Last summer on Independence Day I wrote about the idea of SLOW Government:
Introduction to SLOW Government
Lots of exciting things have happened since then! At the end of that post are updates that describe two subsequent developments by other Vermonters: Biddle Duke of Stowe and Susan Clark of Middlesex.
Today on Presidents' Day I write about another development.
The idea of SLOW Government came together after I attended the second annual Slow Living Summit last summer. (I blogged about that summit here.) Next summer I will attend the third annual Slow Living Summit, and I will be presenting the idea of SLOW Government!
It will be a joint presentation with Susan Clark, mentioned above. Susan is co-author of Slow Democracy: Rediscovering Community, Bringing Decision Making Back Home. This book, published in September 2012, is a wonderful exposition of what I mean by the "L is for local" aspect of SLOW Government.
Susan and I did not know each other until last month. We were introduced by the organizers of the Slow Living Summit at the suggestion of the publishers of Susan's book.
This joint presentation will be an interesting exercise. While Susan and I mostly agree on the "L is for local" aspect of SLOW Government, we don't necessarily agree on the rest of what I mean by SLOW Government. We have different worldviews, even though we both grew up in Vermont.
Can people with different worldviews work together productively? In her book Susan writes about the concept of ecotones (a new word for me): "the extraordinarily diverse, productive zones where unlike systems meet." Check out this link to an article in Forbes magazine (that Susan brought to my attention) for an example of people with different worldviews coming together for a productive discussion:
MoveOn.org's Co-Founder Has The Tea Party's Co-Founder Over For...Tea
Governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Public approval of government has fallen to dangerous lows. Susan and I independently had the thought that the philosophy of "slow" contains ideas that can help turn around this troubling trend. We are now working on a joint presentation about those ideas for next summer's Slow Living Summit.
Stay tuned!
Many thanks for the feedback from people who read my July 4th post on the idea of SLOW Government. I have revised the language in that post from time to time based on that feedback. The original idea remains unchanged, but hopefully the explanation is more lucid. Click here to read the explanation of SLOW Government. Continued feedback is welcome.
And with this update on SLOW Government, I wish you a happy Presidents' Day!
Monday, February 18, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Plot Road to Hogback Road
Last Sunday was one of the best days of the winter! It was sunny and, while it started out cold, it warmed up to the mid 20s (F).
We snowshoed the Long Trail south from the Plot Road to the Hogback Road, about four miles. There were ten people in our group. We stopped at Roundtop Shelter to enjoy a little hot chocolate and peppermint schnapps:
Elevation at the shelter is 1650'. This was nearly the highest point on the hike.
We found a number of pretty ice formations:
Here's most of the crew at Prospect Rock:
Almost at the end of the hike, this view is looking steeply downhill at the Hogback Road and the Lamoille River:
We saw many deer tracks throughout the day but especially between Prospect Rock and the Hogback Road. Didn't see any deer, though.
We snowshoed the Long Trail south from the Plot Road to the Hogback Road, about four miles. There were ten people in our group. We stopped at Roundtop Shelter to enjoy a little hot chocolate and peppermint schnapps:
Elevation at the shelter is 1650'. This was nearly the highest point on the hike.
We found a number of pretty ice formations:
Almost at the end of the hike, this view is looking steeply downhill at the Hogback Road and the Lamoille River:
We saw many deer tracks throughout the day but especially between Prospect Rock and the Hogback Road. Didn't see any deer, though.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
University of Maine Rifle Team
A big part of my college years at the University of Maine was the rifle team.
The rifle team was one of the most successful athletic teams in the history of the university. The rifle team existed from 1923 to 1984 with four suspended seasons. That's a total of 57 active seasons, out of which the team won the New England championship 20 times. During my four years at the University of Maine (1973-1977) we won the New England championship three times, all but my sophomore year.
An extensive history of athletics at the University of Maine was published in 2007 and just recently made available online:
The Maine Book: University of Maine Athletics 1881-2007
Click here for the chapter on the rifle team. I'm in that chapter in three places, including the team photo on p. 6 from my senior year 1976-77. (The caption for that photo is misleading and partially wrong. See the first comment to this post for a better caption.) We were undefeated that year.
The photo on p. 9 is from the year after I graduated, so I'm not in it, but it is the only photo that shows the sign in the rifle range with all the years that the team won the New England championship. They won it that year, too. We practiced under that sign and it inspired us.
How big a part of my life was the rifle team? I earned a varsity letter in riflery all four years. I was co-captain of the team for three years. My college roommate my junior and senior years was a teammate. I was in several weddings of teammates. Two teammates were in the wedding when Nancy and I were married in 1979.
The University of Maine rifle team was sponsored jointly by the Military Science Department and the Athletic Department. The Military Science Department supplied the range, equipment, and coach. My recollection is that the Athletic Department paid for travel, but I never knew the details of the finances. In my four years on the team, few members of the team, and none of the top shooters, were in the military. The rifle team became a co-ed team the year I was a freshman.
We traveled all over New England and competed against Norwich University, Dartmouth College, MIT, Brown University, the University of Rhode Island, Providence College, and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Once a year we went to a big invitational event at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. We weren't the top dog there, often being competitive only with West Point's second or third team. But one year we beat even their first team. On the national level, there were many college rifle teams better than us, but we dominated New England and we sure had a lot of fun!
The rifle team at the University of Maine started to go downhill when it was determined, a few years after I graduated, that there was too much lead in the air in the rifle range. The team tried practicing off-campus, but it eventually died.
