/magazine

Silicon Valley exploits time and space to extend frontiers of capitalism | Evgeny Morozov | Opinion | The Guardian
▻https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/silicon-valley-exploits-space-evgeny-morozov

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Space_Shuttle_Program_Commemorative_Patch.png

The US Congress quietly passed an important piece of legislation this month. The Space Resource Exploration and Utilisation Act – yet to be signed by Barack Obama – grants American companies unconstrained rights to the mining of any resources – from water to gold. The era of space exploration is over; the era of space exploitation has begun!

While the 1967 Outer Space Treaty explicitly prohibits governments from claiming planets and other celestial resources, as their property, Congress reasoned that such restrictions do not apply to the materials found and mined there.

The bill’s timing might, at first, seem surprising – after all, Nasa, the US space agency, is almost constantly fighting against budget cuts – but is easily explained by the entrance of new space explorers on to the scene, namely the Silicon Valley billionaires who are pouring millions into “disrupting” space, Nasa, and the space programme of yore. From Google’s Eric Schmidt and Larry Page to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Tesla’s Elon Musk, Silicon Valley’s elites have committed considerable resources to the cause.

And while the long-term plan – to mine asteroids for precious metals or water, which can then be used to fuel spaceships – might still be a decade or more away, Silicon Valley has a very different business proposition in mind. Space, for these companies, offers the most cost-effective way to wire the unconnected parts of the globe by beaming internet connectivity from balloons, drones and satellites.

Morph’s Outpost on the Digital Frontier
▻http://morphsoutpostonthedigitalfrontier.blogspot.de
On arrive de loin. A l’époque de la space shuttle les limites du cyber-espace étaient encore inconnues et illimitées.

Wired wrote briefly about Morph’s Outpost in the September/October 1993 issue, online at
▻http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/streetcred.html?pg=8

Morph’s Outpost - By Will Kreth

Don’t knock programmers. Contrary to popular belief, many of them do have lives and look nothing like the bespectacled, pasty-faced, Jolt-cola- slurping traitorous overweight hacker depicted in Jurassic Park (personally, I was thrilled when he got eaten in the Jeep). Some of them ride mountain bikes, kayak, play alto sax and read books by Peter Matheissen. Some of them were never interested in programming until HyperCard, while others have been working on PC’s since the birth of the Altair in the ’70s. Until recently, they’ve been stuck wading through various patently dull programming magazines for the information they needed to stay on the edge.

The rise of interactive multimedia has given birth to a new crop of programmers, and they’re starving for deep technical information about their current (albeit over-hyped) obsession. Now they have a new magazine dedicated to their cause. Morph’s Outpost on the Digital Frontier is the brainchild of Craig LaGrow, a founder of the popular Computer Language, and Editor-in-Chief Doug Millison. Augmenting the magazine’s seriously technical treatment of authoring environments and the like is a whimsical cartoon character named (what else?) Morph, who runs his Outpost on the boundary between cyberspace and the digital jungle. He’s the silicon- surfing Sherpa who’ll outfit you with the “intel” you need to make the right decisions on hardware, software, scripting tricks, and marketing your creations. Morph, who looks as if he just came out of a graffiti-artist’s spray-paint can, has assembled several notable names within the industry to contribute to the Outpost on a regular basis - like Rockley Miller (publisher and editor of Multimedia and Videodisc Monitor), Richard Doherty (editor of Envisioneering), Tony Bove (publisher and editor of the Macromedia User Journal and the Bove & Rhodes Inside Report), and Michael Moon (of the market research firm Gistics, Inc.). Do you know your XCMDs from CLUTs? Script-X from a 3:2 pull-down ratio for mastering a videodisc? Then Morph’s Outpost on the Digital Frontier is a must-read for all you seasoned media fanatics surfing the Digital Pipeline.

Digital Work CyberTrends
▻http://people.duke.edu/~mccann/q-work.htm
Un an après la catastrophe de la Challenger l’espace sans fin du monde digital se traduisait en job opportunities sans limites.

Work in Cyberspace
Rise of the Personal Virtual Workspace
Rise of the American Perestroika
The Demise of the Job
Rise of Entreployees
Rise of the Movable Job
Demise of the Department
Rise of the Project
Demise of the Hierarchy
Rise of Multimedia in Corporations
Big Business in Your Little PC
Rise of the Digital Wealthy
Devolution of Large Entities
Rise of the Individual
Rise of the Video Communications
Rise of Internet Collaboration
Rise of the Virtual Office
Rise of Soft Factories
Dematerialization of Manufacturing
Put Your Knowledge to Work
Rise of New Organizational Structures
Demise of the Branch
Rise of Document-centric Computing
Rise of Intranet
Rise of Knowledge Worker Hell
Rise of a New Life in the Web
Rise of Business Ecosystems
Death of Competition
Rise of New Industry Definitions
Rise of Intellectual Mobility
Rise of the Internet Job Engine
Rise of Coordination-Intensive Business
Rise of the Internetworked Business Structures
Rise of Global Networks
Rise of Globalization
Rise of the Underdeveloped
Rise of Free Agent, USA

InfluenceHR | The Shift From Wellness to Well-being : Empowering a Workforce with a Whole-employee Approach
▻http://influencehr.com/sessions/the-shift-from-wellness-to-well-being-empowering-a-workforce-with-a-who
Depuis on chasse du cerveau dans la silicon valley , alors il faut faire des efforts pour en attirer les meilleurs.

Speaker:
Dr. Michael M. Moon, CEO and Principal Analyst, ExcelHRate Research and Advisory Services
Workplace wellness is undergoing a transformation from a limited view of employee physical wellness to a more holistic view that also includes employees’ emotional, mental, and financial well-being — inside and outside the workplace. To really engage employees, employers need to provide the right balance of resources, programs, tools, and technology to enable employees to own and manage their well-being along with building a culture that supports these initiatives. The HR vendor community has a tremendous opportunity in helping employers to empower their employees to own their well-being through innovative technologies that deliver personalized learning, feedback, and targeted interventions.

Michael Jay Moon - Wikipedia
▻https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jay_Moon#Awards_and_associations
C’est l’occasion pour les vieux hippies et les habitants de première heure de la vallée de silicone de vendre quelques conférences.

