The double meaning of “Woke” (Park Three)

The first reason for the “Woke” confusion is that the word has become a “floating signifier”. This means not just a word, but a symbol or an image with a vague, unstable meaning that can be filled by different groups for their own purposes, allowing broad, sometimes contradictory, messages to address diverse people, in fact, whatever the speaker wants it to mean in the moment. An impossible task! 

The second reason is that it’s used more as a signal than a definition. It is used to tell us which “side” someone is on, instead of what they’re describing. 

The third reason is that it’s rhetorically useful because it’s vague. As a reminder, rhetorical means a skillful or persuasive use of language (orally or in writing) to influence, convince, or make a point, often for effect rather than explaining something. If a word can mean anything, it can be applied to everything. 

Finally, the fourth reason is that it’s easier to condemn a label than explain a policy. This is why we’ll see “woke corporations”. “woke schools”, “woke military”, “woke science”, all of these without a clear explanation of what the word refers to.

So in the end, what are we to do to clarify this confusion? Here’s the most accurate, non‑political definition we can use: Essentially, Woke means to be aware of social injustice and believing that society should address it. This definition is then opposed by the definition used by its opponents: 

For these opponents, Woke in an excessive or coercive activism that imposes ideological norms. As we can see, both definitions exist simultaneously. That’s why the word feels so slippery. 

If we want a clean, practical rule of thumb, when someone uses the word “woke,” we should ask: “What specific behavior or policy are you referring to?” If they cannot answer, they’re using the word as a rhetorical device, not a description. 

If I made myself clear all along, we all should know what we’re up against, know the differences in meanings and more importantly, determine the true reason why some people are using that word!

How is “Woke” used today? (Part Two)

That evolution is leading us to the messy part found in the meaning of “Woke”. 

In the 2020s, the word became politicized and weaponized, to the point that today, it has two very different meanings, depending on who’s using it. First, there’s a positive or neutral meaning of woke that means being socially aware, empathetic, and attentive to inequality. 

Then there’s a negative or critical meaning that was perverted by the Trump’s MAGA movement, to indicate an overreach in social activism, moralizing, or enforcing ideological conformity. 

This negative meaning is extremely broad and often used as a catch‑all insult for any progressive progressive ideas, diversity initiatives, inclusive language, academic or educational theories, corporate public relations, or more broadly used for anything perceived as “too politically correct”. 

Because it’s used so broadly, “woke” often loses its precision and many writers struggle to define it. So, It’s not just my imagination, but the reality is that far too many people who use the word heavily are woefully unable to define it clearly. Tomorrow I will attempt to explain the reasons behind this confusion, so please stay tuned.

What's WOKE supposed to mean?

As I'm now reading a “Right Wing Revolution” by the late Charlie Kirk, a right-wing propaganda book, in which he tries, or rather seems to struggle in defining woke, without much success to me, he makes me also suspect that he doesn't know either what the meaning of the words he uses really are. What's the real deal and please how should we define woke? 

So, this is the reason for my confusion and as I’m wondering about the true meaning of that word, I forced myself to dig deeper and what follows is what I found. First, I quickly was reassured when I discovered I wasn’t the first to be confused and dissatisfied with Kirk’s muddy interpretation and also that the word has undergone a continuous change over recent years. 

Here’s the clearest, most grounded way to understand “woke” without the political fog, the culture‑war heat, or the vague hand‑waving that often surrounds the term. In the beginning, “Woke” began as African American slang in the early to mid 20th century that simply meant: “Stay awake to injustice.” In other words, be alert, be aware, don’t sleep on what’s happening around you. That referred mainly to racial discrimination, police brutality, and social inequality. 

Woke was perceived as a positive term inside the Black community. Then, around the 2010s, the meaning shifted as it spread into mainstream culture. It became broadened to mean the awareness of social injustices of any kind (race, gender, sexuality, inequality, discrimination, etc.). 

While this meaning was for the most part positive, it was sometimes used humorously or ironically. However, in the 2020s, things changed as the word became politically charged and Woke forked into two different meanings that we’ll explore in the next blog...

Gone skiing!

Yesterday I went skiing, not for the sheer pleasure of it, but just to preview the skiing conditions that my daughter is likely to encounter on Christmas day when she’s with us and she decided to make a few turns with me then. 

It was 2 pm when I left home, the temperature was 53 degrees and when I get to the Canyon Village at Park City Mountain, there were few skiers, but the man-made snow that was the only way to go was the same quality that skiers would find at the end of April: Pure, unadulterated slush! 

