Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump waved Monday after speaking at a national Boy Scout gathering in Glen Jean, W.Va.

NEW YORK A barrage of political remarks by President Trump delivered Monday to the Boy Scouts of America National Jamboree in West Virginia has enraged many parents and former Scouts, thrusting the Scouts once again into the middle of the nations culture wars and providing yet another example of the unusual and polarizing nature of the Trump presidency.

The Scouts, plainly sensing a new threat that supporters feared could undermine a movement still reeling from extended controversies over the appropriate role for gay boys and leaders in Scouting, said in a statement that the group was wholly nonpartisan and does not promote any one position, product, service, political candidate or philosophy. The organization added that its traditional speaking invitation to a sitting president was in no way an endorsement of any political party or specific policies.

Advertisement

It was far from clear whether the statement would curb the tide of skepticism, outrage, and division that began even before Trump concluded his 38-minute address in Glen Jean, West Virginia. Although Scouting offices were besieged with phone calls and some alumni were warning that they would withhold support for the group, others celebrated Trumps speech.

Glenn Elvig, an artist in Minnesota, said he was angered by the presidents speech and believed its contents deviated from the organizations stated values.

Get Political Happy Hour in your inbox:

Your afternoon shot of politics, sent straight from the desk of Joshua Miller.

I appreciate that the Scouts offer the invitation to the president of the United States, said Elvig, who fondly recalled receiving a letter from Richard Nixon congratulating him on achieving the Eagle rank decades ago. What I was angry about was that this president took it as an opportunity to criticize others, demean others, and not really speak to the concerns of 12- to 17-year-old kids who are looking for direction in life.

Elvig said he had been calling the Boy Scouts office for hours on Tuesday to express his dismay, but had been getting a busy signal.

I would like a public denouncement of what happened yesterday and reaffirmation of the values I think I learned in Scouts, Elvig said. If they cant do that, I will be returning my medal.

Advertisement

Either way, the firestorm was an unwelcome and surprising development during a gathering that is among Scoutings most important events, a quadrennial meeting that attracts tens of thousands of people and, very often, presidents, who in the past have spoken about service, values, or citizenship, not partisan politics.

Trumps appearance before an enthusiastic crowd of neckerchief-clad, saluting Scouts at a 14,000-acre compound was a distinct break from 80 years of presidential speeches to the nations Scouts.

In the speechs opening moments, it seemed that Trump, who was not a Boy Scout as a youth, would mostly avoid talking about the partisan clashes that have divided Washington.

I said, who the hell wants to speak about politics when Im in front of the Boy Scouts? Right? Trump said shortly before he extolled the Scouts as young people of character and integrity who will serve as leaders in our communities, and uphold the sacred values of our nation.

But the speech by Trump, the 19th occupant of the White House to also serve as the honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America, was ultimately punctuated by a brand of political oratory that proved startling at a Boy Scout gathering.

He recounted how he won last years presidential election: We won Florida. We won South Carolina. We won North Carolina. We won Pennsylvania. He said Hillary Clinton didnt work hard in Michigan, a state Trump won, and he resurfaced his grievances with fake news and fake polls. And when he landed on the second point of the Scout Law loyalty Trump interrupted himself to say, We could use some more loyalty, I will tell you that.

Presidents of both parties have been connected to the Boy Scouts: Their signatures have been affixed to Eagle Scout certificates, they have hosted boys and leaders in the Oval Office and many have appeared at jamborees.

In 2005, George W. Bush reminded the Scouts that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had appeared at a jamboree in 1937, and he spoke about themes that are familiar to Scouts, including service and character.

When you follow your conscience, and the ideals you have sworn as a Scout, there is no limit to what you can achieve for our country, Bush said.

Bill Clinton, who spoke in 1997, had made similar comments.

We need you to remain focused on the strong values you learned in Scouting, to remember that character counts and service counts, Clinton said. We need you if were going to build our communities and bring our people together across all the lines that divide us.

The organization has faced frustration and anger in recent decades for its policies about gay and transgender policy, and the issue even reached the US Supreme Court in 2000. Although the Scouts won that case, which involved the organizations expulsion of an openly gay adult leader, the group has struggled to cultivate cultural relevance and stem a collapse in membership.

The group said this year that it had more than 2.3 million youth participants. About a decade earlier, it had close to 2.9 million participants.

In January, the Boy Scouts announced that troops would accept transgender members. It had earlier ended bans on gay members and leaders.

