A few hours ago, this blog debunked a report / printed press release in the Cambridge Chronicle which was an obvious piece of nonsense designed to con decent people into giving credibility to a fake group’s con game fighting to keep irresponsible destruction on the Charles River and to expand it.
Our report is at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/cambridge-chronicle-gives-good-location.html.
We are being listened to.
Our report concerned LAST WEEK's Cambridge Chronicle.
AFTER my posting, the fake neighborhood association trumpeted its praise for the “honoree” on their listserve. Were they too embarrassed by the obviousness of the game to publicly comment before I debunked the nonsense?
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Cambridge Chronicle gives good location to Press Release
The Cambridge Chronicle, on page 8 of its May 24, 2012 edition, gave about a third of a page to a press release from the fake Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association.
The Chronicle gave the press release good coverage on line, apparently trying to sooth the powers that be about its very strong editorial and front page report on the Monteiro case.
The press release was in the form of an award for community activities. Close review indicates the “report” was a con to get people on the wrong side of the situation on the Charles River.
The basic form was that the state representative who has been fighting aggressively for environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse nominated the key person in the fake group’s con game on the Charles River for a community activist award. The state funded group she nominated her to kept the destructive state representative happy (and kept open their own funding).
Key in evaluating the report was that the only part of the activities which were specific was the con game in support of destruction at Magazine Beach and the Nesting Area. The report concluded with a plea to contact the fake group’s web page which supports the destruction on the Charles River and provided an email address.
The editor gave the report his byline. He apparently cleaned up the press release by creating a question and answer format.
The fake neighborhood association is implementing on the Charles River the fraudulent tactics which achieved mass animal killing as part of the totally unnecessary destruction of acres of irreplaceable virgin woodland at Alewife.
The game is to run around yelling concern until you have fooled people into thinking you are not only concerned but are the expert. You then tell concerned people to ignore the important stuff and look at their carefully sanitized version of reality.
All the yelling of concern very carefully omits the inexcusable destruction and heartless animal abuse achieved by city and state through the outright lies and lies of omission.
Fitting the company union motif, they call for assistance in improvements lying through omission about the destructiveness of the proposal which they support. The secret stuff, in turn, minimizes the value of the improvements they tout and, as usual, is inexcusable destruction.
So this press release on an apparently trumped up award. The reality is the press release seeks to legitimize the con game supporting environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse of the beautiful Charles River White Geese.
Outrageous, but business as usual in Cambridge, MA, USA.
For further details on the ongoing outrage, please see many recent posts.
PS: Reenforcing the outrage, the falsely named Charles River Conservancy heaped its own praise and linked the on line report in its monthly newsletter. The usual tactic: scoundrels praising scoundrels.
The Chronicle gave the press release good coverage on line, apparently trying to sooth the powers that be about its very strong editorial and front page report on the Monteiro case.
The press release was in the form of an award for community activities. Close review indicates the “report” was a con to get people on the wrong side of the situation on the Charles River.
The basic form was that the state representative who has been fighting aggressively for environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse nominated the key person in the fake group’s con game on the Charles River for a community activist award. The state funded group she nominated her to kept the destructive state representative happy (and kept open their own funding).
Key in evaluating the report was that the only part of the activities which were specific was the con game in support of destruction at Magazine Beach and the Nesting Area. The report concluded with a plea to contact the fake group’s web page which supports the destruction on the Charles River and provided an email address.
The editor gave the report his byline. He apparently cleaned up the press release by creating a question and answer format.
The fake neighborhood association is implementing on the Charles River the fraudulent tactics which achieved mass animal killing as part of the totally unnecessary destruction of acres of irreplaceable virgin woodland at Alewife.
The game is to run around yelling concern until you have fooled people into thinking you are not only concerned but are the expert. You then tell concerned people to ignore the important stuff and look at their carefully sanitized version of reality.
All the yelling of concern very carefully omits the inexcusable destruction and heartless animal abuse achieved by city and state through the outright lies and lies of omission.
Fitting the company union motif, they call for assistance in improvements lying through omission about the destructiveness of the proposal which they support. The secret stuff, in turn, minimizes the value of the improvements they tout and, as usual, is inexcusable destruction.
So this press release on an apparently trumped up award. The reality is the press release seeks to legitimize the con game supporting environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse of the beautiful Charles River White Geese.
Outrageous, but business as usual in Cambridge, MA, USA.
For further details on the ongoing outrage, please see many recent posts.
PS: Reenforcing the outrage, the falsely named Charles River Conservancy heaped its own praise and linked the on line report in its monthly newsletter. The usual tactic: scoundrels praising scoundrels.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Good person praises Cambridge Chronicle’s records fight.
We have had many reports on Monteiro v. Cambridge.
The Cambridge Chronicle’s need to fight to obtain the settlement agreement with the last two plaintiffs is yet another example of the corrupt situation in Cambridge, MA, USA. We have reported on that fight a couple of times in the last week or so.
The May 24, 2011, edition, at page 10, has buried a letter from Roy Bercaw praising them for the fight.
He concludes the letter: “. . . but if you are one of the few citizens who watch what the councilors and the manager . . . do, it is clear they are a lawless bunch of self-serving politicians with no concern for ordinary citizens.”
You may or may not be aware that my environmental initiatives include the use of the Zoning Ordinance to make construction in Cambridge more environmentally responsible.
My biggest problem in my initiatives have not been the publicly declared developers but the Cambridge Machine.
I downzoned 85% of Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares, a very key part of Cambridge.
The further I got the proposals from The Machine, the better were my successes.
My most obvious victory is a building at the eastern edge of the core Harvard Square, the Inn at Harvard located at Harvard Street and Massachusetts Avenue.
This is probably the one relatively new building that most normal people are really happy with. In the downzoning that included this building, I achieved more than anybody else had even attempted.
But half of the victory was snatched away when the leader of the fake neighborhood association in Roy Bercaw’s neighborhood infiltrated my neighborhood group and inflicted a flat out lie on my people: “You have made your deal with the City Council. Now you must deal with the Planning Board.” He brought with him the usual group of robots.
Roy has been standing up to the same rotters.
Standing out in my mind is a project about two blocks north of the Inn at Harvard which was obviously irresponsible.
I looked at the package of people The Machine had assembled and realized that, after many victories over these people, I was outorganized. I backed off.
Roy fought them.
The Cambridge Chronicle’s need to fight to obtain the settlement agreement with the last two plaintiffs is yet another example of the corrupt situation in Cambridge, MA, USA. We have reported on that fight a couple of times in the last week or so.
The May 24, 2011, edition, at page 10, has buried a letter from Roy Bercaw praising them for the fight.
He concludes the letter: “. . . but if you are one of the few citizens who watch what the councilors and the manager . . . do, it is clear they are a lawless bunch of self-serving politicians with no concern for ordinary citizens.”
You may or may not be aware that my environmental initiatives include the use of the Zoning Ordinance to make construction in Cambridge more environmentally responsible.
My biggest problem in my initiatives have not been the publicly declared developers but the Cambridge Machine.
I downzoned 85% of Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares, a very key part of Cambridge.
The further I got the proposals from The Machine, the better were my successes.
My most obvious victory is a building at the eastern edge of the core Harvard Square, the Inn at Harvard located at Harvard Street and Massachusetts Avenue.
This is probably the one relatively new building that most normal people are really happy with. In the downzoning that included this building, I achieved more than anybody else had even attempted.
But half of the victory was snatched away when the leader of the fake neighborhood association in Roy Bercaw’s neighborhood infiltrated my neighborhood group and inflicted a flat out lie on my people: “You have made your deal with the City Council. Now you must deal with the Planning Board.” He brought with him the usual group of robots.
Roy has been standing up to the same rotters.
Standing out in my mind is a project about two blocks north of the Inn at Harvard which was obviously irresponsible.
I looked at the package of people The Machine had assembled and realized that, after many victories over these people, I was outorganized. I backed off.
Roy fought them.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Friendships, geese to humans, and geese to geese
1. Lovely story on YouTube.
2. Our comparable experience — Toulouse geese at the nesting area, 2000 plus.
3. Summary.
We had a nice exchange on facebook which I would like to pass on to you.
1. Lovely story on YouTube.
Ellen was kind enought to post a link on facebook to a story about a Toulouse Goose who took a strong friendship to a man she met in the park. It is posted at: http://www.wimp.com/gooseman/. At one point, the report shows the goose flying along withr her friend as he drives away on a motor scooter.
2. Our comparable experience — Toulouse geese at the nesting area, 2000 plus.
Ellen and I had the following exchange based on my observations among the Charles River White Geese:
A. Your editor
We had two Toulouse Geese in residence starting in fall 2000. One mated with one of the whites. They tried to have babies for several years until they finally succeeded.
The behavior of the mate out of mating season was similar, but not as extensive, as that of Maria. During mating season the Toulouse stayed with her mate, but she went back to her sister when she did not have babies. When she went back with her sister, the mate, whom we called Lothario, made friends with a lady who was a regular visitor. He was very talkative with his human friend.
Eventually, they had a family and she stayed with her mate and the family. That was not good for her sister, or for the human friend of Lothario.
B. Ellen.
so it seems the best way to work with them is to not get too closely involved. but i have never figured out how to do that
C. Your editor.
I would not say that. I was just relating a situation which I considered similar.
The Toulouse stayed with her mate when mating was her dominant mentality. When she was with her mate, her sister guest sat on nests so that the mother who belonged to the eggs in the nest could do other things.
The mated Toulouse recognized her duties to her sister when the mating mentality declined but pretty much abandoned her mate at such times.
Her mate found substitutes in friendly humans particularly this one lady.
When they had their babies, the mated Toulouse was a dutiful mother and mate, to the disadvantage of her sister and her mate's friend.
The mated toulouse had conflicting duties which she fulfilled to the best of her ability.
Humans behave very similarly but they do not go back to the mate later. So, it seems reasonable to me to think that the mated Toulouse behaved more responsibly than do humans.
D. Ellen.
seems most animals behave better than humans
3. Summary.
The horror of the situation on the Charles River, at Alewife and too many other locations, involving the City of Cambridge, MA, USA, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, the fake groups, and too many non profits is the corrupt world in which people / organizations lie that they are decent entities or holier than thou and, in reality, behave as terribly as they do.
There are many really rotten people in our world. The situation on the Charles River, at Alewife, and related involves really rotten people who lie about which side they are on and rope good people into helping the rotters do terrible things. That is corruption.
2. Our comparable experience — Toulouse geese at the nesting area, 2000 plus.
3. Summary.
We had a nice exchange on facebook which I would like to pass on to you.
1. Lovely story on YouTube.
Ellen was kind enought to post a link on facebook to a story about a Toulouse Goose who took a strong friendship to a man she met in the park. It is posted at: http://www.wimp.com/gooseman/. At one point, the report shows the goose flying along withr her friend as he drives away on a motor scooter.
2. Our comparable experience — Toulouse geese at the nesting area, 2000 plus.
Ellen and I had the following exchange based on my observations among the Charles River White Geese:
A. Your editor
We had two Toulouse Geese in residence starting in fall 2000. One mated with one of the whites. They tried to have babies for several years until they finally succeeded.
The behavior of the mate out of mating season was similar, but not as extensive, as that of Maria. During mating season the Toulouse stayed with her mate, but she went back to her sister when she did not have babies. When she went back with her sister, the mate, whom we called Lothario, made friends with a lady who was a regular visitor. He was very talkative with his human friend.
Eventually, they had a family and she stayed with her mate and the family. That was not good for her sister, or for the human friend of Lothario.
B. Ellen.
so it seems the best way to work with them is to not get too closely involved. but i have never figured out how to do that
C. Your editor.
I would not say that. I was just relating a situation which I considered similar.
The Toulouse stayed with her mate when mating was her dominant mentality. When she was with her mate, her sister guest sat on nests so that the mother who belonged to the eggs in the nest could do other things.
The mated Toulouse recognized her duties to her sister when the mating mentality declined but pretty much abandoned her mate at such times.
Her mate found substitutes in friendly humans particularly this one lady.
When they had their babies, the mated Toulouse was a dutiful mother and mate, to the disadvantage of her sister and her mate's friend.
The mated toulouse had conflicting duties which she fulfilled to the best of her ability.
Humans behave very similarly but they do not go back to the mate later. So, it seems reasonable to me to think that the mated Toulouse behaved more responsibly than do humans.
D. Ellen.
seems most animals behave better than humans
3. Summary.
The horror of the situation on the Charles River, at Alewife and too many other locations, involving the City of Cambridge, MA, USA, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, the fake groups, and too many non profits is the corrupt world in which people / organizations lie that they are decent entities or holier than thou and, in reality, behave as terribly as they do.
There are many really rotten people in our world. The situation on the Charles River, at Alewife, and related involves really rotten people who lie about which side they are on and rope good people into helping the rotters do terrible things. That is corruption.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Strong comments from Cambridge Chronicle in its report / editorial on release of final payments in Monteiro case
The case name is Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.
I have previously reported from the Boston Globe point of view concerning the order by the Secretary of State for release of the settlement in the final payments.
The Chronicle report / editorial goes into detail as to why the Cambridge, MA, USA position is, as usual, so much nonsense.
