12 February 2017
The Atlantic: These Conservative Christians Are Opposed to Trump—and Suffering the Consequences
Donald Trump has divided conservative Christian communities. Most white Christians support Trump, or at least voted for him. Some who have spoken out against his presidency or his policies, though, have encountered backlash. For a small group of people working in Christian ministry, music, and nonprofit advocacy, the consequences have been tangible: They’ve faced pressure from their employers, seen funds withdrawn from their mission work, or lost performing gigs because of their political beliefs.
Many of these stories suggest a generational divide in the church. Young Christians who describe themselves as theological conservatives don’t necessarily identify as political conservatives, although some who do are also horrified by Trump. The issues they’re passionate about—whether it’s racial reconciliation or refugee care—might not match the priorities of their elders. And the pushback often comes online: Posts on Facebook, Twitter, or personal blogs might prompt a text from the boss or an outraged message from a church friend. For Millennials used to speaking their minds on social media, institutional rules curtailing their freedom—whether they’re standard policies or not—might be jarring. [...]
What’s significant about these women’s stories is that they appear to fit a broader pattern. Some conservative Christian communities seem to have become allergic to political disagreement of any kind, especially when their members speak out about Trump or Republican policies.
The Conversation: Friday essay: Putin, memory wars and the 100th anniversary of the Russian revolution
Putin’s government faces a dilemma regarding this past. The Revolution can neither be fully embraced nor fully disowned. Revolutions are anathema to Putin, who does not want to be swept away by a successful uprising similar to the Ukrainian Euromaidan in 2013-14. At the same time, Russia both legally and ideologically claims to be the successor state to the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Union’s founding event happens to be a revolution. The centenary cannot be simply ignored. [...]
Attempting to construct such a narrative has kept Putin’s history warrior Medinsky busy. In 2013, he stated that it was “meaningless” to decide which party of the civil war was “right” or who was “guilty.”
Instead, one needed to understand that both Reds and Whites “loved Russia.” Both sides had their own truth and were ready to die for it. “We have to approach this with respect,” he added. Monuments to Whites had the same legitimacy as monuments to Reds. They were both needed. [...]
Putin kept his most biting comments to the end of his monologue. By creating the Soviet Union as a federation made up of republics with the formal right to secession, Lenin (against the advice of Stalin) planted “a mine under the building of our state:” in 1991, the Soviet Union would break down along the borders of the republics. Ultimately, then, Lenin was responsible not only for the defeat of the Romanov empire in World War I, but also for the breakup of the Soviet empire in 1991 – hardly a positive evaluation.
Atlas Obscura: Why the First Cremation in the U.S. Was So Controversial
Burning the dead is an ancient practice, and in some cultural traditions, it’s a thousands-year-old norm. Today, cremation in the U.S. is soaring in popularity; by 2018, the Cremation Association of North America predicts that over 50 percent of Americans will choose to have their bodies cremated.
But in late 19th-century America, cremation was a radical, tradition-bucking idea. LeMoyne and other cremation advocates believed that burying the dead in the ground allowed germs to seep into the soil, thus contributing to the spread of diseases like cholera, typhus, and yellow fever. Cremation promised to sterilize human remains and bypass the altogether slow and icky process of decomposition. When performed in a state-of-the-art indoor furnace, it was a sanitary and high-tech alternative to burial.
Cremation was also a solution to an urban problem. As cities expanded, they surrounded burial grounds that had once been miles away from town—and rested on prime real estate. “In and about New York, Brooklyn, and Jersey City, 4,000 acres of valuable land are taken up by cemeteries,” wrote Hugo Erichsen in his 1887 pro-cremation treatise The Cremation of the Dead. “It is calculated that with the probable increase of population in the next half a decade, 500,000 acres of the best land in the United States will be enclosed by graveyard walls. … It is an outrage!”
