nerdgirl

By what metric do you measure best? I use the same metric everyone else uses-my own. What I feel is best is undoubtedly different than what you feel is best which is different from anyone else. Well, you may have described everyone minus one. I would want some objective metrics and comparable standards (e.g., adherence to rule of law, literacy rates, child mortality rates, defense capability, water treatment/access to clean water, electricity, GDP) as well as some more subjective metrics (e.g., justice, civilian control of military, etc) for determining “best” as opposed to my own subjective criteria (e.g., free chocolate distributed to everyone on alternate Tuesdays ). Some of those measures could be quantitative and some would be semi-quantitative. A couple objective-based rankings of best governments: The Economist has determined that Ireland is the best place to live with most effective government. Norway has repeatedly been determined to have the highest standard of living by the UN. In that year’s rankings the US was 8th. The worst countries usually are the ones that have the weakest or most basic governments, such as Yemen and many sub-Saharan African states. (Notable exceptions for South Africa and Botswana.) Even if you disagree with both ranking methods (objectively &/or subjectively), that’s still a method to compare “best.” I.e., why are those wrong? If, as you asserted, the “best” governments are those that only do the “basics and very little more,” what is the closed[st] example of such a government among the 191 or so sovereign states in the world today? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

While one may argue that Pres Roosevelt gave tacit approval through creation of the Manhattan Project, Pres Truman (another Democrat) authorized use of both Little Boy and Fat Man. [Edit to add: it's actually an interesting historical argument, imo] VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, in whole the situation is much better in Iraq than in 2004 and yes, the violence has decreased by objective measures. In November, US troop deaths and violence in Iraq overall was at the lowest since combat operations began in March 2003. Why? What factors have contributed to the decrease in violence in Iraq? (1) The Awakening Councils. After the bombing of Sunni mosques (in retaliation for the bombing of the Al Askari Mosque (Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra), the Sunni tribes and insurgent groups (many of whom were members of the former Sunni government & the disbanded Iraqi Army) realized (awakened to the fact) that the Sunnis were not going to return to Hussayn-era minority rule of Iraq. The Awakening Councils manage payment for the … (2) Sons of Iraq paramilitary groups. These are Sunni paramilitary groups paid for by your tax dollars. At ~$300 a month, it’s a lot cheaper than the costs associated with US soldiers and the non-specific costs of US soldiers lives. Many of the same insurgents who previously had been fighting against the multi-national forces have been paid to secure the areas that previously were major ‘hot spots’ like al Anbar province (control of which I noted in a post in September was transferred from MNF to Iraq Army), Baqubah, Diyala, and Haditha, where security and operational control of a major dam along the Euphrates was transferred from USMC to Iraq Army yesterday. (3) Application of Counterinsurgency Theory, aka “COIN”. OIF started as a first attempt to demonstrate the power of defense transformation and as application of “shock-n-awe” operations. SecDef Rumsfeld attempted to apply Transformation Theory to execute OIF … except the force was still (largely) trained/training, equipping, and preparing to fight under the doctrine of more traditional warfighting theory and, more importantly, Iraq was not a peer-competitor. It was not unlike like trying to apply CRW techniques (defense transformation) to a bunch of bigway RW divers (traditional military operations) doing a BASE jump (counterinsurgency operations). Yes, all involve parachutes and folks who have skydiving training, and two involve people jumping out of airplanes, but you are much more likely to be successful on a BASE jump if you use BASE techniques and BASE equipment. (BTW: I’m a proponent of defense transformation.) Implementing and executing US strategic objectives is a lot easier when they’re not shooting at you, (marg’s 16-word distilled synopsis of COIN theory ). (4) “The Surge”. If more members of the best military in the world along with billions in US tax payers’ dollars are sent to a conflict area, one would quite reasonably expect immediate security to increase. (It may be positive evidence for the aphorism that throwing more money at a problem *does* work, eh?) The introduction of more troops to targeted areas facilitated the immediate securing of those areas to allow stabilization so that transition (e.g.., the handover of Anbar province) could begin. (5) Internal and external displacement of Iraqis. According to the 2007 CIA Factbook “approximately two million Iraqis have fled the conflict in Iraq” and another 1.9M internally displaced persons (aka ‘balkanization’ along ethnic, sectarian, & religious lines). (NB: other sources give higher numbers but used the CIA figures as most conservative estimates). So >7% of the population (or more) have voiced their opinion with their feet and left. Another 7% of the population has relocated far enough to be internally displaced. --- -- --- -- --- For those who are advocates or critics of OIF, being cognizant of more than 10-sec partisan political talking points seems to be an example of personal responsibility. All that is a long way toward saying, no ... a "yes or no" answer is not adequate ... I don't think my 711 words are adequate ... but I know [Andy9o8] stops reading after the first paragraph. All this & that (above) does not address the question of was invading Iraq in the strategic interest of the US. So much of the rhetoric surrounding OIF, im-ever-ho, has been ‘dumbed down’ and over-simplified. (Even what I wrote above is a major over-simplification.) The US population is not stupid and can understand these ideas. If the only thing that one hears about is “surge” or “no surge” then it’s hard to fault why those are the only variables one thinks are worthy of consideration. Most of the real world functions on more than a single variable … actually frequently a number of independent and dependent variables. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It sounds like you might have some personal connection to the North Dakota floods (just guessing, nothing perjorative meant) in which you saw or perhaps heard directly the type of community behavior cited ? Why do you think that was more prevalent in ... or perceived as more prevalent (since I don't have any real data to base an assertion on, perhaps you can provide a link?) ... in North Dakota? While it may be true that there were not debit cards distributed after the 1997, 2000, & 2001 North Dakota floods, it is untrue to assert/imply that there was not substantial federal assistance made available and distributed to those affected. In addition to what Bill noted, FEMA site on North Dakota floods of 2001 with information of counties and individual assistance. Following the 1997 flood, >$495 million dollars in federal assistance (“federal welfare”) through FEMA was distributed to North Dakota communities. That included 21,846 residents of Grand Forks County who received $44.8 million in assistance through FEMA's Disaster Housing Assistance (similar program that made available debit cards post-Katrina). President Bush ordered federal disaster aid for the counties affected. “Funds were authorized under the major disaster declaration issued by President Bush on May 28 and made available through FEMA's Public Assistance program for state and local governments.” After the 2000 North Dakota floods, Governor John Hoeven called for $66.7 million in federal assistance. In 2003, one of North Dakota’s Senators, [url http://conrad.senate.gov/pressroom/record.cfm?id=276012]Sen Kent Conrad, requested FEMA pay over $717,000 in repairs for damage to buildings at the University of North Dakota. There’s almost no place in the US and no State that has not received federal assistance through FEMA over the years. Floods in North Dakota are almost as predictable ... or perhaps inevitable is a better word choice ... as hurricanes impacting the Gulf Coast. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Whaaa? "...and other purposes" ? It says "peaceful uses of nuclear energy" and "other purposes". What are the "other purposes" that do not fall into the "peaceful" category? Like "virginity" and all the other "non-virginity" stuff. The title of HR 7081 is “United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act.” The phrase “and for other purposes” is convention in the body-text of the law regarding the Session of Congress under which the legislation was approved. It doesn’t refer to the specific bill. There's nothing insidious in the specific langauge. E.g., -- HR 7080 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 7080 To eliminate certain provisions of law providing benefits to trial lawyers, and for other purposes. -- HR 7082 EH AN ACT One Hundred Tenth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January, two thousand and eight An Act To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit the Secretary of the Treasury to disclose certain prisoner return information to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and for other purposes. -- HR 7088 IH 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 7088 To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize funding for emergency management performance grants to provide for domestic preparedness and collective response to catastrophic incidents, and for other purposes. -- HR 7092 IH 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 7092 To amend title 31, United States Code, to end speculation on the current cost of multilingual services provided by the Government, and for other purposes. -- HR 7095 IH 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 7095 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a deduction for qualified long-term care insurance premiums, a credit for individuals who care for those with long-term care needs, and for other purposes. -- HR 7097 IH 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 7097 To promote biogas production, and for other purposes. ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ There are lots of non-partisan reasons to object to or be concerned with the US-India nuclear deal, those four words are not among them. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Within federal agencies it usually means a specialized contracting officer, one who is certified to recommend, make, sign, and amend contracts for the government, e.g., between the FBI & private contractors. All COTRs are also Contracting Officers (COs), but all COs are not COTRs. Stands for Contracting Officer Technical Representative or some such. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I’m going to agree w/Tom but with a caveat … sarin nerve agent is less likely candidate than improvised explosive or improvised chemical device to generate something a lot simpler (e.g., hydrogen cyanide or IED coupled to chlorine tank, e.g., used in Diyala in 2006-2007). Personal pet peeve: sarin is not a ‘gas’. Nor is sulfur mustartd. At ambient temperatures and pressures, sarin (GB) a liquid with a noticable vapor pressure. For the numerically, inclined: vapor pressure sarin = 2.10 mm Hg compared to a vapor pressure of 17 mm Hg for water). In the March 1995 Aum Shinrikyo subway terrorist attack, the nerve agent was manufactured from precursor chemicals the day before and diluted with acetonitrile. It was not pure nor particularly well-made. Aum Shinrikyo benefited more from lots of money, competent and trained technical folks, and the limitations of Japanese law at the time (restricting investigation of anything considered “religious.”) The March 1995 subway incident was not the Aum’s only foray into chemical terrorism. In the five years leading up to the most renowned sarin attack, the Aum executed at least ten separate chemical attacks. Four months earlier, in December 1994, the Aum Shinrikyo released 20 kg of sarin using an industrial sprayer with a commercial heater on a truck in the Matsumoto prefecture. The late night attack killed seven people and injured an additional 144. They also improvised release of hydrogen cyanide using condoms as a delivery method. They also tried to execute biological attacks with anthrax and botulinum toxin but failed. Both right-wing, anti-government folks (e.g., William Krar) and radical Islamist terrorists have shown a tendency to improvise with chemical agents. It’s a very short distance from explosives and basic munitions chemistry to the street chemistry of improvised chemical devices. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

