Banbury Cross

There is a reason why we have two eyes and two ears. They furnish our perception with an extra dimension. Not only they widen our field of audio-visual ogling, but they also create a stereoscopic illusion by blending two slightly different sets of sensory input together. Thanks to them we can enjoy the world in all its three dimensional splendor and dolby surround sound. Thanks to them we can appreciate perspective and tell which direction a dog is barking from - a bit of information that can be a life saver, particularly if you are a postman or a cat that has already died eight times.

I spend most of my time in the United State, but I pay a biannual visit to the Czech Republic to inspect the cobwebs of my youth. While foreign travel is usually associated with a transition from the familiar to the unfamiliar, arriving in Prague airport always plucks me from one familiar environment and dumps me into another one which is even more familiar. In a sense, it feels like living two lives separately - hanging out with two different sets of friends, dressing thoughts in two familiar languages, wasting money in two familiar currencies, heartily cursing two sets of familiar politicians.

But the best part of this mildly splitting life style is watching the world from two very different vantage points. No matter what the event is, whether the doping scandal at the last Olympics, Paris Hilton's dressing habits, or a war du jour in the Middle East, there are always different lens through which you can view it. Reading New York Times is a very different experience than reading Lidove Noviny. You get almost opposite extremes in your viewing angle. One is that of a major superpower whose shored are washed by two oceans and one comes from a negligible landlocked country somewhere in the middle of Europe. Together they form a nearly perfect holographic image of a lavish planet haphazardly roamed by six billion biological paradoxes.

In the old days of Austro Hungarian empire, back when Albert Einstein was still merely a curious schoolboy, apprentices were often sent "into the world" to interact with different ethnic groups and experience other folklore and mores, to discover for themselves that crucial postulate of the Theory of Cultural Relativity: one nation's glower may be another nation's smile. I think it would be helpful to the well being of our society if all young people had the opportunity (whether as students or apprentices) to live for a year or two in a foreign country. It would give their schooling an extra depth and with it a few ounces of a much needed tolerance for their personalities.

We have just wasted untold billions of dollars bailing out some old filthy rich dudes. Spending a few more on international stipends for our youth would pay for itself sooner than you could say AIG.

At the beginning, you never know how things will turn out. And that is what makes life so enigmatic. Just look at a bunch of kids in a kindergarten. Can you tell who will end up on Wall Street trading junk bonds and who will join a freak show as a part time vinegar addict? Can you tell who will be the next Bill Gates and who will only be his personal chauffeur? Nope, you can't, and neither can anyone else. Future is complex beyond anyone's calculating might. Subject to a maze of myriad influences, it percolates forth in inscrutable ways.

Take the first settlers who escaped from the religious sauna of medieval England. When they arrived in this country, they had no idea they were laying foundations for a future superpower. And had they been foolish enough to make any claims to that effect, the Native Indians would have been rolling on the dirt floor laughing. But at the end - due circumstances not even imaginable at the time - the settlers had the last laugh. They prevailed and their new country eventually celebrated its 100th and then 200th birthday. And if all goes well, we'll be watching the quarter millennium fireworks in a couple of years.

When I studied Math in Prague, I was a member of a small theater group called "Lipany". Even rigorous scientists need entertainment every now and then. In 1986 when we came back from the military service (it was mandatory after college), we decided to have a group reunion in a cramped smoke filled pub in the Prague district of Nusle. Being mathematicians, it didn't take us long to pull out our notebooks and start crunching differential equations, estimating integral inequalities and doing all sorts of nasty things that mathematicians do when they think no one is watching.

We found the event so exhilarating that shortly afterward we sent an invitation to two more "Lipany" members to join us the next time. Since we had to give our tentative gathering some name, we invited them half-jokingly to the second "Analytic Beer seminar" organized by a "Union of Czechoslovak Mathematicians and Alcoholics", which was just a little word play on the name of the official mathematical association at the time. We also added a short advisory note stating that "teetotalers and abstainers are strongly encouraged to have their physical exam performed by a doctor prior to the occasion as they may be exposed to second hand beer vapor; in addition to it, and to be on the safe side, they may need to obtain a one-time drinking license issued by the Society for the Protection of Rare Animals."

The idea of interlacing beer mugs and coasters with sheets of paper scribbled over with chunks of improper integrals, Fourier series and symbols for Lipschitz continuous functions caught on and we had our third Analytic Beer in two weeks and then fourth and fifth and before we knew it, the Analytic Beer seminar had become integral part of our lives. The secret to unlocking the scientific potential of the seminar turned out to be finding that fine limit where we had had enough beer to escape the straitjacket of scientific orthodoxy, but not quite enough to cease recognizing the quickly blurring Greek letters and mathematical symbols.

