Blogging Blue

Remember when local right-wing squawker James “Hip Musings” Harris begged Senator John Mccain to “take it to” Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama? I sure remember Harris’ begging Sen. McCain to get even nastier and more negative than he already had, and I couldn’t help but wonder how Harris would feel if the shoe were on the other foot. Well, it didn’t take long for me to get my answer, as Harris abruptly ended an interview with Fox News CNN after accusing one of the other interview participants of engaging in “personal attacks.”

So wait…James Harris is okay with personal attacks against Barack Obama, but he can’t handle a few attacks himself? Seems kinda hypocritical if you ask me, and considering how fond Harris is of talking about how he’s a “real man,” perhaps he should work on developing a thicker skin.

Here’s the video of Harris’ appearance on Fox News CNN, including his tantrum at the end.

Tim Cuprisin from the Milwaukee JournalSentinel has more on this story.

H/T to Dan Cody.

NOTE: Edited to correct the fact that the interview was on CNN, not Fox News. Many thanks to the loyal reader who pointed it out!

Let’s talk about hypocrisy for a moment, since there are some on the right who want to paint liberals as hypocrites, while conveniently ignoring the hypocrisy that’s so rampant on the right.

For instance, the same folks who hold themselves up as supporting the Republican Party, the party of so-called “family values” seem to have no problem with Republican presidential nominee John McCain offering up his wife to compete in a semi-nude “beauty” pageant. And the same folks who make a point to tout their religious beliefs - as if liberals are somehow godless - are the same folks who seem to have no problem engaging in blasphemy on a scale that boggles my mind.

And these same folks - these same hypocrites - they attack John Edwards for his admitted extramarital affair while his wife was battling cancer, while conveniently ignoring the fact that Sen. John McCain filed for divorce from his first wife while she was still recovering from a near-fatal car accident while he was gone in Vietnam. Coincidentally enough, McCain obtained a marriage license for his marriage to Cindy McCain while still legally married to his first wife.

What I’m wondering is where’s the outrage? Where’s the righteous indignation from folks on the right?

EXODUS 20:7 “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.”

As a Catholic, I’ve often thought blasphemy to be a nasty business, and I’ve blogged a little bit about the predilection some folks on the right, like James “Hip Musings” Harris, for referring to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama as the “Obamessiah” and the “Chocolate Jesus,” but Peter DiGaudio of Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger has taken his personal blasphemy in regards to Barack Obama to a whole new level.

Now I don’t proclaim to be the most devout Catholic on the face of planet Earth, but it seems to me there are some lines that just shouldn’t be crossed, and referring to Barack Obama - or any other political candidate or public figure - as “Chocolate Jesus” or “The Anointed One” is definitely a line I wouldn’t cross, but apparently folks like James T. Harris and Peter DiGaudio aren’t as concerned as I am about the implications of being a serial blasphemer.

At least, that must be what local right wing squawker James T. Harris must be telling himself as he continues to attempt to poke fun at supposed messianic leanings of Senator Barack Obama’s campaign message. However, Harris’ use of the term “Chocolate Jesus” got me to wondering: couldn’t calling Barack Obama “Chocolate Jesus” be considered blasphemy? Thankfully I had my Bible handy, as I always do for just these kinds of emergencies, so I consulted the Good Book, and lo and behold, I came across this passage from Exodus:

EXODUS 20:7 “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.”

Now I’m no Biblical scholar, but even I have to believe referring to Senator Barack Obama as “Chocolate Jesus” constitutes ‘misuse’ of the name of the Lord, but apparently Jame T. Harris, the good Christian that he is, has a different (selective) interpretation of the Bible when it comes to blasphemy. After all, how else can he justify his near constant use of the term to describe Barack Obama? Google’s got 7 pages of links to James T. Harris using the term “Chocolate Jesus” to describe Barack Obama, and in my book, that’s a whole lot of blasphemy from one person.

Now I’m no expert, but our old pal James T. Harris seems to be having a bit of a mid life crisis regarding the candidacy of Senator John McCain:

No.

I will not do this again. I will not fight for another old candidate who thinks it’s his turn. Bob Dole used me up. I’ve got nothing left for John McCain.

Plus, he is no conservative.

He’s got no fight! What I’ve seen over the last two days is more ineffective compassionate conservatism.

