I was wondering if walking the fine line between insult and non-legally actionable words is easy. I am generally a polite person. I may impugn but I rarely use explicit insult and direct invective. Why not? Many right-wing demagogues in the media seem quite comfortable trading in the vilest of character assassination. Why should I be reasonable and measured in my tone and words? Does it lower me to a coarse level? Does it transform me from a steady Dr. Jekyl to a ravening Mr. Hyde? Exactly how easy is it to disregard facts and disfigure the truth? Perhaps a small exercise is in order, purely in the interests of science you understand.

Since I recently did a post on Karl Rove that was in my usual mild voice, I shall use him as a test subject. Go.

Karl Rove was very close to Donald Segretti. It's disgusting how close he was to Segretti. Rove may say it was a "normal" political mentorship but it's clear that Rove knew how to squeal like a pig when Donald told him to. Every relationship is beautiful in it's own way. Except this one.

Rove has always latched onto political figures. He seems to like serving under such men. And he services them right back to the best of his abilities. He's really skilled at manipulation. He can suck a watermelon through a straw if that's what it takes.

Of course it helps that he lies quite well.

Hmm. This is a little more difficult than I thought. And implying Rove is homosexual is a nasty insult to homosexuals. I guess this is a technique requiring some diligence in developing. Plus I need to steal some from the radical right. I hesitate to call someone a traitor; this is a failing in this endeavor. This is the problem when I have a generally reasonable approach and the opposition has no compunction about using the tactics of fear, lies, and exaggeration.

I must think on this.