Thursday, February 03, 2022

GAIA IS ALIVE

Growing Ground “Bulge” Detected Near Three Sisters Volcanoes

Three Sisters Volcanoes

Aerial view northward along glaciated summits of South Sister, Middle Sister, and North Sister volcanoes. Credit: Photograph by John Scurlock

Scientists detect rejuvenated uplift near South Sister volcano.

Using satellite imagery and sophisticated GPS instruments, Cascades Volcano Observatory geophysicists have detected a subtle increase in the rate of uplift of the ground surface about 3 miles (5 km) west of South Sister volcano, Oregon. Episodes of increased uplift have been observed in this area before, and the volcano’s alert level and color code remain at NORMAL / GREEN.

Data from satellite radar images show an uplift of about 0.9 inches or 2.2 cm (about the width of an adult’s thumb) occurred between the summer of 2020 and August 2021 across an area 12-mile (20-km) in diameter. GPS data from a volcano monitoring station near the center of uplift measured at least 0.2 inches (0.5 cm) of uplift since August 2021.

Three Sisters Volcanoes Satellite Radar Interferogram

Satellite radar interferogram spanning June 19, 2020, to August 13, 2021, and showing the ground motion in the direction of the satellite. The maximum uplift, indicated by the red color, is about 2.2 centimeters (0.85 inches), and it is located to the west of South Sister. The HUSB continuous GPS site is marked by the large black dot. Earthquakes that occurred during the time period spanned by the interferogram are indicated by small black dots. Credit: USGS

Additionally, seismologists observed brief bursts of small earthquakes in October 2021, December 2021, and January 2022. Most of these shallow earthquakes are too small to locate precisely; those located are inside the uplifted area.

USGS geologist Dan Dzurisin is near Sisters, in Central Oregon, to set up portable GPS monitoring equipment to track something that’s been going on for 25 years and still goes on today. It’s uplift, a subtle rise in the ground’s surface, in an area west of South Sister volcano.

Uplift began in the mid-1990s and was first observed in radar satellite imagery. The USGS, working with the Forest Service, installed permanent monitoring stations to track the rate at which the area was uplifting.

In addition, every summer Dr. Dzurisin sets out GPS stations to collect ground deformation data. While radar satellites provide a picture of the entire area, these temporary GPS stations give very accurate measurements of how individual points have moved. Dr. Dzurisin and summer intern Natalea Cohen show you how they set up the semi-permanent GPS stations and talk about the importance of the work.

One thing that can cause uplift is magma moving around underground, or in particular, magma rising from greater depth in the earth up to a shallower depth, which forces the surface to move upward in a very broad area. Remarkably, this process has caused very few earthquakes. So, if you’re not using satellite radar data or some other form of data to look for it, episodes like this may have happened in other places and maybe in Central Oregon as well, and we just didn’t know it.

USGS scientists are monitoring this activity as carefully and thoroughly as they can, and will continue to monitoring the area for as long as it goes on, to gain a greater understanding of this process.

Tracking Uplift Near Three Sisters Volcanoes

Uplift occurred in the same general region in the mid-1990s. During the 25 years between 1995 and 2020, the area rose approximately 12 inches or 30 cm (the height of a 2-liter soda bottle) at its center. Although the current uplift rate is slower than the maximum rate measured in 1999-2000, it is distinctly faster than the rate observed for several years before 2020.

Three Sisters Volcanoes GPS Motion

Comparison of vertical GPS motion measured at station HUSB (top) with earthquake depth (bottom). Red line is a 60-day average of the cleaned GPS time series plotted in gray. Earthquakes are plotted with respect to their magnitudes. The swarm in 2004 represents the vast majority of earthquake in the vicinity of the deforming region. Earthquake information is from the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. Credit: USGS

The uplift is attributed to small pulses of magma accumulating at roughly 4 miles (7 km) below the ground surface. While any magmatic intrusion could eventually lead to a volcanic eruption, an eruption would likely be preceded by detectable and more vigorous earthquakes, ground movement (deformation), and geochemical changes. In general, as magma moves upward during an intrusion, it causes continued or accelerated uplift, fractures rock to generate swarms of earthquakes, and releases significant amounts of volcanic gases, such as carbon dioxide. We do not detect any of these signs currently.

CVO scientists will closely monitor data in the coming months and issue further updates as warranted.


Geologists ‘closely monitoring’ rising magma under Three Sisters volcanic region

OREGON

Geologist: 'Things are coming back to life now'

south sister fall_1537767742534.jpg.jpg

South Sister, Oregon (KOIN)PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The Pacific Northwest is well known for its stunning summits and plentiful peaks, but are the mountains moving? 

In a USGS Hazard Notification statement Monday, Cascades Volcano Observatory announced their scientists have tracked an increased rate of ground uplift in the Three Sisters volcanic region. 

Using satellite radar images and GPS units, USGS scientists have tracked an increased rate of uplift for a 12-mile diameter region, 3 miles west of the South Sister volcano. According to USGS, the data suggests the ground rose 0.9 inches (2.2 cm) from June 2020 to August 2021.

Scott Burns, a geology professor at Portland State University, told KOIN 6 News while episodes of increased uplift have been observed in this region before, the cause is what local scientists are excited about.

“The Three Sisters area is an area that we’ve been studying for the last 25 years,” Burns explained. “It’s very exciting because magma is moving up underneath the volcano … the last major volcanic eruption in Oregon, which was 2,000 years ago, was right there in that area.”

