1. Day 402.
2. Archie: Jonathan Franzen in the New York Sunday Times.
3. Malcolm Blackman, Protection Against Bullying, Environmental Destruction, Alewife.
1. Day 402.
On Sunday, May 29, I conducted the 402th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
It was a hot, beautiful day with quite a bit of traffic.
The small, undestroyed portion of the Nesting Area looks very good.
The small trees I accidentally thought had been planted by the bad guys are now healthy and active. Perhaps six in the western area were but white strands when I saw them a few months ago. They are fully leaved and look terrific. The two deciduous trees in the northern very small area are standing up terrific.
The only thing keeping this area from healthy vegetation are irresponsible state and city goverments and the massive organization of the Cambridge Pols.
2. Archie: Jonathan Franzen in the New York Sunday Times.
Archie Mazmanian reports:
********
Author Jonathan Franzen has a lengthy essay in today's (5/29/11) NYTimes "Liking Is For Cowards. Go for What Hurts." Sunday Opinion in the Week in Review section. Unfortunately, access my be limited by subscription. But the essay is a well worthwhile read for Friends of the CRWG. While Franzen was an environmentalist in his college days, he gave up because he felt that what he could do personally was quite limited. Then he became infatuated with technology. But in recent times he "fell in love with birds." This love has rejuvenated his environmental concerns. Here are the closing paragraphs of his essay adapted from his May 21st commencement speech at Kenyon College:
"When you stay in your room and rage or sneer or shrug your shoulders, as I did for many years, the world and its problems are impossibly daunting. But when you go out and put yourself in real relation to real people, or even just real animals, there's a very real danger that you might love some of them.
And who knows what might happen to you then?"
Those on the fence about the plight of the CRWG just might become their Friends.
PS For those who read hard copy, the essay is on page 10 of the Week in Review section of the NYTimes.
3. Malcolm Blackman, Protection Against Bullying, Environmental Destruction, Alewife.
I have posted a link in my private account on facebook from Malcolm Blackman providing contact to an entity which provides information and assistance on Child Bullying.
He comments that some of the people on the bad list posted by this site are people who destroyed his Hands Across the Ocean site from within. He has, at major effort, apparently minimized the harm.
Destruction from within is not at all an unusual tactic. Really, many of the slew of fake organizations in Cambridge and on the Charles River very much fit this mold. Many of the fake organizations were created fake in the first place.
The destroyers cannot attract people through honesty. So they create these fake organizations and lie, at minimum, through false names, or they take over good organizations and destroy them from within.
I have seen one of the front organizations publicly go on record supporting cyberbullying as a matter of free speech and throw a victim off their listserve because the victim sought the listserve’s protection against cyberbullying.
Quite possibly, one of the biggest victims in the destruction of the core Alewife reservation is the leader of the fake group which has run around for ten or fifteen years fighting, Cambridge con game style, for the destruction of the cause she seems to have held most dear.
I recall when she formed this group. She went to people she trusted. They destroyed her. They got her to fight to destroy Alewife by looking at everything except for that which she found most important.
The rotters in Cambridge, MA, lie that they are the good guys as did the people who destroyed HATO from within.
I do not want to look at Alewife. I am horrified at the thought of looking at Alewife.
Has this woman finally realized that she has been conned?
Something might still be saved IF SHE CHANGES TO THE SIDE SHE WANTED TO BE ON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Or will she join the rotters on the Charles River and celebrate the destruction of that which she seems to hold most dear?
The Charles can still be meaningfully saved. At Alewife, the destruction can still be minimized.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Day 401, Fake Groups and the Destruction of the Environment
1. Day 401 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
2. The technique of fake groups in destroying the environment.
1. Day 401 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
On May 28, 2011, I conducted the 401st visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The work on the BU Bridge which supposedly justified major destruction has been done for months now. There is a very large swath east of the BU Bridge with nothing but dirt where access was needed for repairs.
The white geese were under the big tree in the dirt created by the state bureaucrats probably through their favorite fake organization.
Traffic was heavier than would be expected on a holiday weekend.
People were friendly.
2. The technique of fake groups in destroying the environment.
A Cambridge City Manager / City Council related group in the neighborhood near Magazine Beach has announced a celebration of destruction of the environment of the Charles River.
These are the guys who claimed to be conducting a public meeting on state plans for the Charles River. They barred negative comments with flat out contempt for the very destructive reality on the banks of the Charles River. Censorship is a normal technique among the Cambridge Pols.
A related group has been running around claiming to be defending the Alewife reservation for something like 15 years. The Alewife reservation WAS an essentially virgin woodlands near the northernmost station of the subway system’s Red Line. This group has succeeded. The core part of the Alewife reservation is being destroyed.
This group is printing yet another letter in the Cambridge Chronicle bemoaning the destruction of peripheral areas of Alewife for private development. These letters have been very much non stop for perhaps 15 years.
Never, however, has this group ever condemned plans to destroy the core area. The core area is being destroyed by their friends, the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council. There has been at least one letter related to this group supporting the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.
These groups are normal in Cambridge. I have had major environmental victories. The big problem has always been these Cambridge Pol groups.
The Cambridge Pol groups fill a void. They keep people who would otherwise be activists “out of trouble.”: The groups look like they have a function which is positive. By looking like positive organizations, they encourage people to “join” and be controlled. They prevent meaningful behavior standing up to the City Manager and City Council.
People go to them because they think that the groups’ loudly proclaimed purpose is meaningful.
I have long tried to prevent the destruction this group just achieved at Alewife. The Alewife reservation should not be destroyed for flood storage because there is a very large parking lot just to the south of the reservation which could be and should be used for flood storage.
Trouble is that the Cambridge Pols are well organized. Their pitch is “Trust the City Manger, trust the City Council, How dare you expect the City Manager and City Council to behave responsibly.”
It is always impossible to tell the difference between the knaves and the fools. I do know that with the knee jerk delivery of support from the Cambridge Pols, and the constant mantra by which the Cambridge Pols loudly proclaim it is crucial to trust people not worthy of being trusted, I got outorganized.
And the Cambridge Pols have kept people chasing their tails on much less important threats while the Cambridge Pols deliver a false world to the voters.
Alewife is being destroyed.
The Cambridge Pols are celebrating the destruction of the environment on the Charles. They are fighting for the destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles exactly as the Alewife “organizers” have been fighting for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation for perhaps 15 years.
I assume the fake Alewife organization will be next to celebrate destruction of Alewife by their friends. They will, of course, not mention that the core Alewife reservation did not have to be destroyed.
Outrageous, irresponsible? This IS the Cambridge Pols.
2. The technique of fake groups in destroying the environment.
1. Day 401 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
On May 28, 2011, I conducted the 401st visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The work on the BU Bridge which supposedly justified major destruction has been done for months now. There is a very large swath east of the BU Bridge with nothing but dirt where access was needed for repairs.
The white geese were under the big tree in the dirt created by the state bureaucrats probably through their favorite fake organization.
Traffic was heavier than would be expected on a holiday weekend.
People were friendly.
2. The technique of fake groups in destroying the environment.
A Cambridge City Manager / City Council related group in the neighborhood near Magazine Beach has announced a celebration of destruction of the environment of the Charles River.
These are the guys who claimed to be conducting a public meeting on state plans for the Charles River. They barred negative comments with flat out contempt for the very destructive reality on the banks of the Charles River. Censorship is a normal technique among the Cambridge Pols.
A related group has been running around claiming to be defending the Alewife reservation for something like 15 years. The Alewife reservation WAS an essentially virgin woodlands near the northernmost station of the subway system’s Red Line. This group has succeeded. The core part of the Alewife reservation is being destroyed.
This group is printing yet another letter in the Cambridge Chronicle bemoaning the destruction of peripheral areas of Alewife for private development. These letters have been very much non stop for perhaps 15 years.
Never, however, has this group ever condemned plans to destroy the core area. The core area is being destroyed by their friends, the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council. There has been at least one letter related to this group supporting the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.
These groups are normal in Cambridge. I have had major environmental victories. The big problem has always been these Cambridge Pol groups.
The Cambridge Pol groups fill a void. They keep people who would otherwise be activists “out of trouble.”: The groups look like they have a function which is positive. By looking like positive organizations, they encourage people to “join” and be controlled. They prevent meaningful behavior standing up to the City Manager and City Council.
People go to them because they think that the groups’ loudly proclaimed purpose is meaningful.
I have long tried to prevent the destruction this group just achieved at Alewife. The Alewife reservation should not be destroyed for flood storage because there is a very large parking lot just to the south of the reservation which could be and should be used for flood storage.
Trouble is that the Cambridge Pols are well organized. Their pitch is “Trust the City Manger, trust the City Council, How dare you expect the City Manager and City Council to behave responsibly.”
It is always impossible to tell the difference between the knaves and the fools. I do know that with the knee jerk delivery of support from the Cambridge Pols, and the constant mantra by which the Cambridge Pols loudly proclaim it is crucial to trust people not worthy of being trusted, I got outorganized.
And the Cambridge Pols have kept people chasing their tails on much less important threats while the Cambridge Pols deliver a false world to the voters.
Alewife is being destroyed.
The Cambridge Pols are celebrating the destruction of the environment on the Charles. They are fighting for the destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles exactly as the Alewife “organizers” have been fighting for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation for perhaps 15 years.
I assume the fake Alewife organization will be next to celebrate destruction of Alewife by their friends. They will, of course, not mention that the core Alewife reservation did not have to be destroyed.
Outrageous, irresponsible? This IS the Cambridge Pols.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Canada Geese, the Boston Globe, and contempt for the environment.
1. Oped condemning Canada Geese.
2. Marilyn Wellons responds.
3. Apologies.
1. Oped condemning Canada Geese.
Archie Mazmanian was kind enough to pass on a link to a Boston Globe oped by Lawrence Harmon entitled “Canada Geese have got to go” on May 21, 2011.
When I followed up the link, it was blank, probably pulled between the time Archie passed it on and I opened.
If anybody has an updated link, I would be pleased to insert it.
UPDATE:
It has been provided by Susan Harrison.
Thank you VERY MUCH Susan: http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-21/bostonglobe/29569074_1_canada-geese-goose-eggs-euthanize.
2. Marilyn Wellons responds.
On May 24, 2011, Marilyn Wellons sent the following letter to the Boston Globe editor in response to the oped:
*********
Humans nearly exterminated Canada geese through hunting and habitat destruction a hundred years ago. That is why they are a federally protected species. Here are some facts for Mr. Harmon as he leads the charge for another go. I doubt they will dissuade him.
These creatures are greatly disadvantaged in their competition for habitat with the likes not only of golf-playing Mr. Harmon. In Delafield, Wisconsin, lakeshores are being sold for housing, its meadows paved over for Walmart. To the north, as the permafrost melts from climate change, lakes disappear. Who is encroaching upon whose turf?
As for goose poop, with geese, it’s grass in, grass out. Their non-toxic excrement replenishes the grass. Unlike others’, it almost uniquely does not attract flies. Free fertilizer for the public golf course!
Mr. Harmon’s modest proposal for gassing ignores evidence since 1945 that it is not a “humane” way to exterminate organisms.
It seems his problem is with his fellow humans. We city dwellers actually need and enjoy contact with the natural world—and celebrate what Mr. Harmon finds distasteful. It was presumably for this reason that a hundred years ago so many states invested in urban parks, Massachusetts among them.
3. Apologies.
From May 10 on, I worked seven days out of nine, occupying 15 to 16 hours each time, as an extra/actor on the movie “Here Comes the Boom” which was shooting in Lowell, MA.
In the middle of this shoot, my computer collapsed with a virus. Cleaning up this virus involved a number of extended phone discussions with McAfee, extended work on my own, and one phone discussion with the manufacturer of my computer. My praises to Toshiba. One phone call and very efficient service.
This morning, May 27, 2011, I finally fixed the virus and am now catching up.
To put it mildly, the combination was a person nightmare.
Actually, I got out three reports on this blog in the middle of everything. I have been very busy.
This report is late. I am sorry.
2. Marilyn Wellons responds.
3. Apologies.
1. Oped condemning Canada Geese.
Archie Mazmanian was kind enough to pass on a link to a Boston Globe oped by Lawrence Harmon entitled “Canada Geese have got to go” on May 21, 2011.
When I followed up the link, it was blank, probably pulled between the time Archie passed it on and I opened.
If anybody has an updated link, I would be pleased to insert it.
UPDATE:
It has been provided by Susan Harrison.
Thank you VERY MUCH Susan: http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-21/bostonglobe/29569074_1_canada-geese-goose-eggs-euthanize.
2. Marilyn Wellons responds.
On May 24, 2011, Marilyn Wellons sent the following letter to the Boston Globe editor in response to the oped:
*********
Humans nearly exterminated Canada geese through hunting and habitat destruction a hundred years ago. That is why they are a federally protected species. Here are some facts for Mr. Harmon as he leads the charge for another go. I doubt they will dissuade him.
These creatures are greatly disadvantaged in their competition for habitat with the likes not only of golf-playing Mr. Harmon. In Delafield, Wisconsin, lakeshores are being sold for housing, its meadows paved over for Walmart. To the north, as the permafrost melts from climate change, lakes disappear. Who is encroaching upon whose turf?
As for goose poop, with geese, it’s grass in, grass out. Their non-toxic excrement replenishes the grass. Unlike others’, it almost uniquely does not attract flies. Free fertilizer for the public golf course!
Mr. Harmon’s modest proposal for gassing ignores evidence since 1945 that it is not a “humane” way to exterminate organisms.
It seems his problem is with his fellow humans. We city dwellers actually need and enjoy contact with the natural world—and celebrate what Mr. Harmon finds distasteful. It was presumably for this reason that a hundred years ago so many states invested in urban parks, Massachusetts among them.
3. Apologies.
From May 10 on, I worked seven days out of nine, occupying 15 to 16 hours each time, as an extra/actor on the movie “Here Comes the Boom” which was shooting in Lowell, MA.
In the middle of this shoot, my computer collapsed with a virus. Cleaning up this virus involved a number of extended phone discussions with McAfee, extended work on my own, and one phone discussion with the manufacturer of my computer. My praises to Toshiba. One phone call and very efficient service.
This morning, May 27, 2011, I finally fixed the virus and am now catching up.
To put it mildly, the combination was a person nightmare.
Actually, I got out three reports on this blog in the middle of everything. I have been very busy.
This report is late. I am sorry.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Cambridge, MA, and state commence destruction of Alewife Reservation
1, Report.
2. Cher Responds, with reply.
3. Boston.com picks up this report.
1. Report.
Cambridge and the state have been working for perhaps two decades to destroy a massive, essentially untrouched forest abutting the Alewife MBTA Station.
This area is in the western part of Cambridge, MA and includes or is near to parts of Belmont and Arlington, MA. One of the two key east-west superhighways in Massachusetts, state route 2, ends at Alewife Station.
Cambridge and the state are destroying the Alewife reservation for flood storage that should be placed under a massive parking lot about 300 feet to the south.
First and foremost, the Alewife reservation is being destroyed because Cambridge has a horribly irresponsible city manager and city council. They are able to do their terrible things, however, because of the massive organization they have running around lying about them.
I was at the Alewife reservation this morning, May 15, 2011, responding to the latest con game.
The environmental destroyers are running a week long series of events telling people to protect the environment. These fake initiatives are very much non stop in Cambridge. They are flat out frauds on the public because the organizers yell about everything except what counts. And they do not want to know about what counts.
The latest fake initiative included a walk around the Alewife reservation. I was there to leaflet and warn the public against the forthcoming destruction of the Alewife Reservation. It was highly distressing to see it had already started.
While I was there, the leader of the fake group came to post a sign delaying the walk a week because of rain.
My first concern for Alewife came in the early 80's when I lived about a mile from it.
