingent Motion for leave, if necessary, to re-file principal brief after original filing deadline, filed by City of Cambridge.
08/30/2010 RE#2: Denied. The appellant is to file and serve a brief not exceeding fifty pages on or before September 13, 2010. (Vuono, J.) *Notice.
08/30/2010 RE#5: See court's action on paper #2 dated
8/30/10. Due to their size, the record appendix volumes are deemed accepted on 8/30/10 pending filing of the brief. (Vuono, J.) *Notice.
09/01/2010 #6 Service of appendix (13 vols) filed by City of Cambridge.
09/10/2010 #7 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Defendant/Appellant City of Cambridge.
The brief of Ms. Monteiro in response to the city’s brief is due on October 12.
2. Analysis of more recent filings.
The filing of Cambridge on 8/18/10, permission to file longer brief, looked like a holding action intended to delay appeals court action until a response was obtained by the SJC on the request for direct appellate review. The Appeals Court Scotched this tactic on August 30, by denying the motion and ordering brief filing by September 13.
The August 25 motion is hard to fully understand without the papers. It was denied along with the motion for a larger brief.
The appendix, mentioned on August 30 and formally logged on September 1, would be the record from the Superior Court action. This record is the basis for everything occurring in Appeals Court.
Cambridge filed its brief on Friday. If anybody wants to go through the bother of checking the papers and copying it, I would be pleased to have access to the copies. The Cambridge Chronicle, for example, posted one key judge’s order on line when the full order was not made available in the on line docket.
In any case, the Monteiro response brief is due October 12.
3. Why report this civil rights case on the Charles River White Geese Blog?
I have posted two links to YouTube videos in which I analyze the “reprehensible” (quoting the judge) situation in the City of Cambridge.
I consider it all one mess.
A. A bad city manager.
B. A bad city council.
C. Massive organizations running around spouting lies to the contrary, lies which are necessary to keep that bad city council from being thrown out of office.
The lies are not usually direct lies. The lies are mostly con games, but pretty much nonstop con games.
Cambridge takes initiatives on the “good” side which are meaningless or next to meaningless when compared to the reprehensible behavior which is so common.
So they run around bragging about supposed good behavior which amounts to trash and suppress the meaningful, rotten behavior. I call that a con game. I call that continuing lies.
The state, on the other hand, has indulged in blatant, key lying.
I think the environmental situation would go a long way toward being resolved if the supposedly pro civil rights city council changed sides to the side they claim to be on.
The city council should accept the decision of judge and jury in Monteiro and fire the city manager without pension and without golden parachute to the extent the superior court judge will bless such action.
That would go some distance to reversing the environmental destruction on the Charles since the city manager’s people have their hands in who know how much, but it looks like pretty much everything.
Cleansing the city of the current city manager would give the city government a chance to resemble the lovely and very false claims of the Cambridge City Council in the environmental front.
The state’s behavior is so closely coordinated with Cambridge that it is silly to think that firing the City Manager would be other than a possible reversal of the destructiveness of the state.
1. On line dockets.
2. Analysis of more recent filings.
3. Why report this civil rights case on the Charles River White Geese Blog?
1. On line dockets.
I have been keeping up on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge primarily from on line dockets. These on line dockets list, at minimum, the title of the action which is the subject of the docket entry.
The Superior Court docket is only available to attorneys who have requested access. This docket frequently has posted full text of actions by the judge.
The Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court dockets are available to the public on line.
To give you a feel for the situation, the following are the appellate entries. I have tried to put this data in table form, but have not been successful because of limitations of the blog software.
The docket at the Supreme Judicial Court consists of three entries:
Date Paper # Entry Text
08/05/2010 Docket opened.
08/05/2010 #1 DAR [Ed: Request for Direct Appellate Review] APPLICATION of City of Cambridge filed by Joan A. Lukey, Esquire, Dan Krockmalnic, Esquire, Jacob Scott, Esquire.
08/17/2010 #2 OPPOSITION (LIMITED) to DAR application filed for Malvina Monteiro by Ellen J. Zucker, Esquire.
I have previously given my analysis of these papers.
The docket at the Appeals Court consists of the following entries.
