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.
Friday, May 25, 2012
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)