There has been a long trend of declining popularity of college rifle teams since before I went to college. Both the University of Vermont and Saint Michael's College had rifle teams in the past, but they had disappeared by the time I went to college. Vermont's Senator Patrick Leahy graduated from Saint Michael's College in 1961 and was one of the top shooters on its rifle team.
But maybe this trend is starting to reverse. The Wall Street Journal had an article about college rifle teams on Dec. 6, 2011, p. D2:
Young Scientists Take Aim
The article is about the college rifle team at the University of the Sciences (a pharmacy school) in Philadelphia. I was pleased to see in the article that MIT still has a college rifle team.
A few words about the sport at the time I was in college. We competed at 50 feet indoors with .22 caliber rifles. Air rifles were a novelty and were not yet used for competition. We competed in three positions: prone, standing, and kneeling. We fired 20 shots in each position. The highest possible score for each shot was a 10, so a perfect score was 600. We used the A-36 target.
For a match eight shooters would be selected to compete. The high four scores that day constituted the team score. (Sometimes, such as at West Point, we had to designate in advance the four shooters on the first team and the four shooters on the second team.) A perfect team score was 2400. As reported in The Maine Book, we regularly had team scores in excess of 2200.
Target rifle shooting in college was an indoor winter sport. Many of us also competed in matches outside of college, year-round. In college we were not permitted to use telescopic sights. Matches outside of college sometimes allowed telescopic sights and often included a fourth position: sitting (that is, sitting cross-legged, not sitting in a chair). Indoor matches were at 50 feet, the same as college, but often on the easier A-17 target. There were also outdoor matches in the summer, at 50 yards for three or four position events, and at 50 and 100 yards for prone-only events. For outdoor events, of course, weather is sometimes a factor—wind, rain, sun, temperature, etc.
Target rifle shooting in the Olympics has evolved over the years (see this Wikipedia article). The Olympics currently underway in London include five rifle events:
10 meter air rifle, standing only, indoors, men and women
50 meter .22 caliber rifle, 3 position, outdoors, men and women
50 meter .22 caliber rifle, prone only, outdoors, men only
These are all individual events. There are currently no team rifle shooting events in the Olympics. The 50 meter three position event would be closest to what we shot in college except that we shot indoors and at 50 feet with correspondingly smaller targets. Like college, telescopic sights are not allowed in the Olympics.
Scoring is slightly different in the Olympics from what I described above for college. The "qualifying" round consists of 20 shots in each of three positions for women (similar to what I described above for college) while men shoot 40 shots in each position. For both men and women, the top eight shooters in the qualifying round go on to shoot another 10 shots, standing, in the "final" round. For the final round only, scoring is in tenths of a point with the highest possible score being 10.9 for a perfectly centered shot. Scoring is electronic. The scores from the qualifying round and the final round are added together to determine the overall ranking.
As I write this, four of the five events listed above are complete and the U.S. had won only one medal. Jamie Lynn Gray won a gold medal in the women's 50 meter three position event, setting an Olympic record. Go Jamie! There are also additional Olympic shooting events for pistol and shotgun. Details here.
P.S. Almost anything can be found on the Internet these days! Click here to see the location and scoring of every shot that Jamie Lynn Gray fired to win her Olympic gold medal, in both the qualifying round (60 shots in three positions) and the final round (10 shots standing).
[Links updated 4/24/2020]
The rifle team was one of the most successful athletic teams in the history of the university. The rifle team existed from 1923 to 1984 with four suspended seasons. That's a total of 57 active seasons, out of which the team won the New England championship 20 times. During my four years at the University of Maine (1973-1977) we won the New England championship three times, all but my sophomore year.
An extensive history of athletics at the University of Maine was published in 2007 and just recently made available online:
The Maine Book: University of Maine Athletics 1881-2007
Click here for the chapter on the rifle team. I'm in that chapter in three places, including the team photo on p. 6 from my senior year 1976-77. (The caption for that photo is misleading and partially wrong. See the first comment to this post for a better caption.) We were undefeated that year.
The photo on p. 9 is from the year after I graduated, so I'm not in it, but it is the only photo that shows the sign in the rifle range with all the years that the team won the New England championship. They won it that year, too. We practiced under that sign and it inspired us.
How big a part of my life was the rifle team? I earned a varsity letter in riflery all four years. I was co-captain of the team for three years. My college roommate my junior and senior years was a teammate. I was in several weddings of teammates. Two teammates were in the wedding when Nancy and I were married in 1979.
The University of Maine rifle team was sponsored jointly by the Military Science Department and the Athletic Department. The Military Science Department supplied the range, equipment, and coach. My recollection is that the Athletic Department paid for travel, but I never knew the details of the finances. In my four years on the team, few members of the team, and none of the top shooters, were in the military. The rifle team became a co-ed team the year I was a freshman.
We traveled all over New England and competed against Norwich University, Dartmouth College, MIT, Brown University, the University of Rhode Island, Providence College, and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Once a year we went to a big invitational event at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. We weren't the top dog there, often being competitive only with West Point's second or third team. But one year we beat even their first team. On the national level, there were many college rifle teams better than us, but we dominated New England and we sure had a lot of fun!
The rifle team at the University of Maine started to go downhill when it was determined, a few years after I graduated, that there was too much lead in the air in the rifle range. The team tried practicing off-campus, but it eventually died.
