The efforts of NOSY NEIGHBORS to eject me from my apartment through ANY MEANS possible has come to a stand still again.
WE HAVE THESE PEOPLE WRAPPED TIGHT INSIDE THESE HOUSES-----THEY CAN'T MOVE.
The DISEMBODIED voices we hear in these PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE structures of hacked NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG----are people taken completely out of society ----made to feel they have some power in all these surveillance processes---when they do not.
My HIKING this weekend took me to one of BALTIMORE'S most pleasant sights----DRUID HILL PARK----very beautiful and large city central park built in 1903.
WHAT IS MORE NEO-NAZI THEN SUPER-DUPER SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY THAT HITS PEOPLE ---FILLS THEM WITH FEAR -----WANTING TO CONTROL AND HUMILIATE THEM?
Certainly NOT a few far-right global banking 1% freemason/Greek FAKE CIVIL UNREST CIVIL WAR PLAYERS-----being called SKIN-HEADS.
TRUMP being saddled as NEO-NAZI MADMAN second coming of HITLER---while CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA who built super-duper surveillance these few decades are now called RESPONSIBLE LEADERS.
TRUMP was a reality show host while CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA build the best in world history NEO-NAZI SURVEILLANCE MACHINE.
Trump Didn't Call Neo-Nazis 'Fine People.' Here's Proof.
By Steve Cortes
March 21, 2019
Trump Didn't Call Neo-Nazis 'Fine People.' Here's Proof.
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
News anchors and pundits have repeated lies about Donald Trump and race so often that some of these narratives seem true, even to Americans who embrace the fruits of the president’s policies. The most pernicious and pervasive of these lies is the “Charlottesville Hoax,” the fake-news fabrication that he described the neo-Nazis who rallied in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017 as “fine people.”
Just last week I exposed this falsehood, yet again, when CNN contributor Keith Boykin falsely stated, “When violent people were marching with tiki torches in Charlottesville, the president said they were ‘very fine people.’” When I objected and detailed that Trump’s “fine people on both sides” observation clearly related to those on both sides of the Confederate monument debate, and specifically excluded the violent supremacists, anchor Erin Burnett interjected, “He [Trump] didn’t say it was on the monument debate at all. No, they didn’t even try to use that defense. It’s a good one, but no one’s even tried to use it, so you just used it now.”
My colleagues seem prepared to dispute our own network’s correct contemporaneous reporting and the very clear transcripts of the now-infamous Trump Tower presser on the tragic events of Charlottesville. Here are the unambiguous actual words of President Trump:
“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
After another question at that press conference, Trump became even more explicit:
“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”
As a man charged with publicly explaining Donald Trump’s often meandering and colloquial vernacular in highly adversarial TV settings, I appreciate more than most the sometimes-murky nature of his off-script commentaries. But these Charlottesville statements leave little room for interpretation. For any honest person, therefore, to conclude that the president somehow praised the very people he actually derided, reveals a blatant and blinding level of bias.
Nonetheless, countless so-called journalists have furthered this damnable lie. For example, MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace responded that Trump had “given safe harbor to Nazis, to white supremacists.” Her NBC colleague Chuck Todd claimed Trump “gave me the wrong kind of chills. Honestly, I’m a bit shaken from what I just heard.” Not to be outdone, print also got in on the act, with the New York Times spewing the blatantly propagandist headline: “Trump Gives White Supremacists Unequivocal Boost.” How could the Times possibly reconcile that Trump, who admonished that the supremacists should be “condemned totally” somehow also delivered an “unequivocal boost” to those very same miscreants?
But like many fake news narratives, repetition has helped cement this one into a reasonably plausible storyline for all but the most skeptical consumers of news. In fact, over the weekend, Fox News host Chris Wallace pressed White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney on why Trump has not given a speech “condemning … white supremacist bigotry.” Well, Chris, he has, and more than once. The most powerful version was from the White House following Charlottesville and the heartbreaking death of Heather Heyer. President Trump’s succinct and direct words:
“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”
Despite the clear evidence of Trump’s statements regarding Charlottesville, major media figures insist on spreading the calumny that Trump called neo-Nazis “fine people.” The only explanation for such a repeated falsehood is abject laziness or willful deception. Either way, the duplicity on this topic perhaps encapsulates the depressingly low trust most Americans place in major media, with 77 percent stating in a Monmouth University 2018 poll that traditional TV and newspapers report fake news. In addition, such lies as the Charlottesville Hoax needlessly further divide our already-polarized society.
Instead of hyper-partisan, distorted narratives, as American citizens we should demand adherence to truth -- and adherence to the common values that bind us regardless of politics. In the words of our president: “No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God.”
My thoughts during my hike this weekend which took me to DRUID HILL PARK------how did BALTIMORE FAMILIES tied to building such a beautiful CIVIL SOCIETY----buildings, schools, parks, libraries----and lots of local domestic businesses---great housing for rich and working class-----become in only a few generations the same families taking Baltimore to a FAILED US STATE making it a ghetto allowing good housing to decay and being the earliest to install this super-duper SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY only 90 years later?
WHAT HAPPENED TO BALTIMORE'S LEADING FAMILIES AS CIVIC LEADERSHIP?
The COMMISSIONERS charged with the development and planning of DRUID HILL PARK have a nice COLUMN with NAMEPLATE celebrating what was then great CIVIL ENGINEERING. One of the names on this plate from 1903? BOOZ.
Flash forward to today and the top military corporation grown fat from these few decades of MASSIVE ROBBER BARON FRAUDS in this case tied to MILITARY TRILLIONS OF DOLLAR IN FRAUD-----is BOOZ ALLEN.
