The Cambridge City Manager created group which calls itself the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” has announced the following item for discussion at its next meeting:
********
2. Update on planning for event celebrating MAGAZINE BEACH. ([omitted] 9am - 3 pm. See separate announcement.)
Please help with this event including $$ donations for operating expenses and your participation, all greatly appreciated and all helping to build community.
********
This project was advertised as “improving” Magazine Beach.
One of the sponsors conducted a “swim in” to celebrate the improvement of swimming in the Charles as a result of this project.
The project has blocked access to the Charles from Magazine Beach, walling it off with a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation for which well established native vegetation was destroyed.
The project has blocked boat launching capabilities into the Charles River.
The project has destroyed significant parts of the playing fields to create a drainage system. The drainage system is designed to drain off poisons which are being dumped on Magazine Beach to keep alive sickly grass which was introduced in place of seven acres of native grass which survived the better part of a century without poisons.
This project has been an integral part of heartless animal abuse directed at the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese as part of the implementation of the bizarre effort. The state manager has bragged that he is starving the Charles River White Geese.
This group which is planning a “celebration” BARS HONEST COMMENT ON Magazine Beach if that comment, as is well deserved, is negative.
Business as usual in the City of Cambridge from friends of the Cambridge City Manager and the state bureaucrats.
And they get so offended if the expression “environmental destruction” is used. After they do not allow negative comment. And they are so self righteous. After all, celebrating environmental destruction falls in their definition of “neutrality.”
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Camb CM Group: Environmental Destruction is not Environmental Destruction unless the advocate calls it environmental destruction
1. Creation of the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” by the Cambridge City Manager.
2. Recent record of this City Manager Group.
A. Censorship in support of State Bureaucrats.
B. Meeting to celebrate environmental destruction.
3. The latest.
A. Protection against undesired plants.
B. Unacceptable response.
C. Notice of censorship.
D. Response.
1. Creation of the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” by the Cambridge City Manager.
In the recent past, I had a discussion with a friend who was working on creating a neighborhood association in Boston.
I told him: “In Cambridge, we don’t have to do that. The City Manager does it for us.”
He laughed.
One such group calls itself the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association.” Created at the request of the Cambridge City Manager’s people.
We are now informed by this group that they will censor any reference to environmental destruction unless the environmental destroyer calls her environmental destruction environmental destruction.
2. Recent record of this City Manager Group.
A. Censorship in support of State Bureaucrats.
I have previously reported the blatantly fake meeting by this group concerning the ongoing destruction at Magazine Beach.
They allowed the state bureaucrats to present their latest plans, but prohibited the public from making negative comment. They called this “neutrality.”
No negative comments allowed as to any of the ongoing or planned destruction.
B. Meeting to celebrate environmental destruction.
The following email was sent to the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association list on May 11, 2011
******
Save the Date!
Magazine Beach Clean-up and Celebration
Saturday, [ed: omitted], 9am-3pm
(rain date: Sunday, [ed: omitted])
9-12 noon Clean-up
Meet in front of the Riverside Boat Club (across from Starbucks at Microcenter Plaza) for hot coffee, cool drinks, cleanup tools, gloves and assignments.(Cleaner Uppers, please RSVP, so that we can be sure to have enough tools on hand! E-mail: lcw@thecharles.org.)
12-2 Picnic/Potluck/Barbeque to music
by Best Ever Chicken!
1-3 Learn-to-Row at the Riverside Boat Club
Bring your whole family! Bring a picnic cloth, a dish to share, frisbees, balls and badminton rackets!
Sponsored by: Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, Charles River Conservancy, Riverside Boat Club and DCR, [ed: omitted, sounds great, as usual.]
*******
Note, once again, they censored negative comment about the Magazine Beach projects in a “Public Meeting”. Now they are sponsoring a “Celebration” on that project
3. The latest.
About the time the city and state started the totally unnecessary destruction of the core Alewife reservation, a woman put out an email denying the destruction was ongoing.
The following is her latest pitch, my response, and the notice of censorship.
A. Protection against undesired plants.
It would be very helpful to the environment, as well as to insure the health and survival of public and private gardens here in Cambridge, as well as to protect butterflies and birds [ed: long totally silent about the heartless animal by their friends] , if everyone could learn to identify some of the worst invasive weeds that love living in our fair city and then set about digging them out. All parts of these plants should be wrapped up in plastic bags and put in the trash, not in the yard waste.
And so, I will be posting alerts about certain weeds at times when they are most troublesome or at times when it is favorable for attacking them.
Some weeds that we see in Cambridge are toxic to small children and pets. Even some adults could suffer mild bouts of discomfort from these weeds by ingesting their berries or other parts of the plant.
This week one very noxious weed and one nasty pest of a weed are growing like crazy. Please be on the lookout for them and pull or dig them out if you can. If everyone just weeds around their residence or the cracks in the sidewalk or along the edge of the sidewalk near their residence, it will make a huge difference.
Weeds being featured this week are: Field Bindweed (Convolvulus) and here is a long link to a page with many photos of the nasty plant. It looks like a morning glory in a way, but don't be fooled by it. It has pointed leaves whereas the morning glory has rounded leaves. We generally see only the white convolvulus, not those colorful ones.
[ed: link omitted. They always point out the responsible one AND CENSOR THE IRRESPONSIBLE ONES..]
But the noxious weed that children should avoid is Black Swallow-wort. You'll see it growing up chain link fences now or anywhere it can climb. It will give children quite an upset stomach. And, it endangers the Monarch butterfly because, although it is in the milkweed family, it is not the milkweed plant that Monarch's use to lay their eggs and so the eggs die. It can also pose a danger to some birds. This plant must be dug out and all bits of root removed from the soil.
B. Unacceptable response.
As the City Manager's appointees were fighting to destroy the Cambridge side of the Charles River, they made lots of noises about offensive vegetation.
I recall the Boston Conservation Commission expressing its disgust for the Charles River Conservancy running around the Boston side destroying that same vegetation.
The Boston Conservation Commission was concerned about MEANINGFUL native vegetation. The Boston Conservation Commission was disgusted with the CRC's destruction.
Strange, the City Manager's appointees stopped using those nasty words shortly after the Boston Conservation Commission showed the opinion of the real world about destructiveness which is fought for by the Cambridge City Manager's appointees.
Instead, they destroyed seven acres of healthy grass at Magazine Beach for replacement by sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive. Then to keep the poisons which have no business being dumped on the banks of the Charles out of the Charles, they DECREASED the size of the playing fields at Magazine Beach. The decreases was "needed" to keep the totally unnecessary poisons out of the Charles.
And the native vegetation the CRC ran around destroying? Well that was the excuse for the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which now keeps people at Magazine Beach from access to the Charles River. The native bordering vegetation is destroyed twice a year and the bizarre introduced stuff just keeps growing.
And then, of course, there is heartless animal abuse associated with this totally unnecessary destruction. But the supporters of destruction call themselves neutral, and it would be negative to point out that support for destruction is anything but neutral.
And there are people including the author below [ed: quoted above] who think destruction of the environment is worthy of celebrating. But we really must not let reality disrupt things, must we?
C. Notice of censorship.
Bob -- The right to express your opinion does not include misrepresenting the opinions of others. Nowhere in her statement does [omitted] favor destruction of the environment. If you want me to accept your message, please delete the phrase "including the author below."
Thank you, [omitted] (moderator)
D. Response.
How dare anybody call their celebration of environmental destruction at Magazine Beach a celebration of environmental destruction unless they admit they are celebrating environmental destruction.
2. Recent record of this City Manager Group.
A. Censorship in support of State Bureaucrats.
B. Meeting to celebrate environmental destruction.
3. The latest.
A. Protection against undesired plants.
B. Unacceptable response.
C. Notice of censorship.
D. Response.
1. Creation of the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” by the Cambridge City Manager.
In the recent past, I had a discussion with a friend who was working on creating a neighborhood association in Boston.
I told him: “In Cambridge, we don’t have to do that. The City Manager does it for us.”
He laughed.
One such group calls itself the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association.” Created at the request of the Cambridge City Manager’s people.
We are now informed by this group that they will censor any reference to environmental destruction unless the environmental destroyer calls her environmental destruction environmental destruction.
