Saturday, July 02, 2011

“Opposition” on the Grand Junction passenger service. — “Lie” versus “nonsense.”

1. Report on Alewife.
2. Claims of independence.
3. The Grand Junction plans.

1. Report on Alewife.

In my latest report on Alewife, I used the word “lies” about Cambridge activists repeating communications on development issues. I have distress using the term and I changed it from “lies” to “nonsense” in my facebook page passing on the report.

The trouble is that “lies” is extremely accurate concerning too high a percentage of communications on zoning and other environmental issues. Sophisticated versions of lies are too often normal on development issues in Cambridge, MA.

2. Claims of independence.

Similarly, what is an organization which claims to be one thing but which functions to fulfill the goals of the powers that be?

Is it a “neighborhood association” or an “environmental group” or is it really a front organization through which the city manager / city council fool people into doing things they would not otherwise do? Or keep well intended people from opposing matters they normally would oppose?

And is the use of the term “neighborhood association” or “environmental group” by these groups a lie?

And is this well established pattern in Cambridge simply corruption?

3. The Grand Junction plans.

What brings this up is a communication received by the City Manager’s front organization in Cambridgeport. The communication concerned the Grand Junction railroad and possible use of it in Cambridge for passenger service. A city councilor sent the following email to the group’s listserve:


I just wanted to quickly weigh in – I was at the meeting at the Morse school and am very concerned about the plan. I think [ed: name omitted] said it very well below so I’ll just echo sentiments. I wasn’t here a few years ago, this term the Council did vote on a resolution expressing our serious concern about the impact this would have on the neighborhood, traffic, etc.


I also was at that vote. My interpretation was that the only member of the city council for whom I have some possible respect on that vote is Toomey.

The reality is that a lot of councillors looked like they were lying through false definition [another sophisticated technique of lying].

The reality is that a lot of councilors look like they support the proposal WITH CHANGES DETRIMENTAL to Cambridge. That is not opposition. That is support with changes, and claims of opposition are, in reality, lying.

The reality is that the Cambridge machine looks like it is taking orders and working for support with changes while lying to the victims that the victims are standing up to an external but powerful enemy.

The enemy on the Grand Junction looks very strongly like the City of Cambridge / the Cambridge City Council, and the Cambridge pol campaign “against” looks like the usual lie.