I’m shocked that an organ of the liberal establishment media still doesn’t like Ron Paul (and wants to house break Rand Paul). But there is nothing new here except the Ebola stuff which has only been in the news recently. As anyone who has followed Ron Paul at all knows. he has always believed in the right of secession, and he has always made the blowback argument, and both positions are easily defensible if the gatekeepers of acceptable opinions would stop hyperventilating long enough to listen.
The article suggests that the elder Paul is hurting Rand’s chances of securing the GOP nomination by continuing to sound off. One could easily see an implied threat here, although I’m not sure that the writer, Denver Hicks, was actually threatening. He could easily just be a blue who imagines that everyone else will be as appalled by “unacceptable” thinking as he and his circle of blue friends and co-workers are.” But the clear message is “Go away Ron Paul and shut up, or we’ll make life hard for Rand.” I suspect we’ll be hearning more of this message as 2016 ramps up.
Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader had some biting words about Rand Paul, saying the self-described “libertarian-ish” lawmaker is retreating from his roots as he broadens his appeal for a potential presidential bid.
“What he ought to do is go back to his father, sit on his knee and become more like Ron Paul,”
A female New Mexico student is suing here professor and the University of New Mexico. It was suggested she not return to a class after she wrote a paper that criticized lesbians. The judge has ruled the case can proceed. The University had sought to get the suit dismissed.
The course was called “Images of (Wo)men: From Icons to Iconoclasts.” This student should have known that such as class was going to be a PC lovefest, but let’s hope the professor and the University get what’s coming to them.
(Technically the suit and judge are wrong to invoke the 1st Amendment because the incorporation doctrine is bogus, but assuming the modern interpretation…)
I commented on the Mark Driscoll issue at the old site. I conceded that some of what he was accused of was intemperate and indecorous and unbecoming of a pastor. I also conceded that it is likely he does have a “domineering” leadership style. Why? Because you can’t run a huge organization without being somewhat domineering. At the time I speculated that there is probably an ideal size for a church, as there is likely an ideal size for a republic, and mega ain’t it. So mega churches will always lend themselves to domineering and/or charismatic leaders.
But that said, I was hoping for Mark Driscoll to keep his job because his underlying point, that men and women are different and thus have different roles, is a fact that is supported by Scripture, tradition and biology and has always been the position of the Church. It is the rise of political correctness and its ethic of equality as the highest of all possible goods that has brought this idea under fire, not a change in understanding of Scripture, tradition or biology.
Someone needs to be saying what Mark Driscoll was hounded out of a job for saying, they just need to say it in a more temperate and decorous manor. Driscoll’s resignation is a victory for the forces of political correctness. Somewhere evangelical turned liberal equalist Rachel Held Evens is dancing a happy jig, so anyone interested in upholding the traditional teachings of Scripture should see this as the defeat that it is whatever the flaws of Pastor Driscoll may be.
Here is the resignation announcement. It says he was not asked to resign, but I suspect for him to continue on would have been unworkable.
Here is an interesting question. How much of the real negative fallout that Mars Hill has felt from this controversy (vs. being called names in the national press and blogosphere by PC enforcers) is based on it being located in liberal Seattle? Would he have kept his job if Mars Hill was in Alabama for example?
There has been much talk about Rand Paul’s shenanigans recently: from supporting open borders, to supporting amnesty, to often sounding like Al Sharpton, to endorsing Lindsey Graham, to, basically, sounding like the exact opposite of his father. Now, some have said that Rand Paul has, in fact, become a full-fledged establishment Libertardian Inc. player. Others maintain that this is mere posture and he’s just “playing the game”. If he is just “playing the game,” to what end? His own aggrandizement?