There has been a long trend of declining popularity of college rifle teams since before I went to college. Both the University of Vermont and Saint Michael's College had rifle teams in the past, but they had disappeared by the time I went to college. Vermont's Senator Patrick Leahy graduated from Saint Michael's College in 1961 and was one of the top shooters on its rifle team.
But maybe this trend is starting to reverse. The Wall Street Journal had an article about college rifle teams on Dec. 6, 2011, p. D2:
Young Scientists Take Aim
The article is about the college rifle team at the University of the Sciences (a pharmacy school) in Philadelphia. I was pleased to see in the article that MIT still has a college rifle team.
A few words about the sport at the time I was in college. We competed at 50 feet indoors with .22 caliber rifles. Air rifles were a novelty and were not yet used for competition. We competed in three positions: prone, standing, and kneeling. We fired 20 shots in each position. The highest possible score for each shot was a 10, so a perfect score was 600. We used the A-36 target.
For a match eight shooters would be selected to compete. The high four scores that day constituted the team score. (Sometimes, such as at West Point, we had to designate in advance the four shooters on the first team and the four shooters on the second team.) A perfect team score was 2400. As reported in The Maine Book, we regularly had team scores in excess of 2200.
Target rifle shooting in college was an indoor winter sport. Many of us also competed in matches outside of college, year-round. In college we were not permitted to use telescopic sights. Matches outside of college sometimes allowed telescopic sights and often included a fourth position: sitting (that is, sitting cross-legged, not sitting in a chair). Indoor matches were at 50 feet, the same as college, but often on the easier A-17 target. There were also outdoor matches in the summer, at 50 yards for three or four position events, and at 50 and 100 yards for prone-only events. For outdoor events, of course, weather is sometimes a factor—wind, rain, sun, temperature, etc.
Target rifle shooting in the Olympics has evolved over the years (see this Wikipedia article). The Olympics currently underway in London include five rifle events:
10 meter air rifle, standing only, indoors, men and women
50 meter .22 caliber rifle, 3 position, outdoors, men and women
50 meter .22 caliber rifle, prone only, outdoors, men only
These are all individual events. There are currently no team rifle shooting events in the Olympics. The 50 meter three position event would be closest to what we shot in college except that we shot indoors and at 50 feet with correspondingly smaller targets. Like college, telescopic sights are not allowed in the Olympics.
Scoring is slightly different in the Olympics from what I described above for college. The "qualifying" round consists of 20 shots in each of three positions for women (similar to what I described above for college) while men shoot 40 shots in each position. For both men and women, the top eight shooters in the qualifying round go on to shoot another 10 shots, standing, in the "final" round. For the final round only, scoring is in tenths of a point with the highest possible score being 10.9 for a perfectly centered shot. Scoring is electronic. The scores from the qualifying round and the final round are added together to determine the overall ranking.
As I write this, four of the five events listed above are complete and the U.S. had won only one medal. Jamie Lynn Gray won a gold medal in the women's 50 meter three position event, setting an Olympic record. Go Jamie! There are also additional Olympic shooting events for pistol and shotgun. Details here.
P.S. Almost anything can be found on the Internet these days! Click here to see the location and scoring of every shot that Jamie Lynn Gray fired to win her Olympic gold medal, in both the qualifying round (60 shots in three positions) and the final round (10 shots standing).
[Links updated 4/24/2020]
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Introduction to SLOW Government
In the previous post I wrote about Slow Food, Slow Money, and Slow Living. In this post I propose a new kind of "Slow."
My day job at Yankee Farm Credit involves financing farmers, which relates to both food and money. In recent years we have been seeing more nontraditional farmers, and I coined the phrase SLO agriculture for Sustainable, Local and/or Organic agriculture. My choice of acronym was a deliberate reference to Slow Food and Slow Money. Later I learned about Slow Living, and that all of these movements are part of the larger Slow Movement.
The philosophy of "Slow" has much to offer. Who doesn't think that modern life is sometimes too fast? But for all that it has to offer, the Slow Movement is missing something. It is missing what I call SLOW Government.
SLOW Government is the opposite of fast government. Fast government seeks to use the power of government to solve more and more of life's problems, resulting in more laws, more regulations, more government programs, more government bureaucracy, more taxes to pay for it all, and more government control over our lives.
SLOW Government first asks the question: Is this a necessary and proper function of government? In a country founded on the principle of limited government, this is a question that we too often fail to ask. SLOW Government recognizes the importance of culture and society outside of government.
The inspiration for SLOW Government came from one of the principles of Slow Money: "There is such a thing as money that is too fast, companies that are too big, finance that is too complex." (source) I believe that there is such a thing as government that is too fast, too big, and too complex.
A good way to think about SLOW Government is as an acronym, which is why it is capitalized:
S is for Sustainable. Government should be financially sustainable. Current policies are not sustainable. Cash outflows cannot indefinitely exceed cash inflows. Debt cannot increase without limit. We in the Farm Credit System have some experience in this area. We know that excessive debt causes borrowers to fail. We know that excessive debt causes financial institutions to fail. The Farm Credit System itself has had several near-death experiences in its long and storied history. Excessive debt also causes governments to fail. That is a fate to be avoided at all costs because it leads to great misery.
L is for Local. Government should be as local as possible. Centralized administration is the enemy of democracy. Alexis de Tocqueville made this observation in the 1830s in his famous book Democracy in America. On my employer's blog I have written two posts about Alexis de Tocqueville's views on the importance of local government, using New York and China as examples.