2. Recent record of this City Manager Group.
A. Censorship in support of State Bureaucrats.
I have previously reported the blatantly fake meeting by this group concerning the ongoing destruction at Magazine Beach.
They allowed the state bureaucrats to present their latest plans, but prohibited the public from making negative comment. They called this “neutrality.”
No negative comments allowed as to any of the ongoing or planned destruction.
B. Meeting to celebrate environmental destruction.
The following email was sent to the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association list on May 11, 2011
******
Save the Date!
Magazine Beach Clean-up and Celebration
Saturday, [ed: omitted], 9am-3pm
(rain date: Sunday, [ed: omitted])
9-12 noon Clean-up
Meet in front of the Riverside Boat Club (across from Starbucks at Microcenter Plaza) for hot coffee, cool drinks, cleanup tools, gloves and assignments.(Cleaner Uppers, please RSVP, so that we can be sure to have enough tools on hand! E-mail: lcw@thecharles.org.)
12-2 Picnic/Potluck/Barbeque to music
by Best Ever Chicken!
1-3 Learn-to-Row at the Riverside Boat Club
Bring your whole family! Bring a picnic cloth, a dish to share, frisbees, balls and badminton rackets!
Sponsored by: Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, Charles River Conservancy, Riverside Boat Club and DCR, [ed: omitted, sounds great, as usual.]
*******
Note, once again, they censored negative comment about the Magazine Beach projects in a “Public Meeting”. Now they are sponsoring a “Celebration” on that project
3. The latest.
About the time the city and state started the totally unnecessary destruction of the core Alewife reservation, a woman put out an email denying the destruction was ongoing.
The following is her latest pitch, my response, and the notice of censorship.
A. Protection against undesired plants.
It would be very helpful to the environment, as well as to insure the health and survival of public and private gardens here in Cambridge, as well as to protect butterflies and birds [ed: long totally silent about the heartless animal by their friends] , if everyone could learn to identify some of the worst invasive weeds that love living in our fair city and then set about digging them out. All parts of these plants should be wrapped up in plastic bags and put in the trash, not in the yard waste.
And so, I will be posting alerts about certain weeds at times when they are most troublesome or at times when it is favorable for attacking them.
Some weeds that we see in Cambridge are toxic to small children and pets. Even some adults could suffer mild bouts of discomfort from these weeds by ingesting their berries or other parts of the plant.
This week one very noxious weed and one nasty pest of a weed are growing like crazy. Please be on the lookout for them and pull or dig them out if you can. If everyone just weeds around their residence or the cracks in the sidewalk or along the edge of the sidewalk near their residence, it will make a huge difference.
Weeds being featured this week are: Field Bindweed (Convolvulus) and here is a long link to a page with many photos of the nasty plant. It looks like a morning glory in a way, but don't be fooled by it. It has pointed leaves whereas the morning glory has rounded leaves. We generally see only the white convolvulus, not those colorful ones.
[ed: link omitted. They always point out the responsible one AND CENSOR THE IRRESPONSIBLE ONES..]
But the noxious weed that children should avoid is Black Swallow-wort. You'll see it growing up chain link fences now or anywhere it can climb. It will give children quite an upset stomach. And, it endangers the Monarch butterfly because, although it is in the milkweed family, it is not the milkweed plant that Monarch's use to lay their eggs and so the eggs die. It can also pose a danger to some birds. This plant must be dug out and all bits of root removed from the soil.
B. Unacceptable response.
As the City Manager's appointees were fighting to destroy the Cambridge side of the Charles River, they made lots of noises about offensive vegetation.
I recall the Boston Conservation Commission expressing its disgust for the Charles River Conservancy running around the Boston side destroying that same vegetation.
The Boston Conservation Commission was concerned about MEANINGFUL native vegetation. The Boston Conservation Commission was disgusted with the CRC's destruction.
Strange, the City Manager's appointees stopped using those nasty words shortly after the Boston Conservation Commission showed the opinion of the real world about destructiveness which is fought for by the Cambridge City Manager's appointees.
Instead, they destroyed seven acres of healthy grass at Magazine Beach for replacement by sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive. Then to keep the poisons which have no business being dumped on the banks of the Charles out of the Charles, they DECREASED the size of the playing fields at Magazine Beach. The decreases was "needed" to keep the totally unnecessary poisons out of the Charles.
And the native vegetation the CRC ran around destroying? Well that was the excuse for the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which now keeps people at Magazine Beach from access to the Charles River. The native bordering vegetation is destroyed twice a year and the bizarre introduced stuff just keeps growing.
And then, of course, there is heartless animal abuse associated with this totally unnecessary destruction. But the supporters of destruction call themselves neutral, and it would be negative to point out that support for destruction is anything but neutral.
And there are people including the author below [ed: quoted above] who think destruction of the environment is worthy of celebrating. But we really must not let reality disrupt things, must we?
C. Notice of censorship.
Bob -- The right to express your opinion does not include misrepresenting the opinions of others. Nowhere in her statement does [omitted] favor destruction of the environment. If you want me to accept your message, please delete the phrase "including the author below."
Thank you, [omitted] (moderator)
D. Response.
How dare anybody call their celebration of environmental destruction at Magazine Beach a celebration of environmental destruction unless they admit they are celebrating environmental destruction.
Day 402, New York Times, Bullying, Fake Protectors, Alewife
1. Day 402.
2. Archie: Jonathan Franzen in the New York Sunday Times.
3. Malcolm Blackman, Protection Against Bullying, Environmental Destruction, Alewife.
1. Day 402.
On Sunday, May 29, I conducted the 402th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
It was a hot, beautiful day with quite a bit of traffic.
The small, undestroyed portion of the Nesting Area looks very good.
The small trees I accidentally thought had been planted by the bad guys are now healthy and active. Perhaps six in the western area were but white strands when I saw them a few months ago. They are fully leaved and look terrific. The two deciduous trees in the northern very small area are standing up terrific.
The only thing keeping this area from healthy vegetation are irresponsible state and city goverments and the massive organization of the Cambridge Pols.
2. Archie: Jonathan Franzen in the New York Sunday Times.
Archie Mazmanian reports:
********
Author Jonathan Franzen has a lengthy essay in today's (5/29/11) NYTimes "Liking Is For Cowards. Go for What Hurts." Sunday Opinion in the Week in Review section. Unfortunately, access my be limited by subscription. But the essay is a well worthwhile read for Friends of the CRWG. While Franzen was an environmentalist in his college days, he gave up because he felt that what he could do personally was quite limited. Then he became infatuated with technology. But in recent times he "fell in love with birds." This love has rejuvenated his environmental concerns. Here are the closing paragraphs of his essay adapted from his May 21st commencement speech at Kenyon College:
"When you stay in your room and rage or sneer or shrug your shoulders, as I did for many years, the world and its problems are impossibly daunting. But when you go out and put yourself in real relation to real people, or even just real animals, there's a very real danger that you might love some of them.
And who knows what might happen to you then?"
Those on the fence about the plight of the CRWG just might become their Friends.
PS For those who read hard copy, the essay is on page 10 of the Week in Review section of the NYTimes.
3. Malcolm Blackman, Protection Against Bullying, Environmental Destruction, Alewife.
I have posted a link in my private account on facebook from Malcolm Blackman providing contact to an entity which provides information and assistance on Child Bullying.
He comments that some of the people on the bad list posted by this site are people who destroyed his Hands Across the Ocean site from within. He has, at major effort, apparently minimized the harm.
Destruction from within is not at all an unusual tactic. Really, many of the slew of fake organizations in Cambridge and on the Charles River very much fit this mold. Many of the fake organizations were created fake in the first place.
The destroyers cannot attract people through honesty. So they create these fake organizations and lie, at minimum, through false names, or they take over good organizations and destroy them from within.
I have seen one of the front organizations publicly go on record supporting cyberbullying as a matter of free speech and throw a victim off their listserve because the victim sought the listserve’s protection against cyberbullying.
Quite possibly, one of the biggest victims in the destruction of the core Alewife reservation is the leader of the fake group which has run around for ten or fifteen years fighting, Cambridge con game style, for the destruction of the cause she seems to have held most dear.
I recall when she formed this group. She went to people she trusted. They destroyed her. They got her to fight to destroy Alewife by looking at everything except for that which she found most important.