Even on mid-mountain, at 8,500 feet, there was just a dusting of snow left and the man-made snow was eroding badly and one could spot rock through the translucent thin cover. The hard work put out by the resorts to make snow is going to waste. The few artificially snow covered runs were also very tricky, not dangerous to navigate! Gone skiing!

Skiers and snowboarders were having a tough time handling that heavy snow in what would turn into a mogul run in all the steeper portions of every run. I guess we’ll need a miraculous dump of cold snow to go skiing during the Holidays, but looking at the forecast, I’m not so hopeful! 

Al Gore was right almost 20 years ago, in 2006 when he published his book “An inconvenient truth”. We were only 6.6 billion on this planet, now we’re almost 8.3! We didn’t listen well, did almost nothing, and are crashing right into the wall.

Benchmark US health care!

Why are our US Congress Republicans, woefully incapable of understanding what ails healthcare in America, seem unable to articulate a plan, and worst, ignore benchmarking with other OECD countries that spend far less on health care with better outcomes (i.e. life expectency among others)? Even without taking sides here is what’s happening. 

It starts with Republicans that are deeply divided internally on healthcare policy, in spite of urgent deadlines. They just passed their GOP bill without extending Affordable Care Act subsidies, despite warnings that 22 millions will face steep premium hikes. In fact, Republicans are “torn over health care” and experiencing paralysis over which plan to support. In fact they can’t articulate a single, coherent plan. 

Many Republicans would like lower premiums, more choice and less government involvement, but the US system is built on massive federal subsidies, federal regulation, employer-based insurance, medicare and medicaid. So in the end, the GOP is caught between Ideology (smaller government) and Reality (millions rely on government-supported coverage) and that tension shows up clearly in the facts that moderates want to extend Obamacare subsidies, while leadership wants to avoid expanding federal spending. 

Further, for Congress, playing with healthcare is politically dangerous as every major reform creates winners and losers, cutting subsidies raises premiums, deregulating plans can reduce coverage and expanding government programs raises taxes. Even now, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and presidency, they still can’t agree on a replacement for the ACA (Obamacare)! I’ve always been of the opinion that the US should benchmark what’s done well by most OECD countries, but of course these nations have a single national payer system or tightly regulated nonprofit insurers. 

In contrast, the US has private insurers, Employer-based coverage, Medicare/Medicaid, VA, Obamacare, State-level rules, Federal rules, pharmacy benefit managers, hospital monopolies and drug manufacturers with global pricing power. So because of this fragmentation all these parties are threatened by benchmarking and the change it would entail. , commercialized, and politically entrenched. 

While Republicans lack consensus on the end goal, Democrats generally agree on universal coverage, government playing a strong role and benchmarking against OECD systems. Bottom line: If we want to change the US healthcare system we need to push the Republican in the minority, it’s a simple of that!

Trump, an apt communicator?

On Wednesday night I watched Donald Trump’s speech (see attached below) and wondered what would a psychologist specialized in recruiting sales people or other executives in communications think of his delivery and what he should have done differently to make people feel better on the eve of the holiday season? Isn’t politics the apex of the art of selling? 

My sense is that any psychology professional would say Trump’s speech was overly angry, aggressive, combative and defensive, which might have energized his MAGA faithfuls, but couldn’t uplift or reassure a majority of Americans near Christmas. To make people feel better, he would have needed to soften his tone, emphasize some shared values, smile (what a concept!) and deliver more emotionally positive messaging. 

Instead he framed his first 11 months as fixing a “mess” and blamed Democrats, Biden, and immigrants for his poor economic results. He stubbornly defended tariffs, and falsely claimed progress on affordability. His speech was hurried, harsh and reacting to his sinking polls instead of seeking warmth and unity. He wasn’t able to build rapport and establish emotional connection and trust. He couldn’t bring up any benefits and shared wins, but could only focus on blame. 

There was no empathy or inspiration in his diatribe. His body language also betrayed his reluctance to having to speak and show he hurried his speech. He missed the opportunity positive vibes offered by the Holidays, and instead chose to alienate an audience who craved reassurance and optimism. 

Oh, I almost forgot, Trump peppered his speech with lies and huge exaggerations, plus he as a “businessman” showed his ignorance of math, a 300 to 600% reduction in drug costs? Just 100% reduction would make them free and 600% would force the pharmacist to hand the patient the drug and five times its original value in cash. Wow! 

From a communication psychology standpoint, Trump’s missed the opportunity to inspire comfort and optimism. Lacking the most basic selling skills he spoiled a great opportunity and instead dug a bigger hole for himself and his party. 

US Dual Citizens beware! (Part Three)

Recently, I heard from Bernie Moreno, a Senator from Ohio who introduced the “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” to end dual citizenship in the United States. Moreno, a member of the Republican (MAGA) Party. was born in Colombia to a family that immigrated to the United States, and he grew up in Florida. 

This bad idea is not something a person like me with dual French and American citizenship would look forward to being signed into law. The Bill, named the “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” would require US citizens like me who hold another nationality to renounce one of the two or more, if applicable, within 12 months or lose their US citizenship. 

Moreno, himself a naturalized citizen originally from Colombia, argues that US citizenship should mean “sole and exclusive allegiance” to America. Not so fast, because the 14th amendment of the Constitution protects US birthright citizenship and stipulates that it can’t be revoked involuntarily. Courts have consistently ruled that citizenship is a fundamental right, and loss can only occur through voluntary renunciation or fraud in naturalization. 

Many ethnic and immigrant advocacy groups (e.g., Portuguese American Leadership Council) are mobilizing against that idea, warning it would affect millions of Americans. Fortunately, so far, the bill has not advanced beyond introduction. No hearings or votes have even been scheduled. Even if passed, enforcement would be extremely complex, requiring millions to choose between heritage and US citizenship plus a host of other sticky problems. 

In short, Senator Bernie Moreno’s proposal to ban dual citizenship is more a form of posturing to please Trump’s anti immigration policies. It remains symbolic and is unlikely to become law. The US legal framework strongly protects against involuntary loss of citizenship, and the measure faces steep political and constitutional hurdles. 

This means that I should be okay for a quite a while!

The multi-citizenship “soup” (Part Two)

As a dual citizen (French and United States) I always wonder what’s going on with that special status as I’m always hearing divergent stories about them. So here’s what I’ve been able to find out. As of today, about half the world’s countries allow dual or multiple citizenship, while others restrict or forbid it. A smaller group explicitly protects citizenship from being revoked. 

Let’s start with countries that allow dual or multiple citizenship. Most of Europe, the Americas, and many Asia-Pacific nations permit this status. For example, in Europe they include the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain (with restrictions), Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia and Turkey In the Americas there are the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Uruguay. 

Over the Asia-Pacific region, there’s Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, plus both Pakistan and South Korea with certain limits. That status is scarcer in Africa and the Middle East with only South Africa, Egypt, Israel, Nigeria and Tunisia. If you’re interested in the Caribbean you’ll find Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts & Nevis and St. Lucia. 

All these countries generally allow you to hold multiple passports and enjoy rights in each nation. There are however some nations that do enforce a strict single-citizenship. If you acquire another nationality, you may automatically lose your original one. For instance in Europe it’s Andorra, Austria (with exceptions), Estonia, Lithuania and Monaco. 

Asia includes China, India, Japan, Nepal, Bhutan, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. As for the Middle East we find Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain. In Africa it’s only Botswana and in the Caribbean, it’s Bahamas. In these countries, naturalizing elsewhere can mean forfeiting your original citizenship. 

Finally, there are countries where, just like the batteries in your new smartphone, citizenship can’t be removed. They include the United States where birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment cannot be revoked; only voluntary renunciation or fraud in naturalization can cause its loss. In Canada, citizens by birth cannot be stripped of nationality; only voluntary renunciation applies. 

After reform, German citizens generally cannot lose citizenship against their will, except in rare cases like for instance if they were to join foreign armed forces. As for France, citizenship is considered a fundamental right; revocation is limited to cases of fraud or terrorism but there’s no arbitrary removal. 

Tomorrow, we discover how a member of the US Congress would like to change this for Americans.

A UN passport? (Part One)

There’s one blue planets, but almost 200 man-made countries spread over it, with their own rules, government systems, borders and… passports! I like to think that I’m a citizen of the world and wonder if I could trade my pair of American and French travel documents for a light blue, UN passport? 

Nope, that’s not available. Sure, there's a UN travel document called the United Nations laissez-passer (UNLP), but it's not a passport in the traditional sense (it doesn't show nationalities). 

It identifies someone as a UN official for official business only and is available to staff, experts on mission, and high-level personnel, requiring you to be employed by the UN or related agencies and travel for work, with different colors (blue for staff, red for senior officials) offering varying benefits like functional immunity, but not even full diplomatic immunity. 

The select few who get one are the officials and employees of the UN and its specialized agencies (like ILO, IAEA, ICC). Also a few individuals designated as experts for specific UN assignments. And then there’s a special, red UN laissez-passer (like the one António Guterres uses), with more diplomatic perks for senior officials. 

So, if we aren’t part of that select list, forget about that special travel document. Tomorrow we’ll talk about those of us who claim to have more than one nationality and the rules that apply to them. So if international travel is your cup of tea, don’t miss it!

Sketchers’ preliminary results…

It’s been over two weeks since I’ve experienced walking with my new pair of max cushion shoes. Again the name of these walking or running shoes refers to their thick, soft mid-soles designed for shock absorption and comfort offered by Hoka and Sketchers, but also by brands like New Balance (Fresh Foam More), ASICS (Gel-Nimbus), and Brooks (Ghost Max). 

This footwear offers significant comfort and impact absorption but can lead to drawbacks such as reduced stability and potentially altered running mechanics. 

As far as I was concerned, I saw them as the solution for the metarsallagia I have suffered since last April, mostly for wearing running shoes with a toe box far too narrow. If that were not the case and what I suffer from is actually more a form of arthritis, as I initially assumed it was, so much the better! 

Their thick mid-soles absorb a large amount of road impact, even when walking, making the shoe feel soft underfoot. This makes a huge difference with my former shoes and their ultra-thin front sole that makes you feel any pebble or irregularities in the pavement. This obviously leads to a more comfortable experience, especially on hard surfaces like concrete or asphalt which sums up what I’m walking on. 

The shoes seem to reduce the load transmitted through the sole of the foot and its interior bones and offer a good balance of cushioning and energy return, which might theoretically improve efficiency over long distances. 

I was warned about getting less lateral stability, a risk of ankle rolls or sprains, particularly during quick changes in direction or on uneven surfaces but I didn’t find anything noticeable there and my foot pains has been largely reduced, which so far is a good step in the right direction. 

The next marker in my evaluation will be their durability, so please stay tuned for that. 

Early alpine ski races...

This season, I’ve been amazed at the extremely high athletic level exhibited by our world cup skiers, males and females. 

As I’ve written earlier, I wonder what the coaches are telling their athletes, beyond the obvious mental psyching up required, because when it comes to technique all girls and boys seem to be at the same top level.

What’s making the biggest difference is the dosage of their control or, to be more specific, the grip of the edges on the snow. In slalom 2/100th of a second lost by gate in edging too much can be more than 2 full seconds on a slalom run.

Skiing “flat” and gliding seems to be the key word to tell the skiers and the caveat is their agility, their nimbleness to manage a safe through the gates while keeping the safest balance possible and getting close enough to the gate without straddling it, particularly in slalom. 

That required agility is probably the fruit of days, months and years of training and practice. Can anyone add anything to that?

Olympic “Crisis” in France (Part Two)

The situation surrounding the 2030 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in the French Alps is beginning to simmer and appears rooted in the reasons that led to the Scandinavian story we just evoked that both perfectly parallel. These 2030 Games have recently become a source of palpable tension. Here's what I was able to gather, what’s happening and what are the main issues at stake in the dispute. 

The 2030 Winter Games were officially awarded to the French Alps by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) at its 142nd session in July 2024. The award was conditional, but the French government provided the necessary financial guarantees. The project was for the competitions to be organized around an oversize geographical area and four main zones: Haute-Savoie, Savoie, Briançon (Hautes-Alpes), and Nice (Alpes-Maritimes), pretty much the entire French Alps from North to South! 

Just like for the 2034 Utah Games, there was a strong commitment to making maximum use of existing facilities that were a legacy of the 1992 Albertville Games. In dispute today are in fact three issues: Climate, Costs, and buying from the population. The dispute surrounding these Games is not about the principle of sport itself, but about the project's suitability in light of current climate, economics, and social realities in France. 

If we begin with the climate issue it’s directly related to planetary warming and environmental challenge, chief among them the risk of not having snow (something Utah doesn’t seem to worry about). In the context of climate change, holding the Winter Games in the Alps, even in 2030, is considered unrealistic and irresponsible by citizen groups and environmentalists. Their concerns is that it requires a heavy reliance on man-made snow that requires enormous quantities of water and energy, as well as the construction of infrastructure (roads, reservoirs, etc.) that could become obsolete after the events. 

Then there’s the official promise that these Games will be "sustainable" and will "respect the ecological balance". This wasn’t lost on the critics that argue that none of the "sustainability" promises are achievable given the current plan. Follows the precipitated decision or what’s been called the "Democratic Deficit". 

The bid was put together in a hurry at the end of 2023, following the withdrawal of other contenders. Critics denounce a rushed decision-making process conducted by a very small group (French National Olympic and Sports Committee, regional authorities, and the State) without prior public consultation of the affected populations. 

A citizens' group has even taken legal action to obtain a public debate. Finally there’s the issue of money and cost. Residents and local elected officials are questioning the transparency of the actual costs and who will truly benefit from the jobs and infrastructure. They fear that the long-term maintenance costs of the new structures will fall on local communities. 

More recently the dispute took a major institutional turn with the recent announcement (early December 2025) of the Savoie Departmental Council's withdrawal from the current organizational structure of the Organizing Committee. Savoie, where several key events are planned (La Plagne and Courchevel among others), is an essential partner. 

Its withdrawal, even partial, sends a very strong signal that could jeopardize the project in its current form and reflects political, budgetary, and climate-related doubts, even among those who traditionally support the Games. In short, the dispute revolves around the question of whether France can and should host the 2030 Winter Games, given the climate emergency and the need for democratic consultation and financial transparency, especially if it involves heavy investments in climate-vulnerable areas. 

Something we’ll have to watch closely.

Less appetite for the Winter Olympics? (Part One)

In recent years, Norway and Sweden, both historical powerhouses in winter sports that possess the needed expertise and infrastructure, have repeatedly withdrawn from bidding for the Winter Olympic Games. Their successive withdrawals (notably Stockholm for 2022 and 2026, and Oslo for 2022) are explained by a combination of political, financial, and cultural factors that reflect growing distrust of the modern Olympic Games’ economic model. 

First and foremost are the budgetary pressure and the taxpayer role, the most direct reason for the withdrawal of several bids, including those of Stockholm and Oslo (both for 2022). These Nordic countries have robust social systems and a strong tradition of prudent management of public funds. Citizens and politicians are very skeptical about promises of long-term economic benefits. They fear that the Games would only drain resources for a fleeting event.

There was also a widespread rejection of "White Elephants”, these specific facilities like bobsleigh and luge tracks that have no use after the Games and which maintenance would fall on taxpayers, especially in view of the Games historical cost overruns. Unlike countries like Austria or France, the Scandinavian countries have a strong culture of citizen consultation for major public projects like the Olympic Games, where bids are typically met with weak popular support, or even outright rejection in key referendums or polls. Residents do not see any direct benefits on their quality of life. 

There’s also a rejection of elitism in an egalitarian country like Norway. The opulence, lavish spending, and "elitist" nature of the IOC's (International Olympic Committee) demands are poorly received by a population that values ​​simplicity and equality. Furthermore the demands of the IOC have been criticized in Scandinavian countries as they’re perceived as excessive and sometimes disconnected from local realities, an arrogance that I have always deplored. 

This explains why these withdrawals of Scandinavian countries are not due to a lack of capacity to host the Games, but to a political and ethical choice. They simply refuse to spend billions of euros of public money on an event whose benefits they believe do not justify the cost, the environmental impact, and the demands of the IOC, which they consider too elitist. 

All this Scandinavian story to match a similar developing situation in France, where I recently learned that there was a lot of discontent broiling about the 2030 Winter Olympic Games planned for the entire French Alps. Tomorrow, I’ll try to explain what it’s all about.

What to do after complaining

Complaining is totally understandable and so human. We complain about the weather, pains of all kinds, traffic, cost of living and our politicians and the next obvious question would be, okay that’s fine but what can we do about it? Some areas can be more easily affected than others if we decide to do something against what bothers us, but in the vast majority of cases, efforts, even if they seem big to us, are in fact tiny in relation to what needs to be fixed. 

That’s precisely when we get discouraged and decide to give up and accept what ails us as some kind of divine fatality. That’s also when we need to change our paradigm and accept that there is no action that’s too small as long as we’re part of a system that is bent on changing things that are intolerable! To that end, 

I like to believe that just like the grains of sand that are thrown inside destructive cogwheels will eventually push the machine to slow. That is when we must be ready to build something better in its place. Complaining will spark awareness, resistance could slow or halt the damage, but renewal is what gives us hope. Every small act of kindness, every effort to connect, every attempt to improve our community goes toward building a better system. 

We may not change the world overnight, but we can change the tone of a conversation, the trust in a friendship, or the resilience of a family. These are victories too, and they ripple outward. So after complaining, let’s always remember to act. After resisting, let’s rebuild. 

And after breaking down what divides us, let’s strengthen what unites us. In this way, our voices become more than protest—they might become a song of renewal. With all this in mind, we should stop complaining about the things we’re unwilling to change.

Albert Camus and me…

If someone had asked me what Camus meant to me several years ago, I would have said that he was a famous French writer (1957 Nobel Prize of literature) who died in his Facel-Vega automobile in 1960. At the time, his publisher Michel Gallimard, was behind the wheel when the car hit a tree near Sens, France, following a tire blowout. 

At the time, I must have been more fascinated by Facel-Vega cars than Camus himself. Little did I know about his view on the meaning of life or lack thereof. Over the years I had read The Stranger and The Plague, but must have missed their meaning altogether. 

In fact, I’ve come to find Albert Camus' philosophy centered on the confrontation between the human need for meaning and a universe that is indifferent and doesn’t care about humanity, a concept he called "the Absurd". 

His central argument, was not that life was objectively meaningless, but that meaning was unattainable through traditional means like religion or absolute truth, something I agree with. Rejecting nihilism, Camus proposed instead that the only way to live authentically was to embrace and rebel against the Absurd. 

That concept isn’t something I share as I understand the irrational clash between our rational minds seeking order and a chaotic, indifferent world that I have little choice but accept as a given environment I must live within. 

Where I’d agree with Camus is by choosing to live intensely, in embracing the fullness of human experience on Earth, as this life is all I have despite the vagaries of life. I also agree with the need to liberate myself from the need for external validation or predefined purpose, something I continuously keep fighting for. 

I guess that just as Sisyphus, eternally pushing a big rock up a hill, I find ways to create my own happiness, because I’ve come to accepts my fate, owning my reality and making this struggle very much bearable. I consider myself extremely lucky to have been born, much better of as a human than any animal, I accept life’s absurdity and I even find ways to enjoy it.

Snowblowers and broken pins

It happens to me all the time. The snow around the house is too heavy or too thick to clear by hand with my shovel and I need the snow blower. 

As I run it against the edges of the driveway, I try to be “cute” and eventually get too close to the edges where I’ve placed some rocks, the machine’s auger seemed to feel them and get into them as if attracted by their shape and BAM! I hit one of them and broke the auger’s safety pin. 

It’s another cold morning and everything is snowy everywhere. I get down into my shop and find another replacement bolt and nut, and when I return to the blower, once again, I realize that the replacement pins bought through Amazon seem just a tiny tad too short to engage into the bolt. 

I struggle for an hour trying to tighten the whole assembly up to no avail, yet they worked last winter, the couple of times, even when I broke them then, but now I don’t understand. Evelyne, witnessing the commotion, does her best in trying to help me, but the two parts still won’t engage. So, that’s when I need to get creative. 

First, I decide to flat-file the face of the bolt A coming against the auger C, so I reduce the conical entry. I try it on the machine, the screw D that seem to stick 1 mm out of the auger still wont take, so I return to my workshop and file-flat the best I can the interior facing B of the bolt. 

When I return, I’ve removed enough steel that it finally begins grabbing into the bolt and I now can tighten the whole thing. Now, I just need to find longer bolts!

Struggling with soap dispensers

Do you have a soap dispenser built into, or next to your kitchen sink ? We do, and in fact the first one we had was 12 years ago when we built the house we’re now living in. I doubt the plumber even tested the device after it was installed, but what’s certain is that it never worked! In addition, after many fruitless attempts I never was able to make it function, so was the device dysfunctional, was I doing something wrong or just plain stupid? 

Well, soap dispensers are one of those deceptively simple devices that can be maddeningly tricky. If it hadn’t worked for so long, chances were it was either a design flaw, a clogged mechanism, or a small installation issue rather than anything I was doing wrong. 

There are in fact many possibilities for this. First the soap can thicken or dry out inside the straw/tube, blocking suction. 

Also, if the pump isn’t sealed tightly to the bottle or tube, it won’t draw liquid. Many systems like mine were attached to the bottle and if it wasn’t seated properly under the sink, the pump couldn’t reach it. 

Pump dispensers designs also vary and are notorious for failing after a short time. Some brands simply don’t hold up. Finally there’s the nature of the soap that can gum up the pump. Dish soap or thinner liquid soap works better. 

Recently, I finally decided to address the problem with more determination than ever. I first flush the tube after removing the pump and rinsing it with hot water until clear. Of course, I checked the straw and made sure the straw was fully seated and not cracked or too short. Then I refilled the bottle with water, primed the pump more than 30 or 40 times and nothing came out of the spigot. Crazy, isn’t it? 

So, after doing all this I’ve finally decided to replace the built-in dispenser with a new pump kit that will directly feed inside a detergent bottle located under the sink, on its floor and will make sure to switch to a thinner dish soap or dilute it some (about 30%) to make sure it flows better.

I’ll let you know how this goes!

Return on snow

The Park City resort opened up on December 5, but I didn’t make the time to get on my skis until late afternoon, yesterday, on Sunday after watching too much Alpine world cup skiing on TV. 

I was excited and ready to go! Thank god there was no big crowds on the “ribbon of death”, that narrow and dangerous strip of man-made snow that went from the top of the Payday chairlift, made my two runs on the beginning of my 73rd season on snow and when I was done, I went home. 

Everything worked perfectly well, I still remembered the drill, felt good about myself and was already imagining all the fun I was to have this coming winter!

Time for a new faucet! (Part Two)

After living around one dozen years in our most recent home, we needed to replace a kitchen faucet with a new one, and if possible more stylish. 

I picked one up at the store, paid just under $200 for it and asked my plumber to come and install him. 

He said he’d come within two week, but after the third one I called him and he said he’d do it for $300. 

To keep everyone honest, and knowing full well that plumbing isn’t exactly a charitable endeavor I checked around to see what I should expect to pay for the whole job (parts and labor) and came up with around $800 in the low range and most likely for $1,000 or even more depending on model complexity, ease of access and various other considerations. 

So, I didn’t feel so bad about forking $300 for having a competent plumber do it well in less than one hour. I spent less than $500 and considered myself fortunate. 

As I wrote yesterday, it pays to be a busy plumber in America!

Are plumbers the new doctors? (Part One)

In America, it used to be that "doctors and lawyers" were at the pinnacle of professions. Their positions meant high education, prestige, and excellent earning potential. 

Today, however, the lowly plumber is increasingly becoming a highly sought-after, high-income, and critically important professional in society. Perhaps these professionals haven't replaced the traditional white-collar status of doctors and lawyers, but plumbers are quickly becoming the “new tech workers" as a highly valuable skilled trade facing massive demand, limited supply, and comfortable earnings.

If we look at the financial aspect to these jobs, becoming a plumber often costs less than $20,000 for trade school or apprenticeship, and within 4-5 years, a person makes very good money ($150,000 to over $300,000 annually if they own their business, thus competing with the average lawyer. It costs more (often over $200,000) and takes much longer (7 to 10 years) to become a doctor or lawyer. 

Sure, their salaries can be even higher, often starting well above $250,000 and are a direct reflection of their longer training. As for their future employment prospects, plumbers have a pretty much recession-proof career as pipes will leak and get clogged for a very long time as aging infrastructure will take good care of that. 

On the other hand, doctors will still have plenty of good days ahead and shouldn’t worry too much, but lawyers are not as lucky as their profession is more sensitive to economic cycles (i.e. corporate lawyers) and relentless technological change (like today’s Artificial Intelligence in law). 

Tomorrow, we’ll discover how much you should expect to spend if you ever needed a new kitchen faucet...

What about Sketchers?

When I presented the Hoka story a few days ago, I forgot to mention Sketcher, another footwear company founded in 1992 by Robert Greenberg, shortly after his departure from L.A. Gear, a company he also founded. 

Initially intended as a distributor for Dr. Martens, Skechers quickly shifted focus to developing its own brand of casual, stylish street shoes. It also became widely discussed in the running community and by legal analysts, because Skechers kept on producing shoes considered to be copycats of Hoka, specifically in the Max Cushioning category.

That’s right, Skechers has been a "fast-follower" in the industry, which led to many lawsuits with other brands, including Nike and Adidas. No doubt that copying successful designs enabled Sketcher to be a better value than the design’s originator and just like Android phones are outselling iPhones worldwide. 

As a result, Sketcher is twice the size of Hoka in terms of sales. Now, how does the copy compare to the original? Both are in fact very close. Experts say that Hoka shoes might be better for longer distances and offer better stability, while Skechers are often perceived as having better padding or softer cushioning. 

Hoka are said to be better for activities requiring more support, whereas Skechers might be the right choice for a more comfortable, casual, everyday wear. I just got a pair of Sketchers and will soon tell you how well they address my metarsalagia!

Time to be grateful!

One week ago Thursday, we celebrated Thanksgiving, an American holiday rooted in gratitude. For me, it was a chance to reflect on the treasures of my life — beginning with my very existence, an accident of fate that became the greatest gift of all, especially because I was, just like my wife, an accident, so I was lucky that in those days there were no birth-control pills, no widely available devices or procedures that could have canceled our existence! 

Then, despite my big luck linked to my inadvertent existence, my parents lovingly took care of me and did the very best they could with their limited means to raise me. 

Like a cat with nine lives, I escaped countless accidents as a free‑range kid — each one having the potential to end my story early. More importantly, though had a headmaster at school, Monsieur Losserand, who spotted my talents, got me out of my hometown and hooked on travel. 

