¿Ya no sabes lo que estas tomando por las mañanas gracias a “Leche Gloria”? Aquí información relevante: La Leche Entera

Imagen: http://assets.trome.pe/files/article_main/uploads/2017/06/04/59344e277dc83.jpeg

La leche entera es un alimento esencial en todo el mundo y uno de los más completos por las propiedades nutricionales de la leche. Normalmente, la que se encuentra en el supermercado es leche de vaca, pero también hay de otros mamíferos. Uno de los principales nutrientes de la leche es el calcio, por eso es buena para los huesos. Además, también contiene lactosa, lo que la hace intolerante para algunas personas.

Características de la leche entera

La leche entera es un líquido de color blanquecino opaco con numerosos beneficios y propiedades. Es muy común para producir derivados lácteos, como yogur, mantequilla o queso. La principal diferencia entre la leche entera, la leche semidesnatada y la leche desnatada es la grasa o crema. De las tres, la que más grasa contiene es la leche entera, por lo que no se recomienda para personas que quieren perder peso. Es mejor optar por la semidesnatada, que contiene poca crema y sacia más que la desnatada, a la que se le han eliminado todas las grasas y gran parte de los nutrientes y vitaminas de la leche.

Precaución: La leche de casi todos los mamíferos contiene derivados de la morfina llamados casomorfinas, que se encargan de mantener cierto nivel de adicción en los lactantes para incentivar su apetito durante los primeros meses de vida. Esto podría explicar por qué muchas personas son adictas a la leche. Hay un estudio que demuestra que los hombres que consumen gran cantidad de productos lácteos tiene el doble de riesgo de padecer cáncer de próstata, por lo que no se recomienda abusar de la leche de vaca ni de los derivados lácteos.

PROPIEDADES DE LA LECHE ENTERA

Beneficios de la Leche entera

La leche entera está compuesta principalmente por agua; iones como sal, minerales y calcio; glúcidos como la lactosa; materia grasa; proteínas como la caseína, y vitaminas A, D, B y E. Por ello, es buena para mantener unos huesos fuertes y sanos y prevenir la osteoporisis. Además, es hidratante y saciante y proporcioan energía. En los recién nacidos, la leche protege el tracto gastrointestinal contra patógenos, toxinas e inflamación, y regula los procesos de obtención de energía, especialmente el metabolismo de la glucosa y la insulina. La leche también es un alimento que ayuda a mantener el funcionamiento del cerebro, a dormir mejor y a cuidar la piel, así como es ideal para embarazadas y deportistas.

Saciantes

Contraindicaciones de la Leche entera

La leche contiene lactosa, un azúcar al que muchas personas son intolerantes, por lo que se recomienda que tomen leche sin lactosa. La leche entera también contiene mucha grasa, por lo que aquellas personas que padecen colesterol o quieren adelgazar, deberían tomar leche semidesnatada o desnatada. Además, también hay personas alérgicas a la proteína de leche de vaca, que está comprobado que no es buena para personas con piel atópica. Tampoco se recomienda beber leche si se padece algún trastorno digestivo.

INFORMACIÓN NUTRICIONAL DE LA LECHE ENTERA

1 ración (244 gr.) 100 gr.
Calorías 102 kcal 42 kcal
Grasas 2.37 g 0.97 g
Grasas saturadas 1.545 g 0.633 g
Grasas poliinsaturadas 0.085 g 0.035 g
Grasas monoinsaturadas 0.676 g 0.277 g
Proteínas 8.22 g 3.37 g
Carbohidratos 12.18 g 4.99 g
Azúcar 12.69 g 5.2 g
Fibra 0.0 g 0 g
Colesterol 12 mg 5 mg
Minerales
Calcio 305 mg 125 mg
Hierro 0.07 mg 0.03 mg
Sodio 107 mg 44 mg
Potasio 366 mg 150 mg
Magnesio 27 mg 11 mg
Fósforo 232 mg 95 mg
Zinc 1.02 mg 0.42 mg
Vitaminas
Vitamina A 115 IU 47 IU
Vitamina C — mg — mg
Vitamina D — µg — µg
Vitamina B1 (Tiamina) 0.049 mg 0.02 mg
Vitamina B6 0.090 mg 0.037 mg
Vitamina B sub 12 1.15 µg 0.47 µg
Vitamina E 0.02 mg 0.01 mg
Vitamina K 0.2 µg 0.1 µg
Folato (ácido fólico) 12 µg 5 µg
Beta Caroteno 5 µg 2 µg
Agua 219.40 g 89.92 g
Cafeína — mg — mg

 

En: biotrends

What Biracial People Know

 / March 4, 2017

After the nation’s first black president, we now have a white president with the whitest and malest cabinet since Ronald Reagan’s. His administration immediately made it a priority to deport undocumented immigrants and to deny people from certain Muslim-majority nations entry into the United States, decisions that caused tremendous blowback.