I tried to organize against the destruction of Alewife, but this person outorganized me. In Cambridge, “organizing” by those who are destroying the environment is simple — They simply give themselves a lovely and misleading name. Then they just call the already built in Cambridge Pol organization and the Cambridge Pol organization delivers.
[Ed: I have had misgivings about the wording of the preceding paragraph, but reality is that the same analysis has proven true time and time and time again when talking about the Cambridge Pols, their "good intentions" and their fake organizations: “You simply cannot be that stupid.”]
So this woman has been pullinmg people around by the nose for ten or twenty years yelling about everything except for the really important stuff, really important stuff that could have been prevented and still can be reversed.
What it would take to reverse this destruction is to stop in place, Then take by eminent domain the massive parking lot 300 feet to the south (just north of the commuter rail) and proceed with the work that should have been done there in the first place. The flood storage should have been been placed under that parking lot in the first place.
This would make excellent sense because the devastation is so major and so easily avoidable. The state and Cambridge’s bad city government would have to undo the outrage that has already been committed, but that is the responsible thing to do. This, however, is Cambridge, MA, with all those fake groups running around praising a destructive city government for traits which are way too often exactly the opposite of reality.
This is a horrible, horrible day.
2. Cher Responds, with reply.
This really really really sucks. I don't remember how one goes about taking by eminent domain but am sure they have that covered too.
*********
The city manager prides himself on not doing takings. He reaches agreement. They do not have time for agreement.
On the other hand, if they started behaving responsibly on Monteiro, they might have an attorney’s position which gives them blessing, with judge’s consent, to fire the Cambridge City Manager.
3. Boston.com picks up this report.
Thank you for the report and the link.
2. Cher Responds, with reply.
3. Boston.com picks up this report.
1. Report.
Cambridge and the state have been working for perhaps two decades to destroy a massive, essentially untrouched forest abutting the Alewife MBTA Station.
This area is in the western part of Cambridge, MA and includes or is near to parts of Belmont and Arlington, MA. One of the two key east-west superhighways in Massachusetts, state route 2, ends at Alewife Station.
Cambridge and the state are destroying the Alewife reservation for flood storage that should be placed under a massive parking lot about 300 feet to the south.
First and foremost, the Alewife reservation is being destroyed because Cambridge has a horribly irresponsible city manager and city council. They are able to do their terrible things, however, because of the massive organization they have running around lying about them.
I was at the Alewife reservation this morning, May 15, 2011, responding to the latest con game.
The environmental destroyers are running a week long series of events telling people to protect the environment. These fake initiatives are very much non stop in Cambridge. They are flat out frauds on the public because the organizers yell about everything except what counts. And they do not want to know about what counts.
The latest fake initiative included a walk around the Alewife reservation. I was there to leaflet and warn the public against the forthcoming destruction of the Alewife Reservation. It was highly distressing to see it had already started.
While I was there, the leader of the fake group came to post a sign delaying the walk a week because of rain.
My first concern for Alewife came in the early 80's when I lived about a mile from it.
I tried to organize against the destruction of Alewife, but this person outorganized me. In Cambridge, “organizing” by those who are destroying the environment is simple — They simply give themselves a lovely and misleading name. Then they just call the already built in Cambridge Pol organization and the Cambridge Pol organization delivers.
[Ed: I have had misgivings about the wording of the preceding paragraph, but reality is that the same analysis has proven true time and time and time again when talking about the Cambridge Pols, their "good intentions" and their fake organizations: “You simply cannot be that stupid.”]
So this woman has been pullinmg people around by the nose for ten or twenty years yelling about everything except for the really important stuff, really important stuff that could have been prevented and still can be reversed.
What it would take to reverse this destruction is to stop in place, Then take by eminent domain the massive parking lot 300 feet to the south (just north of the commuter rail) and proceed with the work that should have been done there in the first place. The flood storage should have been been placed under that parking lot in the first place.
This would make excellent sense because the devastation is so major and so easily avoidable. The state and Cambridge’s bad city government would have to undo the outrage that has already been committed, but that is the responsible thing to do. This, however, is Cambridge, MA, with all those fake groups running around praising a destructive city government for traits which are way too often exactly the opposite of reality.
This is a horrible, horrible day.
2. Cher Responds, with reply.
This really really really sucks. I don't remember how one goes about taking by eminent domain but am sure they have that covered too.
*********
The city manager prides himself on not doing takings. He reaches agreement. They do not have time for agreement.
On the other hand, if they started behaving responsibly on Monteiro, they might have an attorney’s position which gives them blessing, with judge’s consent, to fire the Cambridge City Manager.
3. Boston.com picks up this report.
Thank you for the report and the link.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge — The Attorneys.
1. Introduction.
2. Praise for Monteiro’s Attorney
3. Should the City of Cambridge sue their attorney in Monteiro v. Cambridge for malpractice?
1. Introduction.
On May 4, 2011, I was in the audience as the attorneys for Cambridge and Malvina Monteiro argued the appeal of Malvina Monteiro v. City ofCambridge.
This is the civil rights case concerning allegations that the City of Cambridge destroyed the life of the head of its Police Review board, a black Cape Verdean woman in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
In this case:
a. the jury awarded about $1 million in real damages, and $3.5 million in penal damages and
b. the judge, in support of the award, quoted the City Manager testimony at length, and then, based on her analysis, called him “reprehensible.”
I was so very pleased by the presentation of the Monteiro attorney before the Appeals Court that I wrote a letter to the Cambridge Chronicle expressing my pleasure. My letter was printed in the May 12, 2011 edition.
On May 10, 2011, I received a phone call from a journalist on my office phone asking me what I thought of the idea of the city suing its attorney in Monteiro for malpractice.
It is my opinion that the City Council’s funding of the appeal without getting a second opinion constituted a dereliction of duty. I burst out laughing and confirmed my comments by email.
2. Praise for Monteiro’s Attorney
The following letter was printed in the May 12, 2011 edition of the Cambridge Chronicle on Page 12.
Its location was excellent.
It occupied a double column at the top left of the editorial page following a shorter letter. This location is the normal spot for editorials. No editorial was printed.
*********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
My commendations to Attorney Zucker on her representation of Malvina Monteiro before the Appeals Court on May 4, 2011 in response to Cambridge's appeal of the Superior Court decision in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.
This is the case in which the jury awarded $4.5 million including $3.5 million in penal damages, and everything had passed $6.0 million a year ago.
Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who, until her firing, was head of Cambridge's police review board.
Judge and jury found that the City of Cambridge destroyed Ms. Monteiro's life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The judge went into extended analysis of the city manager's testimony in her key opinion. The judge proceded to find the Cambridge City Manager "reprehensible" based on her analysis.
I am not privy to the formal submittals in the case.
I did see Attorney Zucker's presentation before the Appeals Court.
I thought her presentation was excellent.
3. Should the City of Cambridge sue their attorney in Monteiro v. Cambridge for malpractice?
On May 10, 2011, I got a phone call at my law office from a woman who identified herself as a journalist. She asked me what I thought of the City of Cambridge suing their attorney in Malvina Montero.
I immediately laughed and then gave her a response which I summarized in the below email:
**********
It was a pleasure talking with you just now. I am copying a few people who have interest in this matter.
The YouTube URL presenting my formal presentation of my opinion on the proper handling of the Monteiro appeal is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.
My edit of the Superior Court judge’s key opinion is posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. This edit is paragraphed and formatted by me. It is taken from a posting by the Superior Court Clerk of Courts which totally lacked paragraphing. The paragraphing is my best estimate. I have made no other changes.
To put it succinctly, it is my opinion that, based on the Superior Court judge’s excellent opinion, the Cambridge City Council was derelict in its duty in funding the appeal of the Monteiro decision without getting independent opinion from an attorney competent in the field of employment law and civil rights law, and that such independent opinion should have been based on the entire record in this case.
If that attorney found that appeal was not warranted, based on the Superior Court judge and jury’s decision, it is my opinion that the city council should have suspended the Cambridge City Manager without pay and appointed the City Clerk as acting City Manager with direction to seek settlement with the plaintiff which would include firing of the City Manager, at minimum, without his golden parachute, plus, within a reasonable level of analysis, without pension.
Such agreement, when reached, should have been and still can be submitted to the Superior Court judge for her approval. The judge, I should think, would certainly approve firing without golden parachute inasmuich as, under these circumstances, the golden parachute would be in violation of public policy. Under the circumstances, I think there is good possibility as well that the judge would approve firing him without pension. The case, based on the judge’s opinion, looks like an ideal situation in which to seek to expand current law to this minor extent, especially since judge made law is very common in this field.
If I could be of further assistance, please contact me at 617-283-7649, my cell phone, or at boblat@yahoo.com.
Thank you very much for your interest and good luck with your story.
2. Praise for Monteiro’s Attorney
3. Should the City of Cambridge sue their attorney in Monteiro v. Cambridge for malpractice?
1. Introduction.
On May 4, 2011, I was in the audience as the attorneys for Cambridge and Malvina Monteiro argued the appeal of Malvina Monteiro v. City ofCambridge.
This is the civil rights case concerning allegations that the City of Cambridge destroyed the life of the head of its Police Review board, a black Cape Verdean woman in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
In this case:
a. the jury awarded about $1 million in real damages, and $3.5 million in penal damages and
b. the judge, in support of the award, quoted the City Manager testimony at length, and then, based on her analysis, called him “reprehensible.”
I was so very pleased by the presentation of the Monteiro attorney before the Appeals Court that I wrote a letter to the Cambridge Chronicle expressing my pleasure. My letter was printed in the May 12, 2011 edition.
On May 10, 2011, I received a phone call from a journalist on my office phone asking me what I thought of the idea of the city suing its attorney in Monteiro for malpractice.
It is my opinion that the City Council’s funding of the appeal without getting a second opinion constituted a dereliction of duty. I burst out laughing and confirmed my comments by email.
2. Praise for Monteiro’s Attorney
The following letter was printed in the May 12, 2011 edition of the Cambridge Chronicle on Page 12.
Its location was excellent.
It occupied a double column at the top left of the editorial page following a shorter letter. This location is the normal spot for editorials. No editorial was printed.
*********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
My commendations to Attorney Zucker on her representation of Malvina Monteiro before the Appeals Court on May 4, 2011 in response to Cambridge's appeal of the Superior Court decision in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.
This is the case in which the jury awarded $4.5 million including $3.5 million in penal damages, and everything had passed $6.0 million a year ago.
Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who, until her firing, was head of Cambridge's police review board.
Judge and jury found that the City of Cambridge destroyed Ms. Monteiro's life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The judge went into extended analysis of the city manager's testimony in her key opinion. The judge proceded to find the Cambridge City Manager "reprehensible" based on her analysis.
I am not privy to the formal submittals in the case.
I did see Attorney Zucker's presentation before the Appeals Court.
I thought her presentation was excellent.
3. Should the City of Cambridge sue their attorney in Monteiro v. Cambridge for malpractice?
On May 10, 2011, I got a phone call at my law office from a woman who identified herself as a journalist. She asked me what I thought of the City of Cambridge suing their attorney in Malvina Montero.
I immediately laughed and then gave her a response which I summarized in the below email:
**********
It was a pleasure talking with you just now. I am copying a few people who have interest in this matter.
The YouTube URL presenting my formal presentation of my opinion on the proper handling of the Monteiro appeal is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.
My edit of the Superior Court judge’s key opinion is posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. This edit is paragraphed and formatted by me. It is taken from a posting by the Superior Court Clerk of Courts which totally lacked paragraphing. The paragraphing is my best estimate. I have made no other changes.
To put it succinctly, it is my opinion that, based on the Superior Court judge’s excellent opinion, the Cambridge City Council was derelict in its duty in funding the appeal of the Monteiro decision without getting independent opinion from an attorney competent in the field of employment law and civil rights law, and that such independent opinion should have been based on the entire record in this case.
If that attorney found that appeal was not warranted, based on the Superior Court judge and jury’s decision, it is my opinion that the city council should have suspended the Cambridge City Manager without pay and appointed the City Clerk as acting City Manager with direction to seek settlement with the plaintiff which would include firing of the City Manager, at minimum, without his golden parachute, plus, within a reasonable level of analysis, without pension.
Such agreement, when reached, should have been and still can be submitted to the Superior Court judge for her approval. The judge, I should think, would certainly approve firing without golden parachute inasmuich as, under these circumstances, the golden parachute would be in violation of public policy. Under the circumstances, I think there is good possibility as well that the judge would approve firing him without pension. The case, based on the judge’s opinion, looks like an ideal situation in which to seek to expand current law to this minor extent, especially since judge made law is very common in this field.
If I could be of further assistance, please contact me at 617-283-7649, my cell phone, or at boblat@yahoo.com.
Thank you very much for your interest and good luck with your story.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Mallard in trouble?
1. Report.
2. Jeanne comments.
1. Report.
Tuesday, May 10, I got a call from a lady who was concerned about a Mallard Duck wandering around Gerry Street. Gerry Street is in a lovely little neighborhood hidden a little west of Harvard Square. It is between Mount Auburn Street and Memorial Drive, with some small stores on Mount Auburn Street and massive converted condos between it and Memorial Drive.
She had last seen the Mallard in a parking lot behind a row of stores. She was concerned because a parking lot is not good duck habitat.
I parked at a meter across from the Harvard Square Post Office two blocks away and walked back to investigate. Just to the west of the store parking lot is an asphalt area behind a private home. There were bread morsels spread out over the asphalt.
I wandered around this lovely smaller scale neighborhood. No duck.
I called the lady back and reported that Mr. Mallard had apparently been attracted by the food and decided, in agreement with the lady, that the area was not good duck habitat. We were both happy.
2. Jeanne comments.
That was really nice.
2. Jeanne comments.
1. Report.
Tuesday, May 10, I got a call from a lady who was concerned about a Mallard Duck wandering around Gerry Street. Gerry Street is in a lovely little neighborhood hidden a little west of Harvard Square. It is between Mount Auburn Street and Memorial Drive, with some small stores on Mount Auburn Street and massive converted condos between it and Memorial Drive.
She had last seen the Mallard in a parking lot behind a row of stores. She was concerned because a parking lot is not good duck habitat.
I parked at a meter across from the Harvard Square Post Office two blocks away and walked back to investigate. Just to the west of the store parking lot is an asphalt area behind a private home. There were bread morsels spread out over the asphalt.
I wandered around this lovely smaller scale neighborhood. No duck.
I called the lady back and reported that Mr. Mallard had apparently been attracted by the food and decided, in agreement with the lady, that the area was not good duck habitat. We were both happy.
2. Jeanne comments.
That was really nice.
Monday, May 09, 2011
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART X, Harvard University and the Charles River
1. Archie’s Report.
2. Prior reports in this series.
3. Editor’s Supplement.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART X
By Archie Mazmanian
I conduct research on the Internet for this series not only to test my memory but to learn more about the Charles River. Recently such a search revealed an article by Corydon Ireland titled “A river runs through it” subtitled “Harvard’s long and complex ties to the Charles” in the Harvard Gazette, October 10, 2010. Many may recall the 1992 movie with that title starring Robert Redford about a river in Montana. Titles are not subject to copyright protection. I was aware of this with my July 21,2009 post on this Blog of “A River Runs Through It” about Harvard and the Charles in my series on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring Project. [Available here: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009_07_21_archive.html] No reference was made in Ireland’s article to mine. So be it. But there are different perspectives to consider.
The Harvard Gazette article mentions a book “Bringing the Harvard Yards to the River” (Harvard Design School, 2004), “a slender volume edited by the GSD’s Joan Busquetss, the Martin Bucksbaum Professor in Practice in Urban Planning and Design. In it, the contributors imagined turning parkways into promenades, digging pedestrian tunnels, and even building a midriver recreational island.
