1. Day 400, the Visibility.
2. Day 400, conditions in the destroyed nesting area.
3. Follow up, correction
1. Day 400, the Visibility.
On Friday, April 29, 2011, I conducted the 400th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
It was early rush hour with people already going to the Red Sox game. Cars and pedestrians were heavier than I have previously seen during this series of visibilities.
People going toward Cambridge were waving from their cars and beeping.
A lot of fliers were distributed. Quite a few people stopped for good conversations.
2. Day 400, conditions in the destroyed nesting area.
The 50 foot swath for access to bridge repairs that were completed months ago is still there, as is the parking area for cars that are parked elsewhere.
The hay bales which were piled in the interior corner of the L have been mostly moved. A number of them were moved in an organized manner against the sidewalk toward the BU Bridge near the on ramp. They exactly fit the height of the bridge above ground at that point. A lot of hay bales were thrown on the hill under the ramp in the construction zone.
Trees have been planted. To the human eye it looks good. I do not know what it looks like to the animals. That is a matter of concern. There have been perhaps ten trees planted in close groupings.
At the time of destruction of the natural area nearest the BU Bridge / on ramp intersection, two grouping of ground vegetation were not destroyed. Perhaps five deciduous trees have been planted in the grouping closer to the BU Bridge and perhaps 5 evergreens in the other area. The deciduous are close together and are tied in a supporting group. The evergreens are more spread out.
This greenery was a vestige of the wild area before the bureaucrats, Cambridge and their fake environmental group started destroying. The look of this wild remnant has been a dead appearance this spring raising the fear that the destroyers have further destroyed. But there has been no other real vegetation and vegetation is needed for nesting.
I have been aware of at least one nest in the wild area toward the bridge. That nest was nearest the bridge, and I think I saw the mother goose from above. Trouble is that I really do not know the location of all the nests.
View of the tree plantings from above gives the impression of care in planting. It looks like the vegetation has not been damaged. The nest I can see is away from the plantings. Reality is, however, that non damage is impossible.
To a human, the plantings look good. Human sensibilities, however, have been at the core of the ongoing environmental destruction on the Charles. And the destroyers live off lying to please human sensibilities since they have contempt for resident animals.
I do not know. I do know that, in contrast to the City of Cambridge, to the DCR bureaucrats, and to the fake environmental group, I have respect for the Department of Transportation people.
The Department of Transportation people are the ones doing the work now, but they have been committed in their performance by contracts signed by the reprehensible DCR.
I would very strongly appreciate analyses by other responsible people.
3. Follow up, correction.
One of the ways the bad guys get away with so many really bad things is that there are so many of us who want to believe well of people.
I checked on the area in the afternoon. The trees I observed from above could not possibly be recent plantings.
Sorry, I, like so many other victims wish well of the bad guys.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART IX, Charles River Architecture, Natural and Man Made
1. Archie’s Report.
2. Response.
3. Prior reports.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART IX
By Archie Mazmanian
Consider the architecture along and over the Charles River downstream of the Weld Boathouse. The Charles River bridges [yes, Virginia, bridges are architecture!] along this stretch are varied in style, size, construction and materials; they can be best examined leisurely on walking or bicycling trips along the river and over them, whereas safety requirements in driving a motor vehicle limit the opportunity to do so (although passengers may do so safely).
Along the Charles River, the buildings present varied architectural styles. While these may be appreciated driving along Storrow and Memorial Drives, they serve as teasers to leisurely examining them on walking or bike trips. There are the traditional Georgian buildings of Harvard?s Cambridge campus, that contrast with the post WW II Harvard Business School campus and the very recent Harvard dorms on the Allston side of the river. There are the more recent modern commercial and residential structures on both sides of the river. And consider the rehabbed Ford Motor Company building at the northerly end of the BU Bridge.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have had mixed thoughts about some of the recent additions along the river. What are the obligations of developers along the river to respect the Charles River and its enjoyment by the public? Should Boston have a voice on development on the Cambridge side? Should Cambridge have a voice on development on the Boston side? Should the MA public beyond Boston and Cambridge have a voice on such development since he Charles River belongs to all of us?
Another way to enjoy the architecture along and over the Charles is directly on the river. In the summertime, I have observed tour (including duck) boats from downtown Boston that make their way to the BU Bridge and back. Unfortunately, they cannot proceed further upstream to the Weld Boathouse and beyond to Watertown Square because of the low rail bridge under the BU Bridge.
Sailboats and sculls are another means of enjoying the architecture along and over the Charles, including at the sailing pavilion in the Esplanade area as well as the sailing operations of several area universities. The annual Head of the Charles Regatta provides magnificent views for the rowers who can maneuver the low rail bridge below the BU Bridge.
In my contributions to this Blog on the Urban Ring Project, I have been critical of the proposed utilization of the rail bridge by expanding it to accommodate two travel lanes for Bus Rapid Transit’s 60-foot articulated buses for the Project?s Phase 2 Charles River crossing. Such would further segment water travel upstream and downstream of the BU Bridge.
But what if the Charles River became a mode of commuter boat public transit between Boston and Watertown Square without the obstacle of this low rail bridge under the BU Bridge? This would be much shorter, and safer, than commuter boat trips between Hingham and Boston, with more interesting vistas, including architectural along and over the Charles.
Yes, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. But so is ugliness. Until recent years, we have had the benefit of beholding the beauty of the Charles River White Geese (and their family values) outside of their private habitat of several decades at the northerly end of the BU Bridge, their habitat being their architecture closer to nature than that of man over and along the Charles. Their private habitat was not intended for us to behold. Now we have the ugliness brought about by MA and Cambridge government officials intent upon destroying this habitat and thus destroying the Charles River White Geese. Bob?s post on Day 399 should shame these officials and we should be outraged by their ugliness.
2. Response.
Thank you Archie.
The sickness in Cambridge and their friends is their contempt for nature.
The sickness is multiplied by fake group’s with fraudulent and misleading names who fool people into supporting them and these fake groups are a very major part of the problem.
In is particularly outrageous to have a fraudulently named group
a. destroying the environment including, apparently, pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, and
b. Through use of their fake name, enticing people who want to support the environment into “liking” them when really want to friend the Charles River White Geese.
This rottenness is a major reason how very destructive people get elected to office in Cambridge, MA, USA.
The fake meeting on Magazine Beach which allowed the destroyers to talk and talk and talk but EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED negative comment is highly common in Cambridge. To call this some sort of public meeting is the sort of lie which is normal in Cambridge, MA.
It is possible that Governor Patrick saw through the lies of the destroyers and did not approve their seeking Obama money to destroy hundreds of healthy trees on Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge. I think Marilyn may have provided him with the plans submitted by the bureaucrats to the Cambridge Conservation Commission which directly contradicted flat out lies about the quality of the trees being destroyed.
Unfortunately, the destroyers may be getting the money through a state legislature austerity budget, and the very destructive Cambridge Pols.
3. Prior reports.
Part VIII, 4/20/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-viii.html.
Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html.
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html.
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html.
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html.
2. Response.
3. Prior reports.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART IX
By Archie Mazmanian
Consider the architecture along and over the Charles River downstream of the Weld Boathouse. The Charles River bridges [yes, Virginia, bridges are architecture!] along this stretch are varied in style, size, construction and materials; they can be best examined leisurely on walking or bicycling trips along the river and over them, whereas safety requirements in driving a motor vehicle limit the opportunity to do so (although passengers may do so safely).
Along the Charles River, the buildings present varied architectural styles. While these may be appreciated driving along Storrow and Memorial Drives, they serve as teasers to leisurely examining them on walking or bike trips. There are the traditional Georgian buildings of Harvard?s Cambridge campus, that contrast with the post WW II Harvard Business School campus and the very recent Harvard dorms on the Allston side of the river. There are the more recent modern commercial and residential structures on both sides of the river. And consider the rehabbed Ford Motor Company building at the northerly end of the BU Bridge.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have had mixed thoughts about some of the recent additions along the river. What are the obligations of developers along the river to respect the Charles River and its enjoyment by the public? Should Boston have a voice on development on the Cambridge side? Should Cambridge have a voice on development on the Boston side? Should the MA public beyond Boston and Cambridge have a voice on such development since he Charles River belongs to all of us?
Another way to enjoy the architecture along and over the Charles is directly on the river. In the summertime, I have observed tour (including duck) boats from downtown Boston that make their way to the BU Bridge and back. Unfortunately, they cannot proceed further upstream to the Weld Boathouse and beyond to Watertown Square because of the low rail bridge under the BU Bridge.
Sailboats and sculls are another means of enjoying the architecture along and over the Charles, including at the sailing pavilion in the Esplanade area as well as the sailing operations of several area universities. The annual Head of the Charles Regatta provides magnificent views for the rowers who can maneuver the low rail bridge below the BU Bridge.
In my contributions to this Blog on the Urban Ring Project, I have been critical of the proposed utilization of the rail bridge by expanding it to accommodate two travel lanes for Bus Rapid Transit’s 60-foot articulated buses for the Project?s Phase 2 Charles River crossing. Such would further segment water travel upstream and downstream of the BU Bridge.
But what if the Charles River became a mode of commuter boat public transit between Boston and Watertown Square without the obstacle of this low rail bridge under the BU Bridge? This would be much shorter, and safer, than commuter boat trips between Hingham and Boston, with more interesting vistas, including architectural along and over the Charles.
Yes, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. But so is ugliness. Until recent years, we have had the benefit of beholding the beauty of the Charles River White Geese (and their family values) outside of their private habitat of several decades at the northerly end of the BU Bridge, their habitat being their architecture closer to nature than that of man over and along the Charles. Their private habitat was not intended for us to behold. Now we have the ugliness brought about by MA and Cambridge government officials intent upon destroying this habitat and thus destroying the Charles River White Geese. Bob?s post on Day 399 should shame these officials and we should be outraged by their ugliness.
2. Response.
Thank you Archie.
The sickness in Cambridge and their friends is their contempt for nature.