Zach Wahls, a cofounder of Scouts for Equality, which pressured the Boy Scouts to allow gay and transgender members, said Trumps speech put the Scouts in a very difficult position that they didnt want to be in.

The Boy Scouts were not in the wrong here, said Wahls, 26, who became an Eagle Scout while growing up in Iowa. We should not be blaming the organization that always invites the president to speak. We should be talking about the president who took that opportunity and twisted it.

Read more:
Boy Scouts, in spotlight after Trump's speech, say they are 'wholly nonpartisan' - The Boston Globe

Bioethical arguments related to abortion and embryonic stem cell research often depend on first answering questions of origins. When do humans come into existence? Does fertilization represent creations flash point? Or does existence require the glow of consciousness or perhaps separation from the birth mother?

These questions of our origins, along with discussions pertaining to personal identity, represent the dual themes of this years Romanell Conference (formerly the PANTC Conference) presented by the Department of Philosophy.

Three pre-eminent philosophers will visit UB to defend their positions on these issues as part of the two-day event being held from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. July 28-29 in 280 Park Hall, North Campus, a space unofficially renamed the Theresa Monacelli Conference Room in appreciation of the retired philosophy staff members contributions to previous conferences.

John Lizza, professor of philosophy at Kutztown University; Don Marquis, professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Kansas; and Marya Schechtman, professor of philosophy at the University of Illinois at Chicago, will each deliver a separate keynote address.

The Romanell Conference, the fifth annual event exploring bioethics and the philosophy of medicine, is free and open to the public. A complete schedule of presenters and their topics is available online.

These issues go right to the heart of the culture wars abortion, control over ones body, sexual identity, personal identity, the social construction of the self and hastening death, says David Hershenov, UB professor of philosophy who joined the keynoters on a panel about personal identity and death at the American Philosophical Associations national meeting last year in Chicago.

This conference will not be a dry philosophical debate.

There is no philosophical consensus on when a human being comes into existence, Hershenov explains.

If we persons were never early mindless embryos, then we couldnt have been harmed by an abortion or embryonic stem cell research that destroys an embryo, he says. Early abortion would be more akin to contraception in that it prevents someone from coming into existence rather than killing an existing individual, preventing them from having a valuable future.

Some philosophers think existence begins two weeks after fertilization when twinning can no longer occur.

If we came into existence before identical twins were formed, then twinning might have involved our deaths as the embryo that we were identical with splits in two.

Other philosophers believe persons are essentially thinking entities, so there is no existence without consciousness.Fertilization in this case cant represent existence since the fetal brain requires 20 weeks of post-fertilization development before it can support consciousness.

There are even some philosophers who believe we dont come into existence until we are separated, or at least separable, from our mothers, he says. They dont think we could ever have been a part of another human being. That would mean there is a larger human being composed of a smaller human being.

Marquis, author of the seminal article Why Abortion is Immoral, believes existence occurs two weeks after fertilization. Schechtman, the most famous promotor of the narrative account of personal identity, has a more fluid belief on existence and is exploring the idea that our origins stretch across the entire pregnancy. Lizza, an expert on death and a proponent of the constitution idea, uses the analogy of a sculptures differences from that of unformed clay. He sees humans as minded beings that dont exist until weve formed the capacity for thought.

The conference will be entertaining for many reasons, including the fact that many of the participants are long-term philosophical rivals, and so quite willing to bluntly and sarcastically express their criticism of each other, Hershenov says.

Other conference highlights include a talk on the transgender category of personal identification by Barry Smith, SUNY Distinguished Professor in the UB Department of Philosophy and director of the National Center for Ontological Research. In addition, Catherine Nolan, affiliate assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Dallas, will discuss intersex children, and Stephen Kershnar, SUNY Fredonia professor of philosophy,will discuss whether physicians deserve the high compensation they receive.

Kershnar is a libertarian, says Hershenov. I suspect he will answer they are entitled to that money and should hardly be taxed.

Link:
Philosophers to discuss origins, identity at UB conference - University at Buffalo Reporter

Abortion, funding for the arts, womens rights, gay rights, court-packingthe list of controversies that divide our nation runs long and each one cuts deep. Professor Hunters book,Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, shows that these issues are not isolated from one another but are, in fact, part of a fabric of conflict which constitutes nothing short of a struggle over the meaning of America. Unlike the religious and cultural conflict that historically divided the nation, the contemporary culture war is fought along new and, in many ways, unfamiliar lines. Its foundation is a profound realignment in American culture which cuts across established moral and religious communities.