What President Trump doesn’t seem to have considered is that diversity doesn’t just sound nice, it has tangible value. Social scientists find that homogeneous groups like his cabinet can be less creative and insightful than diverse ones. They are more prone to groupthink and less likely to question faulty assumptions.

What’s true of groups is also true for individuals. A small but growing body of research suggests that multiracial people are more open-minded and creative. Here, it’s worth remembering that Barack Obama, son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother, wasn’t only the nation’s first black president, he was also its first biracial president. His multitudinous self was, I like to think, part of what made him great — part of what inspired him when he proclaimed that there wasn’t a red or blue America, but a United States of America.

As a multiethnic person myself — the son of a Jewish dad of Eastern European descent and a Puerto Rican mom — I can attest that being mixed makes it harder to fall back on the tribal identities that have guided so much of human history, and that are now resurgent. Your background pushes you to construct a worldview that transcends the tribal.

You’re also accustomed to the idea of having several selves, and of trying to forge them into something whole. That task of self-creation isn’t unique to biracial people; it’s a defining experience of modernity. Once the old stories about God and tribe — the framing that historically gave our lives context — become inadequate, on what do we base our identities? How do we give our lives meaning and purpose?

President Trump has answered this challenge by reaching backward — vowing to wall off America and invoking a whiter, more homogeneous country. This approach is likely to fail for the simple reason that much of the strength and creativity of America, and modernity generally, stems from diversity. And the answers to a host of problems we face may lie in more mixing, not less.

Consider this: By 3 months of age, biracial infants recognize faces more quickly than their monoracial peers, suggesting that their facial perception abilities are more developed. Kristin Pauker, a psychologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and one of the researchers who performed this study, likens this flexibility to bilingualism.

Early on, infants who hear only Japanese, say, will lose the ability to distinguish L’s from R’s. But if they also hear English, they’ll continue to hear the sounds as separate. So it is with recognizing faces, Dr. Pauker says. Kids naturally learn to recognize kin from non-kin, in-group from out-group. But because they’re exposed to more human variation, the in-group for multiracial children seems to be larger.

This may pay off in important ways later. In a 2015 study, Sarah Gaither, an assistant professor at Duke, found that when she reminded multiracial participants of their mixed heritage, they scored higher in a series of word association games and other tests that measure creative problem solving. When she reminded monoracial people about their heritage, however, their performance didn’t improve. Somehow, having multiple selves enhanced mental flexibility.

But here’s where it gets interesting: When Dr. Gaither reminded participants of a single racial background that they, too, had multiple selves, by asking about their various identities in life, their scores also improved. “For biracial people, these racial identities are very salient,” she told me. “That said, we all have multiple social identities.” And focusing on these identities seems to impart mental flexibility irrespective of race.

It may be possible to deliberately cultivate this kind of limber mind-set by, for example, living abroad. Various studies find that business people who live in other countries are more successful than those who stay put; that artists who’ve lived abroad create more valuable art; that scientists working abroad produce studies that are more highly cited. Living in another culture exercises the mind, researchers reason, forcing one to think more deeply about the world.

Another path to intellectual rigor is to gather a diverse group of people together and have them attack problems, which is arguably exactly what the American experiment is. In mock trials, the Tufts University researcher Samuel Sommers has found, racially diverse juries appraise evidence more accurately than all-white juries, which translates to more lenient treatment of minority defendants. That’s not because minority jurors are biased in favor of minority defendants, but because whites on mixed juries more carefully consider the evidence.

The point is that diversity — of one’s own makeup, one’s experience, of groups of people solving problems, of cities and nations — is linked to economic prosperity, greater scientific prowess and a fairer judicial process. If human groups represent a series of brains networked together, the more dissimilar these brains are in terms of life experience, the better the “hivemind” may be at thinking around any given problem.

