Finding good information today (Part One)

I find it increasingly difficult to find good enough information that makes me think and help me develop a sound opinion about daily issues, whether they be political or societal. There is so much going on everywhere that the sorting of what’s important, useful and better yet actionable becomes increasingly difficult to wrestle with. 

All this is what pushes me to wonder if there’s a better way to get to the essentials without having the impression of having wasted my time by getting led to rabbit holes that deepen my uncertainties without improving my understanding? I’m asking where’s the right media, where do I find it and how do I keep a critical view? 

I feel that I’m describing something many of us feel right now: the sense that information is abundant but understanding is scarce. Not because we lack curiosity or intelligence, but because the modern information environment is engineered to fragment attention, amplify noise, and reward emotional reaction over reflective judgment. 

Before we go deeper into our search for solutions, here’s just a concise takeaway: Some ways we can regain clarity is by narrowing our inputs or sources of information, structuring how you consume the news, and adopting a deliberate method for forming opinions that resists the pull of the daily news cycle. This is what we’ll start exploring in our next blog.

The importance of good parenting (Part Two)

In the previous post, I made it pretty clear that the people best equipped to raise children are the ones directly responsible for them — whether they are parents, single caregivers, foster families, or, when life demands it, grandparents. 

This responsibility cannot be outsourced to schools, nor delegated to the screens of tablets and smartphones. Raising a child is not only a privilege; it is a duty. And with that duty comes accountability. Too often, when a young person causes harm, the entire weight of the consequence falls on the child alone, as if they were raised in a vacuum. 

But children act within the framework adults create for them. Until legal majority, the parent and child form a single moral and educational unit: the parent shapes, the child acts, and both share responsibility for the outcome. 

This means that when a minor causes damage, the consequences — whether financial reparation, community service, or other sanctions — should be borne jointly. Not because parents are to blame for every misstep, but because shared consequences reinforce shared responsibility. 

They encourage parents to stay engaged and teach children that their actions affect more than just themselves. It also acts as a dissuasive factor that discourages the abdication of parental authority. Of course, real life is more complex than any principle on paper. Many parents struggle with overwhelming circumstances. But acknowledging complexity does not erase responsibility; it simply means society must support parents so they can fulfill it. 

Without a renewed culture of parental engagement, there is little reason to expect meaningful improvement. Accountability begins at home — and so does hope.

The importance of good parenting (Part One)

Recent, grave incidents in France, and indeed across the world, show a troubling disengagement of parents from their most critical role: raising children. This responsibility cannot be outsourced to schools, nor delegated to the screens of tablets and smartphones. 

Parents must recognize that they are not only legally liable for their children’s actions until adulthood, but also morally responsible for shaping their values, resilience, and empathy. Institutions — schools, churches, synagogues, mosques — may support, but they cannot replace the parental role.

What children need most is presence: attentive, consistent, and engaged parents who choose to listen rather than scroll, who model responsibility rather than distraction. Parenting is hard work, but it is also the most irreplaceable investment in the future. 

Liability is only the surface; the deeper truth is that parents hold the privilege of shaping lives in ways no other institution can, and if they relinquish that job no one else will, and it’s disheartening to me when I see that too few voices in politics and in social circles even think that way! 

Modern life is very demanding when both parents have to work in order to afford the lifestyle they want, but somehow there has to be enough room left to pay more attention to the young lives that only have their family to count on in order to follow by example and to gain priceless insights they’ll carry with them all their life. 

It’s certainly not worth leaving that job to the screens of tablets and smartphones, when adults prefer to splurge on senseless social media and TV programs. Next time, we’ll see how a well organized and sound society should deal with that concerning reality.

Experience vs. Openness (Part two)

Today, we’ll sketch a simple framework — almost like a checklist — so we can see how to decide when to trust experience versus when to challenge it. This, of course, will be affected by our personal threshold of risk. Still, it’s a quick 3‑step flow that we can run through in real time. 

Step 1 — Asks: “Is this familiar?” If the situation resembles something we’ve faced before, the experience is a strong and reliable guide. If, on the contrary, it feels new or unprecedented, we should take a good pause before applying old solutions. 

Step 2 — Ask: “Does my past fit the present?” Check whether the context has changed (technology, people, culture, timing). If it’s not the case and the environment is different, experience may bias us toward outdated answers. 

Step 3 — Ask: “What’s the cost of being wrong?” If the stakes are low, experiment that option, try something new and see where it leads us. If the stakes are high, we still need to lean more on proven experience — but still invite fresh input. 

This exercise should show us that on balance, if experience is the guardrails we need, it does keep us safe, efficient and resilient. On the other hand, openness means a growth opportunity to keep us adaptive, curious and innovative. 

