We have now entered what is being celebrated as the Einstein Year, marking the centenary of the physicist's annus mirabilis in 1905, when he published three landmark papers--those that proved the existence of the atom, showed the validity of quantum physics and, of course, introduced the world to his theory of special relativity. Not bad for a beginner. "It's not that I'm so smart," Albert Einstein once said, "It's just that I stay with problems longer." Whatever the reason for his greatness, there is no doubt that this determination allowed him to invent courageous new physics and explore realms that nobody else had dared to investigate.
What he was not, however, was a perfect genius. In fact, when it came to the biggest scientific issue of all--the origin of the universe--he was utterly wrong. And while we should certainly laud his achievements over the next 12 months, we may learn a more valuable lesson by investigating Einstein's greatest failure.
The story starts in the late 19th century, when the scientific establishment believed in an eternal and unchanging universe. This was a neat theory of cosmology, because a universe that had always existed did not raise any awkward questions, such as "When was the universe created?" and "What (or Who) created it?"
Einstein grew up in this era, and was similarly convinced that the universe had existed for an eternity. However, when he developed general relativity (his theory of gravity) in 1915, he became aware of a tricky problem. Gravity is an attractive force--it attracts coins to the ground and it attracts comets toward the sun. So why hadn't gravity caused the matter in the universe to collapse inward on itself?
Gravity seemed to be incompatible with an eternal, unchanging universe, and Einstein certainly had no sympathy for the alternative view of a collapsing universe, stating that: "To admit such a possibility seems senseless."
His solution (with gravity) was to fiddle with his theory of general relativity, adding an antigravity force alongside familiar gravity. There was no evidence for this antigravity force, but Einstein assumed that it had to exist in order to provide a platform for eternity.
Although everything now seemed to make sense, there were some dissenters. A small band of renegade cosmologists suggested in the 1920s that the universe was not eternal but had been created at a finite moment in the past. They claimed it had exploded and expanded from a small, hot, dense state into what we see today. In particular, they argued that it had once been compacted into a primeval super atom, which had then ruptured and exploded. This model, which has since developed into the Big Bang theory, did not require any stabilizing antigravity.
The Big Bang model was initially ridiculed by the scientific establishment. However, in 1929 Einstein was forced to eat humble pie. Edwin Hubble, working at Mount Wilson Observatory in Southern California, showed that all the distant galaxies in the universe were racing away from one another as though they were debris from a cosmic explosion.
The Big Bang model seemed to be correct. And, while it would take several decades before the theory was accepted by the scientific establishment, Einstein, to his credit, did not fight on. "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and even called his repulsive force the biggest blunder of his career.
Simon Singh
IHT.COM

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva

After its financial crisis of 2002 and stagnation of last year, Brazil has begun to look like a viable country again. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who completes his second year at the helm this week, has stabilised the world's ninth largest economy and advanced several reforms that should improve productivity. But to really capitalise on his country's potential, Mr Lula da Silva now needs to attack the bureaucracy that stifles small business.
Mr Lula da Silva cannot take credit for all the improvement. The revival of the world economy and surging demand from China has helped boost the price of minerals and other commodities that Brazil exports. Relatively low international interest rates have helped ease external financial pressures.
But at the same time, Brazil has been helping itself. The economic team has been steadfast in pursuing a tight fiscal policy. Inflation remains subdued. Public indebtedness has been reduced and the proportion of debt linked to the exchange rate is now about 10 per cent of the total. Mr Lula da Silva has been an assiduous promoter of his country's exports to new markets. And he has pressed ahead with structural reforms.
During 2003 he piloted through a far-reaching reform of the country's public sector pension system that should ease the country's fiscal burden in the longer term. He has followed up in 2004 with new laws to reduce the length of legal proceedings. New rules guaranteeing private investment in public infrastructure projects may help attract capital into much needed plans to improve the dismal quality of its roads, railways, ports and bridges.
All of this has been achieved in the face of fierce opposition and dissent within the ranks of the governing nine-party coalition. Indeed, earlier this month Mr Lula da Silva lost the formal backing of the centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB), although most of its congressmen will continue to vote with the government.
After a rocky period earlier this year, Brazil is now growing at about 5.2 per cent in 2004, its fastest expansion for at least a decade. But to sustain this level of growth, the government must do more to tap the country's entrepreneurial potential, in particular by making it easier for poor and socially marginal Brazilians to become integrated into the formal economy. Punitive taxation, restrictive labour laws and an unresponsive bureaucracy make it attractive for informal businesses to stay outside the formal economy.
The government has taken some steps to reduce the bureaucratic burden on small businesses but they have been too timid. Reform of the labour market to make it easier and cheaper to hire and fire workers is particularly vital if the country is to be able to reduce stubbornly high rates of unemployment. Mr Lula da Silva and his Workers' party have embraced the cause of stability. They now need to champion the cause of enterprise.
FT.COM