At the Iranian photoshop lab. Iraq's supergun was also dismantled and destroyed in 1991. Bull was assassinated in 1990, some suspect by Mossad. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

By what metric do you measure best? And what do you consider "basics"? Here's one prior SC discusion of "minimum government services/protections/benefits." VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the link. There's also a Skeptic's Annotated Quran and Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon. I don't see any one them as 'making fun' of any of the religious texts, e.g., one of the designated annotations is "good stuff." Instead they're bringing forth provocative analyses by self-identified skeptics, i.e., it's in the title.

Man, that's a first. A nerdgirl post without a hyperlink. How about one, Marg? Just for you: "Deterrence and Dissuasion for the 21st Century." /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I do miss Rumsfeld as SecDef ... honestly ... if only for his quips and way of interacting with the press corps. The guy I was dating a couple years ago (a hardcore Republican Navy Commander) gave me one of the best birthday gifts *ever*: a talking Donald Rumsfeld doll. Some of us liberals still love ya!

Imo, no. So you wanted a supermajority in the Senate? No, I wanted what I considered to be the better candidate. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Imo, no. Some good moderate Republicans lost re-election bids this term (Rep Chris Shays (CT) & Sen Elizabeth Dole (NC)) and in 2006 (Sen Lincoln Chafee (RI)) or lost primary races (Rep Heather Wilson (NM) to replace Sen Pete Domenici), Sen Chambliss was not one of them. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

But you're just proving my point. MAD works against states, for example, Iraq. It does not have the same power against "nationless groups" to use your own terminology. I would argue it's not an issue of can terrorists groups be deterred but how to do it. There are some who argue that terrorists can’t be deterred. Others like Paul Kapur (Naval War College), Lew Dunn (SAIC) & me argue that it can. The methods of the Cold War against a peer competitor or other states are not the model, imo. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I’m thankful for friends close and far-away, for family, for a secure job I love … that most frequently feels like play.

That's a very interesting data set. To me, it's more curious as a historical archive/meta-analysis. For examining trends, it's a proverbial gold mine. How meaningful is data from 1927 w/r/t opinions/beliefs of today regarding religiousity? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

can you back this up with data? i don't believe it. for example, my wife has a fair amount of education, and the more she learns, the more she's convinced there is a god. even some well known physisists, possibly some of the smarted and well educated people on earth believe in god. One more explanation ... it must mean ya asked a good question/posed a good challenge.