This 1903 spectacular city park was built on the border of what was then BOLTON HILL---MOUNT ROYAL ----home of Baltimore's wealthiest. They even built an ARCH DE TRIUMPH as entrance to this park. The park was always PUBLIC----open to all-------lots of public venues ----it was a fully-functioning
AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT---I AM MAN------REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE CAPITALIST -------DEVELOPMENT.
Why are today's BOOZ FAMILY ----far-right wing global corporate NEO-NAZI FASCIST MARXISTS------while 1903 BOOZ family were leaders of real left social progressive liberal capitalism and benefactors to the 99% of WE THE CITIZENS OF BALTIMORE?
Instead of discussing THIS QUESTION----our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are forced to watch US NATIONAL FAKE NEWS media------pretending TRUMP is the coming HITLER MADMAN.
Trump Didn't Call Neo-Nazis 'Fine People.' Here's Proof.
By Steve Cortez March 21, 2019
The National Security Industrial Complex and NSA Spying:
The Revolving Doors Between State Agencies and Private Contractors
By Pratap Chatterjee
Global Research, June 18, 2013
CorpWatch 17 June 2013
When Edward Snowden, an employee of Booz Allen Hamilton – a military contractor based in McLean, Virginia – blew the whistle on the extent of U.S. global electronic surveillance, he unexpectedly shone a light on the world of contractors that consume some 70 percent of the $52 billion U.S. intelligence budget.
Some commentators have pounced on Snowden’s disclosures to denounce the role of private contractors in the world of government and national security, arguing that such work is best left to public servants. But their criticism misses the point.
It is no longer possible to determine the difference between employees of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the employees of companies such as Booz Allen, who have integrated to the extent that they slip from one role in industry to another in government, cross-promoting each other and self-dealing in ways that make the fabled revolving door redundant, if not completely disorienting.
Snowden, who was employed by Booz Allen as a contract systems administrator at the NSA’s Threat Operations Centre in Hawaii for three months, had worked for the CIA andDell before getting his most recent job. But his rather obscure role pales in comparison to those of others.
Pushing for Expanded Surveillance
To best understand this tale, one must first turn to R. James Woolsey, a former director of CIA, who appeared before the U.S. Congress in the summer of 2004 to promote the idea of integrating U.S. domestic and foreign spying efforts to track “terrorists”.
One month later, he appeared on MSNBC television, where he spoke of the urgent need to create a new U.S. intelligence czar to help expand the post-9/11 national surveillance apparatus.
On neither occasion did Woolsey mention that he was employed as senior vice president for global strategic security at Booz Allen, a job he held from 2002 to 2008.
“The source of information about vulnerabilities of and potential attacks on the homeland will not be dominated by foreign intelligence, as was the case in the Cold War. The terrorists understood us well, and so they lived and planned where we did not spy (inside the U.S.),” said Woolsey in prepared remarks before the U.S. House Select Committee on Homeland Security on June 24, 2004.
In a prescient suggestion of what Snowden would later reveal, Woolsey went on to discuss expanding surveillance to cover domestic, as well as foreign sources.
“One source will be our vulnerability assessments, based on our own judgments about weak links in our society’s networks that can be exploited by terrorists,” he said. “A second source will be domestic intelligence. How to deal with such information is an extraordinarily difficult issue in our free society.”
In late July 2004, Woolsey appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball”, a news-talk show hosted by Chris Matthews, and told Matthews that the federal government needed a new high-level office – a director of national intelligence – to straddle domestic and foreign intelligence. Until then, the director of the CIA served as the head of the entire U.S. intelligence community.
“The problem is that the intelligence community has grown so much since 1947, when the position of director of central intelligence was created, that it’s (become) impossible to do both jobs, running the CIA and managing the community,” he said.
Both these suggestions would lead to influential jobs and lucrative sources of income for Woolsey’s employer and colleagues.
The Director of National Intelligence
Fast forward to 2007. Vice Admiral Michael McConnell (retired), Booz Allen’s then-senior vice president of policy, transformation, homeland security and intelligence analytics, was hired as the second czar of the new “Office of the Director of National Intelligence” which was coincidentally located just three kilometers from the company’s corporate headquarters.
Upon retiring as DNI, McConnell returned to Booz Allen in 2009, where he serves as vice chairman to this day. In August 2010, Lieutenant General James Clapper (retired), a former vice president for military intelligence at Booz Allen from 1997 to 1998, was hired as the fourth intelligence czar, a job he has held ever since. Indeed, one-time Booz Allenexecutives have filled the position five of the eight years of its existence.
When these two men took charge of the national-security state, they helped expand and privatize it as never before.
McConnell, for example, asked Congress to alter the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow the NSA to spy on foreigners without a warrant if they were using Internet technology that routed through the United States.
“The resulting changes in both law and legal interpretations (… and the) new technologies created a flood of new work for the intelligence agencies – and huge opportunities for companies like Booz Allen,” wrote David Sanger and Nicole Perlroth in a profile of McConnell published in the New York Times this weekend.
Last week, Snowden revealed to the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald that the NSA had created a secret system called “Prism” that allowed the agency to spy on electronic data of ordinary citizens around the world, both within and outside the United States.
Snowden’s job at Booz Allen’s offices in Hawaii was to maintain the NSA’s information technology systems. While he did not specify his precise connection to Prism, he told the South China Morning Post newspaper that the NSA hacked “network backbones – like huge Internet routers, basically – that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one”.
Indeed Woolsey had argued in favor of such surveillance following the disclosure of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping by the New York Times in December 2005.
“Unlike the Cold War, our intelligence requirements are not just overseas,” he told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the NSA in February 2006. “Courts are not designed to deal with fast-moving battlefield electronic mapping in which an al Qaeda or a Hezbollah computer might be captured which contains a large number of email addresses and phone numbers which would have to be checked out very promptly.”
