Now, Dupnik seems to be very troubled by inflammatory rhetoric; except, he only seems to thus define words when they inflame him. I wonder, did Dupnik notice when militant atheist Christopher Hitchens said after Rev. Jerry Falwell’s death, “I think it’s a pity there isn’t a hell for him to go to” or when another of his leftist friends, Julianne Malveaux, hoped that Clarence Thomas’ wife would feed the justice a high-fat diet so he’d die of a heart attack? Does Dupnik stay up at night worrying about Barack Obama’s statement, “If they [the Republicans] bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” or about how the president referred to American political opponents as “enemies”? Probably not. After all, he seems to be of one mind and tongue with Obama, having opposed AZ’s original immigration law, calling it “racist,” “disgusting” and “stupid.” And imagine, Dupnik’s Pima County abuts Maricopa County, home of “America’s Toughest Sheriff.” Just cross a border and you go from Joe Arpaio to a jawing pie hole.
Although it’s clear that the left wins the inflammatory-rhetoric title hands down (although my last sentence just helped my side narrow the gap), it’s obvious that we all can be acid-tongued. Having said this, guess what? Dupnik is right.
Words do have consequences.
And we should watch what we say.
The problem is that Dupnik & Co. have no idea on what basis we should self-censor. It’s not a matter of avoiding inflammatory rhetoric because, as with certain topical medications, what inflames some may soothe others. Besides, is it really always wrong to inflame passions? Let’s examine the matter.
