Not fair. But deserved.
Various conservative-minded blogs, including some of the most eminent and well-respected, have flooded the internet with “Harry Reid is a pederast ( or pedophile)” rumors, innuendos and suggestions, like this one, from Red State:
“Harry Reid is a pedophile”
“I got that from a reliable source who made me promise not to reveal his name. But he knows. Honest. Now I’m sure some would expect me to back up this claim with some of those “fact” thingys or maybe a link or two. Well, given that I’ve promise anonymity for my source, not happening. Just Google “Harry Reid pedophile” there are 1.79 million hits. I’ve known this for some time but I was reluctant to go public with the information because I always back up my writing with facts and links. Since I’m sworn to secrecy this time I was uncomfortable putting this story out until some seminal events occurred this week, and I figured “what’s good for the goose…”
“As I’m sure you know, Harry Reid (the pedophile), told a reporter that “somebody” at the evil Bain Capital told him that Mitt Romney won’t release his taxes because he didn’t pay any taxes for ten years. And today Harry Reid (the pedophile) doubled down on this statement in the Las Vegas Review Journal…”
And so on, in that vein. The meme is doing its work: Sen. Reid is on the way to being “santorumed.”* Google his name, and Google’s suggested searches put “Harry Reid pederast” third. By next week, it could be first. Will some unsuspecting, innocent and trusting citizens come across this completely fanciful libel of Reid and believe it? Perhaps even a young nephew or niece of the Senate Majority Leader? Oh, we can be sure of that.
Is that fair and right?
Of course not.
Reid himself deserves little sympathy, for the collective smear on his name was prompted by his own scurrilous rumor-mongering on the floor of the U.S. Senate, where he asserted that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid his taxes for a decade based on no evidence whatsoever. Nonetheless, while giving someone a “taste of his own medicine” is no doubt satisfying and perhaps even instructive, wrong is wrong, and spreading intentional lies, even about a public figure as devoid of decency and scruples as the Senate Majority Leader, is unethical. No conduct, no matter how nauseating, by its target can justify this. Stooping to Reid’s level can only further degrade civility and dignity in American public discourse, which is the objective of political sewer-dwellers like Reid, not anyone with the best interests of the nation in mind.
Fortunately, when dealing with an individual as loathsome as Harry Reid, there are plenty of completely true statements that can and should be said that are only slightly less damning than “Harry Reid is a pedophile.” So let’s be fair to Harry: denigrate him with the truth. That’s what he truly deserves.
* Thanks to blogger Dan Savage, the former GOP Senator’s name is now a synonym for a disgusting bodily discharge.
_______________________________________________
UPDATE 1 (8/5): Well, it certainly is an honor to get a link from the estimable Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit. Now if only more of his readers would demonstrate some respect for and comprehension of ethics rather than endlessly chanting versions of “this is war” and “Reid hasn’t denied he is a pederast!” and “the mean Democrats do this all the time, so it’s time we fought back.” Not becoming, not impressive, and definitely not persuasive. The mind-numbing repetition is reminiscent of my debate with the pot-heads.
UPDATE 2 (8/6): The commenters aren’t bothering to read the thread, so I am getting the same comments over and over. Here is a directory of the ten most common comments, and my responses to them. You’re welcome.
___________________________________
Pointer: Instapundit
Graphic: Redstate
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Actually, by next week it’ll be “disappeared” from Google. Which is precisely what Google did to Climategate. Always thought it was strange that Google would tell me there were 13,000 hits when there had been 13,000,000 the night before.
I haven’t had this much fun watching a Democrat be ridiculed in a long time. What makes it so much fun is the pure satire of baseless allegations against Reid of something outlandish and utterly untrue (and everybody knows it is untrue) as a means of illustrating his offensive conduct of making baseless allegations against Mr. Romney. And to require of Reid that he deny the baseless allegations, just as he demands that Romney refute the baseless allegations he, Reid, has made.
Yes, name-calling is fun. If you are 11. Grow up.
Mr. Ethics is NOT Mr. Self-aware.
It’s not “Mr. Ethics,” it’s Captain Compliance. Get it right.
Pingback: Is Harry Reid a Pederast? | justbarkingmad.com
Reid was seriously trying to get traction for a false statement. The conservative bloggers were being toungue-in-cheek. That’s a big difference.
Answered this one already.
See, here’s the deal:
Liberal/progressive/socialists get to say whatever they want, free pass. They get to Occupy, to litter, to block traffic, to steal, to rape, burn, and riot. And that’s great, because they’re obviously the good guys.
However, when those of us on the opposing side say things like the simple truth (”You lie!”) we get shouted down for being rude, for failing to be bipartisan, for not going along with the new civility.