Roger Cressey, a senior vice president for cybersecurity and counter-terrorism at Booz Allen who is also a paid commentator for NBC News, went on air multiple times to explain how the government would pursue the Boston Marathon case in April 2013. “We always need to understand there are priority targets the counter-terrorism community is always looking at,” he told the TV station.
Cressey took a position “on one of the most controversial aspects of the government response to Boston that completely reflects the views of the government agencies – such as the FBI and the CIA – that their companies ultimately serve,” wrote Tim Shorrock, author of Spies for Hire, on Salon. “Their views, in turn, convinces NBC hosts of the wisdom of the policy, a stance which could easily sway an uncertain public about the legitimacy of the new face of state power that has emerged in the post-9/11 period. That is influence, yet it is not fully disclosed by NBC.”
This was not the first time that Cressey had been caught at this when speaking to NBC News. Cressey failed to disclose that his former employer – Good Harbor Consulting – had been paid for advice by the government of Yemen, when he went on air to criticize democracy protests in Yemen in March 2011. (Cressey has just been hired by Booz Allen at the time)
“What is not disclosed about Cressey in this segment where he scaremongers about a post-Saleh Yemen is that he has multiple conflicts of interest with the current regime there,” wrote Zaid Jilani of ThinkProgress at the time.
A Flood of New Contracts
Exactly what Booz Allen does for the NSA’s electronic surveillance system revealed by Snowden is classified, but one can make an educated guess from similar contracts it has in this field – a quarter of the company’s $5.86 billion in annual income comes from intelligence agencies.
The NSA, for example, hired Booz Allen in 2001 in an advisory role on the five-billion-dollar Project Groundbreaker to rebuild and operate the agency’s “nonmission-critical” internal telephone and computer networking systems.
Booz Allen also won a chunk of the Pentagon’s infamous Total Information Awareness contract in 2001 to collect information on potential terrorists in America from phone records, credit card receipts and other databases – a controversial program defunded by Congress in 2003 but whose spirit survived in Prism and other initiatives disclosed by Snowden.
The CIA pays a Booz Allen team led by William Wansley, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, for “strategic and business planning” for its National Clandestine Service, which conducts covert operations and recruits foreign spies.
The company also provides a 120-person team, headed by a former U.S. Navy cryptology lieutenant commander and Booz Allen senior executive adviser Pamela Lentz, to support the National Reconnaissance Organization, the Pentagon agency that manages the nation’s military spy satellites.
In January, Booz Allen was one of 12 contractors to win a five-year contract with the Defense Intelligence Agency that could be worth up to $5.6 billion to focus on “computer network operations, emerging and disruptive technologies, and exercise and training activity”.
Last month, the U.S. Navy picked Booz Allen as part of a consortium to work on yet another billion-dollar project for “a new generation of intelligence, surveillance and combat operations”.
How does Booz Allen win these contracts?
Well, in addition to its connections with the DNI, the company boasts that half of its 25,000 employees are cleared for “top secret-sensitive compartmented intelligence” – one of the highest possible security ratings. (One third of the 1.4 million people with such clearances work for the private sector.)
A key figure at Booz Allen is Ralph Shrader, current chairman, CEO and president, who came to the company in 1974 after working at two telecommunications companies – RCA, where he served in the company’s government communications system division and Western Union, where he was national director of advanced systems planning.
In the 1970s, RCA and Western Union both took part in a secret surveillance program known as Minaret, where they agreed to give the NSA all their clients’ incoming and outgoing U.S. telephone calls and telegrams.
In an interview with the Financial Times in 1998, Shrader noted that the most relevant background for his new position of chief executive at Booz Allen was his experience working for telecommunications clients and doing classified military work for the US government.
Caught for Shoddy Work
How much value for money is the government getting? A review of some of Booz Allen’s public contracts suggests that much of this work has been of poor quality.
In February 2012, the U.S. Air Force suspended Booz Allen from seeking government contracts after it discovered that Joselito Meneses, a former deputy chief of information technology for the air force, had given Booz Allen a hard drive with confidential information about a competitor’s contracting on the first day that he went to work for the company in San Antonio, Texas.
“Booz Allen did not uncover indications and signals of broader systemic ethical issues within the firm,” wrote the U.S. Air Force legal counsel. “These events caused the Air Force to have serious concerns regarding the responsibility of Booz Allen, specifically, its San Antonio office, including its business integrity and honesty, compliance with government contracting requirements, and the adequacy of its ethics program.”
It should be noted that Booz Allen reacted swiftly to the government investigation of the conflict of interest. In April that year, the Air Force lifted the suspension – but only after Booz Allen had accepted responsibility for the incident and fired Meneses, as well as agreeing to pay the air force $65,000 and reinforce the firm’s ethics policy.
Not everybody was convinced about the new regime. “Unethical behavior brought on by the revolving door created problems for Booz Allen, but now the revolving door may have come to the rescue,” wrote Scott Amey of the Project on Government Oversight, noting that noting that Del Eulberg, vice-president of the Booz Allen’s San Antonio office had served as chief engineer in the Air Force.
“It couldn’t hurt having (former Air Force people). Booz is likely exhaling a sigh of relief as it has received billions of dollars in air force contracts over the years.”
That very month, Booz Allen was hired to build a $10 million “Enhanced Secured Network” (ESN) for the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. An audit of the project released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office this past February showed that it was full of holes.
The ESN “left software and systems put in place misconfigured—even failing to take advantage of all the features of the malware protection the commission had selected, leaving its workstations still vulnerable to attack,” wrote Sean Gallagher, a computer reporter at ArsTechnica.
Booz Allen has also admitted to overbilling the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) “employees at higher job categories than would have been justified by their experience, inflating their monthly hours and submitting excessive billing at their off-site rate.” The company repaid the government $325,000 in May 2009 to settle the charges.