The short explanation is that Cambridge has a corrupt city government which will do pretty much whatever it wants because the voters are controlled by the fake advocacy groups which, in turn, very clearly are controlled by the corrupt city government.
Reality is irrelevant in Cambridge, MA. The fake groups strongly take care of that.
I have said too much on this topic already.
My prior report on the Secretary of State order is at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/boston-globe-bostoncom-reports-city-of.html.
The Chronicle report is at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x358794084/Cambridge-s-nearly-4-million-secret-exposed#axzz1w4jewGDb.
The Chronicle editorial is at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x358795630/Editorial-Secrecy-in-the-city-of-Cambridge#axzz1w4jewGDb.
Please read them at your convenience. It is nice to see them doing such a professional job of reporting the corrupt situation.
In no way should my use of the word “corrupt” with regard to the City of Cambridge and the fake groups be interpreted to infer exchange of money as part of the corruption. The situation is too corrupt to call for pay offs.
I have previously reported from the Boston Globe point of view concerning the order by the Secretary of State for release of the settlement in the final payments.
The Chronicle report / editorial goes into detail as to why the Cambridge, MA, USA position is, as usual, so much nonsense.
The short explanation is that Cambridge has a corrupt city government which will do pretty much whatever it wants because the voters are controlled by the fake advocacy groups which, in turn, very clearly are controlled by the corrupt city government.
Reality is irrelevant in Cambridge, MA. The fake groups strongly take care of that.
I have said too much on this topic already.
My prior report on the Secretary of State order is at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/boston-globe-bostoncom-reports-city-of.html.
The Chronicle report is at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x358794084/Cambridge-s-nearly-4-million-secret-exposed#axzz1w4jewGDb.
The Chronicle editorial is at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x358795630/Editorial-Secrecy-in-the-city-of-Cambridge#axzz1w4jewGDb.
Please read them at your convenience. It is nice to see them doing such a professional job of reporting the corrupt situation.
In no way should my use of the word “corrupt” with regard to the City of Cambridge and the fake groups be interpreted to infer exchange of money as part of the corruption. The situation is too corrupt to call for pay offs.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Excellent trees the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is fighting to destroy
2012, 03-20-12, Memorial Drive Grove
This is a photo of some of the smaller trees on Memorial Drive in Cambridge, MA, USA that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is fighting to have destroyed by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.
This is a magnificent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split which would be decimated in the project. These trees are magnificent but are smaller than half of the trees that MIT wants destroyed. The Memorial Drive split is perhaps a half mile east of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, another excellent example of corruption in the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
MIT repeated its determination to see destruction once again at the Thursday meeting on May 24, 2012, which I reported at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/mit-reaffirms-support-for-destruction.html.
The particular photo is taken from the facebook page of the falsely named Charles River Conservancy. The CRC, in compliance with the corruption which is politics on the Charles River and in Cambridge, MA, posted this photo giving the lying impression that the CRC is protecting and cherishes this magnificent grove. The CRC is fighting for its destruction.
The head of the fake neighborhood association fighting for destruction and animal abuse on the Charles River praised MIT for its tree policies at that meeting.
The corrupt DCR sought Obama moneys for the destruction lying that all of the trees to be destroyed were sickly. The papers DCR filed with Cambridge, MA, on the project proved the sickly comment a flat out lie. All the trees these people want destroyed are healthy. The papers filed by the DCR with Cambridge were provided to the governor. The money for destruction was not obtained.
This photo was previously published by us at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/charles-river-conservancy-glories-in.html.
This is a photo of some of the smaller trees on Memorial Drive in Cambridge, MA, USA that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is fighting to have destroyed by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.
This is a magnificent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split which would be decimated in the project. These trees are magnificent but are smaller than half of the trees that MIT wants destroyed. The Memorial Drive split is perhaps a half mile east of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, another excellent example of corruption in the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
MIT repeated its determination to see destruction once again at the Thursday meeting on May 24, 2012, which I reported at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/mit-reaffirms-support-for-destruction.html.
The particular photo is taken from the facebook page of the falsely named Charles River Conservancy. The CRC, in compliance with the corruption which is politics on the Charles River and in Cambridge, MA, posted this photo giving the lying impression that the CRC is protecting and cherishes this magnificent grove. The CRC is fighting for its destruction.
The head of the fake neighborhood association fighting for destruction and animal abuse on the Charles River praised MIT for its tree policies at that meeting.
The corrupt DCR sought Obama moneys for the destruction lying that all of the trees to be destroyed were sickly. The papers DCR filed with Cambridge, MA, on the project proved the sickly comment a flat out lie. All the trees these people want destroyed are healthy. The papers filed by the DCR with Cambridge were provided to the governor. The money for destruction was not obtained.
This photo was previously published by us at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/charles-river-conservancy-glories-in.html.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Situation in Amory Park, Brookline, MA, USA, a few blocks from the Charles River
1. Friend request.
2. Report from a neighbor.
1. Friend request.
A friend of the Charles River White Geese sent the following message.
She has relocated to Los Angeles.
***********
Robert. Even though I'm not in Boston anymore, I still enjoy looking at your blog for updates on how the geese are doing. I miss the geese, and especially feeding the Canada geese at Amory park.
2. Report from a neighbor.
It seems that there is only one pair of Canada geese at the Amory Park this year. They tried to construct a nest in an unusual location, but the eggs were broken after the first night in what superficially looked like an animal attack.
Other than that, one willow was removed during the cold season without any due process or apparent reason in the Amory Park.
While the situation in Brookline is certainly better than the situation in Cambridge in this sense, this is yet another example of very poor "stewardship" by the office of town arborist and the parks and open space division with respect to preservation of existing large trees.
2. Report from a neighbor.
1. Friend request.
A friend of the Charles River White Geese sent the following message.
She has relocated to Los Angeles.
***********
Robert. Even though I'm not in Boston anymore, I still enjoy looking at your blog for updates on how the geese are doing. I miss the geese, and especially feeding the Canada geese at Amory park.
2. Report from a neighbor.
It seems that there is only one pair of Canada geese at the Amory Park this year. They tried to construct a nest in an unusual location, but the eggs were broken after the first night in what superficially looked like an animal attack.
Other than that, one willow was removed during the cold season without any due process or apparent reason in the Amory Park.
While the situation in Brookline is certainly better than the situation in Cambridge in this sense, this is yet another example of very poor "stewardship" by the office of town arborist and the parks and open space division with respect to preservation of existing large trees.
MIT Reaffirms support for destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive by the Charles River, Cambridge, MA, USA
1. Outrageous position.
2. Techniques of Lying.
A. Telling the victim the destruction won’t happen for a few weeks and thus the victim should not be concerned.
B. Scoundrel praising scoundrel.
1. Outrageous position.
Last night, May 24, 2012, Massachusetts Institute of Technology conducted one of its irregular meetings with concerned citizens concerning MIT’s development plans.
The meeting was conducted in its 70 Pacific Street dormitory which, in turn, is part of the building banking being accomplished by MIT southeast of Cambridge’s Central Square and east of the Cambridgeport Neighborhood.
In response to my question, MIT reaffirmed its support for the intentions of the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation to destroy hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.
This portion of Memorial Drive abuts MIT’s campus to the south.
The nearest thing to an explanation was a cynical technique of lying described below.
2. Techniques of Lying.
When you are dealing with really rotten people, they follow a script, and they commonly lie. Two of the popular techniques of lying are (A) telling the victim the destruction won’t happen for a few weeks and thus the victim should not be concerned, and (B) scoundrel praising scoundrel.
A. Telling the victim the destruction won’t happen for a few weeks and thus the victim should not be concerned.
This technique is so outrageous that the response, reflexively, is sort of comparable to the now politically incorrect reflex of averting the eyes when seeing a seriously deformed person.
It is impolite to recognize moral deformity.
The “excuse” was that the DCR does not have the money, YET.
My response was to repeat history. The DCR tried to get Obama money lying that those universally healthy trees were universally diseased. That particular lie was proven a lie by the papers filed on the project with the City of Cambridge. The papers were provided to the Governor. No money was obtained.
B. Scoundrel praising scoundrel.
The instigation for my question was a comment from the leader of the fake neighborhood association praising MIT for its tree policies.
MIT responded by praising him for his concern for Magazine Beach. For details of the fake neighborhood association’s “concern” for the Magazine Beach playing fields, and the parking lot next to it and the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese and, I could go on, please see my analysis entitled “The Dangers of Honest Evaluation of the Cambridge City Government”, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/dangers-of-honest-evaluation-of.html.
Until this exchange, it had not been FULLY driven home to me just how rotten the fake neighborhood association is.
This is a standard lie and a very routine lie by which two rotters falsely praise each other and well intentioned bystanders are deliberately given the false impression that both rotters are commendable individuals. After all, don’t they think highly of each other?
2. Techniques of Lying.
A. Telling the victim the destruction won’t happen for a few weeks and thus the victim should not be concerned.
B. Scoundrel praising scoundrel.
1. Outrageous position.
Last night, May 24, 2012, Massachusetts Institute of Technology conducted one of its irregular meetings with concerned citizens concerning MIT’s development plans.
The meeting was conducted in its 70 Pacific Street dormitory which, in turn, is part of the building banking being accomplished by MIT southeast of Cambridge’s Central Square and east of the Cambridgeport Neighborhood.
In response to my question, MIT reaffirmed its support for the intentions of the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation to destroy hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.
This portion of Memorial Drive abuts MIT’s campus to the south.
The nearest thing to an explanation was a cynical technique of lying described below.
2. Techniques of Lying.
When you are dealing with really rotten people, they follow a script, and they commonly lie. Two of the popular techniques of lying are (A) telling the victim the destruction won’t happen for a few weeks and thus the victim should not be concerned, and (B) scoundrel praising scoundrel.
A. Telling the victim the destruction won’t happen for a few weeks and thus the victim should not be concerned.
This technique is so outrageous that the response, reflexively, is sort of comparable to the now politically incorrect reflex of averting the eyes when seeing a seriously deformed person.
It is impolite to recognize moral deformity.
The “excuse” was that the DCR does not have the money, YET.
My response was to repeat history. The DCR tried to get Obama money lying that those universally healthy trees were universally diseased. That particular lie was proven a lie by the papers filed on the project with the City of Cambridge. The papers were provided to the Governor. No money was obtained.
B. Scoundrel praising scoundrel.
The instigation for my question was a comment from the leader of the fake neighborhood association praising MIT for its tree policies.
MIT responded by praising him for his concern for Magazine Beach. For details of the fake neighborhood association’s “concern” for the Magazine Beach playing fields, and the parking lot next to it and the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese and, I could go on, please see my analysis entitled “The Dangers of Honest Evaluation of the Cambridge City Government”, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/dangers-of-honest-evaluation-of.html.
Until this exchange, it had not been FULLY driven home to me just how rotten the fake neighborhood association is.
This is a standard lie and a very routine lie by which two rotters falsely praise each other and well intentioned bystanders are deliberately given the false impression that both rotters are commendable individuals. After all, don’t they think highly of each other?
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
The dangers of honest evaluation of the Cambridge City Government
1. Introduction.
2. Honest comment, honest response.
A. Well meaning individual, quoting.
B. My response.
C. The machine’s response.
3. The lies of omission on the Charles River.
4. Implementation in the fake group’s attack on Magazine Beach.
5. Application in the retaliation by the city government against those who live in reality.
6. Application as part of broadbased corruption.
1. Introduction.
The Cambridge Machine lives in a world of its own.
It is impossible to tell if this dishonest reality is corruption with regard to any particular individual.
What is possible to say is that, as a group, this dishonest reality has to be considered corruption on a large scale.
Corruption in government is a failure to serve based on dishonesty. Money / other payments are incidental.
Failure to serve based on dishonesty is the game.
Failure to serve based on manipulation of well intentioned people by fake groups with connection to the government is the game.
Blatant corruption.
2. Honest comment, honest response.
A. Well meaning individual, quoting.
Yesterday, I wrote:
> And why does one City Councilor think just asking about potential
> conflicts of interest (both Microsoft and Google are vendors
> to Cambridge) is "destructive"?
Since I called out Leland Cheung so provocatively above, I hope the moderator will permit me an extended clarification.
Having had a conversation with Councilor Cheung, I believe that his intent was miscommunicated when he told me my questions
were "destructive".
What Leland was trying to communicate was that the tone of those questions would be destructive to my relationship with the City. That turned out to be self evidently true given Deputy City Manager Rich Rossi's statement to me.
Leland has told me, and I believe him, that he considers these questions perfectly legitimate. He's also said,
and not just on this occasion, that he's advocated on my behalf in order to get the City to listen my
opinions.
Leland isn't the problem here. The problem is a City administration that believes it can set the terms of acceptable debate and
only respond to questions it wants to answer. Leland shouldn't have to spend any time advocating on my behalf. The City should be listening on its own.
As we head into what are going to be heated discussions about development in our neighborhood, we need to be cognizant of a City administration that's ready to tune us out and seems to be more respectful of corporate voices than it is of informed, engaged citizens.
Our elected representatives will have the opportunity to change this culture when they approve a new City Manager. I believe that they should insist on a manager whose core values include openness, transparency and inclusiveness, and who has a proven track record of management skills sufficient to make this cultural change happen.
