Charles River, Bizarre Tactics from the Cambridge Machine
Charles River, Bizarre Tactics from the Cambridge Machine
I have been trying to upload the video I have prepared on the destruction of Memorial Drive to YouTube. I have not been successful.
We have been leafleting, as convenient, meetings of the Cambridge City Council, telling folks about the environmental destruction of the City of Cambridge. We have leafleted folks as they approach the city council meeting room.
This sort of communication is unthinkable in Cambridge. In Cambridge, you do not talk reality around the Cambridge City Council. The only thing thinkable is to praise the sainthood of the City of Cambridge.
The trouble is that the City of Cambridge is the opposite of saintly.
You start with the destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles River during January and February 2016. The actors were contractors of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, but the City of Cambridge blessed it, and their cheerleaders aggressively fought for it, lying all the way that they love the Charles River.
This follows on the destruction of the Cambridge Common.
Both follow on the destruction of more than 3.4 irreplaceable acres of the Alewife reservation.
And then there is the outrage on the Magazine Beach playing fields and in the destroyed nesting area in the 2000s. This last outrage is not mentioned in the fliers. You can only get so much into an 8 ½ x 11 piece of paper.
Friends of the White Geese have had the nerve to tell people about the real record of the City of Cambridge.
While leafleting folks coming up the staircase to the most recent meeting, I could be wrong, but I got the impression that a Machine operative was bragging that the City Council was out to get me. Could that Machine operative have been suggesting retaliation for communicating reality?
The City Council has already placed themselves clearly in favor of corrupt tactics by the City of Cambridge. An agent of the City of Cambridge was bragging of environmental saintliness on the city trees at a public meeting. She was shocked that we leafleted reality. She threatened our counter leafleting with reality with a $25 fine per leaflet.
I complained to the City Council. The City Council responded with a very loud silence. The usual support by silence with a wink and a nod.
What the Machine operative could have been talking about at that most recent meeting, if he / she were talking about anything, could be a motion by the city council at that meeting to look into regulating people lobbying the city council.
Regulation impacting the Friends of the White Geese would be downright bizarre. Lobbyists regulated routinely are folks getting paid for the effort. Friends of the White Geese has no paid lobbyists. We deliberately communicate to folks about the vile record of the City of Cambridge with the hope that reality might possibly reverse the impact of the lies being put out about Cambridge’s saintliness.
No money to lobbyists. We have not even directly talked to the City Council in something like ten years. We are on record with written communications, and written communications, and written communications. We do encourage people to talk with the city council.
The BIG problem with us talking directly, as opposed to very clear written communications, is the fake world the City Council and its cheerleaders live in. “Environmental destruction by the City of Cambridge” translates in their language to “praiseworthy environmentalism” or “improvements.” You keep on talking and you are talking to a stone wall.
However, if a lot of people talk to the stone wall, then a lot of people can get a better impression of the very vile reality in the City of Cambridge. The only responsible evaluation has to be “You can’t possibly be so stupid.”
ALL our reports on the destruction of those hundreds of trees on the Charles River starting with preliminary reports in September 2015 have gone, in condensed version, to the general email address which gives individual copies to each member of the Cambridge City Council. The new member was added to the list of recipients of the email condensations in the middle of the campaign, along with most of the other candidates.
The City Council has supported the outrage on the Charles River through silence in circumstances which call for outrage, English translation: support with a wink and a nod..
All we are asking now from politically powerful people is
1. to get rid of Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation in favor of Massachusetts’ Department of Transportation, insofar as is possible, and
2. to fire the Cambridge City Manager. As far as we are concerned, Cambridge has had one City Manager since 1974, with three different faces. In this regency, each city manager has passed the torch to the next City Manager, and that is what face number 3 is trying to do. Face number 3 has designated his principal assistant to be his replacement, just as the preceding two faces did when they retired.
We think the responsible thing to do is to fire the City Manager, not just face number 3, but to prevent face number 4. The continuing outrage of this interlocked City Manager position has amassed tremendous power and a whole bunch of fake groups.
The fake groups certainly look like a lot of them loudly proclaim their independence. But they then turn around and cheerlead for Cambridge and its friends' irresponsible behavior and for expanding the power of the government of the City of Cambridge.
We think that, if the City Council has not hired an outside person as city manager by #3's retirement at the end of June, the City Council should hire as temporary City Manager the City Clerk, a person who is highly respected, and has clean hands. She has had nothing to do with the outrages.
Then hire a responsible outsider as City Manager.
City Manager face #4 proposed by City Manager face #3 has been the head of the department responsible for the hands on work of the City of Cambridge. I do not know exactly how filthy her hands are, but, since that position, she has been the second in command of the City of Cambridge during the regime of City Manager face #3. Thus, it is rather silly to assume she is free of problems. And as #4, she would clearly get the reflexive loyalty of a lot of cheerleaders, and the power associated with this massive machine.
The clean hands of the City Clerk could disqualify the City Clerk for selection, unfortunately. Saintliness is the non stop lie. She has not been part of the non stop lies.
Reality is something which is unacceptable in the City of Cambridge. HOW DARE YOU COMMUNICATE REALITY!!!!
But they do love to brag of supposed saintliness.