Moon was a contributing editor for Morph’s Outpost from 1993-1995, launching the magazine and writing a monthly column. A technical publication on emerging multimedia design technology, it was based on the design of ’60s underground newspapers. He was a blogger for Customer Engagement Agencies, DAM for Marketing and Engagement Marketspace. In 2000, he co-authored Firebrands: Building Brand Loyalty in the Internet Age with Doug Millison. The book is now available in 13 languages.

Closing the Digital Frontier - The Atlantic
▻http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/closing-the-digital-frontier/308131
Une chosequi ne change jamais dans le monde capitaliste est l’incertitude. Où trouver the next big thing (#TNBT), commen investir, comment survivre. Alors les spécialistes annoncent des vérités assez simples pour plaire aux décervelés de la finance.

The era of the Web browser’s dominance is coming to a close. And the Internet’s founding ideology—that information wants to be free, and that attempts to constrain it are not only hopeless but immoral— suddenly seems naive and stale in the new age of apps, smart phones, and pricing plans. What will this mean for the future of the media—and of the Web itself?

Michael Hirschorn July/August 2010 Issue

Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft : Which Will Fall First ?
▻http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/01/06/google-apple-facebook-amazon-microsoft-which-will-fall-first

Which company will fall first, Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, or Microsoft? originally appeared on Quora: the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights.

Answer by Terrence Yang, Angel investor, on Quora:

I own stock in Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft, but if I had to pick which tech giant I think will fall first, I would pick Facebook.

That being said:

Zuckerberg’s latest moves include:
Keeping control of Facebook even after he donated almost all his Facebook stock to charity. Facebook shareholder suit alleges secret texts from Marc Andreessen to Mark Zuckerberg.
Being the only public company CEO to skip Trump’s tech summit. I bet most shareholders wanted him to attend.
Making his 2017 resolution “to have visited and met people in every state in the US by the end of the year. After a tumultuous last year, my hope for this challenge is to get out and talk to more people about how they’re living, working, and thinking about the future.” Mark Zuckerberg - Every year I take on a personal... Maybe he is sincere in trying to better understand America, given that Facebook, together with Google, account for almost all the online ad revenue. Google and Facebook are booming. Is the rest of the digital ad business sinking?
Zuckerberg said he is no longer an atheist and that religion is very important (hat tip Hunter Johnson). (Mark Zuckerberg says he’s no longer an atheist, believes ‘religion is very important’.)
All of these moves are more consistent with someone laying the groundwork for a possible run for political office someday than with someone singularly focused on growing the Facebook empire. What would Steve Jobs do?
People have speculated before about Zuckerberg’s aspirations to run for President. (Does Mark Zuckerberg Want To Run For President?)
I believe his actions are an investment risk factor. At the margin, his latest moves drove some investors to sell Facebook stock (raising its cost of capital) and possibly providing cheaper capital to the Facebook’s competitors (if investors sell Facebook and buy Snap, for example).
Facebook’s metrics are wrong, though others (Google?) may have the same issue. It’s not just Facebook: Digital advertisers say internet metrics are often wrong Facebook Says It Found More Miscalculated Metrics.
Robert Scoble says spatial computing will dominate, meaning you will be able to physically walk around in the real world and see virtual items placed on them. Scobleizer - Entrepreneur in Residence.
Scoble said he would ask Zuckerberg this: “How are you going to compete with a “mixed reality” release of the iPhone that’s coming in 11 months? I expect that iPhone will sell 60 million in first weekend…"
Scoble goes on to say: “That’s more VR sold than all others combined. In one weekend … If I were at Facebook I’d get the entire Oculus team to pivot. Toward mixed reality glasses. Why? Microsoft’s execs already told me they are betting 100% on mixed reality (with its Microsoft HoloLens product). The strategy at Microsoft is “Cloud + Hololens.” That’s it. The entirety of a $455 billion company is betting on mixed reality.” Apple Strategy 2017. Very important change to iPhone coming (hat tip to Leo Harsha).
Oculus headset sales are low. VR is taking longer to take off than some guessed. VR headset sales by device 2016 | Statista.
Instagram is doing a great job copying Snap’s popular features and avoiding the unpopular ones (fast follower). But they don’t have anything like Spectacles yet. Instagram’s Best Move in 2016? Copying Snapchat — The Motley Fool Snapchat vs. Instagram: Who’s Copying Whom Most?
Even Zuckerberg’s write-up and videos about Jarvis home AI reveals Facebook’s weaknesses. While Amazon, Google and Apple can combine hardware and software to give you a better, more seamless experience via Echo/Alexa or the Google and Apple equivalents. To date Facebook only has software.
Some others cite Microsoft or Apple as the most likely to fail. I disagree.

SILICON VALLEY (THE BIG FIVE) RULEZ

Tech Companies Are Dominating the Stock Market as Never Before (July 29 2016)
▻http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/29/the_world_s_5_most_valuable_companies_apple_google_microsoft_amazon_facebook.

Tech’s ‘Frightful 5’ Will Dominate Digital Life for Foreseeable Future ( JAN. 20, 2016)
▻https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/technology/techs-frightful-5-will-dominate-digital-life-for-foreseeable-future.html?_r

The Big 5 are Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook
(August 2, 2016)
▻http://www.greenm3.com/gdcblog/2016/8/2/the-big-5-are-apple-google-microsoft-amazon-facebook

The Big 5 Year in Review : Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook (December 29, 2015)
▻https://stratechery.com/2015/the-big-5-year-in-review-apple-google-microsoft-amazon-and-facebook

#silicon_valley #capitalisme #technologie #disruption

#Kissinger criticizes the #Obama Doctrine, talks about the main challenges for #Trump, and explains how to avoid war with #China:
0►https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/the-lessons-of-henry-kissinger/505868

“Americans think that the normal condition of the world is stability and progress: If there is a problem, it can be removed by the mobilization of effort and resources, and when it is solved, America can return to isolation. The Chinese believe that no problem can ever be finally solved. Therefore, when you talk to Chinese strategists, they talk about process rather than ad hoc issues. When you talk to U.S. strategists, they generally try to look for solutions. [..] To Beijing, a solution is simply an admission ticket to another problem. Thus, the Chinese are more interested in trends. They ask, “Where are you going ? What do you think the world will look like in 15 years ?”