Quartz: Disappearing orange groves are forcing farmers into the beer and lubricant markets
Florida’s days as the orange basket of America may be numbered. A pernicious disease that has plagued the state’s citrus groves is forcing farmers to find new ways to do business, even if it means getting out of the orange industry.
Some of those growers are being drawn to unconventional markets in the wake of devastating losses. That has included growing olives, hops (for beer), pomegranates, and even pongamia (a type of legume), reports the Wall Street Journal (paywall).
The citrus farmers who have embraced growing tropical pongamia trees are particularly interesting, as the switch steers them out of the food business entirely. The poisonous seeds produced by the trees are high in oil content and can be converted into biofuel, animal feed, even lubricant. The tree is native to Australia and India and has been used for lamp oil, soap, and leather tanning.
Quartz: A polyamorous philosopher explains what we all get wrong about romantic love
But as Carrie Jenkins, a philosophy professor at the University of British Columbia, points out in her recently published book, What Love Is, that concept of love is actually the product of a very narrow social script. And our insistence that love should be monogamous, permanent, and child-bearing often leads to un-fairytale-like consequences. [...]
Though the social script of romantic love today has recently expanded to allow for same-sex romance, it still expects monogamy, permanence, marriage, and babies. Such expectations are damaging for those who don’t wish to follow such a narrative, argues Jenkins. This applies to those in polyamorous relationships but also single people, and those who don’t want children. There’s so much pressure that some couples have kids because it’s seen as the inevitable right thing to do, she says, which is harmful for both the kids and parents. [...]
Though this social construct can shift over time, Jenkins says, that doesn’t happen easily. “Some people think it’s made up like fiction is made up, but I’m trying to say it’s made up like the law is made up,” says Jenkins. “We made it, but now it’s real.” [...]
It’s impossible to predict exactly how the social script around love will change in the coming decades, says Jenkins. There are early signs that the importance of permanence in romantic love is starting to fade, with talk of short-term renewable marriage contracts. More people seem to believe that a romantic relationship can be successful even if it ends by choice, rather than one partner dying.
Independent: Sweden pledges to cut all greenhouse gas emissions by 2045
Sweden has committed to completely phase out greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 and called for all countries - including the US - to “step up and fulfil the Paris Agreement”.
In one of the most ambitious emissions plans published by a developed nation, the Swedish government has reaffirmed the urgency of tackling climate change, ignoring uncertainties about global policies under Donald Trump’s administration. [...]
All parties but the far-right Sweden Democrats party agreed to pass the law in the coming month, which will oblige the government to set tougher goals to cut fossil fuel emissions every four years until the 2045 cut-off date. [...]
The EU has set a target of an 80 to 95 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Meanwhile, China is "investing billions and billions of dollars in solar (...) it's a game changer. Those that are still wanting to invest in fossil fuels will be ultimately the losers,” Ms Lovin warned.
Salon: An end to bromance: Russia’s in love with Trump, right? Not as much as you think
Mistranslations of Vladimir Putin’s comments about Trump haven’t helped. When Putin called Trump “bright” or “colorful” — as in, a colorful character — it was translated as “brilliant.” Somehow, Trump took this to mean Putin had called him a genius and then went around like a giddy little boy repeating the lie during stump speeches. [...]
It is true that there are many Russian officials who do see Trump as the new messiah. Certain Russian TV personalities spent a year fawning over his every utterance. Some Kremlin supporters, including elected officials, actually held a party to celebrate his win in the Russian state Duma.
It’s also true that the Russian government has openly and enthusiastically welcomed Trump’s comments about improving the relationship with Moscow. But the reality is that the expectations of Russian officials are very low and they’re under no illusions about the new U.S. president. [...]
Trump is unlikely to try and make nice with Russia more than once, and the Kremlin is under no illusions that in the long haul he will be some kind of “pro-Moscow” president. If Trump doesn’t get his way with Putin the first time around, all bets are off. He can’t afford to look soft on Russia (particularly given all the accusations and innuendo floating around), and Putin certainly won’t want to appear to have gotten a bad deal either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)