I, for one, will be judging them on how they rise to this occasion.
B. My response.
[ ]'s comment / clarification reaffirms the grave failure of the Cambridge City Council in not firing the Cambridge City Manager a long time ago.
My analysis of the situation is considerably less kind. I agree with the civil rights judge, and the jury, and the Appeals Court panel. Monteiro v. Cambridge. I think the trial judge's word, "reprehensible", says plenty, and it is the very same mentality.
As far as Councilor Cheung goes, his honeymoon with me ended with the totally inexcuseable destruction and mass animal killings at Alewife. The current outrage at the Nesting Area and the impending destruction of the parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street achieved through the usual lies of omission just adds to the long standing, very bad situation.
C. The machine’s response.
The comment was on the Cambridgeport listserve.
The response was submitted to the Cambridgeport listserve.
The response was censored.
The machine commonly censors reality, either formally, as in this censorship, or informally by simply not listening.
Blatant corruption.
3. The lies of omission on the Charles River.
The fake neighborhood association which claims to be defending Magazine Beach / Cambridgeport is not at all unusual.
The fake neighborhood association which claims to be defending Magazine Beach / Cambridgeport contains people who very clearly are associated with individuals in other such groups.
The poor dears can get very indignant over almost anything. They are constantly indignant and almost as constantly fighting against the causes they claim to stand for.
It is impossible to say which is a knave or which is a fool.
And it is really irrelevant because the knaves and the fools are indistinguishable.
The nonsense, outright lies or lies of omission, coming out of these people is very much nonstop, and they are very indignant about it.
If they know the comment, whether outright or by omission, is a lie, they are liars.
If they make a comment and do not know what they are talking about, they are liars because implicit in the indignant statement is a statement that they know what they are talking about. And, if they do not know what they are talking about, they are lying.
Blatant corruption.
4. Implementation in the fake group’s attack on Magazine Beach.
They have for a few months now, run around lying that they are concerned about Magazine Beach.
The constant proclamations of indignant and concern by a large number of controlled people gives the lie of concern.
Constant claims of wanting to improve are part of the lies.
The fake group has prohibited negative comment in response to a presentation on Magazine Beach by the destructive Department of Conservation and Recreation.
Blatant corruption.
Dishonesty in fact by lying by omission, omitting reality by shouting it down.
This fake group has put on a history of Magazine Beach which omitted the last 12 years of destruction and heartless animal abuse.
Blatant corruption.
Dishonesty in fact by lying by omission, omitting reality by shouting reality down.
Since their world does not include the last 12 years, their world does not include the heartless animal abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese. In response to non stop lies of no intention to harm.
Since their world does not include the last 12 years, their world does not include the walling off of Magazine Beach, starving the Charles River White Geese, and preventing the possibility of swimming. In response to a lie from the DCR that promised a lawn to the river. In response to a lie from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy that walling off Magazine Beach would improve swimming. In response to non stop lying from the DCR that they are working to improve water related activities.
Since their world does not include the last 12 years, their world does not include the dumping of poisons on the banks of the Charles to keep alive sickly grass introduced to replace healthy grass that survived the better part of a century.
Since their world does not include the last 12 years, their world does not include the downsizing of the Magazine Beach playing fields, downsizing to install fancy drain systems to drain off poisons that should not be dumped on the banks of the Charles River.
Since their world does not include the last 12 years, their world does not include the destruction of the boat dock which existed for the better part of a century. It is still there, but access is walled off. In response to promises to do nothing but put in uses that use the Charles River.
The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern do not include concerns for reversing these outrages. The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern are just more lies.
The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern do not include remediations in the Nesting Area for the destruction associated with the BU Bridge project.
But they yell so loudly that they are lying that they are concerned and they keep people away from the very severe damage.
The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern include false praise for the outrage / new thicket being installed in place of the key nesting area of the Charles River White Geese. The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern including shouting down honest condemnation of this outrage.
The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern include praise for the historical building to the west of the playing fields.
The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern include praise for the picnic area west of the playing fields.
The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern do not include any more than they can help mention of their fight to destroy the parking for the historical building and picnic area. Thus they lie by omission that they are fighting to destroy the picnic area. Thus they lie by omission that they are fighting to hurt access to the historical building.
Blatant corruption.
5. Application in the retaliation by the city government against those who live in reality.
The shouting down of reality includes shunning of those who have the nerve to notice reality.
The censoring of reality is part of the lies of omission.
The shouting down of reality exactly fits the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The shouting down of reality exactly fits total indifference to the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro.
Blatant corruption.
6. Application as part of broadbased corruption.
This fake group is by no means an exception.
The fake groups have come into existence during the reign of the Sullivan / Healy administration with clear admiration of the Sullivan / Healy administration, and with very major connections to the Sullivan / Healy administration and to individual city council incumbents.
Blatant Corruption.
2. Honest comment, honest response.
A. Well meaning individual, quoting.
B. My response.
C. The machine’s response.
3. The lies of omission on the Charles River.
4. Implementation in the fake group’s attack on Magazine Beach.
5. Application in the retaliation by the city government against those who live in reality.
6. Application as part of broadbased corruption.
1. Introduction.
The Cambridge Machine lives in a world of its own.
It is impossible to tell if this dishonest reality is corruption with regard to any particular individual.
What is possible to say is that, as a group, this dishonest reality has to be considered corruption on a large scale.
Corruption in government is a failure to serve based on dishonesty. Money / other payments are incidental.
Failure to serve based on dishonesty is the game.
Failure to serve based on manipulation of well intentioned people by fake groups with connection to the government is the game.
Blatant corruption.
2. Honest comment, honest response.
A. Well meaning individual, quoting.
Yesterday, I wrote:
> And why does one City Councilor think just asking about potential
> conflicts of interest (both Microsoft and Google are vendors
> to Cambridge) is "destructive"?
Since I called out Leland Cheung so provocatively above, I hope the moderator will permit me an extended clarification.
Having had a conversation with Councilor Cheung, I believe that his intent was miscommunicated when he told me my questions
were "destructive".
What Leland was trying to communicate was that the tone of those questions would be destructive to my relationship with the City. That turned out to be self evidently true given Deputy City Manager Rich Rossi's statement to me.
Leland has told me, and I believe him, that he considers these questions perfectly legitimate. He's also said,
and not just on this occasion, that he's advocated on my behalf in order to get the City to listen my
opinions.
Leland isn't the problem here. The problem is a City administration that believes it can set the terms of acceptable debate and
only respond to questions it wants to answer. Leland shouldn't have to spend any time advocating on my behalf. The City should be listening on its own.
As we head into what are going to be heated discussions about development in our neighborhood, we need to be cognizant of a City administration that's ready to tune us out and seems to be more respectful of corporate voices than it is of informed, engaged citizens.
Our elected representatives will have the opportunity to change this culture when they approve a new City Manager. I believe that they should insist on a manager whose core values include openness, transparency and inclusiveness, and who has a proven track record of management skills sufficient to make this cultural change happen.
I, for one, will be judging them on how they rise to this occasion.
B. My response.
[ ]'s comment / clarification reaffirms the grave failure of the Cambridge City Council in not firing the Cambridge City Manager a long time ago.
My analysis of the situation is considerably less kind. I agree with the civil rights judge, and the jury, and the Appeals Court panel. Monteiro v. Cambridge. I think the trial judge's word, "reprehensible", says plenty, and it is the very same mentality.
As far as Councilor Cheung goes, his honeymoon with me ended with the totally inexcuseable destruction and mass animal killings at Alewife. The current outrage at the Nesting Area and the impending destruction of the parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street achieved through the usual lies of omission just adds to the long standing, very bad situation.
C. The machine’s response.
The comment was on the Cambridgeport listserve.
The response was submitted to the Cambridgeport listserve.
The response was censored.
The machine commonly censors reality, either formally, as in this censorship, or informally by simply not listening.
Blatant corruption.
3. The lies of omission on the Charles River.
The fake neighborhood association which claims to be defending Magazine Beach / Cambridgeport is not at all unusual.
The fake neighborhood association which claims to be defending Magazine Beach / Cambridgeport contains people who very clearly are associated with individuals in other such groups.
The poor dears can get very indignant over almost anything. They are constantly indignant and almost as constantly fighting against the causes they claim to stand for.
It is impossible to say which is a knave or which is a fool.
And it is really irrelevant because the knaves and the fools are indistinguishable.
The nonsense, outright lies or lies of omission, coming out of these people is very much nonstop, and they are very indignant about it.
If they know the comment, whether outright or by omission, is a lie, they are liars.
If they make a comment and do not know what they are talking about, they are liars because implicit in the indignant statement is a statement that they know what they are talking about. And, if they do not know what they are talking about, they are lying.
Blatant corruption.
4. Implementation in the fake group’s attack on Magazine Beach.
They have for a few months now, run around lying that they are concerned about Magazine Beach.
The constant proclamations of indignant and concern by a large number of controlled people gives the lie of concern.
Constant claims of wanting to improve are part of the lies.
The fake group has prohibited negative comment in response to a presentation on Magazine Beach by the destructive Department of Conservation and Recreation.
Blatant corruption.
Dishonesty in fact by lying by omission, omitting reality by shouting it down.
This fake group has put on a history of Magazine Beach which omitted the last 12 years of destruction and heartless animal abuse.
Blatant corruption.
Dishonesty in fact by lying by omission, omitting reality by shouting reality down.
Since their world does not include the last 12 years, their world does not include the heartless animal abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese. In response to non stop lies of no intention to harm.
Since their world does not include the last 12 years, their world does not include the walling off of Magazine Beach, starving the Charles River White Geese, and preventing the possibility of swimming. In response to a lie from the DCR that promised a lawn to the river. In response to a lie from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy that walling off Magazine Beach would improve swimming. In response to non stop lying from the DCR that they are working to improve water related activities.
Since their world does not include the last 12 years, their world does not include the dumping of poisons on the banks of the Charles to keep alive sickly grass introduced to replace healthy grass that survived the better part of a century.
Since their world does not include the last 12 years, their world does not include the downsizing of the Magazine Beach playing fields, downsizing to install fancy drain systems to drain off poisons that should not be dumped on the banks of the Charles River.
Since their world does not include the last 12 years, their world does not include the destruction of the boat dock which existed for the better part of a century. It is still there, but access is walled off. In response to promises to do nothing but put in uses that use the Charles River.
The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern do not include concerns for reversing these outrages. The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern are just more lies.
The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern do not include remediations in the Nesting Area for the destruction associated with the BU Bridge project.
But they yell so loudly that they are lying that they are concerned and they keep people away from the very severe damage.
The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern include false praise for the outrage / new thicket being installed in place of the key nesting area of the Charles River White Geese. The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern including shouting down honest condemnation of this outrage.
The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern include praise for the historical building to the west of the playing fields.
The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern include praise for the picnic area west of the playing fields.
The nonstop pieties and proclamations of concern do not include any more than they can help mention of their fight to destroy the parking for the historical building and picnic area. Thus they lie by omission that they are fighting to destroy the picnic area. Thus they lie by omission that they are fighting to hurt access to the historical building.
Blatant corruption.
5. Application in the retaliation by the city government against those who live in reality.
The shouting down of reality includes shunning of those who have the nerve to notice reality.
The censoring of reality is part of the lies of omission.
The shouting down of reality exactly fits the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The shouting down of reality exactly fits total indifference to the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro.
Blatant corruption.
6. Application as part of broadbased corruption.
This fake group is by no means an exception.
The fake groups have come into existence during the reign of the Sullivan / Healy administration with clear admiration of the Sullivan / Healy administration, and with very major connections to the Sullivan / Healy administration and to individual city council incumbents.
Blatant Corruption.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Boston Globe / Boston.com reports City of Cambridge, MA, USA paid $3.85 million to last two of the Monteiro plaintiffs
I have reported on the Cambridge Chronicle’s victory at the Secretary of State’s office by which it obtained an order requiring Cambridge to release its settlement agreement with the last of the Monteiro plaintiffs.
My most recent report is at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/secretary-of-state-cambridge-must-obey.html.
This employment discrimination case started with five plaintiffs. Two settled several years ago for payments rumored to be good.
Monteiro went to trial, lost on the actual complaint but won resoundingly on her being fired in retaliation for the filing the complaint. The award was $1.1 million for real damages and $3.5 million for penal damages. The final check paid by the city was $8.3 million.
The Globe reports that the final two plaintiffs, Mary Wong, formerly executive director of the Cambridge Kids Council, and Linda Stamper, a former city lawyer, received $3.85 million in settlement.
Details may be read on boston.com at: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/19/cambridge_paid_385_million_to_settle_discrimination_case/
My most recent report is at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/secretary-of-state-cambridge-must-obey.html.
This employment discrimination case started with five plaintiffs. Two settled several years ago for payments rumored to be good.
Monteiro went to trial, lost on the actual complaint but won resoundingly on her being fired in retaliation for the filing the complaint. The award was $1.1 million for real damages and $3.5 million for penal damages. The final check paid by the city was $8.3 million.
The Globe reports that the final two plaintiffs, Mary Wong, formerly executive director of the Cambridge Kids Council, and Linda Stamper, a former city lawyer, received $3.85 million in settlement.