Nor was this the first time Booz Allen had been caught overbilling. In 2006, the company was one of four consulting firms that settled with the U.S. Department of Justice for fiddling expenses on an industrial scale. Booz Allen’s share of the $15 million settlement of a lawsuit under the False Claims Act was more than $3.3 million.
Incidentally, both the NASA and the Air Force incidents were brought to light by a company whistleblower who informed the government.
Investigate Booz Allen, Not Edward Snowden
When Snowden revealed the extent of the U.S. national surveillance program earlier this month, he was denounced immediately by Booz Allen and their former associates who called for an investigation of his leaks.
“For me, it is literally – not figuratively – literally gut-wrenching to see this happen because of the huge, grave damage it does to our intelligence capabilities,” Clapper toldNBC News’s Andrea Mitchell. “This is someone who, for whatever reason, has chosen to violate a sacred trust for this country. I think we all feel profoundly offended by that.”
“News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm,” Booz Allen said in a press statement.
Yet instead of shooting the messenger, Edward Snowden, it might be worth investigating Shrader and his company’s core values in the same way that the CIA and NSA were scrutinized for Minaret in the 1970s by the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, chaired by Frank Church of Idaho in 1975.
Congress would also do well to investigate Clapper, Booz Allen’s other famous former employee, for possible perjury when he replied: “No, sir” to Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in March, when asked: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”
The answer to how a BOOZ family in 1903 tied to developing and celebrating one of the biggest and best PUBLIC CIVIL ENGINEERING projects-----becomes BOOZ ALLEN of super-duper global private military corporation tied to all this saturated and complete surveillance capture of Baltimore PUBLIC STREETS/PARKS et al.
'Benjamin Booz was first married to Mary Griffiths in England on 4 October 1810. There were 4 known children. Benjamin's second marriage was to Anna Maria Porter on 4 April 1820 in Dorchester County, MD. There were 2 known children. Ann Marie Jenkins was Benjamin's third wife. They were married on 14 Aug 1826. There were 14 known children from this marriage. Benjamin Booz began the famous Booz Brothers Shipyards in Canton, MD in 1849. His sons took over, and the shipyards continued to thrive until the 1940s when Bethlehem Steel started their business'.
BOOZ of 1903 tied to Baltimore shipping yard partners with ANNAPOLIS NAVAL INSTITUTE building NAVAL SHIPS in a US MILITARY whose duty was to protect US SOVEREIGNTY.
The Naval Fleet
Doubling the Navy in half the time
In 1940, Frank Knox contacted Ed Booz. As newly appointed secretary for the navy, he had a vision for a two-ocean navy, one that could win campaigns in both the Atlantic and Pacific. But the Navy was under-equipped. It did not have enough ships. Its headquarters were in a temporary building left over from World War I, and its telephone, internal mail, and intelligence systems were out of date.
“Men, what’s our job?” Knox asked his admirals. “To double the Navy,” they replied. They estimated that it would take about four years. “We have only half that time,” Knox said. “It must be done by 1942.”
“Ed Booz felt there could be no more important work than military consulting. So he and Jim Allen took on the assignment personally.”
Ed Booz felt there could be no more important work than military consulting. So he and Jim Allen took on the assignment personally. Allen inspected shipyards up and down the East Coast. Booz Allen suggested ways to revamp the Navy’s systems and services, cutting red tape, replacing old chains of command with new management units under each Navy bureau, and structuring ways for them to work together. Then Booz Allen’s people moved in to implement the recommendations.
Placing a consulting firm within the established bureaucracy had a catalytic effect on streamlining the system. Each Navy bureau had its own Booz man. “If I had a personnel thing to handle,” one executive recalled, “I wouldn’t go through the formal channels. That would take 3 weeks. I would just call up my Booz counterpart in the Bureau of Personnel and it was done by tomorrow morning. We never told the admirals how we did it. They looked upon us like miracle workers.”
Within 4 years the Navy had become the most powerful in the world. Booz Allen also helped the Army, Veteran’s Administration, and Navy jointly agree on medical terminology, promising injured soldiers better care and compensation than ever before. Speaking of Booz Allen’s role in the war effort, Knox was quoted by Fortune magazine in 1944 as saying that he had never spent the government’s money “more effectively.”
BOOZ family was dedicated to real left social progressive capitalist liberalism-----under they were not----now, global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----DARK AGES colonialism.
Conduit: Druid Lake and the Wall of Mud (1863 – 1871)
By mdhslibrary ⋅ January 17, 2013 ⋅
A lithograph of Druid Lake made by A. Hoen and Company as part of their Baltimore City Water Works series.
Druid Lake, A. Hoen, ca. 1880, MdHS, H264.4
In 1863 the Baltimore City Council approved a $300,000 loan to construct a billion gallon capacity reservoir in the newly established Druid Hill Park. Though the new city waterworks project from Lake Roland to the Mount Royal Reservoir on the Jones Falls had just been completed, it had become apparent that the city’s water problems were far from solved. Having an abundance of natural springs and deep ravines, Druid Park seemed to be the perfect site for a new reservoir. In addition to providing suitable drinking water, this reservoir was also meant to enhance the beauty of the newly created park, accompanying its ancient oak trees bearing noble names such as “The Sentinel,” “King of the Forrest,” and “Tent Oak.”