Blah!

That speech Tuesday night SUCKED! IT SUCKED!!!! NO! I WILL NOT DO IT!

IT’S OVER!!!!

I AM BACK ON THE WALL, PEOPLE! BACK ON THE DAMN WALL!

His back is against the wall people…don’t push him! He might just go postal!

In all seriousness, I can understand why James T. would be a little upset. If my party’s candidate looked as ghastly as John McCain did when he was giving his speech on Tuesday night, I’d be upset too.

X-Posted to Whallah!

As first reported by capper over at whallah! and Jay over at folkbum, James T. Harris is up to his old sexist tricks. However, instead of asserting he “owns” his daughters, this time James is talking about the
pimping of Chelsea Clinton.

Now I know some of us folks in the liberal Cheddarsphere have come under fire from conservative folks for our supposed sexism, but I can’t help but wonder if those same folks who are so critical of us liberals are also critical of their fellow conservatives, who time and time again have shown their own predilection for making sexist comments.

I’m willing to bet folks like James Wigderson aren’t going to attack their conservative brethren for sexism, because they don’t want to risk alienating themselves among their fellow conservatives.

A few folks across the Wisconsin blogosphere have commented on the recent murder of Lodewikus “Vic” Milford in Milwaukee’s Third Ward, and surprisingly enough, James T. Harris - he of the “hip musings” - actually made some great points in his recent entry on Milford’s murder. However, Harris’ spot-on entry was spoiled by one James Pawlak, who responded with these comments:

Curious that the Milwaukee media has not reported on the name of the bar from which this “gentleman” went to his death OR the description of the offenders (Latinos?) OR called on the City Aldermen to shut down that Bar as they did for one where there was a justifiable killing of thugs by armed security guards.

Just in case his response in James Harris’ blog were too subtle, Mr. Pawlak made his way over to Dad29’s blog, where he came up with this doozy:

Of course the Milwaukee Urinal will not publish the name of the bar (Did it fly a rainbow banner at half-staff) or the description of the Latino killers and, if they are taken, the fact of their citizenship status.

Of course, I felt compelled to respond, simply because I fail to see what the victim’s sexual orientation has anything to do with the facts of the case. Vic Milford was shot and killed in cold blood, and his sexual orientation doesn’t - and shouldn’t - have any bearing on the case, nor is it something that’s essential to understanding the crime. It’s disappointing to see homophobia rear its ugly head in this situation, especially given the fact that the victim’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with the facts of the case.

So says James T. Harris, one of those right-wing talking heads from over at WTMJ620. In a recent blog entry, Harris seems to equate fatherhood with slavery, with himself as slave master. Here’s what he has to say:

As some of you know, I’ve got a little girl. She is the baby of three kids and the only girl I have. That’s right, I said “have”; she is mine. My child. My girl. I own her.

She is not free to do as she pleases.

Not now, not ten years form now, not until the day that she leaves my house as a married woman, will she be “free” of me.

Do you know what that means? That means that I have a say in what she wears, eats, plays with, watches, listens to and sings along with. Every aspect of her life is and will be controlled by me. If I don’t like it, it doesn’t happen. If I don’t desire it, it will not be done. If I don’t choose him, he will not be chosen.

I am her father.

Evidently, Harris isn’t content to simply “own” his daughter; he wants to control every aspect of her life as well, including dictating who she’ll marry. Now I’m the parent of a little girl, and while I certainly worry about the decisions she’ll make when she gets older, I’m also confident that my wife and I raised her to make good decisions, as opposed to ingraining in her the belief that a man should make her decisions for her. As someone who works with domestic violence offenders and their victims, I’ve come to understand that it’s the kind of misogynistic viewpoint James T. Harris supports that allowed women to be treated as property by their husbands for so many years, even in the face of brutal abuse at the hands of their husbands, because outsiders believed women belonged to their men, and thus, had no room to complain.

As a father, I know I don’t own my daughter, but I am confident I raised her to be an independent, smart young woman who will no doubt be able to make good decisions both on her own and with the guidance and support of her parents. Evidently, James T. Harris doesn’t seem to have the same confidence in his daughter or in his abilities as a parent.

capper over at Whallah! is talking about it, and I think his entry is worth taking a look at.

And for those who are interested, here’s a link to the original entry on James T. Harris’ blog.