While the catalyst for the current uplift is unconfirmed, geologists have been able to credit previous soil shifts at the South Sister location to small pulses of magma accumulating approximately 4 miles below the earth’s surface. 

According to Burns, increased uplift is not the only thing impacted by the observed magmatic intrusion. 

Interferogram image made from InSAR monitoring, showing 1995-2001 ground uplift in the Three Sisters. Courtesy USGS

“We believe that the magma is rising about four miles below the surface. And, and so associated with that, a lot of times you’ll have very small earthquakes,” Burns said. “In December and in January, we had a series of very small earthquakes, showing that there is some movement of magma. The question is, what type of magma is it going to be, and what type of volcano?”

Before the recent increase, the USGS stated the rate of uplift at the South Sister location had reportedly slowed down since scientists first recognized the phenomenon in the mid-1990s. 

“From 1995 to 2020, the area rose approximately 12 inches (30 centimeters) at its center,” USGS stated in a recent release. “Although the current uplift rate is slower than the maximum rate of about 2 inches per year measured in 1999-2000, it is distinctly faster than the rate observed for several years before 2020.”

Despite the excitement, USGS and Burns have said that the public is not in any immediate danger. The volcano status is currently listed as “green,” and there is no sign of an imminent eruption.

“While any magmatic intrusion could eventually lead to a volcanic eruption, an eruption would likely be preceded by detectable and more vigorous earthquakes, ground movement (deformation), and geochemical changes,” stated USGS. “In general, as magma moves upward during an intrusion, it causes continued or accelerated uplift, fractures rock to generate swarms of earthquakes, and releases significant amounts of volcanic gases, such as carbon dioxide. We do not detect any of these signs currently.”

Burns told KOIN 6 News, a team of scientists with Cascades Volcano Observatory will continue to closely monitor uplift at the site and will be ready if a threat is detected. 

“We have great maps for the whole Three Sisters area,” Burns explained, “So if it[the volcano] does come back to life, we will know which people are going to have to get out of the way and be prepared for it.”

He continued, “The good news is we’re prepared for it … We’re still at ‘green,’ but things are coming back to life now. Mother Nature writes her own history book, so it will be interesting to see what she will come up with this time.”

CAPITALI$T PARADISE
Costa Rica: Central America's green pin-up


Thu, 3 February 2022

In this file photo taken in 2018, a woman casts her vote at a polling station in San Jose in 2018 
(AFP/-)
-


This file photo taken in 2019 shows a view of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge in Limon, Costa Rica
 (AFP/Ezequiel BECERRA)


A view of a crowded street during sunset in San Jose in 2019
 (AFP/Ezequiel BECERRA)


Costa Rica is known for neutrality, strong democracy and political stability
 (AFP/Ezequiel BECERRA)

Costa Rica, which elects a new president Sunday, is a small country thriving on ecotourism. Its neutrality, strong democracy and political stability have earned it the nickname of Central America's Switzerland.

Here are four facts about the country of more than five million people:


- Beacon of peace -


Independent since 1821, Costa Rica is considered a model of democracy in Central America.

A short civil war in 1948 led to the abolition of the army and helped put in place the country's political stability.

In the 1980s, when several other Central American countries were mired in civil wars, neutral Costa Rica acted as peace broker, earning then-president Oscar Arias Sanchez the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987.

It saw a political shift in 2014, when the two rightwing parties that had shared power since the 1960s -- the PLN and PUSC -- suffered an historic defeat as centrist Luis Guillermo Solis was elected president.

Outgoing president Carlos Alvarado is from the same party.

On the international stage Costa Rica has fought for disarmament and for a total end to nuclear weapons and the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime.

Over recent years it has seen an increase in organised crime, largely due to the drug trafficking that has ravaged its neighbours.

- Green paradise -


With its stunning beaches on the Pacific and Caribbean coasts, its lush rainforests and imposing volcanoes, Costa Rica has become known as a green democracy and global leader for its environmental policies.

Nature reserves cover a quarter of Costa Rica's 51,000 square kilometres (19,700 square miles), territory that hosts five percent of the world's biodiversity.

It is one of the few countries to have banned blood sports and to have shunned exploitation by the mining and oil giants, which are the main source of income for many Latin American countries.

Over the last decade the environment has nevertheless come under strain from economic development, with a poor administration of protected areas, increasing air, ground and water pollution, and damage caused by the cultivation of pineapples.

Costa Rica is nevertheless the only tropical country which has managed to reverse deforestation, according to the World Bank.

It has invested heavily in clean energy, passing the threshold of generating electricity exclusively from renewable energy 300 days in one year, in 2017.

The nation has vowed to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by 2050.

- Decades of growth -

Costa Rica has seen 25 years of regular economic growth, thanks to the opening up to foreign investment and a gradual liberalisation of foreign trade.

Its main exports are bananas, pineapples and coffee. It is also the world's biggest exporter of butterflies.

GDP per capita has tripled since 1960, but in 2020 it contracted by 4.1 percent due to the Covid pandemic.

In 2021 growth was expected to reach 3.8 percent, according to the World Bank.

The poverty rate that year rose to 23 percent, according to official statistics.

Costa Rica has a top-notch social security system and has invested heavily in education.

It is ranked 62nd out of 189 countries on the UN's Human Development Index.

The tourism sector represents eight percent of GDP, but was hammered by the pandemic.

A member of the OECD since 2021, the country has been trying to attract digital nomads to boost its economy.