The opposite is true of those who employ essentialist thinking — in particular, it seems, people who espouse stereotypes about racial groups. Harvard and Tel Aviv University scientists ran experiments on white Americans, Israelis and Asian-Americans in which they had some subjects read essays that made an essentialist argument about race, and then asked them to solve word-association games and other puzzles. Those who were primed with racial stereotypes performed worse than those who weren’t. “An essentialist mind-set is indeed hazardous for creativity,” the authors note.

None of which bodes well for Mr. Trump’s mostly white, mostly male, extremely wealthy cabinet. Indeed, it’s tempting to speculate that the administration’s problems so far, including its clumsy rollout of a travel ban that was mostly blocked by the courts, stem in part from its homogeneity and insularity. Better decisions might emerge from a more diverse set of minds.

And yet, if multiculturalism is so grand, why was Mr. Trump so successful in running on a platform that rejected it? What explains the current “whitelash,” as the commentator Van Jones called it? Sure, many Trump supporters have legitimate economic concerns separate from worries about race or immigration. But what of the white nationalism that his campaign seems to have unleashed? Eight years of a black president didn’t assuage those minds, but instead inflamed them. Diversity didn’t make its own case very well.

One answer to this conundrum comes from Dr. Sommers and his Tufts colleague Michael Norton. In a 2011 survey, they found that as whites reported decreases in perceived anti-black bias, they also reported increasing anti-white bias, which they described as a bigger problem. Dr. Sommers and Dr. Norton concluded that whites saw race relations as a zero-sum game. Minorities’ gain was their loss.

In reality, cities and countries that are more diverse are more prosperous than homogeneous ones, and that often means higher wages for native-born citizens. Yet the perception that out-groups gain at in-groups’ expense persists. And that view seems to be reflexive. Merely reminding whites that the Census Bureau has said the United States will be a “majority minority” country by 2042, as one Northwestern University experiment showed, increased their anti-minority bias and their preference for being around other whites. In another experiment, the reminder made whites more politically conservative as well.

It’s hard to know what to do about this except to acknowledge that diversity isn’t easy. It’s uncomfortable. It can make people feel threatened. “We promote diversity. We believe in diversity. But diversity is hard,” Sophie Trawalter, a psychologist at the University of Virginia, told me.

That very difficulty, though, may be why diversity is so good for us. “The pain associated with diversity can be thought of as the pain of exercise,” Katherine Phillips, a senior vice dean at Columbia Business School, writes. “You have to push yourself to grow your muscles.”

Closer, more meaningful contact with those of other races may help assuage the underlying anxiety. Some years back, Dr. Gaither of Duke ran an intriguing study in which incoming white college students were paired with either same-race or different-race roommates. After four months, roommates who lived with different races had a more diverse group of friends and considered diversity more important, compared with those with same-race roommates. After six months, they were less anxious and more pleasant in interracial interactions. (It was the Republican-Democrat pairings that proved problematic, Dr. Gaither told me. Apparently they couldn’t stand each other.)

Some corners of the world seem to naturally foster this mellower view of race — particularly Hawaii, Mr. Obama’s home state. Dr. Pauker has found that by age 7, children in Massachusetts begin to stereotype about racial out-groups, whereas children in Hawaii do not. She’s not sure why, but she suspects that the state’s unique racial makeup is important. Whites are a minority in Hawaii, and the state has the largest share of multiracial people in the country, at almost a quarter of its population.

Constant exposure to people who see race as a fluid concept — who define themselves as Asian, Hawaiian, black or white interchangeably — makes rigid thinking about race harder to maintain, she speculates. And that flexibility rubs off. In a forthcoming study, Dr. Pauker finds that white college students who move from the mainland to Hawaii begin to think differently about race. Faced daily with evidence of a complex reality, their ideas about who’s in and who’s out, and what belonging to any group really means, relax.

Clearly, people can cling to racist views even when exposed to mountains of evidence contradicting those views. But an optimistic interpretation of Dr. Pauker’s research is that when a society’s racial makeup moves beyond a certain threshold — when whites stop being the majority, for example, and a large percentage of the population is mixed — racial stereotyping becomes harder to do.

Whitelash notwithstanding, we’re moving in that direction. More nonwhite babies are already born than white. And if multiracial people work like a vaccine against the tribalist tendencies roused by Mr. Trump, the country may be gaining immunity. Multiracials make up an estimated 7 percent of Americans, according to the Pew Research Center, and they’re predicted to grow to 20 percent by 2050.

President Trump campaigned on a narrow vision of America as a nation-state, not as a state of people from many nations. His response to the modern question — How do we form our identities? — is to grasp for a semi-mythical past that excludes large segments of modern America. If we believe the science on diversity, his approach to problem solving is likely suboptimal.