Each of the ideas shared a goal, Busquets wrote, ‘the importance of establishing a better connection to the Charles River.’” (Better for whom?)
I have not been able to locate this book at a local library as yet, so I know very little of the ideas of the goal of Harvard in “establishing a better connection to the Charles River.” [Harvard Magazine in March of 2005 discloses some of the ideas pictorially, available via the Internet at: http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/03/connecting-to-the-river.html.] We know of course of the hundreds of acres of land surreptitiously acquired by Harvard in Allston that remain to be developed. We have seen the new dorms with river views on the Allston side. What is to come, and will Allston residents have a say in what Harvard develops as it may impact upon the Charles, which belongs to all of us? What voice will or should Cambridge residents have? Others?
Harvard has a long history with the Charles River. Recall the exclusive ferry operations granted to Harvard back in 1650 between Boston and Charlestown discussed in Part VII of this series that were entwined with the 1837 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge. Harvard College was earlier recognized in Chapter V of the MA Constitution confirming and commending its incorporation with this: “ … the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and other United States of America.” But God did not endow the Charles River to Harvard. And of course we have religious diversity today, thanks to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
This brings to mind this poem:
"And here's to good old Boston
The land of the bean and the cod
Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots
And the Cabots talk only to God."
- Author Unknown
When it comes to the Charles River, Harvard must talk to all of us.
[Part XI of this series will address the roles of Harvard, MIT and Boston University regarding the Charles River. By the way, I am not aware of any of these venerable institutions addressing the cruelty imposed by MA and Cambridge government officials on the Charles River White Geese. I wonder why?]
2. Prior reports in this series.
Part IX, 4/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-ix-charles.html.
Part VIII, 4/20/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-viii.html.
Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html.
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html.
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html.
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html.
3. Editor’s Supplement.
I find Harvard’s official 2010 statement of intentions in Cambridge in its 2010 Town - Gown report to Cambridge. I do not see the 2011 version.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-river-memories-part-x-harvard.html.
Harvard’s official position as to its intentions in Allston are posted at: http://www.evp.harvard.edu/allston.
Moving the Medical School to the current location of the Massachusetts Turnpike off ramps is not mentioned.
I looked for a comparable page for Watertown without success. Major purchases have been made across the Charles River in Watertown and I have seen plans for housing construction on the hillside above Greenough Boulevard facing the Charles River.
Additions are welcome.
2. Prior reports in this series.
3. Editor’s Supplement.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART X
By Archie Mazmanian
I conduct research on the Internet for this series not only to test my memory but to learn more about the Charles River. Recently such a search revealed an article by Corydon Ireland titled “A river runs through it” subtitled “Harvard’s long and complex ties to the Charles” in the Harvard Gazette, October 10, 2010. Many may recall the 1992 movie with that title starring Robert Redford about a river in Montana. Titles are not subject to copyright protection. I was aware of this with my July 21,2009 post on this Blog of “A River Runs Through It” about Harvard and the Charles in my series on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring Project. [Available here: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009_07_21_archive.html] No reference was made in Ireland’s article to mine. So be it. But there are different perspectives to consider.
The Harvard Gazette article mentions a book “Bringing the Harvard Yards to the River” (Harvard Design School, 2004), “a slender volume edited by the GSD’s Joan Busquetss, the Martin Bucksbaum Professor in Practice in Urban Planning and Design. In it, the contributors imagined turning parkways into promenades, digging pedestrian tunnels, and even building a midriver recreational island.
Each of the ideas shared a goal, Busquets wrote, ‘the importance of establishing a better connection to the Charles River.’” (Better for whom?)
I have not been able to locate this book at a local library as yet, so I know very little of the ideas of the goal of Harvard in “establishing a better connection to the Charles River.” [Harvard Magazine in March of 2005 discloses some of the ideas pictorially, available via the Internet at: http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/03/connecting-to-the-river.html.] We know of course of the hundreds of acres of land surreptitiously acquired by Harvard in Allston that remain to be developed. We have seen the new dorms with river views on the Allston side. What is to come, and will Allston residents have a say in what Harvard develops as it may impact upon the Charles, which belongs to all of us? What voice will or should Cambridge residents have? Others?
Harvard has a long history with the Charles River. Recall the exclusive ferry operations granted to Harvard back in 1650 between Boston and Charlestown discussed in Part VII of this series that were entwined with the 1837 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge. Harvard College was earlier recognized in Chapter V of the MA Constitution confirming and commending its incorporation with this: “ … the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and other United States of America.” But God did not endow the Charles River to Harvard. And of course we have religious diversity today, thanks to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
This brings to mind this poem:
"And here's to good old Boston
The land of the bean and the cod
Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots
And the Cabots talk only to God."
- Author Unknown
When it comes to the Charles River, Harvard must talk to all of us.
[Part XI of this series will address the roles of Harvard, MIT and Boston University regarding the Charles River. By the way, I am not aware of any of these venerable institutions addressing the cruelty imposed by MA and Cambridge government officials on the Charles River White Geese. I wonder why?]
2. Prior reports in this series.
Part IX, 4/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-ix-charles.html.
Part VIII, 4/20/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-viii.html.
Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html.
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html.
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html.
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html.
3. Editor’s Supplement.
I find Harvard’s official 2010 statement of intentions in Cambridge in its 2010 Town - Gown report to Cambridge. I do not see the 2011 version.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-river-memories-part-x-harvard.html.
Harvard’s official position as to its intentions in Allston are posted at: http://www.evp.harvard.edu/allston.
Moving the Medical School to the current location of the Massachusetts Turnpike off ramps is not mentioned.
I looked for a comparable page for Watertown without success. Major purchases have been made across the Charles River in Watertown and I have seen plans for housing construction on the hillside above Greenough Boulevard facing the Charles River.
Additions are welcome.
Charles River White Geese facebook page not destroyed?
The facebook page definitely is different. What I am getting is MY PERSONAL information on the left of three columns.
At least, the notice at the top announcing the soon to come demise is gone.
There clearly are other changes. Among other things, we have lost our very prominent photo of the Charles River White Geese.
I know I very quickly filed an objection with facebook to the threat to destroy the page, insofar as such communication is allowed. The page creator says he took care of things.
I honestly do not know.
At least, the notice at the top announcing the soon to come demise is gone.
There clearly are other changes. Among other things, we have lost our very prominent photo of the Charles River White Geese.
I know I very quickly filed an objection with facebook to the threat to destroy the page, insofar as such communication is allowed. The page creator says he took care of things.
I honestly do not know.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Charles River Bridge projects to be presented to Cambridge Conservation Commission
This coming Monday, May 9, at 7:15 pm, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) will brief this group of Cambridge City Manager appointees on this program which includes work on a number of Charles River Bridges: the Anderson Bridge (Harvard Square), River Street Bridge, Cambridge Street Bridge, BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.
Much of this program has been determined by the DCR working with the destructive City of Cambridge, and was taken over by MassDOT.
The continuing problem among the Charles River bridge projects is the efforts of environmentally destructive people to build a new highway in the Charles River and on its banks. This new highway would be destructive to the river, its trees, its wetlands, and its animals.
Location is 344 Broadway in Cambridge (corner of Inman, 2 blocks behind City Hall), fourth floor conference room.
Much of this program has been determined by the DCR working with the destructive City of Cambridge, and was taken over by MassDOT.
The continuing problem among the Charles River bridge projects is the efforts of environmentally destructive people to build a new highway in the Charles River and on its banks. This new highway would be destructive to the river, its trees, its wetlands, and its animals.
Location is 344 Broadway in Cambridge (corner of Inman, 2 blocks behind City Hall), fourth floor conference room.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Cher and Ellen on facebook attacking the Charles River White Geese page
Cher:
I can’t believe this.
Its always the people who are the most selfless and try the hardest to help others especially animals who get the most crap.
Ellen:
Unbelievable what they are doing or have done.
I can’t believe this.
Its always the people who are the most selfless and try the hardest to help others especially animals who get the most crap.
Ellen:
Unbelievable what they are doing or have done.
Joyce Killmer, trees, Cambridge and facebook
Archie Mazmanian comments on the current nightmare with facebook:
***********
If Joyce Kilmer were around, the poem "Trees" might have started thus:
"I think that I shall never see,
A Facebook lovely as a tree ... "
Just as MA and Cambridge officials are destroying the Charles River White Geese and trees along the Charles River, Facebook eliminates friends of CRWG. Why? Because they are there - or used to be? Alas, the First Amendment creates - and it can destroy.
***********
If Joyce Kilmer were around, the poem "Trees" might have started thus:
"I think that I shall never see,
A Facebook lovely as a tree ... "
Just as MA and Cambridge officials are destroying the Charles River White Geese and trees along the Charles River, Facebook eliminates friends of CRWG. Why? Because they are there - or used to be? Alas, the First Amendment creates - and it can destroy.
Update on destruction of facebook page.
1. Report.
2. Comment.
1. Report.
Since yesterday a new facebook page has been created with exactly two members, me and Nick Cheung who created the original page.
But the 94 member page is the one you get to when you look for Charles River White Geese.
I have done quite a bit of objecting, including a post in a location which might get to the powers that be.
I have invited as friends on the new page all that facebook would allow, but I have deliberately kept the Charles River White Geese page separate from my personal page, and no more than half of the members of the Charles River White Geese page are friends on my personal page.
The only way physically, I can invite them to the savaged version of the Charles River White Geese facebook page is to invite them to my page and then to Charles River White Geese. This gets highly complicated by people having similar names. Highly complicated.
And the reality is that, as facebook comments in their fine print, Charles River White Geese was individually selected to have its friend grouping destroyed. This is no accident.
And we JUST HAPPEN TO BE STANDING UP to highly irresponsible behavior on behalf / benefitting Harvard.
I have a very large press mailing list which I will use when or if the 94 member page is destroyed.
2. Comment.
Danny Gold has been kind enough to post on the 94 member facebook page that Zuckerman only attended and did not graduate from Harvard.
Afraid I really do not know the details.
I thank very much Danny for the input. I will modify future postings and notices accordingly.
2. Comment.
1. Report.
Since yesterday a new facebook page has been created with exactly two members, me and Nick Cheung who created the original page.
But the 94 member page is the one you get to when you look for Charles River White Geese.
I have done quite a bit of objecting, including a post in a location which might get to the powers that be.
I have invited as friends on the new page all that facebook would allow, but I have deliberately kept the Charles River White Geese page separate from my personal page, and no more than half of the members of the Charles River White Geese page are friends on my personal page.
The only way physically, I can invite them to the savaged version of the Charles River White Geese facebook page is to invite them to my page and then to Charles River White Geese. This gets highly complicated by people having similar names. Highly complicated.
And the reality is that, as facebook comments in their fine print, Charles River White Geese was individually selected to have its friend grouping destroyed. This is no accident.
And we JUST HAPPEN TO BE STANDING UP to highly irresponsible behavior on behalf / benefitting Harvard.
I have a very large press mailing list which I will use when or if the 94 member page is destroyed.
2. Comment.
Danny Gold has been kind enough to post on the 94 member facebook page that Zuckerman only attended and did not graduate from Harvard.
Afraid I really do not know the details.
I thank very much Danny for the input. I will modify future postings and notices accordingly.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
facebook to destroy group page of the Charles River White Geese
The behavior of the people fighting for destruction of animals and environment on the Charles River is commonly outrageous.
They work through many front organizations. The worst calls itself a Conservancy.
But the destructiveness is not limited to specialized groups. The bad guys toss in outrages in groups with less direct connections.
One thing which is a bad sign is groups with high MIT/Harvard connections.
One such group, which calls itself the Association for Public Transportation has gotten maneuvered into supporting an alternative on the Charles River which is flatly and simply stupid from a transportation point of view. They run a listserv.
Discussion of their nonsensical transportation position has been immediately responded to with cyberabuse.
The response of the listserve when the victim sought protection? The listserve defended cyberabuse as protected by freedom of speech and THREW OUT the victim for offending the listserve by passing on the cyberabuse and continuing to object to cyberabuse after the listserve head defended cyberabuse as protected speech.
Amazingly, it looks like facebook is not even exempt.
The owners come from Harvard or MIT.
We have just been told that our Charles River White Geese page will be destroyed by them.
They will allow us to keep some of our content but they are wiping out our total list of “friends.”
Just after we posted photos of key trees being destroyed, just a few of the hundreds threatened.
Just after we realized that some people who might be trying to friend us may have been fooled into “liking” the facebook page of the front organization for the destroyers, a destructive entity which has the nerve to call itself a “conservancy.”
facebook is giving no explanation. They are allowing us to keep some content but they, without any explanation, are destroying all our contact with our friends.
This is the way things are done in Cambridge, MA.
And how dare you call it “reprehensible.”
They work through many front organizations. The worst calls itself a Conservancy.
But the destructiveness is not limited to specialized groups. The bad guys toss in outrages in groups with less direct connections.
One thing which is a bad sign is groups with high MIT/Harvard connections.
One such group, which calls itself the Association for Public Transportation has gotten maneuvered into supporting an alternative on the Charles River which is flatly and simply stupid from a transportation point of view. They run a listserv.
Discussion of their nonsensical transportation position has been immediately responded to with cyberabuse.
The response of the listserve when the victim sought protection? The listserve defended cyberabuse as protected by freedom of speech and THREW OUT the victim for offending the listserve by passing on the cyberabuse and continuing to object to cyberabuse after the listserve head defended cyberabuse as protected speech.
Amazingly, it looks like facebook is not even exempt.
The owners come from Harvard or MIT.
We have just been told that our Charles River White Geese page will be destroyed by them.
They will allow us to keep some of our content but they are wiping out our total list of “friends.”
Just after we posted photos of key trees being destroyed, just a few of the hundreds threatened.
Just after we realized that some people who might be trying to friend us may have been fooled into “liking” the facebook page of the front organization for the destroyers, a destructive entity which has the nerve to call itself a “conservancy.”
facebook is giving no explanation. They are allowing us to keep some content but they, without any explanation, are destroying all our contact with our friends.
This is the way things are done in Cambridge, MA.
And how dare you call it “reprehensible.”
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Follow up on false tree sightings
Saturday morning, I posted my report on the Friday visibility.
I was so happy. I thought I had seen trees planted.
Saturday afternoon, I walked the ground in the nesting area and realized I had made the mistake that decent people so commonly do, a mistake that allows a really rotten situation to continue in Cambridge and on the Charles River.
I assumed I was dealing with basic decency.
I am transmitting four photos from the photos I took on March 29. One is an overview, two are of the BU Bridge side, and one is of the ramp side.
The first photo is the overview, shot from a location which has not been destroyed by the very destructive agency responsible for the continuing and accelerating outrage.
In the second photo, the sticks in the middle of the photo are what I, on Friday, thought were tree plantings. In the third photo, they are to the far right.
The poor geese are doing what they can to survive in the face of this outrage.
In each photo, there is a clear difference between crushed vegetation and strands of, apparently, vines stretching toward the middle of this man made wasteland. Those vines are nature healing itself. If nature were simply allowed to heal itself in the middle, the meadow would be reborn.
In the background is the construction. The construction zone to the left is now totally unnecessary. The excuse for construction was work on the BU Bridge. The work is done. The massive intrusion should be removed.
The fourth photo is of the vegetation toward the ramp with the first area visible to the left. Somewhere in the middle of this vegetation are the two small trees which I saw with leaves, struggling, nature reborn.
The first photo places this in perspective. The BU Bridge dominates the photo. Below the BU Bridge is the area in photos 2 and 3. To the right is the area in photo 4.
I still have a number of photos I have not published from the March 29 shoot. I will publish them in coming days.
I was so happy. I thought I had seen trees planted.
Saturday afternoon, I walked the ground in the nesting area and realized I had made the mistake that decent people so commonly do, a mistake that allows a really rotten situation to continue in Cambridge and on the Charles River.