O is for Organic. The economy should be as organic as possible. Government should allow the economy to develop naturally, without being forced or contrived. Government's management of the economy should rely as little as possible on subsidies, mandates, grants, tax incentives, stimulus spending, etc. Such artificial devices confuse the price signals that are necessary for the economy to work. Such artificial devices also lead to crony capitalism, which is to be avoided because it causes citizens to lose faith in both business and government.
W is for Wise. Government should be wise. Lao Tzu, the founder of Daoism, said: "To attain knowledge, add things every day. To attain wisdom, subtract things every day." (source) Our government has had so many things added to it that it has become unmanageable. It has become unwise. No one can understand the Byzantine complexity of the endless laws, regulations, programs, agencies, departments, boards, etc. that constitute our government. We need to subtract things from government until it is once again manageable and wise.
One of the intellectual fathers of the Slow Movement is Henry David Thoreau. His influential 1849 essay "Civil Disobedience" begins with this sentence:
That perhaps overstates slightly what I mean by SLOW Government, but the sentiment is certainly in the right direction. SLOW Government does not mean NO government. It does mean government that is more Sustainable, more Local, more Organic, and Wiser than our current government.
And with this introduction to SLOW Government, I wish you a happy Independence Day!
UPDATE: Fellow Vermonters have taken the bull by the horns on the "S is for Sustainable" aspect of SLOW Government. Biddle Duke, owner and president of the Stowe Reporter, together with friends Rob Foregger, Steve Silverman, Craig DeLuca, Bob Anderson and Jim Del Favero started a movement that went national in August 2012: Fix the Debt. Sign their petition! Click here for the story of how this movement began in Vermont.
UPDATE: Fellow Vermonters have written the book on the "L is for Local" aspect of SLOW Government. In September 2012 Susan Clark, town moderator of Middlesex, and Woden Teachout published Slow Democracy: Rediscovering Community, Bringing Decision Making Back Home. Read their book! "Slow democracy" means local democracy (and more). Vermont town meetings are an example of slow democracy.
My day job at Yankee Farm Credit involves financing farmers, which relates to both food and money. In recent years we have been seeing more nontraditional farmers, and I coined the phrase SLO agriculture for Sustainable, Local and/or Organic agriculture. My choice of acronym was a deliberate reference to Slow Food and Slow Money. Later I learned about Slow Living, and that all of these movements are part of the larger Slow Movement.
The philosophy of "Slow" has much to offer. Who doesn't think that modern life is sometimes too fast? But for all that it has to offer, the Slow Movement is missing something. It is missing what I call SLOW Government.
SLOW Government is the opposite of fast government. Fast government seeks to use the power of government to solve more and more of life's problems, resulting in more laws, more regulations, more government programs, more government bureaucracy, more taxes to pay for it all, and more government control over our lives.
SLOW Government first asks the question: Is this a necessary and proper function of government? In a country founded on the principle of limited government, this is a question that we too often fail to ask. SLOW Government recognizes the importance of culture and society outside of government.
The inspiration for SLOW Government came from one of the principles of Slow Money: "There is such a thing as money that is too fast, companies that are too big, finance that is too complex." (source) I believe that there is such a thing as government that is too fast, too big, and too complex.
A good way to think about SLOW Government is as an acronym, which is why it is capitalized:
S is for Sustainable. Government should be financially sustainable. Current policies are not sustainable. Cash outflows cannot indefinitely exceed cash inflows. Debt cannot increase without limit. We in the Farm Credit System have some experience in this area. We know that excessive debt causes borrowers to fail. We know that excessive debt causes financial institutions to fail. The Farm Credit System itself has had several near-death experiences in its long and storied history. Excessive debt also causes governments to fail. That is a fate to be avoided at all costs because it leads to great misery.
L is for Local. Government should be as local as possible. Centralized administration is the enemy of democracy. Alexis de Tocqueville made this observation in the 1830s in his famous book Democracy in America. On my employer's blog I have written two posts about Alexis de Tocqueville's views on the importance of local government, using New York and China as examples.
O is for Organic. The economy should be as organic as possible. Government should allow the economy to develop naturally, without being forced or contrived. Government's management of the economy should rely as little as possible on subsidies, mandates, grants, tax incentives, stimulus spending, etc. Such artificial devices confuse the price signals that are necessary for the economy to work. Such artificial devices also lead to crony capitalism, which is to be avoided because it causes citizens to lose faith in both business and government.
W is for Wise. Government should be wise. Lao Tzu, the founder of Daoism, said: "To attain knowledge, add things every day. To attain wisdom, subtract things every day." (source) Our government has had so many things added to it that it has become unmanageable. It has become unwise. No one can understand the Byzantine complexity of the endless laws, regulations, programs, agencies, departments, boards, etc. that constitute our government. We need to subtract things from government until it is once again manageable and wise.
One of the intellectual fathers of the Slow Movement is Henry David Thoreau. His influential 1849 essay "Civil Disobedience" begins with this sentence:
I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically.
That perhaps overstates slightly what I mean by SLOW Government, but the sentiment is certainly in the right direction. SLOW Government does not mean NO government. It does mean government that is more Sustainable, more Local, more Organic, and Wiser than our current government.
And with this introduction to SLOW Government, I wish you a happy Independence Day!
UPDATE: Fellow Vermonters have taken the bull by the horns on the "S is for Sustainable" aspect of SLOW Government. Biddle Duke, owner and president of the Stowe Reporter, together with friends Rob Foregger, Steve Silverman, Craig DeLuca, Bob Anderson and Jim Del Favero started a movement that went national in August 2012: Fix the Debt. Sign their petition! Click here for the story of how this movement began in Vermont.