Many see his election as apocalyptic. And sure, President Trump could break our democracy, wreck the country and ruin the planet. But his presidency also has the feel of a last stand — grim, fearful and obsessed with imminent decline. In retrospect, we may view Mr. Trump as part of the agony of metamorphosis.

And we’ll see Mr. Obama as the first president of the thriving multiracial nation that’s emerging.

—————-

Moises Velasquez-Manoff, the author of “An Epidemic of Absence: A New Way of Understanding Allergies and Autoimmune Disease,” is a contributing opinion writer.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on March 5, 2017, on Page SR1 of the New York edition with the headline: What Biracial People Know.

In: nytimes

El controversial corto del Super Bowl: 84 Lumber Super Bowl Commercial – The Entire Journey

Si pudiste ver el Super Bowl el ultimo domingo, seguramente habras notado un comercial que ha tocado al tema de la inmigracion desde Mexico a los Estados Unidos producido por la empresa maderera “Lumber 84”, la cual, al finalizar, le pedia a los espectadores ir a su website para “completar el viaje”. El tema es que mucha gente penso para que ir al website para terminar un comercial? Transmitanlo completamente! No me hagan trabajar por una companhia de la que nunca he oido hablar!

Lo que paso es que “Lumber 84” habia planeado transmitir todo el comercial pero la cadena televisiva Fox puso el grito en el cielo. El broadcaster considero el comercial como muy “controversial” como para ser transmitido durante el evento televisivo mas visto del pais y por ello “Lumber 84” fue forzado a cortar el comercial y remover parte de la cinta considerada ofensiva.

El comercial es la historia simbolica de una madre y su pequenha hija ralizando un arduo y largo viaje a los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica. En el video que no se pudo ver en el Super Bowl, ellas llegan a la frontera solo para ser recibidas por una gran muralla de concreto. Pero ahi no acaba la cosa.

Esta es un gran corto con un mensaje poderoso y claro: Las oportunidades estan siendo vapuleadas (algo contradictorio en el “pais de las oprtunidades”).

Fox es una empresa con fines de lucro, por lo que tienen el derecho de elegir lo que hacen y no hacen con sus ondas, pero se ve ridículo que la misma red que no dice nada respecto de las gráficas torturas de “24” encuentren la imagen de una pared fronteriza demasiado “polémica”.

Traducido al espanhol de: collider.com

Tildes omitidas intencionalmente.

Make “América” great again (toda)

Siempre la misma discusión acerca del término “America” para los estadounidenses y “América” para los latinoamericanos. Para los primeros es la denominación informal de su país ya que no andan diciendo “I’m from the United States of America”..muy largo, y como tienen fama de prácticos, pues la cortaron solo a “America”: “I’m an American”. Mientras que para los segundos, es la denominación de todo el continente en que se localizan 35 países (incluye Canadá y Estados Unidos de Norteamérica).

Ya que ahora Trump mediante una retórica nacionalista se apropió del término para su campaña política, cerveza Corona emerge con la mejor respuesta al sujeto que, como de broma, salió elegido presidente del país norteño. Hagamos (toda) América grande de nuevo!

https://youtu.be/SuLEu-nwd50

Por su parte, la otra “America”, la de Trump, apela a un argumento populista y victimizador que siempre ha funcionado en política. Ahora saben por qué ganó (aparte del Colegio Electoral):

 

As Trump stresses ‘America First’, China plays the world leader

By Ben Blanchard | BEIJING
FILE PHOTO -  Chinese President Xi Jinping attends the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland January 17, 2017.   REUTERS/Ruben Sprich/File Photo

FILE PHOTO – Chinese President Xi Jinping attends the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland January 17, 2017. REUTERS/Ruben Sprich/File Photo

China is calmly mapping out global leadership aspirations from trade to climate change, drawing distinctions between President Xi Jinping’s steady hand and new U.S. President Donald Trump, whose first days have been marked by media feuds and protests.

Just days ahead of Trump taking office, a self-assured Xi was in Switzerland as the keynote speaker at the World Economic Forum in Davos, offering a vigorous defense of globalization and signaling Beijing’s desire to play a bigger role on the world stage.

Even on the thorny issue of the South China Sea, Beijing did not rise to the bait of White House remarks this week about “defending international territories” in the disputed waterway. Instead, China stressed its desire for peace and issued a restrained call for Washington to watch what it says.