The sickness is multiplied by fake group’s with fraudulent and misleading names who fool people into supporting them and these fake groups are a very major part of the problem.
In is particularly outrageous to have a fraudulently named group
a. destroying the environment including, apparently, pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, and
b. Through use of their fake name, enticing people who want to support the environment into “liking” them when really want to friend the Charles River White Geese.
This rottenness is a major reason how very destructive people get elected to office in Cambridge, MA, USA.
The fake meeting on Magazine Beach which allowed the destroyers to talk and talk and talk but EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED negative comment is highly common in Cambridge. To call this some sort of public meeting is the sort of lie which is normal in Cambridge, MA.
It is possible that Governor Patrick saw through the lies of the destroyers and did not approve their seeking Obama money to destroy hundreds of healthy trees on Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge. I think Marilyn may have provided him with the plans submitted by the bureaucrats to the Cambridge Conservation Commission which directly contradicted flat out lies about the quality of the trees being destroyed.
Unfortunately, the destroyers may be getting the money through a state legislature austerity budget, and the very destructive Cambridge Pols.
3. Prior reports.
Part VIII, 4/20/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-viii.html.
Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html.
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html.
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html.
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Day 399 at the Destroyed Nesting Area, Environmental destroyer defrauding people into “like”s?
1. Day 399 — Environmental Conditions.
2. Day 399 — good people.
3. Fake organization on the Charles, fake organizations in Cambridge.
4. Summary.
1. Day 399 — Environmental Conditions.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011, in the early rush hour, I conducted the 399th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
These poor things are wandering around in a wasteland of dirt where ground vegetation used to thrive. Almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse to the east has been destroyed since the state started using the falsely named Charles River Conservancy for vegetation destruction.
There was a pile of hay bales in the portion of the former wild area which has been used for staging which should be placed in neighboring locations which are not environmentally sensitive.
The 50 foot bare strip next to the BU Bridge remains exactly that, bare, even after the reason for the destruction has disappeared. That destruction was accomplished to do repairs to that side of the BU Bridge.
2. Day 399 — good people.
The reception was excellent. Lots of people waiving as they go by. 2/3 to 3/4 of pedestrians happily accepted flier.
One woman initially refused a flier. Then she saw my sign.
“Oh, it’s for the geese. Please give me one.”
The thing that got me going, however, was a gentleman who did not take a flier. He slapped me on the shoulder and told me he had already “liked” us on facebook.
Our leaflets encourage people to “friend” the Charles River White Geese on facebook.
“Like”, however, gave me a strong double take. We friend. We do not look for likes.
Was he defrauded?
3. Fake organization on the Charles, fake organizations in Cambridge.
A week or so ago, a supposed neighborhood association held what they call a public meeting on Magazine Beach / the Charles River.
This group was created in coordination with the city manager’s staff and have been very effective promoting his causes and the causes of the Cambridge Pols. Fake organizations of this sort are commonly controlled by the Cambridge Pols and used for the benefit of the city manager and city council while lying to people that good people are doing good things.
The fake meeting on Magazine Beach was notable for blatant censorship which is not at all unusual in these fake groups.
The group EXPLICITLY prohibited negative comment in response to lovely promises by the state.
The Charles River Conservancy is even worse. Charles River Destroyers would be a fair name. This destructive group is part of and supports massive environmental destruction. But it goes by a fake name that gives the clear statement that it is fighting to conserve the Charles River, not destroy it.
But it has a facebook page using its false and misleading name, a name strikingly close to Charles River White Geese.
Is this fake group defrauding its way into support?
It is bad enough for it to be praising and accomplishing outright destruction combined with the false and misleading name. People who want the Charles to be treasured and protected are fooled into supporting this destructive group without it doing more.
It is completely irresponsible for this destructive entity, through its fake name alone, to be attracting people who would be friending the Charles River White Geese except for the very similar and very false name.
If you have friends who want to support the Charles River White Geese and found themselves “liking” The Charles River Conservancy, a group with a long record of fighting for the destruction of the Charles River White Geese, tell your friends they have been defrauded.
If your friends want to support environmental protection, they should be “friending” the Charles River White Geese, not “liking” the fraudulently named Charles River Conservancy.
4. Summary.
If you are pro environment and pro Charles River, you want to friend the Charles River White Geese.
The LAST thing you want to do is LIKE the Charles River Conservancy.
This is the destroyers’ front organization, deliberately misnamed to fool good people into thinking they are pro environment.
The reality is we are dealing with very destructive people who can only get the support of good people by LYING about where they are coming from.
Do not sucker for the lies.
2. Day 399 — good people.
3. Fake organization on the Charles, fake organizations in Cambridge.
4. Summary.
1. Day 399 — Environmental Conditions.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011, in the early rush hour, I conducted the 399th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
These poor things are wandering around in a wasteland of dirt where ground vegetation used to thrive. Almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse to the east has been destroyed since the state started using the falsely named Charles River Conservancy for vegetation destruction.
There was a pile of hay bales in the portion of the former wild area which has been used for staging which should be placed in neighboring locations which are not environmentally sensitive.
The 50 foot bare strip next to the BU Bridge remains exactly that, bare, even after the reason for the destruction has disappeared. That destruction was accomplished to do repairs to that side of the BU Bridge.
2. Day 399 — good people.
The reception was excellent. Lots of people waiving as they go by. 2/3 to 3/4 of pedestrians happily accepted flier.
One woman initially refused a flier. Then she saw my sign.
“Oh, it’s for the geese. Please give me one.”
The thing that got me going, however, was a gentleman who did not take a flier. He slapped me on the shoulder and told me he had already “liked” us on facebook.
Our leaflets encourage people to “friend” the Charles River White Geese on facebook.
“Like”, however, gave me a strong double take. We friend. We do not look for likes.
Was he defrauded?
3. Fake organization on the Charles, fake organizations in Cambridge.
A week or so ago, a supposed neighborhood association held what they call a public meeting on Magazine Beach / the Charles River.
This group was created in coordination with the city manager’s staff and have been very effective promoting his causes and the causes of the Cambridge Pols. Fake organizations of this sort are commonly controlled by the Cambridge Pols and used for the benefit of the city manager and city council while lying to people that good people are doing good things.
The fake meeting on Magazine Beach was notable for blatant censorship which is not at all unusual in these fake groups.
The group EXPLICITLY prohibited negative comment in response to lovely promises by the state.
The Charles River Conservancy is even worse. Charles River Destroyers would be a fair name. This destructive group is part of and supports massive environmental destruction. But it goes by a fake name that gives the clear statement that it is fighting to conserve the Charles River, not destroy it.
But it has a facebook page using its false and misleading name, a name strikingly close to Charles River White Geese.
Is this fake group defrauding its way into support?
It is bad enough for it to be praising and accomplishing outright destruction combined with the false and misleading name. People who want the Charles to be treasured and protected are fooled into supporting this destructive group without it doing more.
It is completely irresponsible for this destructive entity, through its fake name alone, to be attracting people who would be friending the Charles River White Geese except for the very similar and very false name.
If you have friends who want to support the Charles River White Geese and found themselves “liking” The Charles River Conservancy, a group with a long record of fighting for the destruction of the Charles River White Geese, tell your friends they have been defrauded.
If your friends want to support environmental protection, they should be “friending” the Charles River White Geese, not “liking” the fraudulently named Charles River Conservancy.
4. Summary.
If you are pro environment and pro Charles River, you want to friend the Charles River White Geese.
The LAST thing you want to do is LIKE the Charles River Conservancy.
This is the destroyers’ front organization, deliberately misnamed to fool good people into thinking they are pro environment.
The reality is we are dealing with very destructive people who can only get the support of good people by LYING about where they are coming from.
Do not sucker for the lies.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Massive tree destruction
I am posting part of seven photos taken of this grove on March 29, 2011. All are posted on the Charles River White Geese page on facebook.
This is an excellent 105 tree grove slated for devastation as part of Cambridge and Mass.’ ongoing destruction of the Charles River Environment and heartless animal abuse.
It is located to the east of the Goose Ghetto between the Memorial Drive split and the Charles River.
This destruction is only part of the 449 to 660 trees slated for destruction between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge as part of related projects.
These trees were included in the search for Obama moneys last year which may or may not be still contuing. They would be destroyed to put in a new highway which would be both constructed in the Charles and in abutting wetlands. The highway construction would exacerbate the ongoing heartless animal abuse.
The new highway would duplicate a highway on the Boston side which is closed at night because of the muggings and rapes. The Boston closure is one of many things the pols do not want to know.
The pols call themselves “environmentalists. They only ask that you talk about everything except the environment they are destroying.
This is an excellent 105 tree grove slated for devastation as part of Cambridge and Mass.’ ongoing destruction of the Charles River Environment and heartless animal abuse.
It is located to the east of the Goose Ghetto between the Memorial Drive split and the Charles River.
This destruction is only part of the 449 to 660 trees slated for destruction between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge as part of related projects.
These trees were included in the search for Obama moneys last year which may or may not be still contuing. They would be destroyed to put in a new highway which would be both constructed in the Charles and in abutting wetlands. The highway construction would exacerbate the ongoing heartless animal abuse.
The new highway would duplicate a highway on the Boston side which is closed at night because of the muggings and rapes. The Boston closure is one of many things the pols do not want to know.
The pols call themselves “environmentalists. They only ask that you talk about everything except the environment they are destroying.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Goose Down Clubbers
1. Introduction.
2. Archie Mazmanian on attacks on animals.
3. Analysis.
1. Introduction.
On the Charles River White Geese facebook page we have a go round with a woman who has a problem with anti-goose behavior by her Home Owners Association, and we have been sharing ways to resolve the problem.
This site is not really appropriate for that situation, but Archie Mazmanian’s comment certainly is.
My comment from the Charles River White Geese facebook page follows, transmitting for him.
2. Archie Mazmanian on attacks on animals.
Archie Mazmanian responds to Lauren’s comment with the following, sent by him awhile back and also applicable to her situation.