UPDATE: Fellow Vermonters have written the book on the "L is for Local" aspect of SLOW Government. In September 2012 Susan Clark, town moderator of Middlesex, and Woden Teachout published Slow Democracy: Rediscovering Community, Bringing Decision Making Back Home. Read their book! "Slow democracy" means local democracy (and more). Vermont town meetings are an example of slow democracy.
Introduction to Slow Living
In this post I introduce the concept of Slow Living. But first I have to talk about Slow Food and Slow Money.
Everyone knows what fast food is. Slow Food is an international movement founded in opposition to fast food. Slow Food grew out of a protest against the opening of a McDonald's restaurant in Rome in 1986. Slow Food promotes food that is enjoyable, good for the consumer, good for the farmer, and good for the planet. "It opposes the standardization of taste and culture, and the unrestrained power of the food industry multinationals and industrial agriculture." The founder of Slow Food is Carlo Petrini of Italy. Today the Slow Food movement includes over 100,000 members in 150 countries.
The Slow Money movement was founded in 2008 by Woody Tasch of the United States with the publication of Inquiries Into the Nature of Slow Money: Investing as if Food, Farms, and Fertility Mattered. Carlo Petrini wrote the Foreword. The Slow Money movement seeks to "connect investors to the places where they live, creating vital relationships and new sources of capital for small food enterprises." In 2010 there was a Slow Money National Gathering in Shelburne, Vermont, which I attended.
The Slow Living movement extends the philosophies of Slow Food and Slow Money:
Last month there was a Slow Living Summit in Brattleboro, Vermont, which I attended.
More info (all of the above quotes came from these links):
Slow Food: Wikipedia entry, http://www.slowfood.com/
Slow Money: Wikipedia entry, http://www.slowmoney.org/
Slow Living: Wikipedia entry, http://www.slowlivingsummit.org/
Well, this is all very interesting. Who doesn't think that modern life is sometimes too fast? But what I find really interesting is something that is missing.
What is the philosophy of "Slow" missing? See the next post.
Everyone knows what fast food is. Slow Food is an international movement founded in opposition to fast food. Slow Food grew out of a protest against the opening of a McDonald's restaurant in Rome in 1986. Slow Food promotes food that is enjoyable, good for the consumer, good for the farmer, and good for the planet. "It opposes the standardization of taste and culture, and the unrestrained power of the food industry multinationals and industrial agriculture." The founder of Slow Food is Carlo Petrini of Italy. Today the Slow Food movement includes over 100,000 members in 150 countries.
The Slow Money movement was founded in 2008 by Woody Tasch of the United States with the publication of Inquiries Into the Nature of Slow Money: Investing as if Food, Farms, and Fertility Mattered. Carlo Petrini wrote the Foreword. The Slow Money movement seeks to "connect investors to the places where they live, creating vital relationships and new sources of capital for small food enterprises." In 2010 there was a Slow Money National Gathering in Shelburne, Vermont, which I attended.
The Slow Living movement extends the philosophies of Slow Food and Slow Money:
This simple phrase [Slow Living] expresses the fundamental paradigm shift that is underway in this age. “Slow” encodes the transformative change from faster and cheaper to slower and better—where quality, community and the future matter. It’s about slowing down and becoming more mindful of our basic connection with land, place and people, taking the long view that builds a just, healthy, fulfilling way of life for the generations to come. It is about common good taking precedence over private gain. It is about shifting not just consumption but investment to support the local and regional economy.
Last month there was a Slow Living Summit in Brattleboro, Vermont, which I attended.
More info (all of the above quotes came from these links):
Slow Food: Wikipedia entry, http://www.slowfood.com/
Slow Money: Wikipedia entry, http://www.slowmoney.org/
Slow Living: Wikipedia entry, http://www.slowlivingsummit.org/
Well, this is all very interesting. Who doesn't think that modern life is sometimes too fast? But what I find really interesting is something that is missing.
What is the philosophy of "Slow" missing? See the next post.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Madonna Vasa Trail
Today we got out hiking for only the second time this winter. It was the first time on snowshoes! It's been a mild winter, with little snow. But we had a good time today. About 30 degrees F, snowing lightly, with about 1.5 feet of snow on the ground where we were.
We hiked part of the Madonna Vasa Trail, which I had never been on before. It's a XC ski trail that was created some years ago (1960s or 1970s?). It runs from one of the parking lots at Smugglers Notch Ski Area (Madonna Mountain) to the Underhill State Park. We hiked from Desjardin Road to Burnor Road.
Here's the crew today:
We hiked part of the Madonna Vasa Trail, which I had never been on before. It's a XC ski trail that was created some years ago (1960s or 1970s?). It runs from one of the parking lots at Smugglers Notch Ski Area (Madonna Mountain) to the Underhill State Park. We hiked from Desjardin Road to Burnor Road.
Here's the crew today:
It wasn't snowing very hard in the photo above. By the time we stopped for lunch, it was snowing harder:
In case you're wondering, the styrofoam cups contain hot chocolate and peppermint schnapps. Do we look happy??
The Madonna Vasa Trail was inspired by the Vasaloppet in Sweden, called the Vasa for short. The Vasaloppet is an annual 90 km XC ski race that was started in 1922 and was in turn inspired by a legendary run by King Gustav Vasa in 1520.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
100 Years Ago and Today
Pager's parents, Joel Kinsley Putnam and Mabelle Butler were married 100 years ago today. The photo above was taken at the farm on their wedding day. No white Christmas that year!