Date Paper # Entry Text
7/16/10 #1 Entered.
07/16/2010 Notice of entry sent.
08/05/2010 Copy of DAR application of City of Cambridge.
08/18/2010 #2 Motion for leave to file principal brief in excess of fifty pages filed by City of Cambridge.
08/19/2010 #3 Notice of withdrawal as counsel for City of Cambridge, filed by Jennifer L. Carpenter.
08/19/2010 #4 Notice of appearance of Jacob Scott for City of Cambridge.
08/25/2010 #5 Contingent Motion for leave, if necessary, to re-file principal brief after original filing deadline, filed by City of Cambridge.
08/30/2010 RE#2: Denied. The appellant is to file and serve a brief not exceeding fifty pages on or before September 13, 2010. (Vuono, J.) *Notice.
08/30/2010 RE#5: See court's action on paper #2 dated
8/30/10. Due to their size, the record appendix volumes are deemed accepted on 8/30/10 pending filing of the brief. (Vuono, J.) *Notice.
09/01/2010 #6 Service of appendix (13 vols) filed by City of Cambridge.
09/10/2010 #7 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Defendant/Appellant City of Cambridge.
The brief of Ms. Monteiro in response to the city’s brief is due on October 12.
2. Analysis of more recent filings.
The filing of Cambridge on 8/18/10, permission to file longer brief, looked like a holding action intended to delay appeals court action until a response was obtained by the SJC on the request for direct appellate review. The Appeals Court Scotched this tactic on August 30, by denying the motion and ordering brief filing by September 13.
The August 25 motion is hard to fully understand without the papers. It was denied along with the motion for a larger brief.
The appendix, mentioned on August 30 and formally logged on September 1, would be the record from the Superior Court action. This record is the basis for everything occurring in Appeals Court.
Cambridge filed its brief on Friday. If anybody wants to go through the bother of checking the papers and copying it, I would be pleased to have access to the copies. The Cambridge Chronicle, for example, posted one key judge’s order on line when the full order was not made available in the on line docket.
In any case, the Monteiro response brief is due October 12.
3. Why report this civil rights case on the Charles River White Geese Blog?
I have posted two links to YouTube videos in which I analyze the “reprehensible” (quoting the judge) situation in the City of Cambridge.
I consider it all one mess.
A. A bad city manager.
B. A bad city council.
C. Massive organizations running around spouting lies to the contrary, lies which are necessary to keep that bad city council from being thrown out of office.
The lies are not usually direct lies. The lies are mostly con games, but pretty much nonstop con games.
Cambridge takes initiatives on the “good” side which are meaningless or next to meaningless when compared to the reprehensible behavior which is so common.
So they run around bragging about supposed good behavior which amounts to trash and suppress the meaningful, rotten behavior. I call that a con game. I call that continuing lies.
The state, on the other hand, has indulged in blatant, key lying.
I think the environmental situation would go a long way toward being resolved if the supposedly pro civil rights city council changed sides to the side they claim to be on.
The city council should accept the decision of judge and jury in Monteiro and fire the city manager without pension and without golden parachute to the extent the superior court judge will bless such action.
That would go some distance to reversing the environmental destruction on the Charles since the city manager’s people have their hands in who know how much, but it looks like pretty much everything.
Cleansing the city of the current city manager would give the city government a chance to resemble the lovely and very false claims of the Cambridge City Council in the environmental front.
The state’s behavior is so closely coordinated with Cambridge that it is silly to think that firing the City Manager would be other than a possible reversal of the destructiveness of the state.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Cambridge, MA: Killing, rape, heartless animal abuse, destruction of park and river
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I have posted another segment from our 8/15/10 show of the Cambridge Environment on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r6HY-ndOjo. The following summary is provided on YouTube.
The reality of the true rottenness of Cambridge’s manager and city council is reemphasized day by day by day as it becomes clearer to all that the expenditures at Magazine Beach are a truly bizarre waste of money, and are destructive in addition to the totally unnecessary and very heartless animal abuse.
*********
Cambridge, MA: Killing, rape, heartless animal abuse, destruction of park and river
© 2010, Friends of the White Geese
Out takes from the 8/15/10 show, The Cambridge Environment.
