Consider the following for a moment -
The Times and Democrat of Orangeburg reports that Norway Mayor Jim Preacher was stopped for speeding on Wednesday. After the traffic stop, Norway turned on the blue lights and siren in his vehicle and pulled the trooper over.The Real Effect
Norway acknowledges he was speeding, but says he was acting in his capacity as the town's chief constable.
Now what does this have to do with Gingrich? Let's look at the following -
Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker, on Tuesday morning threatened not participate in any future debates with audiences that have been instructed to be silent. That was the case on Monday, when Brian Williams of NBC News asked the audience of about 500 people who assembled for a debate in Tampa to hold their applause until the commercial breaks.As the Drudge Report is aptly pointing out, this isn't exactly unprecedented.
In an interview with the morning show “Fox and Friends,” Mr. Gingrich said NBC’s rules amounted to stifling free speech. In what has become a standard line of attack for his anti-establishment campaign, Mr. Gingrich blamed the media for trying to silence a dissenting point of view.
At the start of the Sept. 26, 2008, debate Jim Lehrer explained: “The audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent, no cheers, no applause, no noise of any kind, except right now, as we welcome Senators Obama and McCain.”Once again, you may ask, what does one have to do with the other? Easy, both demonstrate the symptoms of the overall problem in American politics. Using the power of the law to get what you want.
In the first example we have a mayor, obviously torqued because he was pulled over. So he decided to show that trooper who his boss was by returning the favor. This is not justice. This is not equity. This is a raw use of power to send a message, I am above all this.
In the example provided with Gingrich, we see the same dynamics at work. Gingrich routinely throws out the moral outrage card in an attempt to sway his audience into taking his side. This has nothing to do with what actually happens in these situations, it has everything to do with taking control. Again and again we see this in Gingrich's private life and public. He doesn't care for the situation so he aggressively tries to gain control so that he can 'right' things. Of course opposing him is the equivalent of opposing America. Never mind the sort of idiots that feel marriage should be a federal issue support an individual such as Newt should be in charge of this sort of nonsense. After all, what could be wrong about having a foreign army defending a country they neither love nor reside in?
It is no small wonder then, that most discussions start not with questions of justice or law, but rather appeals to authority and the 'good of society' in an attempt to avoid the relevant issue of justice.
As a final note, perhaps John Stewart can shed some sort of light on this.