GOOSE-DOWN CLUBBERS
BREAKING NEWS!
MA and Cambridge government officials expressed their horror that the Charles River White Geese were being clubbed by hunters for their goose-down feathers, currently in great demand for pillows, apparel and other comforting uses. “Horrible!” “Deplorable!” “Despicable!” vented these officials. “These barbarous hunters must be stopped!” “This cruelty must stop!”
No, the preceding did not happen. Yet the conduct of MA and Cambridge officials is accomplishing the demise of the Charles River White Geese by means less transparent than clubbing. The goal of these officials is not goose-down but putting the geese down by more subtle means than clubbing because they just don’t want the Charles River White Geese there below the northerly side of the BU Bridge. The Goose Ghetto will apparently be continued to be squeezed until this goal is achieved. While the Charles River White Geese survive, they do not thrive.
So perhaps we should picture these MA and Cambridge government officials yielding clubs. What’s the difference?
3. Analysis.
If you go through the fine print and secret definitions, Cambridge and MA quite simply have contempt for animals.
They are killing off all resident animals on the Charles River basin.
But they do do a lot of creative lying to give decent humans the exact opposite impression.
2. Archie Mazmanian on attacks on animals.
3. Analysis.
1. Introduction.
On the Charles River White Geese facebook page we have a go round with a woman who has a problem with anti-goose behavior by her Home Owners Association, and we have been sharing ways to resolve the problem.
This site is not really appropriate for that situation, but Archie Mazmanian’s comment certainly is.
My comment from the Charles River White Geese facebook page follows, transmitting for him.
2. Archie Mazmanian on attacks on animals.
Archie Mazmanian responds to Lauren’s comment with the following, sent by him awhile back and also applicable to her situation.
GOOSE-DOWN CLUBBERS
BREAKING NEWS!
MA and Cambridge government officials expressed their horror that the Charles River White Geese were being clubbed by hunters for their goose-down feathers, currently in great demand for pillows, apparel and other comforting uses. “Horrible!” “Deplorable!” “Despicable!” vented these officials. “These barbarous hunters must be stopped!” “This cruelty must stop!”
No, the preceding did not happen. Yet the conduct of MA and Cambridge officials is accomplishing the demise of the Charles River White Geese by means less transparent than clubbing. The goal of these officials is not goose-down but putting the geese down by more subtle means than clubbing because they just don’t want the Charles River White Geese there below the northerly side of the BU Bridge. The Goose Ghetto will apparently be continued to be squeezed until this goal is achieved. While the Charles River White Geese survive, they do not thrive.
So perhaps we should picture these MA and Cambridge government officials yielding clubs. What’s the difference?
3. Analysis.
If you go through the fine print and secret definitions, Cambridge and MA quite simply have contempt for animals.
They are killing off all resident animals on the Charles River basin.
But they do do a lot of creative lying to give decent humans the exact opposite impression.
Charles River Memories, Part VIII
1. Archie’s Report.
2. Analysis.
3. Prior reports.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VIII
By Archie Mazmanian
While the bridges of the Charles River have not been cinematically extolled with a love story of the likes of “The Bridges of Madison County” starring Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep, they received cinematic notoriety in connection with the Great Brinks Robbery of 1950 in the North End of Boston, just a hop, skip and a jump from the portion of the river eastward of the Charles River dam (when there was only one dam). This daring robbery was followed in 1955 by the movie “Six Bridges to Cross,” a fictional version of the robbery, starring Tony Curtis. The title reflected the possible escape routes that might be taken by the many robbers that the law enforcement authorities had to consider, to wit the many bridges over the Charles.
I don’t recall “Six Bridges to Cross” as encouraging interest in the Charles River. The movie might have been considered comedic by moviegoers outside of the Boston area. The impact of the Brink’s Robbery was not a plus for Boston and environs, especially when followed by more flicks of the robbery. The 1950s were not a happy time in the Boston area, including urban renewal projects, in particular the demolition of the West End for high rise development providing magnificent views of the Charles.
The Internet includes a “List of crossings of the Charles River” with dates, locations, and other interesting information, such that details need not be provided here, identifying crossings from “its mouth at Boston Harbor upstream to its source at Echo Lake.” But mention has to be made of the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge built in 2003, that magnificent edifice at the northerly end of the “BIG DIG.” An earlier version of the Charles River crossing was pejoratively referred to as “Scheme Z” that would have been disastrous. (I have referred to the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge in my posts at this Blog on Phrase 2 of the Urban Ring Project in considering the proposed Charles River crossing for the latter Project over or under the BU Bridge as its “cockamamie” Scheme Zs.)
Many of the other bridges over the Charles accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists, who can stop and admire the vistas upstream and downstream. But this does not detract from the beauty of the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge that itself can be admired from a distance. Alas, the portion of the Charles River it crosses is overwhelmed.
Over the years we have taken the bridges that cross the Charles River for granted. Now, in times of economic downturn, we have learned that theses bridges, like we mere mortals, age and require infrastructure maintenance. This has been going on for years with the BU Bridge until it was necessary to attend to maintenance and restructuring, much belatedly. We have been inconvenienced for well over a year by this work and it may take yet another year for it to be completed. [Note: Let us not forget the devastating impact upon the Charles River White Geese being “West-Ended” at their habitat at the northerly end of the BU Bridge.] Meantime, we know that similar issues will require similar work for the Mass. Avenue Bridge and the Salt and Pepper Bridge. So it may take close to a decade for these major Charles River bridges to be rehabbed.
We have been and will continue to be inconvenienced for some time to come in crossing the Charles River, considered so routine in the past. But the Charles River is not to blame. Perhaps the lesson is to show more respect for the Charles River and its bridges and what they offer not only to the communities the Charles passes through but to all of us along its meandering route in uniting our communities.
There are many beautiful stone bridges upstream of the BU Bridge that will also need maintenance. All of this bridge work will be expensive and painful. Recall this chorus from a Patti Page hit (in a different context) of the 1950s:
Cross over the bridge,
Cross over the bridge,
Change your reckless way of livin’
Cross over the bridge ….
Ignoring these bridges over the years was indeed reckless.
2. Analysis.
Ignoring the bridges certainly was bad.
Using the bridges as an excuse for environmental destruction which can be avoided is “reprehensible” (to quote a civil rights judge talking about the City of Cambridge).
As usual, the contrast between decent human beings and victims of the Cambridge Pol organization is dramatic.
“You gotta be positive. No matter how much we destroy you and what you love, you gotta be positive. No matter how much we do exactly the opposite of what we and you promised, you gotta be positive.”
A really rotten city government with a really rotten, massive machine keeping it and its destructiveness in power through Big Sister demagoguery.
This is the ultimate lie.
3. Prior reports.
Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html
2. Analysis.
3. Prior reports.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VIII
By Archie Mazmanian
While the bridges of the Charles River have not been cinematically extolled with a love story of the likes of “The Bridges of Madison County” starring Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep, they received cinematic notoriety in connection with the Great Brinks Robbery of 1950 in the North End of Boston, just a hop, skip and a jump from the portion of the river eastward of the Charles River dam (when there was only one dam). This daring robbery was followed in 1955 by the movie “Six Bridges to Cross,” a fictional version of the robbery, starring Tony Curtis. The title reflected the possible escape routes that might be taken by the many robbers that the law enforcement authorities had to consider, to wit the many bridges over the Charles.
I don’t recall “Six Bridges to Cross” as encouraging interest in the Charles River. The movie might have been considered comedic by moviegoers outside of the Boston area. The impact of the Brink’s Robbery was not a plus for Boston and environs, especially when followed by more flicks of the robbery. The 1950s were not a happy time in the Boston area, including urban renewal projects, in particular the demolition of the West End for high rise development providing magnificent views of the Charles.
The Internet includes a “List of crossings of the Charles River” with dates, locations, and other interesting information, such that details need not be provided here, identifying crossings from “its mouth at Boston Harbor upstream to its source at Echo Lake.” But mention has to be made of the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge built in 2003, that magnificent edifice at the northerly end of the “BIG DIG.” An earlier version of the Charles River crossing was pejoratively referred to as “Scheme Z” that would have been disastrous. (I have referred to the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge in my posts at this Blog on Phrase 2 of the Urban Ring Project in considering the proposed Charles River crossing for the latter Project over or under the BU Bridge as its “cockamamie” Scheme Zs.)
Many of the other bridges over the Charles accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists, who can stop and admire the vistas upstream and downstream. But this does not detract from the beauty of the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge that itself can be admired from a distance. Alas, the portion of the Charles River it crosses is overwhelmed.
Over the years we have taken the bridges that cross the Charles River for granted. Now, in times of economic downturn, we have learned that theses bridges, like we mere mortals, age and require infrastructure maintenance. This has been going on for years with the BU Bridge until it was necessary to attend to maintenance and restructuring, much belatedly. We have been inconvenienced for well over a year by this work and it may take yet another year for it to be completed. [Note: Let us not forget the devastating impact upon the Charles River White Geese being “West-Ended” at their habitat at the northerly end of the BU Bridge.] Meantime, we know that similar issues will require similar work for the Mass. Avenue Bridge and the Salt and Pepper Bridge. So it may take close to a decade for these major Charles River bridges to be rehabbed.
We have been and will continue to be inconvenienced for some time to come in crossing the Charles River, considered so routine in the past. But the Charles River is not to blame. Perhaps the lesson is to show more respect for the Charles River and its bridges and what they offer not only to the communities the Charles passes through but to all of us along its meandering route in uniting our communities.
There are many beautiful stone bridges upstream of the BU Bridge that will also need maintenance. All of this bridge work will be expensive and painful. Recall this chorus from a Patti Page hit (in a different context) of the 1950s:
Cross over the bridge,
Cross over the bridge,
Change your reckless way of livin’
Cross over the bridge ….
Ignoring these bridges over the years was indeed reckless.
2. Analysis.
Ignoring the bridges certainly was bad.
