I am not an economist, but isn't all this taking a remarkably short-sighted view of things? The "Washington Consensus" has worked, and worked fairly well, for a long time. And yes, there have been eras where it worked less well. But it has, thus far, usually been able to turn things around eventually. But all of a sudden this time it is hopeless and we should panic and throw out the whole free market thing? And give up democracy for an authoritarian state? (Honestly, the second part os more worrisome to me than the first.)

Dave Ramsey has excellent advice for those who are in debt and would like to pay it off. However, he goes overboard on the "all credit card use is bad at all times for all people for any reason, no exceptions" track. Credit cards may be a very unwise choice for *some* people at *some* times. For others, they are a tool that can be used responsibly.

I use credit cards that I pay off in full every month because...
* I get a few extra days of interest on my money.
* My credit card company provides certain perks - in my case "points" that can be redeemed for airline miles or various gift cards or sometimes certain products. Other cards offer a small percentage of certain purchases as cash back. It may not be much, but it is money that a debit card wouldn't offer me.
* When you use a debit card you don't have the same consumer protection that credit cards offer. Such as extra insurance on rental cars, the option to do chargebacks when appropriate, and stronger protection against fraud.
* "People" may, on average, spend more with credit cards. However, "people" also, on average, carry around $8000 in credit card debt. I am not "people." I have never not paid my bill in full and I know that credit cards are an excellent option *for me*. There are some people for whom credit cards are not a responsible option. For me, they are convenient and safer than a debit card.

I am confused about the inclusion of gymnastics in Emma's list. While it is certainly true that some gymnasts do end up with eating disorders, it is also true that not all do. In fact, the ones who do are a minority.

The sport of gymnastics is not, primarily, an attempt to change the body. I say this as a former competitive (up through level 8) gymnast. The goal is to learn new skills and perform them with good form (pointed toes, legs together, etc.). But also? The goal is to have fun. Yes, it is possible to go overboard in the attempt to achieve. You see it in gymnastics. You also see it in ballet. And swimming. And soccer. And baseball (talk about altering your body!).

Any athletic endeavor is going to alter your outer body to some extent. That is usually quite healthy (why else do gym memberships exist?). Any competitive sport will have some, including many of the most accomplished and therefore visible, participants who lose perspective. But I do not think that gymnastics is fundamentally different than any other sport in that sense.

I have one nitpick (occupational hazard) with this line: "For you, the nails are punched through His hands and feet, crushing bone and sending waves of pain through tortured limbs."

I was under the impression that none of Jesus' bones were broken. Not just that the soldiers didn't break his legs, but none at all were broken. Am I wrong?