Details may be read on boston.com at: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/19/cambridge_paid_385_million_to_settle_discrimination_case/
Friday, May 18, 2012
Secretary of State: Cambridge must obey law in release of Monteiro Settlement Records
Yesterday, May 17, 2012, the Cambridge Chronicle reported in its feature headlines, the order of the Secretary of State’s office that Cambridge, MA, USA, must release its records on the settlement in the case of Monteiro v. Cambridge. Its report is posted on line at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/features/x1986334626/State-Cambridge-must-release-lawsuit-settlement-details#axzz1vDjJYQCa.
Monteiro v. Cambridge is yet another example of Cambridge certainly looking like it considers itself above the law.
Jury, Judge and Appeals Court found that Cambridge destroyed the life of department head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The trial judge’s use of the word “reprehensible” places the case squarely in the canon of way too much Cambridge behavior.
The Cambridge City Council / the Cambridge Pols, in their usual denial of reality, see no reason to fire the Cambridge City Manager. Reading the opinions, two words come to mind with regard to the Cambridge’s remaining in its own private world: arrogance and corruption. When you are dealing with judicially found deliberate violations of significant law or ethics by a municipality, it seems rather silly to avoid the word “corruption.”
The Secretary of State treated Cambridge in the Cambridge Chronicle case with more respect than the Appeals Court treated Cambridge in the Monteiro appeal. In Monteiro, the Appeals Court refused to grant Cambridge the respect of a formal opinion.
In the Secretary of State decision, Cambridge won a point, one point. So it is difficult to simply call Cambridge’s behavior in this matter as demonstrating lack of ethics, but there is too often an apparent mentality of: “You expect me to obey an inconvenient law, go to Court.”
The Chronicle has attached a PDF of the decision to its report.
Monteiro v. Cambridge is yet another example of Cambridge certainly looking like it considers itself above the law.
Jury, Judge and Appeals Court found that Cambridge destroyed the life of department head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The trial judge’s use of the word “reprehensible” places the case squarely in the canon of way too much Cambridge behavior.
The Cambridge City Council / the Cambridge Pols, in their usual denial of reality, see no reason to fire the Cambridge City Manager. Reading the opinions, two words come to mind with regard to the Cambridge’s remaining in its own private world: arrogance and corruption. When you are dealing with judicially found deliberate violations of significant law or ethics by a municipality, it seems rather silly to avoid the word “corruption.”
The Secretary of State treated Cambridge in the Cambridge Chronicle case with more respect than the Appeals Court treated Cambridge in the Monteiro appeal. In Monteiro, the Appeals Court refused to grant Cambridge the respect of a formal opinion.
In the Secretary of State decision, Cambridge won a point, one point. So it is difficult to simply call Cambridge’s behavior in this matter as demonstrating lack of ethics, but there is too often an apparent mentality of: “You expect me to obey an inconvenient law, go to Court.”
The Chronicle has attached a PDF of the decision to its report.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Cambridge, MA, USA City Councilor continues environmental con gam
Last night, Cambridge City Councilor Craig Kelley gave a speech on environmentalism to a fake environmental group associated with the Cambridge Machine.
The continuing lie from the Machine including all city councilors, insofar as I am aware, on environmentalism is (1) they are saving the world and (2) how dare you expect them to refrain from destroying the environment in Cambridge, MA, i.e. to respect the world around us in Cambridge.
That, as is very common, is exactly the opposite of reality, how things are done in the real world.
As irresponsible as the fake Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association behaved in its last meeting, they did at least have a responsible guest, the gentleman who did the radar scan of Magazine Beach. This, of course, is part of the continuing lie of concern for Magazine Beach on the fake group side, but the gentleman was for real.
He is an advanced degree candidate in the environmental field and he, like all normal people, defines environmentalism as concern for the world around us.
In Cambridge the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse on the Charles River combines with the mass animal killings and environmental destruction at Alewife and a lot of other outrages. The destruction is very commonly part of truly bizarre projects, bizarre projects which quite simply cannot be justified on their own merits. The Machine mouths the lies of the incumbents that they are environmental saints. By repeating the non stop lies, they all keep the environmental destruction going.
And they lie their way around their environmental destruction and animal killing and abuse with their secret definition of environmentalism, a definition that Kelley has always proclaimed.
I did not bother go into Kelley’s con game. I realize a miracle could have occurred and he could have suddenly discovered meaningful concern for the world around us. I do not believe in miracles, but I would love to be proven wrong, meaningfully proven wrong.
The continuing lie from the Machine including all city councilors, insofar as I am aware, on environmentalism is (1) they are saving the world and (2) how dare you expect them to refrain from destroying the environment in Cambridge, MA, i.e. to respect the world around us in Cambridge.
That, as is very common, is exactly the opposite of reality, how things are done in the real world.
As irresponsible as the fake Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association behaved in its last meeting, they did at least have a responsible guest, the gentleman who did the radar scan of Magazine Beach. This, of course, is part of the continuing lie of concern for Magazine Beach on the fake group side, but the gentleman was for real.
He is an advanced degree candidate in the environmental field and he, like all normal people, defines environmentalism as concern for the world around us.
In Cambridge the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse on the Charles River combines with the mass animal killings and environmental destruction at Alewife and a lot of other outrages. The destruction is very commonly part of truly bizarre projects, bizarre projects which quite simply cannot be justified on their own merits. The Machine mouths the lies of the incumbents that they are environmental saints. By repeating the non stop lies, they all keep the environmental destruction going.
And they lie their way around their environmental destruction and animal killing and abuse with their secret definition of environmentalism, a definition that Kelley has always proclaimed.
I did not bother go into Kelley’s con game. I realize a miracle could have occurred and he could have suddenly discovered meaningful concern for the world around us. I do not believe in miracles, but I would love to be proven wrong, meaningfully proven wrong.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Universal Hub: Photo of Goose on Grand Junction Railroad Bridge
Universal Hub has posted an excellent photo of one of the offspring of, I believe, Brown Beauty, walking on the railroad bridge across the Charles River at http://www.universalhub.com/2012/geese-playing-chicken.
There are two Canadas behind her, less visible.
The railroaders are good people. I have seen geese standing in front of trains on the tracks and have the trainman stop for them.
Thank you Universal Hub.
There are two Canadas behind her, less visible.
The railroaders are good people. I have seen geese standing in front of trains on the tracks and have the trainman stop for them.
Thank you Universal Hub.
The Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese: The ongoing destruction of the nests.
1. The photos.
A. The reality at the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
B. Magazine Beach Playing Fields - walled off from the Charles River by an Impenetrable Thicket.
C. Fake boat ramp. Access point for highway?
D. Softball field. Look back.
2. A summary of a corrupt reality.
A. Corruption proven in Court on Civil Rights.
B. Corruption, the reality on heartless animal abuse and killing and on environmental destruction. Alewife.
C. The reality at the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. Corruption in Cambridge, MA, USA.
3. How to contact the Governor of Massachusetts.
4. Addendum.
1. The photos.
A. The reality at the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
I have printed photos of the top area with the near concrete small vehicle highways which have been started.
One, the larger, western one is scheduled to be extended under the BU Bridge in the Charles and to connect to Magazine Beach’s playing fields where it would meet with a highway a combined report of two state departments has called environmentally destructive.
The second, the eastern one, is scheduled to meet with a highway on the Grand Junction Railroad. A responsible City Government would end the highway north of Memorial Drive and connect to Memorial Drive by crossing with a traffic light.
07 04-14-12 DNA south, Whites, native bushes, cleared west with potted bushes.
The native bushes nearest and to the right are the nesting material for the Charles River White Geese. They lined the BU Bridge and filled the northern part of their nesting area toward the ramp to Memorial Drive. The 1999 destruction by Boston University open up the area and created a pathway. BU destroyed the bushes but they grew back. The plan this time to make certain they cannot grow back.
The Charles River can be seen if you look through the tree. The near concrete eastern highway is slated to be extended through that opening as part of the small vehicle highway which has been described as environmentally destructive by two state agencies. The dirt in the foreground and toward the Charles River was been created by the destruction of ground vegetation since the falsely named Charles River Conservancy started destroying the environment for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
The black plastic creating a wall through the middle of this picture was installed as part of the BU Bridge repairs. In this spot, it created a 100 foot zone for access to the BU Bridge. That 100 foot zone was necessary. The eastern leg of the destruction was gratuitous, needlessly destructive and heartless animal abuse.
As part of their usual lying, the impenetrable thicket is being installed as lied amelioration. The DCR works closely with the City of Cambridge and does nothing which displeases the City of Cambridge. The supposed amelioration is designed to make the temporary destruction of the BU Bridge permanent.
The DCR uses whatever excuse the DCR can find to kill of resident animals living in the Charles River Basin. No animal need apply is a key part of the DCR’s secret definition of parkland.
B. Magazine Beach Playing Fields - walled off from the Charles River by an Impenetrable Thicket.
16 04-14-12 Path by impenetrable thicket.
18 04-14-12 Thicket, walk, bushes
Eyeballing the situation on Google Maps, satellite view, this impenetrable thicket runs two to three tenths of a mile. All other bordering vegetation on the Charles River Basin is destroyed twice a year by the falsely named Charles River Conservancy. This is simply allowed to grow. It is silly to think a miracle would occur and the DCR would do differently with their bushes introduced in place of nesting places of the Charles River White Geese.
On the left / South side of the wall is the Charles River. On the right / north side of the wall is Magazine Beach’s playing fields, the food for the Charles River White Geese for most of the past 30 plus years. There is a tiny break in the middle of the wall at about the spot where the Charles River White Geese have spent most of their lives, feeding, in the outfield of the ball fields. It would be very dangerous and foolhardy for the Charles River White Geese to use that break for access to food.
22 04-14-12 Bush, thicket.
To the right is the wall blocking access. To the left is vegetation introduced in phase 2. Neither has been trimmed since they were planted.
17 04-14-12 Thicket, walk, more dense bushes.
To the left is the wall blocking access. Bushes planed in phase 2 are to the right. Not that they create an additionally wall to access around the Magazine Beach playing fields. They have not been trimmed since planting.
C. Fake boat ramp. Access point for highway?
09 04-14-12 Boat Dock
This view is from the eastern end of the Magazine Beach playing field. The changes have rendered the eastern end of no value to the athletic uses. A number of outdoor type devices ancillary to running used to be in the eastern end. They were destroyed and placed in what had been playing fields slightly further west.
The two massive buildings are newly built Boston University dormitories. These dormitories were built on an historical armory. BU obtained the armory with major objections from historical types about the value of the armory. The armory was destroyed as part of this project which includes an athletic facility in its southern extreme, on Commonwealth Avenue in Boston.
10 04-14-12 Former Boat Dock, Bridge
Closer view. This is the southern end of the main parking lot for Magazine Beach. It used to extend quite close to the river. The wooden bridge was constructed in phase 1. The barrier and wooden bridge prevent access to the docking facility for launching boats. Any boats launched from this ramp can no longer be backed behind a vehicle and dropped into the Charles River. They all have to be physically carried through the obstacle path.
12 04-14-12 Former Boat Dock
This location would appear to be a boat dock not seriously changed from what it has been for most of the past century. And if you were not aware of the obstacle path, you might think it still is.
This opening is the only big opening in the two to three tenths of a mile walk.
The pathway seen was created in phase 1. It runs the length of the introduced wall and ends at the fake boat dock.
Reality is that the plans for the small vehicle highway call for the small vehicle highway to be built in the Charles River between the Nesting Area and the Magazine Beach playing fields. The area to the left (east) along the Charles River is pretty steep. Additionally the DCR does not own a very wide piece of land between a pollution control building which is between this point and the BU Bridge.
It is highly likely that the reason for keeping the “boat dock” here, after lying that they were keeping a boat dock, is to make this the grounding spot for the small vehicle highway. I would anticipate that the fairly innocuous path would be widened at that time and converted to the near concrete surface illegally built in the Nesting Area.
13 04-14-12 Impenetrable Thicket from former boat dock.
The former boat dock is the only location from which a meaningful view can be obtained of the extent of the outrage which is the impenetrable thicket. Notice the width of this outrage. Note that the thicket goes right to the Charles River. Those small bushes just planted will do this.
14 04-14-12 Former boat dock to Ball Field
The camera turns right from the prior photo.
Note the now massive bushes creating yeat another wall.
The wood bridge was constructed in phase 1 over an artificial pond built within a few feet of the Charles River. It was stupid, but the Charles River White Geese loved it.
The fake boat dock was their primary access point to their food of 30 plus years. They would swim in the water and walk through this area to get to additional food between the parking lot and the softball field.
The water was taken away in phase 2 and these obstacles placed in the way to keep them from feeding. The artificial wetlands which replaced the pond creates yet another barrier to access to food.
And the barrier is not trimmed and allowed to grow and grow and grow, creating yet another starvation wall, as will be done in the Nesting Area.
15 04-14-12 Bridge to Former Boatdock.
Both sides of the bridge were water in phase 1.
Photo 17 04-14-12 Thicket, walk, more dense bushes, abov, is the beginning of the phase 2 construction going west from the former boatdock and former artificial pond.
20 04-14-12 Bushes, walk, thicket, BU Bridge, plant.