The Lessons of Henry Kissinger: Trump [may] react to a terror attack in a way that suits their purposes
►http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/the-lessons-of-henry-kissinger/505868

HK: But at some point, events will necessitate decision making once more. The only exception to this rule may be nonstate groups; they may have an incentive to provoke an American reaction that undermines our global position.

JG: The threat from isis is more serious now?

HK: Nonstate groups may make the assessment that Trump will react to a terror attack in a way that suits their purposes.

C’est Jeffrey Goldberg qui explicite “ISIS”. Kissinger répète “nonstate groups”.

Win in China! - The Atlantic
▻http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/win-in-china/305700

We became so interested that in December we traveled to Beijing to be in the audience at CCTV’s cavernous main studio for the live, final episode, in which one grand champion was chosen from five remaining contestants. Like many other Chinese reality shows, this one featured a segment known by the English letters “PK.” This means nothing to most English speakers (penalty kick?), but it is widely recognized in China as meaning “Player Kill” in online games.

The PK stage of Win served the function of the Tribal Council in Survivor or the Boardroom in The Apprentice: After a contest or judges’ assessment each week, two of that episode’s competitors ended up pitted against each other in a three-minute lightning elimination. This is PK, in which one opponent issues a question, challenge, or taunt, and the other tries to answer, outwit, and provoke the first. Once done speaking, a competitor slams a hand down on a big button, stopping his or her own clock (as with a chess-match timer) and starting the opponent’s. Faster and faster, each contestant tries to manage the time so as to get the very last word. The audience gasps, cheers, and roars with laughter at the gibes—and at the end, one contestant is “killed,” as determined by audience vote or a panel of judges. Even if you can barely follow the language, it’s exciting.

But something else distinguishes Win in China—not just from the slew of other reality shows but also from its American model, The Apprentice, with Donald Trump. “The purpose of The Apprentice was very functional,” Wang Lifen, the producer and on-camera host of the show, told me (in English) shortly after the final episode. “There’s some job that already exists, and Donald Trump is just looking for somebody to fill it, while providing entertainment.” Wang said that she had higher ambitions for her show: “We want to teach values. Our dream for the show is to enlighten Chinese people and help them realize their own dreams.” Having seen the program and talked with contestants and compared it with some superficially similar Chinese reality shows, I don’t scoff at what she said.

The didactic and uplifting ambitions of the show could be considered classically Chinese, the latest expression of a value-imprinting impulse that stretches from the Analects of Confucius to the sayings of Chairman Mao. Or they could be considered, like the Horatio Alger novels of young, muscular America, signs of an economy at an expansive moment when many people want to understand how to seize new opportunities. Either way, the particular message delivered by the show seems appropriate to China at this stage of its growth. Reduced to a moral, Win in China instructs Chinese people that they have chances never open to their compatriots before—but also that, as one contestant told me at the end of the show, “The only one I can rely on is myself.”

#Chine #télévision #Trump #idéologie

The Audacious Plan to Save This Man’s Life by Transplanting His Head
▻http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-audacious-plan-to-save-this-mans-life-by-transplanting-his-head/492755

transplantation de... tête

Did Jesus Have a Wife ? - The Atlantic
▻http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/485573

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/2016/06/08/Opener/1920.jpg

... the master key to one of the strangest scholarly mysteries in recent decades: a 1,300-year-old scrap of papyrus that bore the phrase “Jesus said to them, My wife.” The fragment, written in the ancient language of Coptic, had set off shock waves when an eminent Harvard historian of early Christianity, Karen L. King, presented it in September 2012 at a conference in Rome.
...
She said that if her own panel of experts agreed with the skeptical reviewer, she would abandon her plans to announce the find in Rome. She knew how high the stakes were, for both history and her own reputation. Some of the world’s most prestigious institutions—the British Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Louvre—had been hoodwinked by forgers, and she didn’t want Harvard added to the list. “If it’s a forgery,” she told The Boston Globe, “it’s a career breaker.”

Il y a de tout dans cette histoire : Dan Brown, la Stasi, tous apôtres (enfin prèsque), des services secrets et plein de mystères de Berlin-Ouest pendant le mur ... à mourir de rire.

#Berlin #religion #faux

A Psychologist Analyzes Donald Trump’s Personality - The Atlantic
▻http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/issues/2016/05/16/0616_Cover_RGB_nopgno/large.jpg

I might have phrased Singer’s question this way: Who are you, Mr. Trump, when you are alone? Singer never got an answer, leaving him to conclude that the real-estate mogul who would become a reality-TV star and, after that, a leading candidate for president of the United States had managed to achieve something remarkable: “an existence unmolested by the rumbling of a soul.
...
”Trump’s personality is certainly extreme by any standard, and particularly rare for a presidential candidate; many people who encounter the man—in negotiations or in interviews or on a debate stage or watching that debate on television—seem to find him flummoxing. In this essay, I will seek to uncover the key dispositions, cognitive styles, motivations, and self-conceptions that together comprise his unique psychological makeup. Trump declined to be interviewed for this story, but his life history has been well documented in his own books and speeches, in biographical sources, and in the press. My aim is to develop a dispassionate and analytical perspective on Trump, drawing upon some of the most important ideas and research findings in psychological science today.
...

#USA #politique #psychologie

The Problems With DNA Evidence and Testing - The Atlantic
▻http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/2016/05/WEL_Shaer_DNA1-2/facebook.jpg?1462893775

The forensic technique is becoming ever more common—and ever less reliable.

#test #ADN

The Science of Genes and Heredity Is Constantly Changing - The Atlantic
▻http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/genes-are-overrated/480729

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/2016/05/CULT_Comfort_Mukherjee_Art_Web/facebook.jpg?1464104665

Only about 1 percent of our genome encodes proteins. The rest is DNA dark matter. It is still incompletely understood, but some of it involves regulation of the genome itself. Some scientists who study non-protein-coding DNA are even moving away from the gene as a physical thing. They think of it as a “higher-order concept” or a “framework” that shifts with the needs of the cell. The old genome was a linear set of instructions, interspersed with junk; the new genome is a dynamic, three-dimensional body—as the geneticist Barbara McClintock called it, presciently, in 1983, a “sensitive organ of the cell.”