I assumed I was dealing with basic decency.
I am transmitting four photos from the photos I took on March 29. One is an overview, two are of the BU Bridge side, and one is of the ramp side.
The first photo is the overview, shot from a location which has not been destroyed by the very destructive agency responsible for the continuing and accelerating outrage.
In the second photo, the sticks in the middle of the photo are what I, on Friday, thought were tree plantings. In the third photo, they are to the far right.
The poor geese are doing what they can to survive in the face of this outrage.
In each photo, there is a clear difference between crushed vegetation and strands of, apparently, vines stretching toward the middle of this man made wasteland. Those vines are nature healing itself. If nature were simply allowed to heal itself in the middle, the meadow would be reborn.
In the background is the construction. The construction zone to the left is now totally unnecessary. The excuse for construction was work on the BU Bridge. The work is done. The massive intrusion should be removed.
The fourth photo is of the vegetation toward the ramp with the first area visible to the left. Somewhere in the middle of this vegetation are the two small trees which I saw with leaves, struggling, nature reborn.
The first photo places this in perspective. The BU Bridge dominates the photo. Below the BU Bridge is the area in photos 2 and 3. To the right is the area in photo 4.
I still have a number of photos I have not published from the March 29 shoot. I will publish them in coming days.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Day 400 at the Destroyed Nesting Area, Trees Planted?
1. Day 400, the Visibility.
2. Day 400, conditions in the destroyed nesting area.
3. Follow up, correction
1. Day 400, the Visibility.
On Friday, April 29, 2011, I conducted the 400th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
It was early rush hour with people already going to the Red Sox game. Cars and pedestrians were heavier than I have previously seen during this series of visibilities.
People going toward Cambridge were waving from their cars and beeping.
A lot of fliers were distributed. Quite a few people stopped for good conversations.
2. Day 400, conditions in the destroyed nesting area.
The 50 foot swath for access to bridge repairs that were completed months ago is still there, as is the parking area for cars that are parked elsewhere.
The hay bales which were piled in the interior corner of the L have been mostly moved. A number of them were moved in an organized manner against the sidewalk toward the BU Bridge near the on ramp. They exactly fit the height of the bridge above ground at that point. A lot of hay bales were thrown on the hill under the ramp in the construction zone.
Trees have been planted. To the human eye it looks good. I do not know what it looks like to the animals. That is a matter of concern. There have been perhaps ten trees planted in close groupings.
At the time of destruction of the natural area nearest the BU Bridge / on ramp intersection, two grouping of ground vegetation were not destroyed. Perhaps five deciduous trees have been planted in the grouping closer to the BU Bridge and perhaps 5 evergreens in the other area. The deciduous are close together and are tied in a supporting group. The evergreens are more spread out.
This greenery was a vestige of the wild area before the bureaucrats, Cambridge and their fake environmental group started destroying. The look of this wild remnant has been a dead appearance this spring raising the fear that the destroyers have further destroyed. But there has been no other real vegetation and vegetation is needed for nesting.
I have been aware of at least one nest in the wild area toward the bridge. That nest was nearest the bridge, and I think I saw the mother goose from above. Trouble is that I really do not know the location of all the nests.
View of the tree plantings from above gives the impression of care in planting. It looks like the vegetation has not been damaged. The nest I can see is away from the plantings. Reality is, however, that non damage is impossible.
To a human, the plantings look good. Human sensibilities, however, have been at the core of the ongoing environmental destruction on the Charles. And the destroyers live off lying to please human sensibilities since they have contempt for resident animals.
I do not know. I do know that, in contrast to the City of Cambridge, to the DCR bureaucrats, and to the fake environmental group, I have respect for the Department of Transportation people.
The Department of Transportation people are the ones doing the work now, but they have been committed in their performance by contracts signed by the reprehensible DCR.
I would very strongly appreciate analyses by other responsible people.
3. Follow up, correction.
One of the ways the bad guys get away with so many really bad things is that there are so many of us who want to believe well of people.
I checked on the area in the afternoon. The trees I observed from above could not possibly be recent plantings.
Sorry, I, like so many other victims wish well of the bad guys.
2. Day 400, conditions in the destroyed nesting area.
3. Follow up, correction
1. Day 400, the Visibility.
On Friday, April 29, 2011, I conducted the 400th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
It was early rush hour with people already going to the Red Sox game. Cars and pedestrians were heavier than I have previously seen during this series of visibilities.
People going toward Cambridge were waving from their cars and beeping.
A lot of fliers were distributed. Quite a few people stopped for good conversations.
2. Day 400, conditions in the destroyed nesting area.
The 50 foot swath for access to bridge repairs that were completed months ago is still there, as is the parking area for cars that are parked elsewhere.
The hay bales which were piled in the interior corner of the L have been mostly moved. A number of them were moved in an organized manner against the sidewalk toward the BU Bridge near the on ramp. They exactly fit the height of the bridge above ground at that point. A lot of hay bales were thrown on the hill under the ramp in the construction zone.
Trees have been planted. To the human eye it looks good. I do not know what it looks like to the animals. That is a matter of concern. There have been perhaps ten trees planted in close groupings.
At the time of destruction of the natural area nearest the BU Bridge / on ramp intersection, two grouping of ground vegetation were not destroyed. Perhaps five deciduous trees have been planted in the grouping closer to the BU Bridge and perhaps 5 evergreens in the other area. The deciduous are close together and are tied in a supporting group. The evergreens are more spread out.
This greenery was a vestige of the wild area before the bureaucrats, Cambridge and their fake environmental group started destroying. The look of this wild remnant has been a dead appearance this spring raising the fear that the destroyers have further destroyed. But there has been no other real vegetation and vegetation is needed for nesting.
I have been aware of at least one nest in the wild area toward the bridge. That nest was nearest the bridge, and I think I saw the mother goose from above. Trouble is that I really do not know the location of all the nests.
View of the tree plantings from above gives the impression of care in planting. It looks like the vegetation has not been damaged. The nest I can see is away from the plantings. Reality is, however, that non damage is impossible.
To a human, the plantings look good. Human sensibilities, however, have been at the core of the ongoing environmental destruction on the Charles. And the destroyers live off lying to please human sensibilities since they have contempt for resident animals.
I do not know. I do know that, in contrast to the City of Cambridge, to the DCR bureaucrats, and to the fake environmental group, I have respect for the Department of Transportation people.
The Department of Transportation people are the ones doing the work now, but they have been committed in their performance by contracts signed by the reprehensible DCR.
I would very strongly appreciate analyses by other responsible people.
3. Follow up, correction.
One of the ways the bad guys get away with so many really bad things is that there are so many of us who want to believe well of people.
I checked on the area in the afternoon. The trees I observed from above could not possibly be recent plantings.
Sorry, I, like so many other victims wish well of the bad guys.
Friday, April 29, 2011
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART IX, Charles River Architecture, Natural and Man Made
1. Archie’s Report.
2. Response.
3. Prior reports.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART IX
By Archie Mazmanian
Consider the architecture along and over the Charles River downstream of the Weld Boathouse. The Charles River bridges [yes, Virginia, bridges are architecture!] along this stretch are varied in style, size, construction and materials; they can be best examined leisurely on walking or bicycling trips along the river and over them, whereas safety requirements in driving a motor vehicle limit the opportunity to do so (although passengers may do so safely).
Along the Charles River, the buildings present varied architectural styles. While these may be appreciated driving along Storrow and Memorial Drives, they serve as teasers to leisurely examining them on walking or bike trips. There are the traditional Georgian buildings of Harvard?s Cambridge campus, that contrast with the post WW II Harvard Business School campus and the very recent Harvard dorms on the Allston side of the river. There are the more recent modern commercial and residential structures on both sides of the river. And consider the rehabbed Ford Motor Company building at the northerly end of the BU Bridge.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have had mixed thoughts about some of the recent additions along the river. What are the obligations of developers along the river to respect the Charles River and its enjoyment by the public? Should Boston have a voice on development on the Cambridge side? Should Cambridge have a voice on development on the Boston side? Should the MA public beyond Boston and Cambridge have a voice on such development since he Charles River belongs to all of us?
Another way to enjoy the architecture along and over the Charles is directly on the river. In the summertime, I have observed tour (including duck) boats from downtown Boston that make their way to the BU Bridge and back. Unfortunately, they cannot proceed further upstream to the Weld Boathouse and beyond to Watertown Square because of the low rail bridge under the BU Bridge.
Sailboats and sculls are another means of enjoying the architecture along and over the Charles, including at the sailing pavilion in the Esplanade area as well as the sailing operations of several area universities. The annual Head of the Charles Regatta provides magnificent views for the rowers who can maneuver the low rail bridge below the BU Bridge.
In my contributions to this Blog on the Urban Ring Project, I have been critical of the proposed utilization of the rail bridge by expanding it to accommodate two travel lanes for Bus Rapid Transit’s 60-foot articulated buses for the Project?s Phase 2 Charles River crossing. Such would further segment water travel upstream and downstream of the BU Bridge.
But what if the Charles River became a mode of commuter boat public transit between Boston and Watertown Square without the obstacle of this low rail bridge under the BU Bridge? This would be much shorter, and safer, than commuter boat trips between Hingham and Boston, with more interesting vistas, including architectural along and over the Charles.
Yes, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. But so is ugliness. Until recent years, we have had the benefit of beholding the beauty of the Charles River White Geese (and their family values) outside of their private habitat of several decades at the northerly end of the BU Bridge, their habitat being their architecture closer to nature than that of man over and along the Charles. Their private habitat was not intended for us to behold. Now we have the ugliness brought about by MA and Cambridge government officials intent upon destroying this habitat and thus destroying the Charles River White Geese. Bob?s post on Day 399 should shame these officials and we should be outraged by their ugliness.
2. Response.
Thank you Archie.
The sickness in Cambridge and their friends is their contempt for nature.
The sickness is multiplied by fake group’s with fraudulent and misleading names who fool people into supporting them and these fake groups are a very major part of the problem.
In is particularly outrageous to have a fraudulently named group
a. destroying the environment including, apparently, pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, and
b. Through use of their fake name, enticing people who want to support the environment into “liking” them when really want to friend the Charles River White Geese.
This rottenness is a major reason how very destructive people get elected to office in Cambridge, MA, USA.
The fake meeting on Magazine Beach which allowed the destroyers to talk and talk and talk but EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED negative comment is highly common in Cambridge. To call this some sort of public meeting is the sort of lie which is normal in Cambridge, MA.
It is possible that Governor Patrick saw through the lies of the destroyers and did not approve their seeking Obama money to destroy hundreds of healthy trees on Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge. I think Marilyn may have provided him with the plans submitted by the bureaucrats to the Cambridge Conservation Commission which directly contradicted flat out lies about the quality of the trees being destroyed.
Unfortunately, the destroyers may be getting the money through a state legislature austerity budget, and the very destructive Cambridge Pols.
3. Prior reports.
Part VIII, 4/20/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-viii.html.
Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html.
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html.
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html.
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html.
2. Response.
3. Prior reports.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART IX
By Archie Mazmanian
Consider the architecture along and over the Charles River downstream of the Weld Boathouse. The Charles River bridges [yes, Virginia, bridges are architecture!] along this stretch are varied in style, size, construction and materials; they can be best examined leisurely on walking or bicycling trips along the river and over them, whereas safety requirements in driving a motor vehicle limit the opportunity to do so (although passengers may do so safely).
Along the Charles River, the buildings present varied architectural styles. While these may be appreciated driving along Storrow and Memorial Drives, they serve as teasers to leisurely examining them on walking or bike trips. There are the traditional Georgian buildings of Harvard?s Cambridge campus, that contrast with the post WW II Harvard Business School campus and the very recent Harvard dorms on the Allston side of the river. There are the more recent modern commercial and residential structures on both sides of the river. And consider the rehabbed Ford Motor Company building at the northerly end of the BU Bridge.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have had mixed thoughts about some of the recent additions along the river. What are the obligations of developers along the river to respect the Charles River and its enjoyment by the public? Should Boston have a voice on development on the Cambridge side? Should Cambridge have a voice on development on the Boston side? Should the MA public beyond Boston and Cambridge have a voice on such development since he Charles River belongs to all of us?
Another way to enjoy the architecture along and over the Charles is directly on the river. In the summertime, I have observed tour (including duck) boats from downtown Boston that make their way to the BU Bridge and back. Unfortunately, they cannot proceed further upstream to the Weld Boathouse and beyond to Watertown Square because of the low rail bridge under the BU Bridge.
Sailboats and sculls are another means of enjoying the architecture along and over the Charles, including at the sailing pavilion in the Esplanade area as well as the sailing operations of several area universities. The annual Head of the Charles Regatta provides magnificent views for the rowers who can maneuver the low rail bridge below the BU Bridge.
In my contributions to this Blog on the Urban Ring Project, I have been critical of the proposed utilization of the rail bridge by expanding it to accommodate two travel lanes for Bus Rapid Transit’s 60-foot articulated buses for the Project?s Phase 2 Charles River crossing. Such would further segment water travel upstream and downstream of the BU Bridge.
But what if the Charles River became a mode of commuter boat public transit between Boston and Watertown Square without the obstacle of this low rail bridge under the BU Bridge? This would be much shorter, and safer, than commuter boat trips between Hingham and Boston, with more interesting vistas, including architectural along and over the Charles.
Yes, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. But so is ugliness. Until recent years, we have had the benefit of beholding the beauty of the Charles River White Geese (and their family values) outside of their private habitat of several decades at the northerly end of the BU Bridge, their habitat being their architecture closer to nature than that of man over and along the Charles. Their private habitat was not intended for us to behold. Now we have the ugliness brought about by MA and Cambridge government officials intent upon destroying this habitat and thus destroying the Charles River White Geese. Bob?s post on Day 399 should shame these officials and we should be outraged by their ugliness.
2. Response.
Thank you Archie.
The sickness in Cambridge and their friends is their contempt for nature.
The sickness is multiplied by fake group’s with fraudulent and misleading names who fool people into supporting them and these fake groups are a very major part of the problem.
In is particularly outrageous to have a fraudulently named group
a. destroying the environment including, apparently, pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, and
b. Through use of their fake name, enticing people who want to support the environment into “liking” them when really want to friend the Charles River White Geese.
This rottenness is a major reason how very destructive people get elected to office in Cambridge, MA, USA.
The fake meeting on Magazine Beach which allowed the destroyers to talk and talk and talk but EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED negative comment is highly common in Cambridge. To call this some sort of public meeting is the sort of lie which is normal in Cambridge, MA.
It is possible that Governor Patrick saw through the lies of the destroyers and did not approve their seeking Obama money to destroy hundreds of healthy trees on Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge. I think Marilyn may have provided him with the plans submitted by the bureaucrats to the Cambridge Conservation Commission which directly contradicted flat out lies about the quality of the trees being destroyed.
Unfortunately, the destroyers may be getting the money through a state legislature austerity budget, and the very destructive Cambridge Pols.
3. Prior reports.
Part VIII, 4/20/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-viii.html.
Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html.
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html.
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html.
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Day 399 at the Destroyed Nesting Area, Environmental destroyer defrauding people into “like”s?
1. Day 399 — Environmental Conditions.
2. Day 399 — good people.
3. Fake organization on the Charles, fake organizations in Cambridge.
4. Summary.
1. Day 399 — Environmental Conditions.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011, in the early rush hour, I conducted the 399th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
These poor things are wandering around in a wasteland of dirt where ground vegetation used to thrive. Almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse to the east has been destroyed since the state started using the falsely named Charles River Conservancy for vegetation destruction.
There was a pile of hay bales in the portion of the former wild area which has been used for staging which should be placed in neighboring locations which are not environmentally sensitive.
