ROY BERCAW – EDITOR
ENOUGH ROOM
P.O. BOX 400297
CAMBRIDGE MA 02140
enoughroom.blogspot.com
enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com
Cambridge City Council
City Hall
795 Mass Avenue
Cambridge MA 02139
April 20, 2007
Cambridge's Own Imus
Honorable City Councilors,
Don Imus, radio talk show host for 30 years was unceremoniously fired by MSNBC and CBS for inappropriate on air speech. Civil Rights advocates said Imus was demeaning to women and to persons of color. Imus is a liberal, a progressive. Some would say, "He's a moonbat."
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said on NECN NewsNight Show on Monday April 16, 2007, "They were serious comments, hurtful comments, words that cut." The Governor said I'm "sick of the careless insults." (Boston Herald, April 17, 2007, Page 6) I'm sick of them also. But as usual the only persons whose feelings are important in Massachusetts are the feelings of blacks, women and homosexuals.
Cambridge the one-party Democratic city government claims to be progressive. The Cambridge Imus focuses on the only group that progressives approve denigrating -- persons with disabilities.
The most prominent internet observer of City government is a Harvard instructor Robert Winters. His web site rwinters.com is filled with information about the city and its history. Progressive limousine liberals, who live in Cambridge love and admire Winters and his web site. Along with City officials they ignore his ridicule and humiliation of persons he believes have a disability, just as politicians and authors ignored Imus' insults.
Winters ridiculed three local citizens who worked as volunteers at the Cambridge cable access TV station. I wrote to him suggesting he was intolerant of persons who are different than he is. He did not answer me. He goes beyond negative stereotyping of persons with disabilities. He ridicules them.
The most negative opinions of persons with disabilities come from police, prosecutors and lawyers. It is pervasive among those groups. They are unable to recognize unlawful bias, no less personal animosity toward a large group of vulnerable citizens.
At a public meeting where Cambridge Police advocated the use of TASERs Lt. Robert Ames repeated text from a TASER Corporation publication. He said persons with disabilities have a higher tolerance for pain, which justifies using TASERs. Ames (and TASER Corporation) said that they have an unusual amount of strength to justify using TASERs. Police said the same thing about black people years ago.
In Cambridge not only politicians but also upper class progressive limousine liberals, who dominate Cambridge ignore the questionable integrity of the Boston FBI office. Robert Winters joins politicians remaining silent regarding the FBI. Is Winters, an FBI informant? A police informant? Private police organizations operate in Cambridge with no oversight. That includes Harvard University Police and the MIT police. Is Winters an HUPD informant?
He is very cozy with City Councilor Michael Sullivan. Does Sullivan share Winters' negative view of persons with disabilities? Councilor Sullivan is also the Court Clerk for the Middlesex Courts. He never responded to my ten years of complaints about unlawful discrimination by City staff agencies and policies. He still ignores me.
Cambridge has three vocal elected advocates for African Americans, two on the City Council (Ken Reeves and Denise Simmons), one on the School Committee (Richard Harding). Ken Reeves is a member of both bodies. Harding, Simmons and Reeves vigorously advocate for the rights, for employment and for honoring African Americans. They exclude persons with disabilities from their efforts promoting equal access to city programs and city employment.
Councilor Simmons made up a claim that the EEOC laws against discrimination in hiring, does not apply to persons with disabilities. That law applies equally to persons with disabilities as well as to persons of color. The Boston office of the US Department of HUD's Fair Housing Act also denies persons with disabilities access to their laws protecting against discrimination in housing.
Here is where journalists show their bigotry. I wrote to all of the local media outlets about these issues and none of them reported the facts.
Because the coverage of Cambridge is at best inadequate Neil McCabe, a writer for The Somerville News, started a monthly newspaper called The Alewife. He has a lot of advertisements, mostly from real estate companies. A few months ago he began running an opinion column, Cambridge Ideas, by Robert Winters. His articles are dry and humorless. He writes the usual pabulum, which dominates the local scene. Winters, a failed city council candidate is ambitious. He is unwilling to offend any persons or groups, which have the ability to fight back. Like other cowards he chooses persons with disabilities to ridicule and to humiliate.