The point is not that this is the correct way to understand the genome. The point is that science is not a march toward truth. Rather, as the author John McPhee wrote in 1967, “science erases what was previously true.” Every generation of scientists mulches under yesterday’s facts to fertilize those of tomorrow.

“There is grandeur in this view of life,” insisted Darwin, despite its allowing no purpose, no goal, no chance of perfection. There is grandeur in a Darwinian view of science, too. The gene is not a Platonic ideal. It is a human idea, ever changing and always rooted in time and place. To echo Darwin himself, while this planet has gone cycling on according to the laws laid down by Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, endless interpretations of heredity have been, and are being, evolved.

#gènes #génome #ADN

The Anti-Shia Movement in Indonesia

▻http://www.understandingconflict.org/en/conflict/read/50/THE-ANTI-SHIA-MOVEMENT-IN-INDONESIA

(Jakarta, 27 April 2016) The convergence of a non-violent hardline campaign against Shi’ism with a new determination of pro-ISIS groups to wage war at home is increasing the possibility of violent attacks on Indonesia’s Shi’a minority.

The Anti-Shi’a Movement in Indonesia, the latest report from the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict (IPAC), examines the history of anti-Shi’a movement in Indonesia and the reasons for its newfound intensity. Three distinct groups are involved: Saudi-oriented Salafis who see Shi’ism as a deviant sect; a conservative fringe of the large Muslim social organisation Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) that is worried about competition from Shi’a schools, especially in East Java; and those influenced by ISIS propaganda that Shi’a are enemies who must be killed. The last is by far the smallest but several anti-Shi’a plots have already been foiled by police.

Le rapport au format PDF :
▻http://file.understandingconflict.org/file/2016/04/IPAC_Report_27.pdf

B. Saudi Arabia and the Salafis in the 1980s

At the same time that the Iranian revolution was causing concern in government circles, it was triggering a reaction in Saudi-supported Salafi circles. Chief among the Salafi-Influenced groups was Dewan Dakwah Islamiyah Indonesia (DDII), an organisation established in 1967 by Muhammad Natsir, the former leader of Masyumi. DDII’s link to Saudi was clear: it served as the Indonesian representative of Rabitah Alam Islami (World Muslim League), the Mecca-based organisation dedicated to strengthening Saudi Arabia’s cultural and religious influence in the Muslim world through the propagation of Wahhabism.39

DDII’s da’wah agenda was related as much to Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical interests as to the local context. In the 1960s and 1970s when the Saudi leadership was preoccupied with curtailing the in uence of Gamal Abdul Nasser’s “Arab Socialism”, DDII focused on combating Commu- nism in Indonesia, just as Soeharto was purging the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).40 Once Nasserism failed, the Iranian revolution threatened Saudi Arabia’s supremacy as the leader of the Islamic world. The Saudi government began to use various charity organisations to curtail Iranian influence by supporting anti-Shia campaigns, and DDII soon adopted this agenda. One scholar writes:

No doubt encouraged by their Saudi and Kuwaiti sponsors,[DDII] polemicized against Shi’ism as a fatal deviation from Islam and published an unending series of anti-Shi’a tracts and books. Their activities appeared to be focused increasingly on perceived threats: threats from within (Shi’a, Islamic liberalism) as well as threats from without: the Christian and Jewish threats to the world of Islam.41

In 1982, DDII’s monthly magazine, Media Dakwah, published what appears to be its first anti-Iran/anti-Shi’a article entitled “Iran Ready to Wage Ideological Invasion”. In explaining the threat of Khomeini’s Shi’ism to Muslim countries, the article argued that the imamah doctrine propagated by Khomeini entailed an expansionist ambition to “conquer the entire Islamic world [and] rule over the entire 900-million population of Muslims in the world”.42

The anti-Shi’a campaign during this period was characterised by intellectual challenges to Shi’a doctrines, often by distorting them in a way designed to incite fear and hatred among Sunnis. The focus on the imminent danger of revolution may have reflected Saudi support, but it was also a way that DDII could present itself as a “friend” of the government in the context of Soeharto’s wariness of Islamic movements. DDII was established as a non-political movement precisely to avoid the fate of its predecessor, the Masyumi party. The 1990s saw the campaign change into more direct political lobbying for a ban on Shi’ism.

Quelques réactions à l’article de Goldberg #Obama_doctrine qui a été perçu par certains comme l’expression publique de la doctrine stratégique d’Obama pour les quelques mois restant de la fin de son mandat :
►http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525

A noter, par exemple un article de Patrick Cockburn dans The Independent titré « Comment Barack Obama a tourné le dos à l’Arabie saoudite et à ses alliés sunnites » manifestement content du tournant que cela semble annoncer dans la politique étrangère américaine :
▻http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/barack-obama-saudi-arabia-us-foreign-policy-syria-jihadism-isis-a6927

Commentators have missed the significance of President Barack Obama’s acerbic criticism of Saudi Arabia and Sunni states long allied to the US for fomenting sectarian hatred and seeking to lure the US into fighting regional wars on their behalf. In a series of lengthy interviews with Jeffrey Goldberg published in The Atlantic magazine, Mr Obama explains why it is not in the US’s interests to continue the tradition of the US foreign policy establishment, whose views he privately disdains, by giving automatic support to the Saudis and their allies.

Et la conclusion :

It will become clearer after November’s presidential election how far Obama’s realistic take on Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and other US allies and his scepticism about the US foreign policy establishment will be shared by the new administration. The omens are not very good since Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003, intervention in Libya in 2011 and bombing Syria in 2013. If she wins the White House, then the Saudis and the US foreign policy establishment will breathe more easily.

