A recent Twitter rant about Sheriff David Clarke’s uniform went viral to the point of being reported by the media. The problem is, it is chock full of logical and factual errors. The series of tweets railed against his uniform, accusing the Sheriff of wearing unauthorized items and implying (but not stating outright) stolen valor. Media reports took it one step further (imagine that), with headlines like “Looks like Sheriff David Clarke’s “army” medals might be B.S.” Social media comments outright accuse him of stolen valor (even using the sharp sign, err… hashtag), along with the usual foaming-at-the-mouth ad hominem tirades.
Let me attempt to inject some sanity into this ridiculousness, if you please. Scattered within said 14-tweet screed, the author asserts the following: “You see all that shit pinned all over his dress uniform jacket? That’s not supposed to be there”, as well as “On the left side, you have what appears to be more badge replicas/pins and several ribbons, one of which looks unauthorized.” Also, “… and then up top, you have the flag pin arranged on the lapel as though it’s part of the uniform code. Pretty sure it’s not.” My problem with this is not his attack on David Clarke. If you read the entire series of tweets along with other of his writings, it is blatantly obvious he has an axe to grind with Sheriff Clarke. That’s his problem, not mine. I’m not here to defend the Sheriff, that’s his job. I’m here to defend logic. My first issue with this is quite simple, and best described in question/answer format. Who sets the uniform standards for a Sheriff’s Department? The answer: THE SHERIFF. Period. End of story. Therefore, every single point raised above is absolutely incorrect. If the good sheriff wants the uniform to be a pink leopard-print romper with a green Borat mankini on the outside, then that’s the uniform code. Another burr under my saddle was this gem: “It’s literally a sloppy assortment of badge replicas arranged neatly…” Which one is it? It’s either a sloppy assortment, or it’s arranged neatly. It cannot be both. My second issue is that in all the pics which were posted as evidence, I did not recognize one single solitary piece of military insignia. I will concede, however, the last point in time I was subject to Army uniform regulation (AR 670-1) was likely before the author of that rant was a gleam in his daddy’s eye. There are undoubtedly many pieces of authorized insignia which have been added to the mix since I’ve been out. That being said, the burden of proof is on the doubter. It is his job to specifically identify each piece of wayward insignia and why it doesn’t belong, according to standard. I won’t hold my breath.
The remainder of his missive is, as I mentioned above, mostly personal attacks on the sheriff. As I also mentioned previously, that’s not my problem. I’ll leave it at this; for the sake of logic, if you wish to raise an issue (with anything, not just this), be precise with your statements. Be accurate with your accusations. It is hardly within the realm of logic to accuse one of wearing unauthorized uniform items/uniform not being up to code when the target of your attack is the one who sets the code. Chill. AR 670-1 doesn’t apply to a sheriff’s department.
Whether or not said code is over the top is a separate issue from the above, and certainly open for discussion. Now that it has been mentioned and I’ve looked, his dress uniform jacket does look a bit busy. Frankly, though? I’ve got better things to worry about.
I do find it puzzling from a logical perspective to see this story was picked up by the media. Politically, though, it’s easy. If David Clarke was an outspoken Democrat and/or a Hillary supporter, there would have been nothing but crickets on this one. David Clarke’s only real sin is being a black man who supports Republicans and speaks out against the terrorist group BLM.
One thing, and nothing personal, but I consider the following description of a hypothetical sheriff uniform a crime against humanity: “…a pink leopard-print romper with a green Borat mankini on the outside…”
A person can’t unsee pictures painted in their mind’s eye. I will let you know if this causes any permanent damage. Given we have but one, the loss of it could be devastating- resulting in the inability to visualize all further descriptions I read.
I do occasionally stroll near the absurd when feeling the need to push a point through dense fog. Offering ocular offense was surely not intended; hopefully you’ll come back and read a few of our other posts!