- Land of asylum -

More than 100,000 Nicaraguans, fleeing the violent crackdown on anti-government protests, have taken refuge in Costa Rica.

A conservative, religious country, but with a long tradition of opening its arms to asylum seekers, Costa Rica has taken in hundreds of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people who were persecuted in their home countries in Central America.

ber-ang/jmy/fg/bc/mlm


Ex-heavyweights resurrected in Costa Rica polls, but election still unclear


Former Costa Rica president Jose Maria Figueres leads a tight and bloated field ahead of elections (AFP/Ezequiel BECERRA)

David GOLDBERG
Thu, February 3, 2022,

There is a feeling of uncertainty hanging over one of Latin America's most stable democracies as Costa Rica heads to the polls on Sunday with a crowded presidential field and no clear favorite.

Often referred to as the region's "happiest" country, Costa Rica is nonetheless grappling with a growing economic crisis and the ruling Citizen's Action Party (PAC) is set for a bruising defeat.

The economy has tanked under the progressive program of President Carlos Alvarado Quesada and the PAC candidate, former economy minister Welmer Ramos, seems to be paying the price for sky-high anti-government feeling, polling just 0.3 percent.

"The ruling party is completely weakened and has no chance" after two successive terms of office, said political analyst Eugenia Aguirre.

"The presidential unpopularity figure of 72 percent is the highest since the number was first recorded in 2013," she added.

It means the country's traditional political heavyweights -- the centrist National Liberation Party (PLN) and the right-wing Social Christian Unity Party (PUSC) -- could return to the fore.

According to one poll published this month, former president Jose Maria Figueres (1994-98) of the PLN leads with just over 17 percent, while PUSC's Lineth Saborio is on just under 13 percent.

Until PAC's Otton Solis reached the second round run-off in 2006, the PLN and PUSC had enjoyed decades of a near political duopoly.

To win outright in Sunday's first round, a candidate needs 40 percent of the vote, otherwise there will be a run-off on April 3 between the top two.

Costa Rica is known for its eco-tourism and green policies: its energy grid is 100 percent run on renewable sources.

Unlike many of its volatile neighbors, Costa Rica has no army, has had no armed conflicts since 1948 and no dictator since 1919.

But the worsening economic situation has hit confidence in the political class. And with 25 presidential candidates, more than 30 percent of the 3.5 million voters are undecided.

Despite the country's stable reputation, voters under 40 have only known "periods in which not only problems have not been resolved, but they have worsened," university student Edgardo Soto, who says he does not know who to vote for, told AFP.

Unemployment has been steadily rising for more than a decade and sat at 14.4 percent in 2021.

Poverty reached 23 percent in 2021 with debt now a staggering 70 percent of GDP.

"If someone expects to find a bed of roses, that won't be the case with this government," Saborio, 61, told AFP.

"Costa Rica is in a moment of social, economic and political crisis."

- Pent-up frustrations -


Apathy and abstentionism have always been issues in Costa Rica's elections. In 2018 the abstention rate was over 34 percent.

With so many undecided, Costa Rica's opinion polls can be notoriously poor reflections of what will happen in an election.

In 2018, Alvarado Quesada was running sixth with 5.6 percent in polls but ended up beating evangelical Christian singer Fabricio Alvarado Munoz by 20 points in the run-off. Quesada cannot stand for re-election.

Alvarado Munoz, of the right-wing New Republic Party (PNR), was third in this month's poll with a little over 10 percent.

He commands loyal support from the Christian community, which makes up around 20 percent of Costa Rica's five million population.

In fourth is economist Rodrigo Chaves of the newly formed centrist Social Democratic Progress Party, on eight percent, with the top left-wing candidate Jose Maria Villalta of the Broad Front on 7.5 percent.


Figueres, 67, says the crowded field "is a reflection of this whole frustration that has built up."

"If there are 25 options it is because the parties are not understanding the needs of a society that is changing before their eyes."

Not everyone is feeling blue ahead of the poll.

"I understand why the people are distrustful ... they have been cheated for years. But this time there is more hope," said Chaves.

dgj/mav/yow/bc/st
UK's Kew tribute to Costa Rica at annual orchid fest

Joe JACKSON
Thu, 3 February 2022

The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew's annual orchid festival is this year celebrating biodiversity hotspot Costa Rica 
(AFP/Daniel LEAL)


About 6,000 plants have been brought to Kew for the showcase
 (AFP/Daniel LEAL)


Costa Rica has been widely praised for how it manages its natural environment
 (AFP/Daniel LEAL)


Master florist Henck Roling said the festival was designed to be a riot of colour (AFP/Daniel LEAL)

Britain's Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew unveiled its annual orchid festival Thursday, turning a sliver of southwest London into a riot of tropical colour and flora celebrating biodiversity hotspot Costa Rica.

Kew's 26th orchid showcase, opening Saturday, has this year been themed around the central American country hailed for conservation and features more than 5,000 orchids, some native to the nation on the Panama isthmus.

They include the national flower, a critically endangered orchid -- named Guarianthe skinneri -- bearing pink-purple petals and found in humid forests on tree trunks and branches or on granite cliff banks at some altitudes.


The month-long exhibition, housed in Kew conservatory set to tropical temperatures and conditions, also promotes Costa Rica's famed fauna, with handcrafted sculptures of some of animals made from natural materials and nestled in amongst the plants.