Et puis une réaction pour le moins agacée, celle du prince Turki bin Faysal, en personne, ancien chef des services de renseignement saoudiens et ex-ambassadeur de l’A.S. aux USA qui proteste de sa fidélité comme allié des USA et de la lutte implacable des saoudiens contre le terrorisme et tout ça et tout ça puisqu’il a armé les « combattants de la liberté » qui luttent contre Da’ich :
▻http://www.arabnews.com/news/894826

No, Mr. Obama. We are not “free riders.” We shared with you our intelligence that prevented deadly terrorist attacks on America.
We initiated the meetings that led to the coalition that is fighting Fahish (ISIL), and we train and fund the Syrian freedom fighters, who fight the biggest terrorist, Bashar Assad and the other terrorists, Al-Nusrah and Fahish (ISIL). We offered boots on the ground to make that coalition more effective in eliminating the terrorists.
We initiated the support — military, political and humanitarian — that is helping the Yemeni people reclaim their country from the murderous militia, the Houthis, who, with the support of the Iranian leadership, tried to occupy Yemen; without calling for American forces. We established a coalition of more than thirty Muslim countries to fight all shades of terrorism in the world.
We are the biggest contributors to the humanitarian relief efforts to help refugees from Syria, Yemen and Iraq. We combat extremist ideology that attempts to hijack our religion, on all levels. We are the sole funders of the United Nations Counter-terrorism Center, which pools intelligence, political, economic, and human resources, worldwide. We buy US treasury bonds, with small interest returns, that help your country’s economy.

Avec un jeu de mots « Da’ish »/"fahish" ("obscène" ai-je trouvé, mais les arabisants me corrigeront).

#Obama_doctrine / partie 2 :
►http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525
Selon Goldberg, le jour où Obama a décidé de ne pas bombarder la Syrie aurait été une libération pour lui, non seulement contre des penchants bellicistes à Washington, mais aussi de la pression de certains alliés. Obama se plaindrait d’ailleurs régulièrement en privé, auprès de conseillers et d’amis, du fait que des alliés au Moyen-Orient cherchent à exploiter la puissance militaire américaine ("ses muscles") au profit de leurs petits intérêts sectaires :

I have come to believe that, in Obama’s mind, August 30, 2013, was his liberation day, the day he defied not only the foreign-policy establishment and its cruise-missile playbook, but also the demands of America’s frustrating, high-maintenance allies in the Middle East—countries, he complains privately to friends and advisers, that seek to exploit American “muscle” for their own narrow and sectarian ends.

Une manière de laisser entendre que cette pas si sûre attaque chimique de la Ghouta en 2013 par Damas (ép.1) aurait pu surtout servir les intérêts « sectaires » de ces alliés ?
Une manière peut-être aussi de bien faire comprendre, aujourd’hui, aux Turcs et aux Saoudiens notamment, qu’il n’y aura pas jusqu’en novembre de « boots on the ground » américaines en Syrie au service de leurs « intérêts étroits et sectaires »...

Selon Goldberg le sentiment à la Maison blanche est d’ailleurs que les think tanks washingtoniens se chargent surtout de la faire de la retape souhaitée par leurs financeurs pro-israéliens et des pétromonarchies arabes :

A widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I’ve heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as “Arab-occupied territory.”

Belle vacherie, en passant, de Goldberg que d’oser appeller, en se couvrant derrière un « officiel » anonyme, le Thinktankland de Washington un « territoire occupé par les Arabes »...
voir la remarque de @kassem ici : ▻http://seenthis.net/messages/468777

#Obama_doctrine / partie 1
Allez, je me lance dans le commentaire, en espérant faire des émules...
L’article, déjà signalé par @kassem, dont la matière première sont des interviews d’Obama, est consultable ici : ►http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525
Au tout début de l’article Goldberg nous dépeint une administration américaine en août 2013 persuadée, notamment Kerry, de la nécessité de faire payer amèrement à Assad les 1400 morts de l’attaque chimique de la Ghouta orientale censé avoir tout juste eu lieu. Le tout, bilan humain et responsabilité, considéré comme des faits indiscutables par le journaliste.

In the Damascus suburb of Ghouta nine days earlier, Assad’s army had murdered more than 1,400 civilians with sarin gas. The strong sentiment inside the Obama administration was that Assad had earned dire punishment. In Situation Room meetings that followed the attack on Ghouta, only the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, cautioned explicitly about the perils of intervention. John Kerry argued vociferously for action.

Puis retour en arrière sur le désaccords au sein de l’administration US quant au degré d’investissement dans la guerre en Syrie. Parmi les plus chauds partisans d’un investissement militaire plus fort en Syrie, bien sûr Samantha Power et son devoir d’ingérence humanitaire ("responsability to protect") mais aussi Hillary Clinton, selon Goldberg. A ceux-là Obama aurait opposé son principe du « don’t do stupid shit », en clair pas un soldat américain au sol pour réitérer les « conneries » de Walker Bush.
Ce principe du « don’t do stupid shit » n’admettant selon les confidences d’Obama que deux exceptions : les intérêts vitaux américains et, bien sûr, la sacro-sainte sécurité d’Israël :

only a handful of threats in the Middle East conceivably warranted direct U.S. military intervention. These included the threat posed by al‑Qaeda; threats to the continued existence of Israel (“It would be a moral failing for me as president of the United States” not to defend Israel, he once told me); and, not unrelated to Israel’s security, the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran.

[Donc ça n’empêchait pas de droner autant qu’on veut au Yémen notamment conte la fameuse menace d’al-Qaïda (AQPA), exception au principe dûment revendiquée, mais aussi de financer des groupes proxies en Syrie, au risque de renforcer la cousine d’AQPA en Syrie : al-Nousra...]
Ensuite Goldberg revient sur la fameuse ligne rouge d’Obama, censée avoir été franchie en août 2013. Adel al-Jubeïr persuadé que cette fois-ci Barack va y aller et puis Merkel qui fait savoir qu’elle n’en sera pas, le vote négatif au Parlement britannique et enfin la visite surprise de James Clapper à Obama pour lui rendre bien clair que si des éléments « robustes » soutenait la thèse de la responsabilité de l’attaque à Assad, ce n’est tout de même pas un « slam dunk ». Bref, plutôt sûr, mais pas vraiment quand même... Genre, s’il avère que c’était faux, je refuse d’endosser, Mister president !

