Need evidence to support the theory that Chris Christie would have been better off had he run for president in 2012 rather than 2016? Look no further than Donald Trump.
In the early days of the 2016 campaign, The Donald has risen to the top of several GOP presidential polls by employing a style and a tone quite similar to Christie’s. These same tactics once helped the New Jersey governor earn high approval ratings and land on the cover of several national magazines. They also might have helped him become a top contender for national office in 2012.
As governor, Christie has called a U.S. Senator a partisan hack, a state assemblywoman a jerk, an openly gay legislator numbnuts, and a former Navy Seal an idiot. He once told reporters to “take the bat out on” a 76-year old state Senator and grandmother who was critical of his administration.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s administration not only denied Hoboken its hurricane recovery money, but turned on a loyal mayor.
Hoboken after Hurricane Sandy. Image Wikimedia Commons
Like flounders, more reports about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s trademark bullying have begun to come out of the mud since “Bridgegate” broke. At MSNBC, Steve Kornacki writes about a story arguably worse than Governor Traffic Jam’s administration shutting down two of Fort Lee’s entrance lanes to the George Washington Bridge with little thought for the consequences ― not only for commuters, but for themselves.
It seems that after Hurricane Sandy, Mayor Dawn Zimmer of Hoboken, which is on the Hudson River not far from the Atlantic Ocean, requested a share of the FEMA-administered $50 million coming New Jersey’s way. Continue reading →
Right now, the East Coast is still recovering from Hurricane Sandy and the destruction she wrought. New Jersey in particular was hard-hit, forcing boards of elections to think quickly: how can people vote if they’ve been displaced?
Answer: They can fax their votes, or vote online. From The Atlantic:
“Less than a week after the storm — and just three days before Election Day — New Jersey officials have announced that they will allow those displaced from their homes and first responders to submit their votes by email or fax. A directive issued by Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno officially designated displaced New Jersey residents as “overseas voters,” thus giving them the electronic voting option already available to New Jersey residents serving in the military. In addition, displaced voters and first responders may also vote by provisional ballot at any New Jersey polling location.”
The voters who wish to vote this way must first fax or e-mail a request to the board of elections, who will determine their eligibility for this voting method. Voters must then fill out a “waiver of secrecy” before the board of elections decide whether to send them a ballot or not.
Results: Our final preliminary pod went more or less to form, with the top seed running off and hiding from the pack. The numbers: #5 Neil Young 68%; The Doors 13%; The Levellers 9%; The Red Hot Chili Peppers 6%; The B-52s 3%; Iron Maiden 1%; Deep Purple 0%. NY advances to the Great 48. Speaking of the Great 48….
Now, ladies and gentlemens, the Tournament of Rock – Legends edition, S&R’s epic search for the greatest band of all time, gets serious. Our 32 preliminary pod winners now join our top 16 seeds (four in each region) in the Great 48, and may the best band rock!
Our first match-up is a tough one. Really, really tough. Please welcome the #2 seed in the Hollywood Bowl region, hailing from Asbury Park, New Jersey… Continue reading →
In an unexpected development, jurors in the UK acquitted six Greenpeace activists in a case involving £35,000 ($62,591) worth of damages to a coal-fired power plant. The defense had argued that a 1971 law (Criminal Damage Act 1971) permitting damage to property in order to prevent even greater property damage applied to the activists. Specifically, the Greenpeace activists claimed that they were preventing “damage to properties worldwide caused by global warming”. And the jurors agreed.
This case defines a precedent for UK law that will be difficult to sort out. Does it mean that Parliament comes back through and refines the law to prevent this kind of “abuse” in the future? Or does it mean that the UK cannot build any more new coal plants without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)? Continue reading →