Using the bridges as an excuse for environmental destruction which can be avoided is “reprehensible” (to quote a civil rights judge talking about the City of Cambridge).
As usual, the contrast between decent human beings and victims of the Cambridge Pol organization is dramatic.
“You gotta be positive. No matter how much we destroy you and what you love, you gotta be positive. No matter how much we do exactly the opposite of what we and you promised, you gotta be positive.”
A really rotten city government with a really rotten, massive machine keeping it and its destructiveness in power through Big Sister demagoguery.
This is the ultimate lie.
3. Prior reports.
Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Monteiro oral argument scheduled in Appeals Court
RE: Monteiro oral argument scheduled in Appeals Court.
The Appeals Court docket has announced that oral arguments in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge are scheduled for May 4, 2011, 9:30 am, in the John Adams Courthouse, room 3 sent.
This is the case where a Superior Court civil rights judge called the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” for destroying the life of a black female department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The Cambridge City Council is spending millions on this case and did not even bother get an independent opinion to appeal to Appeals Court. The excellent judge’s opinion raises very real grounds for firing the Cambridge City Manager without golden parachute and possibly without pension.
The key opinion by the Superior Court judge may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
As of about a year ago, the judgment ran about $1 million in damages, $3.5 million in penal damages, and had exceeded a total of $6 million with the various addons which are accruing.
The Appeals Court docket has announced that oral arguments in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge are scheduled for May 4, 2011, 9:30 am, in the John Adams Courthouse, room 3 sent.
This is the case where a Superior Court civil rights judge called the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” for destroying the life of a black female department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The Cambridge City Council is spending millions on this case and did not even bother get an independent opinion to appeal to Appeals Court. The excellent judge’s opinion raises very real grounds for firing the Cambridge City Manager without golden parachute and possibly without pension.
The key opinion by the Superior Court judge may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
As of about a year ago, the judgment ran about $1 million in damages, $3.5 million in penal damages, and had exceeded a total of $6 million with the various addons which are accruing.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Day 398 at the Destroyed Nesting Area, Comments on the Fake Public Meeting
1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.
2. Cher.
3. Your editor.
4. Summary.
1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.
Late in the afternoon of April 18, 2011, I conducted day 398 of the visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
This was closer to the normal rush hour, but there was no construction activity and none of the usual commuter traffic because of the Patriot’s Day holiday and because of the Boston Marathon. The Boston Marathon ran perhaps half a mile to the south and, even that late in the day, affected traffic.
There was significantly more foot traffic and, really, without the construction, the people driving looked much more normal as well. The foot traffic was clearly impacted by the Boston Marathon. There were far more people walking from Boston (the Marathon location) to Cambridge than the other way around.
People, as usual, were very supportive. One woman who stopped to chat was amazed by the number of fliers which were accepted by other people going by. Various cars, carefully, asked for fliers as well.
I had several people chat.
The discussion that stands out was from a couple who had seen the fliers for the fake public meeting on Magazine Beach. They quoted the gushingly positive words of the flier by heart.
My response was: yeh, those are the enemies, friends of the city manager and city council pulling a con game to try to fool people about what side they are on.
The minute I said “No negative comments allowed,” there was really no need to say any more.
2. Cher.
Cher responds:
Oh I agree with you 100% about these people, but I still think if we spread the word somehow people that is more folks will get involved. We need as many as possible.
3. Your editor.
The Cambridge Pols are propping up a really bad city council and city manager. They use whatever technique is available to them, and by the techniques they use, they demonstrate that they have no ethics. The most important lie is the non stop holier than thou proclamation that they are on the side of the angels.
A key part of the lie is the sort of techniques used in this meeting intended to prop up environmental destruction.
They piously say they are neutral.
They piously say they are allowing all forms of speech.
They piously say the free speech had better be positive. If it is not positive, it is not allowed.
As a civil rights judge said in Monteiro v. Cambridge (on appeal without the city council asking for an independent legal opinion): “Reprehensible.” This is a case the Cambridge Pols also do not want to hear about.
4. Summary.
The reality is that this sort of lying is normal in Cambridge, MA, USA.
Without the pretty much nonstop outrages committed by the Cambridge Pols, a really bad City Council and City Manager would have been thrown out long ago.
2. Cher.
3. Your editor.
4. Summary.
1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.
Late in the afternoon of April 18, 2011, I conducted day 398 of the visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
This was closer to the normal rush hour, but there was no construction activity and none of the usual commuter traffic because of the Patriot’s Day holiday and because of the Boston Marathon. The Boston Marathon ran perhaps half a mile to the south and, even that late in the day, affected traffic.
There was significantly more foot traffic and, really, without the construction, the people driving looked much more normal as well. The foot traffic was clearly impacted by the Boston Marathon. There were far more people walking from Boston (the Marathon location) to Cambridge than the other way around.
People, as usual, were very supportive. One woman who stopped to chat was amazed by the number of fliers which were accepted by other people going by. Various cars, carefully, asked for fliers as well.
I had several people chat.
The discussion that stands out was from a couple who had seen the fliers for the fake public meeting on Magazine Beach. They quoted the gushingly positive words of the flier by heart.
My response was: yeh, those are the enemies, friends of the city manager and city council pulling a con game to try to fool people about what side they are on.
The minute I said “No negative comments allowed,” there was really no need to say any more.
2. Cher.
Cher responds:
Oh I agree with you 100% about these people, but I still think if we spread the word somehow people that is more folks will get involved. We need as many as possible.
3. Your editor.
The Cambridge Pols are propping up a really bad city council and city manager. They use whatever technique is available to them, and by the techniques they use, they demonstrate that they have no ethics. The most important lie is the non stop holier than thou proclamation that they are on the side of the angels.
A key part of the lie is the sort of techniques used in this meeting intended to prop up environmental destruction.
They piously say they are neutral.
They piously say they are allowing all forms of speech.
They piously say the free speech had better be positive. If it is not positive, it is not allowed.
As a civil rights judge said in Monteiro v. Cambridge (on appeal without the city council asking for an independent legal opinion): “Reprehensible.” This is a case the Cambridge Pols also do not want to hear about.
4. Summary.
The reality is that this sort of lying is normal in Cambridge, MA, USA.
Without the pretty much nonstop outrages committed by the Cambridge Pols, a really bad City Council and City Manager would have been thrown out long ago.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VII, The Charles River Bridges
1. Archie’s Report.
2. Summary.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VII
By Archie Mazmanian
PATRIOTS DAY QUIZ:
Q. Which bridge over the Charles River did Paul Revere cross on his historic Midnight Ride from Boston to Lexington/Concord?
A. There were no bridges over the Charles River to cross. Rather, Paul Revere took the ferry between Boston and Charlestown.
For some great maps illustrating the different routes taken by Paul Revere and William Dawes on their rides, Google “Paul Revere’s Route to Lexington” and their relations to the Charles River back then.
While there may have been bridges over some of the narrow parts of the Charles River well upstream, the first bridge between Boston and points north was built in 1786, between Boston and Charlestown, known as the Charles River Bridge, replacing the ferry operation used by Paul Revere in 1775 for his Midnight Ride. The ferry operation had been granted to Harvard College in 1650 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the tolls of which augmented Harvard’s coffers.
In 1785, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in granting a charter to the Charles River Bridge company in effect shut down Harvard’s ferry operation. To compensate for this, the Charles River Bridge company was authorized to charge tolls for a period of 40 years subject to paying an annuity to Harvard to replace its lost ferry toll charges.
In 1792, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts granted a charter for the West Boston Bridge (now the Longfellow Bridge, aka the Salt and Pepper Bridge). To offset the resulting toll losses to the Charles River Bridge downstream, the Commonwealth extended the latter’s charter to 70 years.
In 1828, the Commonwealth chartered the Warren Bridge to be constructed very close by the Charles River Bridge. The resulting competition benefited MA citizens with lower tolls, significantly reducing the revenues of the Charles Street Bridge. So the Charles River Bridge sued the Warren Bridge in a MA court. Charles River Bridge, represented by eminent counsel Daniel Webster and Lemuel Shaw, claimed that the charter granted to the Warren Bridge violated the U.S. Constitution’s Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10) on the basis that the earlier charter grant to Charles River Bridge provided, by implication, exclusive rights attributable to the yet earlier grant to Harvard for its ferry service.
In 1829, the MA Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of the Warren Bridge, that had argued no exclusive rights had existed for crossing the Charles River and technological - and thus economic – progress should prevail over the private interests of Charles River Bridge (as well as Harvard).
The Charles River Bridge appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal was first argued in 1831. It is reported that Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story (who did not recuse despite his connections with Harvard and its law school) and Justice Smith Thompson seemed to accept the Contract Clause argument of Charles River Bridge. But the case continued on for years because of some disagreements among the Justices. Meantime, in 1836, Roger Taney had replaced Marshall as Chief Justice. In 1837, the Supreme Court ruled (5-2) in favor of Warren Bridge, the opinion of the Court being written by Chief Justice Taney, with Justices Story and John McLean dissenting.
Just imagine if Charles River Bridge had won. How might that have impacted upon the Charles River’s development as we know it today with its many bridges? Might the economic growth of Boston, Cambridge and environs have been stifled? And how much larger might Harvard’s endowment and real estate holdings along the Charles River have become with its annuity?
The decisions of the MA Supreme Judicial Court and the U.S. Supreme Court are quite lengthy and include a lot of history of interest for fans of the Charles River. To avoid extensive reading that may seem somewhat arcane, those interested may Google “Charles River Bridge vs. Warren Bridge” for short but informative narratives.
[Part VIII of this series will continue to discuss the bridges of the Charles River. For those interested in the Esplanade discussed briefly in Part VI, check via the Internet “Charles River Esplanade Study Report” by the Boston Landmarks Commission dated 5/4/2009; it runs 76 pages with quite extensive information, including environmental, about the Charles River. The role of Harvard vis-à-vis the Charles River has been referenced in earlier Parts of this Series and will be further addressed (along with other abutting institutions) in future Parts as the series progresses, somewhat in the mode of “The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.”]