Obama was also unsettled by a surprise visit early in the week from James Clapper, his director of national intelligence, who interrupted the President’s Daily Brief, the threat report Obama receives each morning from Clapper’s analysts, to make clear that the intelligence on Syria’s use of sarin gas, while robust, was not a “slam dunk.” He chose the term carefully. Clapper, the chief of an intelligence community traumatized by its failures in the run-up to the Iraq War, was not going to overpromise, in the manner of the onetime CIA director George Tenet, who famously guaranteed George W. Bush a “slam dunk” in Iraq.

Goldberg nous rapporte ensuite la déception de Valls, Abdallah II de Jordanie, l’émir d’Abou Dabi, et des Saoudiens en la personne d’al-Jubeïr, quand ils apprennent qu’Obama va demander l’autorisation préalable du Congrès.
Tiens, et les Israéliens, qui avaient pourtant fourni obligeamment de supposés enregistrements audio d’Assad au moment de cette attaque, ils en pensaient quoi ?
Epilogue de ce 1er épisode, Godberg nous évoque Obama à l’initiative du deal avec Poutine lors d’un sommet du G20 : abandon des armes chimiques contre abandon des frappes - ce n’est pas cette version là que l’on connaissait !

Amid the confusion, a deus ex machina appeared in the form of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. At the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, which was held the week after the Syria reversal, Obama pulled Putin aside, he recalled to me, and told the Russian president “that if he forced Assad to get rid of the chemical weapons, that that would eliminate the need for us taking a military strike.”

Et finalement qui a quand même gagné dans ce deal ?

The removal of Syria’s chemical-weapons stockpiles represented “the one ray of light in a very dark region,” Netanyahu told me not long after the deal was announced.

En passant rien sur la neutralisation probable par les Russes de deux missiles tirés - on ne sait trop par qui - vers la Syrie, et qui pourrait bien avoir été une invitation claire de Vladimir à Barack à se cantonner à la diplomatie plutôt qu’au hard power...

The Obama Doctrine
►http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525

Dans cet article Israel ce n’est pas « les Juifs » mais Israel et c’est très bien ainsi, mais pourquoi les pays du Golfe c’est « les Arabes » ?
Parce que c’est #Jeffrey_Goldberg

“A widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy #think_tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I’ve heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as “Arab-occupied territory.””

Via angry arab

Ailleurs...
▻https://lundi.am/Ailleurs

Suivre les liens

« ▻https://www.slate.fr/story/106623/sommeil-lever-avant-10h-torture-oxford-university »
« ▻http://bibliobs.nouvelobs.com/idees/20150808.OBS3895/les-effets-destructeurs-du-management-a-la-cool.html »
« ►http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/world-without-work/395294 »
« ▻http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/17/technology-created-more-jobs-than-destroyed-140-years-data-census »
« ▻http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/2015/09/06/jai-realise-jetais-exploite-pouvais-rien-y-faire-261046 »
« ▻http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2013/10/14/buzzfeed-s-apprete-a-lancer-une-version-francaise_3495505_3236.html#sW6r76sP »
« ▻http://brooklynchanging.com »
« ▻http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/28/london-the-city-that-ate-itself-rowan-moore »
« ▻http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2013/10/05/20005-20131005ARTFIG00235-les-chinois-viennent-chez-ikea-pour-faire-la-sies »
« ►http://bigbrowser.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/09/21/comment-ikea-se-transforme-en-cauchemar-pour-les-couples »
« ▻https://www.slate.fr/story/106419/catalogue-ikea-grand-livre-sagesse »
« ▻http://www.lesinrocks.com/inrocks.tv/ikea-la-derniere-pub-qui-angoisse-les-anglais »
« ▻http://www.slate.fr/story/106551/etats-unis-arme-cible-personne-noire »
« ▻http://alireailleurs.tumblr.com/post/129203185159/ce-que-va-transformer-la-transcription- »
« ▻https://www.slate.fr/grand-format/photographie-internet-greer »
« 

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/09/map2.png

The Confessions of Nat Turner, the Leader of the Late Insurrection in Southampton, Va. , as transcribed by Thomas Gray
html : ▻http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/turner/menu.html
pdf : ▻http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=etas

http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/turner/small.jpg

The Confessions of Nat Turner appeared shortly after Turner’s capture. Published as the definitive account of the insurrection and its motivation, the “confession” remains shrouded in controversy. Thomas Gray, a lawyer, released the account, claiming that Turner had dictated the confessions to him and that there was little to no variation from the prisoner’s actual testimony. However, as a slaveholder mired in financial difficulty, Gray likely saw tremendous profit and propaganda potential in satiating the public’s thirst for knowledge about such an enigmatic figure. In addition, literary critics have consistently pointed to discrepancies in Turner’s language and tone throughout the document. They suggest that Turner and Gray’s agendas conflict consistently in the text and thus create the ambiguity that has characterized the document for over a century and a half.

Bio.
▻http://docsouth.unc.edu/highlights/turner.html

11 novembre 1831. Pendaison de Nat Turner, le meneur de la première révolte des esclaves américains
▻http://www.lepoint.fr/c-est-arrive-aujourd-hui/11-novembre-1831-pendu-ecorche-et-decapite-nat-turner-paie-la-premiere-revol
Nate Turne rebellion
▻http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3p1518.html

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2009/05/nat_turner_capture_450.jpg

Nat Turner’s Insurrection
154 years ago, The Atlantic published an account of a Virginia slave revolt that would become one of the bloodiest in American history.
▻http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1861/08/nat-turners-insurrection/308736

Nat Turner Project
Site très complet avec photos, cartos, minutes du procès etc. pour comprendre le contexte de la révolte et la répression qui a suivi.
▻http://www.natturnerproject.org

The Southampton insurrection , Drewry, William Sidney, b. 1870
▻https://archive.org/details/southamptoninsur00drew

The Confessions of Nat Turner, un roman de William Styron
▻https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Confessions_of_Nat_Turner

#histoire #révolte #esclavage

This is post following a debate on TW that I had with some on Twitter, following the publication by Richard Dawkins a paper on TW in Universities and issues it raises (I like reading Richard Dawkins as he aims at being the most rationalist possible, and I find this approach, although not interesting to me personnally, interesting from an observer pov). You can read the paper here:

►http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356

The authors wonders (aloud) or rather concludes, that TW are an obstacle to a fully-conscious and well-educated generation as it may censor some pans of education programms at the university. He uses some specific cases, specific to the USA, that I can’t relate to. One of his tweet following up the publication of the paper was "University is about confronting new ideas, unfamiliar, un-"safe". If you want to be “safe” you’re not worthy of a university education.". Let’s forget about him deciding who’s worth of what, that’s some kind of punchlines he likes to throw and let people react on (and I must say, I do sometimes, since I find this so “hochnase”).