Culture Warspresents a riveting account of how Christian fundamentalist, Orthodox Jews, and conservative Catholics have joined forces in a fierce battle against their progressive counterpartssecularist, reform Jews, liberal Catholics and Protestantsas each side struggles to gain control over such fields of conflict as the family, art, education, law, and politics. Not since the Civil War has there been such fundamental disagreement over basic assumptions about truth, freedom, and our national identity.

Robert Coles, author ofThe Spiritual Life of Children, reviewed the book, saying, An extraordinary intellectual achievementa careful and immensely constructive analysis of the sources of the moral and cultural conflicts which continue to confront us in late twentieth-century America. And Christopher Lasch, author ofThe Culture of Narcissism, saying, Hunters careful study removes any lingering doubt about the depth of the ideological divisions in American society [A] valuable corrective to the perceived wisdom that America is a classless society united by a broad middle-class consensus. As well as Peter L. Berger, director of the Institute for the Study of Economic Culture at Boston University, saying, Hunter gives a careful overview of the cultural conflicts in America today and makes some modest proposals on how they might be resolved.

Reviews Andrew M. Greeleys review, With God on Their Sides, in theNew York Times Peter Steinfels review, Beliefs, in theNew York Times Read an archived version of Thomas Brynce Edsallsreviewfrom theWashington Monthly

Awards 1992 Critics-Choice Award (Christianity Today) Finalist 1992 L.A. Times Book Prize Selected as an alternate in the Book of the Month Club, the History Book Club,and the Quality Paperback Book Club Honorable Mention, Phi Beta Kappa Book Competition

Read the original post:
Culture Wars James Davison Hunter

Garum has been bringing the umami flavor for centuries.

Jenny LunaJul. 23, 2017 6:00 AM

During the early morning hours at the ports of the Mediterranean, circa 50 A.D, fishermen would haul hundreds of anchovies, mackerel, and tuna back to shore, gut the carcasses, and leave them on the docks. As the sun heated the day, the fish entrails began to ferment. Its not exactly the most appetizing scene to imagine, but it was the way thatearly chefs concocted one of the most highly sought-after sauce in ancient Rome: garum.

[People] would move the fish outside of the city because it created such a stench, says Tom Nealon, an antique cookbook collector and the author ofFood Fights & Culture Wars: A Secret History of Taste. On the latest episode ofBite,we talked toNealon about his attempt to recreate an ancient recipe that incorporated garum (sneak preview: It didnt go very well). The interview with Nealon begins at 11:15:

Garum, orcolatura di alici,wasnt unlike South Asian fish sauce, a condiment that gives Thai and Vietnamese food its distinctive umami flavor. In ancient Rome, the highest-quality garum was saved for elites, the lower quality for slaves.

Engraving of fisherman, 18th Century

Wellcome Library, London/ Courtesy of The Overlook Press

But Garum brought more than a distinctive flavor to 3rd and 4th century cuisineit also helped historians put a precise date on the fall of Pompeii. According to Pompeiis Applied Research Laboratory, when leftover jars of rotten fish bones and entrails were discoveredat the site of one of the ancient citys producers, they were referenced against written accounts to confirm the eruption of Mount Vesuvius on August 24 of 79 A.D.

If youre hungry for a taste from the past, its not too late to get a robustly savory dish made with garum. Companies in Italys Amalfi Coast still honor tradition and produce the sauce, and US restaurantslikeAva Genes in Portland now import bottles.

To hear more from Nealon and discover other ancient recipes inspired by Season 7 ofGame of Thrones,listen to our latest episode ofBite.

Jenny Luna is a Ben Bagdikian fellow at Mother Jones. She covers education and immigration and her work has appeared in the Miami Herald, WNYC, and the Wilson Quarterly. Follow her on Twitter @J2theLuna or email her at jluna@motherjones.com.

Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.

Original post:
How a Smelly Fish Sauce Helped Solve One of Ancient Rome's Mysteries - Mother Jones

A scene from Christopher Nolans Dunkirk. Photograph: Bros/Kobal/Rex/Shutterstock

Christopher Nolans film Dunkirk landed this week, and parts of the right did their best to turn it into another episode in the culture wars. They were clearly expecting that the cultural left would get much more upset about a big war movie depicting the travails of cis white men. The fact that this didnt happen led to some unintentional comedy. Meanwhile, some of them didnt get what they expected from the movie. Its Saving Private Ryan, and some conservatives found it to be too grim, and too much like actual war to count as a celebration of it.

Publication: Breitbart

Author: James Delingpole made his name as a climate change troll across the pond. Now he has free rein to take whatever comes into his head and smear it all over Breitbart.