The 50 foot bare strip next to the BU Bridge remains exactly that, bare, even after the reason for the destruction has disappeared. That destruction was accomplished to do repairs to that side of the BU Bridge.
2. Day 399 — good people.
The reception was excellent. Lots of people waiving as they go by. 2/3 to 3/4 of pedestrians happily accepted flier.
One woman initially refused a flier. Then she saw my sign.
“Oh, it’s for the geese. Please give me one.”
The thing that got me going, however, was a gentleman who did not take a flier. He slapped me on the shoulder and told me he had already “liked” us on facebook.
Our leaflets encourage people to “friend” the Charles River White Geese on facebook.
“Like”, however, gave me a strong double take. We friend. We do not look for likes.
Was he defrauded?
3. Fake organization on the Charles, fake organizations in Cambridge.
A week or so ago, a supposed neighborhood association held what they call a public meeting on Magazine Beach / the Charles River.
This group was created in coordination with the city manager’s staff and have been very effective promoting his causes and the causes of the Cambridge Pols. Fake organizations of this sort are commonly controlled by the Cambridge Pols and used for the benefit of the city manager and city council while lying to people that good people are doing good things.
The fake meeting on Magazine Beach was notable for blatant censorship which is not at all unusual in these fake groups.
The group EXPLICITLY prohibited negative comment in response to lovely promises by the state.
The Charles River Conservancy is even worse. Charles River Destroyers would be a fair name. This destructive group is part of and supports massive environmental destruction. But it goes by a fake name that gives the clear statement that it is fighting to conserve the Charles River, not destroy it.
But it has a facebook page using its false and misleading name, a name strikingly close to Charles River White Geese.
Is this fake group defrauding its way into support?
It is bad enough for it to be praising and accomplishing outright destruction combined with the false and misleading name. People who want the Charles to be treasured and protected are fooled into supporting this destructive group without it doing more.
It is completely irresponsible for this destructive entity, through its fake name alone, to be attracting people who would be friending the Charles River White Geese except for the very similar and very false name.
If you have friends who want to support the Charles River White Geese and found themselves “liking” The Charles River Conservancy, a group with a long record of fighting for the destruction of the Charles River White Geese, tell your friends they have been defrauded.
If your friends want to support environmental protection, they should be “friending” the Charles River White Geese, not “liking” the fraudulently named Charles River Conservancy.
4. Summary.
If you are pro environment and pro Charles River, you want to friend the Charles River White Geese.
The LAST thing you want to do is LIKE the Charles River Conservancy.
This is the destroyers’ front organization, deliberately misnamed to fool good people into thinking they are pro environment.
The reality is we are dealing with very destructive people who can only get the support of good people by LYING about where they are coming from.
Do not sucker for the lies.
2. Day 399 — good people.
3. Fake organization on the Charles, fake organizations in Cambridge.
4. Summary.
1. Day 399 — Environmental Conditions.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011, in the early rush hour, I conducted the 399th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
These poor things are wandering around in a wasteland of dirt where ground vegetation used to thrive. Almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse to the east has been destroyed since the state started using the falsely named Charles River Conservancy for vegetation destruction.
There was a pile of hay bales in the portion of the former wild area which has been used for staging which should be placed in neighboring locations which are not environmentally sensitive.
The 50 foot bare strip next to the BU Bridge remains exactly that, bare, even after the reason for the destruction has disappeared. That destruction was accomplished to do repairs to that side of the BU Bridge.
2. Day 399 — good people.
The reception was excellent. Lots of people waiving as they go by. 2/3 to 3/4 of pedestrians happily accepted flier.
One woman initially refused a flier. Then she saw my sign.
“Oh, it’s for the geese. Please give me one.”
The thing that got me going, however, was a gentleman who did not take a flier. He slapped me on the shoulder and told me he had already “liked” us on facebook.
Our leaflets encourage people to “friend” the Charles River White Geese on facebook.
“Like”, however, gave me a strong double take. We friend. We do not look for likes.
Was he defrauded?
3. Fake organization on the Charles, fake organizations in Cambridge.
A week or so ago, a supposed neighborhood association held what they call a public meeting on Magazine Beach / the Charles River.
This group was created in coordination with the city manager’s staff and have been very effective promoting his causes and the causes of the Cambridge Pols. Fake organizations of this sort are commonly controlled by the Cambridge Pols and used for the benefit of the city manager and city council while lying to people that good people are doing good things.
The fake meeting on Magazine Beach was notable for blatant censorship which is not at all unusual in these fake groups.
The group EXPLICITLY prohibited negative comment in response to lovely promises by the state.
The Charles River Conservancy is even worse. Charles River Destroyers would be a fair name. This destructive group is part of and supports massive environmental destruction. But it goes by a fake name that gives the clear statement that it is fighting to conserve the Charles River, not destroy it.
But it has a facebook page using its false and misleading name, a name strikingly close to Charles River White Geese.
Is this fake group defrauding its way into support?
It is bad enough for it to be praising and accomplishing outright destruction combined with the false and misleading name. People who want the Charles to be treasured and protected are fooled into supporting this destructive group without it doing more.
It is completely irresponsible for this destructive entity, through its fake name alone, to be attracting people who would be friending the Charles River White Geese except for the very similar and very false name.
If you have friends who want to support the Charles River White Geese and found themselves “liking” The Charles River Conservancy, a group with a long record of fighting for the destruction of the Charles River White Geese, tell your friends they have been defrauded.
If your friends want to support environmental protection, they should be “friending” the Charles River White Geese, not “liking” the fraudulently named Charles River Conservancy.
4. Summary.
If you are pro environment and pro Charles River, you want to friend the Charles River White Geese.
The LAST thing you want to do is LIKE the Charles River Conservancy.
This is the destroyers’ front organization, deliberately misnamed to fool good people into thinking they are pro environment.
The reality is we are dealing with very destructive people who can only get the support of good people by LYING about where they are coming from.
Do not sucker for the lies.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Massive tree destruction
I am posting part of seven photos taken of this grove on March 29, 2011. All are posted on the Charles River White Geese page on facebook.
This is an excellent 105 tree grove slated for devastation as part of Cambridge and Mass.’ ongoing destruction of the Charles River Environment and heartless animal abuse.
It is located to the east of the Goose Ghetto between the Memorial Drive split and the Charles River.
This destruction is only part of the 449 to 660 trees slated for destruction between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge as part of related projects.
These trees were included in the search for Obama moneys last year which may or may not be still contuing. They would be destroyed to put in a new highway which would be both constructed in the Charles and in abutting wetlands. The highway construction would exacerbate the ongoing heartless animal abuse.
The new highway would duplicate a highway on the Boston side which is closed at night because of the muggings and rapes. The Boston closure is one of many things the pols do not want to know.
The pols call themselves “environmentalists. They only ask that you talk about everything except the environment they are destroying.
This is an excellent 105 tree grove slated for devastation as part of Cambridge and Mass.’ ongoing destruction of the Charles River Environment and heartless animal abuse.
It is located to the east of the Goose Ghetto between the Memorial Drive split and the Charles River.
This destruction is only part of the 449 to 660 trees slated for destruction between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge as part of related projects.
These trees were included in the search for Obama moneys last year which may or may not be still contuing. They would be destroyed to put in a new highway which would be both constructed in the Charles and in abutting wetlands. The highway construction would exacerbate the ongoing heartless animal abuse.
The new highway would duplicate a highway on the Boston side which is closed at night because of the muggings and rapes. The Boston closure is one of many things the pols do not want to know.
The pols call themselves “environmentalists. They only ask that you talk about everything except the environment they are destroying.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Goose Down Clubbers
1. Introduction.
2. Archie Mazmanian on attacks on animals.
3. Analysis.
1. Introduction.
On the Charles River White Geese facebook page we have a go round with a woman who has a problem with anti-goose behavior by her Home Owners Association, and we have been sharing ways to resolve the problem.
This site is not really appropriate for that situation, but Archie Mazmanian’s comment certainly is.
My comment from the Charles River White Geese facebook page follows, transmitting for him.
2. Archie Mazmanian on attacks on animals.
Archie Mazmanian responds to Lauren’s comment with the following, sent by him awhile back and also applicable to her situation.
GOOSE-DOWN CLUBBERS
BREAKING NEWS!
MA and Cambridge government officials expressed their horror that the Charles River White Geese were being clubbed by hunters for their goose-down feathers, currently in great demand for pillows, apparel and other comforting uses. “Horrible!” “Deplorable!” “Despicable!” vented these officials. “These barbarous hunters must be stopped!” “This cruelty must stop!”
No, the preceding did not happen. Yet the conduct of MA and Cambridge officials is accomplishing the demise of the Charles River White Geese by means less transparent than clubbing. The goal of these officials is not goose-down but putting the geese down by more subtle means than clubbing because they just don’t want the Charles River White Geese there below the northerly side of the BU Bridge. The Goose Ghetto will apparently be continued to be squeezed until this goal is achieved. While the Charles River White Geese survive, they do not thrive.
So perhaps we should picture these MA and Cambridge government officials yielding clubs. What’s the difference?
3. Analysis.
If you go through the fine print and secret definitions, Cambridge and MA quite simply have contempt for animals.
They are killing off all resident animals on the Charles River basin.
But they do do a lot of creative lying to give decent humans the exact opposite impression.
2. Archie Mazmanian on attacks on animals.
3. Analysis.
1. Introduction.
On the Charles River White Geese facebook page we have a go round with a woman who has a problem with anti-goose behavior by her Home Owners Association, and we have been sharing ways to resolve the problem.
This site is not really appropriate for that situation, but Archie Mazmanian’s comment certainly is.
My comment from the Charles River White Geese facebook page follows, transmitting for him.
2. Archie Mazmanian on attacks on animals.
Archie Mazmanian responds to Lauren’s comment with the following, sent by him awhile back and also applicable to her situation.
GOOSE-DOWN CLUBBERS
BREAKING NEWS!
MA and Cambridge government officials expressed their horror that the Charles River White Geese were being clubbed by hunters for their goose-down feathers, currently in great demand for pillows, apparel and other comforting uses. “Horrible!” “Deplorable!” “Despicable!” vented these officials. “These barbarous hunters must be stopped!” “This cruelty must stop!”
No, the preceding did not happen. Yet the conduct of MA and Cambridge officials is accomplishing the demise of the Charles River White Geese by means less transparent than clubbing. The goal of these officials is not goose-down but putting the geese down by more subtle means than clubbing because they just don’t want the Charles River White Geese there below the northerly side of the BU Bridge. The Goose Ghetto will apparently be continued to be squeezed until this goal is achieved. While the Charles River White Geese survive, they do not thrive.
So perhaps we should picture these MA and Cambridge government officials yielding clubs. What’s the difference?
3. Analysis.
If you go through the fine print and secret definitions, Cambridge and MA quite simply have contempt for animals.
They are killing off all resident animals on the Charles River basin.
But they do do a lot of creative lying to give decent humans the exact opposite impression.
Charles River Memories, Part VIII
1. Archie’s Report.
2. Analysis.
3. Prior reports.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VIII
By Archie Mazmanian
While the bridges of the Charles River have not been cinematically extolled with a love story of the likes of “The Bridges of Madison County” starring Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep, they received cinematic notoriety in connection with the Great Brinks Robbery of 1950 in the North End of Boston, just a hop, skip and a jump from the portion of the river eastward of the Charles River dam (when there was only one dam). This daring robbery was followed in 1955 by the movie “Six Bridges to Cross,” a fictional version of the robbery, starring Tony Curtis. The title reflected the possible escape routes that might be taken by the many robbers that the law enforcement authorities had to consider, to wit the many bridges over the Charles.
I don’t recall “Six Bridges to Cross” as encouraging interest in the Charles River. The movie might have been considered comedic by moviegoers outside of the Boston area. The impact of the Brink’s Robbery was not a plus for Boston and environs, especially when followed by more flicks of the robbery. The 1950s were not a happy time in the Boston area, including urban renewal projects, in particular the demolition of the West End for high rise development providing magnificent views of the Charles.
The Internet includes a “List of crossings of the Charles River” with dates, locations, and other interesting information, such that details need not be provided here, identifying crossings from “its mouth at Boston Harbor upstream to its source at Echo Lake.” But mention has to be made of the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge built in 2003, that magnificent edifice at the northerly end of the “BIG DIG.” An earlier version of the Charles River crossing was pejoratively referred to as “Scheme Z” that would have been disastrous. (I have referred to the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge in my posts at this Blog on Phrase 2 of the Urban Ring Project in considering the proposed Charles River crossing for the latter Project over or under the BU Bridge as its “cockamamie” Scheme Zs.)
Many of the other bridges over the Charles accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists, who can stop and admire the vistas upstream and downstream. But this does not detract from the beauty of the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge that itself can be admired from a distance. Alas, the portion of the Charles River it crosses is overwhelmed.
Over the years we have taken the bridges that cross the Charles River for granted. Now, in times of economic downturn, we have learned that theses bridges, like we mere mortals, age and require infrastructure maintenance. This has been going on for years with the BU Bridge until it was necessary to attend to maintenance and restructuring, much belatedly. We have been inconvenienced for well over a year by this work and it may take yet another year for it to be completed. [Note: Let us not forget the devastating impact upon the Charles River White Geese being “West-Ended” at their habitat at the northerly end of the BU Bridge.] Meantime, we know that similar issues will require similar work for the Mass. Avenue Bridge and the Salt and Pepper Bridge. So it may take close to a decade for these major Charles River bridges to be rehabbed.
We have been and will continue to be inconvenienced for some time to come in crossing the Charles River, considered so routine in the past. But the Charles River is not to blame. Perhaps the lesson is to show more respect for the Charles River and its bridges and what they offer not only to the communities the Charles passes through but to all of us along its meandering route in uniting our communities.
There are many beautiful stone bridges upstream of the BU Bridge that will also need maintenance. All of this bridge work will be expensive and painful. Recall this chorus from a Patti Page hit (in a different context) of the 1950s:
Cross over the bridge,
Cross over the bridge,
Change your reckless way of livin’
Cross over the bridge ….
Ignoring these bridges over the years was indeed reckless.
2. Analysis.
Ignoring the bridges certainly was bad.
Using the bridges as an excuse for environmental destruction which can be avoided is “reprehensible” (to quote a civil rights judge talking about the City of Cambridge).
As usual, the contrast between decent human beings and victims of the Cambridge Pol organization is dramatic.
“You gotta be positive. No matter how much we destroy you and what you love, you gotta be positive. No matter how much we do exactly the opposite of what we and you promised, you gotta be positive.”
A really rotten city government with a really rotten, massive machine keeping it and its destructiveness in power through Big Sister demagoguery.
This is the ultimate lie.
3. Prior reports.
Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html
2. Analysis.
3. Prior reports.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VIII
By Archie Mazmanian
While the bridges of the Charles River have not been cinematically extolled with a love story of the likes of “The Bridges of Madison County” starring Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep, they received cinematic notoriety in connection with the Great Brinks Robbery of 1950 in the North End of Boston, just a hop, skip and a jump from the portion of the river eastward of the Charles River dam (when there was only one dam). This daring robbery was followed in 1955 by the movie “Six Bridges to Cross,” a fictional version of the robbery, starring Tony Curtis. The title reflected the possible escape routes that might be taken by the many robbers that the law enforcement authorities had to consider, to wit the many bridges over the Charles.
I don’t recall “Six Bridges to Cross” as encouraging interest in the Charles River. The movie might have been considered comedic by moviegoers outside of the Boston area. The impact of the Brink’s Robbery was not a plus for Boston and environs, especially when followed by more flicks of the robbery. The 1950s were not a happy time in the Boston area, including urban renewal projects, in particular the demolition of the West End for high rise development providing magnificent views of the Charles.