What disturbed me about the post and reactions to the post was qui easy to understand, on my pov. Using a condescendant tone, that only un-empathic people can use, Richard Dawkins and Twittos were implying some very dangerous ideas about TW in general. What I didn’t make clear in my reactions were that I didn’t really care about those specific cases in the US University they were talking about, I’m not from the US, never lived there and can’t judge anything going on there. What I found very touchy in those reactions of theirs (yours if you’re reading this following our debate yesterday), is that

– there’s no reminder of what TW are, RD makes general assumption on what TW are used for + specific cases at the Uni = general conclusion on how ppl are not worthy studying at the University (I got this reaction a lot "then you shouldn’t go to the university blah blah. Hum I’m a teacher + a PhD at the University, so I guess I can relate quite well on how to use and how to receipt TW in courses).
– the very very condescending tone of RD and reactions that implied that the generation of TW is a “fragile” generation, worse: a weak generation. I hate all hypothesis on which such assumptions are made on (aside from the pretty disrespectful vocabulary and ppl judging other ppl on their ability to live or not). So life is tough, then you need to get over it and be tough enough to face the conflicts of the world you’re living in. That’s the biggest WTF and that’s where we’ll never agree on with “tough ppl that judge others as weak because needing TW”: the world isn’t tough in itself, ppl make it tough, conflicts make it tough. There are many scale of violence: it goes from penibility of work or study environment (No, not everyone is fitted to our current societal model, sorry, and some are even rethinking it, such weakness, OMG) to wars. If you endured wars, you might find that some TW are really stupid since it doesn’t imply real violence as you experienced it. But let’s say we never endured wars, none of us. Then our sensitiveness has its own scale of privilegied first world societies. Our sensitiveness is some the same, our daily life can’t be compared to issues raised by other daily lives around the world. We have all different experiences and we, as individuals, have different ways of dealing pain, suffering, fear...
Having said that (which is a basic principle of empathy), the argument of ppl becoming fragile facing society conflicts is inappropriate. How can you only judge someone sensitiveness?

Second point: what TW originally are and why RD is basing his presumptions on specific case that are, in no way, usual TW. He’s dealing with the misuse (and not overuse, sorry) of TW.
TW are a tool for “bienveillance” (there I can’t find any translation except from kindness, and knwoing the meaning of kindness, it doesn’t reflect the same). Bienveillance is when you’ve got empathy enough to take into consideration one’s pov, standing in her or his shoes and trying to be as well-aiming as possible (I hope this is clear, if not please ask me to rephrase). TW are used on Twitter to announce that you’re going to talk about something that can recalla trauma to a person (or many) in the audience, that is considered as violent, that can hurt people. The trigger-warned content can be pictures, words, or sounds, any medium of information is. This content can help some figuring out in their ways what we’re talking about, and others that already experienced such things or that don’t want to be confronted to it are allowed (that’s my pov) to know before chosing whether or not to have access to this information, whether or not the content can be hurtful. We already do this for porn, for erotic, violent films, explicit song lyrics. That exists, and sometimes it’s an abusive use (come on erotic films guys, are boobs that violent even for kids? I don’t think so).
TW are NOT disabling anyone from reaching a content. NOT EVEN CLOSE. They are, I thought it was clear since it stands in the name, warnings. WARNINGS. I mean, how is that unclear?
I had this conversation yesterday with someone that didn’t understand what TW stand for and how to apply them on the Internet and IRL. When she heard the definition (as I wrote above), it was far clearer, and I gave her some very clear example of implementing them in the Uni courses (yes, it is possible to trigger warn your students and give them free choice to access contents or not, and if you think their reaction is irrationnal, then this is YOUR role as a teacher to use pedagogy and make them express why they are sensitive to things that aren’t common to be sensitive on. I was teaching an economic appraisal course. One of the main subjects is the monetary valorisation of the human life (for road schemes for example). As we’re talking about hospitalisation (long terme ones), evacuation, death, psychological traumas... and since they didn’t really chose to study that particular point, I warn them at the beginning of the class: “Hey today class is about that, that and that. Here are some material you can find online, if you don’t want to attend this class, please feel free to go”. And some got out. One that I talked to afterwards (not really about this particular event, but it came up) told me both his parents died in a car crash a year ago, and he wasn’t prepared to hear such “primary” considerations of how much it costs to society, to have his parents dead on the road.
What did it cost to me to warn my 200 students, for 3 or 4 that went out? Maybe 13 seconds speech. Or 14 to let them out without disturbing class. Did I find it useful? YES. Hearing that boy story made me even more confident about the “bienveillance” (sorry, again) of the approach.
On Twitter, this is the same. Some girls had a movement I can’t remember the hashtag, where they wanted to raise the attention on hwo risky city life can be to them, and how unsafe they feel. Some talked about their rape and harrassment. And some didn’t want to read since they had been raped like a month ago, or even two years ago, doesn’t matter. So everyone decided to introduce their tweets with TW:rape. As simple as that. Twittos could still express their ideas, some could read them, it raises awareness, and victims that didn’t want to be confronted didn’t have to be suprised by the reminder of their trauma. Again, as simple as that. And when I say victims, it can also not be victims. Like today, if I don’t feel like being confronted to harrassment posts (since street harrassement is making me 100 x more nervous now I live in Paris), I don’t feel like reading it today and TW help me chose whether or not to read content talking about it. Maybe I’ll read them tomorrow, why not. At least I’ve got the information.
And examples can go on forever. Much had this about homophobia. To raise awareness some posted photos and quotes of homophobics. And not being TW depressed some since they has greatly suffered from homophobia (youknow? weak people that have depression or committ suicide after years of exclusion, harrassment and oppression? so weak for this tough tough world).