A map of Druid Hill Park showing Mount Royal Reservoir is located in the top right, Druid Lake in the center, and the High Service Reservoir on the bottom left. The map is rotated facing northeast. Druid Hill Park, Board of Park Commissioners, 1875, MdHS, M79
Stressing the need for clean air and open space to buffer Baltimoreans from “the noise of the hammer and the smoke of the furnace,” Mayor Thomas Swann (1809-1883) decided to employ a rather innovative source of funding to provide open space for citizens without increasing their tax burden. In 1860 Swann passed Ordinance 44 which would award a highly competitive contract to a horse drawn passenger railway providing the company give twenty percent of its gross income to the city for the purpose of providing open space.*
After responding to an advertisement placed in local papers by the Park Commission seeking to buy a large plot of land for a public open space, Lloyd Nicholas Rogers (1787- 1860) sold the Druid Hill estate for $121,000 in cash and $363,027 in city stock. Though the cantankerous Rogers tried to back out of the deal late, claiming the city lacked the authority to issue bonds outside the official city limits for the purchase, Mayor Swann, in one of his many questionable abuses of power, got the deal pushed through.
Perhaps Mayor Swann saw the writing on the wall concerning the city’s water supply issues, when during the Druid Hill Park inauguration ceremonies he stated that:
“…In addition to numerous springs heading in all the principal ravines, and furnishing a liberal supply of water for ordinary wants, the close proximity to the Jones’ Falls, and the great receiving reservoir of the city, gives assurance that the most extensive arrangements may be safely made for the lakes and fountains at a comparatively trifling expenditure. A resort to artificial supply is always to be preferred in a park, where the volume of water cannot be relied upon from natural flow….[Then upping his flowery poetic waxings, continued]…the soft and trembling shadows of the surrounding trees and hills as they fall upon a placid sheet of water, and the brilliant light which the crystal surface reflects in pure sunshine, mirroring too, at times, in its resplendent bosom, all the cerulean depth and sunny whiteness of the overhanging sky, give it almost a magical effect in a beautiful landscape.”
In 1864 the city began to utilize the natural geography of Druid Park as they made their “cerulean” vision a reality. A deep ravine formed by a stream that traveled southeast from the boat lake toward the Jones Falls was selected as the site for the new reservoir. Civil engineer Robert Martin developed plans and constructed a giant wall of mud that became the largest earthen dam in America (at that time). Steam excavators were used for the first time in the city to move 500,000 cubic yards of earth. The dam itself consisted of a water tight clay core, or puddle wall, surrounded by steep banks of soil, and was supported by a stone wall laid in cement running the entire length of the dam. Earthen banks were laid in thin layers and pressed by horse drawn rollers. When completed in 1871, the dam supported a reservoir that covered 55 acres, reached a depth of 94 feet (averaging 30 feet), and sat at an elevation 217 feet above mid-tide. Towering over the surrounding park at a height of 119 feet, the dam was 750 feet long, with a width of 600 feet at the base tapering up to 60 feet at the top.
The embankment and gate house at Druid Park from the Baltimore Water Works series. Baltimore – Reservoirs – Druid Lake – 1880 – MdHS, SVF (medium photo)
In 1864 work started on the reservoir, and by 1865, seven 30-inch pipes were taking water in and out of the reservoir: three from Hampden, three to Mt. Royal, and a drain pipe. Things didn’t necessarily go smoothly…
The year work on the dam began in Baltimore, the whole world read about the horror of the Dale Dyke reservoir in Sheffield England, where flooding from the spring thaw caused the dam to fail. Eight hundred and fifty-five million gallons of water rushed through the valley at 18 mph, killing 244 people. The public saw eerie similarities between the earthen dam in England and the new dam in Druid Park. Though Dale Dyke was at a higher elevation, the new reservoir in Baltimore was in much closer proximity to the population center and held a greater amount of water. In addition, when water was drawn off from the reservoir in 1866, it was confirmed that the seven pipes traveling through the base of the earthen dam had buckled and collapsed under its weight. The broken pipes at the bottom of the dam posed the risk of significant leakage that would compromise the integrity of the earthen structure. It appeared that a complete overhaul of the dam was necessary.
A. Hoen and Co. lithograph of the earthen dam and gate house, most likely modeled after the photograph above. Embankment and Gate House, Druid Lake, A. Hoen, ca. 1880, MdHS, H264.8
A board of experts consisting of engineers Isaac Ridgeway Trimble (1802-1888), Charles Pratt Manning (1817-1886), and John H. Tegmyer (1822-1901) were appointed by the city to see if the new dam in Baltimore posed a similar risk to the catastrophe in England. The board concluded that they saw the “impossibility of failure from anything like similar causes” because the puddle wall had been constructed properly and the banks had been sufficiently compacted. Most importantly, the board proposed to replace the seven broken pipes with five new mains enveloped in stone arches that would not penetrate the puddle wall, exiting through the south side of the dam. Over 140 years later the dam has continued to hold strong, and in 1971 it was named a National Historic Civil Engineering landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Ultimately $1,000,000 was spent to repair the cracked pipes, and the reservoir was reduced to holding only 429 million gallons of water (as opposed to the initial goal of one billion). By 1871 Druid Lake was complete.** Over the next four years a west high service reservoir was added at a height of 320 feet above mean tide to service areas at higher elevations in the northwest part of town. By 1872, faced with more serious droughts, the city once again realized its supply of water was not sufficient, and finally turned its eyes towards the Gunpowder. Ironically, the $700,000 difference between the projected cost and the cost after the repairs was almost identical to that saved by selecting the waterworks on Jones Falls over the much higher volume project on the Gunpowder River. (Eben Dennis)
Gunpowder Water Supply, no date, MdHS Ephemera – Series E – City Government
* The “park tax,” as it was known, would dwindle to 12 percent in 1874, 9 percent in 1882, 3 percent in 1932, then disappear completely.
**The resulting body of water had been known during the first half of its construction as Lake Chapman, after Unionist Mayor and head of the Water Board at the time, John Lee Chapman (1811-1880). Since much of Chapman’s tenure as mayor was characterized by the bitter partisan feuding of the Civil War period, it came as little surprise when his Democratic successor, Robert T. Banks (1822-1901), and the City Council voted unanimously to change the name to Druid Lake just four months after he left office in early 1868.