The rotters in Cambridge, MA, lie that they are the good guys as did the people who destroyed HATO from within.
I do not want to look at Alewife. I am horrified at the thought of looking at Alewife.
Has this woman finally realized that she has been conned?
Something might still be saved IF SHE CHANGES TO THE SIDE SHE WANTED TO BE ON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Or will she join the rotters on the Charles River and celebrate the destruction of that which she seems to hold most dear?
The Charles can still be meaningfully saved. At Alewife, the destruction can still be minimized.
2. Archie: Jonathan Franzen in the New York Sunday Times.
3. Malcolm Blackman, Protection Against Bullying, Environmental Destruction, Alewife.
1. Day 402.
On Sunday, May 29, I conducted the 402th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
It was a hot, beautiful day with quite a bit of traffic.
The small, undestroyed portion of the Nesting Area looks very good.
The small trees I accidentally thought had been planted by the bad guys are now healthy and active. Perhaps six in the western area were but white strands when I saw them a few months ago. They are fully leaved and look terrific. The two deciduous trees in the northern very small area are standing up terrific.
The only thing keeping this area from healthy vegetation are irresponsible state and city goverments and the massive organization of the Cambridge Pols.
2. Archie: Jonathan Franzen in the New York Sunday Times.
Archie Mazmanian reports:
********
Author Jonathan Franzen has a lengthy essay in today's (5/29/11) NYTimes "Liking Is For Cowards. Go for What Hurts." Sunday Opinion in the Week in Review section. Unfortunately, access my be limited by subscription. But the essay is a well worthwhile read for Friends of the CRWG. While Franzen was an environmentalist in his college days, he gave up because he felt that what he could do personally was quite limited. Then he became infatuated with technology. But in recent times he "fell in love with birds." This love has rejuvenated his environmental concerns. Here are the closing paragraphs of his essay adapted from his May 21st commencement speech at Kenyon College:
"When you stay in your room and rage or sneer or shrug your shoulders, as I did for many years, the world and its problems are impossibly daunting. But when you go out and put yourself in real relation to real people, or even just real animals, there's a very real danger that you might love some of them.
And who knows what might happen to you then?"
Those on the fence about the plight of the CRWG just might become their Friends.
PS For those who read hard copy, the essay is on page 10 of the Week in Review section of the NYTimes.
3. Malcolm Blackman, Protection Against Bullying, Environmental Destruction, Alewife.
I have posted a link in my private account on facebook from Malcolm Blackman providing contact to an entity which provides information and assistance on Child Bullying.
He comments that some of the people on the bad list posted by this site are people who destroyed his Hands Across the Ocean site from within. He has, at major effort, apparently minimized the harm.
Destruction from within is not at all an unusual tactic. Really, many of the slew of fake organizations in Cambridge and on the Charles River very much fit this mold. Many of the fake organizations were created fake in the first place.
The destroyers cannot attract people through honesty. So they create these fake organizations and lie, at minimum, through false names, or they take over good organizations and destroy them from within.
I have seen one of the front organizations publicly go on record supporting cyberbullying as a matter of free speech and throw a victim off their listserve because the victim sought the listserve’s protection against cyberbullying.
Quite possibly, one of the biggest victims in the destruction of the core Alewife reservation is the leader of the fake group which has run around for ten or fifteen years fighting, Cambridge con game style, for the destruction of the cause she seems to have held most dear.
I recall when she formed this group. She went to people she trusted. They destroyed her. They got her to fight to destroy Alewife by looking at everything except for that which she found most important.
The rotters in Cambridge, MA, lie that they are the good guys as did the people who destroyed HATO from within.
I do not want to look at Alewife. I am horrified at the thought of looking at Alewife.
Has this woman finally realized that she has been conned?
Something might still be saved IF SHE CHANGES TO THE SIDE SHE WANTED TO BE ON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Or will she join the rotters on the Charles River and celebrate the destruction of that which she seems to hold most dear?
The Charles can still be meaningfully saved. At Alewife, the destruction can still be minimized.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Day 401, Fake Groups and the Destruction of the Environment
1. Day 401 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
2. The technique of fake groups in destroying the environment.
1. Day 401 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
On May 28, 2011, I conducted the 401st visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The work on the BU Bridge which supposedly justified major destruction has been done for months now. There is a very large swath east of the BU Bridge with nothing but dirt where access was needed for repairs.
The white geese were under the big tree in the dirt created by the state bureaucrats probably through their favorite fake organization.
Traffic was heavier than would be expected on a holiday weekend.
People were friendly.
2. The technique of fake groups in destroying the environment.
A Cambridge City Manager / City Council related group in the neighborhood near Magazine Beach has announced a celebration of destruction of the environment of the Charles River.
These are the guys who claimed to be conducting a public meeting on state plans for the Charles River. They barred negative comments with flat out contempt for the very destructive reality on the banks of the Charles River. Censorship is a normal technique among the Cambridge Pols.
A related group has been running around claiming to be defending the Alewife reservation for something like 15 years. The Alewife reservation WAS an essentially virgin woodlands near the northernmost station of the subway system’s Red Line. This group has succeeded. The core part of the Alewife reservation is being destroyed.
This group is printing yet another letter in the Cambridge Chronicle bemoaning the destruction of peripheral areas of Alewife for private development. These letters have been very much non stop for perhaps 15 years.
Never, however, has this group ever condemned plans to destroy the core area. The core area is being destroyed by their friends, the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council. There has been at least one letter related to this group supporting the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.
These groups are normal in Cambridge. I have had major environmental victories. The big problem has always been these Cambridge Pol groups.
The Cambridge Pol groups fill a void. They keep people who would otherwise be activists “out of trouble.”: The groups look like they have a function which is positive. By looking like positive organizations, they encourage people to “join” and be controlled. They prevent meaningful behavior standing up to the City Manager and City Council.
People go to them because they think that the groups’ loudly proclaimed purpose is meaningful.
I have long tried to prevent the destruction this group just achieved at Alewife. The Alewife reservation should not be destroyed for flood storage because there is a very large parking lot just to the south of the reservation which could be and should be used for flood storage.
Trouble is that the Cambridge Pols are well organized. Their pitch is “Trust the City Manger, trust the City Council, How dare you expect the City Manager and City Council to behave responsibly.”
It is always impossible to tell the difference between the knaves and the fools. I do know that with the knee jerk delivery of support from the Cambridge Pols, and the constant mantra by which the Cambridge Pols loudly proclaim it is crucial to trust people not worthy of being trusted, I got outorganized.
And the Cambridge Pols have kept people chasing their tails on much less important threats while the Cambridge Pols deliver a false world to the voters.
Alewife is being destroyed.
The Cambridge Pols are celebrating the destruction of the environment on the Charles. They are fighting for the destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles exactly as the Alewife “organizers” have been fighting for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation for perhaps 15 years.
I assume the fake Alewife organization will be next to celebrate destruction of Alewife by their friends. They will, of course, not mention that the core Alewife reservation did not have to be destroyed.
Outrageous, irresponsible? This IS the Cambridge Pols.
2. The technique of fake groups in destroying the environment.
1. Day 401 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
On May 28, 2011, I conducted the 401st visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The work on the BU Bridge which supposedly justified major destruction has been done for months now. There is a very large swath east of the BU Bridge with nothing but dirt where access was needed for repairs.
The white geese were under the big tree in the dirt created by the state bureaucrats probably through their favorite fake organization.
Traffic was heavier than would be expected on a holiday weekend.
People were friendly.
2. The technique of fake groups in destroying the environment.
A Cambridge City Manager / City Council related group in the neighborhood near Magazine Beach has announced a celebration of destruction of the environment of the Charles River.
These are the guys who claimed to be conducting a public meeting on state plans for the Charles River. They barred negative comments with flat out contempt for the very destructive reality on the banks of the Charles River. Censorship is a normal technique among the Cambridge Pols.
A related group has been running around claiming to be defending the Alewife reservation for something like 15 years. The Alewife reservation WAS an essentially virgin woodlands near the northernmost station of the subway system’s Red Line. This group has succeeded. The core part of the Alewife reservation is being destroyed.
This group is printing yet another letter in the Cambridge Chronicle bemoaning the destruction of peripheral areas of Alewife for private development. These letters have been very much non stop for perhaps 15 years.
