Tuesday, May 27, 2008

National James T. Harris Appreciation Day

I apparently missed this over the weekend, but given the success of the National Patrick McIlheran Appreciation Day, it is only logical that this would be followed up with a National James T. Harris Appreciation Day.

The tributes start rolling in with this piece by Mike Plaisted:
Substance-wise, Harris seldom strays from the mundane wing-nut orthodox talking-points left behind by others. When he adds his wacked-out personal touch, he often uses his (he thinks) protected status as a black man to spin racist tripe about Barack Obama. He calls Obama "the Chocolate Jesus", something no one else could get away with. Like other African-American conservatives anointed by his white benefactors, he has the right-wing blame-the-victim thing down-pat, blaming his less fortunate (i.e.: less accomodating, less corporate-sponsored) brothers and sisters in the city for the legacy of slavery, the long history of someone else’s racism, their systemic poverty and uncomfortable underclass behavior.

The Pundit Nation comes out with the point that one of Harris' favorite topics is "white guilt," and adds that feeling guilt is not always a bad thing. Illy-T follows this up with pointing out that a group of "white apologists" that Harris was complaining about, weren't really all that white, with a number of blacks in the group.

Mike Mathias and Illy-T again team up for a one-two punch about one of Harris' "illogical and vapid" posts on whether or not Jesus would have been an American soldier.

How does Harris' handle all this? Well, in the usual, typical mature fashion of any member of the local right wing media. He starts calling people names.


  1. "He starts calling people names," says the man on a blog that just referred to someone as "Drooley."

  2. Mathias should be proud of the compliment.

  3. No, it wasn't the blog, it was an individual who posted on the blog. Come on, Dave. It's simple ... really.

  4. Dave,

    I didn't write that post. Are you trying to insinuate that I should be responsible for the words of others, or that I should be the censor of other's words.

    Neither suit my tastes, thank ye.

  5. Well, OS, since I've yet to perfect the technology I've been working on that would allow my blog to generate its own posts without any personal day-to-day intervention, I'm painfully aware of exactly how blogs work. What I was doing was phrasing it much in the same way one might say "according to the Journal-Sentinel, badger attacks have increased fifty percent over last year." Now, we all know that the Journal-Sentinel didn't suddenly achieve sentience and compose the article on its own, and very few would assume anyone making that statement would be implying that.

    It's simple...really. But for the sake of clarity, I'll rephrase my original comment to:

    "He starts calling people names," says the man on a blog where one of his co-bloggers just referred to someone as "Drooley."

    And Capper, I made no such insinuations regarding your responsibility over the words of others or censorship of any sort. I was merely pointing out that not even two hours after criticizing someone for using name-calling as a tactic, one of your co-bloggers did the very same thing. As I'm sure your distaste for name-calling couldn't possibly be reserved for only those with whom you disagree, I would assume you might be just as critical of someone on your own blog who did the same. After all, it's been all the rage as of late to criticize bloggers merely for who they link to, so it would seem that sharing a blog-space with someone is even more reflective of your beliefs.

    But I suppose what someone else did is really a moot point since you yourself resorted to using "McSamePain" to refer to John McCain in multiple posts.

    I guess, then, it comes down to the question of what exactly is your name-calling policy?

  6. Well, David, I don't have a policy towards name calling. I'm only babysitting this blog for the time being.

    Anyway, the point you're missing is that both in my post and in Kay's, the name-calling was incidental to the point of the post. In Harris' post, the name-calling was the point of the post.


  7. Dave, a couple of thoughts ...

    (1) Regarding your technological experiments: I could have sworn you had been successful.

    (2) If the pain gets too great, take two aspirin and get a good nights sleep.

    (and 3) Given the opportunity to think about what you originally wrote, I knew you could come up with something that made more sense and inject a few sarcastic darts at the same time.

    Nicely done. And it was simple, wasn't it?