How did an ordinary political activist citizen become central in what is CULT OF PERSONALITY NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG----illegal surveillance inside my apartment with SEXUAL PREDATORS making me PORN and subjecting me to psycho-sexual torture?
Baltimore because of BOOZ was one of the earliest to be taken totally surveilled. We are sure BOOZ became a wealth global corporation doing just that. Below we see OAKLAND CA-----home of STANFORD UNIVERSITY another far-right wing global Bush neo-conservative HEDGE FUND corporation just like JOHNS HOPKINS. Today, we are told NOTHING IS PUBLIC-------today we are watching as all that was public---including those beautiful parks -----will return to being privately owned.
DRUID HILL PARK was privately owned back in mid-1800s-----we know it is now slated to become a GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS FOOTPRINT----tied to hyper-industrialization which is why our DRUID HILL LAKE is being made an underground water tank.
SAIC is an offspring of global hedge fund JOHNS HOPKINS ----along with BOOZ brings these super-surveillance/spying structures to our US CITIES deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES
'While the contract to build the system was with the Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC',
Privacy Fears Grow as Cities Increase Surveillance
By Somini Sengupta
- Oct. 13, 2013
OAKLAND, Calif. — Federal grants of $7 million awarded to this city were meant largely to help thwart terror attacks at its bustling port. But instead, the money is going to a police initiative that will collect and analyze reams of surveillance data from around town — from gunshot-detection sensors in the barrios of East Oakland to license plate readers mounted on police cars patrolling the city’s upscale hills.
The new system, scheduled to begin next summer, is the latest example of how cities are compiling and processing large amounts of information, known as big data, for routine law enforcement. And the system underscores how technology has enabled the tracking of people in many aspects of life.
The police can monitor a fire hose of social media posts to look for evidence of criminal activities; transportation agencies can track commuters’ toll payments when drivers use an electronic pass; and the National Security Agency, as news reports this summer revealed, scooped up telephone records of millions of cellphone customers in the United States.
Like the Oakland effort, other pushes to use new surveillance tools in law enforcement are supported with federal dollars. The New York Police Department, aided by federal financing, has a big data system that links 3,000 surveillance cameras with license plate readers, radiation sensors, criminal databases and terror suspect lists. Police in Massachusetts have used federal money to buy automated license plate scanners. And police in Texas have bought a drone with homeland security money, something that Alameda County, which Oakland is part of, also tried but shelved after public protest.
Proponents of the Oakland initiative, formally known as the Domain Awareness Center, say it will help the police reduce the city’s notoriously high crime rates. But critics say the program, which will create a central repository of surveillance information, will also gather data about the everyday movements and habits of law-abiding residents, raising legal and ethical questions about tracking people so closely.
Libby Schaaf, an Oakland City Council member, said that because of the city’s high crime rate, “it’s our responsibility to take advantage of new tools that become available.” She added, though, that the center would be able to “paint a pretty detailed picture of someone’s personal life, someone who may be innocent.”
For example, if two men were caught on camera at the port stealing goods and driving off in a black Honda sedan, Oakland authorities could look up where in the city the car had been in the last several weeks. That could include stoplights it drove past each morning and whether it regularly went to see Oakland A’s baseball games.
For law enforcement, data mining is a big step toward more complete intelligence gathering. The police have traditionally made arrests based on small bits of data — witness testimony, logs of license plate readers, footage from a surveillance camera perched above a bank machine. The new capacity to collect and sift through all that information gives the authorities a much broader view of the people they are investigating.
For the companies that make big data tools, projects like Oakland’s are a big business opportunity. Microsoft built the technology for the New York City program. I.B.M. has sold data-mining tools for Las Vegas and Memp
Federal grants of $7 million, initially intended to help thwart terror attacks at the port in Oakland, Calif., are instead going to a police initiative that will collect and analyze reams of surveillance data.CreditJim Wilson/The New York Times
The company’s contract to help modernize the New York City payroll system, using new technology like biometric readers, resulted in reports of kickbacks. Last year, the company paid the city $500 million to avoid a federal prosecution. The amount was believed to be the largest ever paid to settle accusations of government contract fraud. A representative of SAIC, now Leidos, declined to comment.
Even before the initiative, Oakland spent millions of dollars on traffic cameras, license plate readers and a network of sound sensors to pick up gunshots. Still, the city has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country. And an internal audit in August 2012 found that the police had spent $1.87 million on technology tools that did not work properly or remained unused because their vendors had gone out of business.
The new center will be far more ambitious. From a central location, it will electronically gather data around the clock from a variety of sensors and databases, analyze that data and display some of the information on a bank of giant monitors.
The city plans to staff the center around the clock. If there is an incident, workers can analyze the many sources of data to give leads to the police, fire department or Coast Guard. In the absence of an incident, how the data would be used and how long it would be kept remain largely unclear.
The center will collect feeds from cameras at the port, traffic cameras, license plate readers and gunshot sensors. The center will also be integrated next summer with a database that allows police to tap into reports of 911 calls. Renee Domingo, the city’s emergency services coordinator, said school surveillance cameras, as well as video data from the regional commuter rail system and state highways, may be added later.
Far less advanced surveillance programs have elicited resistance at the local and state level. Iowa City, for example, recently imposed a moratorium on some surveillance devices, including license plate readers. The Seattle City Council forced its police department to return a federally financed drone to the manufacturer.
Hmmm, WE THINK THESE FUNDS MADE IT INTO THE HANDS OF NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG FOR ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE INSIDE OF PEOPLE LIVING SPACES.
JUST WHAT KIND OF DATA WOULD CITY COUNCILS BE COLLECTING WITH ALL THOSE SPY CAMERAS AND VIDEO FEEDS? WELL, WE KNOW ILLEGAL STREAMING VIDEO PORN ET AL.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California described the program as “warrantless surveillance” and said “the city would be able to collect and stockpile comprehensive information about Oakland residents who have engaged in no wrongdoing.”