In the April, 2007 edition, Winters has a rambling column about defining progressivism, strategy for getting elected and of course his ridicule of persons with disabilities. He promotes the collective method of voting and recommends different groups who could elect a person of their own kind. ("In search of progressive definition," Page 6). Is this Winters' interpretation of diversity?
Winters strategy for persons with disabilities is "TIN Slate: Candidates from the fringe who wear tin foil hats and receive alien messages. We always get one or two in every election." (Page 15)
Persons with disabilities do not lose their constitutional rights. Well-educated elitist progressives in Cambridge at Harvard believe that persons with disabilities have no rights -- in this case the right to run for office to get the already existing laws enforced to protect the rights of persons with disabilities.
For Winters unless a person looks good, wears proper clothing and speaks properly he or she should not run for office because, well they look and sound different and they say such outrageous things. When she was The First Lady, Hillary Clinton identified the "Vast right-wing conspiracy." She is now running for President. How does that fit in with the Progressive definition of Robert Winters?
The remaining question is to the many newspapers who regularly quote Winters. That includes the Harvard Crimson, the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, and the Cambridge Chronicle. The Alewife runs a regular column of his. Do all of the editors at these papers share the negative stereotype of persons with disabilities? Do they share the Winters' view that persons with disabilities should not run for office and should give up their right to run?
With regard to exercising one's opinions as Imus did for 30 years, Winters has a right to express his hateful views, just as Imus does. But why are the feelings of black people more important than the feelings of persons with disabilities? The law makes no distinction. Politicians and progressives like Robert Winters in Cambridge do.
The Publisher Responds
I called Neil McCabe on Monday April 16, 2007, at about 3:00pm to express my objection. He returned my call on Tuesday April 17, 2007 with two (11:04am and 11:10am) of his.
In one he said, "Hi Roy. This is uh Neil McCabe. I'm sorry to leave you a second message. Um. But you know I could feel the intensity of uh of your message. And uh and obviously uh you're very disturbed by the Winters column.
I reread it and I wasn't sure what you are talking about. Um. So, if you could maybe . . . uh I don't know. Maybe, I mean, I don't want to restrict your rights to do what you have to do in a democracy. But um before you take any actions to blow up my business. Um. Maybe, uh maybe you could just double check to make sure that you're, you're going to be protesting against the wrong, the right people. Because um I just reread it. Maybe there's some other newspaper you should be attacking because I don't think it's me." [End of message]
At about 4:30pm on Tuesday April 17, 2007 I left a message for McCabe in response to his messages. I specified the offending paragraph. I said "If you can understand why that is offensive, I will speak with you." I added "But if you are unable to understand why that is an issue I suggest that you read about disability rights and how persons with disabilities are abused in this country."
At about 7:00pm on Tuesday April 17, 2007 I received a call from Mr. McCabe. He said he had not heard my latest message. I pointed out the paragraph to him on the telephone.
He began a rambling monologue about a woman in Washington DC who used to sit across from the White House who wore a tin hat because she thought the White House was attacking her with microwaves. McCabe told me about a man who was in the Young Americans for Freedom, who worked in the White House under Reagan who befriended the woman.
McCabe told me that he was stationed in DC when he worked at the Coast Guard Headquarters. He told me twice that he thought that Winters was talking about that woman. I said to him I do not think we are communicating.
I asked him "What if she wears a tin hat and believes that she is targeted by microwaves? What if she is mentally ill? Does that abridge her right to run for office or any rights?" He is unable to realize that that is the issue, why Winters is a bigot.
I asked him where in the paragraph he saw anything about a woman or about DC. He again said that he thought Winters was talking about the woman. She was famous, he said, and many articles were written about her.
I said that was not the issue. I tried to explain to him that this is about Robert Winters and his column in the Alewife. I began speaking about the history of Winters ridiculing persons he thinks are mentally ill. He said, "You think there is something to do with handicapped issues, and racism issues. This paper will not stand for anything of that kind."
At one point he said I was crazy. I asked him why that mattered. Why is that an issue? He is unable to recognize that when a person is considered to have a disability that is when the biases kick in. He is in denial about his own biases.
It was at this point that McCabe lost his composure. He began accusing me of taking money from his pocket and of attacking him. I said I was not attacking him nor was I ever near enough to him to try to take money from his pocket.
He said "You're attacking me trying to put me out of business. I'm not a corporation. I served this country." He was trying to make this a patriotic issue. He was screaming at me.