Commentator and Preparer of these notes: Robert J. La Trémouille
Segments:
1. Rape, murder and the killing of nesting mother geese. The Cambridge City Council had voted to starve and destroy the habitat of the Charles River White Geese in the truly bizarre project that just finished. So they were “neutral” when a follower started killing nesting mother geese. Then, when he graduated to rape and murder, the City Council spent an hour discussing the rape and murder and did not want to know where it occurred.
2. Library park: 23 hundred year old trees “replaced” with 57 saplings, most of which were then destroyed for the obvious phase 2 of the project. The first phase would have been environmentally responsible if placed where the second phase was placed.
3. Straight out lying from the state, and con games from the Cambridge City Council. How the lies work, whether out right or con games.
On the graduation from killing mother geese (with a wink and a nod from the Cambridge City Council) to rape and murder.
First of all, please see my separate posting on the judge/jury decision in Monteiro v. Cambridge “City Manager can be fired.” The description includes key citations. [Ed: link at the top right of this blog.]
A comparison between the two graduations:
The killer of nesting mother geese
● graduated to rape and murder
● in possible response to the tacit encouragement of the Cambridge City Council.
● The City Council admitted its complicity by speaking out on the rape and murder for an hour and not wanting to know where it happened, emphasized by Davis’ behavior when she accidentally said where it happened.
We have a very clear graduation of the Cambridge City Manager
● from heartless animal abuse aimed at the Charles River White Geese
● to, according to judge and jury, the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro.
● With very clear support of the heartless animal abuse by the Cambridge City Council.
● And the Cambridge City Council still doesn’t want to know what they are doing.
● But they sure do keep on bragging that they are pro-environment and pro-civil rights. And playing con games to fool well meaning people.
I have posted another segment from our 8/15/10 show of the Cambridge Environment on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r6HY-ndOjo. The following summary is provided on YouTube.
The reality of the true rottenness of Cambridge’s manager and city council is reemphasized day by day by day as it becomes clearer to all that the expenditures at Magazine Beach are a truly bizarre waste of money, and are destructive in addition to the totally unnecessary and very heartless animal abuse.
*********
Cambridge, MA: Killing, rape, heartless animal abuse, destruction of park and river
© 2010, Friends of the White Geese
Out takes from the 8/15/10 show, The Cambridge Environment.
Commentator and Preparer of these notes: Robert J. La Trémouille
Segments:
1. Rape, murder and the killing of nesting mother geese. The Cambridge City Council had voted to starve and destroy the habitat of the Charles River White Geese in the truly bizarre project that just finished. So they were “neutral” when a follower started killing nesting mother geese. Then, when he graduated to rape and murder, the City Council spent an hour discussing the rape and murder and did not want to know where it occurred.
2. Library park: 23 hundred year old trees “replaced” with 57 saplings, most of which were then destroyed for the obvious phase 2 of the project. The first phase would have been environmentally responsible if placed where the second phase was placed.
3. Straight out lying from the state, and con games from the Cambridge City Council. How the lies work, whether out right or con games.
On the graduation from killing mother geese (with a wink and a nod from the Cambridge City Council) to rape and murder.
First of all, please see my separate posting on the judge/jury decision in Monteiro v. Cambridge “City Manager can be fired.” The description includes key citations. [Ed: link at the top right of this blog.]
A comparison between the two graduations:
The killer of nesting mother geese
● graduated to rape and murder
● in possible response to the tacit encouragement of the Cambridge City Council.
● The City Council admitted its complicity by speaking out on the rape and murder for an hour and not wanting to know where it happened, emphasized by Davis’ behavior when she accidentally said where it happened.
We have a very clear graduation of the Cambridge City Manager
● from heartless animal abuse aimed at the Charles River White Geese
● to, according to judge and jury, the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro.
● With very clear support of the heartless animal abuse by the Cambridge City Council.
● And the Cambridge City Council still doesn’t want to know what they are doing.
● But they sure do keep on bragging that they are pro-environment and pro-civil rights. And playing con games to fool well meaning people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)