2. Summary.
These historical structures are under attack by the Charles River Destroyers (they keep calling themselves a Conservancy) and their friends including, as usual really bad people in Cambridge.
A recent bad vote by the Cambridge City Council was unanimous.
Prior reports may be found at:
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html
2. Summary.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VII
By Archie Mazmanian
PATRIOTS DAY QUIZ:
Q. Which bridge over the Charles River did Paul Revere cross on his historic Midnight Ride from Boston to Lexington/Concord?
A. There were no bridges over the Charles River to cross. Rather, Paul Revere took the ferry between Boston and Charlestown.
For some great maps illustrating the different routes taken by Paul Revere and William Dawes on their rides, Google “Paul Revere’s Route to Lexington” and their relations to the Charles River back then.
While there may have been bridges over some of the narrow parts of the Charles River well upstream, the first bridge between Boston and points north was built in 1786, between Boston and Charlestown, known as the Charles River Bridge, replacing the ferry operation used by Paul Revere in 1775 for his Midnight Ride. The ferry operation had been granted to Harvard College in 1650 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the tolls of which augmented Harvard’s coffers.
In 1785, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in granting a charter to the Charles River Bridge company in effect shut down Harvard’s ferry operation. To compensate for this, the Charles River Bridge company was authorized to charge tolls for a period of 40 years subject to paying an annuity to Harvard to replace its lost ferry toll charges.
In 1792, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts granted a charter for the West Boston Bridge (now the Longfellow Bridge, aka the Salt and Pepper Bridge). To offset the resulting toll losses to the Charles River Bridge downstream, the Commonwealth extended the latter’s charter to 70 years.
In 1828, the Commonwealth chartered the Warren Bridge to be constructed very close by the Charles River Bridge. The resulting competition benefited MA citizens with lower tolls, significantly reducing the revenues of the Charles Street Bridge. So the Charles River Bridge sued the Warren Bridge in a MA court. Charles River Bridge, represented by eminent counsel Daniel Webster and Lemuel Shaw, claimed that the charter granted to the Warren Bridge violated the U.S. Constitution’s Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10) on the basis that the earlier charter grant to Charles River Bridge provided, by implication, exclusive rights attributable to the yet earlier grant to Harvard for its ferry service.
In 1829, the MA Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of the Warren Bridge, that had argued no exclusive rights had existed for crossing the Charles River and technological - and thus economic – progress should prevail over the private interests of Charles River Bridge (as well as Harvard).
The Charles River Bridge appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal was first argued in 1831. It is reported that Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story (who did not recuse despite his connections with Harvard and its law school) and Justice Smith Thompson seemed to accept the Contract Clause argument of Charles River Bridge. But the case continued on for years because of some disagreements among the Justices. Meantime, in 1836, Roger Taney had replaced Marshall as Chief Justice. In 1837, the Supreme Court ruled (5-2) in favor of Warren Bridge, the opinion of the Court being written by Chief Justice Taney, with Justices Story and John McLean dissenting.
Just imagine if Charles River Bridge had won. How might that have impacted upon the Charles River’s development as we know it today with its many bridges? Might the economic growth of Boston, Cambridge and environs have been stifled? And how much larger might Harvard’s endowment and real estate holdings along the Charles River have become with its annuity?
The decisions of the MA Supreme Judicial Court and the U.S. Supreme Court are quite lengthy and include a lot of history of interest for fans of the Charles River. To avoid extensive reading that may seem somewhat arcane, those interested may Google “Charles River Bridge vs. Warren Bridge” for short but informative narratives.
[Part VIII of this series will continue to discuss the bridges of the Charles River. For those interested in the Esplanade discussed briefly in Part VI, check via the Internet “Charles River Esplanade Study Report” by the Boston Landmarks Commission dated 5/4/2009; it runs 76 pages with quite extensive information, including environmental, about the Charles River. The role of Harvard vis-à-vis the Charles River has been referenced in earlier Parts of this Series and will be further addressed (along with other abutting institutions) in future Parts as the series progresses, somewhat in the mode of “The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.”]
2. Summary.
These historical structures are under attack by the Charles River Destroyers (they keep calling themselves a Conservancy) and their friends including, as usual really bad people in Cambridge.
A recent bad vote by the Cambridge City Council was unanimous.
Prior reports may be found at:
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html
Day 397 at the Destroyed Nesting Area, the Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism
1. Visibility.
2. Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism.
3. What little I was able to get in under the watch of Big Brother on Wednesday night.
1. Visibility.
On Friday, April 15, 2011, I conducted the 397th day of visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The moving of the construction work to the other side freed up the area next to the now Goose Ghetto for me to prop up a sign and leaflet. I was there over the noon hour which is a moderately quiet time.
At the beginning of the visibility, two police were managing traffic so that only one lane was allowed to move at a time in front of me. This was to permit a concrete truck to pour concrete into the far side of the bridge.
When they were done, we had two lanes of traffic and normal lights.
Some drivers, stopped for the red, rolled down their windows to ask for fliers. Pedestrians very nicely accepted fliers, along with bicyclists. I had an extended discussion with one construction worker.
The geese were in their devastated, devegetated ghetto.
2. Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism.
The outrage at the fake public meeting on Magazine Beach plans was not at all unusual.
The Cambridge Pol Machine, apparently consisting of friends of the Cambridge City Manager and City Council, routinely abuses their offices in these various groups, and they certainly look like they control pretty much all the most visible organizations.
The first and most important mission forced by the Pols onto the groups is to perpetuate the lie that Cambridge, MA, USA has a responsible city government, a government worthy of the respect of an electorate which wants to be enlightened.
The next con game / "public meeting" will be a meeting to save street trees Tuesday night. The con there is that nothing will be allowed to be MEANINGFULLY discussed except street trees.
The people pulling the strings are aggressively destroying Memorial Drive, Alewife, and Fresh Pond. Environmental destruction is common in city projects. So the Cambridge Pols allow fake organizations (either created that way or rendered that way by outorganizing responsible people) to "protect" what the Cambridge Pols do not feel like destroying. This is one way they lie to the voters that the City of Cambridge protects the environment.
3. What little I was able to get in under the watch of Big Brother on Wednesday night.
I left early. The totalitarian dictates from the chair are normal in such fake meetings. The Pols thus put out the lie that there has been some sort of meeting.
I was not allowed to object to their heartless animal abuse. So the lie put out will be that nobody objected to heartless animal abuse. They will just neglect to mention that they prohibited such discussion. They will also conveniently ignore what I did get in.
The state commented that it would consider "native" grasses. I commented that we had native grasses at Magazine Beach ten years ago, but YOU destroyed it.
The state promised to consider putting in trees. I replied: you are destroying hundreds.
The most environmentally destructive City Councilor, Henrietta Davis, was present and calling shots.
The big lie there was that "improvements" (translate: environmental destruction) would "continue" (translate: how dare you expect us to stop poisoning the banks of the Charles. How dare you expect us to remove the wall of vegetation barring access between the Charles and Magazine Beach. How dare you expect us to stop dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles. How dare you want the poison drainage ditches replaced with the playing fields that used to be there. How dare you expect us to stop heartless animal abuse.)
I started my Big Brother censored presentation with the standard pitch of the Charles River Destroyers organization (they claim to be a Charles River Conservancy). I spoke in favor of swimming in the Charles, and to allow swimming, the bizarre wall of introduced bushes would have to go, along with all those poisons on the banks of the Charles.
Destroyer Davis justified the bizarre wall of introduced bushes on the grounds that, in addition to everybody else and the Charles River White Geese, the annual rowing event is kept off Magazine Beach by the bizarre wall of introduced bushes. She, of course, only mentioned the Head of the Charles Regatta.
The Director of the Charles River Destroyers whose letter was published ahead of mine in last week’s Chronicle parroted Destroyer Davis. By doing so, he rejected the non stop claims of the Charles River Destroyers that they are fighting for swimming in the Charles. They got caught in that lie, so they change reasons, the nonstop search for "Truth" (whatever the sucker will swallow) by very destructive people.
2. Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism.
3. What little I was able to get in under the watch of Big Brother on Wednesday night.
1. Visibility.
On Friday, April 15, 2011, I conducted the 397th day of visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The moving of the construction work to the other side freed up the area next to the now Goose Ghetto for me to prop up a sign and leaflet. I was there over the noon hour which is a moderately quiet time.
At the beginning of the visibility, two police were managing traffic so that only one lane was allowed to move at a time in front of me. This was to permit a concrete truck to pour concrete into the far side of the bridge.
When they were done, we had two lanes of traffic and normal lights.
Some drivers, stopped for the red, rolled down their windows to ask for fliers. Pedestrians very nicely accepted fliers, along with bicyclists. I had an extended discussion with one construction worker.
The geese were in their devastated, devegetated ghetto.
2. Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism.
The outrage at the fake public meeting on Magazine Beach plans was not at all unusual.
The Cambridge Pol Machine, apparently consisting of friends of the Cambridge City Manager and City Council, routinely abuses their offices in these various groups, and they certainly look like they control pretty much all the most visible organizations.
The first and most important mission forced by the Pols onto the groups is to perpetuate the lie that Cambridge, MA, USA has a responsible city government, a government worthy of the respect of an electorate which wants to be enlightened.
The next con game / "public meeting" will be a meeting to save street trees Tuesday night. The con there is that nothing will be allowed to be MEANINGFULLY discussed except street trees.
The people pulling the strings are aggressively destroying Memorial Drive, Alewife, and Fresh Pond. Environmental destruction is common in city projects. So the Cambridge Pols allow fake organizations (either created that way or rendered that way by outorganizing responsible people) to "protect" what the Cambridge Pols do not feel like destroying. This is one way they lie to the voters that the City of Cambridge protects the environment.
3. What little I was able to get in under the watch of Big Brother on Wednesday night.
I left early. The totalitarian dictates from the chair are normal in such fake meetings. The Pols thus put out the lie that there has been some sort of meeting.