I said, "I too served this country. I was in the Navy. Screw you." I said you are encouraging me by screaming at me. I do not think he was listening.
He told me he has a wife and children and he uses his business to put food on the table for his family, that I was trying to take money out of his pocket and attacking him. He repeated those allegations several times.
I realized he was clueless about the reason I called. I know I am unable to open his mind on the matter. That was the reason for my message. I asked him to stop screaming at me and to stop insulting me. I asked him to stop being disrespectful to me.
He reminded me that he published my "columns." Actually he published online a letter I wrote.
He said, "Sam Seidel mentioned you prominently in one of his columns." He asked me what I did for money. "Do you think it grows on trees?" he asked me.
I again said that I was not attacking him. He said, "What do you do? Just attack everyone? Are you trying to drag down the country?"
I said "Now you sound paranoid."
He again ramped up the volume. He asked, "Are you accusing me of being mentally ill? Is paranoia a mental illness?"
I tried to end the conversation. I said, "I am sorry that I upset you. I want to end this conversation now. I am going to hang up now." But he kept screaming at me.
I said, "I realize that you do not understand the problem. There is no way I can force you to do anything. You have a right to publish what you want. But I also have rights."
At this point I again announced that I was going to hang up. I again apologized for upsetting him and said I would not bother him. But I asked him not to bother me. I then hung up the phone.
Roy Bercaw
Perhaps the following excerpt from another communication from Bercaw on the Apr 23, 2007 agenda will help to explain:
Organized Crime Operates Openly in Cambridge
Beginning on or about April 1, 2007 the California syndicate was given almost free reign to conduct daily abuses and criminal harassment using apartment #22 at 85 Prescott Street. The heat in my apartment varied from 89 degrees Fahrenheit to 35 degrees Fahrenheit over the next two weeks. It is clear that Harvard Real Estate is participating in this intense harassment.
The surveillance in and around Cambridge while I did my lawful errands was conducted solely from apartment #22. On or about April 7, 2007 Communists from New York competed with Communists from Massachusetts to see who could be the most effective using psychiatrists and trained mental patients working for crime family police officers to make my life as miserable as the nine crime families did over the previous 15 years.
Harvard Real Estate wrote a memo dated April 2, 2007 which appeared on the front door of the building on April 4, 2007. It noted the city fire regulations prohibit any object outside of the apartment doors. This was an obvious response to my complaints to the Cambridge Fire Commissioner that Harvard and their contractors used a Fire Lane behind the building for ordinary parking in violation of law.
I used to keep a straw mat outside of my door to use during bad weather to wipe shoes. When I removed my mat the sign was taken down the next day. But none of the other tenants' objects were removed as threatened by the memo. Was the memo directed at me alone? One of the many abuses of power of Harvard Real Estate and also the city government is permitting criminals into apartment #22 on a daily basis. Over the previous 12 years it is an ongoing criminal enterprise which the FBI is well aware of and ignores. Tampering with my computer transmissions, my USPS mail, my telephone and even Fedex shows how thoroughly these criminals have infiltrated the Harvard and City bureaucracies.
The failure of Harvard's General Counsel, the City Manager, the City Council, the police leadership of both Harvard and the city indicate that these two institutions are either run by organized crime or the leadership are so fearful of organized crime that they refuse to address these criminal abuses on their property and in their jurisdiction. Harvard and the City's objective is now covering up their participation in the many years of abuses. As usual the cover up is where they make their mistakes. Get ready for the exposes.
Though it is mostly Communists from two states conducting the daily sleep deprivation and harassment while I try to write and edit, there are occasional entries from the local New England crime family which runs Eastern MA, erstwhile domain of James Bulger. The current leadership is unknown. He or she keeps a much lower profile than Whitey Bulger ever did. He or she may be a government official or an academic.
As usual the crime families say I am a homosexual Communist and the Communists continue their harassment, which they began in 1970. Communists and crime families continue character assassination and behavior conditioning to prevent me from speaking with heterosexual women. One crime family regularly insults me calling me a faggot. Is this the faction of the Mid Western outfit that says I am a drug dealer? The local politicians lament that young people refuse to cooperate with the police. Huh? And they permit 35 years of criminal abuses? I know why the politicians adopted the cuttlefish as their role models.