This is the opposing view of the same bushes. Note that there is plenty of room to widen the walk to the same outrageous width as the eastern of the small vehicle highways started as part of the illegal construction in the Nesting Area.
The black structure to the left follows the third base line in the ball field. The red structure behind it is the pollution plant which was responsibly built with grass on its roof. The big building to the right is Boston University Law School on the south side of the Charles River. The whitish structure to its right and partially blocked by it is probably a dormitory on the South Side of Commonwealth Avenue. The dark structure to its right is probably the gop of the student union.
The arch in front of the student union building is the main span of the BU Bridge. To the left is the west side of supporting structure seen from the east side in the first photo above.
D. Softball field. Look back.
19 04-14-12 Walled off ball field
Before phase 1 a primary source of food was the infield of the softball field. The blue structure prevents that.
23 04-14-12 Playing field, thicket, bushes
Formerly food. This is a more distant view looking east. The pollution plant is very visible to the left. The law school stands out at right middle with the BU Bridge span to its right.
Nearer on the left is stands for the playing field and never trimmed bushes from phase 2.
24 04-12-12 wetlands, bridge, wall
The area near the bridge was water, swimmable and possible to be walked around. Notice the obstacles on the left.
The grey is the parking lot. In the background on the left is the Memorial Drive overpass. Top middle is the former Ford / Polaroid Plan. To the right is the pollution plant, with grass on its roof.
25 04-14-12 Bridge, thicket, former boat dock.
Reverse view.
2. A summary of a corrupt reality.
A. Corruption proven in Court on Civil Rights.
Corrupt is an excellent word to describe the political situation in Cambridge, MA, USA.
Cambridge has a city manager who has been condemned as “reprehensible” by jury and affirmed by judge and appeals court for destroying the life of a department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
This decision would readily back his being fired by the Cambridge City Council for cause, without golden parachute, and probably without pension.
The members of the Cambridge City Council call themselves saints on civil rights issues.
Reality is that they would not even dream of firing the Cambridge City Manager for cause, without golden parachute, and probably without pension.
The Cambridge voters are controlled by a massive machine with a lot of people who lie that they are liberals. The machine would not dream of the city council firing the Cambridge City Manager for cause, without golden parachute, and probably without pension.
Corrupt is an excellent word to describe the political situation in Cambridge, MA, USA.
B. Corruption, the reality on heartless animal abuse and killing and on environmental destruction. Alewife.
I have gone over this too many times.
Hundreds or thousands of excellent animals were killed as part of the bizarre and wasteful destruction at Alewife, destruction made possible by one of the usual fake groups.
The destruction and massive killings will be expanded because North Cambridge needs flood protection. That flood can be achieved across the street from Alewife under a massive parking lot which is about to see major construction.
The fake group is helping destruction of that parking lot by yelling at the developer to provide flood storage rather than yelling at the miscreants, the city of Cambridge which should be taking the parking lot by eminent domain.
The fake group in Cambridgeport helped the destruction out by telling people to listen to the fake “protector” pushing destruction.
When they achieved the destruction, all of a sudden, Alewife became not part of their interest and they thus CENSORED mention of the totally wasteful destruction and killing they helped achieve.
C. The reality at the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. Corruption in Cambridge, MA, USA.
The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River beloved by all normal people since 1981.
In 1996, the Cambridge City Manager working through the predecessor of the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” announced a plan to destroy their world.
Nobody could get interested.
“They would never stoop so low.”
In 1999, Boston University destroyed their nesting area the first time.
In 2000, the local state representative proposed their killing using the MSPCA’s kill shelter which they called a “happy farm.”
People were livid.
The state calmed thing down with the flat out lie that they had no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese.
In 2004, the state, in phase 1 at Magazine Beach, started to starve them by walling off their 30 year food at the Magazine Beach playing field with an impenetrable thicket. The state repeated its lie.
Phase 2 replaced their grass at Magazine Beach with poison requiring grass and worse. The state repeated its lie.
In the 2000's the usual fake group showed up in Cambridgeport calling itself a neighborhood association. With the creation of the thicket at the nesting area imminent, the fake group started getting interested in and expressing a love for Magazine Beach. Their “meetings” have been notorious for blatant censorship of the state’s record and shouting down of reality.
They are fighting to keep outrages which have been achieved through outright lies and lies of omission.
They are fighting to expand the outrage through shouting down mention of the outrage at the nesting area in response to glowing praise from one of their cheerleaders.
They are fighting to expand the outrage by destroying the parking lot west of the playing fields by praising the picnic area which needs the parking lot and avoiding mentioning that they are destroying the picnic area by destroying the parking lot. The brag of repair of picnic tables which they are rendering useless.
They are fighting to expand the outrage by destroying the parking lot west of the playing fields by praising the historical buildings which needs the parking lot and avoiding mentioning that they are destroying the picnic area by destroying the parking lot. They brag of moneys being spent on the buildings.
3. How to contact the Governor of Massachusetts.
The Governor of Massachusetts may have kept the DCR from obtaining Obama money for the destruction of hundreds of excellent trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, the second bridge east of the BU Bridge.
He was provided with the DCR’s documentation with Cambridge concerning the quality of the trees being destroyed. The DCR official version exactly conflicted with the lie being put out by the DCR that 100% of the trees they were destroying were diseased.
Nobody below the Governor in the DCR chain of command is fit to talk to.
Those bizarre introduced bushes must be dug up, potted and removed. The near concrete new highways must be dug up and removed. They must be replaced with grass.
The native bushes used for nesting have not been totally destroyed in order to promote the lie that the DCR is worthy of respect. The native bushes, if allowed to, will propagate and recreate the nesting area used by the Charles River White Geese for most of the last 30 plus years and recreate this little slice of animal habitat which has been missed in DCR destruction along the Charles River Basin.
The governor was provided with the documents proving the lies to be lies. Somebody prevented the funds from going to the DCR.
The Governor’s email form link is: http://www.mass.gov/governor/utility/contact-us.html.
4. Addendum.
In no way should the preceding paragraph be interpreted as anything and everything that needs to be done.
This is just an emergency reaction to a corrupt situation getting more rotten.
A. The bizarre introduced thicket walling off the Magazine Beach playing fields from the Charles River must be chopped down twice a year exactly as is all other bordering vegetation on the Charles River.
B. The poisons being dumped on the Magazine Beach playing fields must be replaced with seeds for the healthy grass that survived for more than half a century without poisons.
C. The drainage system to drain off the poisons should be filled back in and returned to the playing fields that were destroyed to create the drainage systems.
D. The openings illegally cut into the fence surrounding the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese should be returned to the status they had before the Boston University illegalities of 1999. The structures including all ramps and stairs illegally built by BU at that time including but not limited to subsequent improvements must be removed.
E. Plans to destroy the parking lot west of the Magazine Beach playing fields must be scuttled.
F. The blue fences walling off the softball fields and preventing feeding must be scuttled.
G. All introduced bushes which prevent feeding now or in the future must be removed.
H. The boat dock must be returned to service.
I. The Charles River White Geese must be publicly cherished for the treasure they are.
A. The reality at the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
B. Magazine Beach Playing Fields - walled off from the Charles River by an Impenetrable Thicket.
C. Fake boat ramp. Access point for highway?
D. Softball field. Look back.
2. A summary of a corrupt reality.
A. Corruption proven in Court on Civil Rights.
B. Corruption, the reality on heartless animal abuse and killing and on environmental destruction. Alewife.
C. The reality at the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. Corruption in Cambridge, MA, USA.
3. How to contact the Governor of Massachusetts.
4. Addendum.
1. The photos.
A. The reality at the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
I have printed photos of the top area with the near concrete small vehicle highways which have been started.
One, the larger, western one is scheduled to be extended under the BU Bridge in the Charles and to connect to Magazine Beach’s playing fields where it would meet with a highway a combined report of two state departments has called environmentally destructive.
The second, the eastern one, is scheduled to meet with a highway on the Grand Junction Railroad. A responsible City Government would end the highway north of Memorial Drive and connect to Memorial Drive by crossing with a traffic light.
07 04-14-12 DNA south, Whites, native bushes, cleared west with potted bushes.
The native bushes nearest and to the right are the nesting material for the Charles River White Geese. They lined the BU Bridge and filled the northern part of their nesting area toward the ramp to Memorial Drive. The 1999 destruction by Boston University open up the area and created a pathway. BU destroyed the bushes but they grew back. The plan this time to make certain they cannot grow back.
The Charles River can be seen if you look through the tree. The near concrete eastern highway is slated to be extended through that opening as part of the small vehicle highway which has been described as environmentally destructive by two state agencies. The dirt in the foreground and toward the Charles River was been created by the destruction of ground vegetation since the falsely named Charles River Conservancy started destroying the environment for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
The black plastic creating a wall through the middle of this picture was installed as part of the BU Bridge repairs. In this spot, it created a 100 foot zone for access to the BU Bridge. That 100 foot zone was necessary. The eastern leg of the destruction was gratuitous, needlessly destructive and heartless animal abuse.
As part of their usual lying, the impenetrable thicket is being installed as lied amelioration. The DCR works closely with the City of Cambridge and does nothing which displeases the City of Cambridge. The supposed amelioration is designed to make the temporary destruction of the BU Bridge permanent.
The DCR uses whatever excuse the DCR can find to kill of resident animals living in the Charles River Basin. No animal need apply is a key part of the DCR’s secret definition of parkland.
B. Magazine Beach Playing Fields - walled off from the Charles River by an Impenetrable Thicket.
16 04-14-12 Path by impenetrable thicket.
18 04-14-12 Thicket, walk, bushes
Eyeballing the situation on Google Maps, satellite view, this impenetrable thicket runs two to three tenths of a mile. All other bordering vegetation on the Charles River Basin is destroyed twice a year by the falsely named Charles River Conservancy. This is simply allowed to grow. It is silly to think a miracle would occur and the DCR would do differently with their bushes introduced in place of nesting places of the Charles River White Geese.
On the left / South side of the wall is the Charles River. On the right / north side of the wall is Magazine Beach’s playing fields, the food for the Charles River White Geese for most of the past 30 plus years. There is a tiny break in the middle of the wall at about the spot where the Charles River White Geese have spent most of their lives, feeding, in the outfield of the ball fields. It would be very dangerous and foolhardy for the Charles River White Geese to use that break for access to food.
22 04-14-12 Bush, thicket.
To the right is the wall blocking access. To the left is vegetation introduced in phase 2. Neither has been trimmed since they were planted.
17 04-14-12 Thicket, walk, more dense bushes.
To the left is the wall blocking access. Bushes planed in phase 2 are to the right. Not that they create an additionally wall to access around the Magazine Beach playing fields. They have not been trimmed since planting.
C. Fake boat ramp. Access point for highway?
09 04-14-12 Boat Dock
This view is from the eastern end of the Magazine Beach playing field. The changes have rendered the eastern end of no value to the athletic uses. A number of outdoor type devices ancillary to running used to be in the eastern end. They were destroyed and placed in what had been playing fields slightly further west.
The two massive buildings are newly built Boston University dormitories. These dormitories were built on an historical armory. BU obtained the armory with major objections from historical types about the value of the armory. The armory was destroyed as part of this project which includes an athletic facility in its southern extreme, on Commonwealth Avenue in Boston.
10 04-14-12 Former Boat Dock, Bridge
Closer view. This is the southern end of the main parking lot for Magazine Beach. It used to extend quite close to the river. The wooden bridge was constructed in phase 1. The barrier and wooden bridge prevent access to the docking facility for launching boats. Any boats launched from this ramp can no longer be backed behind a vehicle and dropped into the Charles River. They all have to be physically carried through the obstacle path.
12 04-14-12 Former Boat Dock
This location would appear to be a boat dock not seriously changed from what it has been for most of the past century. And if you were not aware of the obstacle path, you might think it still is.
This opening is the only big opening in the two to three tenths of a mile walk.
The pathway seen was created in phase 1. It runs the length of the introduced wall and ends at the fake boat dock.
Reality is that the plans for the small vehicle highway call for the small vehicle highway to be built in the Charles River between the Nesting Area and the Magazine Beach playing fields. The area to the left (east) along the Charles River is pretty steep. Additionally the DCR does not own a very wide piece of land between a pollution control building which is between this point and the BU Bridge.
It is highly likely that the reason for keeping the “boat dock” here, after lying that they were keeping a boat dock, is to make this the grounding spot for the small vehicle highway. I would anticipate that the fairly innocuous path would be widened at that time and converted to the near concrete surface illegally built in the Nesting Area.
13 04-14-12 Impenetrable Thicket from former boat dock.
The former boat dock is the only location from which a meaningful view can be obtained of the extent of the outrage which is the impenetrable thicket. Notice the width of this outrage. Note that the thicket goes right to the Charles River. Those small bushes just planted will do this.
14 04-14-12 Former boat dock to Ball Field
The camera turns right from the prior photo.
Note the now massive bushes creating yeat another wall.
The wood bridge was constructed in phase 1 over an artificial pond built within a few feet of the Charles River. It was stupid, but the Charles River White Geese loved it.
The fake boat dock was their primary access point to their food of 30 plus years. They would swim in the water and walk through this area to get to additional food between the parking lot and the softball field.