Finally, I got this reaction too about “we’re not going to trigger warn every possibly sensitive subject”. Do you have this word in english “bad faith”? That’s a literal translation from French, saying that you’re not making any effort to construct the debate and you’re making pointless statements just to show how absurd you feel the debate is by just not giving a thought about it (mmmh fortunately I don’t work for the Oxford dictionnary).
Well, let’s be clear, I disagree with misuse of TW, everything is worth knowing, when appropriate of course, and you should have all access to all information you cant, especially when studying (strugging to get databases every single day). But this is common sense to know what is potentially sensitive and what is not. I mean, I find this very “easy” to imagine how this or that subject can be hurtful to talk about for some. And how other things that some ask a TW for that can be discussed by teachers if not violent and obviously hurtful for potentially everyone. Religion, sex, deviant behaviours, that are all subjects you need to raise awareness on while struggling with TW and censorship. That’s the role of teachers and professors to debate on this, to laucnh discussions, to make offended speak aloud on why and how they feel offended etc. That takes some times (empathy takes always time), but that is our society today: not the tough life that you imagine we’re all living in along with you. No, it’s taking into account we live in a complex world, where you need to get into everyone’s shoes to understand their pov, their feelings... And to learn from these diverging opinion (and finally maybe not to agree, doesn’t matter). How does that make us weak in your minds? I can’t figure out (maybe I don’t have empathy enough). But, I’d rather live in such society where we try as much as possbile, as teacher or as individual, to elarn from each other and yes TW some subjects and not censoring, rather that in “your” society where YOU are tough and decide on who is worth enough studying at the university. In France, University is for all and everyone. We like talking about uni as a melting-pot where people that wouldn’t meet outside would gather and discuss and work together. That’s our University and I hope your vision of what University should be (full of very very tough big boy that don’t cry) will never cross the Ocean).

And god, I find censorship unacceptable. Do I really need to state the obvous? Living in the country of “Charlie” where much debates was gien to freedom of speech (which in France is already mocked since ppl use that excuse to speak out loud their racism but “OOOOH freedom of speech, let me be a racist pleease”. We had hundred on debates on it, and apprently, even if it takes some deeper thoughts, some time and endless disagreements, I’d rather try than face your fatality and despise.

I might be weak, but I’m really not sorry.

How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus - The Atlantic
►http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356

In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.

#confusionisme

L’homme va-t-il être mis au chômage, comme le cheval ?

▻http://www.liberation.fr/culture/2015/07/25/l-homme-et-la-machine-les-coreens-et-le-talmud-le-britannique-et-ses-tank

Le numérique va-t-il tuer l’emploi ? Cette question tarte à la crème préoccupe un nombre croissant d’économistes. Le temps est révolu où les spécialistes croyaient dur comme fer à la loi selon laquelle le progrès technique commence par tuer des emplois mais finit par en créer encore plus. Aujourd’hui, des chercheurs prévoient sérieusement que, d’ici vingt ans, les machines seront en mesure de remplacer 50% des travailleurs américains et 30% des travailleurs français. L’homme va-t-il suivre la trace du cheval, qui a longtemps vu ses services augmenter avec le progrès technique, jusqu’à être pratiquement rayé du marché du travail ? Il y a des éléments rassurants : le taux de chômage est redescendu au plus bas aux Etats-Unis, et 90% des professions exercées il y a cent ans sont encore là. D’autres voient au contraire des lendemains qui chantent dans la perspective d’un monde sans travail.

Ci-dessus court résumé d’un long article du journaliste économique Derek Thompson paru in The Atlantic (Washington) de juillet-août :

A World Without Work
For centuries, experts have predicted that machines would make workers obsolete. That moment may finally be arriving. Could that be a good thing?

►http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/world-without-work/395294

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/06/WEL_ThompsonWork_FactoryMan21C/7aa7344ca.jpg

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/06/WEL_ThompsonWork_OfficeWorker/69d433e2f.jpg

http://md1.libe.com/photo/794740-000_hkg10125507.jpg?modified_at=1437749675&width=750

The New Enemy Within - The Atlantic
@PETER BEINART MAY 2015 ISSUE
▻http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/05/the-new-enemy-within/389573

If George W. Bush were seeking the Republican presidential nomination today, he’d face at least one big problem: his defense of Muslims and Islam. In a 2000 debate with Al Gore, Bush condemned the fact that “Arab Americans are racially profiled” using “what is called secret evidence.” After 9/11, he called Islam “a faith based upon love, not hate,” and made a highly publicized visit to a mosque. One Muslim Republican even called Bush America’s “first Muslim president.”

A decade and a half later, the climate on the American right has radically changed. In January, the Republican presidential hopeful Bobby Jindal argued that “it is completely reasonable for [Western] nations to discriminate” against some Muslims in their immigration policies, on the grounds that radical Islamists “want to destroy their culture.” In February, another GOP contender, Mike Huckabee, declared, “Everything [President Obama] does is against what Christians stand for, and he’s against the Jews in Israel. The one group of people that can know they have his undying, unfailing support would be the Muslim community.” In March, after New York City announced that public schools would close for two Muslim holidays, Todd Starnes, a Fox News contributor, lamented, “The Islamic faith is being given accommodation and the Christian faith and other religious faiths are being marginalized.”

This is strange. Why are conservatives more hostile to Muslims and Islam today than they were in the terrifying aftermath of 9/11? And why have American Muslims, who in 2000 mostly voted Republican, apparently replaced gays and feminists as the right’s chief culture-war foe?

For half a century, cultural conservatives have vowed to protect America against threats from domestic insurgencies: black militancy, feminism, the gay-rights movement. But those insurgencies involved large and restive groups. Muslims, by contrast, make up only 1 percent of the U.S. population. And they are not restive. Yes, a tiny share sympathizes with Salafi groups like the Islamic State, or ISIS. But unlike the civil-rights, abortion-rights, and gay-rights activists of eras past, American Muslims are not seeking to transform American culture and law. They are not marching in the streets. For the most part, they constitute a small, well-educated, culturally conservative minority that wants little more from the government than to be left alone.