I thought it might be one of those doctored photographs.
There are people out there mean enough who'd know how to rig up a bogus addition to an actual picture of Sen. Alan Clark as he grinned while talking to a man Saturday night at the Republican State Convention.
The purpose could have been to humiliate Clark--further--or set up a recipient in the media to fall for a fake.
That black sign with a red "E" hanging from a strap around Clark's neck, like a bib, appearing in a photo posted at least twice on social media, was assumed by the posters to denote a "Scarlet E," representing ethics.
Clark had been sanctioned by the Senate two days before for trying to get himself signed in in absentia so he could collect a per diem of $155 for a committee meeting.
It appeared for all the world that Clark was making light of what he'd done, even the entire concept of ethics. It seemed pretty much to obliterate the admission of a mistake and the apologies he'd given to the Senate in its public hearing on the matter Thursday.
So, I inquired of Clark. He didn't respond. So I asked around. Yeah, I was told, Clark was at the convention that night and he wore that sign. I was told he'd been overheard saying that, now that his ethics matter had been concluded, we could turn our attention to the ethics of others.
After a few emailed, texted and voice-mail pleas from me, Clark called back to say, yes, he wore it, and, yes, he did so of his own volition and no one put it on him, and, no, he wasn't making light of his error, but, yes, he believes the ethics rules of the Senate, which he said he opposed from the start, exist mainly for enemy senators--and there seem to be a gaggle of those--to go after each other on what, in his case, was a blunder for sure.
He wasn't spoofing or mocking, he insisted. "I was saying, yeah, I get the Scarlet E."
As to whether he invoked ethics transgressions by others, he said he merely thinks that the Senate will come to regret the personal or vindictive abuses invited by the ethics process.
Through it all, three points must persist:
One is that, without excuse or equivocation, it is wrong to try to get yourself signed in for reimbursement for attending a legislative function you didn't attend.
Yes, the payment got pre-empted and was never made. Yes, delicate matters like that can be handled quietly among friends, though they shouldn't be. And, yes, there could well be ethical failings elsewhere in the legislative body.
And nary a word of that matters to the central point.
Two, it was a damned fool move for Clark to go to a well-attended public function two days after his disciplining while adorned with that sign, no matter what he meant. It looks like mockery. It feeds cynicism.
Don't double your blunder. You know what they say: When in a hole, stop shoveling; it makes it harder to get out.
And, three, if there are openings for personal grudges to be exploited by some failing in the Senate ethics rules, then those should be corrected, but regulation of public official ethics must always be stringent with allegations investigated thoroughly, transparently and credibly, and transgressions sanctioned swiftly and justly.
I figure people will be willing to start letting go of this matter in time, but only after Clark does.
Meantime, gadfly lawyer Tom Mars--who is not without his courtroom successes--is making Twitter posts to the effect that theft of $155 is prosecutable, and abuse of public office is grounds for removal. This issue is not "a wrap," as some have said, the attorney warns.
So, between the nettlesome lawyer and the huffy miscreant, this story has two chances to not go away.
John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is a member of the Arkansas Writers' Hall of Fame. Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.com. Read his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.