"Through the glass house we tried to bring in as much colour to just transport people into that sort of feel good world of Costa Rica... to make it really pretty and smashing," florist and Kew volunteer Henck Roling told AFP.

The Dutchman, who in keeping with the orchid theme had dyed his hair and beard bright colours and was adorned with an orange garland, said the team had spent much of the past two years thinking about the festival.

It is returning to Kew after a one-year hiatus due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Around 6,000 plants have been brought in for the showcase, including the 5,000 orchids originating from around the world.

- 'Amazing array' -

Various individual displays of the different orchid types are dotted around Kew's expansive and misty Princess of Wales conservatory, interspersed between water features, ferns, monsteras and other greenery.

The colourful host of plants began arriving in January and took dozens of volunteers and staff weeks to assemble by hand into their immaculate displays, said Alberto Trinco, acting supervisor of the conservatory.

"It's one of the biggest plant families and they are such an amazing array of shapes, colours, and other adaptations and co-evolution with their pollinators, which is quite mind-blowing sometimes," he added.

A section of the exhibition delves deeper into orchids, explaining everything from family tree and anatomy to their use for celebrations in Costa Rica.

Trinco noted the organisers chose the country, which is home to more than 1,600 orchid species, to "celebrate its biodiversity, its effort towards conservation and its culture".

The Central American nation covers just 0.03 percent of the planet but is home to six percent of the world's flora and fauna species and has been praised for how it manages the natural environment.

Costa Rica was last year one of the inaugural winners of Prince William's UN-backed Earthshot Prize, in recognition of its efforts to tackle environmental degradation and promote sustainability.

Alex Munro, a botanist at Kew specialising in discovering new plant species in the tropics, said he and colleagues had worked with the Costa Rican ambassador in London to help inform some of the science behind the exhibits.

"They have lots of species in Costa Rica which you wouldn't find anywhere else," he told AFP.

"They capture fully the diversity of orchids in the Americas," he added, stood aside one of the main displays.

Other countries previously as a theme for the yearly showcase include Indonesia, India and Colombia.

jj/phz/bp
Dead IS chief was Iraqi ex-officer nicknamed 'Destroyer'

Issued on: 03/02/2022 -

















Amir Mohammed Said Abd al-Rahman al-Mawla -- aka bu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi -- had a $10 million bounty on his head 
Handout US DEPARTMENT OF STATE/AFP/File

Paris (AFP) – The head of Islamic State group, whom the US declared dead in a special-forces raid Thursday, was nicknamed the "Destroyer" and presided over massacres of Yazidis before assuming the leadership.


Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, also known as Amir Mohammed Said Abd al-Rahman al-Mawla, took over the jihadist network two years ago after founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi blew himself up in a US special forces raid in October 2019.

Considered a low-profile but brutal operator, Qurashi had largely flown under the radar of Iraqi and US intelligence until that point.

He took over at a time when IS had been weakened by years of US-led assaults and the loss of its self-proclaimed "caliphate" in Syria and northern Iraq.

The US State Department slapped a $10 million bounty on his head and placed him on its "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" list.

Born in the northern Iraq town of Tal Afar and thought to be in his mid-40s, his ascension in the ranks of the extremist group was rare for a non-Arab, born into a Turkmen family.

Serving in the Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein, the late dictator toppled by the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Qurashi joined the ranks of Al-Qaeda after Hussein was captured by US troops in 2003, according to the Counter Extremism Project (CEP) think-tank.

In 2004, he was detained by US forces at the infamous Camp Bucca prison in southern Iraq, where Baghdadi and host of future Islamic State figures met.
'Brutal policymaker'

After both men were freed, Qurashi remained at Baghdadi's side as he took the reins of the Iraqi branch of Al-Qaeda in 2010, then defected to create the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), later the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

In 2014, Qurashi helped Baghdadi take control of the northern city of Mosul, the CEP said.

The think-tank said Qurashi "quickly established himself among the insurgency's senior ranks and was nicknamed the 'Professor' and the 'Destroyer'".

He was well respected among IS members as a "brutal policymaker" and was responsible for "eliminating those who opposed Baghdadi's leadership", it said.

He is probably best known for playing "a major role in the jihadist campaign of liquidation of the Yazidi minority (of Iraq) through massacres, expulsion and sexual slavery," said Jean-Pierre Filiu, a jihadism analyst at the Sciences Po university in Paris.

On Thursday, US President Joe Biden said that a global "terrorist threat" had been removed when Qurashi blew himself up after US special forces swooped on his Syrian hideout in an "incredibly challenging" night-time helicopter raid.

Hans-Jakob Schindler, a former UN official and director of CEP, called his death a "a major setback for ISIS" in terms of losing a second leader, but doubted it would be a game changer.

IS is thought to prepare for the killings of its leaders with plans for who will take over.
Global spread

Schindler said Quraishi "was not a very transformational leader" because IS had already started to shift from a group that controlled territory in Iraq and Syria to an international network of jihadist organisations under Baghdadi.

But Filiu argued that Qurashi's assassination could be "harder to overcome" than Baghdadi's.

He was "a genuine operational chief whose elimination risks preventing the resurgence of the jihadist group, at least temporarily."

Damien Ferre, director of the Jihad Analytics consultancy, said that Qurashi's legacy would be the reinforcement of the Afghan branch of IS, which has been increasingly active since the United States agreed in 2020 to withdraw its troops from the country.

Other researchers also see the rise of an IS branch around Lake Chad in west Africa as significant, with the group managing to draw fighters from the ranks of the Nigerian terror group Boko Haram.