I was not allowed to object to their heartless animal abuse. So the lie put out will be that nobody objected to heartless animal abuse. They will just neglect to mention that they prohibited such discussion. They will also conveniently ignore what I did get in.
The state commented that it would consider "native" grasses. I commented that we had native grasses at Magazine Beach ten years ago, but YOU destroyed it.
The state promised to consider putting in trees. I replied: you are destroying hundreds.
The most environmentally destructive City Councilor, Henrietta Davis, was present and calling shots.
The big lie there was that "improvements" (translate: environmental destruction) would "continue" (translate: how dare you expect us to stop poisoning the banks of the Charles. How dare you expect us to remove the wall of vegetation barring access between the Charles and Magazine Beach. How dare you expect us to stop dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles. How dare you want the poison drainage ditches replaced with the playing fields that used to be there. How dare you expect us to stop heartless animal abuse.)
I started my Big Brother censored presentation with the standard pitch of the Charles River Destroyers organization (they claim to be a Charles River Conservancy). I spoke in favor of swimming in the Charles, and to allow swimming, the bizarre wall of introduced bushes would have to go, along with all those poisons on the banks of the Charles.
Destroyer Davis justified the bizarre wall of introduced bushes on the grounds that, in addition to everybody else and the Charles River White Geese, the annual rowing event is kept off Magazine Beach by the bizarre wall of introduced bushes. She, of course, only mentioned the Head of the Charles Regatta.
The Director of the Charles River Destroyers whose letter was published ahead of mine in last week’s Chronicle parroted Destroyer Davis. By doing so, he rejected the non stop claims of the Charles River Destroyers that they are fighting for swimming in the Charles. They got caught in that lie, so they change reasons, the nonstop search for "Truth" (whatever the sucker will swallow) by very destructive people.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Another fraud on the voters conducted in the Magazine Beach meeting.
The meeting at the Morse School in Cambridge, MA, conducted on Wednesday, April 13, 2011, supposedly concerned Magazine Beach, but it could have been conducted by a North African dictatorship.
Absolute freedom of speech was allowed AS LONG AS ALL COMMENTS ARE POSITIVE.
This was called “neutrality.”
Yet another fraud on the voters committed by the friends of the City Manager and the City Council.
With such an outrageous groundrule, the destroyers from the DCR, the Cambridge Pols, and their friends will sound like Colonel Gaddafi after winning yet another 99% vote.
Absolute freedom of speech was allowed AS LONG AS ALL COMMENTS ARE POSITIVE.
This was called “neutrality.”
Yet another fraud on the voters committed by the friends of the City Manager and the City Council.
With such an outrageous groundrule, the destroyers from the DCR, the Cambridge Pols, and their friends will sound like Colonel Gaddafi after winning yet another 99% vote.
Monday, April 11, 2011
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VI
1. Archie reports.
2. Editor Response.
1. Archie reports.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VI
By Archie Mazmanian
Heading downstream beyond the Mass. Avenue Bridge the Charles continues to widen as we approach the lagoon and continue on to the Esplanade and the Hatch Memorial Shell. What a magnificent venue for music or just enjoying life on a fine summer?s day. The sailing pavilion provides a wonderful outlet for youngsters to enjoy the waters of the Charles. There is something for everyone to enjoy.
The Fourth of July Boston Pops extravaganza ran too late for our young children, however, so they would watch it on TV in their PJs. We could hear the fireworks at our Cottage Farm home. One Fourth of July we decided on the spur of the moment shortly before the fireworks display to take the children to the nearby BU Bridge to watch from upstream. Many others had the same idea as the bridge was thronged.
This was an opportunity to explain some high school physics to the children about the differences between the speeds of light and sound as the fireworks burst brilliantly followed moments later by the booming sounds (sometimes stifled by winds). But the sight was beautiful reflecting on the river below. A few years later, the children were old enough to make the trip for the entire celebration of this Fourth of July event enjoyed by many thousands in person and millions via TV.
We always played a lot of jazz tapes at home. But listening and watching live jazz is much more exciting. The Charles provided such musical events during daylight hours from time to time, introducing our children to live jazz in outdoor settings. This was our Newport, just a short walk from home. And of course there were the usual food concessions to fill our bellies.
The sailing pavilion staff would train children to operate sailboats safely. I know our children enjoyed solo sailing on the Charles in what seemed an orderly fashion, memories to be carried for the rest of their lives.
The Museum of Science was yet another Charles River venue for our children with its educational programs of nature and science.
As the children got older, they developed many interests and attended to them on their own. So trips along the Charles waned. But every once in a while, I would go solo to enjoy the solitude of the Charles surrounded by others presumably doing the same, serving as a non-prescriptive tranquilizer.
There is much more to the Charles than I had imagined. Over the years, planners looked ahead to improving the river, much of which was accomplished before my trips along the Charles. And there has been continued planning, some of which has been postponed for budgetary reasons. An Internet search recently led me to “New Charles River Basin” by the Metropolitan District Commission published in March 1995 and revised July 1999 and June 2002. Caution: be patient downloading and printing. But WOW! Yes, the Charles River Basin extends beyond the dams to Boston Harbor that should be explored. I don't know how much of this has been accomplished or what the future holds. Hopefully this jewel will continue to be polished.
[Geographically, the Charles River divides communities but they are reunited by bridges, the topic of Part VII forthcoming.]
2. Editor Response.
What passes for planning must be recognized within the context that (1) the bureaucrats do a lot of lying, (2) the nonstop propaganda leaves the public in the position of believing that “they would never stoop so low.”
The Master Plan for the Charles River called for Magazine Beach to be a meadow to the water, and the apologists run around screaming for swimming.
The bizarre wall of bushes which has been introduced walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River totally contradicts the supposed intentions for Magazine Beach.
Plans are to destroy hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. My count was 449 to 660 through various projects. I will follow with photos of an excellent 105 tree grove intended to be decimated at the Memorial Drive split.
Dumping of poisons on the river banks at Magazine Beach and near Mass. General are actions totally contemptible within the supposed goals of the bureaucrats and their friends in Cambridge and the cheerleaders. But it is done. Destroying playing fields to put in a drainage system to drain off poisons which not be dumped in the first place is a symptom of a very sick bureaucracy at the state and a “reprehensible” (to quote a civil rights judge) government in Cambridge.
Heartless animal abuse of the beautiful Charles River White Geese falls into the “They would never stoop so low” category, but they do.
The goal very clearly is to kill off all animals living on the Charles River Basin. The euphemism “parks” translates into “no animals need apply to live here.”
The very basic problem is the normal assumption of minimal competence and environmental decency. Such an assumption is flat out false when dealing with the state and with Cambridge. The problem is exacerbated by the massive, lying, organization active in Cambridge, combined with the tendency of the destructive organization to join all over the place and spread their falsehoods to decent people.
2. Editor Response.
1. Archie reports.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VI
By Archie Mazmanian
Heading downstream beyond the Mass. Avenue Bridge the Charles continues to widen as we approach the lagoon and continue on to the Esplanade and the Hatch Memorial Shell. What a magnificent venue for music or just enjoying life on a fine summer?s day. The sailing pavilion provides a wonderful outlet for youngsters to enjoy the waters of the Charles. There is something for everyone to enjoy.
The Fourth of July Boston Pops extravaganza ran too late for our young children, however, so they would watch it on TV in their PJs. We could hear the fireworks at our Cottage Farm home. One Fourth of July we decided on the spur of the moment shortly before the fireworks display to take the children to the nearby BU Bridge to watch from upstream. Many others had the same idea as the bridge was thronged.
This was an opportunity to explain some high school physics to the children about the differences between the speeds of light and sound as the fireworks burst brilliantly followed moments later by the booming sounds (sometimes stifled by winds). But the sight was beautiful reflecting on the river below. A few years later, the children were old enough to make the trip for the entire celebration of this Fourth of July event enjoyed by many thousands in person and millions via TV.
We always played a lot of jazz tapes at home. But listening and watching live jazz is much more exciting. The Charles provided such musical events during daylight hours from time to time, introducing our children to live jazz in outdoor settings. This was our Newport, just a short walk from home. And of course there were the usual food concessions to fill our bellies.
The sailing pavilion staff would train children to operate sailboats safely. I know our children enjoyed solo sailing on the Charles in what seemed an orderly fashion, memories to be carried for the rest of their lives.
The Museum of Science was yet another Charles River venue for our children with its educational programs of nature and science.
As the children got older, they developed many interests and attended to them on their own. So trips along the Charles waned. But every once in a while, I would go solo to enjoy the solitude of the Charles surrounded by others presumably doing the same, serving as a non-prescriptive tranquilizer.
There is much more to the Charles than I had imagined. Over the years, planners looked ahead to improving the river, much of which was accomplished before my trips along the Charles. And there has been continued planning, some of which has been postponed for budgetary reasons. An Internet search recently led me to “New Charles River Basin” by the Metropolitan District Commission published in March 1995 and revised July 1999 and June 2002. Caution: be patient downloading and printing. But WOW! Yes, the Charles River Basin extends beyond the dams to Boston Harbor that should be explored. I don't know how much of this has been accomplished or what the future holds. Hopefully this jewel will continue to be polished.
[Geographically, the Charles River divides communities but they are reunited by bridges, the topic of Part VII forthcoming.]
2. Editor Response.
What passes for planning must be recognized within the context that (1) the bureaucrats do a lot of lying, (2) the nonstop propaganda leaves the public in the position of believing that “they would never stoop so low.”
The Master Plan for the Charles River called for Magazine Beach to be a meadow to the water, and the apologists run around screaming for swimming.
The bizarre wall of bushes which has been introduced walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River totally contradicts the supposed intentions for Magazine Beach.
Plans are to destroy hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. My count was 449 to 660 through various projects. I will follow with photos of an excellent 105 tree grove intended to be decimated at the Memorial Drive split.
