Not Nice, But Funny

Sorry Basketeers, but this one has to be posted. The great Ann Coulter:

Obama is becoming the Cal Ripken Jr. of presidents, making history every time he suits up for a game. Recently, Obama also became the first African-American president to order a ham sandwich late at night from the White House kitchen! That’s going to get old pretty quick.

But as long as the nation is obsessed with historic milestones, is no one going to remark on what a great country it is where a mentally retarded woman can become speaker of the house?

Advertisements

19 responses to “Not Nice, But Funny

  1. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s home district includes San Francisco .
    Star-Kist Tuna’s headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi’s home district.

    Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi.

    Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan work force.

    Paul Pelosi, Nancy’s husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock.

    In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition’s.
    Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an ‘economic development credit in American Samoa ‘.
    Pelosi has called the Bush Administration “CORRUPT” ? ?

    How do you spell “HYPOCRISY” ?

    Ain’t you proud??????

    ed

  2. I’m not a Pelosi fan, but feel it’s necessary to correct some errors of fact. The final version of the minimum-wage bill (from 2007!) did not exempt American Samoa. StarKist is not headquartered in Pelosi’s district. Del Monte, which IS in her district, sold StarKist in October 2008. Paul Pelosi owns no stock in StarKist or Del Monte.

    Newsbusters.org was first to report the claims about Paul Pelosi’s stock, but it retracted the story.

    It may be true that Pelosi pushed for both the minimum-wage exemption and the economic development credit for American Samoa, and that she did it to benefit StarKist. But the evidence is only circumstantial. StarKist did not even contribute to Pelosi’s re-election campaign. The push to exempt American Samoa came from the territory’s non-voting congressional delegate, who claimed that raising the minimum wage would damage the economy. Pelosi may have worked behind the scenes, but we have no evidence. We can’t even demonstrate motive.

    The story’s two years old, but here are links for those interested:
    About.com: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/nancypelosi/a/pelosi_starkist.htm (briefest rundown on this story)
    Wash. Times: Republicans attack exemption for American Samoa: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jan/12/20070112-120720-2734r/
    AP: Two days later, bill no longer exempts American Samoa: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070114/news_1n14nation.html
    FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_nancy_pelosi_get_wage_breaks_and.html (If you think they’re biased, see the home page and the criticism of Obama’s latest speech.)

  3. Why are Christians so enamored with Ann Coulter? I have a theory. I think it’s because she’s blond and leggy. It’s socially acceptable for Christian men to like her (and think she’s hot and have a secret crush on her behind our wives’ backs) because she’s conservative. Of course, it’s just a theory.

    At any rate, maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to celebrate the fact that she calls the speaker of the house mentally retarded. (She may be a lot of things, but she clearly is not mentally retarded.) For onsies, I think it does not offer respect to whom respect is due. And for twosies, I think it denegrates mentally retarded people.

    I might be wrong, but I think we should revisit our infatuation with Ann Coulter – at least think a bit more soberly about comments such as the ones above. Is it even a little Christlike?

  4. Are the differences between Jesus and Ann Coulter not glaringly obvious?

    Are the differences between Matthew 23 and Coulter’s above quote not glaringly obvious?

    I’m not trying to be a jackass here. I just think the affinity for Coulter amongst Christians is misguided.

  5. “I think it denegrates mentally retarded people.”

    You’re right. To raise NP to that level is to bring all of us down.

  6. Rob Hadding is right about Ann Coulter, which reminds me: Have I mentioned that whenever Rob Hadding shows up at Trinitas, I always feel like nothing bad can happen? If you ever have to juggle machetes, make sure Rob Hadding is around. Somehow, it will turn out okay.

  7. Ok, ok. Let’s think through this. I grant that the language of “mentally retarded” is probably not the most edifying. Remember, however, that we are speaking of Pelosi. She is one who voraciously fights for the continuation of all sorts of abortion rights. She is biblically, an evil person. I don’t think anyone disagrees.

    At the same time, we have a prophetic call. We cannot address evil-doers as “that nice little old democrat leader.” She is what she is. Ann Coulter aside (I too disagree with her in a number of issues: the war being one of them), the questions you are raising are much more profound. My point about Matthew 23 is that Christ knows an evil doer when he sees one and he calls an evil doer what he is. If the logic is: Christ is perfect, so he has the right to attack evildoers. We are not perfect, so we do not have the right to attack evil doers. Then, this fails. We are to be imitators. Coulter just serves as a funny, though imperfect example of what I am defending.