Why you should read it: The right is itching for a culture war over Dunkirk. Wouldnt it be fantastic if the left got upset about a celebrated moment in the second world war the op-eds would write themselves! Sadly, no one has really come to the party. Delingpoles misfire here is launched on the basis of a single, ambiguous sentence in a straightforward, complimentary USA Today review, which notes that some might be upset by the lack of women and people of color in the cast. This casual statement of fact is amplified by Delingpole, and others, into a full-throated PC attack on the tommies on the beach. But you wonder, as you read, whether their heart is in this stuff any more.

Extract: Yes, its true that Dunkirks leading roles are indeed dominated by white European males. But one possible reason for this is that Dunkirk was an actual historical event which director Christopher Nolan has gone to considerable trouble to re-create as accurately as possible.

Publication: National Review

Author: Kyle Smith

Why you should read it: Smith cant help but admire Nolans technical achievement, but its all a little too close, for his tastes, to the catalogue of misery of real war. He wishes Nolan had injected a little more sentimentality. One wouldnt want to draw too much from a movie review, but you do begin to wonder, reading a review like this: how much of the highbrow rights habitual appreciation for martial glory is derived from its Hollywood depictions, and how much from reality?

Extract: Patriotic declarations, too, are such war-movie staples that Nolan studiously avoids the usual approach, presenting perhaps the greatest speech of the 20th century in the least grandiose way imaginable. In my book, that makes the power of the words all the more effective, but so grueling is the journey upon which Nolan has taken us that we require more relief than he gives us more payoff, as the studio suits would say, more catharsis, more (if you like) tear-jerking.

Publication: The Spectator

Author: Deborah Ross is not anyones idea of a rightwing ideologue, but in the Daily Mail and the Spectator she produces reviews for those publications rightwing audiences.

Why you should read it: The complaint here is similar to National Reviews the technical side is stunning but there is no heart behind the unremitting bleakness. Nolans own politics have been criticised in the past as rightwing, even crypto-fascist, on the basis of films like The Dark Knight Rises. Perhaps there was an expectation of something more jingoistic, rousing or frankly rightwing.

Extract: But mostly you must understand that Nolan wants us to come at events as they happened, which means this isnt about individual heroism, or any kind of character development. (No one carries a letter from a beloved in their inside pocket, for example.) It is brave, and even admirable, but if you are fond of an emotional core? Then you will sorely feel the lack of it.

Publication: Washington Examiner

Author: Tom Rogan pumps out acres of conservative commentary for the Washington Examiner. He has worked previously at a range of places, and prominently at National Review. He is not camera-shy, and shows up frequently on Fox News.

Why you should read it: Rogan, too, tries to make something out of some innocuous remarks, and historical ambiguities, in reviews from outlets like USA Today and Rolling Stone. Somehow, he takes these reviews of a film about a British defeat and makes them the basis of an affirmation of middle America and Donald Trump. I guess this is why he gets the big bucks.

Extract: Of course, it was those of Trumps America middle America that formed the forces that saved the world from the Nazis and imperial Japan. Those young men, like my grandfather from Fishers Island, New York, knew nothing of European history. But like their brothers at Dunkirk and in the skies over Britain (like my other grandfather), they saved it anyway.

Publication: The Wall Street Journal

Author: Dorothy Rabinowitz is a Wall Street Journal editorial board member, who has been noted for years as an antagonist of radical crazies and [the] fascist left. Oddly, she seems to have pegged Christopher Nolan as one of them.

Why you should read it: Rabinowitz sees Nolans decision to centre everything on the action on the beaches, and to leave the larger political situation in the background, as not only a dumbing-down, but perhaps as something even more sinister. By leaving Churchill out, she thinks, Nolan moves the whole thing away from great men to collectivism.

Extract: When an event in history has become, in the mind of a writer, universal, its a tipoff the warning bell that were about to lose most of the important facts of that history, and that the storytelling will be a special kind - a sort that obscures all specifics that run counter to the noble vision of the universalist.

No wonder those German Stukas and Heinkels bombarding the British can barely be identified as such. Then there is Mr Nolans avoidance of Churchill lest audiences get bogged down in politics a strange term for Churchills concerns during those dark days of May 1940. One so much less attractive, in its hint of the ignoble and the corrupt, than communal and universal words throbbing with goodness. Nothing old-fashioned about them either, especially universal - a model of socio-babble for all occasions.

Read this article:
Dunkirk: the film that has rightwing writers itching for a culture war - The Guardian