Beth still has Mabelle's wedding dress:
Above Pager celebrated Christmas today with Beth, Emily, Laura and Katie. Below with me, Brian and Geoff:
Beth gave Pager a copy of the new history of Cambridge (Special Places, Special People) by Roberta Marsh, published last month:
A White Christmas
It has been an unusually warm fall. Most of the northern U.S. is not having a white Christmas this year. We do not have a lot of snow here, but we are fortunate to have a white Christmas. Yesterday, the day before Christmas, was a beautiful, sunny day. We had 2-3" of snow in our backyard:
Today, Christmas Day, it snowed:
By evening we had another 6" of light, fluffy snow.
Today, Christmas Day, it snowed:
By evening we had another 6" of light, fluffy snow.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Laraway Mountain
Today was a beautiful winter day. We climbed to the lookout on Laraway Mountain on the Long Trail in Waterville. On the trail up:
Mt. Mansfield from the lookout:
Mt. Mansfield from the lookout:
Brian and Laura at the lookout:
Laraway Mountain is known for its south-facing cliffs just below the lookout. Giant icicles form on the cliffs in the winter. Hiking out under the cliffs:
There was 3-4" of snow. We didn't need snowshoes, but it was a little icy. Yaktrax or MICROspikes were helpful. It was a cool day, with temps in the single digits above zero Fahrenheit. We saw only one other set of tracks all day. Soon after crossing the big brook on our way up we met the person who had made those tracks, a rabbit hunter.
On the trail down as the sun set:
The best day in winter is better than the best day in summer!
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Angels Landing
Angels Landing is a 5785 foot peak in Zion National Park. The climb is a popular yet challenging hike. It is 2.5 miles up, with an elevation gain of about 1200 feet. The peak from the valley floor:
Looking north toward the Temple of Sinawava and the Narrows:
The first two miles are paved. The initial climb goes up a series of switchbacks on the south side:
Then the trail levels out as it passes between two peaks:
The paved trail then continues up an amazing series of switchbacks known as Walter's Wiggles:
Scout Lookout is at the top of Walter's Wiggles. Here the paved trail comes to an end. The trail now leads to the summit from the north across a narrow ridge. In a few places the trail is only 2-3 feet wide. There are chains to grasp in many places.
We made it!
Looking down on the Organ and the Virgin River:
Looking down on the Big Bend parking lot (the Organ is just to the right outside the photo):
Looking north toward the Temple of Sinawava and the Narrows:
Looking south down Zion Valley:
We hiked from Zion Lodge, visible in the photo above if you magnify it. A super hike!
Sunday, September 11, 2011
A look back at 9/11 and blogging
Today is the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Those attacks helped fuel the rise of blogs.
In April 2002 we visited New York City. It was the first time I had ever been in New York City except in airports and train stations. We went specifically to see Ground Zero. (And also the play QED at the Lincoln Center starring Alan Alda as Richard Feynman.) It was after returning from that trip that I discovered blogs, as I wrote about in this post.
In that post I wrote about two bloggers, Megan McArdle and Glenn Reynolds. Both are now well known bloggers. Megan McArdle blogs at The Atlantic. Glenn Reynolds blogs at Instapundit.
Megan McArdle started blogging in November 2001. She joined Mindles H. Dreck on a blog called Asymmetrical Information. (Mindles H. Dreck is undoubtedly a pen name. I don't know anything about him or her.) Dreck started the blog in October 2001. From Dreck's first post on 10/2/01: "About me: I'm in the money management business. My offices are a few blocks from the former World Trade Center. Like many 'warbloggers' I read, my proximity to this historic event is one of the reasons I'm recording my thoughts." (source, scroll to bottom)
Ms. McArdle's first posts were on 11/23/01, under the pen name Jane Galt. From one of her posts that day:
In my post referenced above I quoted from her blog post on 4/27/02 when she wrote about having been at the WTC recovery site for seven months, and asking "do you remember?" about things that had happened during those seven months.
Glenn Reynolds starting blogging in August 2001, one month before 9/11. His blog took on a new focus after 9/11. He recently looked back at that experience. Start with this short post that he published last night. Then read this article at knoxnews.com posted yesterday: Attacks gave rise to Instapundit blog. And finally watch the 5 minute video by Glenn Reynolds at the bottom of the knoxnews article.
From the knoxnews article:
P.S. Happy birthday, Brian!
UPDATE 9/12/11: Megan McArdle posts some thoughts about the events of 9/11/01. "Without 9/11...I would not have started blogging."
In April 2002 we visited New York City. It was the first time I had ever been in New York City except in airports and train stations. We went specifically to see Ground Zero. (And also the play QED at the Lincoln Center starring Alan Alda as Richard Feynman.) It was after returning from that trip that I discovered blogs, as I wrote about in this post.
In that post I wrote about two bloggers, Megan McArdle and Glenn Reynolds. Both are now well known bloggers. Megan McArdle blogs at The Atlantic. Glenn Reynolds blogs at Instapundit.
