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 
I think people are missing the humor of this. While the author is talking about the lack of ethics involved in the whole Harry Reid is a Pederast meme, he is actually helping further spread it. The Google bot will be by, see the links from other sites, note the content and repetition of “Harry Reid is a Pederast” which will further increase the ranking of “Harry Reid is a Pederast” in Google’s results for “Harry Reid”. It’s really genius. The entire time the author gets to claim that he is just trying to encourage people to be more ethical in the way they point their fingers at scum bags like Harry Reid the Pederast. Well played sir! Well played indeed.
Generally I agree that it’s poor form to lower oneself to commit the same act that one is complaining about ( the whole eye-for-an-eye thing) But taking the high road clearly gets you nowhere with these clowns and certainly not in this case. Because in the case of a Senator, there is no level playing field to begin with. The weight of power is all on his side. He has a podium that few others have, when he speaks the press listen, and he is immune to any legal repercussions from slanderous comments, which immunity no one else is afforded. Harry Reid, and others like him, routinely and repeatedly abuse their power and position. Their comments are deliberately calculated to cause damage to personal and professional reputations. And there is no remedy for that, either legally or morally. He is beyond contemptible. But he’s only following in the footsteps of his president, who routinely drops names and intimidates people who disagree with his politics. And directs DOJ and IRS to investigate political rivals. The abuse has to stop. The intimidation and threats have to stop. Our slow morphing into a Russian-like corrupt plutocracy has to stop. And if the only way to do that is to start acting like them and turn it back on them ( except without their power and protection) then so be it.
“Tit-for-Tat” is a proven effective strategy from game theory, to enforce sticking to the rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
It is completely rational. It does require forgiveness when the opponent comes back into line. The Left seems to not forgive, We need to try to get their attention. This strategy can lead to cooperation, and is very natural:
“The success of the tit for tat strategy, which is largely cooperative despite that its name emphasizes an adversarial nature, took many by surprise. In successive competitions various teams produced complex strategies which attempted to “cheat” in a variety of cunning ways, but tit for tat eventually prevailed in every competition.
This result may give insight into how groups of animals (and particularly human societies) have come to live in largely (or entirely) cooperative societies, rather than the individualistic “red in tooth and claw” way that might be expected from individuals engaged in a Hobbesian state of nature.”
Effective does not equal “ethical.” Lots of unethical strategies are effective—that’s why politicians like Obama, Reid and Pelosi (and others, obviously) traffic in “The Big Lie.” You give up too much by making effectiveness that justification criteria.
So besides effective what other criteria should a strategy be judged by ?
Ethical ? I actually think what Reid did was unethical and what is being done to Reid IS ethical. He let the genie out of the bottle and only by this sort of tactic will Reid put it back in the bottle.
Lying about someone in public is ethical if you’re mad enough at him. Good theory.
Pathetic.
Let me quote from RDS — “Tit-for-Tat” is a proven effective strategy from game theory, to enforce sticking to the rules
Since RDS has stated a proven concept that eventually enforces ALL parties to stick to the ethical rules, and Jack has not stated any concept that would cause the Dems to stick to the rules at any point in the future, I would say that RDS clearly wins the discussion by default. A provable, workable plan beats a bird in the bush any day.
Ethics? In politics? Surely you jest!
Uncle Jack?
CRAIG?????
I have a friend in Nevada who knows someone’s inlaw that has observed Harry Reid with a minor boy. Proof positive.
Funny but Wrong?! Well I doubt that Sun Tzu would agree, and make no mistake this is a war.
I guarantee that he would not comprehend your convenient definition of “war.”
Sun Tzu likely would not have understood a society where Harry Reid had not lost his life in a duel by now. We are not a society that condones such actions now but as Ghandi said, ” It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.” Not to advocate violence; however an attempt to claim the moral high road to justify inaction is capitulation. Additionally, as a previous comment stated, tit for tat is a recognized function of game theory and in this world at least game theory typically results in the best possible of all outcomes. Utopianism does not.
Well if you guarantee it …that of course changes everything.
You ought to read the Instapundit from time to time. You would then know that his blog does not have a comments section. Thus, the Instapundit has no ethically challenged readers endlessly chanting anything. Now if only some critics would demonstrate some respect for and comprehension of facts. Not doing so is not impressive, and definitely not persuasive. As for Harry Reid, meh!
1) I read it several times a day.
2) I was, pretty obviously, referring to the blog’s readers comments HERE, where they are indeed saying the am things over and over—ergo “chanting.”
3) Your arch comment is therefore obtuse, counter-factual, and embarrassing.
Meh indeed.
Hectoring is not a good color for you. Especially that particular shade of supercilious.
Sounds good. Makes no sense in context.
Sorry jerks, this is true…..until the moral rebrobate proves it otherwise
Wrong? Absolutely not. My report was based on VERY credible evidence and comes from a VERY credible source who I’ve never known to be wrong on issues of importance.
Why won’t Reid produce his computer so it can be examined? Where are his emails? We want to see the emails between Reid and Sandusky.
