Saturday, January 02, 2010

Cambridge Climate Congress Con Game: Chronicle op ed nonsense

1. Introduction.
2. Short version of my comments.
3. “Position” of wife who did not identify her relationship.
a. Introduction.
b. Stated position.
c. Taken in context of her record.
4. Summary.
5. Name applied to con game.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.

Cambridge’s “reprehensible” (quoting a civil rights judge) city government stays in power with a lot of smoke and mirrors, firmly based on a very large organization created by two related City Managers over the past 35 years.

One of the tools is controlled groups of “members of the public” who spout the party line.

It is always fascinating to observe this machine in action.

Usually the dirtiest stuff is kept strictly verbal. The organization has come out from under its rock in the Chronicle on line.

About ten days ago, the paper edition published the glorious account of a group with contempt for the environment loudly claiming to be saints. This was preceded by it being printed on line.

I have responded with multiple posts, but the wife of the original writer (never identifying herself as that) put in a shocking example of the manipulation of people minds by this “reprehensible” (love that judge) organization.

2. Short version of my comments.

I have posted a number of quite long comments in response to the official party announcement in the Cambridge Chronicle. The following is a shorter version:


The City Council’s "climate congress" has called for "significantly more dollars for open space acquisition."

This call is only meaningful if taken in context.

This "climate congress" combines this call for expenditures with "neutrality" on:

 The coming destruction of the Alewife reservation, trees and wildlife habitat, for flood storage that belongs 500 feet to the south.

 The ongoing destruction of perhaps thousands of trees and wildlife habitat at Fresh Pond.

 Soon to come, apparently with Obama moneys, destruction of hundreds of healthy trees and animal habitat on Memorial Drive.

 The ongoing dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach, replacing green maintenance which functioned very well on Magazine Beach for most of a century.

 The introduction of a starvation wall of introduced vegetation in place of native vegetation separating Magazine Beach from the Charles River. The native vegetation elsewhere bordering the Charles is destroyed twice a year. The bizarre wall simply grows. A long time representative of the bureaucracy has bragged that it starves the Charles River White Geese.

 The reduction of playing fields at Magazine Beach to build a drainage system to PARTIALLY drain off the poisons now being dumped on Magazine Beach.

 The ongoing and increasingly heartless abuse of the beautiful and valuable Charles River White Geese.
Taken in context the "climate congress"’s call for more money for "open space acquisition" is very distressing.

The Cambridge Pols have a name for a lot of the environmental destruction this "climate congress" supports through silence. The Cambridge Pols call this environmental destruction the creation of "new open space."

Cambridge pols claim they are providing "new open space" when they are providing environmental destruction aimed at existing open space. They juggle, destroy and lie that they are doing something positive.

In Cambridge government, there is no meaningful difference between "new open space" and the "environmental congress"’s "open space acquisition."

The "climate congress"’s call for "open space acquisition" has to be interpreted as calling for more of the outrageous environmental destruction its members consider normal and acceptable.

The net result to me is that the activities of the city council’s "climate congress" are a lot worse than a con game which did nothing.

In addition to or as part of the con game, this "environmental congress" supports more environmental destruction and more heartless animal abuse.

This "climate congress" advocates that much more destruction of our irreplaceable world.

Shame, shame, shame.

3. “Position” of wife who did not identify her relationship.

a. Introduction.

The basic con the Cambridge Pols use is the concept of “unity.” They demand “consensus.”

Consensus is an interesting concept. Its great defect comes when there are two very meaningful sides and one side is doing very terrible things, and wants to keep on doing very terrible things.

The concept of consensus gets even worse when the villains have the expertise and the well meaning people have none or very little.

This is the defining concept behind the Cambridge Pols organization. They reach a consensus in which the villains get what they want and the good guys get to declare victory.

b. Stated position.

The responses of the unidentified wife.

The unidentified wife objects to evaluating environment arguments based on concepts.

Her position translates as:

It is unfair to just object to massive destruction of trees. You are being judgmental.

It is unfair to object to dumping poisons of the banks of a river feeding sickly grass which replaces perfectly healthy grass which survived without poisons for the better part of a century. You are being judgmental.

It is unfair to object to heartless animal abuse aimed at beautiful animals who have value and are loved. You are being judgmental.

c. Taken in context of her record.

The wife claims to be fighting for open space where the Green Line Lechmere station stands.

Only after extended discussion do you learn that the DCR wants a new park to replace Lechmere station.

Her open space is a plaza between two massive buildings.

She neglects to mention that it is physically impossible and physically stupid to fill every square inch of a lot for a building.

So she brags as open space the plaza which simply has to be built on this lot as a matter of very minimal common sense.

Looks at what this woman brags about as creation of open space, the nonsense put out by her husband calling for creation of new open space is that much more outrageous.

4. Summary.

“Reprehensible” to quote the judge.

5. Name applied to con game.

I very strongly hesitate to quote terms used by the Cambridge Pols because the biggest part of the lies they toss to well meaning victims comes through fake terms they use to describe each outrage.

The fake terms routinely sound so good and are such big lies.

The name used for this outrage is: “Cambridge Climate Congress.”