The water was taken away in phase 2 and these obstacles placed in the way to keep them from feeding. The artificial wetlands which replaced the pond creates yet another barrier to access to food.
And the barrier is not trimmed and allowed to grow and grow and grow, creating yet another starvation wall, as will be done in the Nesting Area.
15 04-14-12 Bridge to Former Boatdock.
Both sides of the bridge were water in phase 1.
Photo 17 04-14-12 Thicket, walk, more dense bushes, abov, is the beginning of the phase 2 construction going west from the former boatdock and former artificial pond.
20 04-14-12 Bushes, walk, thicket, BU Bridge, plant.
This is the opposing view of the same bushes. Note that there is plenty of room to widen the walk to the same outrageous width as the eastern of the small vehicle highways started as part of the illegal construction in the Nesting Area.
The black structure to the left follows the third base line in the ball field. The red structure behind it is the pollution plant which was responsibly built with grass on its roof. The big building to the right is Boston University Law School on the south side of the Charles River. The whitish structure to its right and partially blocked by it is probably a dormitory on the South Side of Commonwealth Avenue. The dark structure to its right is probably the gop of the student union.
The arch in front of the student union building is the main span of the BU Bridge. To the left is the west side of supporting structure seen from the east side in the first photo above.
D. Softball field. Look back.
19 04-14-12 Walled off ball field
Before phase 1 a primary source of food was the infield of the softball field. The blue structure prevents that.
23 04-14-12 Playing field, thicket, bushes
Formerly food. This is a more distant view looking east. The pollution plant is very visible to the left. The law school stands out at right middle with the BU Bridge span to its right.
Nearer on the left is stands for the playing field and never trimmed bushes from phase 2.
24 04-12-12 wetlands, bridge, wall
The area near the bridge was water, swimmable and possible to be walked around. Notice the obstacles on the left.
The grey is the parking lot. In the background on the left is the Memorial Drive overpass. Top middle is the former Ford / Polaroid Plan. To the right is the pollution plant, with grass on its roof.
25 04-14-12 Bridge, thicket, former boat dock.
Reverse view.
2. A summary of a corrupt reality.
A. Corruption proven in Court on Civil Rights.
Corrupt is an excellent word to describe the political situation in Cambridge, MA, USA.
Cambridge has a city manager who has been condemned as “reprehensible” by jury and affirmed by judge and appeals court for destroying the life of a department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
This decision would readily back his being fired by the Cambridge City Council for cause, without golden parachute, and probably without pension.
The members of the Cambridge City Council call themselves saints on civil rights issues.
Reality is that they would not even dream of firing the Cambridge City Manager for cause, without golden parachute, and probably without pension.
The Cambridge voters are controlled by a massive machine with a lot of people who lie that they are liberals. The machine would not dream of the city council firing the Cambridge City Manager for cause, without golden parachute, and probably without pension.
Corrupt is an excellent word to describe the political situation in Cambridge, MA, USA.
B. Corruption, the reality on heartless animal abuse and killing and on environmental destruction. Alewife.
I have gone over this too many times.
Hundreds or thousands of excellent animals were killed as part of the bizarre and wasteful destruction at Alewife, destruction made possible by one of the usual fake groups.
The destruction and massive killings will be expanded because North Cambridge needs flood protection. That flood can be achieved across the street from Alewife under a massive parking lot which is about to see major construction.
The fake group is helping destruction of that parking lot by yelling at the developer to provide flood storage rather than yelling at the miscreants, the city of Cambridge which should be taking the parking lot by eminent domain.
The fake group in Cambridgeport helped the destruction out by telling people to listen to the fake “protector” pushing destruction.
When they achieved the destruction, all of a sudden, Alewife became not part of their interest and they thus CENSORED mention of the totally wasteful destruction and killing they helped achieve.
C. The reality at the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. Corruption in Cambridge, MA, USA.
The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River beloved by all normal people since 1981.
In 1996, the Cambridge City Manager working through the predecessor of the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” announced a plan to destroy their world.
Nobody could get interested.
“They would never stoop so low.”
In 1999, Boston University destroyed their nesting area the first time.
In 2000, the local state representative proposed their killing using the MSPCA’s kill shelter which they called a “happy farm.”
People were livid.
The state calmed thing down with the flat out lie that they had no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese.
In 2004, the state, in phase 1 at Magazine Beach, started to starve them by walling off their 30 year food at the Magazine Beach playing field with an impenetrable thicket. The state repeated its lie.
Phase 2 replaced their grass at Magazine Beach with poison requiring grass and worse. The state repeated its lie.
In the 2000's the usual fake group showed up in Cambridgeport calling itself a neighborhood association. With the creation of the thicket at the nesting area imminent, the fake group started getting interested in and expressing a love for Magazine Beach. Their “meetings” have been notorious for blatant censorship of the state’s record and shouting down of reality.
They are fighting to keep outrages which have been achieved through outright lies and lies of omission.
They are fighting to expand the outrage through shouting down mention of the outrage at the nesting area in response to glowing praise from one of their cheerleaders.
They are fighting to expand the outrage by destroying the parking lot west of the playing fields by praising the picnic area which needs the parking lot and avoiding mentioning that they are destroying the picnic area by destroying the parking lot. The brag of repair of picnic tables which they are rendering useless.
They are fighting to expand the outrage by destroying the parking lot west of the playing fields by praising the historical buildings which needs the parking lot and avoiding mentioning that they are destroying the picnic area by destroying the parking lot. They brag of moneys being spent on the buildings.
3. How to contact the Governor of Massachusetts.
The Governor of Massachusetts may have kept the DCR from obtaining Obama money for the destruction of hundreds of excellent trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, the second bridge east of the BU Bridge.
He was provided with the DCR’s documentation with Cambridge concerning the quality of the trees being destroyed. The DCR official version exactly conflicted with the lie being put out by the DCR that 100% of the trees they were destroying were diseased.
Nobody below the Governor in the DCR chain of command is fit to talk to.
Those bizarre introduced bushes must be dug up, potted and removed. The near concrete new highways must be dug up and removed. They must be replaced with grass.
The native bushes used for nesting have not been totally destroyed in order to promote the lie that the DCR is worthy of respect. The native bushes, if allowed to, will propagate and recreate the nesting area used by the Charles River White Geese for most of the last 30 plus years and recreate this little slice of animal habitat which has been missed in DCR destruction along the Charles River Basin.
The governor was provided with the documents proving the lies to be lies. Somebody prevented the funds from going to the DCR.
The Governor’s email form link is: http://www.mass.gov/governor/utility/contact-us.html.
4. Addendum.
In no way should the preceding paragraph be interpreted as anything and everything that needs to be done.
This is just an emergency reaction to a corrupt situation getting more rotten.
A. The bizarre introduced thicket walling off the Magazine Beach playing fields from the Charles River must be chopped down twice a year exactly as is all other bordering vegetation on the Charles River.
B. The poisons being dumped on the Magazine Beach playing fields must be replaced with seeds for the healthy grass that survived for more than half a century without poisons.
C. The drainage system to drain off the poisons should be filled back in and returned to the playing fields that were destroyed to create the drainage systems.
D. The openings illegally cut into the fence surrounding the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese should be returned to the status they had before the Boston University illegalities of 1999. The structures including all ramps and stairs illegally built by BU at that time including but not limited to subsequent improvements must be removed.
E. Plans to destroy the parking lot west of the Magazine Beach playing fields must be scuttled.
F. The blue fences walling off the softball fields and preventing feeding must be scuttled.
G. All introduced bushes which prevent feeding now or in the future must be removed.
H. The boat dock must be returned to service.
I. The Charles River White Geese must be publicly cherished for the treasure they are.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Charles River / Magazine Beach / Destroyed Nesting Area, Cambridge, MA, USA: The outrage - existing and to come.
1. What has happened at the Destroyed Nesting Area.
2. Introduction. The machine’s propaganda on how to undo outrageous destruction.
3. The norm on the Charles River Basin, the baby thicket, the outrage resulting, and what passes for an explanation.
A. The norm on the Charles River Basin.
B. The beginning of a new thicket.
C. The future in the Destroyed Nesting Area, a very irresponsible present at Magazine Beach.
1. What has happened at the Destroyed Nesting Area.
The state Department of Conservation and Recreation has replaced the most important area used for nesting by the Charles River White Geese for most of the last 30 plus years with what looks like it will become an impenetrable thicket, useless for nesting.
This action has been taken in blatant violation of common decency, no prior notice, not prior meetings.
This action furthers the state’s very clear policy of killing off all animals residing or visiting the Charles River Basin. That policy, as usual, is buried in secret fine print, false definitions.
2. Introduction. The machine’s propaganda on how to undo outrageous destruction.
Here are a number of pictures to demonstrate the destructiveness of Cambridge, MA and its friends in the state bureaucracy, formally known as the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
I will not keep repeating this, but everything offensive from Magazine Beach / the Destroyed Nesting Area either constitutes the results of actions constituting direct lies or lies of omission. That is, either what you will see is exactly the opposite of what was promised or was kept secret.
I had a very pious and key member of the fake neighborhood association explain to me the Machine’s version of reality with regard to the destruction at Magazine Beach and the BU Bridge area.
The Machine says that the way to get rid of this outrage based on lies, direct or of omission, is to praise the irresponsible pols and praise the irresponsible pols and praise the irresponsible pols. Eventually, according to this very much normal mentality in Cambridge, MAYBE, a miracle will happen and people who have run for office and been elected to office based on the flat out lies that they are decent people and pro environment will do a complete reversal.
The dream is that praising destructive pols for destruction will, through some sort of miracle, cause a situation where destructive people will turn into decent people and undo what should have never have been done.
The policy of killing off animals is buried in the secret definition of “parkland” which is the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s policy for the Charles River Basin. That definition is that no animals need to apply. Resident animals will leave, “voluntarily” or by killing them off.
3. The norm on the Charles River, the baby thicket, the outrage resulting, and what passes for an explanation.
A. The norm on the Charles River Basin.
02 04-14-12 east of BU Boathouse
This is the norm on the Charles River Basin.
Native vegetation is destroyed everywhere on the Charles River Basin twice a year by the Department of Conservation and Recreation using the falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
When the Boston Conservation Commission was exposed to the behavior of this group on the Boston side, the Boston Conservation Commission was shocked and disgusted at the destruction of vegetation needed for protection of migrating waterfowl.
The only exception to the twice annual destruction is at the Magazine Beach playing fields where leaving introduced vegetation to grow can cause more harm than destroying native vegetation.
The introduced vegetation is allowed to grow and grow and grow. Because that introduced vegetation starves the Charles River White Geese.
B. The beginning of a new thicket.
Here are two photos of the work accomplished so far. Remember, this is only the baby introduced, invasive plants.
Invasive is exactly correct, in the coming thicket and the thicket just in its babyhood. These things deliberately harm the resident animals. Harm to resident beings is the key part of the definition of invasive. This is pure, unadulterated, heartless animal abuse.
14 04-22-12 Thicket, new highway, eastern leg.
21 04-22-12, central leg of highway, thicket, Mem Dr., Ford Plant.
C. The future in the Destroyed Nesting Area, a very irresponsible present at Magazine Beach.
I will follow with extensive photos of the invasive introduced wall walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River.
21 04-14-12, Bench, Thicket, Walk.
Look again at the first photo. That is how this area looked before the introduction of this bizarre wall.
The bizarre wall / impenetrable thicket is now the norm on the Charles River at Magazine Beach and is what the DCR and the fake groups are fighting to destroy the Destroyed Nesting Area with and to destroy the nests which used to be where the impenetrable thicket is being introduced.
Now compare the walkways, here and in the first photo versus that which was just created in the Destroyed Nesting Area. In the older walkways the DCR was going through the motions of being responsible. This walkway and the walkway to the east, the surface is light.
At the destroyed nesting area, the DCR is relying on the fake groups in Cambridge. The walkways approach concrete in texture. This is reality and the goal, as well, for Magazine Beach and, clearly, is what the fake groups are fighting for along the extent of the Cambridge side of the Charles River in their highway proposal about which they use the lying euphemism, “underpasses”.
The Charles is on the opposite side of the massive impenetrable thicket. The thicket was installed in phase 1 and is never cut. ALL OTHER BORDERING VEGETATION ON THE CHARLES RIVER BASIN IS CHOPPED DOWN TWICE A YEAR.
The shrubbery which is nearer was installed in phase 2. It shows no signs of any intention to trim it. If you look very carefully, you will see a park bench installed in phase 2.
Compare that park bench to the impenetrable thicket walling off the Charles River and which the Charles River White Geese cannot pass through.
If you look carefully above the right end of the park bench, you can see some blue through the thicket. That blue is the Charles River.
2. Introduction. The machine’s propaganda on how to undo outrageous destruction.
3. The norm on the Charles River Basin, the baby thicket, the outrage resulting, and what passes for an explanation.
A. The norm on the Charles River Basin.
B. The beginning of a new thicket.
C. The future in the Destroyed Nesting Area, a very irresponsible present at Magazine Beach.
1. What has happened at the Destroyed Nesting Area.
The state Department of Conservation and Recreation has replaced the most important area used for nesting by the Charles River White Geese for most of the last 30 plus years with what looks like it will become an impenetrable thicket, useless for nesting.
