Buddhists are building the Grand Mosque of Tlemcen

The Grand Mosque of Tlemcen, Middle East Online, 2-29-12

After the shooting high school in Ohio nothing seems very important, I feel kind of empty.  There are no answers and no solutions, senseless things just happen.  The world, of course, goes on; voters vote in Michigan; killers kill in Syria; and NASCAR cars NASCAR at very high speeds.  But in the light of the senseless killing of three high school students and injuring of others by a student from another high school those other things are more difficult to consider seriously.

Although, Syria is an exception on that list.  People killing each is always important and always worthy of our attention; and the events in Syria are reaching a climax.  It looks like the resistance in Syria will be broken soon and the situation will return to something like the pre-2011 era.  The Arab League, the United Nations and national leaders from most countries have protest and threatened, but those fighting the Syrian army needed more than votes, promises or tears.  They need weapons, air support, food, medicine and money.  They will not get it.  In a week or two or three in will be over.  Assad will declare the referendum a success and probably make some other concessions.  But he will still be the head of state and the army will still enforce his will.  Syria will become one more lesson from the Arab Spring.  All of the countries Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and Syria illustrate a basic principle, although each did it in a different way.  The principle is simple, each country marches to its own drum, for its own reasons.  None of the events were driven by western agendas or expectations; and none of the resolutions will meet western agendas or expectations.

When enough time has passed to get a more objective perspective, I think we will see that only three outside countries will have gained prestige and furthered their economic and political agendas in the region; Turkey, Russia and China.  And today, it looks to me like China’s strategy will prove to be the best of those three.  All along in the region and in Africa, China has attempted to maintain normal relations with all countries regardless of the type of government or civil disturbances; China just wants to do business and maintain a diplomatic relationship.   This week a Chinese construction company is partnering with Algeria to build the third-largest mosque in the world.  It will cost $1.6 billion, hold 120,000 people, cover 49 acres and have a minaret 900 feet tall.  It will have a library with 1 million books and have seats for 2000; only the two mosques in Saudi Arabia are larger, one in Media and one in Mecca.  The Algerians think the mosque will become a major destination for pilgrims, scholars and tourists.  The company has been doing business and building major projects in Algeria for 30 years.   As difficult as it is for us to believe, it does not take a true believer to build a mosque for a true believer – a Buddhist can do it.  We define every person in the Middle East in terms of religion and often suspect  any Muslim.  The Muslims in the Middle East define us in terms of religion and often suspect any Christian or Jew.  The Chinese seem to have found a middle way, one that apparently is acceptable in an Islamic context.  In the long-run that is the right answer; we don’t need to teach anyone to be democrats, or convert them to capitalism or Christianity – we just need to get along with them.

Who is Stanislav Petrov?

Peter Sellers as Group Captain Mandrake sitting at an IBM console  in Dr. Stranglove in 1964. Wikipedia.

Who is he? Just the man who saved the world from a nuclear war, that is all.  Recently Stanislav was awarded the German Media prize.  The prize has been given to Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan and the Dali Lama, among others.  The prize is awarded to individuals who make significant contributions to world peace.   What did Stanislav Petrov do to deserve being in such illustrious company?  Single-highhandedly, he saved the world from destruction; that has to be a joke right, a man that saved the world and we don’t even know his name?

While trolling around English language Russia media looking for some insight into Vladimir Putin, I discovered a story about Petrov and his award.  Instead of retelling the story, I am just going to past in the story from RT on 2-25-12.

 On September 26, 1983, Stanislav Petrov was the duty officer at an early-warning anti-nuclear center just outside Moscow. The clock had just struck midnight, when a piercing warning siren began to wail. It was less than a month after the USSR had shot down a Korean passenger jet, and Cold War tensions were at their highest for years. Petrov’s computer showed that the United States had launched a ballistic missile towards the Soviet Union. In seconds, several more appeared.

“I didn’t even have time to think about what I was doing, or to fill out my log. I just had to make a decision on the spot,” Petrov said in an interview with RT.

Petrov’s job was to decide whether the threat was credible, and how to report it to his superiors, who’d relay the information directly to the elderly Soviet leaders. “I was the one with the information and my reaction would determine the course of action. If I told them it was an attack, it would have been easier for them to go along with this and to act accordingly than to say otherwise. The panic would have spread like in a henhouse,” Petrov says.

Petrov thought it was strange that the United States, with its thousands of nuclear warheads, would begin an assault with just a few of them. The early detection system was also new and Petrov had little trust in it. But whatever the arguments he knew that all he really had to go on was a hunch.

