"They" are. The problem isn't the cards, it's the debt. Put down the excess groceries, pay the balance every month, and no prob Bob! A bit of extra security (as you noted), delayed-payment (think of all those extra pennies your hard earned $$$ accrue in your savings account while waiting for the payment due date), and throw in some reward points/miles to boot.

What about shorter assaults? Does the duration, breadth and depth of the assault carry some weight when deciding whether or not to prosecute? Or instead does the law truly apply to all, as you succinctly imply with your question What is more important, inter-party comity and national reconciliation, or the Law?

By these metrics, we should also demand prosecution of Bill Clinton. And frankly, every president I can recall throughout my lifetime.

Not arguing that "W" should not be prosecuted. Rather the opposite - that he should. So too should Clinton, King George the First and Reagan were he still with us.

Those big $$$ collegiate sports programs are good. Sure, they may come at some expense to the relatively small proportion of student athletes, but they do serve to bring in all those dollars for groovy new things that benefit the entire student body - like sports complexes... and buildings... and stuff. Which universities use to justify their skyrocketing tuition rates for all the other students, which... oh wait. Nevermind.

Indeed wells in our Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition were always considered sacred.

... and then a few sentences later...

But unless we build upon the sense of social justice so recently renewed in our election of Barack Obama, we are ignoring fissures that will come back to haunt us. So we must find ways to convince minority groups of all kinds to come together. To foster community. To honor human dignity in each person.

Ultimately I decided against writing a comment asking about what seemed to be religionopoly in the original post. Naturally I was interested when I saw your comment on this very topic, which so closely mirrored my own initial viewpoint. Though can't really say I was surprised. ;)

Anyhooo, may I humbly suggest you invest more time in a detailed rereading of the post and TheraP's comments. I have reached a conclusion that he/she was referencing his/her own religious experience under the caveat he/she was doing so specifically without excluding non-J/C/M religions. He/She chose those three as an illustrative point to speak from personal experience, and expressly not as a definition to which we were all beholden.

Funny, for all these years I've had it backwards.

Many thanks for the upgrade, Al.

#$!*@ Joe!

Yummmy....