This action has been taken in blatant violation of common decency, no prior notice, not prior meetings.
This action furthers the state’s very clear policy of killing off all animals residing or visiting the Charles River Basin. That policy, as usual, is buried in secret fine print, false definitions.
2. Introduction. The machine’s propaganda on how to undo outrageous destruction.
Here are a number of pictures to demonstrate the destructiveness of Cambridge, MA and its friends in the state bureaucracy, formally known as the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
I will not keep repeating this, but everything offensive from Magazine Beach / the Destroyed Nesting Area either constitutes the results of actions constituting direct lies or lies of omission. That is, either what you will see is exactly the opposite of what was promised or was kept secret.
I had a very pious and key member of the fake neighborhood association explain to me the Machine’s version of reality with regard to the destruction at Magazine Beach and the BU Bridge area.
The Machine says that the way to get rid of this outrage based on lies, direct or of omission, is to praise the irresponsible pols and praise the irresponsible pols and praise the irresponsible pols. Eventually, according to this very much normal mentality in Cambridge, MAYBE, a miracle will happen and people who have run for office and been elected to office based on the flat out lies that they are decent people and pro environment will do a complete reversal.
The dream is that praising destructive pols for destruction will, through some sort of miracle, cause a situation where destructive people will turn into decent people and undo what should have never have been done.
The policy of killing off animals is buried in the secret definition of “parkland” which is the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s policy for the Charles River Basin. That definition is that no animals need to apply. Resident animals will leave, “voluntarily” or by killing them off.
3. The norm on the Charles River, the baby thicket, the outrage resulting, and what passes for an explanation.
A. The norm on the Charles River Basin.
02 04-14-12 east of BU Boathouse
This is the norm on the Charles River Basin.
Native vegetation is destroyed everywhere on the Charles River Basin twice a year by the Department of Conservation and Recreation using the falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
When the Boston Conservation Commission was exposed to the behavior of this group on the Boston side, the Boston Conservation Commission was shocked and disgusted at the destruction of vegetation needed for protection of migrating waterfowl.
The only exception to the twice annual destruction is at the Magazine Beach playing fields where leaving introduced vegetation to grow can cause more harm than destroying native vegetation.
The introduced vegetation is allowed to grow and grow and grow. Because that introduced vegetation starves the Charles River White Geese.
B. The beginning of a new thicket.
Here are two photos of the work accomplished so far. Remember, this is only the baby introduced, invasive plants.
Invasive is exactly correct, in the coming thicket and the thicket just in its babyhood. These things deliberately harm the resident animals. Harm to resident beings is the key part of the definition of invasive. This is pure, unadulterated, heartless animal abuse.
14 04-22-12 Thicket, new highway, eastern leg.
21 04-22-12, central leg of highway, thicket, Mem Dr., Ford Plant.
C. The future in the Destroyed Nesting Area, a very irresponsible present at Magazine Beach.
I will follow with extensive photos of the invasive introduced wall walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River.
21 04-14-12, Bench, Thicket, Walk.
Look again at the first photo. That is how this area looked before the introduction of this bizarre wall.
The bizarre wall / impenetrable thicket is now the norm on the Charles River at Magazine Beach and is what the DCR and the fake groups are fighting to destroy the Destroyed Nesting Area with and to destroy the nests which used to be where the impenetrable thicket is being introduced.
Now compare the walkways, here and in the first photo versus that which was just created in the Destroyed Nesting Area. In the older walkways the DCR was going through the motions of being responsible. This walkway and the walkway to the east, the surface is light.
At the destroyed nesting area, the DCR is relying on the fake groups in Cambridge. The walkways approach concrete in texture. This is reality and the goal, as well, for Magazine Beach and, clearly, is what the fake groups are fighting for along the extent of the Cambridge side of the Charles River in their highway proposal about which they use the lying euphemism, “underpasses”.
The Charles is on the opposite side of the massive impenetrable thicket. The thicket was installed in phase 1 and is never cut. ALL OTHER BORDERING VEGETATION ON THE CHARLES RIVER BASIN IS CHOPPED DOWN TWICE A YEAR.
The shrubbery which is nearer was installed in phase 2. It shows no signs of any intention to trim it. If you look very carefully, you will see a park bench installed in phase 2.
Compare that park bench to the impenetrable thicket walling off the Charles River and which the Charles River White Geese cannot pass through.
If you look carefully above the right end of the park bench, you can see some blue through the thicket. That blue is the Charles River.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Meeting of fake neighborhood association concerning Magazine Beach on the Charles River, Cambridge, MA, USA
1. General.
2. Alewife.
3. Implementation. Destruction to be extended at Magazine Beach with mentioning destruction.
4. Fake meetings, censorship. Destruction at the destroyed nesting area praised. Reality shouted down.
5. A decent human being from outside the control of the Machine reports on a radar study of Magazine Beach.
6. Early departure.
1. General.
The Cambridge Machine cons people into doing exactly the opposite of what the victims want by lying that they are on the victim’s side. Then comes the clincher, “You can’t win. You can’t win. You can’t win. But have we got a deal for you.”
I will follow with an extended photo analysis of destruction.
2. Alewife.
The Cambridgeport branch of the machine assisted in the destruction of acres of virgin forest at Alewife and the killing of hundreds of resident animals through the same con. They told people concerned about Alewife to work with the destructive Friends of Alewife Reservation.
The fake Friends group spent the last 14 or so years running around telling people of their love for Alewife. The con was that their friends at city and state were working for irresponsible destruction of the Alewife reservation and the “Friends” group was aware of it.
So the “Friends” group told concerned people told people to look at everything except for what counted.
After they succeeded in inexcuseable, avoidable and totally wasteful destruction and killing, the leader of the “Friends” group went into the Cambridge Chronicle and, in an exact reversal of public position, bragged about the destruction.
The fake neighborhood association, once it had achieved the destruction it was fighting for at Alewife, suddenly decided it had nothing to do with Alewife and comments that they had succeeded in destruction became “out of order” in their meetings.
3. Implementation. Destruction to be extended at Magazine Beach with mentioning destruction.
The fake neighborhood association is using exactly the same tactic on the Charles River at Magazine Beach.
They lie that they love Magazine Beach. They want to improve it.
They suppress reality. They suppress the reality that the biggest improvements needed are to undo twelve years of outrage. Twelve years of outrage which, for the most part are readily correctable.
But have they got a deal for you.
After spending years not wanting to know about Magazine Beach, they have suddenly discovered it and now constantly proclaim their “love” for it.
They want to expand the destruction, loudly claiming concern.
At last night’s meeting, they announced the receipt of funds to expand the destruction, as usual not mentioning the destruction. The goal is the destruction of the parking lot to the west of the Magazine Beach, thus rendering a picnic area useless and making access to historical buildings far more difficult.
The area is directly across from Magazine Street in Cambridge.
The con in that they loudly crow about the historical buildings and don’t talk about the irresponsible part of the deal any more than they can help.
They have money. They are going to destroy, and never mention the destruction.
But they will keep telling you they mean well.
4. Fake meetings, censorship. Destruction at the destroyed nesting area praised. Reality shouted down.
Their fake concern for Magazine Beach is proclaimed non stop.
And reality is censored as much as possible.
The con is to get that destruction done by lying to meaningfully concerned people about their concern while keeping the irresponsible destruction at the Magazine Beach playing fields and in the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese as much as they can.
The con is to prevent undoing the totally inexcusable destruction which was obtained through the usual lies, outright, by omission, or using some other skillful technique of lying. And continue the destruction. All part of a standard script.
Two Magazine Beach meetings ago, the very destructive state agency was given all the time it wanted to pitch for the further destruction.
Response as to the real needs and the irresponsible nature was explicitly censored.
It was publicly ordered that the fake neighborhood association would only allow positive comment.
Shortly after censoring reality about Magazine Beach, they announced a “celebration” of Magazine Beach.
At the last Magazine Beach meeting a fake history was presented. It was fake because it explicitly excluded the destruction of the last twelve years. I was allowed to “reply” to extended presentations with a limit of “three minutes to the extent you can restrict yourself to that” which was cut to a flat limit of three minutes with the chair shouting over me during the last crucial minutes.
Last night, a key member or the fake group who used to support the Charles River White Geese reported on the destruction which has just occurred at the Destroyed Nesting Area. She gushed with the usual Garden Club praise for the destruction. She talked about how beautiful it was.
After repeated attempts, I was finally “allowed” to respond. I mentioned the total lack of public participation or public announcement / discussion of plans.
When I got to the fact that the area the Charles River White Geese had for their key nesting for the past more than 30 years was replaced with what would be an impenetrable thicket, I was shouted down by the chair.
I have had printed in last week’s Cambridge Chronicle a good summary of the outrage at Magazine Beach. That letter with analysis is reported at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/response-to-charles-river-conservancy.html.
That chair had the outrage to follow his shouting down my key comments once again with the flat out lie that we are both on the same side. “Like Hell” was my response.
I gave him a copy of our now outdated standard flier which includes everything except for the latest outrage. I have transmitted the above link to the fake group’s listserve in response to this nonsense.
The poor dear, reading from the Machine’s script and totally ignoring the heavy handed outrages by his fake group including him, claimed he does not know what he is talking about.
Please give me a ring at charlesriverwhitegeese@yahoo.com if you would want an electronic master of the standard flier.
5. A decent human being from outside the control of the Machine reports on a radar study of Magazine Beach.
A key guest in last night’s meeting was Lars Anderas, M.S., of the University of Massachusetts Boston.
He has done a radar study of the ground at the Magazine Beach playing fields and he put on a good presentation.
We spoke before the meeting. His radar device goes straight down, so he was not able to study that portion under the drainage system to drain off the totally unneeded and irresponsible poisons being dumped. Since nobody, human or goose, can get into the impenetrable thicket walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River, he, of course, did not scan that area either.
The gentleman was out of place. He thinks the environment is the world around us. The machine talks about everything except the world around us because the machine is destroying the world around us.
He showed the area and pattern of scan. He will report back when he receives the interpretation of his scans. It will be quite awhile.
Nice presentation. Usual con from the machine. They give the false impression of concern. They forward destruction by destroying that parking lot without mentioning the destruction. And they shout down objections to the latest destruction. And they consistently censor reality at Magazine Beach and the Destroyed Nesting Area.
But they do present a good report which has nothing to do with their destruction.
The usual, cynical lie by the Machine.
6. Early departure.
The fake neighborhood association devoted the latter part of the meeting to self praise by the most environmentally destructive city councilor, Henrietta Davis. I was not able to stay that long.
2. Alewife.
3. Implementation. Destruction to be extended at Magazine Beach with mentioning destruction.
4. Fake meetings, censorship. Destruction at the destroyed nesting area praised. Reality shouted down.
5. A decent human being from outside the control of the Machine reports on a radar study of Magazine Beach.
6. Early departure.
1. General.
The Cambridge Machine cons people into doing exactly the opposite of what the victims want by lying that they are on the victim’s side. Then comes the clincher, “You can’t win. You can’t win. You can’t win. But have we got a deal for you.”
I will follow with an extended photo analysis of destruction.
2. Alewife.
The Cambridgeport branch of the machine assisted in the destruction of acres of virgin forest at Alewife and the killing of hundreds of resident animals through the same con. They told people concerned about Alewife to work with the destructive Friends of Alewife Reservation.
The fake Friends group spent the last 14 or so years running around telling people of their love for Alewife. The con was that their friends at city and state were working for irresponsible destruction of the Alewife reservation and the “Friends” group was aware of it.
So the “Friends” group told concerned people told people to look at everything except for what counted.
After they succeeded in inexcuseable, avoidable and totally wasteful destruction and killing, the leader of the “Friends” group went into the Cambridge Chronicle and, in an exact reversal of public position, bragged about the destruction.
The fake neighborhood association, once it had achieved the destruction it was fighting for at Alewife, suddenly decided it had nothing to do with Alewife and comments that they had succeeded in destruction became “out of order” in their meetings.
3. Implementation. Destruction to be extended at Magazine Beach with mentioning destruction.
The fake neighborhood association is using exactly the same tactic on the Charles River at Magazine Beach.
They lie that they love Magazine Beach. They want to improve it.
They suppress reality. They suppress the reality that the biggest improvements needed are to undo twelve years of outrage. Twelve years of outrage which, for the most part are readily correctable.
But have they got a deal for you.
After spending years not wanting to know about Magazine Beach, they have suddenly discovered it and now constantly proclaim their “love” for it.
They want to expand the destruction, loudly claiming concern.
At last night’s meeting, they announced the receipt of funds to expand the destruction, as usual not mentioning the destruction. The goal is the destruction of the parking lot to the west of the Magazine Beach, thus rendering a picnic area useless and making access to historical buildings far more difficult.
The area is directly across from Magazine Street in Cambridge.
The con in that they loudly crow about the historical buildings and don’t talk about the irresponsible part of the deal any more than they can help.
They have money. They are going to destroy, and never mention the destruction.
But they will keep telling you they mean well.
4. Fake meetings, censorship. Destruction at the destroyed nesting area praised. Reality shouted down.
Their fake concern for Magazine Beach is proclaimed non stop.