Once again, this stonewalling proves that Democrats – and especially the leadership – don’t give a damn about “the children”.
Reid has an obligation to the nation to prove he’s not a pedophile.
I guess this guy would have hated Jonathan Swift.
Jonathan Swift was clever.
I do not know if this is true, but I alsol heard a rumor that Senator Harry Reid was approached by NAMBLA since they may have similar interests. It is possible they are looking to work together to relax laws prosecuting pedophiles. Since I have not heard Senator Harry Reid deny these rumors, they could be true.
I disagree Jack. The “Harry Reid Pederasty” response to his scurrilous claims regarding Gov. Romney is most certainly ethical. It employs exactly the same ground rules (if there are any) that the Left employs, in response to a similar action. It is a disciplinary action taken in response, not a first strike. It does lack adequate proportionality in that I believe MSM’s trumpeting of Sen. Reid’s scurrilous, repeated accusations regarding Governor Romney’s tax records far outweighs the internet campaign. So far. 1.79 million hits? As mentioned above, what’s good for the goose….
Jack, I disagree. The tactic is almost identical (ethically and otherwise) in response to Sen. Reid’s scurrilous claims. Remember, this was not a first strike. It lacks proportionality in that MSM isn’t broadcasting it 24/7, but 1.79 million hits is nothing to sniff at. Turning the Left’s weapons onto the Left as a disciplinary measure seems quite ethical and also quite fitting to me.
Besides, Sen. Reid could put it the numerous questions regarding his pederasty to rest by simply answering the growing calls for him to exhibit transparency regarding the subject.
I’ll even grant you it is unethical. Fair enough. I couldn’t care less about ethics or civility with these people anymore. Reid deserves worse than this meme. Fascists like the city officials who would gladly strong-arm chick-Fil-a out of their cities for their thoughtcrime don’t deserve to be treated ethically. I’d prefer to deal with them in as brutal a way as possible, and after we’ve won you can tut tut from the sidelines. I know you don’t find that argument impressive. I’ll sleep just fine regardless. Political ethics are for a consensual society. I think we’re reaching the endof that road. And that’s not always a bad thing either. I dont wish for people like Reid or Rahm or Bloomberg to live and try to strong-arm me out of my rights on a daily basis.
Jack, I would respectfully disagree. I believe what you’re seeing here is Ethical Civil Disobedience. Attempting to deal ethically with such morally-deficient individuals and institutions as Reid (“somebody told me”) and the Washington Post (“The Tea Party is Racist”) is a fool’s game. Facts are ignored, reality is elided, and as they currently control much of the major media outlets (hmm, when was the last time you saw a TV show or movie where the bomber was from Occupy, rather than being presented as a conservative ?), for us to respond to their constant stream of lies and misrepresentations by taking the high road is as foolish (and predictably disastrous) as it would have been for Gandhi to try his non-violent resistance against the National Socialist Party. Goebbels would have opened up a new concession selling soap. Gandhi was lucky he went up against a civilized opponent. Reid and his ilk are willing to do whatever it takes to retain their power, Constitution and decency be damned. Sadly, for us to retain our freedom, we may have to respond in kind.
Well, to answer one minor point, the main villain of the recent Batman movie basically uses rhetoric that’s reminiscent of Occupy Wall Street (to the point where hardcore lefties on the internet have complained about it). And the main villain in the Nickelodeon cartoon show “The Legend of Korra” seems to be based in large part off of Mao Zedong.
I got 1,449,829 results when I goggled “How did Harry Reid get rich?
Probably because you goggled.
Translation: It’s OK for Lefties to lie, but Saul Alinsky dictates that conservatives be held to a higher standard.
Jack’s major problem is his inability to put this into the proper context. Let’s look at two examples. It is generally considered, in Western Civ, to be unethical (and even cowardly) to willfully and knowingly shoot a man in the back. It is similarly thought bad to gouge a person’s eyeballs out until you blind him.
Yet both acts can be very ethical and moral.
When I am in a convenience store and the armed robber is herding us customers and clerks into the back room where the possibility is great that he is going to shoot and kill us, I would, without hesitation and guilt, shoot him in the back with my legally carried handgun if he is distracted and turns from me, presenting his back as a target.. I would shoot him multiple times for that matter.
I taught my daughters to go for the eyeballs if they are being raped. It is so against custom that very few people even think to defend against thumbs being pressed into their sockets until after they realize that someone is Cuisinarting their frontal lobe. Much better than being raped though, eh.
Both these, and many more actions, have to be put into context before declaring them “ethical” or “unethical.” Jack is unwilling to do the hard work of looking at the context. BTW, if he declares my examples are “different” then he is acknowledging that context is important. He just won’t apply it to the Reid issue and its clear similarity to self defense.
I have it from trusted source that Harry Reid is not only pederast, but he’s also the majority owner of a bordello in Nevada. Harry Reid needs to submit himself to thorough investigation and provide his DNA, movie collection and his raincoat. His close relationship with Jerry Sandusky must also be investigated. The truth must be revealed. Do not let your children anywhere close to pedophile Harry Reid.