Never, however, has this group ever condemned plans to destroy the core area. The core area is being destroyed by their friends, the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council. There has been at least one letter related to this group supporting the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.
These groups are normal in Cambridge. I have had major environmental victories. The big problem has always been these Cambridge Pol groups.
The Cambridge Pol groups fill a void. They keep people who would otherwise be activists “out of trouble.”: The groups look like they have a function which is positive. By looking like positive organizations, they encourage people to “join” and be controlled. They prevent meaningful behavior standing up to the City Manager and City Council.
People go to them because they think that the groups’ loudly proclaimed purpose is meaningful.
I have long tried to prevent the destruction this group just achieved at Alewife. The Alewife reservation should not be destroyed for flood storage because there is a very large parking lot just to the south of the reservation which could be and should be used for flood storage.
Trouble is that the Cambridge Pols are well organized. Their pitch is “Trust the City Manger, trust the City Council, How dare you expect the City Manager and City Council to behave responsibly.”
It is always impossible to tell the difference between the knaves and the fools. I do know that with the knee jerk delivery of support from the Cambridge Pols, and the constant mantra by which the Cambridge Pols loudly proclaim it is crucial to trust people not worthy of being trusted, I got outorganized.
And the Cambridge Pols have kept people chasing their tails on much less important threats while the Cambridge Pols deliver a false world to the voters.
Alewife is being destroyed.
The Cambridge Pols are celebrating the destruction of the environment on the Charles. They are fighting for the destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles exactly as the Alewife “organizers” have been fighting for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation for perhaps 15 years.
I assume the fake Alewife organization will be next to celebrate destruction of Alewife by their friends. They will, of course, not mention that the core Alewife reservation did not have to be destroyed.
Outrageous, irresponsible? This IS the Cambridge Pols.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Canada Geese, the Boston Globe, and contempt for the environment.
1. Oped condemning Canada Geese.
2. Marilyn Wellons responds.
3. Apologies.
1. Oped condemning Canada Geese.
Archie Mazmanian was kind enough to pass on a link to a Boston Globe oped by Lawrence Harmon entitled “Canada Geese have got to go” on May 21, 2011.
When I followed up the link, it was blank, probably pulled between the time Archie passed it on and I opened.
If anybody has an updated link, I would be pleased to insert it.
UPDATE:
It has been provided by Susan Harrison.
Thank you VERY MUCH Susan: http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-21/bostonglobe/29569074_1_canada-geese-goose-eggs-euthanize.
2. Marilyn Wellons responds.
On May 24, 2011, Marilyn Wellons sent the following letter to the Boston Globe editor in response to the oped:
*********
Humans nearly exterminated Canada geese through hunting and habitat destruction a hundred years ago. That is why they are a federally protected species. Here are some facts for Mr. Harmon as he leads the charge for another go. I doubt they will dissuade him.
These creatures are greatly disadvantaged in their competition for habitat with the likes not only of golf-playing Mr. Harmon. In Delafield, Wisconsin, lakeshores are being sold for housing, its meadows paved over for Walmart. To the north, as the permafrost melts from climate change, lakes disappear. Who is encroaching upon whose turf?
As for goose poop, with geese, it’s grass in, grass out. Their non-toxic excrement replenishes the grass. Unlike others’, it almost uniquely does not attract flies. Free fertilizer for the public golf course!
Mr. Harmon’s modest proposal for gassing ignores evidence since 1945 that it is not a “humane” way to exterminate organisms.
It seems his problem is with his fellow humans. We city dwellers actually need and enjoy contact with the natural world—and celebrate what Mr. Harmon finds distasteful. It was presumably for this reason that a hundred years ago so many states invested in urban parks, Massachusetts among them.
3. Apologies.
From May 10 on, I worked seven days out of nine, occupying 15 to 16 hours each time, as an extra/actor on the movie “Here Comes the Boom” which was shooting in Lowell, MA.
In the middle of this shoot, my computer collapsed with a virus. Cleaning up this virus involved a number of extended phone discussions with McAfee, extended work on my own, and one phone discussion with the manufacturer of my computer. My praises to Toshiba. One phone call and very efficient service.
This morning, May 27, 2011, I finally fixed the virus and am now catching up.
To put it mildly, the combination was a person nightmare.
Actually, I got out three reports on this blog in the middle of everything. I have been very busy.
This report is late. I am sorry.
2. Marilyn Wellons responds.
3. Apologies.
1. Oped condemning Canada Geese.
Archie Mazmanian was kind enough to pass on a link to a Boston Globe oped by Lawrence Harmon entitled “Canada Geese have got to go” on May 21, 2011.
When I followed up the link, it was blank, probably pulled between the time Archie passed it on and I opened.
If anybody has an updated link, I would be pleased to insert it.
UPDATE:
It has been provided by Susan Harrison.
Thank you VERY MUCH Susan: http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-21/bostonglobe/29569074_1_canada-geese-goose-eggs-euthanize.
2. Marilyn Wellons responds.
On May 24, 2011, Marilyn Wellons sent the following letter to the Boston Globe editor in response to the oped:
*********
Humans nearly exterminated Canada geese through hunting and habitat destruction a hundred years ago. That is why they are a federally protected species. Here are some facts for Mr. Harmon as he leads the charge for another go. I doubt they will dissuade him.
These creatures are greatly disadvantaged in their competition for habitat with the likes not only of golf-playing Mr. Harmon. In Delafield, Wisconsin, lakeshores are being sold for housing, its meadows paved over for Walmart. To the north, as the permafrost melts from climate change, lakes disappear. Who is encroaching upon whose turf?
As for goose poop, with geese, it’s grass in, grass out. Their non-toxic excrement replenishes the grass. Unlike others’, it almost uniquely does not attract flies. Free fertilizer for the public golf course!
Mr. Harmon’s modest proposal for gassing ignores evidence since 1945 that it is not a “humane” way to exterminate organisms.
It seems his problem is with his fellow humans. We city dwellers actually need and enjoy contact with the natural world—and celebrate what Mr. Harmon finds distasteful. It was presumably for this reason that a hundred years ago so many states invested in urban parks, Massachusetts among them.
3. Apologies.
From May 10 on, I worked seven days out of nine, occupying 15 to 16 hours each time, as an extra/actor on the movie “Here Comes the Boom” which was shooting in Lowell, MA.
In the middle of this shoot, my computer collapsed with a virus. Cleaning up this virus involved a number of extended phone discussions with McAfee, extended work on my own, and one phone discussion with the manufacturer of my computer. My praises to Toshiba. One phone call and very efficient service.
This morning, May 27, 2011, I finally fixed the virus and am now catching up.
To put it mildly, the combination was a person nightmare.
Actually, I got out three reports on this blog in the middle of everything. I have been very busy.
This report is late. I am sorry.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Cambridge, MA, and state commence destruction of Alewife Reservation
1, Report.
2. Cher Responds, with reply.
3. Boston.com picks up this report.
1. Report.
Cambridge and the state have been working for perhaps two decades to destroy a massive, essentially untrouched forest abutting the Alewife MBTA Station.
This area is in the western part of Cambridge, MA and includes or is near to parts of Belmont and Arlington, MA. One of the two key east-west superhighways in Massachusetts, state route 2, ends at Alewife Station.
Cambridge and the state are destroying the Alewife reservation for flood storage that should be placed under a massive parking lot about 300 feet to the south.
First and foremost, the Alewife reservation is being destroyed because Cambridge has a horribly irresponsible city manager and city council. They are able to do their terrible things, however, because of the massive organization they have running around lying about them.
I was at the Alewife reservation this morning, May 15, 2011, responding to the latest con game.
The environmental destroyers are running a week long series of events telling people to protect the environment. These fake initiatives are very much non stop in Cambridge. They are flat out frauds on the public because the organizers yell about everything except what counts. And they do not want to know about what counts.
The latest fake initiative included a walk around the Alewife reservation. I was there to leaflet and warn the public against the forthcoming destruction of the Alewife Reservation. It was highly distressing to see it had already started.
While I was there, the leader of the fake group came to post a sign delaying the walk a week because of rain.
My first concern for Alewife came in the early 80's when I lived about a mile from it.