"On the operational front during his time, Islamic State regained momentum in 2020 before seeing the quality and the quantity of its attacks fall last year," said Ferre.

On January 20, IS fighters launched their biggest assault since the loss of their caliphate nearly three years ago, attacking the Ghwayran prison in the Kurdish-controlled northeast Syrian city of Hasakeh to free fellow jihadists, sparking battles that left over 370 dead.

© 2022 AFP


THE CRUSADER OBLIGATION
Why is secular France doubling funding for Christian schools in the Middle East?

Thu, 3 February 2022



French President Emmanuel Macron announced this week that France would double financial support for Christian schools in the Middle East — a surprising decision for a country that prides itself on its secularism, which is baked into the country’s constitution. Experts, however, see Macron’s move as a wily attempt to court right-wing voters in a possible re-election bid.

“Supporting Christians in the Middle East is an age-old commitment in France, an historic mission,” declared the French president at an event at the Élysée Palace in Paris on February 1. Macron announced that financial aid for Christian schools in the Middle East would be doubled in 2022, going from €2 million to €4 million, co-funded by the French government and the religious organisation L’Oeuvre d’Orient.

French has been a secular state since a 1905 law definitively separated Church and State and guaranteed freedom of religion in the country. It means that religion is treated in France as a private matter, and public education in particular has to be secular – a policy that isn’t the case overseas, where the government works closely with L’Oeuvre d’Orient, a Christian non-profit which has historic ties with the Pope and is overseen by the archbishop of Paris. The charity works in areas such as healthcare and heritage protection, while also providing education with a religious slant.

The French government’s strategy of secular at home, sectarian abroad, can be attributed to France’s desire to keep its sphere of influence in the Middle East, says Bernard Heyberger, the director of studies at the École des Hautes études en sciences sociales and the École pratique des Hautes études in Paris.

“France supports Christian schools in the Middle East because it’s its only presence there,” he told FRANCE 24. “Until recently, archaeological digs were a sphere of influence for France, but there are fewer and fewer of them with the political situation in the region. Schools, therefore, are the best tool that France has to spread its influence: wherever France is sending funding, you can be sure there’s French-speaking education.”

French schools also ensure that the region has a French-speaking population, even if the number of French speakers has diminished.

“L’Oeuvre d’Orient has existed since the 19th century,” explained Heyberger. Massacres of Christians in the 1860s in Damascus and Lebanon horrified the French population and caused a surge in humanitarianism in the country.

“Napoleon III and the Third Republic instrumentalized this and invented the idea that France had been the historical protector of Christians in the region since the time of Saint Louis and Charlemagne. Ever since, France’s political right and far- right have latched on to this idea, which also comes up in left-wing talking points,” he said.
Christians: a political symbol of victims of terrorism?

Mihaela-Alexandra Tudor, a lecturer in communication and media sciences at University Paul-Valéry in Montpellier, says that Macron is deliberately targeting French Catholics before declaring his candidacy for this year’s presidential elections. It's one of similar gestures he's made towards the French Catholic community, including meeting the Pope twice during his mandate.

"Emmanuel Macron’s message was designed as a counter-attack against the right-wing and far-right presidential candidates,” Tudor continues. “He is trying to bolster his track record in the face of the far right’s arguments about secularism and the risk of Islamist terrorist attacks.”

Political instability in the Middle East in the last decade and the Syrian and Iraq wars have drawn the French public’s attention to the plight of Christians in the region. Religious minorities, including Christians, have been particularly targeted during the conflict. The Vatican estimates that there are approximately 15 million Christians in the Middle East, making up about 4 percent of the population.

“Christians in the Middle East have become the symbol of civilian victims of Islamist terrorist groups,” explains Tudor. “After the terrorist attacks committed in France by the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda, the cause of Middle Eastern Christians has become intertwined with the French state’s domestic fight against terrorism and the defence of democratic values like religious freedom.”
Stepping into right-wing territory

"The issue of Christians in the Middle East is at the heart of my engagement,” declared Valérie Pecresse, the presidential candidate for right-wing party Les Républicains, while she was on a trip to Armenia. The National Rally’s interim president Jordan Bardella also said, “I don’t want us to suffer the same fate as the Middle East’s Christians,” and extreme right candidate Éric Zemmour, also on a political trip to Armenia, emphasised the necessity of defending Western civilisation, highlighting that the Christian world should “never refuse to wage war when it is attacked”.

Emmanuel Macron’s decision to double funding for Christian schools in the region is part of a long line of politicians courting right-wing Catholic voters. The president particularly wants to send a message to voters for the far-right candidate Éric Zemmour, “who can draw a lot on the Catholic fringes of the electorate”, explains Tudor. The majority of Christians in the Middle East who are supported by France are Catholics.

“France essentially funds Catholic education in the Middle East,” says Heyberger. “Lebanese Maronites and Catholic Greeks are France’s main intermediaries in the region – France has less contact with Egyptian Coptic Christians or Assyrian Christians, for example.”

French funding went to 174 schools in 2021, including 129 in Lebanon, 16 in Egypt, seven in Israel, 13 in the Palestinian Territories and three in Jordan.

But a major announcement like this could end up being a risky strategy for Macron. “It could be considered opportunistic,” says Tudor. “Catholics are used to presidential candidates asking discreetly for their support, but anyone can change their mind when they’re in the voting booth.”

