Tag Archives: evangelical

Donald Trump’s Secret Weapon: The Non-Christian Christian Vote

by PennyPalazzi Posted on August 13, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hmmm:

Catholics dislike Trump more than Romney, perhaps because Pope Francis doesn’t care for Trump. Or because Trump is a dick. Whatever. And among white evangelicals who attend church regularly, they’re just going to vote for the Republican, full stop.

But among white evangelicals who blow off church, Trump is much more popular than Romney was. Why? I suppose they sense quite accurately that Romney really was religious. Trump, on the other hand, says he’s religious but very clearly isn’t. This appeals to them. They’re apparently the kind of folks who want to call themselves Christians, but don’t care much for holier-than-thous who make them feel guilty—even just by their existence—for not acting Christian. That’s smart. Trump fits the bill perfectly.

View article:  

Donald Trump’s Secret Weapon: The Non-Christian Christian Vote

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Secret Weapon: The Non-Christian Christian Vote

Can We Please Ditch the Splaining Meme?

by TawnyaRiddle Posted on April 4, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hey there. Is there any chance that we could deep six the splaining meme? You know, mansplaining, straightsplaining, whitesplaining, and all their myriad offshoots. I get that it’s a useful term, but it’s gotten out of hand. Obviously we should all be careful when we talk about things outside our personal experience, and nobody gets a pass when they say something stupid. Still, we should all be allowed to talk about sensitive subjects as best we can without instantly being shot down as unfit to even hold an opinion.

The splaining meme is quickly becoming the go-to ad hominem of the 2010s, basically just a snarky version of STFU that combines pseudosophisticated mockery and derision without any substance to back it up. Maybe it’s time to give it a rest and engage instead with a little less smugness and narcissism.

Read the article: 

Can We Please Ditch the Splaining Meme?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can We Please Ditch the Splaining Meme?

You’re Probably Paying Less in Overdraft Fees Than You Used To

by GuadaluMcclanah Posted on April 2, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting short piece about overdraft fees today, including some facts and figures I haven’t seen before. Here are the trends between 2009 and 2013:

Average number of overdrafts per year: down from 9.8 to 7.1
Total overdraft revenue: down from $37.1 billion to $31.9 billion
Average overdraft charge: up from $27.50 to $30 (in 2013 dollars)

That’s a decrease of nearly a third in the annual number of overdrafts per checking account. This is likely because of new regulations, and banks have responded by raising the average fee in order to recoup some of their lost revenue.

Overall, this is a net benefit. The reduction in the number of overdrafts per year can probably be attributed to legal and regulatory actions that have reined in or flatly banned some of the worst abuses: clearing large payments first, refusing to let customers opt out of overdraft protection, slowing down payment credits, and so forth. These were the most outrageous fees, and eliminating them has helped consumers even if banks have partially made up for it with higher fees. In inflation-adjusted terms, the average person is now paying $213 in overdraft fees each year, compared to $269 in 2009. It’s a start.

Originally posted here – 

You’re Probably Paying Less in Overdraft Fees Than You Used To

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You’re Probably Paying Less in Overdraft Fees Than You Used To

An Important Question About April Fools’ Day

by EulahWhitten Posted on April 1, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Let’s take a break to discuss something important: Is it April Fools or Aprils Fools’? According to the AP style guide, it’s April Fools’. However, Google’s Ngram Viewer, which counts occurrences of phrases in books, tells a different, more nuanced story:

April Fools has been more common than April Fools’ for the entire past century.
However, April Fools’ Day has been far more common than April Fools Day.

So there you have it. Basically, you can probably punctuate it any way you want. Either way, though, I have some bad news for you: the usage of both terms has skyrocketed since 1960, increasing about 3x relative to everything else. This suggests, sadly, that we’ve all gotten way more obsessed with stupid April Fools jokes in recent years.

But there’s also some good news: usage peaked around 2000 and has gone down over the past decade. Unless this is an artifact of Google’s algorithm (which it might be), perhaps it means that we’re finally getting tired of the whole thing. That’s a nice thought, though I quail at the prospect of what’s probably replacing it in our collective id.

BY THE WAY: The increasing popularity of trying to outfox April Fools-savvy readers by playing jokes on March 31 is no longer clever. Knock it off. If you really think you have something good enough to fool people in an amusing way, it should be good enough to work on April 1.

Read the article – 

An Important Question About April Fools’ Day

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on An Important Question About April Fools’ Day