Recent reports indicate that Muslim charities in the United States are receiving unprecedented donations. Their donors, mostly Muslims who have always sent donations to the Middle East during Ramadan, are now giving instead to charities at home. They are reluctant to support charities in the Muslim world in the post-Sept. 11, 2001 era--afraid that their donations will go indirectly to terrorist causes. This is a tragedy for those in the Middle East who are desperately in need of charity.
Charity has a very important place in Islam and in Arab culture. The act of giving is a moral responsibility that able Muslims must undertake as an integral part of their religious obligations. Charity among Muslims is usually private, informal and ad hoc. Often it is in the form of a gift from one person to another, free of government regulation or the administration of a charitable organization. Yet in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, even the most selfless acts of charity have become subjected to suspicion and inquiry.
In some well-publicized cases charitable organizations were used to solicit donations that were used to finance Middle Eastern terrorists. Hence, law enforcement and intelligence officials in the U.S. and other Western nations are scrutinizing charity flows in the relatively affluent Persian Gulf. These enforcement efforts have understandably had a chilling effect on donors, including those with innocent intentions.
While these enforcement efforts may prevent nefarious giving, they have also led to a serious decline in legitimate philanthropy in the Middle East. Because legitimate charity fuels development in the poorest regions of the Middle East, there is an immediate need for "smart charities"--charities that will reaffirm donors' confidence that their donations are being used as they intended. Smart charities, like well-governed corporations, would be accountable to their stakeholders, comply with applicable laws and regulations, submit to transparent auditing and follow accepted accounting principles.
Unlike organized charities in the West, charity in the Muslim world does not necessarily reflect larger social objectives because most often the process of giving is a very private decision between two people. The charitable act is rarely reported and is not rewarded with tax benefits. This fragmented charity lacks the power and the organization to make significant societal change. And worse, without proper administration, there is great risk that the funds will be misused in many ways, only one of them being for the support of terrorists, such as Al-Qaeda. In contrast, smart charities, modeled after well-tested and effective Western charities and community foundations, such as United Way, Oxfam and the United Jewish Appeal, would be able to assess and prioritize needs at home and abroad and act accordingly.
Countries with advanced philanthropic infrastructure and sophisticated Western philanthropies should encourage Muslim and Arab countries to reform their charitable laws and policies and improve the skills of non-profit managers.
DAILYSTAR.COM.LB

With the death toll from the Indian Ocean tsunami at about 150,000 and climbing, the news is bad indeed. Certainly no earthquake has been so remarked upon since Lisbon's in 1755, and that was because it occurred on All Saints' Day--and was immortalized by Voltaire in "Candide."
But why has this disaster so completely captivated public attention? Is it simply because of the staggering numbers, or is there something else? The previous magnitude 9-plus earthquake, in Alaska in 1964, and subsequent tsunami killed only 125 people and left the landscape looking pretty much as it did before. Others in Iran (1990), Peru (1970) and China (1976), where deaths exceeded 50,000, all occurred inside a single country.
There have been natural disasters that have killed more people than this one. The Tangshan earthquake of 1976 in China, for instance, was the second deadliest on record--officially 240,000 dead, with estimates as high as 655,000--but the larger and more lethal drama of Mao Tse-tung's Cultural Revolution dwarfed that seismic twist. Nor was CNN on hand in Tangshan.
This latest tsunami occurred between sunrise and sunset. People who might hardly know where the Indian Ocean was awoke all over the world to see waves rolling through whole towns. And the media were quick to grasp its scale. So it is perhaps the first and most emblematic catastrophe of the Age of Globalization.
Tony Blair interrupted his vacation to call frequently for huge disaster relief contributions--and to ascertain the number of British casualties. Stockholm said more than 20,000 Swedes were vacationing in Thailand Ñ and thousands are still unaccounted for. Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, vacationing in Sri Lanka, had to be evacuated from his hotel by helicopter.
At all the resorts, wealth enhanced exposure to the disaster rather than impeded it--most of the poor were farther inland, the richest were right on the sand.
In my peaceful part of Indonesia, away from the wave's trajectory, we escaped unscathed. In fact, the disaster hit most squarely at two regions encapsulating civil wars--at the tip of Sumatra, Indonesia, where an Acehnese independence movement has struggled against all-out Indonesian military power; and all of Sri Lanka, whose government's peace with Tamil revolutionaries in the island's north is still fragile. Will the scale of the damage in these two hardest-hit areas render their previous conflicts meaningless? Perhaps. The magnitude of Aceh's devastation has produced enormous sympathy for the province throughout Indonesia, and one can hope that, in the tragedy, reconciliation can emerge as a small victory.
The disaster is a form of Nietzschean method: a kind of "philosophizing with a hammer." The whole world has been brutally reminded of nature's indifference. "Things" happen, even on Christmas weekend.
But listen carefully to the hammer, to the many signs of learned lessons. Despite advances in technology, can anyone ever again blithely assume mankind's ability to tame the larger forces of nature?
What we can do is anticipate and take defensive action against every natural hazard. The Philippines is rightly awash in accusations against the illegal loggers whose devastation of its northern watershed resulted in thousands of deaths during recent typhoons. Geologists everywhere are finding new support for installing earthquake and tsunami warning and response systems wherever vulnerable populations live.
W. Scott Thompson
LATIMES.COM

