Cambridge Chronicle Election Issue, Second analysis
The Chronicle has posted their rather clear and strong editorial on the forthcoming city election at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x167854759/Editorial-One-hard-choice-this-election-in-Cambridge#axzz1ckFLsiMN. They provide five very left handed endorsements. This is a majority. They do not like the situation, but they list a majority for very weak endorsement.
The Chronicle presents an analysis of the complaints for the final two plaintiffs in the Monteiro v. Cambridge case both in hard copy and on line at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/features/x167854483/Details-exposed-on-Cambridge-discrimination-case#axzz1ckFLsiMN.
The details of the complaints certainly sound damning if you are pro civil rights. The plaintiffs have settled for a secret amount which the Chronicle is in state administrative review trying to obtain.
I reported on this edition of the Cambridge at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/cambridge-chronicle-blasts-candidates.html.
I am honored that the editor saw fit to include my comments on how Cambridge is really run. This was the only substantive comment published on the city council other than his editorial. We seem to be in agreement.
My letter concisely destroyed the lies Team Healy is putting out concerning their massive logging and animal kill at Alewife. This is the first time these details, to my knowledge, have appeared in the Cambridge Chronicle.
The election coverage was decidedly truncated. The Chronicle in hard copy ran one page with photos and very brief descriptions. Past editions have provided several pages of comments from the candidates. The failure to go that far is a slap in the face to the entire situation.
I reported that the op ed from the former head of the Women’s Commission and one councilor’s response were published on line but not in hard copy.
This is entirely possible because the Chronicle does not allow specific candidate comments by the public in its last issue. Another possible explanation is the inclusion by the writer of two statements concerning candidates whom she favored in which the writer was quoting reports in the Chronicle. Her quote was false.
I am sorry that Jamake Pascual did not communicate to the Chronicle better. He was disturbed about happenings over a decade ago which he found distressing. Mr. Pascual’s support for firing the Cambridge City Manager over Monteiro quite possibly could have been not communicated to the Chronicle as a result. Pascual’s support for firing the Cambridge City Manager over Monteiro really places him as the only responsible candidate in the race that I am aware of.