“I’ll admit it, I was scared. I knew the level of responsibility at my fingertips.”

Stanislav Petrov did not report that World War III was beginning. Instead, he called his superiors and told them that this was a false alarm. When other stations did not confirm a launch, the nuclear response was called off. As it turned out the Soviet spy satellites had mistaken sunlight reflected from clouds for ballistic missiles rising from US bases. But Petrov’s sound call was not rewarded.

He explains: “When the State Commission started looking into the reasons behind the false alarm, they encountered plenty of flaws in the early detection system. So my superiors were getting the blame and they did not want to recognize that anyone did any good, but instead chose to spread the blame.”

The entire incident was highly classified, and even Stanislav Petrov’s name was not revealed to the public until 1993 after the fall of the Soviet Union. Since then he has been the subject of countless reports and received many awards, though primarily from abroad. In his retirement he continues to live a simple life at his country house, proud but not fixated on the events of September 26, 1983.

That was nearly 29 years ago, without Stanislav and his courage the world might very well have ended in September of 1983.  I think we should give him an award too and make him officially a Hero of the American Republic.  There was another possibility, the one that Peter Sellers pointed out to us in 1964 – fools, warmongers and would be heroes in Dr. Strangelove lead the world down a very different path. Stanislav was a very brave and confident man.  He was brave enough to do the right think and confident enough to trust his own thinking. I for one, who him a debt of gratitude.  I would like to thank him in person and shake his hand.  It is difficult to image that one man could do more for world peace than he did.

That was

Tricky Dick forty years later

Illustration by Li Rui, China Global Times, 2-26-12

 

Richard Nixon did not leave the presidency with a very good reputation; he might have done some very good things, but in the end, it was Watergate and corruption for which he is best remembered.  However, in China that is not true.  In China, Nixon stands above all American presidents.  Nixon went to China forty years ago this week – the trip marked a major change in American policy toward China – a change that has pretty much survived until recently.  In was a significant change, that was at the end of the Vietnam era; a time where we vowed to fight China and communism any place and every place it raised its ugly head.  It was just a few months before the Watergate scandal hit the headlines and just a year before we left Vietnam.  Tricky Dick, as we called him, had only a brief moment in history before his career started to spiral downwards out of control, but he used the time well, at least according to the Chinese.  For them Nixon was not a criminal, but a giant with vision and courage and they lament his loss.  In the minds and pens of the Chinese, the Obama policy is reverting back to earlier eras.  They describe the current policy as one of mistrust, hardline containment and fear – just like in the post-World War Two and Vietnam eras.

It is no secret that we have become more than a little concerned about the growing financial power and influence of China. Currently, China is in the process of trying to expand its role in Asia, as are we.  China is treating Asia in much the same way we have always treated Central and South America – as a naturally falling within China’s sphere of influence and one crucial to its security.  We on the other hand, see China’s attempt to expand its influence as a threat to our interests and security.  Our view is not unlike the way we saw the old Soviet Russia or the first few years of the existence of Communist China, that is before Nixon.  Our view is of course offensive to the Chinese.

Today, the Chinese are remembering and honoring Richard Nixon and his willingness to cooperate and let go of some of the prejudices and fears of previous administrations.  I am sure we remember too, only I haven’t seen an official acknowledgment or any editorials on the subject, have you?

Stop the presses! State Senator Bill Raggio and his era are dead!

 

RENO, Nev. – Senator Bill Raggio has been an influential Republican for the last four decades and he’s endorsing a Democrat U.S. Sen. Harry Reid for reelection to the US Senate.

A noted politician died this week in Nevada, former state senator, Bill Raggio.  When he resigned his senate seat in 2011 he was the longest serving legislator in the state’s history.  Raggio resigned because of his health, saying he was no longer capable of giving the amount of time and effort to the process of making laws that his constituents expected and deserved from him.  However, it is said that he resigned because his party chose not to reelect him as the majority leader in the senate.  Raggio and the party had fought over the 2010 congressional election; a Republican,  Raggio broke ranks with his party to publicly support the Democrat Harry Reid – majority leader in the United States Senate. Raggio said at the time he was making a choice for the state’s best interest, one he felt was best served by reelecting a man who was the majority leader.  Reid’s opponent was Sharon Engle, a tea party candidate; Raggio thought she was too right-winged and would be very infective in congress in stark contrast to Reid’s power and influence.  Raggio said at that time the Republican party, to which he had belonged his entire adult life, was drifting too far to the right and that was endangering the party’s future. Regardless of his squabbles with the Republican party or his health, Raggio would have left office this year because of term limits.