Sorry, I’ve not ‘tended’ better to my thread. My bad. Been busy – vocationally & avocationally. A girl’s gotta play every now-n-then. As far as the reaction, the State Department, the DoD, and the White House have been quietly hopeful for the last few months. The deal still needs to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. If a deal is not ratified by the Iraqi parliament, it becomes a much, much, much, much more complicated situation. It’s a wise strategic position by the Bush administration to not overtly draw attention to it … less so for US population, imo, than for the impact on the Iraqi population. It’s not a done deal. From that perspective alone, one may not want to claim success yet. State Dept spokesman Sean Howard has been disciplined in cautious optimism. It’s diplomacy. The Iraqi’s have readily adopted one classic American trait – protesting. The Sadrists are opposed to the deal. And they are protesting it, peacefully for the most part ... thus far. (For those who aren’t following the SOFA negotiations: if there is no ratified SOFA, after 31 December 2008, we’re illegally occupying the country or we have to go back to the UN Security Council for extension of the resolution under which we are currently in country. Russia is not expected to be cooperative in the UNSC.) It is my speculation that Sen Obama has been quietly supportive for much of the same reasons. It’s characteristic of “No drama Obama.” It’s also not in his interest to have 1 January 2009 come without any legal mandate. Some very good commentary & analysis, imo, appended below from last Monday’s PBS Newshour by LTC John Nagl (USA, ret) and Dr. Feisal Istrabadi. Nagl co-wrote the updated FM 3-24 (USA and USMC Counterinsurgency Manual). Istrabadi is a visiting professor of law at Indiana University and previously served as Iraq's deputy representative to the UN. VR/Marg Excerpts: GWEN IFILL: Are you as optimistic that the Iraqis are ready to fulfill what this agreement might require? JOHN NAGL: No, not at all. The fact is that there's an awful lot of domestic politics being played in Baghdad right now with this agreement. But in some cities, I believe, American forces will be able to withdraw by June of this coming year, as the agreement says. But in other cities, I think there are going to have to be negotiations and American forces will be required to stick around for a while to guarantee security. The far-term outlook is also, I think, far too rosy in this agreement. The agreement says that all American forces will be gone by 2011, full stop, no possibility for renegotiation. And that's, frankly, absurd. GWEN IFILL: … about the American role in this? JOHN NAGL: Well, the United States has also not covered itself with glory in these negotiations. And I mean no disrespect to the people who've actually been doing the negotiating, some of whom are friends of mine who've done extraordinary work, but we gave up our primary negotiating lever at the start of the negotiations when we guaranteed that we would remain in Iraq longer than the Iraqis wanted us to. [I wonder how many Americans realize that/realized that during the Presidential campaign? I.e., the “100-years in Iraq” vs “bring ‘em home 22Jan09” dialogues (to put it diplomatically) were of less consequence in the context that decisions that had already been made and decisions to which the US would be bound by the SOFA it was negotiating. – nerdgirl] In fact, by disagreement, what we are doing is doing something I believe is in the United States' national interest, but is clearly even more in Iraq's interest. But we are putting the lives of our young men and women at risk. We are spending our dollars to provide security for Iraq. And we always had the potential of saying, ‘Here we go no further or we walk away from the deal.’ GWEN IFILL: Let me ask Feisal Istrabadi about that. To what degree is 2011, in your interpretation, a full stop? And how much of it is the beginning of -- there will be a residual force that stays and monitors or watches out for diplomatic installations, that sort of thing? FEISAL ISTRABADI: Well, I'm smiling, because I heard Colonel Nagl say that -- something about it's full stop, no negotiations, or something to that effect. And, of course, in the Middle East there's no such thing as a cessation of negotiations. [I.e., the importance of strategic culture and being cognizant of different cultural ways & norms.