The port’s chief security officer, Michael O’Brien, sought to allay fears, saying the center was meant to hasten law-enforcement response time to crimes and emergencies. “It’s not to spy on people,” he said.
Steve Spiker, research and technology director at the Urban Strategies Council, an Oakland nonprofit organization that has examined the effectiveness of police technology tools, said he was uncomfortable with city officials knowing so much about his movements. But, he said, there is already so much public data that it makes sense to enable government officials to collect and analyze it for the public good.
THIS IS WHY NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG THINK IT IS SO FUNNY THAT THEY CAN FOLLOW ME ALL AROUND TOWN -------SAYING ANYTHING THEY WANT.
Still, he would like to know how all that data would be kept and shared. “What happens,” he wondered, “when someone doesn’t like me and has access to all that information?”
Correction: Oct. 16, 2013An article on Monday about a police surveillance system in Oakland, Calif., gave an outdated name for the city’s contractor for the system. While the contract to build the system was with the Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC, that company was renamed Leidos Holdings in late September.
We will segue from TRANSPORTATION policy which ended with a discussion of REAL POLICY GOALS for BIKE LANE development-----privatized roads for driverless corporate vehicles tied to moving cargo in what will be heavily industrial PORT and downtown-----midtown------uptown Baltimore.
Here are two HILLARY NASTY LADIES-----you know, those far-right wing global banking 5% freemason/Greek player/pols-------who don't care about losing that best in US old civil society of BALTIMORE which built that beautiful DRUID HILL PARK.
EMBRY AND CORNISH tied to families having been made MERELY RICH during these few decades of ROBBER BARON frauds------remember, those 5% are going under the bus as today they are THE NETWORK on public surveillance HITTING people ----using terms like SHE'S A SLAVE----he/she owns her------she is 'them' and not 'us'
DRUID HILL PARK has signage with elephants moving into that park ----well, that would HANNIBAL invading what was then the civil society of Western Europe----those OLD WORLD ROMANS.
OUR 99% OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS WANT OUR PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC PARTY BACK---THIS IS THE PEOPLE PARTY------NOT THE PARTY OF PEOPLE DOING ANYTHING EMPIRE ALICE SAYS.
We need our BALTIMORE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE to look like the 99% of citizens in Baltimore today----black, white, and brown----women and men. We don't want that third world DARK AGES MAOIST global corporate MARXIST extreme wealth extreme poverty colonialism
#IBikeIVote 2018: Elizabeth Embry
Published on Jun 12, 2018
Bikemore's Liz Cornish interviews Elizabeth Embry, running for Lieutenant Governor on the Rushern Baker gubernatorial ticket.
This City Just Made New Protected Bike Lanes MandatoryCambridge, Massachusetts, is now legally required to add bike lanes whenever it does road work on certain streets.
By Alex Vuocolo
Apr 11, 2019
- Cambridge, Massachusetts, passed a law requiring the city to add protected bike lanes whenever road work is done on certain streets.
- The Cycling Safety Ordinance puts the weight of the law behind new bike infrastructure.
- The law only applies to streets mapped out in the Cambridge Bicycle Plan, which recommends 20 miles of protected bike lanes in the city.
Any town can promise to build more bike lanes, but one city just took the unprecedented step of making them a legal requirement—in some cases, at least.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, passed a law on Monday directing the city to build new protected bike lanes whenever it does road work on certain streets. Known as the Cycling Safety Ordinance, it applies to all streets mapped out in the Cambridge Bicycle Plan, which recommends 20 miles of protected bike lanes throughout the 7-square-mile city, and effectively puts the weight of the law behind cycling infrastructure.
“It gives the bike plan teeth,” said Sam Feigenbaum, a volunteer with Cambridge Bicycle Safety, a local advocacy group. “It makes the bike plan a mandate as opposed to something that just exists on paper.”
A recent survey found that 60 percent of Cambridge residents support protected bike lanes, while another 36 percent said the city has improved bicycle safety. Those cheering the new law, however, shouldn’t expect a windfall of brand-new bike facilities. The process is tied to road improvements, which take place over several years and follow a schedule based on past repairs, present conditions, and money available for transportation spending.
“It’s more of a long-term solution,” Feigenbaum said. “You’re not going to all of a sudden see a flood of protected bike lanes.” He predicted that Cambridge will add about a mile and half in the coming year, based on the current map of planned road projects:
City of Cambridge
The law’s real benefit, Feigenbaum said, is that it takes guesswork out of the process. In the past, attempts to follow the Bicycle Plan have devolved into neighborhood fights over bike lanes that have prevented projects from moving forward. This law sets a clear standard that opponents can take or leave, but they won’t have the same ability to hold up a project until it fizzles out.
Protected bike lanes make Cambridge one of Bicycling's top 10 Best Bike Cities in America:
One notable exception to the law’s mandate: City officials have leeway to not build a bike lane if they provide a written reason why it would be impractical, although the bill qualifies that this should happen only in rare cases.
“If an exception needs to be made, I fully understand that it will test trust and good-faith dialogue exercised during this process,” said City Manager Louis A. DePasquale, who oversees all city departments and services. “I am committed to this ordinance, and I am committed to maintaining the trust of the public.”
Any future changes to the Cambridge Bike Plan must also maintain the “connectivity” of the current bike lane network, according to the ordinance. This is a safeguard, Feigenbaum said, against City Council watering down the plan, which will now essentially serve as an instruction for future builders.
“Planning for complete streets and finishing our connected bike network takes thoughtful planning that brings all stakeholders to the table,” said Cambridge city councillor Alanna Mallon. “[T]he Safe Cycling Ordinance will increase the city’s proactivity in creating protected bike infrastructure.”