I tried to organize against the destruction of Alewife, but this person outorganized me. In Cambridge, “organizing” by those who are destroying the environment is simple — They simply give themselves a lovely and misleading name. Then they just call the already built in Cambridge Pol organization and the Cambridge Pol organization delivers.
[Ed: I have had misgivings about the wording of the preceding paragraph, but reality is that the same analysis has proven true time and time and time again when talking about the Cambridge Pols, their "good intentions" and their fake organizations: “You simply cannot be that stupid.”]
So this woman has been pullinmg people around by the nose for ten or twenty years yelling about everything except for the really important stuff, really important stuff that could have been prevented and still can be reversed.
What it would take to reverse this destruction is to stop in place, Then take by eminent domain the massive parking lot 300 feet to the south (just north of the commuter rail) and proceed with the work that should have been done there in the first place. The flood storage should have been been placed under that parking lot in the first place.
This would make excellent sense because the devastation is so major and so easily avoidable. The state and Cambridge’s bad city government would have to undo the outrage that has already been committed, but that is the responsible thing to do. This, however, is Cambridge, MA, with all those fake groups running around praising a destructive city government for traits which are way too often exactly the opposite of reality.
This is a horrible, horrible day.
2. Cher Responds, with reply.
This really really really sucks. I don't remember how one goes about taking by eminent domain but am sure they have that covered too.
*********
The city manager prides himself on not doing takings. He reaches agreement. They do not have time for agreement.
On the other hand, if they started behaving responsibly on Monteiro, they might have an attorney’s position which gives them blessing, with judge’s consent, to fire the Cambridge City Manager.
3. Boston.com picks up this report.
Thank you for the report and the link.
2. Cher Responds, with reply.
3. Boston.com picks up this report.
1. Report.
Cambridge and the state have been working for perhaps two decades to destroy a massive, essentially untrouched forest abutting the Alewife MBTA Station.
This area is in the western part of Cambridge, MA and includes or is near to parts of Belmont and Arlington, MA. One of the two key east-west superhighways in Massachusetts, state route 2, ends at Alewife Station.
Cambridge and the state are destroying the Alewife reservation for flood storage that should be placed under a massive parking lot about 300 feet to the south.
First and foremost, the Alewife reservation is being destroyed because Cambridge has a horribly irresponsible city manager and city council. They are able to do their terrible things, however, because of the massive organization they have running around lying about them.
I was at the Alewife reservation this morning, May 15, 2011, responding to the latest con game.
The environmental destroyers are running a week long series of events telling people to protect the environment. These fake initiatives are very much non stop in Cambridge. They are flat out frauds on the public because the organizers yell about everything except what counts. And they do not want to know about what counts.
The latest fake initiative included a walk around the Alewife reservation. I was there to leaflet and warn the public against the forthcoming destruction of the Alewife Reservation. It was highly distressing to see it had already started.
While I was there, the leader of the fake group came to post a sign delaying the walk a week because of rain.
My first concern for Alewife came in the early 80's when I lived about a mile from it.
I tried to organize against the destruction of Alewife, but this person outorganized me. In Cambridge, “organizing” by those who are destroying the environment is simple — They simply give themselves a lovely and misleading name. Then they just call the already built in Cambridge Pol organization and the Cambridge Pol organization delivers.
[Ed: I have had misgivings about the wording of the preceding paragraph, but reality is that the same analysis has proven true time and time and time again when talking about the Cambridge Pols, their "good intentions" and their fake organizations: “You simply cannot be that stupid.”]
So this woman has been pullinmg people around by the nose for ten or twenty years yelling about everything except for the really important stuff, really important stuff that could have been prevented and still can be reversed.
What it would take to reverse this destruction is to stop in place, Then take by eminent domain the massive parking lot 300 feet to the south (just north of the commuter rail) and proceed with the work that should have been done there in the first place. The flood storage should have been been placed under that parking lot in the first place.
This would make excellent sense because the devastation is so major and so easily avoidable. The state and Cambridge’s bad city government would have to undo the outrage that has already been committed, but that is the responsible thing to do. This, however, is Cambridge, MA, with all those fake groups running around praising a destructive city government for traits which are way too often exactly the opposite of reality.
This is a horrible, horrible day.
2. Cher Responds, with reply.
This really really really sucks. I don't remember how one goes about taking by eminent domain but am sure they have that covered too.
*********
The city manager prides himself on not doing takings. He reaches agreement. They do not have time for agreement.
On the other hand, if they started behaving responsibly on Monteiro, they might have an attorney’s position which gives them blessing, with judge’s consent, to fire the Cambridge City Manager.
3. Boston.com picks up this report.
Thank you for the report and the link.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge — The Attorneys.
1. Introduction.
2. Praise for Monteiro’s Attorney
3. Should the City of Cambridge sue their attorney in Monteiro v. Cambridge for malpractice?
1. Introduction.
On May 4, 2011, I was in the audience as the attorneys for Cambridge and Malvina Monteiro argued the appeal of Malvina Monteiro v. City ofCambridge.
This is the civil rights case concerning allegations that the City of Cambridge destroyed the life of the head of its Police Review board, a black Cape Verdean woman in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
In this case:
a. the jury awarded about $1 million in real damages, and $3.5 million in penal damages and
b. the judge, in support of the award, quoted the City Manager testimony at length, and then, based on her analysis, called him “reprehensible.”
I was so very pleased by the presentation of the Monteiro attorney before the Appeals Court that I wrote a letter to the Cambridge Chronicle expressing my pleasure. My letter was printed in the May 12, 2011 edition.
On May 10, 2011, I received a phone call from a journalist on my office phone asking me what I thought of the idea of the city suing its attorney in Monteiro for malpractice.
It is my opinion that the City Council’s funding of the appeal without getting a second opinion constituted a dereliction of duty. I burst out laughing and confirmed my comments by email.
2. Praise for Monteiro’s Attorney
The following letter was printed in the May 12, 2011 edition of the Cambridge Chronicle on Page 12.
Its location was excellent.
It occupied a double column at the top left of the editorial page following a shorter letter. This location is the normal spot for editorials. No editorial was printed.
*********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
My commendations to Attorney Zucker on her representation of Malvina Monteiro before the Appeals Court on May 4, 2011 in response to Cambridge's appeal of the Superior Court decision in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.
This is the case in which the jury awarded $4.5 million including $3.5 million in penal damages, and everything had passed $6.0 million a year ago.
Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who, until her firing, was head of Cambridge's police review board.
Judge and jury found that the City of Cambridge destroyed Ms. Monteiro's life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The judge went into extended analysis of the city manager's testimony in her key opinion. The judge proceded to find the Cambridge City Manager "reprehensible" based on her analysis.
I am not privy to the formal submittals in the case.
I did see Attorney Zucker's presentation before the Appeals Court.
I thought her presentation was excellent.
3. Should the City of Cambridge sue their attorney in Monteiro v. Cambridge for malpractice?
On May 10, 2011, I got a phone call at my law office from a woman who identified herself as a journalist. She asked me what I thought of the City of Cambridge suing their attorney in Malvina Montero.
I immediately laughed and then gave her a response which I summarized in the below email:
**********
It was a pleasure talking with you just now. I am copying a few people who have interest in this matter.
The YouTube URL presenting my formal presentation of my opinion on the proper handling of the Monteiro appeal is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.
My edit of the Superior Court judge’s key opinion is posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. This edit is paragraphed and formatted by me. It is taken from a posting by the Superior Court Clerk of Courts which totally lacked paragraphing. The paragraphing is my best estimate. I have made no other changes.
To put it succinctly, it is my opinion that, based on the Superior Court judge’s excellent opinion, the Cambridge City Council was derelict in its duty in funding the appeal of the Monteiro decision without getting independent opinion from an attorney competent in the field of employment law and civil rights law, and that such independent opinion should have been based on the entire record in this case.
If that attorney found that appeal was not warranted, based on the Superior Court judge and jury’s decision, it is my opinion that the city council should have suspended the Cambridge City Manager without pay and appointed the City Clerk as acting City Manager with direction to seek settlement with the plaintiff which would include firing of the City Manager, at minimum, without his golden parachute, plus, within a reasonable level of analysis, without pension.