Mahmoud Abbas is expected to win elections Jan. 9 to succeed Yasser Arafat as president. It may finally end the Israeli government shell game of always coming up with excuses on why it doesnÕt have to make real land-for-peace concessions.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who provoked the current intifada and exploited it to reverse most of the compromises made by his moderate predecessors, refused to negotiate with Arafat.
It will be interesting to see what he does now that he canÕt use Arafat as an excuse. Sharon says he wants peace, but what kind of peace?
Abbas has publicly denounced suicide bombings, saying violence has been counterproductive to Palestinian interests. He is willing to bring Palestinians back to a peaceful negotiated settlement.
But the real issue is whether Israelis are ready.
Abbas has hurdles, most specifically crackdown on the violence by groups like Hamas.
Palestinians have already recognized IsraelÕs right to exist in the pre-1967 borders, accepted IsraelÕs control over West Beit-ul-Moqaddas and agreed to IsraelÕs security demands. They have even recognized that some Israeli settlements must remain in the West Bank, demanding only an equivalent land swap.
Convincing Palestinians to trust Israel will be a tall order.
During the failed peace negotiations, Israel promised to freeze and eliminate settlements. But while Arafat negotiated with the late Yitzhak Rabin (who was murdered by an Israeli settler fanatic) and Ehud Barak, whom Sharon defeated, the number of settlers expanded and some settlements grew in size.
Barak insisted on keeping all of the settlements around Beit-ul-Moqaddas, and most in the West Bank, like Ariel. He offered to give Palestinians one inch of land in the Negev Desert for every nine inches Israel kept. Wow, desert sand for rich agricultural farmland. What a deal! Israelis assert they offered Arafat Beit-ul-Moqaddas. What a joke.
Barak offered Arafat an ÒofficeÓ in East Beit-ul-Moqaddas, administrative control over the Christian and Muslim holy sites, and administrative controls over ÒsomeÓ of the villages outside of Beit-ul-Moqaddas.
The ÒcapitalÓ Israel offered Palestinians is Abu Dis, a village located a mile west of Beit-ul-Moqaddas. BarakÕs proposal was to pretend it is in Beit-ul-Moqaddas. But if Abbas can meet his responsibilities, Israelis will be forced to meet their responsibilities. Israel must return the occupied lands, swapping inch-for-inch for land they keep, a counterproposal Arafat made that Barak rejected.
Israel must share Beit-ul-Moqaddas. Without Beit-ul-Moqaddas, there is no such thing as a peace deal. Instead, there will always be violence.
Israelis must acknowledge their responsibility in causing the Palestinian refugee problem in 1948. Most refugees, according to polls, accept they will not be able to return to their original homes and lands.
A Palestinian state must be viable and cohesive, meaning that the West Bank cannot be divided into separate segments controlled by the Israeli military, as Barak proposed.
Already, Sharon has said he will not attend a peace conference in London, hosted by AmericaÕs allies. He says he wants to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, where most of IsraelÕs military casualties have occurred.
He continues to build a wall, not separating Palestinians from Israelis, but in the midst of Palestinian land, separating Palestinians from Palestinian lands Israel wants to annex.
If this effort fails, Israelis will only have themselves to blame.
ARABNEWS.COM