With connectivity in mind, Feigenbaum said the next step for Cambridge Bike Safety is to push City Council to mandate four miles of quick-build projects—regular painted bike lanes, not separated ones with physical barriers—each year.
Here in Baltimore my case of NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG----illegal surveillance and black market PORN comes tied with HITTING AND CLEARING people out of their homes. I am 'them' not 'us'-----I am spoken to as if I am an enemy combatant captured and having no rights.
Keep in mind-----when I say 'I' -----these NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG structures are saturated in each community and all 99% of WE THE CITIZENS OF BALTIMORE are being HIT----and/or have been victims recruited to work for these political machines.
SOVEREIGN CITIZENS ---this is what this article addresses? When war is declared without any clear definition of what the ENEMY IS-------all sovereign citizens become collateral damage.
That is exactly what is MOVING FORWARD inside our US CITIES deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-------WHO IS THE ENEMY? Well, in case it is anyone being REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL CAPITALIST----just like those 1903 Baltimore civic leaders building one of best civil societies here in Baltimore FOR ALL 99% OF BALTIMORE citizens.
This weekend I hear through FEEDBACK NOSY NEIGHBORS making clear they are still WATCHING inside my apartment------THE NETWORK discussing the SHELTERS I have built to protect my body sovereignty ------no one SEEING MY STUFF-----while the disagreement comes from whether NOSY NEIGHBORS need to see me behind my CURTAIN. The discussion is not that NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG should not be inside my apartment----but, my case of SEXUAL ASSAULT is a distraction to installing SMART HOMES -----STANFORD TOTAL PRISON MODEL in MOVING FORWARD totalitarian colonial martial rule.
GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL COURTS AND MILITARY TRIBUNAL------IS ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE.
Iraq and Afghanistan: Who is an enemy combatant?
By Samuel Issacharoff
June 4, 2010
Two things distinguish the irregular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: It is not clear who is a combatant, and the United States is fighting a conflict with no clear battlefront.
That leaves us with the vexing question of how to handle detentions in this particular form of warfare.
For much of the period following 9/11, the Bush administration claimed that no legal authority could constrain the executive, regardless of the source of law and regardless whether at home or abroad or whether applied to enemy combatants or U.S. citizens. In response, civil libertarian objectors tried to fashion claims that domestic law should apply to all uses of American national security power, adopting the same blanket approach as the administration, only in reverse. When pressed to the point of claiming that there must be full judicial proceedings in a war zone, as in the recent case claiming habeas corpus rights for prisoners at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan, the civil libertarian claim collapses as lacking legal authority and being thoroughly impractical.
So what’s the answer?
It is worth starting with first principles:
Detention is the object of wartime capture. An army encountering a hostile military force seeks to degrade its continued fighting capacity, including by capturing as many of its combatants as possible. The object of such detention is not penal; indeed, the laws of war prohibit the application of criminal processes absent extraordinary, specific crimes. It is not a criminal offense to be on the losing side of a battle in a war. But neither is it a pass to return to the field of battle.
In conventional wars, enemy soldiers are held away from the battlefield until the end of hostilities or through a prisoner exchange. The status of being a combatant is what justifies detention, and that applies regardless of the particular function performed. In war, it is as lawful to detain the cook as the bombardier. The critical question is not whether the detainee has committed a crime but whether he is part of a belligerent fighting force.
But we are not fighting conventional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In regular wars, soldiers are distinguished by uniforms and the open display of weapons. The requirement of identifying their rank and unit further distinguishes the detainees from civilians and in turn requires treatment as a prisoner of war. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. confronts unlawful combatants who do not identify their military status and who must be separated from innocent civilians.
Nor is there a defined battleground or clear end to the conflict. With Al Qaeda, at least, there is no corresponding sovereign with whom to negotiate an eventual cessation of hostilities. That means that the concept of detention until the end of hostilities does not match the battlefield realities.
Under these circumstances, we must fashion procedures to do two things: There must be a legal mechanism to determine the propriety of detention based on a correct identification of an individual’s status as a combatant. And there must be a new process to determine the need for continued detention, reflecting both the fact that it is intolerable to hold individuals forever and that it is equally irresponsible simply to release individuals to resume terrorist activities.
In the absence of credible legal mechanisms to perform these two functions, pressure will mount on U.S. courts to apply customary tools such as habeas review to fill the void. Similarly, the failure to highlight the central role of detention in wartime leads to misplaced demands that all detainees be tried through civilian criminal processes under misguided expansion of domestic criminal laws.
The American military has taken a critical first step toward filling this void with the creation of Detainee Review Boards, which will assume responsibility for expeditiously assessing the status of an individual as a combatant. That cures a major failure of prior policy, which allowed individuals to remain in custody for years without any attempt to verify that they were in fact combatants. The boards’ processes, if correctly applied, should provide a legally adequate response to the demand for some confidence in the propriety of detainee detention.
NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG ON THE NETWORK ARE DISCUSSING WHETHER I HAVE BEEN PROPERLY REHABILITATED----NO, THEY SAY---SHE STILL WILL NOT DO GROUP SPEAK AND CHATTER-----SHE IS SAYING AND DOING WHAT SHE WANTS.
What remains is the daunting task of developing proper procedures, including regular review, to assess the continued dangerousness of combatants then detained. The initial impulse to reduce this to a question of individual criminal culpability — either under American or Afghan law — fails to address the fact that detention is about status as a combatant and runs into immediate practical problems of proof, witnesses and trial format. Unless this issue is addressed properly, the demands for habeas or some other form of legal relief in American courts will return in years to come, likely for the exact same prisoners.
Samuel Issacharoff is a professor of constitutional law at NYU School of Law.