Dumping of poisons on the river banks at Magazine Beach and near Mass. General are actions totally contemptible within the supposed goals of the bureaucrats and their friends in Cambridge and the cheerleaders. But it is done. Destroying playing fields to put in a drainage system to drain off poisons which not be dumped in the first place is a symptom of a very sick bureaucracy at the state and a “reprehensible” (to quote a civil rights judge) government in Cambridge.
Heartless animal abuse of the beautiful Charles River White Geese falls into the “They would never stoop so low” category, but they do.
The goal very clearly is to kill off all animals living on the Charles River Basin. The euphemism “parks” translates into “no animals need apply to live here.”
The very basic problem is the normal assumption of minimal competence and environmental decency. Such an assumption is flat out false when dealing with the state and with Cambridge. The problem is exacerbated by the massive, lying, organization active in Cambridge, combined with the tendency of the destructive organization to join all over the place and spread their falsehoods to decent people.
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Dramatic Combination of Letters in Cambridge Chronicle
1. Introductory.
2. Details.
A. Chronicle Front Page.
B. Marilyn’s Response, some background.
C. My response and the bad guys’ response, Chronicle handling.
3. Summary.
1. Introductory.
The April 7, 2011 Cambridge Chronicle printed three letters on the editorial page, page 10. The second and third concerned the Charles River.
In the second letter, a person who identified himself as a director of the Friends of Magazine Beach and The Charles River Conservancy disowned any connection between the Friends of Magazine Beach and The Charles River Conservancy.
In the third letter, I disowned any connection between the Charles River “Conservancy” and environmentalism. “Charles River Destroyers would be an honest name.”
2. Details.
A. Chronicle Front Page.
On March 17, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle front paged an interview with the head of the Charles River “Conservancy.”
B. Marilyn’s Response, some background.
On March 24, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle ran Marilyn Wellons’ response. They dominated the editorial page with the response. We have published her letter at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/marilyn-wellons-responds-to-article-of.html.
Marilyn went into great detail concerning the environmentally reprehensible record of this organization, which, for accuracy, should be called The Charles River Destroyers. Buried in the multiple statements of truth was a statement of its origin which very clearly is the truth.
In 2000, when the reprehensible local and regional governments started their attacks on the environment in the BU Bridge area, we took on the local fake environmental organization, which called itself “Friends of Magazine Beach.” That organization existed for only two apparent reasons:
(1). To fight for the destruction of the environment in the Magazine Beach area of the Charles River in Cambridge, MA, and
(2). To conduct an annual cleanup of Magazine Beach the weekend before Boston University used it for graduation ceremonies. They never told their volunteers that the volunteers were cleaning up for Boston University’s graduation ceremony.
One of the first activities of Friends of the White Geese was to discredit “Friends of Magazine Beach.”
Friends of the White Geese demonstrated and leafleted in front of the access to Magazine Beach on the morning of the cleanup publicizing the environmental destruction this group was fighting for and the real purpose of the cleanup.
The group has never conducted another activity.
A few months later the Charles River Destroyers announced its existence. It had overlapping membership to “Friends of Magazine Beach” and called themselves The Charles River “Conservancy.” The”new group” loudly proclaimed its intent to destroy the environment of Magazine Beach and much more.
We recognize the obvious.
C. My response, Chronicle handling.
I did not see a response from the bad guys in the March 31 edition. So I followed up with my letter, which I have published at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-destroyers-details.html.
The second letter on the editorial page was from a person who identified himself as a director of “The Friends of Magazine Beach” and of The Charles River “Conservancy.” The third letter on the three letter editorial page was mine.
The Chronicle headlined the letter from the Director of the “Friends of Magazine Beach” and of the Charles River “Conservancy” with the title “Clarifying the Conservancy.” They headlined my letter with “Not a Conservancy.”
The bad guys’ letter ran the same length as Marilyn’s and mine. In those 400 words, the writer did nothing of substance except to deny the obvious, that “Friends of Magazine Beach” morphed into The Charles River “Conservancy.”
Look at Marilyn’s letter. THE ONLY THING THIS GUY RESPONDED TO WAS TO DISOWN THE OBVIOUS ASSOCIATION between “Friends of Magazine Beach” and the Charles River “Conservancy.”
And the Chronicle followed up this bizarre letter with my 400 word letter going into very broad and specific facts about the destruction inflicted, supported and proposed by Charles River "Conservancy." My letter condemned the latest fake group for calling itself a “Conservancy.”
This bad guys’ letter is published on line at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x675821694/Letter-Clarifying-the-Conservancy#axzz1J1EZ1R5N.
The response from the bad guys was posted Thursday. My letter was published on line yesterday, Friday.
3. Summary.
The reality is that these fake organizations are very much normal in Cambridge, MA. The bad guys who dominate these organizations are very loud in Cambridge politics. They warp politics in Cambridge to such an extent that reality of the world and the reality put out by these fake organizations which they force on Cambridge politics are strikingly different. But they force their bizarre version of reality onto Cambridge politics. And they are non stop holier than thou.
The Chronicle did not have to say a word. They simply printed the bizarre disassociation of “Friends of Magazine Beach” with The Charles River “Conservancy” which denied absolutely nothing else in Marilyn’s letter except for this obvious truth. The Chronicle then followed this bizarre letter with my further letter providing very substantive condemnation of the organization.
The Cambridge bad guys NEVER respond to us. NEVER.
They do that for a reason. They have no meaningful way to support themselves on the grounds they claim to stand for. They open their mouths. We respond. They destroy their false claims of environmental sainthood.
The situation in Cambridge, MA is very much offensive.
Thank you very much to the Cambridge Chronicle.
2. Details.
A. Chronicle Front Page.
B. Marilyn’s Response, some background.
C. My response and the bad guys’ response, Chronicle handling.
3. Summary.
1. Introductory.
The April 7, 2011 Cambridge Chronicle printed three letters on the editorial page, page 10. The second and third concerned the Charles River.
In the second letter, a person who identified himself as a director of the Friends of Magazine Beach and The Charles River Conservancy disowned any connection between the Friends of Magazine Beach and The Charles River Conservancy.
In the third letter, I disowned any connection between the Charles River “Conservancy” and environmentalism. “Charles River Destroyers would be an honest name.”
2. Details.
A. Chronicle Front Page.
On March 17, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle front paged an interview with the head of the Charles River “Conservancy.”
B. Marilyn’s Response, some background.
On March 24, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle ran Marilyn Wellons’ response. They dominated the editorial page with the response. We have published her letter at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/marilyn-wellons-responds-to-article-of.html.
Marilyn went into great detail concerning the environmentally reprehensible record of this organization, which, for accuracy, should be called The Charles River Destroyers. Buried in the multiple statements of truth was a statement of its origin which very clearly is the truth.
In 2000, when the reprehensible local and regional governments started their attacks on the environment in the BU Bridge area, we took on the local fake environmental organization, which called itself “Friends of Magazine Beach.” That organization existed for only two apparent reasons:
(1). To fight for the destruction of the environment in the Magazine Beach area of the Charles River in Cambridge, MA, and
(2). To conduct an annual cleanup of Magazine Beach the weekend before Boston University used it for graduation ceremonies. They never told their volunteers that the volunteers were cleaning up for Boston University’s graduation ceremony.
One of the first activities of Friends of the White Geese was to discredit “Friends of Magazine Beach.”
Friends of the White Geese demonstrated and leafleted in front of the access to Magazine Beach on the morning of the cleanup publicizing the environmental destruction this group was fighting for and the real purpose of the cleanup.
The group has never conducted another activity.
A few months later the Charles River Destroyers announced its existence. It had overlapping membership to “Friends of Magazine Beach” and called themselves The Charles River “Conservancy.” The”new group” loudly proclaimed its intent to destroy the environment of Magazine Beach and much more.
We recognize the obvious.
C. My response, Chronicle handling.
I did not see a response from the bad guys in the March 31 edition. So I followed up with my letter, which I have published at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-destroyers-details.html.
The second letter on the editorial page was from a person who identified himself as a director of “The Friends of Magazine Beach” and of The Charles River “Conservancy.” The third letter on the three letter editorial page was mine.
The Chronicle headlined the letter from the Director of the “Friends of Magazine Beach” and of the Charles River “Conservancy” with the title “Clarifying the Conservancy.” They headlined my letter with “Not a Conservancy.”
The bad guys’ letter ran the same length as Marilyn’s and mine. In those 400 words, the writer did nothing of substance except to deny the obvious, that “Friends of Magazine Beach” morphed into The Charles River “Conservancy.”
Look at Marilyn’s letter. THE ONLY THING THIS GUY RESPONDED TO WAS TO DISOWN THE OBVIOUS ASSOCIATION between “Friends of Magazine Beach” and the Charles River “Conservancy.”
And the Chronicle followed up this bizarre letter with my 400 word letter going into very broad and specific facts about the destruction inflicted, supported and proposed by Charles River "Conservancy." My letter condemned the latest fake group for calling itself a “Conservancy.”
This bad guys’ letter is published on line at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x675821694/Letter-Clarifying-the-Conservancy#axzz1J1EZ1R5N.
The response from the bad guys was posted Thursday. My letter was published on line yesterday, Friday.
3. Summary.
The reality is that these fake organizations are very much normal in Cambridge, MA. The bad guys who dominate these organizations are very loud in Cambridge politics. They warp politics in Cambridge to such an extent that reality of the world and the reality put out by these fake organizations which they force on Cambridge politics are strikingly different. But they force their bizarre version of reality onto Cambridge politics. And they are non stop holier than thou.
The Chronicle did not have to say a word. They simply printed the bizarre disassociation of “Friends of Magazine Beach” with The Charles River “Conservancy” which denied absolutely nothing else in Marilyn’s letter except for this obvious truth. The Chronicle then followed this bizarre letter with my further letter providing very substantive condemnation of the organization.
The Cambridge bad guys NEVER respond to us. NEVER.
They do that for a reason. They have no meaningful way to support themselves on the grounds they claim to stand for. They open their mouths. We respond. They destroy their false claims of environmental sainthood.
The situation in Cambridge, MA is very much offensive.
