OH, WHAT the hell. Let’s talk about it: dirty politics. It is shameful and disgusting but filth is a resident evil – or evil resident – of politics. Deep down, we enjoy watching it.

What appeals to raw human emotions draws attention. Anything that offends one’s sensibility spawns a discourse. That is why sensational stories land on page one most of the time.

So, whether or not it was his campaign’s desperate ploy to get a share of the limelight, Independent candidate Jonathan Frank Blas Diaz certainly added a little Tabasco pungency to the otherwise vanilla-tasting congressional race.

He fired the first salvo at his namesake, Republican candidate Frank Blas, whom he accused of committing a conflict of interest by not opting out of voting on the measure to include Independent candidates on the primary ballot. Fairly or unfairly, the Legislature has dismissed Diaz’s ethics complaint, which according to Ron McNinch wasn’t much of an ethics complaint but “a form of political communication.”

The second salvo was aimed at the incumbent delegate, Madeleine Bordallo, whom Diaz asked to “undergo psychological assessment.” Now, if this were U.S. mainland politics, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would’ve been having a field day. But this is Guam, a community generally characterized by rural politeness and old-fashioned deference for people of certain stature. This is why Diaz’s intrepidity – frowned on as disrespectfulness – was received with low tolerance.

As always, Bordallo took the high road and maintained her charm, demonstrating the same remarkable grace she showed when confronted by Stephen Colbert’s urban irreverence on his show in 2008.

She won’t debate anyone, period. Declining to dignify Diaz’s suggestion she may be suffering from dementia, Bordallo focused her response on explaining why the federal government would not release classified information in the Center for Strategic and International Studies report.

But Diaz wasn’t done just yet. He had one more bullet left for his fellow scholar, the Democratic challenger Karlo Dizon, who was caught in the crossfire when he issued a statement.

“I respect Mr. Diaz's passion, but to elevate politics on our island we must begin by elevating our discourse," Dizon stated. "I have nothing but respect and admiration for the delegate's decades of service. My focus remains on building a better economy for the people of Guam.”

Diaz posted a response on Dizon’s Facebook timeline, chiding the political neophyte for stealing the thunder. “What a great way to redirect the attention from me to you,” Diaz wrote. “If you truly respect the current delegate, why are you running against her within the same party?”

Now I can’t wait to hear a real debate between two of Guam’s young scholars. Guam’s congressional race has never been this exciting and hasn’t gotten this much attention in many years. Thanks to the emergence of what Gerry Partido called “Madeleine’s crowd.”

To be fair, Diaz doesn’t forget why he is running for public office. “Now let's get down to business for the peoples of Guam and work together and solve the problem, rather than point the finger,” he wrote on Dizon’s FB page.

For all the flak he got, I would credit Diaz for risking being ostracized by being honest enough to say what he thinks of the Emperor’s new clothes.

“This is one way we elevate the politics on the island, by elevating the discourse and stating to the people who are suffering, that we won't settle for less and we don't lie,” he wrote on FB.

Ideally, every person running for any public office must undergo psychological assessments, and IQ tests for that matter. We can’t deny that we have been occasionally tricked by the psychologically misfit, morally corrupt and intellectually incapacitated.

You may think it’s frivolous, but Diaz’s call for Bordallo’s “psychological assessment” has provided an ad hoc platform to test the psychological and intellectual capacities of all candidates. How they respond, how they react, how high or low they would go, and how they emerge from the mud would tell you what kind of person you are voting for.

Sometimes, dirty politics is a necessary evil. It captures attention. It is the first step toward intellectual processing that helps voters to reach a sensible conclusion and a prudent decision.