In death, Raggio is being universally celebrated as a great statesman.  He is being characterized as a man capable of compromising and of helping others reach an agreement; although I am sure that Joe Confrote, a former Nevada brothel owner against whom Raggio campaigned tirelessly, would probably call Raggio a bulldog would that never gives up or wears out.  Raggio is being praised for his long service to the state of Nevada, for his integrity, for the depth of his understanding of the state, its issues and the process of government.  A man above party politics when the fate of the state was at stake, a characteristic he demonstrated over and over again in the acrimonious budget debates in the state senate. Raggio was a statesman and a politician, the likes of which will never again be seen in this state or any other state with term limits.

Raggio represents the exact opposite of the citizen legislator who puts down his tools for a season or two and goes to the state capital to transact the business of government – the kind of lawmaking the founders of the country imaged.  His life-long employment in government and therefore on the public payroll – you know, you and have to work until April just to pay our taxes that then go to pay salaries of politicians and bureaucrats – is not what the citizens who wrote the constitution envisioned.  That is the position taken by the people who favor term limits; limit the time a person can serve and you limit the amount they can take from the public coffers and you limit the amount of corruption that is sure to accrue to a long-term office older.

I am not making an argument for either side, just pointing out Bill Raggio represents both sides of the issue, everything he accomplished after about 1980 would not have happened because he would not have been in office.  All of the wisdom and experience he brought to lawmaking in Nevada over the last thirty years is a thing of the past.  Now our laws will be made by temporary politicians, who unless they simply keep running for different offices, will not stay around long enough to be corrupt, to have that kind of dangerous political power we all fear and not long enough to become rich on our dime.  We will never know which is best, there will be no way to compare, so as it always has been, the quality of our laws and lawmakers will be just a matter of personal opinion.  But I am offering my thanks to Bill for taking time to help protect my rights and lifestyle.  That is what we elected them to do, isn’t it?

Protecting Holy Russia from the invaders

Photo-illustration; Painting of Peter the Great: Getty; Putin: Sergei Guneyev / RIA-Novosti for TIME

Political campaigning  at its best is pure democracy and pure theater; the voters get to see, hear and question would be office-holders in person.  One of my favorite images of presidential campaigning comes from the days of national railroad tours.  In the image in my mind, the president is standing on the landing of last car on the train, speaking to the hastily gathered voters, they are waving banners, cheering and shouting questions to the president.  He stands there unguarded, without a cue card and without makeup; just the man alone and yet he is totally at easy with the people of the nation.  Oh course, he still managed to escape into sound bites, before there was such a thing, time was limited and the speech was intended to say everything he meant to say.  The questions and answers were shouted back and forth, the president as often as not used the opportunity to show his wit and disarm his critics.  Every citizen could hope for a chance of seeing the president up close, hearing his voice and judging for himself the man’s integrity.

Campaigning at its worse is something else again entirely.  We are so immersed in our own process that we do not have much time or media space to watch any other campaigning in the world.  There are, however, other campaigns in process.  It is just a short time before voting is scheduled to begin in Syria and Assad seems to be in the full swing of his campaign, determined to kill as many of those who might vote against him as possible.  He, of course, says he is protecting the people from terrorists, outside interference and greedy opportunist trying to destroy Syria.

Nicholas Sarkozy is campaigning, like Assad he is stressing the importance of his leadership in protecting France from the dangers of the world today, the European economy and at least by inference from his international diplomacy, promising to return France to the glory it knew a century or two ago.  His most prominent endorsement came from Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, she is appearing with Sarkozy on the campaign trail.  However, from my point of view the most entertaining campaigner is Vladimir Putin, who is seeking the presidency for the third time, after taking a four year break from the office and serving as the prime minister.

Today, in Russia there was a mass rally for Putin, put on and sponsored by Putin and his party.  And although he is not noted for public speaking, Putin put in an appearance and made a brief speech.  Like other candidates in other countries, Putin is promising to protect Russia and Russians.  But from what?  Well, it seems he was not specific, merely saying there are outside forces trying to destroy Russia and he, Vladimir Putin was sworn to protect the mother land.  “Do you love Russia?” – he called out to the crowd several times, the crowd is said to be have been in the tens of thousands – one estimate put it at 120,000 – and as one they answered, “Yes!” “Yes!” each time he asked the question the crowd shouted back the answer – heart warming isn’t it?

