] By JARED DIAMOND
] Published: January 1, 2005
]
] Los Angeles -- NEW Year's weekend traditionally is a
] time for us to reflect, and to make resolutions based on
] our reflections. In this fresh year, with the United
] States seemingly at the height of its power and at the
] start of a new presidential term, Americans are
] increasingly concerned and divided about where we are
] going. How long can America remain ascendant? Where will
] we stand 10 years from now, or even next year?
]
] Such questions seem especially appropriate this year. History
] warns us that when once-powerful societies collapse, they tend
] to do so quickly and unexpectedly. That shouldn't come as much
] of a surprise: peak power usually means peak population, peak
] needs, and hence peak vulnerability. What can be learned from
] history that could help us avoid joining the ranks of those who
] declined swiftly? We must expect the answers to be complex,
] because historical reality is complex: while some societies did
] indeed collapse spectacularly, others have managed to thrive for
] thousands of years without major reversal.

A new year's opinion piece in the New York Times by my Pulitzer-winning cousin, Jared Diamond. I haven't read it yet so can't say whether or not I agree with it. But hey, he's family. :) Overall, this looks like a summary of the material that's going to be in his upcoming book.

- Elonka

The New York Times - Opinion - The Ends of the World as We Know Them

] Father Raphael of Saint Joseph Kalinowski, was born at Vilna,
] 1st September 1835, and at baptism received the name Joseph.
] Under the teaching of his father Andrew, at the Institute for
] Nobles at Vilna, he progressed so well that he received the
] maximum distinction in his studies. He then went for two years
] (1851-1852) to the school of Agriculture at Hory-Horky. During
] the years 1853-1857, he continued his studies at the Academy of
] Military Engineering at St Petersburg, obtaining his degree in
] Engineering, and the rank of Lieutenant. Immediately afterwards
] he was named Lecturer in Mathematics at the same Academy. In
] 1859, he took part in the designing of the Kursk-Kiev-Odessa
] railway.
  . . .
] In the Consistory of 26th November 1990, Pope John Paul
] together with the Cardinals, decided to canonize Blessed Raphael
] Kalinowski.

I'm currently attending a massive family reunion in Florida, with relatives attending from multiple continents.

We've got the family tree traced back about a thousand years, and I'm learning about all kinds of interesting little stories here and there. For example, one of my great-great-great-uncles (my great-great-grandfather's brother) was evidently sainted a few years ago by Pope John Paul II.

For those that like tracing such things, here's the family chain: My father's mother's mother's father's brother. Stanley Dunin - Sophie Werner - Zofia Kalinowska - Gabriel Kalinowski - Saint Raphael.

Odd feeling, being related to a Saint!

- Elonka

Vatican: Saint Raphael Kalinowski

] [Iraqi PM Allawi's cousin] Ghazi Allawi, 75, who had been taken hostage on November
] 10, was released yesterday in Baghdad. He had been
] captured with his wife and their pregnant daughter-in-law
] from their house in the capital.
]
] The following day, a previously unknown Islamist group
] claimed responsibility and threatened to behead them
] within 48 hours unless Mr Allawi halted a major offensive
] on the rebel enclave of Fallujah and released all
] prisoners held in Iraq.
]
] The two women were released on November 15.

This was a story I had been following. I was told (incorrectly) by someone yesterday that Allawi's relatives had been killed.

I still grieve for the other hostages who were taken and murdered, but I am always glad to hear of any that are released.

Allawi's relatives freed

] The broadcast last week of footage showing a US marine
] shooting an injured Iraqi fighter in Falluja caused an
] international outcry. Yesterday the cameraman, Kevin
] Sites, published on his website this open letter to the
] marines with whom he had been embedded.

I'm linking the Guardian site, because I wanted a persistent link to this letter. For the current location, check: http://www.kevinsites.net

Open Letter from Kevin Sites to the Marines

Decius wrote:
] It appears that Bush has won. It appears that the Republicans
] have control of the House and Senate. This is a complete
] victory for the Reds.
]
] I offer the following predictions:

Interesting stuff, and I agree with quite a bit.

