Given the proximity of Falwell's death to the ceremonies, it was certainly appropriate to mention him. But I had to go back twice to check that this speech was made at a commencement and not a memorial service. This makes me wonder if Gingrich hadn't prepared this speech for Falwell's funeral, then simply used it here because he wasn't invited to speak at the funeral?

That said: Is he living in the same country I am? Our money says "In God We Trust", our Pledge of Allegiance says "One Nation Under God", nearly every elected national leader is a professed Christian, Christian holiday's are celebrated as "national" holidays, and churches are legally exempt from taxes and many laws.

Oh... and that teacher's aid who was suspended for wearing a cross was reinstated with back pay when the courts declared the 1895 law used to suspend her an unconstitutional restriction on religious freedom. Funny how Gingrich forgot to mention that.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2003_August_28/ai_106981342

Apparently, having our nation support Christianity to the exclusion of other religions is not enough, though. We must promote Christianity in our schools, courts, and legislatures. Only when the United States is a Christian nation will these people be content. No... come to think of it, that won't be enough. They want the entire world to be Christian.

Why are people incapable of learning from the past? The oil companies have a template for how to maximize profits. Has anybody noticed lately that even when oil prices go down, gasoline prices often go up? Economics 101, Supply and Demand. Limit supply of a necessary quantity and you will drive prices up and increase profit. In the absence of government regulations challenging profiteering, these companies are free to take down refineries for "maintenance", limiting supply, then charge what the traffic will bear (so to speak) - and what are the odds of THIS government actually instituting regulation of corporate profits?

I think this means that 66% of Americans lie to pollsters, or to themselves. I can't imagine anybody who is saintly enough to have never had racist feelings. The difference between a hard core racist and non-racists isn't the feelings - it's the ability to recognize that dividing the world into "us" and "them" is a natural but ultimately destructive tendency that should be quashed at the earliest opportunity and that trying to empathize with our fellow human beings is going to get us a lot further than simply saying "they can't help it, they are (insert race/ethnicity/religion here)".

Rules vs. laws? Is a "rule" regarding hiring at a government agency the equivalent of a "law"? I know that private companies can't enforce their rules by putting somebody in jail - can government agencies? Is that the difference between a rule and a law? Is their a lawyer in the house?

Regardless, it's clearly one more example of unethical behaviour among members of the Bush administration. They used to say "Character Counts". Heck, it was on bumper stickers, billboards, and signs on people's property here in Northern California. Of course, that was when Clinton was in office. Does character still count now that it's republicans who are showing a distinct lack of it?

I don't usually post corrections to my own typos, but this is a major pet peeve and I'd hate to contribute to general illiteracy among Americans.

20 years ago, timber companies announced massive layoffs (at the same time as they started automating cutting yards. The reason: government restrictions on cutting down trees (oddly, this coincided with record timber harvests).

6 years ago, California's electric grid was gamed, ultimately costing the state billions. The reason: government restrictions on building power plants.

Now, gasoline companies are claiming that they have shortages of fuel and must raise the prices. The reason: government restrictions on building new refineries.

This is a win-win for conservatives. Their donors make record profits. "Big Government" is demonized, allowing them to privatize more government activities, which allows their donors to make even more money. And we keep falling for it, again and again. All it takes is a public ignorant enough to accept anything corporations say, and a media which is completely owned by the businesses which profit from the game.

It's funny, because I have no problem understanding how a man could fall in love with a man, or a woman with a woman, but I have a hard time understanding how a person could feel as if they were a different gender. That said, I can't see why it's anybody's business but their own. We don't seem to worry as a society about tattoos and piercings, and we pretty much allow , even encourage, people to modify the bodies they were born with to make them more sexually appealing (or at least more marketable as such). It's perfectly acceptable for older people to get extensive surgery in order to look younger. Changing hair color is totally acceptable and many women won't leave home without cosmetics.

What is the difference between a woman getting breast reduction and a woman having her breasts removed in order to look more like a man? What is the difference between hormone therapy to modify menstrual cycles and hormone therapy to prevent facial hair? Both facial hair and menstrual cycles are perfectly normal things, but changing one is fine while changing the other is controversial. We change the face we present to the world in many ways, from cosmetics to radical surgery. Isn't that all this is about - people changing the face they present to the world? Why is it nobodies business if somebody has a face lift, but everybody's business when somebody get's their penis cut off? It's not like transgender people are asking for any priviledges. They just want to make their outside fit what they feel on the inside, just like everybody else does.