“You have your ‘America first’, we have our ‘community of common destiny for mankind’,” Retired Major-General Luo Yuan, a widely read Chinese military figure best known for his normally hawkish tone, wrote on his blog this week.

“You have a ‘closed country’, we have ‘one belt, one road’,” he added, referring to China’s multi-billion dollar new Silk Road trade and investment program.

And while China has repeatedly said it does not want the traditional U.S. role of world leadership, a senior Chinese diplomat accepted this week it could be forced upon China.

“If anyone were to say China is playing a leadership role in the world I would say it’s not China rushing to the front but rather the front runners have stepped back leaving the place to China,” said Zhang Jun, director general of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s international economics department.

STEPPING UP

That message was reinforced this week when Trump formally withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, distancing America from its Asian allies. Several remaining TPP members said they would now look to include China in a revised pact, or pursue Beijing’s alternative free trade agreements.

“At many important multilateral forums, China’s leader has put forward Chinese proposals, adding positive impetus to world development,” Su Xiaohui a senior researcher at the Foreign Ministry-backed China Institute of International Studies, wrote of the U.S. TPP decision in the overseas edition of the People’s Daily.

“In the economic integration process of the Asia Pacific, compared to certain countries who constantly bear in mind their leadership role, what China pays even more attention to is ‘responsibility’ and ‘stepping up’,” Su said.

China’s hosting of an international conference on its “One Belt, One Road” initiative in May is one opportunity for Beijing to showcase its leadership of global infrastructure and investment.

A diplomatic source familiar with preparations said China was likely to hold it at the same glitzy convention center used to host the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in 2014, setting the stage for Xi’s most high profile diplomatic event of the year.

“China’s pretty much inviting everyone,” the diplomat said.

Another area where China is keen to be seen as leading the way is climate change. Trump has in the past dismissed climate change as a “hoax” and vowed during his presidential campaign to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Li Junhua, head of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Department of International Organizations and Conferences, said world was worried about climate change and whether countries would honor their Paris commitments.

“As far as China is concerned, my president has made it extremely clear, crystal clear, China will do its part,” Li told reporters.

LEARNING PROCESS

It’s not always been this way. China has been through a long, tough learning process to become a more responsible power.

In 2013, China, angered with Manila over the long dispute on the South China Sea, only stumped up meager aid to the Philippines after it was hit by Super Typhoon Haiyan, prompting rare dissent in the influential Chinese state-run tabloid the Global Times that Beijing’s international image would be hit.

It also will not be plain sailing. On certain key core issues including the self-ruled island of Taiwan, China will not back down.

In its first official reaction to Trump taking office, China’s Foreign Minister urged his administration to fully understand the importance of the “one China” principle, which Trump has called into doubt and under which Washington acknowledges China’s position of sovereignty over Taiwan.

China also expects that under the Trump administration it will be left alone on one issue that has long dogged ties with Washington – human rights.

The WeChat account of the overseas edition of the ruling Communist Party’s official People’s Daily noted with approval on Saturday that Trump’s inaugural speech neither mentioned the words “democracy” nor “human rights”.

“Perhaps looking back, these things have been hyped up too much” by U.S. politicians, it added.

(Editing by Lincoln Feast)

In: reuters

With Echoes of the ’30s, Trump Resurrects a Hard-Line Vision of ‘America First’

WASHINGTON — America, and the world, just found out what “America First” means.

President Trump could have used his inaugural address to define one of the touchstone phrases of his campaign in the most inclusive way, arguing, as did many of his predecessors, that as the world’s greatest superpower rises, its partners will also prosper.

Instead, he chose a dark, hard-line alternative, one that appeared to herald the end of a 70-year American experiment to shape a world that would be eager to follow its lead. In Mr. Trump’s vision, America’s new strategy is to win every transaction and confrontation. Gone are the days, he said, when America extended its defensive umbrella without compensation, or spent billions to try to lift the fortune of foreign nations, with no easy-to-measure strategic benefits for the United States.

“From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first,” he said, in a line that resonated around the world as soon as he uttered it from the steps of the Capitol. “We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs.”

The United States, he said, will no longer subsidize “the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military.”

While all American presidents pledge to defend America’s interests first — that is the core of the presidential oath — presidents of both parties since the end of World War II have wrapped that effort in an expansion of the liberal democratic order. Until today, American policy has been a complete rejection of the America First rallying cry that the famed flier Charles Lindbergh championed when, in the late 1930s, he became one of the most prominent voices to keep the United States out of Europe’s wars, even if it meant abandoning the country’s closest allies.