And reality is censored as much as possible.
The con is to get that destruction done by lying to meaningfully concerned people about their concern while keeping the irresponsible destruction at the Magazine Beach playing fields and in the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese as much as they can.
The con is to prevent undoing the totally inexcusable destruction which was obtained through the usual lies, outright, by omission, or using some other skillful technique of lying. And continue the destruction. All part of a standard script.
Two Magazine Beach meetings ago, the very destructive state agency was given all the time it wanted to pitch for the further destruction.
Response as to the real needs and the irresponsible nature was explicitly censored.
It was publicly ordered that the fake neighborhood association would only allow positive comment.
Shortly after censoring reality about Magazine Beach, they announced a “celebration” of Magazine Beach.
At the last Magazine Beach meeting a fake history was presented. It was fake because it explicitly excluded the destruction of the last twelve years. I was allowed to “reply” to extended presentations with a limit of “three minutes to the extent you can restrict yourself to that” which was cut to a flat limit of three minutes with the chair shouting over me during the last crucial minutes.
Last night, a key member or the fake group who used to support the Charles River White Geese reported on the destruction which has just occurred at the Destroyed Nesting Area. She gushed with the usual Garden Club praise for the destruction. She talked about how beautiful it was.
After repeated attempts, I was finally “allowed” to respond. I mentioned the total lack of public participation or public announcement / discussion of plans.
When I got to the fact that the area the Charles River White Geese had for their key nesting for the past more than 30 years was replaced with what would be an impenetrable thicket, I was shouted down by the chair.
I have had printed in last week’s Cambridge Chronicle a good summary of the outrage at Magazine Beach. That letter with analysis is reported at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/response-to-charles-river-conservancy.html.
That chair had the outrage to follow his shouting down my key comments once again with the flat out lie that we are both on the same side. “Like Hell” was my response.
I gave him a copy of our now outdated standard flier which includes everything except for the latest outrage. I have transmitted the above link to the fake group’s listserve in response to this nonsense.
The poor dear, reading from the Machine’s script and totally ignoring the heavy handed outrages by his fake group including him, claimed he does not know what he is talking about.
Please give me a ring at charlesriverwhitegeese@yahoo.com if you would want an electronic master of the standard flier.
5. A decent human being from outside the control of the Machine reports on a radar study of Magazine Beach.
A key guest in last night’s meeting was Lars Anderas, M.S., of the University of Massachusetts Boston.
He has done a radar study of the ground at the Magazine Beach playing fields and he put on a good presentation.
We spoke before the meeting. His radar device goes straight down, so he was not able to study that portion under the drainage system to drain off the totally unneeded and irresponsible poisons being dumped. Since nobody, human or goose, can get into the impenetrable thicket walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River, he, of course, did not scan that area either.
The gentleman was out of place. He thinks the environment is the world around us. The machine talks about everything except the world around us because the machine is destroying the world around us.
He showed the area and pattern of scan. He will report back when he receives the interpretation of his scans. It will be quite awhile.
Nice presentation. Usual con from the machine. They give the false impression of concern. They forward destruction by destroying that parking lot without mentioning the destruction. And they shout down objections to the latest destruction. And they consistently censor reality at Magazine Beach and the Destroyed Nesting Area.
But they do present a good report which has nothing to do with their destruction.
The usual, cynical lie by the Machine.
6. Early departure.
The fake neighborhood association devoted the latter part of the meeting to self praise by the most environmentally destructive city councilor, Henrietta Davis. I was not able to stay that long.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
The Falsely Named "Charles River Conservancy” advertises on Google.
I just did a search to see how my post on the falsely named "Charles River Conservancy” and the Charles River would come up.
The first item which came up in the search was:
*********
Ad related to "Charles River Conservancy" and "Charles River"Why this ad?
Charles River Conservancy - Dedicated to the Charles River.
www.thecharles.org/
Learn More about the CRC.
*********
Need I say more?
The first item which came up in the search was:
*********
Ad related to "Charles River Conservancy" and "Charles River"Why this ad?
Charles River Conservancy - Dedicated to the Charles River.
www.thecharles.org/
Learn More about the CRC.
*********
Need I say more?
Response to "Charles River Conservancy” concerning the Charles River
1. Introduction.
2. The proposed letter, your editor.
3. The guilty letter — Charles River “Conservancy.”.
4. Supplement, 5/4/12.
1. Introduction.
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has had printed a letter in the hard copy April 26, 2012 Cambridge Chronicle. It had severe problems. The Chronicle has since posted it on line. The link is in section 3.
I have submitted the response in section 2.
A few caveats.
Destructive people floating around Cambridge, MA, and the area create all sorts of lovely sounding groups. The same people can create two different names and rope in two different combinations of well meaning people who can be suckered into doing the opposite of what they claim to be doing. On the other hand, two groups with overlapping, destructive purposes frequently work together to achieve their common, destructive goals.
Many groups in and around Cambridge are active in environmental destruction. They very clearly work together and praise each other, giving each other false credibility as “environmental defenders” or “defenders” of Cambridge, etc.
Currently, we have the Charles River “Conservancy” fighting for general destruction along the Charles River.
In the Magazine Beach area, the Cambridgeport “Neighborhood Association” is taking the company union approach, loudly claiming concern and achieve massive destruction by telling people to worry about everything except the important stuff. With aggressively destructive government entities, it is not necessary for a fake group to aggressively fight for destruction. All they have to do is praise the destructive pols and censor a very vile reality.
This fake group in Cambridgeport helped destroy at Alewife praising the comparable Cambridge related group there which succeeded in massive destruction telling people to look at everything except for the totally avoidable and unnecessary destruction planned by Cambridge and the DCR..
The fake “neighborhood association” is getting very aggressive at conning people away from what counts in the BU Bridge area while lying about their having meaningful “concern” and fighting for further destruction. They are part of the massive Cambridge Pol organization which in turn has implemented a large part of the destructive agenda of the City of Cambridge. The Cambridge Pols can be beat. I have beat them many times on very major issues.
The letter of the Charles River “Conservancy” indicated it gave a major pitch to its highway proposals while indicating it was changing emphasis to the Boston side on the bridges nearest the BU Bridge. The plans long have advocated a portion of their beloved highway under the BU Bridge.
Does it figure the fake neighborhood association can do its dirty work or is the latest outrage making things too hot for even such a destructive entity?
It is always suicidal to try to psychoanalyze these groups.
My letter tries to respond to blatant falsehoods and convey the current outrage.
2. The proposed letter, your editor.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The Charles River “Conservancy”’s letter concerning the Charles River is more important for its omissions than for its statements.
CRC’s “underpasses” in Cambridge is a highway for small vehicles which would be constructed in the Charles River and on its banks. A combined Massachusetts Department of Transportation / Department of Conservation and Recreation report condemns the proposal as environmentally destructive.
CRC’s new highway would be part of the destruction of hundreds of excellent trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. CRC’s highway would decimate the excellent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split. Even bigger trees would be destroyed.
DCR attempted to get Obama moneys. DCR stated that they were only destroying diseased trees. DCR’s filing with Cambridge proved the “diseased trees” statements to be lies.
CRC supported walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles by a swim in. It bragged that the project would help swimming. Playing fields at Magazine Beach have been downsized for drainage to drain off poisons which are used to keep alive sickly grass which replaced healthy grass that survived for the better part of a century without poisons. Boat docking has been destroyed.
CRC has repeatedly poisoned the eggs of migratory waterfowl.
The state is now, with no apparent legalities, introducing an impenetrable thicket into the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge. Construction includes two wide concrete like paths / highways.
This impenetrable thicket replaces native bushes used for nesting for more than 30 years by the Charles River White Geese. This construction follows on the deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese by that bizarre wall at Magazine Beach.
Their food was taken from them. Now most of the ghetto into which they were forced is being destroyed for their use.
The impenetrable thicket is apparently illegal. The original destruction in this area was condemned for illegality by the Cambridge Conservation Commission.
This thicket fits a pattern of heartless abuse of these beautiful, valuable creatures while lying that the state has “no intent” to harm them. The policy is to kill off all animals in the Charles River Basin. The policy is part of the secret definition of “parkland.”
CRC and its predecessor are part of the destruction and animal abuse on the Charles as is Cambridge. The use of the word “Conservancy” in its name is just another lie.
3. The guilty letter — Charles River “Conservancy.”
Published on line by the Cambridge Chronicle is the Charles River “Conservancy” letter. It is posted at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x787574677/Guest-Commentary-It-s-time-to-improve-river-pathways-with-underpasses#axzz1tZoeQb4J.
4. Supplement, 5/4/12.
Our letter was printed in the May 3, 2012 Cambridge Chronicle at page 10.
Note the great sounding words and the incredible contrast with reality.
2. The proposed letter, your editor.
3. The guilty letter — Charles River “Conservancy.”.
4. Supplement, 5/4/12.
1. Introduction.
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has had printed a letter in the hard copy April 26, 2012 Cambridge Chronicle. It had severe problems. The Chronicle has since posted it on line. The link is in section 3.
I have submitted the response in section 2.
A few caveats.
Destructive people floating around Cambridge, MA, and the area create all sorts of lovely sounding groups. The same people can create two different names and rope in two different combinations of well meaning people who can be suckered into doing the opposite of what they claim to be doing. On the other hand, two groups with overlapping, destructive purposes frequently work together to achieve their common, destructive goals.
Many groups in and around Cambridge are active in environmental destruction. They very clearly work together and praise each other, giving each other false credibility as “environmental defenders” or “defenders” of Cambridge, etc.
Currently, we have the Charles River “Conservancy” fighting for general destruction along the Charles River.
In the Magazine Beach area, the Cambridgeport “Neighborhood Association” is taking the company union approach, loudly claiming concern and achieve massive destruction by telling people to worry about everything except the important stuff. With aggressively destructive government entities, it is not necessary for a fake group to aggressively fight for destruction. All they have to do is praise the destructive pols and censor a very vile reality.
This fake group in Cambridgeport helped destroy at Alewife praising the comparable Cambridge related group there which succeeded in massive destruction telling people to look at everything except for the totally avoidable and unnecessary destruction planned by Cambridge and the DCR..
The fake “neighborhood association” is getting very aggressive at conning people away from what counts in the BU Bridge area while lying about their having meaningful “concern” and fighting for further destruction. They are part of the massive Cambridge Pol organization which in turn has implemented a large part of the destructive agenda of the City of Cambridge. The Cambridge Pols can be beat. I have beat them many times on very major issues.
The letter of the Charles River “Conservancy” indicated it gave a major pitch to its highway proposals while indicating it was changing emphasis to the Boston side on the bridges nearest the BU Bridge. The plans long have advocated a portion of their beloved highway under the BU Bridge.
Does it figure the fake neighborhood association can do its dirty work or is the latest outrage making things too hot for even such a destructive entity?
It is always suicidal to try to psychoanalyze these groups.
My letter tries to respond to blatant falsehoods and convey the current outrage.
2. The proposed letter, your editor.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The Charles River “Conservancy”’s letter concerning the Charles River is more important for its omissions than for its statements.
CRC’s “underpasses” in Cambridge is a highway for small vehicles which would be constructed in the Charles River and on its banks. A combined Massachusetts Department of Transportation / Department of Conservation and Recreation report condemns the proposal as environmentally destructive.
CRC’s new highway would be part of the destruction of hundreds of excellent trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. CRC’s highway would decimate the excellent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split. Even bigger trees would be destroyed.
DCR attempted to get Obama moneys. DCR stated that they were only destroying diseased trees. DCR’s filing with Cambridge proved the “diseased trees” statements to be lies.
CRC supported walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles by a swim in. It bragged that the project would help swimming. Playing fields at Magazine Beach have been downsized for drainage to drain off poisons which are used to keep alive sickly grass which replaced healthy grass that survived for the better part of a century without poisons. Boat docking has been destroyed.
CRC has repeatedly poisoned the eggs of migratory waterfowl.
The state is now, with no apparent legalities, introducing an impenetrable thicket into the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge. Construction includes two wide concrete like paths / highways.
This impenetrable thicket replaces native bushes used for nesting for more than 30 years by the Charles River White Geese. This construction follows on the deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese by that bizarre wall at Magazine Beach.
Their food was taken from them. Now most of the ghetto into which they were forced is being destroyed for their use.
The impenetrable thicket is apparently illegal. The original destruction in this area was condemned for illegality by the Cambridge Conservation Commission.
This thicket fits a pattern of heartless abuse of these beautiful, valuable creatures while lying that the state has “no intent” to harm them. The policy is to kill off all animals in the Charles River Basin. The policy is part of the secret definition of “parkland.”
CRC and its predecessor are part of the destruction and animal abuse on the Charles as is Cambridge. The use of the word “Conservancy” in its name is just another lie.
3. The guilty letter — Charles River “Conservancy.”
Published on line by the Cambridge Chronicle is the Charles River “Conservancy” letter. It is posted at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x787574677/Guest-Commentary-It-s-time-to-improve-river-pathways-with-underpasses#axzz1tZoeQb4J.
4. Supplement, 5/4/12.
Our letter was printed in the May 3, 2012 Cambridge Chronicle at page 10.
Note the great sounding words and the incredible contrast with reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)