This article was adapted from the original in French.
Spotify boss defends Joe Rogan deal as stock plunges

AFP
New Delhi, India Published: Feb 04, 2022



STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Spotify has found itself stuck between its $100 million flagship talent and a popular backlash over Covid-19 misinformation on his shows.

The head of embattled streaming service Spotify has told staff that Joe Rogan is vital to the company, but that he doesn't agree with the controversial podcaster.

The comments were published Thursday as the firm's stock went into freefall. Spotify has found itself stuck between its $100 million flagship talent and a popular backlash over Covid-19 misinformation on his shows.

Chief executive Daniel Ek told up-in-arms employees they did not have editorial control over 'The Joe Rogan Experience', which garners up to 11 million listeners per episode.



"There are many things that Joe Rogan says that I strongly disagree with and find very offensive," he said, according to a transcript of the company town hall published by The Verge.

But "if we want even a shot at achieving our bold ambitions, it will mean having content on Spotify that many of us may not be proud to be associated with.

"Not anything goes, but there will be opinions, ideas, and beliefs that we disagree with strongly and even makes us angry or sad."

- Stock rout -

Shares in the company were down 17 percent Thursday in New York, as tech stocks dropped across the board. These shares have been on the slide since November, but have been badly hit by news that its subscriber growth is slowing.

The drop also comes as controversy swirls over the mega deal with Rogan, who has been accused of spouting misinformation about Covid-19 and vaccination, either directly or through the guests he has on his show.


That led last week to a burgeoning boycott spearheaded by folk-rock star Neil Young and Canadian songstress Joni Mitchell, who asked for their songs to be removed from the platform.

In response Ek announced this week that they would add a content advisory to podcasts about Covid-19, directing listeners to scientific and medical sources.

The Verge reported that staff had been eagerly awaiting the company meeting, with some feeling increasingly frustrated that Spotify was being driven by its deal with Rogan.

Ek told employees that podcasts such as Rogan's were vital if Spotify were to get its head above the competition in a crowded streaming field.

"We needed to find leverage, and one way we could do this was in the form of exclusives," he said, according to the transcript. "To be frank, had we not made some of the choices we did, I am confident that our business wouldn’t be where it is today."

But that is not to say the company agrees with everything its big-name podcast host utters, Ek said, framing Spotify not as a publisher, but as a platform.

"It is important to note that we do not have creative control over Joe Rogan’s content," he said.

"We don’t approve his guests in advance, and just like any other creator, we get his content when he publishes, and then we review it, and if it violates our policies, we take the appropriate enforcement actions."

Spotify is the latest tech company to find itself on the horns of a dilemma that pits a controversial -- and moneymaking -- anti-establishmentarian against advertisers, employees and public outrage.

Last year Netflix was forced to walk the line between defending comedian Dave Chappelle and placating critics who accused the company of giving air to anti-trans sentiment.

Spotify Backs Joe Rogan’s Disinformation Machine
Credit...Damon Winter/The New York Times

By Greg Bensinger
Feb. 1, 2022
OPINION
Mr. Bensinger is a member of the NYT editorial board.

The streaming service Spotify would like us to believe it is grappling with profound matters of free speech and censorship as it faces mounting pressure over repeated Covid disinformation from its star podcaster, Joe Rogan.

But there’s a far simpler explanation — it’s about the money. And the listening public is the one paying the price.

In recent days several well-known musicians have protested Spotify’s enormously popular podcast “The Joe Rogan Experience,” in which Mr. Rogan has, among other things, irresponsibly promoted ivermectin, used to treat parasitic infections, as a Covid treatment, and protested vaccine requirements. And when his guests have offered up gobs of bad information about Covid and vaccine efficacy, he has offered up too little pushback.

After hundreds of medical experts signed an open letter to Spotify denouncing such disinformation, the singer Neil Young issued an ultimatum to Spotify: “They can have Neil Young or Rogan. Not both.” Joni Mitchell soon followed, as did others like the Spotify podcaster Brené Brown, who vowed over the weekend not to release new episodes of her shows “Unlocking Us” and “Dare to Lead.”

Rather than give in to critics, Spotify has held its ground and, in recent days, most of Mr. Young’s and Ms. Mitchell’s music has been pulled from its library. The service said suppressing or editing Mr. Rogan’s podcast would amount to censorship — but anyone who’s paid attention to online content moderation knows that’s a charade. Facebook, in particular, has trotted out that excuse time and again when it ought to have blocked or removed content or users.

Don’t be fooled. Peer just beneath the surface and it becomes clear that for big social media companies, matters of “censorship” are always matters of business. Facebook, for example, has had special exemptions from its rules for the very people who are most likely to be believed: politicians and celebrities. More such speech, more advertising revenue.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube remove content posted by regular folks every day with no apparent worries about grand matters of free speech. Removing accounts by Donald Trump and, more recently, Marjorie Taylor Greene after repeated and flagrant policy violations was done only when it became a business imperative.

If, as Spotify implies, Mr. Rogan’s views offend its sensibilities, there ought to be nothing to prevent the service from scaling his podcast back. As the exclusive rights holder for the podcast, it has more control over and responsibility for Mr. Rogan’s content than do social media companies over users who post Covid misinformation.

But Spotify paid dearly for Mr. Rogan’s podcast (a reported $100 million) and the will of two rockers past their primes and a few others, does not — from a business perspective — outweigh Mr. Rogan’s 11 million regular listeners. Mr. Rogan has expressed contrition and vowed to more carefully vet his guests. Spotify, for its part, said it will post warning labels on his content and that of others directly discussing Covid.