Putin saved the best for last, he only spoke for seven minutes, recalling Russia’s noble history and the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte in September of 1812.  Napoleon had come to Russia with 500,000 men in June, but after the Battle of Borodino in September his army was very weakened, three months later he fled Russia with only 25,000 men.  The bodies of the rest were strewn across the landscape of Russia for many, many miles.   In 2012, two hundred years later, there is no clear enemy, no French general marching across the country, except it appears in the mind of the prime minister, he sees that threatening army and promises to defeat it – because Putin, too, loves Russia. I apologize for the picture, it is the wrong emperor/tsar, to be politically correct, I should have found a picture of Putin as Alexander the First, who defeated Napoleon in 1812 and later captured Paris. But here is the way he ended his speech.

In conclusion, he recalled the Battle of Borodino, which marked the beginning of the end of Napoleon’s 1812 campaign. “We will die defending Moscow, like our brothers died,” he said, reciting a poem by Mikhail Lermontov.  He added, “The battle for Russia continues, and we will win!” The Moscow Times, 2-23-12

Russia has a proud, thousand year history, tradition and culture – Mother Russia, Holy Russia, the mother land resonates deeply in the Russian soul; calling upon that soul is sure to win Putin votes.  Anyone who opposes him does not love Russia and is part of that threatening army.  Sounds a lot like Assad to me, maybe that is why Putin is determined to support Assad, the maybe birds of a feather.

 

Is hate natural? I think so

Head of a Chinese man beheaded by Japanese is wedged in a barricade near Nanking just before the fall of the city. Wikipedia

In the generally accepted histories of the world there have been many atrocities.  Millions of  Armenians were slaughtered during WWI; 6 millions Jews were killed by German in WWII; two  atom bombs were dropped on Japan by America killing hundreds of thousands; and, as in every war, there is a long list of atrocities committed by one army or another – including the infamous “rape of Nanking” by the Japanese army in 1937.  According to Wikipedia between 200,000 and 300,000 men, women and children were rapped and killed in a six week period after the Japanese captured the city.  The Chinese say the number is 300,000 and still  mourn the tragedy – this year will mark its 75th anniversary.

This week, the mayor of Nagoya, Japan – the sister city of Nanking – said the massacre never happened; his statement is very reminiscent of Ahmadinejad’s statements about the Jews in Germany, or the Turkish government’s denial of any massacre of Armenians.  Why would anyone say anything like that?  There are several possible explanations.  People born a generation or two after the event have no personal memories or connection with it and then it becomes like all history – a literary fiction if you don’t believe it.  Of course there is a converse people who believe a racial, national or even regional narrative that is false; accepting any historical account or narrative is a choice unless you lived through the events.  Those that choose not to believe may make that choice for political, philosophical or religious reasons.   Both the First and Second World Wars are almost ancient history, the number of personal witnesses decreases daily.  The last active participant in WWI just died and the number of WWII survives is getting to be quite small.   Therefore most of us accept the accounts on faith, that faith ist is based on solid academic and scholarly grounds and supported by multiple sources and accounts;  it is still an act of faith.  Still, the statement is shocking, especially when you consider that the two cities are linked by choice in commerce and cultural exchange – sisters as it were.

Need-less to say, the Chinese media is not taking the denial lightly and Nanking has officially severed its connections with Nagoya. The Chinese are understandably as incensed as Jews and Armenians are about similar denials of their sufferings.  Does the mayor hate all Chinese? Is he like the neo-nazis in Germany, trying recapture a perceived lost era of glory?  Is he running for public office, simply posturing and playing on regional racism like Ahmadinejad?  It may seem like an unimportant question.  However,  I think it is a very important question to ask.  If we do not know why people say hateful things about whole groups of people, nations and races, we cannot find a way to stop the kind of killing the mayor of Nagoya denies.

The question is not academic and it not about old or ancient events.  That kind of violence is happening today in Middle East between religious factions, it is happening all over Africa between tribes and religious groups – and we are only a generation away from when it happened right here.  It is a subject we have to understand to master  – to master our own basic nature, for it does seem to have always been a part of our existence as a species.  We have those we love, protect and nurture and we have those we hate, isolate and kill.  Won’t it be nice if in the 21st century of the modern era, some 10-50,000 years in our modern form, if we managed to stop hating and killing the “other”?

