In New Jersey, a story that had been known for some time finally erupted into a full-fledged scandal. Last September on the 9th, 2 of the 3 the dedicated toll lanes of the Fort Lee entrance to the George Washington Bridge that leads into NYC were closed for the purported intent of a traffic study until September 13 in the morning. Some immediately suspected the move to be a pretext to retaliate against Fort LEe’S Mayor Mark Sokolich which had “forgotten” to endorse fellow Republican Chris Christie in his bid for re-election as Governor of New Jersey.
The first reports let the blame fall on underlings as Christie made numerous clear remarks stating the facts to be unacceptable, denying personal involvement and firing a couple of people. The NY times later published e-mails showing Gov. Christie’s chief of staff Bridget Ann Kelly ( whom the governor fired yesterday ) to have known of the dramatic effects and voluntarily pressed on with them. At least one woman died as her ambulance was slowed down by the traffic. Then today, David Wildstein who was identified as one of the original culprits refused to testify in front of an ad hoc committee invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to say anything that could incriminate himself Governor Christie apologized for the conduct of his staff. Apologizing for something that you swore that you had no part in has always been quite suspicious in my mind, oh well …
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/10/us-usa-politics-christie-analysis-idUSBREA0900L20140110
As we stand, things do not look good for Chris Christie. That has important political repercussions as he was a favorite to run for the Republican nomination for the next Presidential Election. He was the guy that was the most acceptable to the left-wing electors. If the scandal excludes him, it forces the GOP to consider an opposition between classic Republican and Tea-Party newbies which is likely to cost it the election.
The only good point is that it was made public and American citizens should be glad as there are countries where such news remain within the confines of those in power? Small consoling point!
In France, the controversial comic Dieudonné was supposed to begin a national show tour today in Nantes. The local administrative tribunal contravened a ministerial paper asking for the shows top be forbidden by the local state authorities. Dieudonné is accused and was in fact condemned in the past for / of anti-semite insults. The problem is that by making it compulsory to ban a show that has not yet been played out, the government is asking for a preemptive decision of justice? Four hours after the local Nantes judicial decision, the Conseil d’État ( State Council or supreme administrative instance ) reversed it by considered the danger of to the dignity of the person to be potent. Spectators were outraged and 20 buses of police were sent to contain them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25676701
The problem here is of course that since the contents of the show were not made public, this decision falls under a freedom of expression rights conundrum. It is extremely likely to say the least that the European Court that will certainly be seized by Dieudonné’s lawyers will then fine the French government for it. This makes a link between our first and next stories as it borders on both politics and bigotry. Yes, Dieudonné made very dubious remarks in recent years and can be considered as a bigot. No, the French authorities are not allowed to decide who can express themselves even though they are in charge of suing wrongful uses of that liberty. For all that I find disturbing in the comedian’s shift, I have to side with Voltaire and the presumption of innocence in disagreeing strongly with the State Council. If my blog was closed by a given power “just in case”, as I may eventually write bad things, I’d be outraged and sue. This situation is a trial of opinion and reeks of mind police.
On to the bigotry proper! In New Mexico, a teacher uses yoga exercises to favor health and weight loss for her students. She decided however not to use the term yoga as the discipline is inherently of Indian religious inspiration. She also recently disclosed all of that in front of a legislative committee. That brought Republican Rep. Alonzo Baldonado to say that parents should be notified of the fact that it was yoga and allowed to opt out of the classes for their children in order not to expose them to Eastern religions adding that he wouldn’t want his children exposed to non-religious practices. The funniest part being that Baldonado’s children are home-schooled which sorts of preclude any risk, right?
In general though, many other points have to be made. First, yoga the exercise can be detached from the religion that accompanies it. It is after all available a a class in many YM/YWCAs across the land. Maybe they should be closed? Second, if the choice is between exercising ( without a clue ) along a religious inspired program or getting as fat as the average American, I’d favor the former. And third, this is unadulterated bigotry which is as bad for your mental health as not exercising is for your body’s.
I could explain this in my usual humorous tone but it so happens that I have a perfect example at hand in my memory. A very friend of mine was schooled by the Jesuits. Around age 16, they had a class about the other religions of the world. The Jesuits did not think that thus exposing their students was deleterious; in fact they welcomed it. Being the extremists that they are, Jesuits believe that Christianity is the right answer to man’s soul problems. They hold that belief so truly that they think that if young persons is brought to intelligence, that will lead them de facto to believing in Jesus. What makes this relative to our story is that Pope Francis is a Jesuit? So that I couldn’t help wondering if Baldonado was trying to be more christian than the Pope.
In a nutshell, what that gentleman is doing is both similar to the French Government’s stance by trying to exclude possibly different or improper thinking and contrary to Jesuitic logic. If your belief is true, my good Alonzo, it needs not to be protected from anything. In fact, you should welcome chances to pit it at opposition. Shunning or forbidding ideas is an admission of feebleness. I for one would debate any of the ideas that I hold true without hesitation.
The only reason for forbidding a thing is the certainty of impending doom if it is allowed to go on. Forbidding a show is bigotry in its own right and shows the French government to be afraid of Dieudonné or at least angry at him. Forbidding an exercise class or excluding yourself from it shows that you are afraid your beliefs would have to yield?
But then again, has bigotry ever been about anything else than fear?
Tay.
Definitive Lapse of Reason 