When we dispersed all over the world, the frequency of our seminars notched down a bit, but we still met whenever we could. We put away our 70th Beer in 1997, 80th in 2001 and 90th in 2005. For the Analytic Beer No. 100, which was approaching fast, we wanted to do something special. This July, when it finally arrived, we rented a picturesque log cabin in Northern Bohemia and spent four days in nearly pristine nature biking, hiking, sampling local brews, dawdling around, calculating infinite sums and watching the World Cup which happened to coincide with our Guzzle & Puzzle Fest. The College of Mathematics and Physics of the Charles University in Prague, our Alma Mater, used to have an owl in its emblem, so it didn't come as a big surprise that our gathering was a resounding hoot - a four day romp in a parallel Universe - although it needs to be admitted that we never quite figured out what was the probability that Spain would hit three goalposts within three seconds in their quarterfinal match against Paraguay. I think we just ballparked it as incontestably astronomical.

Life is the ultimate mathematical riddle. Twenty five years ago, Czechoslovakia was immersed in communism from soup to nuts - people were allergic to TV that was allergic to any manifestation of freedom and everyone's Mom was going bananas while standing in a long line for bananas. Mathematics was one of the few oases which the stinky breath of Kremlin could not quite reach. As we were honing our computing skills in that dingy old pub in the middle of Prague during our first tentative seminar, we had absolutely no idea that one day we'd be celebrating Analytic Beer No. 100, let alone in a country that would be part of the European Union. But that's how life on this planet is - you never know how things will turn out. Especially after you've downed a few.

Today's financial news proffered this tooth of wisdom:

Raghuram Rajan, professor of finance at the University of Chicago, and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund was interviewed on Yahoo Tech Ticker peddling a message for Washington: Stop Targeting "Greedy Bankers" and Focus on Growth:

I am sure the IMF has plenty of vested interest in the jugular of perpetual growth, but perhaps it would behoove its brain trust to acknowledge that it is kind of hard to focus on growth while your productive economic body serves a never ending all you can eat buffet to a blood sucking parasite.

Yes, I mean the Wall Street, and by extension the whole financial system.

There used to be times when bankers borrowed money at 3% and then lent it out with some risk at 5% and that was pretty much their standard business model. They rightfully pocketed the spread as a reward for all the troubles associated with the loaning operations: they did the due diligence during the client research phase, they worked out the details of the transactions, they kept up-to-date paperwork and they also carried the risks in case any of the parties defaulted on their promises.

But then one day as they were soaking in their silver bath tubs, they decided that this was not good enough. They wanted golden bath tubs.

And lo and behold, suddenly they figured that money that was no longer backed by gold is a very stretchable and multipliable object. They realized they can conjure it into existence and then lend it to unsuspecting public at high interest. They envisaged complex securities in which they hid the risks of the loans and sold them to gullible investors in a sort of institutionalized shell game. They created financial insemination. They designed derivatives that enabled them to leverage all the dirty tricks known to man. Their accounting prestidigitation never produced anything of value, but it created a mighty swirl of watermarked paper which gave a perfect illusion of wealth. But it was just that - an illusion.

Any high risk industry that operates under the assumption that if any of their vampirous enterprises go wrong taxpayers will pick up the slack satisfies your basic definition of a parasite. And God knows that there was a lot of slack to be picked up in the last few years. The sooner we flush this tapeworm down the toilet, the sooner we can return to an organic growth, free of steroids of deficit spending. It is as simple as that.

Unfortunately, the financial reform concocted by Congress left much to be desired. Sometimes it wasn't even clear whether the lawmakers were still representing the people or were just giving the big bankers a lap dance. Loopholes galore, toothless measures and no effort to break the too big to fail cabal or curtail their risky behavior. Instead of rescuing the economy from the incisors of irresponsible credit peddlers and driving sharp wooden stakes through the heart of the failed institutions, we have been building a state of vampires. That is not a feasible economic strategy.

Here is a snippet from the last year's Atlantic, penned by Simon Johnson, the Ronald A. Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Sloan School of Management at MIT.

Simon Johnson: Quiet Coup (The Atlantic magazine, May 2009)
"From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent..."

So from 16% to 41% in several decades, huh?

How about we return to the banking business as it was originally conceived: providing prudent loans to select applicants and standing by them. We were able to put a man on the Moon back in those days. So it shouldn't be too economically crippling.

One would imagine that mineral resources of any given country belong to its citizens. That is what Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd must have been thinking when he'd proposed a supertax on all mining companies doing business down under.

I agreed wholeheartedly. That is how countries should protect their natural wealth. I have no problem with corporations making money off of their own ingenuity, whether it is Intel, Apple, or your favorite teen apparel outfit. But if all they can do is to bulldoze a layer of groovy rocks and haul them away in monster trucks - then extra taxes should be imposed as a way of sharing the profits with the people of the land who the groovy rocks belong to in the first place. To mine what is not theirs without proper compensation is just an act of thievery. Not to mention a breeding ground for rampant corruption. What overworked government official has guts and spine to withstand the appeal of a thickly stuffed envelope exchanged discreetly for the keys to the country's riches.

Ideally, the extra taxes would allow states to build highways, bridges, child care centers, hospitals and other facilities which all people could then use as a payback for having their land mildly exploited. But life is hardly ever ideal. Money talks loud and clear and often with a bullhorn. Political clout of corporations is larger than the Ayers Rock these days. Kevin Rudd was ousted faster than you could say "kangaroo" and Australia dropped the plans for the proposed supertax like a hot potato. The wizards of Oz could go back to business as usual.

The recent Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico highlighted another ugly side of the corporate hegemony over our natural resources. The lack of responsibility. Extraction of any substance from the ground poses ecological hazards and encroaches upon people's right to freely enjoy their land. Accidents do occur, but some safeguards need to be put in place, so that nature as we know it does not get sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed. Increasing the liability limits for oil companies like BP would be a good start. Otherwise it will be too easy for them to weasel out of their obligations, thanks to the well trained army of lawyers, lobbyists, PR specialists and other well oiled mercenaries.

Ever since our elected representatives tasted sweet milk from the big business teats, people have been losing their battle against incorporated leviathans on all fronts. If we don't want to end up merely subsisting on a slice of scorched wasteland in some post-orwellian nightmare, this would be a good time to take a stand and consider the bigger picture. How on Earth are we going to manage the unique environment of this planet? Are we going to plunder it for the lucre of a few hoggish multinationals or are we going to take proper care of it and preserve it for those who will inherit it from us. Wholesale recycling and green energy, however expensive, should get on the political agenda as soon as possible. The controversial supertax could help offset the associated costs.

I am sure our grandchildren will appreciate it if we leave them some fertile soil to plant crops in, reasonably clean rivers and lakes, deep forests and jungles, and maybe even a wild meadow here and there, rather than countless industrial graveyards dotted with depleted oil fields and abandoned strip mines. Even hundred years from now, they will enjoy the view of wild ferns cascading down a mountain slope under the canopy of hoary trees. And if it means slightly higher prices of copper or iron, so be it.

Don't quarry, be happy.

When two peoples lay a claim to the same chunk of land, problems often ensue. And I am not just talking about quarreling whether to plant wheat or tobacco in the tillage.

Imagine that Native Indians declared the whole West to be the Sacred Dirt of Quietly Slumbering Chieftains and moved in to take control of all territories that once used to be theirs. Imagine they created large refugee camps on the West Bank of Mississippi and on the Las Vegas Strip and gradually besieged sprawling urban areas with new teepee settlements. That would surely stir up some action among descendants of hunky Anglo-Saxon settlers who moved into that same area several centuries ago.

When Israeli commandos stormed the Turkish-flagged ship Mavi Marmara that was carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, the eyes of the whole world turned again to that precious piece of desert surrounding the Dead Sea, that largely inhospitable terrain which both Israelis and Palestinians consider their historical homeland.

Their decades long effort to conjure up a semblance of peaceful coexistence has been repeatedly marred by religious and ethnic hostilities and, over the years, became reduced to diplomatic equivalent of wishful thinking. Smack in the center of their disagreements lies Jerusalem, one of the oldest capitals in the world, a city so ridden and riddled with divine presence that you can't throw a rock there without hitting a notorious shrine. That, of course, makes any negotiations harder, because liturgical and spiritual aspects of our existence have deep roots in our soul.

When I was reading about the circumstances accompanying the creation of the Jewish state, I stumbled upon an interesting document: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) - Future Government of Palestine from 29 November 1947. In plain terms, the resolution suggested termination of the British mandate over Palestine and recommended that the contentious Jerusalem-Bethlehem area be placed "under special international protection, administered by the United Nations".

Sometimes long forgotten solutions deserve second chances. And this one sounds so tantalizing that I would dare to push it a bit further. Why not make Jerusalem the seat of the United Nations? Can you see the UNESCO buildings next to the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or al-Aqsa Mosque? I can. If there ever was a place on Earth deserving to be the unofficial Capital of the World, it is Jerusalem. What other city lies at the intersection of three major religions and sports a municipal history four millennia deep? In my book, you don't get more natural authority beyond that. And placing the venerable metropolis on the center stage of global politics would have several other advantages.

1. Many new and aspiring powers (EU, China, Russia, India) like to grumble about the americentric bias of the United Nations that has been painfully visualized by placing the organization on the banks of the East River. Such domicile may be convenient, but it gives rise to the perception that UN is but an extended arm of Washington DC. Relocating its headquarters and facilities into a neutral area would create a more realistic illusion of an Arthurian round table, where no single nation is being favored.

3. Israel's main concern is for the safety of its young state. With Jerusalem becoming a de facto heart of the world, it would be self-defeating and outright suicidal to even ponder terrorism in this area. Any individual of group that would dare to inflict damage anywhere within this fiercely protected district would be faced with swift and severe consequences from the whole international community.

Sooner or later Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu will have to sit down and mull over the possibilities. I hope they will have enough sense to also consult history. Critics might argue that times have changed since 1947, but didn't Ancient Romans used to say: "Historia magistra vitae est"?