Such agreement, when reached, should have been and still can be submitted to the Superior Court judge for her approval. The judge, I should think, would certainly approve firing without golden parachute inasmuich as, under these circumstances, the golden parachute would be in violation of public policy. Under the circumstances, I think there is good possibility as well that the judge would approve firing him without pension. The case, based on the judge’s opinion, looks like an ideal situation in which to seek to expand current law to this minor extent, especially since judge made law is very common in this field.
If I could be of further assistance, please contact me at 617-283-7649, my cell phone, or at boblat@yahoo.com.
Thank you very much for your interest and good luck with your story.
2. Praise for Monteiro’s Attorney
3. Should the City of Cambridge sue their attorney in Monteiro v. Cambridge for malpractice?
1. Introduction.
On May 4, 2011, I was in the audience as the attorneys for Cambridge and Malvina Monteiro argued the appeal of Malvina Monteiro v. City ofCambridge.
This is the civil rights case concerning allegations that the City of Cambridge destroyed the life of the head of its Police Review board, a black Cape Verdean woman in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
In this case:
a. the jury awarded about $1 million in real damages, and $3.5 million in penal damages and
b. the judge, in support of the award, quoted the City Manager testimony at length, and then, based on her analysis, called him “reprehensible.”
I was so very pleased by the presentation of the Monteiro attorney before the Appeals Court that I wrote a letter to the Cambridge Chronicle expressing my pleasure. My letter was printed in the May 12, 2011 edition.
On May 10, 2011, I received a phone call from a journalist on my office phone asking me what I thought of the idea of the city suing its attorney in Monteiro for malpractice.
It is my opinion that the City Council’s funding of the appeal without getting a second opinion constituted a dereliction of duty. I burst out laughing and confirmed my comments by email.
2. Praise for Monteiro’s Attorney
The following letter was printed in the May 12, 2011 edition of the Cambridge Chronicle on Page 12.
Its location was excellent.
It occupied a double column at the top left of the editorial page following a shorter letter. This location is the normal spot for editorials. No editorial was printed.
*********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
My commendations to Attorney Zucker on her representation of Malvina Monteiro before the Appeals Court on May 4, 2011 in response to Cambridge's appeal of the Superior Court decision in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.
This is the case in which the jury awarded $4.5 million including $3.5 million in penal damages, and everything had passed $6.0 million a year ago.
Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who, until her firing, was head of Cambridge's police review board.
Judge and jury found that the City of Cambridge destroyed Ms. Monteiro's life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The judge went into extended analysis of the city manager's testimony in her key opinion. The judge proceded to find the Cambridge City Manager "reprehensible" based on her analysis.
I am not privy to the formal submittals in the case.
I did see Attorney Zucker's presentation before the Appeals Court.
I thought her presentation was excellent.
3. Should the City of Cambridge sue their attorney in Monteiro v. Cambridge for malpractice?
On May 10, 2011, I got a phone call at my law office from a woman who identified herself as a journalist. She asked me what I thought of the City of Cambridge suing their attorney in Malvina Montero.
I immediately laughed and then gave her a response which I summarized in the below email:
**********
It was a pleasure talking with you just now. I am copying a few people who have interest in this matter.
The YouTube URL presenting my formal presentation of my opinion on the proper handling of the Monteiro appeal is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.
My edit of the Superior Court judge’s key opinion is posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. This edit is paragraphed and formatted by me. It is taken from a posting by the Superior Court Clerk of Courts which totally lacked paragraphing. The paragraphing is my best estimate. I have made no other changes.
To put it succinctly, it is my opinion that, based on the Superior Court judge’s excellent opinion, the Cambridge City Council was derelict in its duty in funding the appeal of the Monteiro decision without getting independent opinion from an attorney competent in the field of employment law and civil rights law, and that such independent opinion should have been based on the entire record in this case.
If that attorney found that appeal was not warranted, based on the Superior Court judge and jury’s decision, it is my opinion that the city council should have suspended the Cambridge City Manager without pay and appointed the City Clerk as acting City Manager with direction to seek settlement with the plaintiff which would include firing of the City Manager, at minimum, without his golden parachute, plus, within a reasonable level of analysis, without pension.
Such agreement, when reached, should have been and still can be submitted to the Superior Court judge for her approval. The judge, I should think, would certainly approve firing without golden parachute inasmuich as, under these circumstances, the golden parachute would be in violation of public policy. Under the circumstances, I think there is good possibility as well that the judge would approve firing him without pension. The case, based on the judge’s opinion, looks like an ideal situation in which to seek to expand current law to this minor extent, especially since judge made law is very common in this field.
If I could be of further assistance, please contact me at 617-283-7649, my cell phone, or at boblat@yahoo.com.
Thank you very much for your interest and good luck with your story.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Mallard in trouble?
1. Report.
2. Jeanne comments.
1. Report.
Tuesday, May 10, I got a call from a lady who was concerned about a Mallard Duck wandering around Gerry Street. Gerry Street is in a lovely little neighborhood hidden a little west of Harvard Square. It is between Mount Auburn Street and Memorial Drive, with some small stores on Mount Auburn Street and massive converted condos between it and Memorial Drive.
She had last seen the Mallard in a parking lot behind a row of stores. She was concerned because a parking lot is not good duck habitat.
I parked at a meter across from the Harvard Square Post Office two blocks away and walked back to investigate. Just to the west of the store parking lot is an asphalt area behind a private home. There were bread morsels spread out over the asphalt.
I wandered around this lovely smaller scale neighborhood. No duck.
I called the lady back and reported that Mr. Mallard had apparently been attracted by the food and decided, in agreement with the lady, that the area was not good duck habitat. We were both happy.
2. Jeanne comments.
That was really nice.
2. Jeanne comments.
1. Report.
Tuesday, May 10, I got a call from a lady who was concerned about a Mallard Duck wandering around Gerry Street. Gerry Street is in a lovely little neighborhood hidden a little west of Harvard Square. It is between Mount Auburn Street and Memorial Drive, with some small stores on Mount Auburn Street and massive converted condos between it and Memorial Drive.
She had last seen the Mallard in a parking lot behind a row of stores. She was concerned because a parking lot is not good duck habitat.
I parked at a meter across from the Harvard Square Post Office two blocks away and walked back to investigate. Just to the west of the store parking lot is an asphalt area behind a private home. There were bread morsels spread out over the asphalt.
I wandered around this lovely smaller scale neighborhood. No duck.
I called the lady back and reported that Mr. Mallard had apparently been attracted by the food and decided, in agreement with the lady, that the area was not good duck habitat. We were both happy.
2. Jeanne comments.
That was really nice.
Monday, May 09, 2011
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART X, Harvard University and the Charles River
1. Archie’s Report.
2. Prior reports in this series.
3. Editor’s Supplement.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART X
By Archie Mazmanian
I conduct research on the Internet for this series not only to test my memory but to learn more about the Charles River. Recently such a search revealed an article by Corydon Ireland titled “A river runs through it” subtitled “Harvard’s long and complex ties to the Charles” in the Harvard Gazette, October 10, 2010. Many may recall the 1992 movie with that title starring Robert Redford about a river in Montana. Titles are not subject to copyright protection. I was aware of this with my July 21,2009 post on this Blog of “A River Runs Through It” about Harvard and the Charles in my series on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring Project. [Available here: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009_07_21_archive.html] No reference was made in Ireland’s article to mine. So be it. But there are different perspectives to consider.
The Harvard Gazette article mentions a book “Bringing the Harvard Yards to the River” (Harvard Design School, 2004), “a slender volume edited by the GSD’s Joan Busquetss, the Martin Bucksbaum Professor in Practice in Urban Planning and Design. In it, the contributors imagined turning parkways into promenades, digging pedestrian tunnels, and even building a midriver recreational island.
Each of the ideas shared a goal, Busquets wrote, ‘the importance of establishing a better connection to the Charles River.’” (Better for whom?)
I have not been able to locate this book at a local library as yet, so I know very little of the ideas of the goal of Harvard in “establishing a better connection to the Charles River.” [Harvard Magazine in March of 2005 discloses some of the ideas pictorially, available via the Internet at: http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/03/connecting-to-the-river.html.] We know of course of the hundreds of acres of land surreptitiously acquired by Harvard in Allston that remain to be developed. We have seen the new dorms with river views on the Allston side. What is to come, and will Allston residents have a say in what Harvard develops as it may impact upon the Charles, which belongs to all of us? What voice will or should Cambridge residents have? Others?