But that’s all window dressing. Twitter and Facebook’s experiments with warning labels and links to authoritative sources proved unable to stop the spread of misinformation during the 2020 election and haven’t been effective in culling similarly dangerous ideas in the pandemic.

In a Sunday blog post that did not include any mention of Mr. Rogan or his podcast, Spotify’s chief executive, Daniel Ek, appears to take a strong stance against violations of the service’s rules. Still, he resisted calls to take more muscular action. “There are plenty of individuals and views on Spotify that I disagree with strongly,” Mr. Ek wrote. “We have a critical role to play in supporting creator expression while balancing it with the safety of our users. In that role, it is important to me that we don’t take on the position of being content censor.”

Whatever Spotify executives’ true feelings about Mr. Rogan or the pandemic, Mr. Ek is really playing defense for his cash cow — and if he gives in on this issue and he’ll have to give in on the next one and the next one after that. Given an opening, there’s no shortage of customers and artists who’d be thrilled to pressure the company to remove content from Barack and Michelle Obama’s production company, which has its own exclusive deal with Spotify. Losing Joni Mitchell is a shame, but losing Mr. Rogan or Mr. Obama would be terrible for business, whatever nonsense either may spew.

Investors have rewarded the strategy. Shares of Spotify are up more than 15 percent since Mr. Young’s music started being taken off the service last week, even amid what was the worst start to the year in over a decade for the broader market.

Mr. Ek’s blog post laid out the company’s rules of the road, but Spotify knew exactly who Mr. Rogan was when it signed its exclusive deal with him nearly two years ago. Before reaching the deal, Mr. Rogan had belittled transgender people, given airtime to Alex Jones and once likened a movie theater in a predominantly Black neighborhood as akin to “Planet of the Apes.”

Spotify knew what it was getting with Mr. Rogan. If its “longstanding platform rules” truly mattered or were being applied consistently, you’d expect Mr. Rogan to have already been dealt with.

Where the rubber meets the road for Spotify is a market backlash, a principled stance from bigger names like Taylor Swift, as some have suggested, or a slew of artists, not the trickle we’ve seen so far. So, for now, Mr. Rogan is untouchable and our health is at risk.


What the Joe Rogan Backlash Reveals About How We Handle Misinformation

Credit...Illustration by The New York Times; photograph by Michael S. Schwartz/Getty Images

By Spencer Bokat-Lindell
Mr. Bokat-Lindell is a NYT staff editor.
Feb. 1, 2022

The fields of the national discourse are everywhere polluted with falsity, lies and propaganda, we are told, and in the absence of a functioning regulatory state to appeal to, culture is called upon to clean up the mess.

The cycle is by now familiar: A private company — usually a tech company with a market capitalization in the tens or hundreds of billions — lends a provocateur a microphone, and sometimes a paycheck to boot. (In an attention economy, the distinction between the two can prove elusive.) The provocateur goes on to amplify claims that are inaccurate, inflammatory, even harmful. Objectors call for the provocateur’s microphone to be taken away, which invariably invites accusations of “censorship,” “illiberalism” and, of course, “cancel culture.”

The embattled speaker of the week is Joe Rogan, the host of the world’s most popular podcast. A few weeks ago, 270 doctors, physicians and science educators signed an open letter calling on Spotify, with whom Rogan has a $100 million contract, to “establish a clear and public policy to moderate misinformation” after Rogan broadcast false and misleading claims about Covid and coronavirus vaccines. Soon after, artists no less iconic than Joni Mitchell and Neil Young announced they would be withdrawing their music from Spotify because of its association with Rogan.

What does the furor over Rogan suggest about the merits and flaws of pressuring tech platforms to combat misinformation? How should a company balance the values of free speech and public health when one of its biggest moneymakers puts them in tension? Here’s what people are saying.
When speech is ‘dangerous’

Rogan, a self-described “moron,” has a habit of stoking controversy. (Just last week, he claimed it was “very strange” for anyone to call themselves Black unless they’re from the “darkest place” of Africa.) But amid a public health crisis, the signatories of the open letter argue, his Covid statements are “not only objectionable and offensive, but also medically and culturally dangerous.”

The reason for their concern is evident. Covid is still killing more than 2,500 Americans a day. Despite having first access to the best vaccines in the world, the United States ranks behind some 60 countries with respect to vaccination and booster rates, and has a much higher death rate per capita than its peers.

“In a matter of days, the United States will reach the ignominious number of 900,000 confirmed deaths, more than half of which occurred well after vaccines were widely available to high risk (by age or immunocompromised) status,” Eric Topol, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research, writes. “It is now inevitable that we’ll soon see that toll rise to more than a million American lost lives, and we know that well over 90 percent of these deaths were preventable with vaccination.”

Some of the speech at issue:


Of the coronavirus vaccines, Rogan said, “If you’re a healthy person, and you’re exercising all the time, and you’re young, and you’re eating well, like, I don’t think you need to worry about this.”

When Rogan himself came down with Covid, he claimed he was treating himself with ivermectin, a drug that has become a popular vaccine alternative despite opposition from federal health authorities.


In Rogan’s final episode of 2021, he interviewed a scientist named Robert Malone, who likened the vaccine mandates to Nazi-era oppression and said Americans were trapped in a “mass formation psychosis.”