The Internet includes a “List of crossings of the Charles River” with dates, locations, and other interesting information, such that details need not be provided here, identifying crossings from “its mouth at Boston Harbor upstream to its source at Echo Lake.” But mention has to be made of the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge built in 2003, that magnificent edifice at the northerly end of the “BIG DIG.” An earlier version of the Charles River crossing was pejoratively referred to as “Scheme Z” that would have been disastrous. (I have referred to the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge in my posts at this Blog on Phrase 2 of the Urban Ring Project in considering the proposed Charles River crossing for the latter Project over or under the BU Bridge as its “cockamamie” Scheme Zs.)
Many of the other bridges over the Charles accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists, who can stop and admire the vistas upstream and downstream. But this does not detract from the beauty of the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge that itself can be admired from a distance. Alas, the portion of the Charles River it crosses is overwhelmed.
Over the years we have taken the bridges that cross the Charles River for granted. Now, in times of economic downturn, we have learned that theses bridges, like we mere mortals, age and require infrastructure maintenance. This has been going on for years with the BU Bridge until it was necessary to attend to maintenance and restructuring, much belatedly. We have been inconvenienced for well over a year by this work and it may take yet another year for it to be completed. [Note: Let us not forget the devastating impact upon the Charles River White Geese being “West-Ended” at their habitat at the northerly end of the BU Bridge.] Meantime, we know that similar issues will require similar work for the Mass. Avenue Bridge and the Salt and Pepper Bridge. So it may take close to a decade for these major Charles River bridges to be rehabbed.
We have been and will continue to be inconvenienced for some time to come in crossing the Charles River, considered so routine in the past. But the Charles River is not to blame. Perhaps the lesson is to show more respect for the Charles River and its bridges and what they offer not only to the communities the Charles passes through but to all of us along its meandering route in uniting our communities.
There are many beautiful stone bridges upstream of the BU Bridge that will also need maintenance. All of this bridge work will be expensive and painful. Recall this chorus from a Patti Page hit (in a different context) of the 1950s:
Cross over the bridge,
Cross over the bridge,
Change your reckless way of livin’
Cross over the bridge ….
Ignoring these bridges over the years was indeed reckless.
2. Analysis.
Ignoring the bridges certainly was bad.
Using the bridges as an excuse for environmental destruction which can be avoided is “reprehensible” (to quote a civil rights judge talking about the City of Cambridge).
As usual, the contrast between decent human beings and victims of the Cambridge Pol organization is dramatic.
“You gotta be positive. No matter how much we destroy you and what you love, you gotta be positive. No matter how much we do exactly the opposite of what we and you promised, you gotta be positive.”
A really rotten city government with a really rotten, massive machine keeping it and its destructiveness in power through Big Sister demagoguery.
This is the ultimate lie.
3. Prior reports.
Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Monteiro oral argument scheduled in Appeals Court
RE: Monteiro oral argument scheduled in Appeals Court.
The Appeals Court docket has announced that oral arguments in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge are scheduled for May 4, 2011, 9:30 am, in the John Adams Courthouse, room 3 sent.
This is the case where a Superior Court civil rights judge called the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” for destroying the life of a black female department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The Cambridge City Council is spending millions on this case and did not even bother get an independent opinion to appeal to Appeals Court. The excellent judge’s opinion raises very real grounds for firing the Cambridge City Manager without golden parachute and possibly without pension.
The key opinion by the Superior Court judge may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
As of about a year ago, the judgment ran about $1 million in damages, $3.5 million in penal damages, and had exceeded a total of $6 million with the various addons which are accruing.
The Appeals Court docket has announced that oral arguments in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge are scheduled for May 4, 2011, 9:30 am, in the John Adams Courthouse, room 3 sent.
This is the case where a Superior Court civil rights judge called the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” for destroying the life of a black female department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The Cambridge City Council is spending millions on this case and did not even bother get an independent opinion to appeal to Appeals Court. The excellent judge’s opinion raises very real grounds for firing the Cambridge City Manager without golden parachute and possibly without pension.
The key opinion by the Superior Court judge may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
As of about a year ago, the judgment ran about $1 million in damages, $3.5 million in penal damages, and had exceeded a total of $6 million with the various addons which are accruing.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Day 398 at the Destroyed Nesting Area, Comments on the Fake Public Meeting
1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.
2. Cher.
3. Your editor.
4. Summary.
1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.
Late in the afternoon of April 18, 2011, I conducted day 398 of the visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
This was closer to the normal rush hour, but there was no construction activity and none of the usual commuter traffic because of the Patriot’s Day holiday and because of the Boston Marathon. The Boston Marathon ran perhaps half a mile to the south and, even that late in the day, affected traffic.
There was significantly more foot traffic and, really, without the construction, the people driving looked much more normal as well. The foot traffic was clearly impacted by the Boston Marathon. There were far more people walking from Boston (the Marathon location) to Cambridge than the other way around.
People, as usual, were very supportive. One woman who stopped to chat was amazed by the number of fliers which were accepted by other people going by. Various cars, carefully, asked for fliers as well.
I had several people chat.
The discussion that stands out was from a couple who had seen the fliers for the fake public meeting on Magazine Beach. They quoted the gushingly positive words of the flier by heart.
My response was: yeh, those are the enemies, friends of the city manager and city council pulling a con game to try to fool people about what side they are on.
The minute I said “No negative comments allowed,” there was really no need to say any more.
2. Cher.
Cher responds:
Oh I agree with you 100% about these people, but I still think if we spread the word somehow people that is more folks will get involved. We need as many as possible.
3. Your editor.
The Cambridge Pols are propping up a really bad city council and city manager. They use whatever technique is available to them, and by the techniques they use, they demonstrate that they have no ethics. The most important lie is the non stop holier than thou proclamation that they are on the side of the angels.
A key part of the lie is the sort of techniques used in this meeting intended to prop up environmental destruction.
They piously say they are neutral.
They piously say they are allowing all forms of speech.
They piously say the free speech had better be positive. If it is not positive, it is not allowed.
As a civil rights judge said in Monteiro v. Cambridge (on appeal without the city council asking for an independent legal opinion): “Reprehensible.” This is a case the Cambridge Pols also do not want to hear about.
4. Summary.
The reality is that this sort of lying is normal in Cambridge, MA, USA.
Without the pretty much nonstop outrages committed by the Cambridge Pols, a really bad City Council and City Manager would have been thrown out long ago.
2. Cher.
3. Your editor.
4. Summary.
1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.
Late in the afternoon of April 18, 2011, I conducted day 398 of the visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
This was closer to the normal rush hour, but there was no construction activity and none of the usual commuter traffic because of the Patriot’s Day holiday and because of the Boston Marathon. The Boston Marathon ran perhaps half a mile to the south and, even that late in the day, affected traffic.
There was significantly more foot traffic and, really, without the construction, the people driving looked much more normal as well. The foot traffic was clearly impacted by the Boston Marathon. There were far more people walking from Boston (the Marathon location) to Cambridge than the other way around.
People, as usual, were very supportive. One woman who stopped to chat was amazed by the number of fliers which were accepted by other people going by. Various cars, carefully, asked for fliers as well.
I had several people chat.
The discussion that stands out was from a couple who had seen the fliers for the fake public meeting on Magazine Beach. They quoted the gushingly positive words of the flier by heart.
My response was: yeh, those are the enemies, friends of the city manager and city council pulling a con game to try to fool people about what side they are on.
The minute I said “No negative comments allowed,” there was really no need to say any more.
2. Cher.
Cher responds:
Oh I agree with you 100% about these people, but I still think if we spread the word somehow people that is more folks will get involved. We need as many as possible.
3. Your editor.
The Cambridge Pols are propping up a really bad city council and city manager. They use whatever technique is available to them, and by the techniques they use, they demonstrate that they have no ethics. The most important lie is the non stop holier than thou proclamation that they are on the side of the angels.
A key part of the lie is the sort of techniques used in this meeting intended to prop up environmental destruction.
They piously say they are neutral.
They piously say they are allowing all forms of speech.
They piously say the free speech had better be positive. If it is not positive, it is not allowed.
As a civil rights judge said in Monteiro v. Cambridge (on appeal without the city council asking for an independent legal opinion): “Reprehensible.” This is a case the Cambridge Pols also do not want to hear about.
4. Summary.
The reality is that this sort of lying is normal in Cambridge, MA, USA.
Without the pretty much nonstop outrages committed by the Cambridge Pols, a really bad City Council and City Manager would have been thrown out long ago.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VII, The Charles River Bridges
1. Archie’s Report.
2. Summary.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VII
By Archie Mazmanian
PATRIOTS DAY QUIZ:
Q. Which bridge over the Charles River did Paul Revere cross on his historic Midnight Ride from Boston to Lexington/Concord?
A. There were no bridges over the Charles River to cross. Rather, Paul Revere took the ferry between Boston and Charlestown.
For some great maps illustrating the different routes taken by Paul Revere and William Dawes on their rides, Google “Paul Revere’s Route to Lexington” and their relations to the Charles River back then.
While there may have been bridges over some of the narrow parts of the Charles River well upstream, the first bridge between Boston and points north was built in 1786, between Boston and Charlestown, known as the Charles River Bridge, replacing the ferry operation used by Paul Revere in 1775 for his Midnight Ride. The ferry operation had been granted to Harvard College in 1650 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the tolls of which augmented Harvard’s coffers.
In 1785, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in granting a charter to the Charles River Bridge company in effect shut down Harvard’s ferry operation. To compensate for this, the Charles River Bridge company was authorized to charge tolls for a period of 40 years subject to paying an annuity to Harvard to replace its lost ferry toll charges.
In 1792, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts granted a charter for the West Boston Bridge (now the Longfellow Bridge, aka the Salt and Pepper Bridge). To offset the resulting toll losses to the Charles River Bridge downstream, the Commonwealth extended the latter’s charter to 70 years.
In 1828, the Commonwealth chartered the Warren Bridge to be constructed very close by the Charles River Bridge. The resulting competition benefited MA citizens with lower tolls, significantly reducing the revenues of the Charles Street Bridge. So the Charles River Bridge sued the Warren Bridge in a MA court. Charles River Bridge, represented by eminent counsel Daniel Webster and Lemuel Shaw, claimed that the charter granted to the Warren Bridge violated the U.S. Constitution’s Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10) on the basis that the earlier charter grant to Charles River Bridge provided, by implication, exclusive rights attributable to the yet earlier grant to Harvard for its ferry service.
In 1829, the MA Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of the Warren Bridge, that had argued no exclusive rights had existed for crossing the Charles River and technological - and thus economic – progress should prevail over the private interests of Charles River Bridge (as well as Harvard).
The Charles River Bridge appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal was first argued in 1831. It is reported that Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story (who did not recuse despite his connections with Harvard and its law school) and Justice Smith Thompson seemed to accept the Contract Clause argument of Charles River Bridge. But the case continued on for years because of some disagreements among the Justices. Meantime, in 1836, Roger Taney had replaced Marshall as Chief Justice. In 1837, the Supreme Court ruled (5-2) in favor of Warren Bridge, the opinion of the Court being written by Chief Justice Taney, with Justices Story and John McLean dissenting.
Just imagine if Charles River Bridge had won. How might that have impacted upon the Charles River’s development as we know it today with its many bridges? Might the economic growth of Boston, Cambridge and environs have been stifled? And how much larger might Harvard’s endowment and real estate holdings along the Charles River have become with its annuity?
The decisions of the MA Supreme Judicial Court and the U.S. Supreme Court are quite lengthy and include a lot of history of interest for fans of the Charles River. To avoid extensive reading that may seem somewhat arcane, those interested may Google “Charles River Bridge vs. Warren Bridge” for short but informative narratives.
[Part VIII of this series will continue to discuss the bridges of the Charles River. For those interested in the Esplanade discussed briefly in Part VI, check via the Internet “Charles River Esplanade Study Report” by the Boston Landmarks Commission dated 5/4/2009; it runs 76 pages with quite extensive information, including environmental, about the Charles River. The role of Harvard vis-à-vis the Charles River has been referenced in earlier Parts of this Series and will be further addressed (along with other abutting institutions) in future Parts as the series progresses, somewhat in the mode of “The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.”]
2. Summary.
These historical structures are under attack by the Charles River Destroyers (they keep calling themselves a Conservancy) and their friends including, as usual really bad people in Cambridge.
A recent bad vote by the Cambridge City Council was unanimous.
Prior reports may be found at:
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html
2. Summary.
1. Archie’s Report.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VII
By Archie Mazmanian
PATRIOTS DAY QUIZ:
Q. Which bridge over the Charles River did Paul Revere cross on his historic Midnight Ride from Boston to Lexington/Concord?
A. There were no bridges over the Charles River to cross. Rather, Paul Revere took the ferry between Boston and Charlestown.
For some great maps illustrating the different routes taken by Paul Revere and William Dawes on their rides, Google “Paul Revere’s Route to Lexington” and their relations to the Charles River back then.
While there may have been bridges over some of the narrow parts of the Charles River well upstream, the first bridge between Boston and points north was built in 1786, between Boston and Charlestown, known as the Charles River Bridge, replacing the ferry operation used by Paul Revere in 1775 for his Midnight Ride. The ferry operation had been granted to Harvard College in 1650 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the tolls of which augmented Harvard’s coffers.
In 1785, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in granting a charter to the Charles River Bridge company in effect shut down Harvard’s ferry operation. To compensate for this, the Charles River Bridge company was authorized to charge tolls for a period of 40 years subject to paying an annuity to Harvard to replace its lost ferry toll charges.
In 1792, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts granted a charter for the West Boston Bridge (now the Longfellow Bridge, aka the Salt and Pepper Bridge). To offset the resulting toll losses to the Charles River Bridge downstream, the Commonwealth extended the latter’s charter to 70 years.
In 1828, the Commonwealth chartered the Warren Bridge to be constructed very close by the Charles River Bridge. The resulting competition benefited MA citizens with lower tolls, significantly reducing the revenues of the Charles Street Bridge. So the Charles River Bridge sued the Warren Bridge in a MA court. Charles River Bridge, represented by eminent counsel Daniel Webster and Lemuel Shaw, claimed that the charter granted to the Warren Bridge violated the U.S. Constitution’s Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10) on the basis that the earlier charter grant to Charles River Bridge provided, by implication, exclusive rights attributable to the yet earlier grant to Harvard for its ferry service.
In 1829, the MA Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of the Warren Bridge, that had argued no exclusive rights had existed for crossing the Charles River and technological - and thus economic – progress should prevail over the private interests of Charles River Bridge (as well as Harvard).
The Charles River Bridge appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal was first argued in 1831. It is reported that Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story (who did not recuse despite his connections with Harvard and its law school) and Justice Smith Thompson seemed to accept the Contract Clause argument of Charles River Bridge. But the case continued on for years because of some disagreements among the Justices. Meantime, in 1836, Roger Taney had replaced Marshall as Chief Justice. In 1837, the Supreme Court ruled (5-2) in favor of Warren Bridge, the opinion of the Court being written by Chief Justice Taney, with Justices Story and John McLean dissenting.
Just imagine if Charles River Bridge had won. How might that have impacted upon the Charles River’s development as we know it today with its many bridges? Might the economic growth of Boston, Cambridge and environs have been stifled? And how much larger might Harvard’s endowment and real estate holdings along the Charles River have become with its annuity?
The decisions of the MA Supreme Judicial Court and the U.S. Supreme Court are quite lengthy and include a lot of history of interest for fans of the Charles River. To avoid extensive reading that may seem somewhat arcane, those interested may Google “Charles River Bridge vs. Warren Bridge” for short but informative narratives.
