Capitol Hill Blue - A call for a New American Civil War

Capitol Hill Blue - A call for a New American Civil War

I just read this and was moved to comment. Well, that comment exceeded all decent standards for brevity, so I'll call it a post.



While I generally approve of civil discourse, it need not be bland, nor should it be confused with "being nice" or "polite."

Possibly the most important words you have ever uttered, Doug, are these:

"Fuck You! Strong letter to follow." (All proceeds to Doug, should he need them or to the ACLU, should he not.)

Sometimes a visceral response to an unconscionable act is called for. This was understood by our Founders, for the custom of the duel was still well regarded for such violations of proper behavior, just as elaborate customs of civility were intended to avoid occasions of deadly offense.

But short of outright uncivil behavior, disrespect for the rights of the citizenry and the decent opinion of the world; let us abide by the common view of civil discourse, for if the only words we use are fo http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/2006/03/a_call_for_a_new_american_civi.htmlul and our only response to abuse is to behave the same, then our words may be easily dismissed, and the times the only proper and intelligent response is visceral – the offending party will seem the offended.

But your particularly skillful combination of words - "Fuck you! Strong letter to follow" is immune to that consequence. It is a slap – followed by reason. And you have indeed shared with us the meaning and intent of what an unnamed person might have communicated to a lawyer, if they had one, to a government official who deserves to be unnamed for the sake of their family’s honor. The repute of the government he is employed by is, alas, irretrievable for countenancing such stupidity. But I digress.

Regardless of the current legal situation you find yourself in - or should I say, your current entanglement with the illegal and unethical abuse of government power clad in a fig-leaf of legalism - the fact is the Bushites need to be slapped repeatedly until they regain self-awareness.

While I recognize that it's no longer arguable to dispute a comparison of Bushites to Fascists - it seems to me that their implementation of Fascist ideals is in line with all their other initiatives, and therefore to compare Bush to Hitler is something of an insult the frighteningly effective Germanic competence of that unlamented regime.

Indeed, I don't think it would be fair to Italian fascism, either.

But, alas, this is not surprising. The willful ignorance, superstition, blind and Unchristian faith of "The Base" as expressed by the drive-by "contributions" to this thread are telling.

And that is why I echo your call for civility - within limits.

"Never argue with fools; people may not be able to tell the difference." Contemptible folly deserves only contempt. Factual, reasoned, relentless, visible contempt.

The arguments used by Bushites are purely jingoistic; persuasive only to those who slept through third grade civics. It is an insult to the intelligence of anyone capable of reading a newspaper to actually read a newspaper these days.

But as the “heartlanders” equate debate and pointed questions with "liberalism" and "moral decay," and intelligence with demonic possession, they are not insulted; they are incapable of insult. They cannot comprehend how it is an insult to them to presume upon their informational deficits and learned aversion to critical thinking.

They speak instead of the free and legal choices of individuals to variously believe and act in accordance with their own ethics and their own moral vision as “a lack of a moral compass.”

I do not understand how it's possible to say that with a straight face in support of our Lords of Misrule, who have set a record for flagrant disregard of all standards of moral conduct, save for the Eleventh Law; “Thou shall not get caught.” (at least, not when there’s a Democratic prosecutor around…)

When people speak of a general lack of a "moral compass" - they mean "not in compliance with the dictates of The Assemblies of God or other such Dominist Evangelical cults.

And yes, I believe I am using the word cult meaningfully and accurately, even if it may seem impolite of me to observe that people such as Alexandria, speaking from within the viewpoint of politically active "big-box" churches are clearly raving loons who's viewpoints are not just repugnant, but insupportable with fact, reason or even the Scripture they thump so loudly.

We must be civil in this war for the heart, mind and soul of America, for only by being civil and insisting on rational, reasoned debate may we distinguish the right from the ridiculous.