-nerdgirl] So the document does not allow for an extension, but that's not to say that, after elections in 2009, and we're up for parliamentary elections in Iraq in December of 2009, that's not to say that that can't be renegotiated. And I suspect that it will be. There's certainly -- I mean, the agreement does not bar the possibility of an extension, and I think that a rational policy in Washington and in Baghdad will require a renegotiation on this point. GWEN IFILL: Well, I want you to go look backwards on that a little bit. When you talk about negotiations, these negotiations just to get to this point took some time. What was going on? FEISAL ISTRABADI: Yes. Well, I think several things were going on. One is, you know, I think it was Dr. Johnson that said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I think that the current government of Iraq, which has presided over a precipitous fall in the provision of services, in oil production and so on, and has only seemingly been able to provide for sectarianism and corruption, has had to resort to this sort of jingoistic nationalism in an effort to establish its bona fides with the electorate, which it will be facing in January for governor elections and in December of '09 for parliamentary elections. So I think there was a tremendous amount of smoke and mirrors in an attempt on the part of this government to burnish its nationalist credentials to cover the fact that it has fundamentally failed to provide services, it has failed to engender reconciliation between Iraq's various communities, it has failed to take advantage, for instance, as it should have, when the price of oil hit $150 a barrel. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What I've seen/not seen is neither here nor there regarding this topic; Yes, it is relevant. We can all speculate. All speculation is not equal. And perhaps 'seen' was not the best word choice. Rather than suggesting direct observations by you or anyone (seeing), are you aware of publically available information that supports the link between the recent suggestion of negotiations with the Taliban and the proposed gas pipeline from Turkmenistan? I was aware of/previousy cited the 2000-2001 negotiations and asked for newer evidence to support (or dispute) that as a factor. Since my psychic powers still aren't working [] & we're not on JWICS, one needs a common point of reference. Or it's just notional speculation. I have seen nothing to suggest that the gas pipelines are an operational priority nor have I seen or heard anything to suggest that they are a driver to pursue negotiations with the Taliban. In a general sense, geopolitics and energy resource issues come into play. Are they significant policy drivers now (last 6 months) as they were in 2000 & early 2001? I don't see any evidence ... hence my request. What I have seen and have provided evidence for (e.g., GEN Petraeus’ remarks at the Heritage Foundation) is operational motivation that is much nearer term and directed towards defeating an insurgency (the Taliban). More evidence from a briefing Friday by COL John P. Johnson, USA Commander, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne, who has been deployed in eastern Afghanistan since April 2008 and who “provide(s) some insight from the perspective of a brigade-level task force that has actually been in the fight for the past eight months.” “As I said, the focus of everything we do is the Afghan people, and our intent is to separate the people from the enemy physically, but more important, psychologically. The enemy we face is very complex, but can be broadly defined as any actor the draws the population away from the vision of legitimate government of Afghanistan. This could range from criminals to ideological Taliban led by Mullah Omar to power-based groups such as those led by Jallaludin Haqqani and Hekmatyar Gulbuddin, alliance groups such as the Taliban of Pakistan, led by Baitullah Mehsud, as well as to a variety of foreign fighter elements -- some organized, such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or the Islamic Jihad Union -- to ultimately al Qaeda. “As we separate the Afghan people from this complex enemy, we also strive to connect them with the legitimate government of Afghanistan and also connect them with their Afghan national security forces. We do all of this from behind, ensuring that our number-one priority is the capacity-building of the institutions, so vital to convincing the people to reject any alternate vision. “We recognize that we do all of this in an overarching information engagement environment [strategic communications – nerdgirl], where sometimes the enemy has the upper hand, because he doesn't have to tell the truth, such as the fact that these terrorists cause a huge majority of civilian casualties and have instructions from their leadership to create situations likely to cause collateral, innocent loss of life. [i.e., just shooting terrorists/insurgents is not the solution to terrorism or insurgencies, which connects more to comments from this thread on Iraq.