[Part VIII of this series will continue to discuss the bridges of the Charles River. For those interested in the Esplanade discussed briefly in Part VI, check via the Internet “Charles River Esplanade Study Report” by the Boston Landmarks Commission dated 5/4/2009; it runs 76 pages with quite extensive information, including environmental, about the Charles River. The role of Harvard vis-à-vis the Charles River has been referenced in earlier Parts of this Series and will be further addressed (along with other abutting institutions) in future Parts as the series progresses, somewhat in the mode of “The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.”]
2. Summary.
These historical structures are under attack by the Charles River Destroyers (they keep calling themselves a Conservancy) and their friends including, as usual really bad people in Cambridge.
A recent bad vote by the Cambridge City Council was unanimous.
Prior reports may be found at:
Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html
Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.
Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html
Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.
Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html
Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html
Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html
Day 397 at the Destroyed Nesting Area, the Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism
1. Visibility.
2. Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism.
3. What little I was able to get in under the watch of Big Brother on Wednesday night.
1. Visibility.
On Friday, April 15, 2011, I conducted the 397th day of visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The moving of the construction work to the other side freed up the area next to the now Goose Ghetto for me to prop up a sign and leaflet. I was there over the noon hour which is a moderately quiet time.
At the beginning of the visibility, two police were managing traffic so that only one lane was allowed to move at a time in front of me. This was to permit a concrete truck to pour concrete into the far side of the bridge.
When they were done, we had two lanes of traffic and normal lights.
Some drivers, stopped for the red, rolled down their windows to ask for fliers. Pedestrians very nicely accepted fliers, along with bicyclists. I had an extended discussion with one construction worker.
The geese were in their devastated, devegetated ghetto.
2. Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism.
The outrage at the fake public meeting on Magazine Beach plans was not at all unusual.
The Cambridge Pol Machine, apparently consisting of friends of the Cambridge City Manager and City Council, routinely abuses their offices in these various groups, and they certainly look like they control pretty much all the most visible organizations.
The first and most important mission forced by the Pols onto the groups is to perpetuate the lie that Cambridge, MA, USA has a responsible city government, a government worthy of the respect of an electorate which wants to be enlightened.
The next con game / "public meeting" will be a meeting to save street trees Tuesday night. The con there is that nothing will be allowed to be MEANINGFULLY discussed except street trees.
The people pulling the strings are aggressively destroying Memorial Drive, Alewife, and Fresh Pond. Environmental destruction is common in city projects. So the Cambridge Pols allow fake organizations (either created that way or rendered that way by outorganizing responsible people) to "protect" what the Cambridge Pols do not feel like destroying. This is one way they lie to the voters that the City of Cambridge protects the environment.
3. What little I was able to get in under the watch of Big Brother on Wednesday night.
I left early. The totalitarian dictates from the chair are normal in such fake meetings. The Pols thus put out the lie that there has been some sort of meeting.
I was not allowed to object to their heartless animal abuse. So the lie put out will be that nobody objected to heartless animal abuse. They will just neglect to mention that they prohibited such discussion. They will also conveniently ignore what I did get in.
The state commented that it would consider "native" grasses. I commented that we had native grasses at Magazine Beach ten years ago, but YOU destroyed it.
The state promised to consider putting in trees. I replied: you are destroying hundreds.
The most environmentally destructive City Councilor, Henrietta Davis, was present and calling shots.
The big lie there was that "improvements" (translate: environmental destruction) would "continue" (translate: how dare you expect us to stop poisoning the banks of the Charles. How dare you expect us to remove the wall of vegetation barring access between the Charles and Magazine Beach. How dare you expect us to stop dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles. How dare you want the poison drainage ditches replaced with the playing fields that used to be there. How dare you expect us to stop heartless animal abuse.)
I started my Big Brother censored presentation with the standard pitch of the Charles River Destroyers organization (they claim to be a Charles River Conservancy). I spoke in favor of swimming in the Charles, and to allow swimming, the bizarre wall of introduced bushes would have to go, along with all those poisons on the banks of the Charles.
Destroyer Davis justified the bizarre wall of introduced bushes on the grounds that, in addition to everybody else and the Charles River White Geese, the annual rowing event is kept off Magazine Beach by the bizarre wall of introduced bushes. She, of course, only mentioned the Head of the Charles Regatta.
The Director of the Charles River Destroyers whose letter was published ahead of mine in last week’s Chronicle parroted Destroyer Davis. By doing so, he rejected the non stop claims of the Charles River Destroyers that they are fighting for swimming in the Charles. They got caught in that lie, so they change reasons, the nonstop search for "Truth" (whatever the sucker will swallow) by very destructive people.
2. Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism.
3. What little I was able to get in under the watch of Big Brother on Wednesday night.
1. Visibility.
On Friday, April 15, 2011, I conducted the 397th day of visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The moving of the construction work to the other side freed up the area next to the now Goose Ghetto for me to prop up a sign and leaflet. I was there over the noon hour which is a moderately quiet time.
At the beginning of the visibility, two police were managing traffic so that only one lane was allowed to move at a time in front of me. This was to permit a concrete truck to pour concrete into the far side of the bridge.
When they were done, we had two lanes of traffic and normal lights.
Some drivers, stopped for the red, rolled down their windows to ask for fliers. Pedestrians very nicely accepted fliers, along with bicyclists. I had an extended discussion with one construction worker.
The geese were in their devastated, devegetated ghetto.
2. Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism.
The outrage at the fake public meeting on Magazine Beach plans was not at all unusual.
The Cambridge Pol Machine, apparently consisting of friends of the Cambridge City Manager and City Council, routinely abuses their offices in these various groups, and they certainly look like they control pretty much all the most visible organizations.
The first and most important mission forced by the Pols onto the groups is to perpetuate the lie that Cambridge, MA, USA has a responsible city government, a government worthy of the respect of an electorate which wants to be enlightened.
The next con game / "public meeting" will be a meeting to save street trees Tuesday night. The con there is that nothing will be allowed to be MEANINGFULLY discussed except street trees.
The people pulling the strings are aggressively destroying Memorial Drive, Alewife, and Fresh Pond. Environmental destruction is common in city projects. So the Cambridge Pols allow fake organizations (either created that way or rendered that way by outorganizing responsible people) to "protect" what the Cambridge Pols do not feel like destroying. This is one way they lie to the voters that the City of Cambridge protects the environment.
3. What little I was able to get in under the watch of Big Brother on Wednesday night.
I left early. The totalitarian dictates from the chair are normal in such fake meetings. The Pols thus put out the lie that there has been some sort of meeting.
I was not allowed to object to their heartless animal abuse. So the lie put out will be that nobody objected to heartless animal abuse. They will just neglect to mention that they prohibited such discussion. They will also conveniently ignore what I did get in.
The state commented that it would consider "native" grasses. I commented that we had native grasses at Magazine Beach ten years ago, but YOU destroyed it.
The state promised to consider putting in trees. I replied: you are destroying hundreds.
The most environmentally destructive City Councilor, Henrietta Davis, was present and calling shots.
The big lie there was that "improvements" (translate: environmental destruction) would "continue" (translate: how dare you expect us to stop poisoning the banks of the Charles. How dare you expect us to remove the wall of vegetation barring access between the Charles and Magazine Beach. How dare you expect us to stop dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles. How dare you want the poison drainage ditches replaced with the playing fields that used to be there. How dare you expect us to stop heartless animal abuse.)
I started my Big Brother censored presentation with the standard pitch of the Charles River Destroyers organization (they claim to be a Charles River Conservancy). I spoke in favor of swimming in the Charles, and to allow swimming, the bizarre wall of introduced bushes would have to go, along with all those poisons on the banks of the Charles.
Destroyer Davis justified the bizarre wall of introduced bushes on the grounds that, in addition to everybody else and the Charles River White Geese, the annual rowing event is kept off Magazine Beach by the bizarre wall of introduced bushes. She, of course, only mentioned the Head of the Charles Regatta.
The Director of the Charles River Destroyers whose letter was published ahead of mine in last week’s Chronicle parroted Destroyer Davis. By doing so, he rejected the non stop claims of the Charles River Destroyers that they are fighting for swimming in the Charles. They got caught in that lie, so they change reasons, the nonstop search for "Truth" (whatever the sucker will swallow) by very destructive people.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Another fraud on the voters conducted in the Magazine Beach meeting.
The meeting at the Morse School in Cambridge, MA, conducted on Wednesday, April 13, 2011, supposedly concerned Magazine Beach, but it could have been conducted by a North African dictatorship.
Absolute freedom of speech was allowed AS LONG AS ALL COMMENTS ARE POSITIVE.
This was called “neutrality.”
Yet another fraud on the voters committed by the friends of the City Manager and the City Council.
With such an outrageous groundrule, the destroyers from the DCR, the Cambridge Pols, and their friends will sound like Colonel Gaddafi after winning yet another 99% vote.
Absolute freedom of speech was allowed AS LONG AS ALL COMMENTS ARE POSITIVE.
This was called “neutrality.”
Yet another fraud on the voters committed by the friends of the City Manager and the City Council.
With such an outrageous groundrule, the destroyers from the DCR, the Cambridge Pols, and their friends will sound like Colonel Gaddafi after winning yet another 99% vote.
Monday, April 11, 2011
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VI
1. Archie reports.
2. Editor Response.
1. Archie reports.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VI
By Archie Mazmanian
Heading downstream beyond the Mass. Avenue Bridge the Charles continues to widen as we approach the lagoon and continue on to the Esplanade and the Hatch Memorial Shell. What a magnificent venue for music or just enjoying life on a fine summer?s day. The sailing pavilion provides a wonderful outlet for youngsters to enjoy the waters of the Charles. There is something for everyone to enjoy.
The Fourth of July Boston Pops extravaganza ran too late for our young children, however, so they would watch it on TV in their PJs. We could hear the fireworks at our Cottage Farm home. One Fourth of July we decided on the spur of the moment shortly before the fireworks display to take the children to the nearby BU Bridge to watch from upstream. Many others had the same idea as the bridge was thronged.
This was an opportunity to explain some high school physics to the children about the differences between the speeds of light and sound as the fireworks burst brilliantly followed moments later by the booming sounds (sometimes stifled by winds). But the sight was beautiful reflecting on the river below. A few years later, the children were old enough to make the trip for the entire celebration of this Fourth of July event enjoyed by many thousands in person and millions via TV.
We always played a lot of jazz tapes at home. But listening and watching live jazz is much more exciting. The Charles provided such musical events during daylight hours from time to time, introducing our children to live jazz in outdoor settings. This was our Newport, just a short walk from home. And of course there were the usual food concessions to fill our bellies.
The sailing pavilion staff would train children to operate sailboats safely. I know our children enjoyed solo sailing on the Charles in what seemed an orderly fashion, memories to be carried for the rest of their lives.
The Museum of Science was yet another Charles River venue for our children with its educational programs of nature and science.
As the children got older, they developed many interests and attended to them on their own. So trips along the Charles waned. But every once in a while, I would go solo to enjoy the solitude of the Charles surrounded by others presumably doing the same, serving as a non-prescriptive tranquilizer.
There is much more to the Charles than I had imagined. Over the years, planners looked ahead to improving the river, much of which was accomplished before my trips along the Charles. And there has been continued planning, some of which has been postponed for budgetary reasons. An Internet search recently led me to “New Charles River Basin” by the Metropolitan District Commission published in March 1995 and revised July 1999 and June 2002. Caution: be patient downloading and printing. But WOW! Yes, the Charles River Basin extends beyond the dams to Boston Harbor that should be explored. I don't know how much of this has been accomplished or what the future holds. Hopefully this jewel will continue to be polished.
[Geographically, the Charles River divides communities but they are reunited by bridges, the topic of Part VII forthcoming.]
2. Editor Response.
What passes for planning must be recognized within the context that (1) the bureaucrats do a lot of lying, (2) the nonstop propaganda leaves the public in the position of believing that “they would never stoop so low.”
The Master Plan for the Charles River called for Magazine Beach to be a meadow to the water, and the apologists run around screaming for swimming.
The bizarre wall of bushes which has been introduced walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River totally contradicts the supposed intentions for Magazine Beach.
Plans are to destroy hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. My count was 449 to 660 through various projects. I will follow with photos of an excellent 105 tree grove intended to be decimated at the Memorial Drive split.
Dumping of poisons on the river banks at Magazine Beach and near Mass. General are actions totally contemptible within the supposed goals of the bureaucrats and their friends in Cambridge and the cheerleaders. But it is done. Destroying playing fields to put in a drainage system to drain off poisons which not be dumped in the first place is a symptom of a very sick bureaucracy at the state and a “reprehensible” (to quote a civil rights judge) government in Cambridge.
Heartless animal abuse of the beautiful Charles River White Geese falls into the “They would never stoop so low” category, but they do.
The goal very clearly is to kill off all animals living on the Charles River Basin. The euphemism “parks” translates into “no animals need apply to live here.”
The very basic problem is the normal assumption of minimal competence and environmental decency. Such an assumption is flat out false when dealing with the state and with Cambridge. The problem is exacerbated by the massive, lying, organization active in Cambridge, combined with the tendency of the destructive organization to join all over the place and spread their falsehoods to decent people.
2. Editor Response.
1. Archie reports.
CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VI
By Archie Mazmanian
Heading downstream beyond the Mass. Avenue Bridge the Charles continues to widen as we approach the lagoon and continue on to the Esplanade and the Hatch Memorial Shell. What a magnificent venue for music or just enjoying life on a fine summer?s day. The sailing pavilion provides a wonderful outlet for youngsters to enjoy the waters of the Charles. There is something for everyone to enjoy.
The Fourth of July Boston Pops extravaganza ran too late for our young children, however, so they would watch it on TV in their PJs. We could hear the fireworks at our Cottage Farm home. One Fourth of July we decided on the spur of the moment shortly before the fireworks display to take the children to the nearby BU Bridge to watch from upstream. Many others had the same idea as the bridge was thronged.
This was an opportunity to explain some high school physics to the children about the differences between the speeds of light and sound as the fireworks burst brilliantly followed moments later by the booming sounds (sometimes stifled by winds). But the sight was beautiful reflecting on the river below. A few years later, the children were old enough to make the trip for the entire celebration of this Fourth of July event enjoyed by many thousands in person and millions via TV.
We always played a lot of jazz tapes at home. But listening and watching live jazz is much more exciting. The Charles provided such musical events during daylight hours from time to time, introducing our children to live jazz in outdoor settings. This was our Newport, just a short walk from home. And of course there were the usual food concessions to fill our bellies.
The sailing pavilion staff would train children to operate sailboats safely. I know our children enjoyed solo sailing on the Charles in what seemed an orderly fashion, memories to be carried for the rest of their lives.
The Museum of Science was yet another Charles River venue for our children with its educational programs of nature and science.
As the children got older, they developed many interests and attended to them on their own. So trips along the Charles waned. But every once in a while, I would go solo to enjoy the solitude of the Charles surrounded by others presumably doing the same, serving as a non-prescriptive tranquilizer.
There is much more to the Charles than I had imagined. Over the years, planners looked ahead to improving the river, much of which was accomplished before my trips along the Charles. And there has been continued planning, some of which has been postponed for budgetary reasons. An Internet search recently led me to “New Charles River Basin” by the Metropolitan District Commission published in March 1995 and revised July 1999 and June 2002. Caution: be patient downloading and printing. But WOW! Yes, the Charles River Basin extends beyond the dams to Boston Harbor that should be explored. I don't know how much of this has been accomplished or what the future holds. Hopefully this jewel will continue to be polished.
[Geographically, the Charles River divides communities but they are reunited by bridges, the topic of Part VII forthcoming.]
2. Editor Response.
What passes for planning must be recognized within the context that (1) the bureaucrats do a lot of lying, (2) the nonstop propaganda leaves the public in the position of believing that “they would never stoop so low.”
The Master Plan for the Charles River called for Magazine Beach to be a meadow to the water, and the apologists run around screaming for swimming.
