What a crappy Commencement Speech! Yes, the school’s founder just died, so a good portion of it would have to be devoted to that. But then there was the second third of the speech explaining how Iraq is just like fighting the Nazis in World War II or the Communists in the Cold War, which is a completely specious assertion.

A Commencement Speech should examine the work of the graduates’ lives thus far and tell them to go out into the world and do great and meaningful things. Gingrich finally gets to this point in the final third of the speech. Apparently, the great and meaningful thing the graduates must do is increase the power of religion in politics and public discourse to prevent the modern-day persecution of Christians. Apparently, they’re practically being fed to the lions in our modern, secular-led society. Although I’m sure Gingrich would be hard pressed to name a single non-Christian president, atheist Supreme Court judge or secular Congressional leader or committee head.

Gingrich says,

We are accustomed to having the truths of the Declaration challenged from without. But what is new, is that for the first time in our history, those truths are now being challenged from within. A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot publicly profess the truths on which it was founded.

Why Newt, this isn’t new! The Declaration of Independence may espouse “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” but the Declaration is just that—a declaration. An important, powerful, and beautifully written declaration, but it isn’t law. The Founders didn’t include God anywhere in our Constitution. Why do you think that was, Newt?

And so this was Liberty University’s Commencement Speech: a Jerry Falwell Eulogy, a false comparison to the Iraq War, and a call to the graduates to “be like the Founding Fathers and legislate your personal faith.” Dear God. Heaven help the graduates.

P.S. bernbart, Gingrich said many of the same things on Meet the Press this past Sunday, so it’s not just because he’s at Falwell’s university.

How does this “75% of teen pregnancies in Colorado are unintended” compare to the national average?

What is meant by “unintended?” Does it mean, “I had sex using absolutely no form of birth control but I’m shocked, shocked, that I got pregnant?” Does it mean inconsistent usage of birth control? Does it mean consistent usage of birth control but you’re still in that unfortunate 1% failure rate? Does it mean the condom broke? Does it mean consistent usage of less reliable methods?

Because that changes the appropriate response. Maybe there needs to be greater access to condoms and the pill. Maybe there needs to be better education about the proper usage of these methods. Maybe abstinence should be encouraged—frankly, if you’re prepared neither to be a parent nor use any form of birth control, you should abstain.

For the 25% “intended” teen pregnancies, what were their reasons for an intended pregnancy (whatever that means)? To be an adult? To please a boyfriend? To keep a boyfriend? To have something that was theirs? Because they believe they’re ready for parenthood? Because they’re married? Were they raped or otherwise coerced? Do they finish school? Do they keep the baby? Again, the response changes depending on the circumstances.

Too often, we paint family planning with too broad a brush, as if abstinence, condoms or the pill alone will magically fix everything.

It’s about time we spent more time actually listening to teens about their sexuality instead of just talking at them. Maybe then we could come up with more positive outcomes.

Before DVDs, our favorite shows often disappeared into the ether. Did they ever even exist outside of our own hearts and minds? Veronica, I'll see you on DVD.

Meanwhile, does the CW actually think their going to get a better show in its place? I'm seeing promos for another generic "pretty white kids with problems" set on a beach. Ugh.

Silly, Jim, Bush already told us why Bin Laden's still at large:

"You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you." and "I truly am not that concerned about him."

-President Bush, March 2002

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Nick44 is absolutely right. This tragedy is about clueless parents not veganism.

Nina Planck writes in her editorial that "though it’s not politically correct to say so, all diets are not created equal." She's right about that, but she takes this to mean that among all diets, they can be ranked on a scale of 1 to 10 and diet #1 is the best diet for everyone.

Which is simply not true. Different body types, digestive systems, tastes, geographic areas, physical activities and lifestyles can require different diets. A marathon runner, a nursing mother, someone with a slow metabolism and someone with a genetic predisposition to high cholesterol have different dietary needs.

Well, of course she was covert, officially. I don’t think that’s the point her detractors were trying to make. She was officially “covert,” but how covert could she have been, plastering herself all over Vanity Fair six months after Novak’s column?

I happen to disagree with this logic—if the CIA officially declares someone covert, you go along with it even if you personally think, “well, everyone knows.” To not do so would be arrogant, dangerous and potentially treasonous. And the Bush Administration already has the nasty habit of classifying and declassifying information for political purposes, so playing fast and loose with the definition of “covert” is especially grotesque.

Holy crud, ZuZu's Petals and julien. So busy spoilin’ for a fight that you can’t be bothered to read? I won't bother to repeat my original post. Just try reading it.