Thank you very much to the Cambridge Chronicle.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Charles River Destroyers — Details
1. Background.
2. Proposed letter.
3. Marilyn’s response.
1. Background.
A couple of week’s ago, I published a response by Marilyn Wellons to a front page question and answer session between the Cambridge Chronicle and the so-called Charles River Conservancy. Last week, March 24, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle dominated its editorial page with Marilyn’s response.
I gave the bad guys a week to respond to Marilyn. I have not seen the hard copy yet. As of Thursday morning, nothing had appeared on line.
I understand this letter will be published next Thursday.
2. Proposed letter.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Some elaboration could be useful about the so called Charles River "Conservancy."
Trees whose pending destruction this group has praised number in the hundreds and are in excellent condition. Diseased trees were destroyed years ago. These trees (and hundreds more threatened in related projects) are CURRENTLY between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach on Memorial Drive.
The CRC’s highway project would decimate an excellent 105 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split in addition to wetlands and animal habitat.
The CRC conducted a "swim in" at Magazine Beach to cheerlead the bizarre and needless project at Magazine Beach.
A wall of vegetation which has no business on the Charles has been created. It nearly totally blocks access between the Charles and Magazine Beach. Everywhere else bordering vegetation needed by migrating waterfowl is destroyed twice a year. This stuff just grows. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has bragged that this introduced wall starves the now native Charles River White Geese.
How is there to be swimming through this thicket?
The 7 acres of grass destroyed at Magazine Beach survived the better part of a century without use of poisons. The sickly stuff which has been introduced in its place requires poisons to survive. So a massive system has been substituted for playing fields to drain off the poisons needed to keep the sickly stuff from dying.
Now we have smaller playing fields to minimize the destructiveness of poisons which should not ever be dumped on the banks of the Charles.
Since 2003, almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has been destroyed. Nothing has grown since. More poisons? And the CRC is the DCR’s environmental destroyer.
I have witnessed members of the Boston Conservation Commission expressing distress at the destruction of protective vegetation bordering the Charles by the CRC.
The CRC, starting in 2003, ran around poisoning the eggs of as many migratory waterfowl as it could get away with.
A very visible member of the CRC was discussed by the Boston Conservation Commission with the DCR. The commission objected to his wanton chain saw use on trees near the Charles. The DCR disowned him. To my knowledge, the CRC has not disowned him or his activities.
I condemn the CRC’s use of the word "Conservancy". The presence of "Conservancy" in its name is false and misleading. Charles River Destroyers would be an honest name.
3. Marilyn’s response.
Marilyn was very favorable.
She provided a few more details about the CRC leader with the chainsaw.
He and his name have been published in the Boston Globe.
The reality is that, being active in Cambridge politics, I am forced to associate with a lot of people I simply do not consider fit to associate with. I really would rather not honor them by providing their names any more than I can help.
2. Proposed letter.
3. Marilyn’s response.
1. Background.
A couple of week’s ago, I published a response by Marilyn Wellons to a front page question and answer session between the Cambridge Chronicle and the so-called Charles River Conservancy. Last week, March 24, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle dominated its editorial page with Marilyn’s response.
I gave the bad guys a week to respond to Marilyn. I have not seen the hard copy yet. As of Thursday morning, nothing had appeared on line.
I understand this letter will be published next Thursday.
2. Proposed letter.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Some elaboration could be useful about the so called Charles River "Conservancy."
Trees whose pending destruction this group has praised number in the hundreds and are in excellent condition. Diseased trees were destroyed years ago. These trees (and hundreds more threatened in related projects) are CURRENTLY between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach on Memorial Drive.
The CRC’s highway project would decimate an excellent 105 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split in addition to wetlands and animal habitat.
The CRC conducted a "swim in" at Magazine Beach to cheerlead the bizarre and needless project at Magazine Beach.
A wall of vegetation which has no business on the Charles has been created. It nearly totally blocks access between the Charles and Magazine Beach. Everywhere else bordering vegetation needed by migrating waterfowl is destroyed twice a year. This stuff just grows. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has bragged that this introduced wall starves the now native Charles River White Geese.
How is there to be swimming through this thicket?
The 7 acres of grass destroyed at Magazine Beach survived the better part of a century without use of poisons. The sickly stuff which has been introduced in its place requires poisons to survive. So a massive system has been substituted for playing fields to drain off the poisons needed to keep the sickly stuff from dying.
Now we have smaller playing fields to minimize the destructiveness of poisons which should not ever be dumped on the banks of the Charles.
Since 2003, almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has been destroyed. Nothing has grown since. More poisons? And the CRC is the DCR’s environmental destroyer.
I have witnessed members of the Boston Conservation Commission expressing distress at the destruction of protective vegetation bordering the Charles by the CRC.
The CRC, starting in 2003, ran around poisoning the eggs of as many migratory waterfowl as it could get away with.
A very visible member of the CRC was discussed by the Boston Conservation Commission with the DCR. The commission objected to his wanton chain saw use on trees near the Charles. The DCR disowned him. To my knowledge, the CRC has not disowned him or his activities.
I condemn the CRC’s use of the word "Conservancy". The presence of "Conservancy" in its name is false and misleading. Charles River Destroyers would be an honest name.
3. Marilyn’s response.
Marilyn was very favorable.
She provided a few more details about the CRC leader with the chainsaw.
He and his name have been published in the Boston Globe.
The reality is that, being active in Cambridge politics, I am forced to associate with a lot of people I simply do not consider fit to associate with. I really would rather not honor them by providing their names any more than I can help.
Friday, April 01, 2011
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES: INTERMISSION
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES: INTERMISSION
By Archie Mazmanian
In preparing for Part VI of this series, I reviewed Part V, especially the closing paragraph “sermon” and realized that this would be an appropriate time for an intermission for a PBS style fundraiser, not for money but for soliciting letters of support for the Charles River White Geese ((CRWG). One of the goals of this series is to attract youngsters to this Blog from Charles River communities and beyond to recognize the need for preserving – and improving – the Charles River AND to remedy the plight of the CRWG. Such letters should be addressed to:
Gov. Deval Patrick
State House, Room 360
Boston, MA 02133
Instead of providing suggested text for such letters, it would be preferable for each writer to use his/her own words expressing concern with the plight and treatment of the CRWG by MA and Cambridge government officials.
Gov. Patrick is the father of two lovely young daughters. Presumably he and Mrs. Patrick have read to their daughters the story “Make Way for Ducklings” that has long had Boston area connections memorialized by a bronze statue in the Boston Public Garden. While the plight of the CRWG began before Gov. Patrick was first elected in 2006, it has continued under his administration. Gov. Patrick was re-elected for a second term in 2010. While technically there are no term limits, as a practical – and political – matter, Gov. Patrick is a lame duck, as his future political career is national. But without the need to rely upon re-election any further, Gov. Patrick is in a position to push for significant reforms in MA for the next four (4) years. Maybe, just maybe, as such a lame duck he can pay attention to the plight of the CRWG. “Make Way for Ducklings” made us recognize the needs of a small mallard family facing a crisis of modernity. Can’t we make way for the many families making up the gaggle of the CRWG to survive the ordeals that both MA and Cambridge government agencies have put them through over the past several years?
Let’s remind Gov. Patrick. Send him a letter. Copy your State Senator and Representative. Gov. Patrick as a lame duck must avoid the legacy of cooking the goose of this gaggle. While I encourage children to write, so should adults. The Charles River is a jewel and the CRWG have served the Charles River, its adjoining communities and all of us well over the past 30 years. Their survival is important. They need help.
[Note: I understand that the expenses of this Blog are paid with personal funds of its founders and maintainers. I do not mean to suggest that a small contribution would not be in order to help defraysome of their expenses for the valuable public service performed with this Blog. Part VI of this series will be forthcoming shortly.]
By Archie Mazmanian
In preparing for Part VI of this series, I reviewed Part V, especially the closing paragraph “sermon” and realized that this would be an appropriate time for an intermission for a PBS style fundraiser, not for money but for soliciting letters of support for the Charles River White Geese ((CRWG). One of the goals of this series is to attract youngsters to this Blog from Charles River communities and beyond to recognize the need for preserving – and improving – the Charles River AND to remedy the plight of the CRWG. Such letters should be addressed to:
Gov. Deval Patrick
State House, Room 360
Boston, MA 02133
Instead of providing suggested text for such letters, it would be preferable for each writer to use his/her own words expressing concern with the plight and treatment of the CRWG by MA and Cambridge government officials.
Gov. Patrick is the father of two lovely young daughters. Presumably he and Mrs. Patrick have read to their daughters the story “Make Way for Ducklings” that has long had Boston area connections memorialized by a bronze statue in the Boston Public Garden. While the plight of the CRWG began before Gov. Patrick was first elected in 2006, it has continued under his administration. Gov. Patrick was re-elected for a second term in 2010. While technically there are no term limits, as a practical – and political – matter, Gov. Patrick is a lame duck, as his future political career is national. But without the need to rely upon re-election any further, Gov. Patrick is in a position to push for significant reforms in MA for the next four (4) years. Maybe, just maybe, as such a lame duck he can pay attention to the plight of the CRWG. “Make Way for Ducklings” made us recognize the needs of a small mallard family facing a crisis of modernity. Can’t we make way for the many families making up the gaggle of the CRWG to survive the ordeals that both MA and Cambridge government agencies have put them through over the past several years?
Let’s remind Gov. Patrick. Send him a letter. Copy your State Senator and Representative. Gov. Patrick as a lame duck must avoid the legacy of cooking the goose of this gaggle. While I encourage children to write, so should adults. The Charles River is a jewel and the CRWG have served the Charles River, its adjoining communities and all of us well over the past 30 years. Their survival is important. They need help.
[Note: I understand that the expenses of this Blog are paid with personal funds of its founders and maintainers. I do not mean to suggest that a small contribution would not be in order to help defraysome of their expenses for the valuable public service performed with this Blog. Part VI of this series will be forthcoming shortly.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)