-nerdgirl] “Broadly speaking, our purpose here is to transform the environment in a way that increases the legitimacy of the Afghan government, at the provincial and the district level, an influences the people of Afghanistan to reject the ultimate vision offered by the anti-Afghan forces.” The entire transcript is surprising forthright w/r/t foreign fighters, infiltrators across the “Pak” border, working with the “Pak mil,”Agribusiness development teams, PRTs, HTTs, intelligence sharing, and the critical importance of water and water politics. (Heck, water is one issue that rarely gets acknowledged w/r/t the Pakistan-India Kashmir dispute … water not oil or gas as a critical natural resource.) Another recent discussion that speaks to the operational imperatives for stabilization rather than a gas pipeline, imo. It also connects to prior discussion on the intention of GEN McKiernan's comments regarding not wanting a "surge" in Afghanistan (& what "surge" means in the context of Aghanistan vis-a-vis Iraq). No, I don’t the proposed gas pipelines were a priority w/r/t US and NATO operations in Afghanistan. Yes & no. In some circles there’s been a lot of discussion w/r/t to the proposed gas pipeline from Iran to India [Iran-Pakistan-India]. One of the principal drivers for the India-US nuclear agreement was to facilitate an alternative for India to overcome its energy deficit that did not tie it to Iran. (Other drivers include desire to strengthen ties with India as an ally/friend in the GWOT and lifting the US ban on imported mangos from India, i.e., “atoms for mangos”.) Negotiations on that agreement began (officially) in early 2005; in October 2008, the US Congress approved amending the Atomic Energy Act to allow the deal to go forward. Until there is stability in Afghanistan, the Trans Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP) [Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India] is effectively a paper-deal, imo. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Agree -- both with the pragmatic aspects as well as the 'oddness' factor ... I think that's a concise word to express my immediate response Friday - the "moral" (normative) part struck me as 'odd.' Not a judgement but something that piqued my curiousity. More of a "huh?" than a "ugh" or an "I don't like." What struck me about the comment was the moral (normative) component. Or more precisely, why instill a moral component onto something that doesn’t seem to be a question of morals or ethics (i.e., normatives). How is enabling credit card capabilities for Salvation Army donations immoral? I can understand it being a question of personal finances. And that's entirely consistent with some of the other replies in the thread, e.g., cooments by [FallingOsh],[Gawain], [Brains]. From a neoliberal economics perspective, credit is good debt when paid off every month or used for true emergency uses. It’s also good debt if you’re the lender. From a traditional conservative perspective, which I gather is Ramsey’s intended audience, it would seem to be a personal choice/personal responsibility issue, e.g., if you can’t afford to pay off the donation at the end of the month don’t swipe the card. Unless one wants to invoke an anti-capitalist argument, which somehow doesn’t seem likely, I don’t see a moral or ethical argument. If one doesn’t like credit cards, that’s fine. Just because I don’t like something, that doesn’t make it unethical or immoral. I don’t like paying fees or interest, therefore I pay off my credit card each month & choose credits cards with no fees. Not because I think it’s normatively wrong, but because I would prefer to spend that money in other ways. That’s more a function of being financially responsible & the ability to do math. I don’t consider charging reasonable (non-usury) fees or interest to be immoral or unethical. Otoh, some religions (moral codes) do. I doubt, however, that Mr. Ramsey is arguing from Islamic religious law. Therefore what’s the benefit – strategic, rhetorical, or otherwise – to making it a moral issue? While I’m not thinking about it w/r/t any other specific issue and certainly wasn’t Friday afternoon on the way to the airport and I don't want to 'pick on' Ramsey (cuz the rest of his show & advice on personal finances made sense), it does suggest to me more general questions regarding calling things that aren’t truly moral or ethical issues (normatives) such. Those are the larger ethics and rhetorical questions that are metaphorically rolling around in my squishy gray matter. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the additional contextual information. It would make sense that he would not endorse or encourage them (credit cards on Salvation Army red kettles) with that in mind. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

pssst. That means you usually listen to it. You’re correct. My bad. I also spelled Ramsey's name incorrectly (Ramsay) in the text of my initial post. By the time I noticed 'em, I was back in ATL and unable to edit. (New Orleans airport has free wireless access.

Vinny, Clarification please … because it’s not clear to me what you’re suggesting. Are you asserting that you think the KKK/white supremecy is equivalent to affirmative action/civil rights/equal opportunity? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, I agree that faulty dichotomies are not indicative of sound logic. Are they more egregious logical flaws or less than ad hominems? Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying