I have been to the mountain top

A few days ago, someone asked me what I enjoy about hiking.  At the time, I answered that it was partly the exercise, partly the views, and also the solitude.  I've pondered that question a bit since then and discovered that, while that initial response is true, there are deeper reasons.

Projects at work fade quickly as the next task appears, and shaving a few seconds off my regular run is only briefly elating, but I can instantly remember the view from the top of every hike I've done in the last couple years, and can describe each trek to you in detail.  Sometimes the ascent to the summit is a long, gradual climb with the destination visible well before I reach it.  Other times, the trail takes me through stands of trees or up the back of a cliff, and the apex appears suddenly.  Regardless of how I get there, reaching that destination fills me with an immensely satisfying sense of accomplishment that bests anything available back at sea level.  My lunch at the summit - a peanut-butter sandwich and handful of nuts- tastes better than any restaurant meal.

If you're reading this, then you probably know me well enough to know that I'm all about facts and data, research and preparation.  Certainly, I prepare well for a hike, but once the trek is on, it's a sensory-based experience.  I walk along the trail that's a crooked scar on the face of this mountain, the dirt, roots and rocks around me forming little gullies and mounds like a close-up view of the earth's skin.  The trees and plants spread away from the trail in rich layers unlike anything I can find in the best city park.  The air up here is crisper, and sound carries well.  At the summit, standing on solid ground yet so far above other parts of the earth, I grasp the magnificence of our planet more than I do anywhere else.  That connection doesn't happen looking out from an airplane window or from the top of a skyscraper. 

I have never climbed one of the world's famous peaks but I understand why people do.

Cuts alone won't cut it

This short opinion piece from the Sunday Seattle Times is right-on.  The principle is sound regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum.  I approve.

More of the same

In a December interview, incoming House Financial Services Committee chairman Spencer Bachus said “In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."  Bachus later tried to clarify that what he meant was “regulators should set the parameters in which banks operate but not micromanage them.”  The second quote sounds a lot better, but I think it's just a softened version. The former is what we'd expect to hear from any Fox News talking head, and from any right-wing politician if he/she were to turn off the filter that typically shapes public statements.

We have seen the consequences of setting Washington in the position of serving the banks:

• US banks (and other entities, like AIG's financial services arm) took on risk far exceeding their capacity to handle it, and some began to fail
• US equity markets plummeted, decimating individual investment portfolios and retirement accounts
• Property values fell sharply and millions of Americans lost jobs or had hours reduced
• US taxpayers spent well over $1 trillion (in the form of newly-issued government debt) to stabilize the financial system
• US investment banks were profitable in 2009 and are expected to be again in 2010. 

Mr. Bachus believes that the regulatory framework in place during the last five years was appropriate- banks were able to act without restraint, and the government rescued them when they got into real trouble.

Much reporting has been done to expose the lack of oversight of trading in mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps and activities in general of certain financial entities.  I'm not saying anything new here. But what can we do about it?  Sure, we can elect different representatives in the future, but catastrophes can happen quickly and have effects that last for years or decades to follow.  I think we'd all better increase our personal savings, as it's only a matter of time until the next crisis and we'll each need some cash socked away to weather it.

But what about those who have no income or are barely squeaking by, and have no ability to build a financial cushion?  Too bad, according to Mr. Bachus and friends.  In their view, government exists to serve corporations, not constituents.  I disapprove.

Footnote: I've been wanting to write a post about this ever since mid-November but didn't hear the right supporting quote until today, in an NPR piece.  Here's a transcript that's well worth a few minutes to read.

Act like you've been there before

It's been quite a while since I've seen a football team consistently eschew celebrations after big plays.  Stanford, playing in the Orange Bowl tonight, just made two huge offensive plays in the span of a few minutes, the second resulting in a touchdown, with nary a salute or a ball spike to be seen.  I love it.  Let your progress speak for itself and the game score tell the story.  I approve.

I also love the "Revenge of the Nerds" sign in the Stanford student/fan section.  Clever.

Stanford might be the best college football team in the country, but we'll never know because there is no playoff system.  I disapprove.