Anything we say or do, other than graciously cede ground to our progressive betters, is intolerable. Compromises are always one way: we give up slightly less ground than was demanded of us, and we get nothing back, other than calumny at our insufficient gratitude for the morsel we kept.
Fine. If those are the rules, don’t expect us to be nice. Our opponents, pardon, outright enemies, can spread their lies and slander, but we will tell the truth with bullhorns, and we will not be above the occasional ribald turnabout.
We’re done with playing golf when the opposition is playing no-rules Rollerball.
As for Reid? Goal!
One side uses lies and incivility, the other side uses logic, facts and civility, I know which one is trustworthy. If they both behave like thugs and boors, I don’t trust either. You debase your cause and your credibility with this reasoning, or lack of it.
Like every conservative, I’ve spent my adult life having my attempts at reason and civility met with anger, insults, lies, and attacks. For a few days conservatives play by the left’s rules, and suddenly Mr. Ethics has an issue?
Poor baby. Being honorable and honest is too much for you, is it? Then you’re doing it wrong.
One “side” has no reason whatsoever to stop using “lies and incivility” and they don’t give a damn if you trust them or not. Okay, Mr. Civility, it’s not enough for you to state a problem unless you’re willing to propose an answer, especially since this is in your wheelhouse. Just what do you propose to do to STOP the 40 year history of the Dems using “lies and incivility” with absolutely no blowback from the media or society in general? BTW, saying “Stop or I’ll say stop again” is not a valid answer.
clearly political satire. not sure what the hand wringing is about. I think the masses have caught on to the concept of sarcasm.
It’s not clever or funny enough to work with the John Kerry “I was just joking” excuse. It’s half joke, half smear, and you know it.
Actually we don’t know it. Do you actually read the blogs it came from? They use a lot of humor and I think this was always meant as an in group joke more than something to go viral and mainstream / actually be believed. Plus everyone involved will admit to you it is not true.
Satire does not require Jack Marshall’s amusement to be satire. Reid is getting mocked. Remember Hustler v. Falwell? And please, do not tell me what i know. Thank you.
Reid has not denied the rumor. I have heard it from several sources. The onus is on Reid to prove these rumors are not true.
Yeah, yeah. Give us a break.
Your not getting it Jack. Crosspatch; break character for the nice man before he comes away thinking we are like the lefty drones your mocking with this. Do you believe this or not? Don’t reply yes you believe he has not denied the rumors. Do you believe ‘the rumor/s’.
Why won’t Mitt Romney release even ONE full year’s tax returns?
Calling Reid as many names as you like won’t make that question go away.
Completely irrelevant to the thread, the issue and the ethics.
Romney has already released one year, and will soon release 2 more, the same standard as McCain. He certainly should not have to release more just to answer Reids baseless accusations. Reid should put out some real proof, only then does he have the right to demand a response fro Romney.
Not irrelevant at all. The most pressing issue is Mitt Romney’s lack of candor about his finances. The rest is just noise..
Completely irrelevant. This doesn’t justify Reid lies and tactics in any way.
No Eric. Reid’s gambit is to hector Romney into releasing 10 years worth of tax returns so that the MSM/DNC can take instances out of context to promote their class warfare strategy.
[lets pause for a commercial break while Mr Ethics stares down at his shoelaces]
Jack, if you knew, absolutely knew beyond question that your recommended “strategy” would result in four more years of Obama, a Dem senate and rapid destruction of the country that posters here care deeply about, if this were a survival issue, would you continue to sing that happy tune? Because I assure you, on many levels people are coming to regard the conflict as exactly that, in which case there is only one rule – win.
The Left operates from the position that the ends justify the means, in effect ALWAYS fighting a war of survival. Ignoring this, or worse, condemning those who understand it and believe we are engaged in the final battle and must put aside impediments to victory for the moment is, to continue the metaphor, collaborating with the enemy and a far greater crime than temporarily adopting their tactics.
Yeah, they say the same about you. Everyone who wants to play dirty says the other side started it. I’m dubious. I guess you would have used steroids if you were an MLB player in the 90’s, too.
I expected a more thoughtful and relevant response. You completely evaded the fundamental point, namely, there are circumstances in which ethical and moral considerations are put aside temporarily for a greater cause, and whether present circumstances qualify. This leaves me wondering whether you might be an inflexible ideologue, a closet leftist, or just a shallow thinker with a shtict to protect. Too bad. A reasoned reply would have been much more welcome than your snide personal remark.
Goodbye. I’m obviously wasting my time here.
“lacks the moral clarity to render judgement, prefers to retreat behind false equivalence”
Noted.