Harvard has a long history with the Charles River. Recall the exclusive ferry operations granted to Harvard back in 1650 between Boston and Charlestown discussed in Part VII of this series that were entwined with the 1837 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge. Harvard College was earlier recognized in Chapter V of the MA Constitution confirming and commending its incorporation with this: “ … the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and other United States of America.” But God did not endow the Charles River to Harvard. And of course we have religious diversity today, thanks to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
This brings to mind this poem:
"And here's to good old Boston
The land of the bean and the cod
Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots
And the Cabots talk only to God."
- Author Unknown
When it comes to the Charles River, Harvard must talk to all of us.
[Part XI of this series will address the roles of Harvard, MIT and Boston University regarding the Charles River. By the way, I am not aware of any of these venerable institutions addressing the cruelty imposed by MA and Cambridge government officials on the Charles River White Geese. I wonder why?]
2. Prior reports in this series.
Part IX, 4/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-ix-charles.html.
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.
3. Editor’s Supplement.
I find Harvard’s official 2010 statement of intentions in Cambridge in its 2010 Town - Gown report to Cambridge. I do not see the 2011 version.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-river-memories-part-x-harvard.html.
Harvard’s official position as to its intentions in Allston are posted at: http://www.evp.harvard.edu/allston.
Moving the Medical School to the current location of the Massachusetts Turnpike off ramps is not mentioned.
I looked for a comparable page for Watertown without success. Major purchases have been made across the Charles River in Watertown and I have seen plans for housing construction on the hillside above Greenough Boulevard facing the Charles River.
Additions are welcome.
2. Prior reports in this series.
3. Editor’s Supplement.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART X
By Archie Mazmanian
I conduct research on the Internet for this series not only to test my memory but to learn more about the Charles River. Recently such a search revealed an article by Corydon Ireland titled “A river runs through it” subtitled “Harvard’s long and complex ties to the Charles” in the Harvard Gazette, October 10, 2010. Many may recall the 1992 movie with that title starring Robert Redford about a river in Montana. Titles are not subject to copyright protection. I was aware of this with my July 21,2009 post on this Blog of “A River Runs Through It” about Harvard and the Charles in my series on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring Project. [Available here: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009_07_21_archive.html] No reference was made in Ireland’s article to mine. So be it. But there are different perspectives to consider.
The Harvard Gazette article mentions a book “Bringing the Harvard Yards to the River” (Harvard Design School, 2004), “a slender volume edited by the GSD’s Joan Busquetss, the Martin Bucksbaum Professor in Practice in Urban Planning and Design. In it, the contributors imagined turning parkways into promenades, digging pedestrian tunnels, and even building a midriver recreational island.
Each of the ideas shared a goal, Busquets wrote, ‘the importance of establishing a better connection to the Charles River.’” (Better for whom?)
I have not been able to locate this book at a local library as yet, so I know very little of the ideas of the goal of Harvard in “establishing a better connection to the Charles River.” [Harvard Magazine in March of 2005 discloses some of the ideas pictorially, available via the Internet at: http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/03/connecting-to-the-river.html.] We know of course of the hundreds of acres of land surreptitiously acquired by Harvard in Allston that remain to be developed. We have seen the new dorms with river views on the Allston side. What is to come, and will Allston residents have a say in what Harvard develops as it may impact upon the Charles, which belongs to all of us? What voice will or should Cambridge residents have? Others?
Harvard has a long history with the Charles River. Recall the exclusive ferry operations granted to Harvard back in 1650 between Boston and Charlestown discussed in Part VII of this series that were entwined with the 1837 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge. Harvard College was earlier recognized in Chapter V of the MA Constitution confirming and commending its incorporation with this: “ … the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and other United States of America.” But God did not endow the Charles River to Harvard. And of course we have religious diversity today, thanks to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
This brings to mind this poem:
"And here's to good old Boston
The land of the bean and the cod
Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots
And the Cabots talk only to God."
- Author Unknown
When it comes to the Charles River, Harvard must talk to all of us.
[Part XI of this series will address the roles of Harvard, MIT and Boston University regarding the Charles River. By the way, I am not aware of any of these venerable institutions addressing the cruelty imposed by MA and Cambridge government officials on the Charles River White Geese. I wonder why?]
2. Prior reports in this series.
Part IX, 4/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-ix-charles.html.
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.
3. Editor’s Supplement.
I find Harvard’s official 2010 statement of intentions in Cambridge in its 2010 Town - Gown report to Cambridge. I do not see the 2011 version.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-river-memories-part-x-harvard.html.
Harvard’s official position as to its intentions in Allston are posted at: http://www.evp.harvard.edu/allston.
Moving the Medical School to the current location of the Massachusetts Turnpike off ramps is not mentioned.
I looked for a comparable page for Watertown without success. Major purchases have been made across the Charles River in Watertown and I have seen plans for housing construction on the hillside above Greenough Boulevard facing the Charles River.
Additions are welcome.
Charles River White Geese facebook page not destroyed?
The facebook page definitely is different. What I am getting is MY PERSONAL information on the left of three columns.
At least, the notice at the top announcing the soon to come demise is gone.
There clearly are other changes. Among other things, we have lost our very prominent photo of the Charles River White Geese.
I know I very quickly filed an objection with facebook to the threat to destroy the page, insofar as such communication is allowed. The page creator says he took care of things.
I honestly do not know.
At least, the notice at the top announcing the soon to come demise is gone.
There clearly are other changes. Among other things, we have lost our very prominent photo of the Charles River White Geese.
I know I very quickly filed an objection with facebook to the threat to destroy the page, insofar as such communication is allowed. The page creator says he took care of things.
I honestly do not know.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Charles River Bridge projects to be presented to Cambridge Conservation Commission
This coming Monday, May 9, at 7:15 pm, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) will brief this group of Cambridge City Manager appointees on this program which includes work on a number of Charles River Bridges: the Anderson Bridge (Harvard Square), River Street Bridge, Cambridge Street Bridge, BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.
Much of this program has been determined by the DCR working with the destructive City of Cambridge, and was taken over by MassDOT.
The continuing problem among the Charles River bridge projects is the efforts of environmentally destructive people to build a new highway in the Charles River and on its banks. This new highway would be destructive to the river, its trees, its wetlands, and its animals.
Location is 344 Broadway in Cambridge (corner of Inman, 2 blocks behind City Hall), fourth floor conference room.
Much of this program has been determined by the DCR working with the destructive City of Cambridge, and was taken over by MassDOT.
The continuing problem among the Charles River bridge projects is the efforts of environmentally destructive people to build a new highway in the Charles River and on its banks. This new highway would be destructive to the river, its trees, its wetlands, and its animals.
Location is 344 Broadway in Cambridge (corner of Inman, 2 blocks behind City Hall), fourth floor conference room.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Cher and Ellen on facebook attacking the Charles River White Geese page
Cher:
I can’t believe this.
Its always the people who are the most selfless and try the hardest to help others especially animals who get the most crap.
Ellen:
Unbelievable what they are doing or have done.
I can’t believe this.
Its always the people who are the most selfless and try the hardest to help others especially animals who get the most crap.
Ellen:
Unbelievable what they are doing or have done.
Joyce Killmer, trees, Cambridge and facebook
Archie Mazmanian comments on the current nightmare with facebook:
***********
If Joyce Kilmer were around, the poem "Trees" might have started thus:
"I think that I shall never see,
A Facebook lovely as a tree ... "
Just as MA and Cambridge officials are destroying the Charles River White Geese and trees along the Charles River, Facebook eliminates friends of CRWG. Why? Because they are there - or used to be? Alas, the First Amendment creates - and it can destroy.
***********
If Joyce Kilmer were around, the poem "Trees" might have started thus:
"I think that I shall never see,
A Facebook lovely as a tree ... "
Just as MA and Cambridge officials are destroying the Charles River White Geese and trees along the Charles River, Facebook eliminates friends of CRWG. Why? Because they are there - or used to be? Alas, the First Amendment creates - and it can destroy.
Update on destruction of facebook page.
1. Report.
2. Comment.
1. Report.
Since yesterday a new facebook page has been created with exactly two members, me and Nick Cheung who created the original page.