Just how many Americans Rogan’s pronouncements might have dissuaded from getting vaccinated is impossible to know. But with an estimated 11 million listeners per episode, his influence is “tremendous,” the signatories say.

Platform, or publisher?


In the throes of similar controversies, social media networks like Facebook have argued that they are merely platforms, not publishers, and aren’t responsible for moderating content that doesn’t violate their (shifting) terms of service. But commentators have pointed out that Spotify, unlike those other companies, directly paid $100 million for the exclusive rights to Rogan’s podcast, and the company has noted that his show has increased its ad revenue.

“Spotify doesn’t get to just put a content warning on Rogan’s episodes and treat him like they would any other podcast because he’s not any other podcast,” the tech journalist Ryan Broderick writes. “He’s their podcast.”

Appealing to tech companies to curb the spread of speech deemed dangerous has proved effective in some cases. “You can see it with villains as diverse as ISIS, Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones,” the Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote last year. Peter W. Singer, a co-author of “LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media,” told her, “Their ability to drive the conversation, reach wider audiences for recruitment, and, perhaps most importantly to a lot of these conflict entrepreneurs, to monetize it, is irreparably harmed.”

[Read more: “Deplatforming: Following extreme internet celebrities to Telegram and alternative social media”]

With Rogan, though, Spotify has options besides canceling his podcast, Jill Filipovic writes. “They, obviously, don’t want to be a censorship machine, but they could remove episodes that further dangerous untruths, something they’ve already done with Rogan in the past, taking down an episode featuring his interview with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and another that featured fascist sympathizer Gavin McInnes,” she argues on CNN’s website. Otherwise, “if Rogan’s podcast is more akin to music than a truthful exploration of ideas featuring serious experts, then the company should categorize it as fiction or fantasy, and make clear to listeners that what they’re hearing is as divorced from reality as Major Tom was from planet Earth.”
The case against calling the Big Tech police

It’s wrong. Asking Spotify to crack down on Rogan may offend those who subscribe to the traditionally liberal view that the answer to bad speech is more speech. “Joe Rogan has a right to be wrong, and I have a right to hear him and his guests be wrong, if I want to,” Rod Dreher of The American Conservative writes. “Of course Young and Mitchell have the right to pull their music from Spotify, but do they really want to start this war? As artists, do they really want to put themselves in the position of playing self-righteous censors (because that’s what they’re trying to do: compel Spotify to cancel Rogan’s show).”

It’s unsustainable. It should be said that Young denies that he’s trying to censor anyone; he’s merely exercising his right to free association. “Private companies have the right to choose what they profit from, just as I can choose not to have my music support a platform that disseminates harmful information,” he wrote.

But what other commitments might such a principled stance compel? As Nick Gillespie of Reason points out, Young has an official channel on YouTube, which Joe Rogan is also on. “Should Neil Young, in the name of consistency, issue an ultimatum to YouTube and then bolt when the service refuses to yield to his demand?” he asks. The logic, taken to its conclusion, would end with “all of us at our own paywalled sites, secure in our purity of association but with much less to talk about,” he adds.

It’s a superficial solution. In Jacobin, Branko Marcetic argues that Rogan is a symptom of a larger problem of institutional mistrust. How, after all, did people come to look to him for medical advice in the first place? In Marcetic’s view, the blame falls at least in part on the political and public health establishments, which failed to communicate effectively during the pandemic. “If Spotify booted Rogan and the U.S. government banished him to the Arctic, you would still get Covid misinformation and mistrust, because of both these factors and the messaging failure that’s been endemic to U.S. institutions throughout these confusing, frustrating two years,” he writes.

It entrenches corporate power. Social media giants may be private companies, but they’ve also become points of entry to a de facto public square. For some, like the Times Opinion writer Jay Caspian Kang, that’s all the more reason to refrain from begging that they more rigidly enforce boundaries of socially acceptable speech.

“Nothing a tech company will do to suppress content on its platform will violate the First Amendment, but that’s also the problem we’re facing: There’s very little recourse for the silenced,” he wrote last month. “Cheering on the dismissal of toxic politicians, celebrities and thinkers, and arguing that private companies like Twitter can do whatever they want” if they are following their own terms of service, he added, “give social media companies license to do just that: whatever they want.”
If not Big Tech, then who?

Would it be preferable — more democratic, perhaps — if the power to moderate content belonged to the government rather than tech companies? “At least governmental speech restrictions are implemented in open court, with appellate review,” Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment expert, wrote in The Times last year. “Speakers get to argue why their speech should remain protected. Courts must follow precedents, which gives some assurance of equal treatment. And the rules are generally created by the public, by their representatives or by judges appointed by those representatives.”

Of course, as Emily Bazelon has written for The Times Magazine, Americans are deeply suspicious of letting the state regulate speech, too: “We are uncomfortable with government doing it; we are uncomfortable with Silicon Valley doing it. But we are also uncomfortable with nobody doing it at all. This is a hard place to be — or, perhaps, two rocks and a hard place.”

For Ben Wizner, the director of the A.C.L.U.’s Speech and Privacy Project, the solution may lie not in transferring Big Tech’s power to the state but in breaking it up. “We need to use the law to prevent companies from consolidating that amount of power over our public discourse,” he said last year. “That does not mean regulation of content. It would mean enforcing our antitrust laws in the U.S. We should never have allowed a handful of companies to achieve the market dominance they have over such important public spaces.”

Do you have a point of view we missed? Email us at debatable@nytimes.com. Please note your name, age and location in your response, which may be included in the next newsletter.