A brave new future for those with an imagination

One armed bandits at Wookey Hole Caves, Wikipedia

This, indeed , is the question of the hour in gaming – Howard Stutz from the Las Vegas Review-Journal asked it – what is IGT thinking?  Howard’s question is simple, why does the leading slot machines manufacturer in the world not hire executives with industry experience?   In the last few years, IGT has looked everywhere, except in the gaming industry, for executive leadership.  When asked about it, Patti Hart the CEO, said she had worked in the industry for six years, what more does she need? ” I now have six years in the gaming industry,” Hart said last week. “I believe that qualifies my experience.” 

You could make an argument in her favor, the industry has changed dramatically since the old three reel, coin and handle operated games.  IGT has been a big part of the change, it got its start by selling video poker games; not only did poker machines alter the industry, it introduced the technology that now drives all slot machines.  In Ms Hart’s defense what the industry needs now is new thinking, a new vision to drive the industry for the next 20 or 30years. Isn’t gaming just entertainment and aren’t slot machines just computer terminals? And isn’t the technology they use just another application of the same things that telephones, computers and video games use?  If so, old fashion gaming experience is highly overrated.

All of that may be true, but IGT’s machine sales in the few years does not indicate the company produces the best games, 20 years ago IGT slot machines dominated the industry because the customers like them best; and therefore the casinos bought them more.  Since then IGT has used its financial muscle to secure the big sales, especially when a new casino opened and needed thousands of slot machines at one time, but did not have the cash flow from operations to pay for them.  To provide than many machines, other companies had to charge more, demanded enough money upfront to complete the manufacturing and charge interest on the money due.  Instead, IGT demanded a significant percentage of all of the slot machines purchased, with that IGT did not require upfront payments, it could deliver the order on time and wait for its payment.  Simply,  IGT has more money and can make better deals that other slot companies; that has helped IGT keep ahead of its competitors, but it has been a very long time since the best performing – meaning coin-in and profit for casinos – slot machines were made by IGT.

After hire some ask, ‘What’s IGT thinking?’

  A major car manufacturer wouldn’t hire an executive from Victoria’s Secret to design automobiles. Nor would an international oil company bring aboard someone from Baskin-Robbins to plan growth initiatives. So why does the gaming industry’s largest slot machine manufacturer believe it can stock its corporate offices with executives who have little if any experience in the casino business? Ten days ago, International Game Technology named John Vandemore …comes to IGT from Walt Disney Co…Since taking over as chief executive officer nearly three years ago, Patti Hart has filled IGT’s corporate offices with executives from IBM, Microsoft, Broadbank Interactive Television, and SunGard Availability Services.  Hart spent years with California Silicon Valley technology firms before joining IGT’s board in 2006. Howard Stutz, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2-18-12

IGT also has more money for research and development; which as the industry is trying to figure out what is going to happen next, is giving IGT an opportunity to prepare for online gaming in a way no other slot company (or casino company for matter) can.   That research and development budget may be a clue into the company’s plans for the future and the answer to the hiring dilemma.  IGT has always been a forward thinking company, the last few years it has concentrated its research on server-based games; believing all the while it was the future of the industry.  However, reluctant casino executives and a depressed economy have acted in concert to delay that particular future.   The company has been very open in its thinking and planning, telling anyone and everyone who would listen that sever-based gaming was the next big thing and would total change the way slot machines are made, sold and managed.  However, there has been much less talk about server-based gaming since Hart took over has CEO, for good reason I think.  One she was new to the industry and wasn’t in a position to preach to industry veterans, but two she may have a different plan – online gaming.

It would be hard to be totally open on that subject – but I suspect if one could be the proverbial fly on the wall in the IGT boardroom you might hear of a completely re-engineered IGT – one that did not design, manufacture  or sell slot machines.  Instead the talk would be of an exclusively online gaming company that provided the format for the players and collected the profits directly – no middleman or casino necessary.  If that is the plan, it must be kept secret, especially hidden from the casinos that now buy its slot machines.  The casinos have always resented it when IGT owned a casino and competed directly with them.  You can guess how they would feel about IGT snatching the future of gaming right out of their hands and leaving them in the dust.  For the moment IGT still needs casinos to buy or lease its slot machines, but it won’t always.  The casinos are in a very different position and will not find the transition quite so easy for them.   Casinos will be tied for a long time to their brick and mortal casinos and the debt the goes with it.  IGT will have the best of technology for an internet gambling experience and have no brick and mortal ties or thinking to hold it back.  Howard did not ask me what IGT was thinking, but if he had, this is what I would have said; they are not thinking about the current industry at all – IGT is thinking about a brave new future online.