    There is no more appropriate time to be strong in our convictions than in this day. Luther and Calvin were deeply pious men. However, they did not hesitate (see Luther’s Tabletalk) to use harsh words to identify the enemies of the gospel.

    Back to Coulter, she is an entertainer. Ought we not to listen to entertainers? Douglas Wilson has done a great service in defending satire (see http://books.google.com/books?id=keck2emV6XwC&dq=douglas+wilson+and+satire&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=xa_hAwpuEh&sig=7DYWvQYIFiLEuQuT2SnXJ-COInU&hl=en&ei=48euSY6wHtTFtgehkISDBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result) He even has Coulter’s link on his blog. All that said, WWRD (What would Rob Do?) Rob Says it, that settles it, I believe it.

  8. Pastor Brito,

    “Ought we not to listen to entertainers?”

    I have been waiting for years to hear a Reformed preacher ask this question. Absolutely and unironically yes. Yes, we should.

  9. A few things…

    First, I appreciate spirited discussion, so thanks for not writing me off as a wet blanket and moving on.

    Second, T Twitchell, I get your point, but it isn’t funny.

    Third, Josh, um, wow. I’m not sure I can live up to all that, but my ego has been well massaged. Thanks!

    Fourth, Uri, you bring up several reasonable points, so let me have a go at them. If by “not the most edifying” you mean insulting to people who have mental handicaps, I agree. I realize that the words mentally retarded may be innocuous to most, but for those who know someone or have a family member who is mentally retarded it is hurtful to have their condition used as an slur.

    I concede the point about Pelosi’s agenda being evil. I’m not a fan…not even close. And I’m not saying that there isn’t legitimate ground to be critical – even satirical. I agree with Wilson on the use of satire (more on that in a minute). Nancy Pelosi must be resisted and her agenda denounced. We do have a prophetic call and it is our duty (not just our right) to call it what it is. And it’s even okay to answer her according to her folly with satire.

    But I don’t think what Ann Coulter said in the above is satire. I think it’s Ann Coulter being over-the-top because that’s her schtick. I’m actually not even saying that she should be denied the right to say what she says, or to an audience. What I’m saying is that her way of doing things (not just here, but all over the place) is not representative of what I understand the Christian way to be. Satire? Sure. Mean-spirited, self-serving vitriol? Don’t see Jesus doing that.

    When Christians buy that sort of expression as legitimate discourse I think we have set aside the higher ground. For a Christian to dignify her rhetoric is to demean the Christian. I hear Christians of many stripes laud her as a spokesman for that which is right and the foe of all that is wrong. Take away the blond hair and the long, skinny legs and she gets no attention at all. It isn’t what she says, it’s that a hot chic is saying it. We can do better than that.

    Jesus, Paul, Martin Luther and others all used sharp speech and satire (and Luther arguably went across the line on occasion – just because it was Luther doesn’t mean it was right). But in the case of the first two, there are categorical differences in the ones being confronted, the motivation, and the rhetoric employed. What we hear from Coulter is hardly worthy of mean little school girls (all apologies to mean little school girls).

    In the end, saying that Coulter (and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Neal Boortz, etc.) is a spokesman for that which is right is like saying that The Shack is a good representation of God. It may get something right from time to time, but taken as a corpus – blech!

    Now, lest I be misunderstood, I agree with you elevnty bazillion percent that there is no more appropriate time to be strong in our convictions than this day. But while we’re being strong in our convictions, let’s be strong – not snot-nosed name callers looking to get quoted on blogs and the Limbaugh show. I think we should do better.

    And as for the WWRD thing…that was satire, wasn’t it?

  10. Rob – Amen! My thoughts exactly – although I could never have expressed them so well.

    Uri – I’m anxious to read the Wilson book you referenced. I love Wilson, so I expect that it will help me with the aversion I have to satirical criticism.

    As a side note – In my little world, I’m no longer surprised by the way an attractive woman can quickly can sway a vote! But then, we’re a nation that expects our presidents to be attractive and photogenic, so what can we expect?

  11. Pastor Brito,

    What? Jon Stewart! Jon Stewart is not a neocon and can not be trusted!

    A confession of my own: I agree with Steven Spielberg about many things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s