The bizarre wall of bushes which has been introduced walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River totally contradicts the supposed intentions for Magazine Beach.
Plans are to destroy hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. My count was 449 to 660 through various projects. I will follow with photos of an excellent 105 tree grove intended to be decimated at the Memorial Drive split.
Dumping of poisons on the river banks at Magazine Beach and near Mass. General are actions totally contemptible within the supposed goals of the bureaucrats and their friends in Cambridge and the cheerleaders. But it is done. Destroying playing fields to put in a drainage system to drain off poisons which not be dumped in the first place is a symptom of a very sick bureaucracy at the state and a “reprehensible” (to quote a civil rights judge) government in Cambridge.
Heartless animal abuse of the beautiful Charles River White Geese falls into the “They would never stoop so low” category, but they do.
The goal very clearly is to kill off all animals living on the Charles River Basin. The euphemism “parks” translates into “no animals need apply to live here.”
The very basic problem is the normal assumption of minimal competence and environmental decency. Such an assumption is flat out false when dealing with the state and with Cambridge. The problem is exacerbated by the massive, lying, organization active in Cambridge, combined with the tendency of the destructive organization to join all over the place and spread their falsehoods to decent people.
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Dramatic Combination of Letters in Cambridge Chronicle
1. Introductory.
2. Details.
A. Chronicle Front Page.
B. Marilyn’s Response, some background.
C. My response and the bad guys’ response, Chronicle handling.
3. Summary.
1. Introductory.
The April 7, 2011 Cambridge Chronicle printed three letters on the editorial page, page 10. The second and third concerned the Charles River.
In the second letter, a person who identified himself as a director of the Friends of Magazine Beach and The Charles River Conservancy disowned any connection between the Friends of Magazine Beach and The Charles River Conservancy.
In the third letter, I disowned any connection between the Charles River “Conservancy” and environmentalism. “Charles River Destroyers would be an honest name.”
2. Details.
A. Chronicle Front Page.
On March 17, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle front paged an interview with the head of the Charles River “Conservancy.”
B. Marilyn’s Response, some background.
On March 24, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle ran Marilyn Wellons’ response. They dominated the editorial page with the response. We have published her letter at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/marilyn-wellons-responds-to-article-of.html.
Marilyn went into great detail concerning the environmentally reprehensible record of this organization, which, for accuracy, should be called The Charles River Destroyers. Buried in the multiple statements of truth was a statement of its origin which very clearly is the truth.
In 2000, when the reprehensible local and regional governments started their attacks on the environment in the BU Bridge area, we took on the local fake environmental organization, which called itself “Friends of Magazine Beach.” That organization existed for only two apparent reasons:
(1). To fight for the destruction of the environment in the Magazine Beach area of the Charles River in Cambridge, MA, and
(2). To conduct an annual cleanup of Magazine Beach the weekend before Boston University used it for graduation ceremonies. They never told their volunteers that the volunteers were cleaning up for Boston University’s graduation ceremony.
One of the first activities of Friends of the White Geese was to discredit “Friends of Magazine Beach.”
Friends of the White Geese demonstrated and leafleted in front of the access to Magazine Beach on the morning of the cleanup publicizing the environmental destruction this group was fighting for and the real purpose of the cleanup.
The group has never conducted another activity.
A few months later the Charles River Destroyers announced its existence. It had overlapping membership to “Friends of Magazine Beach” and called themselves The Charles River “Conservancy.” The”new group” loudly proclaimed its intent to destroy the environment of Magazine Beach and much more.
We recognize the obvious.
C. My response, Chronicle handling.
I did not see a response from the bad guys in the March 31 edition. So I followed up with my letter, which I have published at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-destroyers-details.html.
The second letter on the editorial page was from a person who identified himself as a director of “The Friends of Magazine Beach” and of The Charles River “Conservancy.” The third letter on the three letter editorial page was mine.
The Chronicle headlined the letter from the Director of the “Friends of Magazine Beach” and of the Charles River “Conservancy” with the title “Clarifying the Conservancy.” They headlined my letter with “Not a Conservancy.”
The bad guys’ letter ran the same length as Marilyn’s and mine. In those 400 words, the writer did nothing of substance except to deny the obvious, that “Friends of Magazine Beach” morphed into The Charles River “Conservancy.”
Look at Marilyn’s letter. THE ONLY THING THIS GUY RESPONDED TO WAS TO DISOWN THE OBVIOUS ASSOCIATION between “Friends of Magazine Beach” and the Charles River “Conservancy.”
And the Chronicle followed up this bizarre letter with my 400 word letter going into very broad and specific facts about the destruction inflicted, supported and proposed by Charles River "Conservancy." My letter condemned the latest fake group for calling itself a “Conservancy.”
This bad guys’ letter is published on line at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x675821694/Letter-Clarifying-the-Conservancy#axzz1J1EZ1R5N.
The response from the bad guys was posted Thursday. My letter was published on line yesterday, Friday.
3. Summary.
The reality is that these fake organizations are very much normal in Cambridge, MA. The bad guys who dominate these organizations are very loud in Cambridge politics. They warp politics in Cambridge to such an extent that reality of the world and the reality put out by these fake organizations which they force on Cambridge politics are strikingly different. But they force their bizarre version of reality onto Cambridge politics. And they are non stop holier than thou.
The Chronicle did not have to say a word. They simply printed the bizarre disassociation of “Friends of Magazine Beach” with The Charles River “Conservancy” which denied absolutely nothing else in Marilyn’s letter except for this obvious truth. The Chronicle then followed this bizarre letter with my further letter providing very substantive condemnation of the organization.
The Cambridge bad guys NEVER respond to us. NEVER.
They do that for a reason. They have no meaningful way to support themselves on the grounds they claim to stand for. They open their mouths. We respond. They destroy their false claims of environmental sainthood.
The situation in Cambridge, MA is very much offensive.
Thank you very much to the Cambridge Chronicle.
2. Details.
A. Chronicle Front Page.
B. Marilyn’s Response, some background.
C. My response and the bad guys’ response, Chronicle handling.
3. Summary.
1. Introductory.
The April 7, 2011 Cambridge Chronicle printed three letters on the editorial page, page 10. The second and third concerned the Charles River.
In the second letter, a person who identified himself as a director of the Friends of Magazine Beach and The Charles River Conservancy disowned any connection between the Friends of Magazine Beach and The Charles River Conservancy.
In the third letter, I disowned any connection between the Charles River “Conservancy” and environmentalism. “Charles River Destroyers would be an honest name.”
2. Details.
A. Chronicle Front Page.
On March 17, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle front paged an interview with the head of the Charles River “Conservancy.”
B. Marilyn’s Response, some background.
On March 24, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle ran Marilyn Wellons’ response. They dominated the editorial page with the response. We have published her letter at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/marilyn-wellons-responds-to-article-of.html.
Marilyn went into great detail concerning the environmentally reprehensible record of this organization, which, for accuracy, should be called The Charles River Destroyers. Buried in the multiple statements of truth was a statement of its origin which very clearly is the truth.
In 2000, when the reprehensible local and regional governments started their attacks on the environment in the BU Bridge area, we took on the local fake environmental organization, which called itself “Friends of Magazine Beach.” That organization existed for only two apparent reasons:
(1). To fight for the destruction of the environment in the Magazine Beach area of the Charles River in Cambridge, MA, and
(2). To conduct an annual cleanup of Magazine Beach the weekend before Boston University used it for graduation ceremonies. They never told their volunteers that the volunteers were cleaning up for Boston University’s graduation ceremony.
One of the first activities of Friends of the White Geese was to discredit “Friends of Magazine Beach.”
Friends of the White Geese demonstrated and leafleted in front of the access to Magazine Beach on the morning of the cleanup publicizing the environmental destruction this group was fighting for and the real purpose of the cleanup.
The group has never conducted another activity.
A few months later the Charles River Destroyers announced its existence. It had overlapping membership to “Friends of Magazine Beach” and called themselves The Charles River “Conservancy.” The”new group” loudly proclaimed its intent to destroy the environment of Magazine Beach and much more.
We recognize the obvious.
C. My response, Chronicle handling.
I did not see a response from the bad guys in the March 31 edition. So I followed up with my letter, which I have published at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-destroyers-details.html.
The second letter on the editorial page was from a person who identified himself as a director of “The Friends of Magazine Beach” and of The Charles River “Conservancy.” The third letter on the three letter editorial page was mine.
The Chronicle headlined the letter from the Director of the “Friends of Magazine Beach” and of the Charles River “Conservancy” with the title “Clarifying the Conservancy.” They headlined my letter with “Not a Conservancy.”
The bad guys’ letter ran the same length as Marilyn’s and mine. In those 400 words, the writer did nothing of substance except to deny the obvious, that “Friends of Magazine Beach” morphed into The Charles River “Conservancy.”
Look at Marilyn’s letter. THE ONLY THING THIS GUY RESPONDED TO WAS TO DISOWN THE OBVIOUS ASSOCIATION between “Friends of Magazine Beach” and the Charles River “Conservancy.”
And the Chronicle followed up this bizarre letter with my 400 word letter going into very broad and specific facts about the destruction inflicted, supported and proposed by Charles River "Conservancy." My letter condemned the latest fake group for calling itself a “Conservancy.”
This bad guys’ letter is published on line at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x675821694/Letter-Clarifying-the-Conservancy#axzz1J1EZ1R5N.
The response from the bad guys was posted Thursday. My letter was published on line yesterday, Friday.
3. Summary.
The reality is that these fake organizations are very much normal in Cambridge, MA. The bad guys who dominate these organizations are very loud in Cambridge politics. They warp politics in Cambridge to such an extent that reality of the world and the reality put out by these fake organizations which they force on Cambridge politics are strikingly different. But they force their bizarre version of reality onto Cambridge politics. And they are non stop holier than thou.
The Chronicle did not have to say a word. They simply printed the bizarre disassociation of “Friends of Magazine Beach” with The Charles River “Conservancy” which denied absolutely nothing else in Marilyn’s letter except for this obvious truth. The Chronicle then followed this bizarre letter with my further letter providing very substantive condemnation of the organization.
The Cambridge bad guys NEVER respond to us. NEVER.
They do that for a reason. They have no meaningful way to support themselves on the grounds they claim to stand for. They open their mouths. We respond. They destroy their false claims of environmental sainthood.
The situation in Cambridge, MA is very much offensive.
Thank you very much to the Cambridge Chronicle.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Charles River Destroyers — Details
1. Background.
2. Proposed letter.
3. Marilyn’s response.
1. Background.
A couple of week’s ago, I published a response by Marilyn Wellons to a front page question and answer session between the Cambridge Chronicle and the so-called Charles River Conservancy. Last week, March 24, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle dominated its editorial page with Marilyn’s response.
I gave the bad guys a week to respond to Marilyn. I have not seen the hard copy yet. As of Thursday morning, nothing had appeared on line.
I understand this letter will be published next Thursday.
2. Proposed letter.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Some elaboration could be useful about the so called Charles River "Conservancy."
Trees whose pending destruction this group has praised number in the hundreds and are in excellent condition. Diseased trees were destroyed years ago. These trees (and hundreds more threatened in related projects) are CURRENTLY between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach on Memorial Drive.
The CRC’s highway project would decimate an excellent 105 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split in addition to wetlands and animal habitat.
The CRC conducted a "swim in" at Magazine Beach to cheerlead the bizarre and needless project at Magazine Beach.
A wall of vegetation which has no business on the Charles has been created. It nearly totally blocks access between the Charles and Magazine Beach. Everywhere else bordering vegetation needed by migrating waterfowl is destroyed twice a year. This stuff just grows. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has bragged that this introduced wall starves the now native Charles River White Geese.
How is there to be swimming through this thicket?
The 7 acres of grass destroyed at Magazine Beach survived the better part of a century without use of poisons. The sickly stuff which has been introduced in its place requires poisons to survive. So a massive system has been substituted for playing fields to drain off the poisons needed to keep the sickly stuff from dying.
Now we have smaller playing fields to minimize the destructiveness of poisons which should not ever be dumped on the banks of the Charles.
Since 2003, almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has been destroyed. Nothing has grown since. More poisons? And the CRC is the DCR’s environmental destroyer.
I have witnessed members of the Boston Conservation Commission expressing distress at the destruction of protective vegetation bordering the Charles by the CRC.
The CRC, starting in 2003, ran around poisoning the eggs of as many migratory waterfowl as it could get away with.
A very visible member of the CRC was discussed by the Boston Conservation Commission with the DCR. The commission objected to his wanton chain saw use on trees near the Charles. The DCR disowned him. To my knowledge, the CRC has not disowned him or his activities.
I condemn the CRC’s use of the word "Conservancy". The presence of "Conservancy" in its name is false and misleading. Charles River Destroyers would be an honest name.
3. Marilyn’s response.
Marilyn was very favorable.
She provided a few more details about the CRC leader with the chainsaw.
He and his name have been published in the Boston Globe.
The reality is that, being active in Cambridge politics, I am forced to associate with a lot of people I simply do not consider fit to associate with. I really would rather not honor them by providing their names any more than I can help.
2. Proposed letter.
3. Marilyn’s response.
1. Background.
A couple of week’s ago, I published a response by Marilyn Wellons to a front page question and answer session between the Cambridge Chronicle and the so-called Charles River Conservancy. Last week, March 24, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle dominated its editorial page with Marilyn’s response.
I gave the bad guys a week to respond to Marilyn. I have not seen the hard copy yet. As of Thursday morning, nothing had appeared on line.
I understand this letter will be published next Thursday.
2. Proposed letter.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Some elaboration could be useful about the so called Charles River "Conservancy."
Trees whose pending destruction this group has praised number in the hundreds and are in excellent condition. Diseased trees were destroyed years ago. These trees (and hundreds more threatened in related projects) are CURRENTLY between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach on Memorial Drive.
The CRC’s highway project would decimate an excellent 105 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split in addition to wetlands and animal habitat.
The CRC conducted a "swim in" at Magazine Beach to cheerlead the bizarre and needless project at Magazine Beach.
A wall of vegetation which has no business on the Charles has been created. It nearly totally blocks access between the Charles and Magazine Beach. Everywhere else bordering vegetation needed by migrating waterfowl is destroyed twice a year. This stuff just grows. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has bragged that this introduced wall starves the now native Charles River White Geese.
How is there to be swimming through this thicket?
The 7 acres of grass destroyed at Magazine Beach survived the better part of a century without use of poisons. The sickly stuff which has been introduced in its place requires poisons to survive. So a massive system has been substituted for playing fields to drain off the poisons needed to keep the sickly stuff from dying.
Now we have smaller playing fields to minimize the destructiveness of poisons which should not ever be dumped on the banks of the Charles.
Since 2003, almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has been destroyed. Nothing has grown since. More poisons? And the CRC is the DCR’s environmental destroyer.
I have witnessed members of the Boston Conservation Commission expressing distress at the destruction of protective vegetation bordering the Charles by the CRC.
The CRC, starting in 2003, ran around poisoning the eggs of as many migratory waterfowl as it could get away with.
A very visible member of the CRC was discussed by the Boston Conservation Commission with the DCR. The commission objected to his wanton chain saw use on trees near the Charles. The DCR disowned him. To my knowledge, the CRC has not disowned him or his activities.
I condemn the CRC’s use of the word "Conservancy". The presence of "Conservancy" in its name is false and misleading. Charles River Destroyers would be an honest name.
3. Marilyn’s response.
Marilyn was very favorable.
She provided a few more details about the CRC leader with the chainsaw.
He and his name have been published in the Boston Globe.
The reality is that, being active in Cambridge politics, I am forced to associate with a lot of people I simply do not consider fit to associate with. I really would rather not honor them by providing their names any more than I can help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)