The not-so-obvious conclusion (or the “art” in this exercise) is knowing when to let one lead and the other support. We could think of it like walking with two tools: experience as our compass and openness as our map. The compass keeps you oriented, but the map shows new terrain.

Experience vs. Openness (Part one)

As I keep on walking the path of life, the most important tool I can’t ignore is all the experience I’ve accumulated over the years. It’s a guide, an inspiration, a set of guardrails and an ever growing resource that protects me, makes me act efficiently and in my best interest and I would be tempted to believe that I couldn’t ever do as well without such a rich experience. 

All this matters because decades of lived situations give us a mental library. We can easily spot risks and opportunities much faster than someone without that background. In addition, this allows us not to waste energy reinventing the wheel as we already know what works and what doesn’t. It’s also a fact that past challenges remind us that setbacks are survivable, which steadies us in most present situations. 

The bottom line is that experience blends facts with context. It’s not just knowing what to do, but when and why. This doesn’t mean that experience is a perfect teacher. 

We need to pay attention as it can also draw us toward old solutions. When that seems to happen, the best move is to ask: Does my past really fit this new situation, or do I need fresh eyes? In fact, to work as it should for us, experience must act as a guardrail, as I first mentioned, but not a cage — protecting you from repeating mistakes, but leaving room for curiosity and adaptation.

This said, we couldn’t navigate life as effectively without our accumulated experience (the compass). But the real strength is not just having it — it’s knowing when to lean on it, and when to let openness (the map) complement it. Tomorrow, we’ll see how to accomplish just that.

FIS Johan Eliash on thin ice?

It’s in 1996 that I met Mr Eliash, in person, for the first and only time. The self-proclaimed billionaire had just acquired Head skis in 1995 and would serve as its active Chief Executive Officer for over 25 years, until 2021. He stepped down as CEO following his election as President of the International Ski Federation (FIS) in June 2021. He has since maintained his role as Head’s Chairman of the Board, and his family remains the company’s majority owner. 

I had flown to New York to interview for the job of President of its US subsidiary. I thought I made an excellent presentation, but Eliash preferred Dynastar’s Carl Helmetag to me, finding me too aggressive for his own style, and saving me a relocation to Maryland. The stodgy Vermont resident barely lasted 3 years on the job probably, because Head’s owner was a little tyrant. 

Today, Johan Eliasch is seeking another term as president of the FIS, but his re-election campaign has triggered a bitter divide. He is facing strong opposition from major Western ski nations over his financial management, centralized control, and unique Georgian nomination. 

Eliasch is aiming to extend his tenure as FIS president, but his campaign has been mired in political drama and pushback from within the sport. Because neither of his home countries (Sweden and Great Britain) were willing to back him, Eliasch acquired Georgian citizenship and was nominated by the Georgian Ski Association.

The most influential national ski associations—including Norway, the United States, Austria, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and Canada—sent a joint letter strongly opposing his continued leadership. Because of Vion’s cushy job at FIS in Bern, the French have remained silent. Critics and opposing federations cite two main points of tension. 

First, opposing nations claim that the federation's financial reserves and stability have deteriorated significantly since Eliasch took office in 2021. Eliasch has pushed for aggressive centralization of media and marketing rights against traditional European federations’ wishes that want to keep both autonomy and revenue, leading to accusations that he runs the FIS autocratically. 

Eliasch faces a heavily contested field of four other candidates seeking the presidency. The election battle and control of the FIS governing body will be decided in five days at its upcoming Congress in Belgrade, Serbia. Once a little dictator, always turn into a big one!

Look what I found!

We find a lot of stuff each time my wife and I walk. Today, it was that feather and I wondered which bird it belonged to. At first, I thought it was large enough to come from a bird of prey, but when I asked Gemini (AI) it said that the 12 1/3” (31.5 cm) long feather was a primary flight feather from a Canada Goose (Branta canadensis).

​Here are the key characteristics from the image that point to this identification: ​

Coloration: It has a uniform, dark grayish-brown to charcoal vane, which transitions into a distinctly pale, almost white translucent calamus (the quill) at the base.

 ​Shape: The asymmetrical vane (where one side is much narrower than the other) is classic for a primary wing feather, designed to provide lift and aerodynamics during flight. ​

Texture and Size: The sturdy, rigid structure of the rachis (center shaft) and the dense, interlocking barbs are typical of large, powerful waterfowl. ​

AI also reminded me that a lost feather like that one found in the United States, fell (no pun intended) under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As a result, it’s technically illegal to keep, possess, or collect feathers from protected migratory birds (which includes Canada Geese, eagles, hawks, and songbirds), even if it’s just found dropped on the ground. So now you’re warned !