Megan McArdle started blogging in November 2001. She joined Mindles H. Dreck on a blog called Asymmetrical Information. (Mindles H. Dreck is undoubtedly a pen name. I don't know anything about him or her.) Dreck started the blog in October 2001. From Dreck's first post on 10/2/01: "About me: I'm in the money management business. My offices are a few blocks from the former World Trade Center. Like many 'warbloggers' I read, my proximity to this historic event is one of the reasons I'm recording my thoughts." (source, scroll to bottom)
Ms. McArdle's first posts were on 11/23/01, under the pen name Jane Galt. From one of her posts that day:
Now to introduce myself. I am, it seems, the epitome of our new century. I'm 28, just graduated from one of the top business schools in the world, and just had my job offer rescinded by a management consulting firm. In the interim, I have obtained a job with a construction company working on the WTC disaster recovery site. No, I don't work on "the pile" (as it is known here, despite the fact that they are already working below ground level) -- I work in a trailer across the street, doing everything from handing out security passes, to database design, to typing letters. Unfortunately, I can't offer any great insights, or even good gossip, about the site -- first, because they don't tell me anything, and second, because relating what I do hear could cost me my job. So no great insights. But possibly interesting trivia.
In my post referenced above I quoted from her blog post on 4/27/02 when she wrote about having been at the WTC recovery site for seven months, and asking "do you remember?" about things that had happened during those seven months.
Glenn Reynolds starting blogging in August 2001, one month before 9/11. His blog took on a new focus after 9/11. He recently looked back at that experience. Start with this short post that he published last night. Then read this article at knoxnews.com posted yesterday: Attacks gave rise to Instapundit blog. And finally watch the 5 minute video by Glenn Reynolds at the bottom of the knoxnews article.
From the knoxnews article:
In an August video marking the 10th anniversary of his blog, Reynolds said, "The beauty of blogging goes on, as the kind of technology that made it possible for me to start Instapundit makes it possible for people to do all kinds of independent punditry and journalism today."
And that may be the most unintended of consequences of the terrorists whose aim was to strike fear in the hearts of Americans.
P.S. Happy birthday, Brian!
UPDATE 9/12/11: Megan McArdle posts some thoughts about the events of 9/11/01. "Without 9/11...I would not have started blogging."
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Douglas Adams on Money
Douglas Adams was brilliant.
I have been rereading his 1998 talk "Is There an Artificial God?", published in The Salmon of Doubt. (See also my earlier posts on the book and the talk.)
Here's how the talk came about. Douglas Adams was invited to be a speaker at a conference titled: Digital Biota 2 - The Second Annual Conference on Cyberbiology at Magdalene College, University of Cambridge, England. He declined to give a speech, feeling that he was an amateur among luminaries. But he did attend the conference and he agreed to be put on the agenda for a "debate." When it came time for his "debate," he stood up with no prepared notes and talked extemporaneously for over an hour, basically proposing a debate over the question: "Is There an Artificial God?"
It was an amazing performance. Fortunately someone made an audio recording, so that his talk was preserved and later transcribed. At the first link in this post you can find a link to the audio recording where you can hear both Adams himself and the audience reaction.
This captivating talk wove together concepts from science, religion, economics, agriculture and feng shui, all wrapped up in a story about the Four Ages of Sand. He brought all of these disparate themes together into one simple principle:
You need to read the talk to understand what he meant by that, but he believed that this principle "is arguably therefore the prime cause of everything in the universe. Big claim, but I feel I'm talking to a sympathetic audience." His talk was a tour de force, all the more so because it was off the cuff.
In this post I want to focus on what Douglas Adams said about money:
In his view, the concept of religion is the same. Now you can see how he came to include the topic of economics in a talk titled "Is There an Artificial God?"
Adams does not argue that we should get rid of either religion or money. On the contrary, he acknowledges how incredibly useful they both are. The example he uses to support the usefulness of religion involves agriculture, which is how that topic got into his talk.
That's about all that Adams says about money, but I think he could have said something additional that is interesting.
Recall his Four Ages of Sand; that is, sand to make glass lenses, silicon chips and fiber optic cable:
1. Telescopes - We discover the outer universe.
2. Microscopes - We discover the inner universe.
3. Computers - We discover computation.
4. The Internet - We discover new ways of communication.
All of Adams' major points revolve around the first three ages, especially the Third Age where we learn that complexity can arise from simple processes repeated over and over. He actually forgot to talk about the Fourth Age until someone asked a question about it. In his response to that question he talked about four modes of communication:
1. One-to-one
2. One-to-many
3. Many-to-one
4. Many-to-many
One-to-one communication needs no explanation. One-to-many communication is mass media. I'll say more about many-to-one communication below. Adams' point was that many-to-many communication is new in the world, made possible by the Internet, the Fourth Age. We don't know what changes this will bring to our world, but they are likely to be profound, just as the introduction of one-to-many communication brought profound changes. Think about the effect on history of the printing press, radio, and television.
Adams gave only one example of many-to-one communication:
He did not elaborate on how he thought our democratic systems would improve dramatically, but the point I want to make is about something else. I think he overlooked something. I think he missed another important example of many-to-one communication: markets.
Think about the law of supply and demand. Prices adjust so that the amount supplied (at that price) equals the amount demanded (at that price). The price mechanism is what allows the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Prices serve to communicate information between buyers and sellers.
I suppose we could think of markets as many-to-many communication, since there are usually many buyers and many sellers. But I find it useful to think of markets as many-to-one communication. The many (buyers) are communicating useful information to the one (each seller). What kind of useful information? Producers are one example of sellers. The price they can obtain for the products they sell communicates useful information about how much to produce. If the price is high and the producer therefore realizes a profit, the producer will tend to produce more, and so on.
There are two important similarities between democratic systems and markets. In both systems, the many communicate to the one by voting. In democratic systems we vote with ballots. In markets we vote with our purchasing decisions.
Another similarity is that both systems operate well only with liberal quantities of freedom. It is not a coincidence that both democratic systems and markets increased in importance in the world as freedom became more prevalent. The year 1776 was a seminal year for both systems, with the adoption of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and publication of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
Douglas Adams said "there's not much of it about" meaning many-to-one communication. If democracy is one's only example, that is true. The amount of information transmitted from the many to the one in a democratic voting system is limited. Not everyone votes, ballots have limited choices, and votes are counted only once every few years. Much more information is transmitted from the many to the one in a market. Participation is broader, choices are more extensive, and votes are counted continuously.
Markets are a wonderful example of many-to-one communication. I would argue a better example even than democracy. And what is necessary to make markets work? Something that:
Money.
I have been rereading his 1998 talk "Is There an Artificial God?", published in The Salmon of Doubt. (See also my earlier posts on the book and the talk.)
Here's how the talk came about. Douglas Adams was invited to be a speaker at a conference titled: Digital Biota 2 - The Second Annual Conference on Cyberbiology at Magdalene College, University of Cambridge, England. He declined to give a speech, feeling that he was an amateur among luminaries. But he did attend the conference and he agreed to be put on the agenda for a "debate." When it came time for his "debate," he stood up with no prepared notes and talked extemporaneously for over an hour, basically proposing a debate over the question: "Is There an Artificial God?"
It was an amazing performance. Fortunately someone made an audio recording, so that his talk was preserved and later transcribed. At the first link in this post you can find a link to the audio recording where you can hear both Adams himself and the audience reaction.
This captivating talk wove together concepts from science, religion, economics, agriculture and feng shui, all wrapped up in a story about the Four Ages of Sand. He brought all of these disparate themes together into one simple principle:
Anything that happens happens.
You need to read the talk to understand what he meant by that, but he believed that this principle "is arguably therefore the prime cause of everything in the universe. Big claim, but I feel I'm talking to a sympathetic audience." His talk was a tour de force, all the more so because it was off the cuff.
In this post I want to focus on what Douglas Adams said about money:
Money has no meaning outside ourselves; it is something we have created that has a powerful shaping effect on our world, because it's something we all subscribe to.
In his view, the concept of religion is the same. Now you can see how he came to include the topic of economics in a talk titled "Is There an Artificial God?"
Adams does not argue that we should get rid of either religion or money. On the contrary, he acknowledges how incredibly useful they both are. The example he uses to support the usefulness of religion involves agriculture, which is how that topic got into his talk.
That's about all that Adams says about money, but I think he could have said something additional that is interesting.
Recall his Four Ages of Sand; that is, sand to make glass lenses, silicon chips and fiber optic cable:
1. Telescopes - We discover the outer universe.
2. Microscopes - We discover the inner universe.
3. Computers - We discover computation.
4. The Internet - We discover new ways of communication.
All of Adams' major points revolve around the first three ages, especially the Third Age where we learn that complexity can arise from simple processes repeated over and over. He actually forgot to talk about the Fourth Age until someone asked a question about it. In his response to that question he talked about four modes of communication:
1. One-to-one
2. One-to-many
3. Many-to-one
4. Many-to-many
One-to-one communication needs no explanation. One-to-many communication is mass media. I'll say more about many-to-one communication below. Adams' point was that many-to-many communication is new in the world, made possible by the Internet, the Fourth Age. We don't know what changes this will bring to our world, but they are likely to be profound, just as the introduction of one-to-many communication brought profound changes. Think about the effect on history of the printing press, radio, and television.
Adams gave only one example of many-to-one communication:
Then there's many-to-one; we have that, but not very well yet, and there's not much of it about. Essentially, our democratic systems are a model of that, and though they're not very good, they will improve dramatically.
He did not elaborate on how he thought our democratic systems would improve dramatically, but the point I want to make is about something else. I think he overlooked something. I think he missed another important example of many-to-one communication: markets.
Think about the law of supply and demand. Prices adjust so that the amount supplied (at that price) equals the amount demanded (at that price). The price mechanism is what allows the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Prices serve to communicate information between buyers and sellers.
I suppose we could think of markets as many-to-many communication, since there are usually many buyers and many sellers. But I find it useful to think of markets as many-to-one communication. The many (buyers) are communicating useful information to the one (each seller). What kind of useful information? Producers are one example of sellers. The price they can obtain for the products they sell communicates useful information about how much to produce. If the price is high and the producer therefore realizes a profit, the producer will tend to produce more, and so on.
There are two important similarities between democratic systems and markets. In both systems, the many communicate to the one by voting. In democratic systems we vote with ballots. In markets we vote with our purchasing decisions.
Another similarity is that both systems operate well only with liberal quantities of freedom. It is not a coincidence that both democratic systems and markets increased in importance in the world as freedom became more prevalent. The year 1776 was a seminal year for both systems, with the adoption of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and publication of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
Douglas Adams said "there's not much of it about" meaning many-to-one communication. If democracy is one's only example, that is true. The amount of information transmitted from the many to the one in a democratic voting system is limited. Not everyone votes, ballots have limited choices, and votes are counted only once every few years. Much more information is transmitted from the many to the one in a market. Participation is broader, choices are more extensive, and votes are counted continuously.
Markets are a wonderful example of many-to-one communication. I would argue a better example even than democracy. And what is necessary to make markets work? Something that:
has no meaning outside ourselves; it is something we have created that has a powerful shaping effect on our world, because it's something we all subscribe to.
Money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)