In cases like this, it is always amazing how a supposedly great leader can know absolutely nothing about what their underlings are doing. Even those who are notorious for micromanaging, somehow do it with no information.
Stephen Harper is arguing the same in court currently.
The powerful leader was ignorant of the activities of his own officeā¦
Iām from NJ. Heās a horrible governor. You donāt want him to be president.
What, heās a perfect candidate, if you think a perfect candidate is a petulant bully with no big plans or vision.
This entire incident has been very telling of Christieās ability to govern, IMO. If he had no idea what his underlings were up to, heās incompetent because he isnāt involved enough in governing to know what his underlings are up to. If he knew what his underlings were up to, and possibly even ordered the bridge closure, then heās a petty, vindictive liar who is actively obstructing the investigation of the incident.
Itās a side effect of the difficulties of measuring a Schrƶdingerās Bureaucracy by classical means:
When no reporters are nearby, they exist in a superposition of states where the minions were just following orders and the minions were exceeding their authorization without the knowledge of their superiors.
When examined, the situation is supposed to collapse into one state or the other. However, especially pernicious cases are known where the Pauli Impunity Principle causes the situation to always behave as though the minions were just following orders when you investigate the minions and always behave as though the minions were exceeding their authorization without the knowledge of the leader when you are investigating the leader. Even if you try to investigate both.
Good God you deserve he Nobel Prize for Organizational Studies.
With so many worse things the Christie administration has done why is everyone focused on a traffic delay?
Nobody wants a troll in the White House, and behavior doesnāt get any more troll-like than blocking access to a bridge.
Simply brilliant!
Because it instantiates everyoneās worst stereotypes about crooked New Jersey politicians.
I suspect that the sheer pathos (āSpiteful fat man secretly closes bridge to get back at some guy who wouldnāt kiss his pinkie ring, spins series of unconvincing liesā) makes it rather juicy, as does the fact that itās misconduct that is neither popular with some voters(unlike, say, torture, which makes you look strong and decisive in certain circles; āmessing with my commuteā is something that pretty much 0% of Americans are in favor of); nor is it something that can be readily dismissed as just what politicians do(like, say, a bit of discrete awarding posts to friends; you can get smacked for doing it too boldly; but some amount of it is just so common that the story lacks punch).
Okay so I snorted when I read this. This is the funniest thing Iāve read in a very long time.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