On a related note, I'm curious what your predictions are on staff? Or rather, not your predictions, but what would your recommendations be? Given that Bush is going to be President for the next four years, who would you *like* to see him appoint to various cabinet/advisory posts? For example, speaking for myself, I'd like to see Powell stay, I'd like to see Rice stay. I want Ashcroft gone. I wouldn't miss Rumsfeld. But then again, I'm not sure who I'd most like to see in those posts instead.

What's your opinion?

RE: Bush wins

k wrote:
] Anyway, if nothing else, i can be glad that the past 4 years
] have vastly increased my political knowledge and involvement,
] and i don't see that changing... this has been a
] transformative period for me, and hopefully for many of my
] peers, and I think the next four will be even more active.
] -k]

Then that's a great thing. :)

One of the ironies that's struck me about this election, is that in previous years, I often heard people complaining that "their vote didn't matter". Presidential elections were usually won with such a clear majority, that voting could feel futile for some. But this election (and the one in 2000), it's clear that individual votes *do* matter, and I think that along with that knowledge for many people is also the increased sense of responsibility. When people feel their votes matter, they become more emotionally invested in the process.

So yes, passions are running hotter, people care more, things are debated with more emotion and volume. I see all of these as *good* things. It's when people stop caring that I worry.

RE: Election Eve 2004

Decius wrote:
] Inspired by Elonka and Rattle, I'll offer my feelings on this
] evening.

] We are a deeply divided
] nation. Whatever the results of this election, they will be
] terribly bad for a large number of people who live here. Zogby
] says that most people won't accept the legitimacy of their
] opponent's government if their side looses. That worry isn't
] just about the outcome. Its about what happens afterward.

Decius, thanks for your thoughts. I found this interesting, and also found Rattle's essay interesting, and I'm glad you both wrote.

Speaking as someone who voted for Bush, I have to say this though: I don't hate Kerry. If he's elected, I will support him as President. I can't speak for everyone who's voted for Bush, but I know some who have, and I think they feel the same. We vote our conscience, but if the candidate that we choose isn't elected, that doesn't mean that we hate them or despise their decisions. I would hope that those who voted for Kerry can feel the same way about Bush, if he wins.

When Bush was elected in 2000, I was disappointed. I'd voted for Gore. I hoped that Gore would win the legal battles, and I was disappointed when he gave up. But I was encouraged when Bush appointed Colin Powell, and I've grown to respect many of the decisions that Bush made, especially after September 11th.

Ultimately, that's what I expect from *either* candidate that wins. Sure, there's a lot of crap that goes on during the election season, and a lot of lies flow from candidates' mouths. This is nothing new. But I firmly believe that both Kerry and Bush are patriots, who genuinely want what's best for America. If they make decisions differently than I would, well, so be it, but I don't think either one of them is a bad person. Bits of this could be seen from the candidates themselves during the debates. They'd rail and whine about each other's positions and decisions and votes, but when asked about the *character* of each other, they'd usually speak well of the opponent, and of the opponent's family. Neither one of them is a demon.

I can identify with some of your feelings though. As I've watched the election returns come in this afternoon and evening, I've felt worried too. I want to see the candidate that I voted for, win. There's a sense that I'll have lost face if I voted for someone that doesn't win. That I supported a "losing side". But I truly put this down to the passion of the moment, because when I reach deep inside myself and ask how I'd feel if the other side won, I know it'd be okay. Life would go on, the world isn't going to end. Democrats will fight against Republicans, Republicans will fight against Democrats, sure, but this is nothing new. Some countries won't approve of our choice? Well that's not new either. Countries are going to disagree with each other, but I don't see the outcome of this election leading to something like World War III.

Like Obama said, there are patriots who disagreed with the War in Iraq, and there are patriots who agreed with it. It doesn't mean one side is right and the other side is wrong. It means that we're human, and we think differently, and we debate things and try to make the best decisions we can in our muddled and imperfect human condition.