Oh, that was directed at Jack Marshall’s “both sides do it so the Left is excused” tu quoque.
Perhaps you should blog about rhetorical fallacy instead of ethics.
I heard from a friend of my cousin’s sister-in-law neighbor of someone who worked at 31 flavors that Harry Reid once voted for a tax cheat to be Secretary of Treasury.
That one’s true.
Pingback: Moe Lane » Harry Reid, pederasty, and the sudden defense of Rick Santorum.
Pingback: Harry Reid, pederasty, and the sudden defense of Rick Santorum. | RedState
Pingback: Harry Reid, pederasty, and the sudden defense of Rick Santorum. | The Penn Ave Post
“Harry Reid a pederast” already off Google site at 12:30 Am Central Time,
it is amazing what Google can do for Harry Reid, but not for Rick Santorum.
It’s why i don’t use Google for anything.
Also the double standard is why I canceled my cable TV and newspapers.
That IS disturbing, if true.
Conspiracy theorists unite! Untrue. Try again.
I thought not.
I tend to view “ethicists” with a jaundiced eye. I don’t know just why. Perhaps its because some espouse the morally outrageous (such as postpartum abortion) while others ride the ebb and flow of political correctness. And then, it takes a certain amount of cheek to label oneself an “ethicist.”
I can recall the Bush election and the Florida recount when Chris Matthews had a live feed in the office where the recount was taking place. There was a line of several Republican lawyers, dressed in their nondescript grey business suits, entering the room and Matthews said: Republicans need to learn how to fight dirty… and so there you have it!
There is nothing more nauseating that someone arrogant enough to believe himself or herself capable of playing moral arbiter by a set of ethics they alone define.
Jack Marshall reads like one of those self proclaimed ” moral do gooders” most men have experienced in corporate America, facilitated by the misandrists, but backed by a male human resources manager. Jack is the HR Manager. Though 98% of the participants not guilty as charged, every male is assumed to have the potential to be guilty as sexual predator – therefore, all males under suspicion except the males paying the bill for Jack’s counsel.
It’s nauseatingly disingenuous and thoroughly hypocritical.
I’ve seen more companies ruined by the Jack Marshall’s of the world than any unqualified executive.
Leave it alone, Jack. A quick perusal of you blog demonstrates that frankly, you’re not qualified to sit in judgment of much of anything. 😉 It’s a personal conceit of yours built on sand.
While bullying the bully is a method I would recommend as last resort, fighting fire with fire can be a wonderful alternative to teach a lesson. I have found nothing more effective in dealing with thuggish behavior than a taste of one’s own medicine.
“and “the mean Democrats do this all the time, so it’s time we fought back.”
Its not exactly the same as we don’t believe it and if you ask us we will say we don’t believe it (we’ll even tell you who started the rumors and that it was a sort of joke / not true).
My lefty friends won’t do either for such gems as Reagan let aids go unchecked to kill undesirables, Palin intentionally voted to make people pay for rape kits (wrong on more levels than intentionally; someone else made funding decisions), those fox idiots were serious (vs. also joking) about the terrorist fist bumb, et cetera.
Just have snopes do a write up on it not being true and where it came from. If Reid is embarrassed by it; then good. That was the point and/or tough luck jerk. You lie about other people and policy items (such as not using reconciliation rules right before you turn around and use them) all the time dirt bag.
I think you are stretching the bounds of unethical behavior a bit too far. The absurd sourcing and tone indicate that it is obviously satirical. By the standards of ethics proposed, satire is unacceptable because someone somewhere might mistake satire for serious commentary. Ethics does not require one to ensure that there is no possible way feeble-minded person can take something the wrong way (something impossible), it only requires one to take reasonable steps to protect the intellectually challenged. I do think that the ‘accusation’ should include clear markers that it is satire (perhaps changing the source to an anonymous friend of a grocery clerk’s brother-in-law’s cousin, who is quite reliable) but as long as the satire markers are obvious satire doesn’t become unethical because some mentally deficient individual might take it seriously.
Ah yes, the Civility card. You know what you can do with it.
You are the kind of person who enables attacks like Reid’s “tax cheat” slander. You stare down at your shoelaces at Lefty attacks but are quick to denounce those that pushback.
You’re not fooling anyone.
And you’re making a fool of yourself. Read the blog before you make an assinine accusation like that. You have no idea how I have responded elsewhere, as you comment proves.
Not wasting my time searching through your blog. For you to have any credibility on this, you must have a history of calling out Reid for his “tax cheat” slander. Link to it if such a post exists. If you can’t then its fair to assume you are a fraud.