Mr. Trump has rejected comparisons with the earlier movement, with its taint of Nazism and anti-Semitism.

After World War II, the United States buried the Lindbergh vision of America First. The United Nations was born in San Francisco and raised on the East River of Manhattan, an ambitious, if still unfulfilled, experiment in shaping a liberal order. Lifting the vanquished nations of World War II into democratic allies was the idea behind the Marshall Plan, the creation of the World Bank and institutions to spread American aid, technology and expertise around the world. And NATO was created to instill a commitment to common defense, though Mr. Trump has accurately observed that nearly seven decades later, many of its member nations do not pull their weight.

Mr. Trump’s defiant address made abundantly clear that his threat to pull out of those institutions, if they continue to take advantage of the United States’ willingness to subsidize them, could soon be translated into policy. All those decades of generosity, he said, punching the air for emphasis, had turned America into a loser.

“We’ve made other countries rich,” he said, “while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.” The American middle class has suffered the most, he said, finding its slice of the American dream “redistributed across the entire world.”

To those who helped build that global order, Mr. Trump’s vow was at best shortsighted. “Truman and Acheson, and everyone who followed, based our policy on a ‘world-first,’ not an ‘America-first,’ basis,” said Richard N. Haass, whose new book, “A World in Disarray,” argues that a more granular, short-term view of American interests will ultimately fail.

“A narrow America First posture will prompt other countries to pursue an equally narrow, independent foreign policy,” he said after Mr. Trump’s speech, “which will diminish U.S. influence and detract from global prosperity.”

To Mr. Trump and his supporters, it is just that view that put America on the slippery slope to obsolescence. As a builder of buildings, Mr. Trump’s return on investment has been easily measurable. So it is unsurprising that he would grade America’s performance on a scorecard in which he totals up wins and losses.

Curiously, among the skeptics are his own appointees. His nominee for defense secretary, Gen. James N. Mattis, strongly defended the importance of NATO during his confirmation hearing. Both Rex W. Tillerson, the nominee for secretary of state, and Nikki R. Haley, the choice for ambassador to the United Nations, offered up paeans to the need for robust American alliances, though Mr. Tillerson periodically tacked back to concepts echoing Mr. Trump’s.

And there is a question about whether the exact meaning of America First will continue to evolve in Mr. Trump’s mind.

He first talked about it in a March interview with The New York Times, when asked whether that phrase was a good summation of his foreign-policy views.

He thought for a moment. Then he agreed with this reporter’s summation of Mr. Trump’s message that the world had been “freeloading off of us for many years” and that he fundamentally mistrusted many foreigners, both adversaries and some allies.

“Correct,” he responded. Then he added, in his staccato style: “Not isolationist. I’m not isolationist, but I am ‘America First.’ So I like the expression.” He soon began using it at almost every rally.

In another interview with The Times, on the eve of the Republican National Convention, he offered a refinement. He said he did not mean for the slogan to be taken the way Lindbergh meant it. “It was used as a brand-new, very modern term,” he said. “Meaning we are going to take care of this country first before we worry about everybody else in the world.”

As Walter Russell Mead, a professor at Bard College and a scholar at the conservative Hudson Institute, put it the other day, “The fact that he doesn’t have a grounding in the prior use of the term is liberating.”

“If you said to the average American voter, ‘Do you think it’s the job of the president to put America first,’ they say, ‘Yes, that’s the job.’”

But Mr. Mead said that formulation disregarded the reality that “sometimes to achieve American interests, you have to work cooperatively with other countries.” And any such acknowledgment was missing from Mr. Trump’s speech on Friday.

Mr. Trump cast America’s new role in the world as one of an aggrieved superpower, not a power intent on changing the globe. There was no condemnation of authoritarianism or fascism, no clarion call to defend human rights around the world — one of the commitments that John F. Kennedy made in his famed address, delivered 56 years ago to the day, to protect human rights “at home and around the world.”

That was, of course, the prelude to Kennedy’s most famous line: that America would “bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

But the America that elected Mr. Trump had concluded that it was no longer willing to bear that burden — or even to make the spread of democracy the mission of the nation, as George W. Bush, who was sitting behind Mr. Trump, vowed 12 years ago. Mr. Trump views American democracy as a fine import for those who like it.

“We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone,” he said, “but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.”

1 2