Clarence Dupnik, the embattled Sheriff from Tucson, Arizona whose hateful and incendiary comments following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords served as the spark that ignited the ensuing firestorm of attacks from both right and left (mostly from the left) that have now led to the politically-expedient calls for unity and for toning down of the political rhetoric that we are now hearing from President Barack Obama and others, is aptly named.
|Sheriff Clarence Dupnik|
Dupnik's rhetoric singularly turned a national tragedy into a massive feeding-frenzy of blame and finger-pointing. Not long after Dupnik first opened his mouth and began spouting vitriol, his accomplices on the left were working tirelessly to try to link the shooter to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, George W. Bush, the Tea Party and others.
We were told to believe that it was hateful rhetoric coming from the likes of the people listed above that drove the shooter to insanity. If Sarah Palin hadn't used a "bullseye" metaphor on her U.S. campaign district map, the shooter may never have gotten the idea.
It was Sheriff Dupnik himself that informed us of the link between the shooter and Rush Limbaugh. Granted, he couldn't tell us how Limbaugh set him off (other than to lament that Limbaugh is on the air for three hours every day), and couldn't recall what Limbaugh said specifically that might have driven the shooter, we were nonetheless supposed to accept as Gospel that Rush is going around saying nasty things that can turn a deranged person homicidal.
Already, there have been increased calls for gun control on the left in the wake of the tragedy. Democrats in Congress and the Senate are beginning to bring up the "Fairness" Doctrine in a favorable context once again. The House of Representatives shut down this past week, postponing a plan to bring an Obamacare-Repeal bill to the floor and open it up for debate.
The opportunistic exploitation of the tragedy is in no way limited to the media name-calling and finger-pointing. As the examples in the previous paragraph illustrate, elected representatives in the United States government were also quick to jump on the tragedy-exploitation bandwagon and saddle it with their own legislative initiatives (some more unconstitutional than others).
In response to this, conservatives have tried fruitlessly to point out that it was Obama who said "if they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun". The have replayed incendiary remarks by Obama in hopes of illustrating the hypocrisy of the suddenly holier-than-thou President. They have reminded everyone of all the left's vitriol. All of this has created the appearance that they're as guilty of politicizing the tragedy as is the left.
It might have been more productive to drive home the point that according to his friends, Jared Loughner was a radical left-wing liberal who didn't like the news, didn't listen to talk radio and had been obsessed with Congresswoman Giffords since before the inception of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin's rise to prominence. I'd like to see a poll on how many people are aware of this fact versus how many believe that heated rhetoric played a role in the shooting.
In any case, all of this was in response to Sheriff Clarence Dupnik's hate-filled, partisan rhetoric in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Dupnik's words are what spawned all of that which is mentioned above --- from both sides of the political aisle. Granted, the question of 'would it have happened had the Sheriff not incited it?' is very much a matter for debate. I personally don't think it would have been anywhere near as bad had the initial reaction been more respectful of the families of the deceased and less intent on scoring political points.
What's in a Name?
In light of Dupnik's role in the post-shooting chaos that has gripped the nation, I couldn't help but observe that the sheriff appears to have been aptly named for the type of "work" he's currently engaged in (spawning heated, two-way rhetorical attacks in the wake of a tragedy).
You see, Dupnik's name draws from two different words, "dupe" and "nik".
Dupe (French), according to The Free Dictionary, is defined as:
1. An easily deceived person.
2. A person who functions as the tool of another person or power.
Nik (Russian), according to The Free Dictionary, has two definitions as well:
1. One associated with or characterized by
2. Denoting a person associated with a specified state, belief, or quality
I'm going to refrain from explaining the significance of the definitions as they related to the man whose name they make up. I like to think that you, my readers, are well able to figure that much out on your own. If anyone really doesn't get it, please request an explanation in the comments and I will provide one.
In any case, everyone be double-sure to obey the laws out there. There may be a sheriff lurking the streets who is associated with and characterized by his extreme left-wing beliefs, who is very easily deceived, and who functions as a tool of George Soros and the political left.
When Sheriff Dupnik asks for your license and registration, it's your voter registration he's really after. If you just admit you were speeding, and tell him that it's Rush Limbaugh's fault you were speeding for getting your blood pressure up with his fiery rhetoric, he'll probably just let you go with a warning...