But the 94 member page is the one you get to when you look for Charles River White Geese.
I have done quite a bit of objecting, including a post in a location which might get to the powers that be.
I have invited as friends on the new page all that facebook would allow, but I have deliberately kept the Charles River White Geese page separate from my personal page, and no more than half of the members of the Charles River White Geese page are friends on my personal page.
The only way physically, I can invite them to the savaged version of the Charles River White Geese facebook page is to invite them to my page and then to Charles River White Geese. This gets highly complicated by people having similar names. Highly complicated.
And the reality is that, as facebook comments in their fine print, Charles River White Geese was individually selected to have its friend grouping destroyed. This is no accident.
And we JUST HAPPEN TO BE STANDING UP to highly irresponsible behavior on behalf / benefitting Harvard.
I have a very large press mailing list which I will use when or if the 94 member page is destroyed.
2. Comment.
Danny Gold has been kind enough to post on the 94 member facebook page that Zuckerman only attended and did not graduate from Harvard.
Afraid I really do not know the details.
I thank very much Danny for the input. I will modify future postings and notices accordingly.
2. Comment.
1. Report.
Since yesterday a new facebook page has been created with exactly two members, me and Nick Cheung who created the original page.
But the 94 member page is the one you get to when you look for Charles River White Geese.
I have done quite a bit of objecting, including a post in a location which might get to the powers that be.
I have invited as friends on the new page all that facebook would allow, but I have deliberately kept the Charles River White Geese page separate from my personal page, and no more than half of the members of the Charles River White Geese page are friends on my personal page.
The only way physically, I can invite them to the savaged version of the Charles River White Geese facebook page is to invite them to my page and then to Charles River White Geese. This gets highly complicated by people having similar names. Highly complicated.
And the reality is that, as facebook comments in their fine print, Charles River White Geese was individually selected to have its friend grouping destroyed. This is no accident.
And we JUST HAPPEN TO BE STANDING UP to highly irresponsible behavior on behalf / benefitting Harvard.
I have a very large press mailing list which I will use when or if the 94 member page is destroyed.
2. Comment.
Danny Gold has been kind enough to post on the 94 member facebook page that Zuckerman only attended and did not graduate from Harvard.
Afraid I really do not know the details.
I thank very much Danny for the input. I will modify future postings and notices accordingly.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
facebook to destroy group page of the Charles River White Geese
The behavior of the people fighting for destruction of animals and environment on the Charles River is commonly outrageous.
They work through many front organizations. The worst calls itself a Conservancy.
But the destructiveness is not limited to specialized groups. The bad guys toss in outrages in groups with less direct connections.
One thing which is a bad sign is groups with high MIT/Harvard connections.
One such group, which calls itself the Association for Public Transportation has gotten maneuvered into supporting an alternative on the Charles River which is flatly and simply stupid from a transportation point of view. They run a listserv.
Discussion of their nonsensical transportation position has been immediately responded to with cyberabuse.
The response of the listserve when the victim sought protection? The listserve defended cyberabuse as protected by freedom of speech and THREW OUT the victim for offending the listserve by passing on the cyberabuse and continuing to object to cyberabuse after the listserve head defended cyberabuse as protected speech.
Amazingly, it looks like facebook is not even exempt.
The owners come from Harvard or MIT.
We have just been told that our Charles River White Geese page will be destroyed by them.
They will allow us to keep some of our content but they are wiping out our total list of “friends.”
Just after we posted photos of key trees being destroyed, just a few of the hundreds threatened.
Just after we realized that some people who might be trying to friend us may have been fooled into “liking” the facebook page of the front organization for the destroyers, a destructive entity which has the nerve to call itself a “conservancy.”
facebook is giving no explanation. They are allowing us to keep some content but they, without any explanation, are destroying all our contact with our friends.
This is the way things are done in Cambridge, MA.
And how dare you call it “reprehensible.”
They work through many front organizations. The worst calls itself a Conservancy.
But the destructiveness is not limited to specialized groups. The bad guys toss in outrages in groups with less direct connections.
One thing which is a bad sign is groups with high MIT/Harvard connections.
One such group, which calls itself the Association for Public Transportation has gotten maneuvered into supporting an alternative on the Charles River which is flatly and simply stupid from a transportation point of view. They run a listserv.
Discussion of their nonsensical transportation position has been immediately responded to with cyberabuse.
The response of the listserve when the victim sought protection? The listserve defended cyberabuse as protected by freedom of speech and THREW OUT the victim for offending the listserve by passing on the cyberabuse and continuing to object to cyberabuse after the listserve head defended cyberabuse as protected speech.
Amazingly, it looks like facebook is not even exempt.
The owners come from Harvard or MIT.
We have just been told that our Charles River White Geese page will be destroyed by them.
They will allow us to keep some of our content but they are wiping out our total list of “friends.”
Just after we posted photos of key trees being destroyed, just a few of the hundreds threatened.
Just after we realized that some people who might be trying to friend us may have been fooled into “liking” the facebook page of the front organization for the destroyers, a destructive entity which has the nerve to call itself a “conservancy.”
facebook is giving no explanation. They are allowing us to keep some content but they, without any explanation, are destroying all our contact with our friends.
This is the way things are done in Cambridge, MA.
And how dare you call it “reprehensible.”
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Follow up on false tree sightings
Saturday morning, I posted my report on the Friday visibility.
I was so happy. I thought I had seen trees planted.
Saturday afternoon, I walked the ground in the nesting area and realized I had made the mistake that decent people so commonly do, a mistake that allows a really rotten situation to continue in Cambridge and on the Charles River.
I assumed I was dealing with basic decency.
I am transmitting four photos from the photos I took on March 29. One is an overview, two are of the BU Bridge side, and one is of the ramp side.
The first photo is the overview, shot from a location which has not been destroyed by the very destructive agency responsible for the continuing and accelerating outrage.
In the second photo, the sticks in the middle of the photo are what I, on Friday, thought were tree plantings. In the third photo, they are to the far right.
The poor geese are doing what they can to survive in the face of this outrage.
In each photo, there is a clear difference between crushed vegetation and strands of, apparently, vines stretching toward the middle of this man made wasteland. Those vines are nature healing itself. If nature were simply allowed to heal itself in the middle, the meadow would be reborn.
In the background is the construction. The construction zone to the left is now totally unnecessary. The excuse for construction was work on the BU Bridge. The work is done. The massive intrusion should be removed.
The fourth photo is of the vegetation toward the ramp with the first area visible to the left. Somewhere in the middle of this vegetation are the two small trees which I saw with leaves, struggling, nature reborn.
The first photo places this in perspective. The BU Bridge dominates the photo. Below the BU Bridge is the area in photos 2 and 3. To the right is the area in photo 4.
I still have a number of photos I have not published from the March 29 shoot. I will publish them in coming days.
I was so happy. I thought I had seen trees planted.
Saturday afternoon, I walked the ground in the nesting area and realized I had made the mistake that decent people so commonly do, a mistake that allows a really rotten situation to continue in Cambridge and on the Charles River.
I assumed I was dealing with basic decency.
I am transmitting four photos from the photos I took on March 29. One is an overview, two are of the BU Bridge side, and one is of the ramp side.
The first photo is the overview, shot from a location which has not been destroyed by the very destructive agency responsible for the continuing and accelerating outrage.
In the second photo, the sticks in the middle of the photo are what I, on Friday, thought were tree plantings. In the third photo, they are to the far right.
The poor geese are doing what they can to survive in the face of this outrage.
In each photo, there is a clear difference between crushed vegetation and strands of, apparently, vines stretching toward the middle of this man made wasteland. Those vines are nature healing itself. If nature were simply allowed to heal itself in the middle, the meadow would be reborn.
In the background is the construction. The construction zone to the left is now totally unnecessary. The excuse for construction was work on the BU Bridge. The work is done. The massive intrusion should be removed.
The fourth photo is of the vegetation toward the ramp with the first area visible to the left. Somewhere in the middle of this vegetation are the two small trees which I saw with leaves, struggling, nature reborn.
The first photo places this in perspective. The BU Bridge dominates the photo. Below the BU Bridge is the area in photos 2 and 3. To the right is the area in photo 4.
I still have a number of photos I have not published from the March 29 shoot. I will publish them in coming days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)