As I write this, I honestly don't know who's going to win the Presidency this year. But whoever does, I'll still be an American citizen, and I'll support our country, and I'll criticize our country, and I'll still believe in our system of government because even when it sucks, it's still a hell of a lot better than pretty much anything else out there.

And a couple years from now, there'll be another election, and again, I'll go to the polls, along with millions of other Americans, and we'll make the best decisions we can.

Elonka

RE: Election Eve 2004

] The good news: International intelligence expert George
] Friedman's "America's Secret War," says the United States
] is winning the war against al-Qaida around the world.
]
] Then what's bad news, at least for the administration of
] President Bush?
]
] "The decision to invade Iraq was not a good one and very
] few in the administration thought it was. It was the best
] of a bad lot," Friedman writes.
]
] In short, Friedman contends, Bush didn't really go to war
] because he was worried about Iraqi weapons of mass
] destruction or links to terrorists. But those were
] concerns he could use to sell the war to the American
] people, and now he may pay the ultimate political price
] for that.
]
] Who is Friedman and why should we believe him? His
] company, Stratfor (short for Strategic Forecasting), a
] private worldwide intelligence company, has been given
] credit by Barron's magazine for being "miles ahead of CNN
] and all the other media" for its online reporting. The
] American Spectator has written that "Stratfor is changing
] the way we think about news," while the Wall Street
] Journal said the "predictions have made George Friedman a
] hot property these days."
 . . .
] If you prefer books coming from a strong political bias (for or
] against the war, for or against Bush, etc.), "America's Secret
] War" is not for you. But if you wonder how and why things have
] gone the way they have since 9/11, this is an eye-opener.

There's also a somewhat horrifying alternative review of the book in one of the Saudi papers, that says: "Sir George Friedman, the author of the book ' America's Secret War,' which is going to be released this month, revealed that the Bush administration is set to invade Pakistan and divide it." That review can be seen here: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD80604

Psst ... U.S. winning terror war (Review: 'America's Secret War')

] At a convention on the subject of "Pluralism in Islam"
] which took place in late August, 2004 at the Egyptian
] Journalists' Union in Cairo, Sheikh Dr. Yousef
] Al-Qaradhawi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood movement
] and one of the most important religious authorities in
] Islamist circles, issued a religious legal opinion
] permitting the abduction and killing of American
] civilians in Iraq in order to pressure the American army
] to evacuate its forces.

A very interesting read from MEMRI (Middle East Research Institute), with translations of several different reactions about the Fatwa. Though there are many fundamentalists who support it, there also appears to be a growing opinion among other Muslims that "whoever encourages terrorism should be treated as a terrorist." There's also an interesting proposal from one of them:

] "What then is to be done? There is only one solution. A group of
] progressive Arab intellectuals ready to put their lives in danger
] must meet and write a humanistic, international, progressive
] statement written in the language, way of thinking, and logic of
] the 21st century. It must present this statement to the U.N. and
] demand that the Security Council discuss it and pass a resolution
] on it that will grant the U.N. [the authority] to establish a
] tribunal, which will be called the 'Terrorism Court.' All those
] who foment terrorism and disseminate Fatwa s encouraging
] terrorism, and all those who carry out terrorism, will be brought
] before this tribunal. [This is necessary] since terrorism has
] become a global, international problem and does not only concern
] the Arabs…"

Interesting reading, of a wide variety of viewpoints.

MEMRI: Muslim Intellectuals' Reaction to the Fatwa Calling for Abductions of Civilians in Iraq

] Spanish police have arrested eight suspected Islamic
] militants. Authorities say they were planning to carry
] out a terrorist attack in the center of the capital.
 . . .
] A ministry statement says the suspects belonged to a
] terrorist cell and were in touch with individuals in the
] United States, Europe, and Australia.
]
] Interior Minister Jose Antonio Alonso says the suspects
] were preparing to bomb the headquarters of the Superior
] Court in Madrid.

Spain Arrests Terror Suspects