There was also a pair of skis my Dad carved out for me that also got me hooked on skiing. In a strange set of circumstances I got into the Cluses boarding school that straightened me out when I needed it most. Getting into the Avoriaz ski school was another big break that took me to Australia and shifted me almost seamlessly into the ski industry. 

In between, a few girls did their utmost to trade love and heartaches with me in the name of sentimental education while all the solid friends I made gave me the self-confidence I wasn’t born with. Then followed a steady streak of perfectly fitting pieces in a jigsaw puzzle that rounded up my career. All this went on until I fell for my wife and how we slid into America to create our own family with two wonderful kids. 

Sure, there were plenty of bumps and pot-holes along the way, but they were largely outnumbered by the great times we experienced. This, also is a measure of how lucky I am and I must be grateful for that, including the fact that my parents made me robust like a 4x4 and aside for seven broken ribs, I only had ligaments and torn muscles to worry about. 

That continuous stream of serendipity kept on coming and brought us were we are today, able to reminisce and be grateful for a fantastic journey, plus the ability to still keeping on doing more interesting stuff every day...

Hoka shoes (part three)

The way that initial skepticism turned into adoption happened in late 2010, near Madagascar, on the island of Reunion, during an ultra-trail race called “Diagonale des Fous.” As he was in the 70th kilometer of that race, Ludovic Pommeret a top-ranking French racer was having severe problems with his cheap Decathlon-made shoes that he had to switch to a pair of Hoka’s made Mafate shoes at one of the pit stops, and now with them on, found his second wind and ended up second in the race, a spectacular turnaround that brought the limelight on the strange looking product. 

From that unlikely victory came the Pommeret model that immediately was successful and became the talk in every trail racing circles, ushering a marketing strategy focused on trail running. On the eve of influence marketing, trail fans, promoters and bloggers became the mouthpiece used by Hoka to reach practitioners at all sporting events, especially local races that could hugely leverage the company’s very limited resources. 

This also led Nicolas Mermoud to focus immediately on the American market, a full 40% piece of the world’s business, by working closely with athletes, retailers and the press. Very soon, this international strategy allowed Hoka to reach the kind of critical mass and the image needed to convince the other world markets. 

Introduced in 2011, the Bondi shoe encountered a fast and huge acceptance, further polishing Hoka’s image as the product to race on. Initially embraced by ultra-marathon runners for their enhanced cushioning and inherent stability, the shoes quickly gained popularity among other active runners for that maximum cushion and minimal weight. It’s heart-warming to remember that the founders began that venture on a shoestring budget.

It’s on April 1st 2013 that the Deckers Brands, the parent company for UGG, Teva and other footwear products, took full control of Hoka One One for $1.1 million. For 2024 total Hoka sales reached a record $4.2 billion! Both original founders stayed with the brand, as Diard now oversees international distribution and pursues his innovative product development, while Mermoud continues to run the company’s racing program. 

What made that story even more interesting to me, in my current case of metatarsalgia that’s not quite over. It would appear shoes like Hoka could help address it due to their features like thick, cushioned mid-soles, wide toe boxes, and a rocker sole design that reduces pressure on the forefoot. The cushioning absorbs impact, the wider fit decreases compression, and the rocker geometry helps facilitate a smoother, more efficient stride, all of which can alleviate the pain associated with this condition. A compelling reason to step into a pair of Hoka. I’ll keep you posted ! 

Hoka shoes (part two)

So here we are in 2008 as Jean-Luc Diard gets together with Nicolas Mermoud, himself former marketing manager at Salomon who later worked at Rossignol. Both decided to start a joint venture. They believe that innovation has limitless potential in the outdoor sporting goods industry and they fit this opening. 

Working on running shoes is their goal and this domain is ripe for significant innovations, especially in view of the fact that minimalist shoes in trail footwear is the rage, but is too much performance-oriented and ignore masses chiefly looking for fun and comfort. They also believe that it’s not the runners’ responsibility to adapt to the terrain, but it’s their shoes that should, quite a paradigm shift! 

Still, starting a new shoe brand remains a risky endeavor as the world is just entering one of its worst financial crises. Still both men see a path to spearheading innovation and think that some “over-sized” design evolution as an attention-getter trend. From golf club drivers, to tennis rackets, wide skis or fat bike tires, over-sizing can generate a lot of consumers’ attraction. 

As a practicing trail runner, Mermoud knows full well that just like uphill sections, downhill segments on a race can be fraught with danger and injuries of all kinds and no manufacturer appears to address this. This triggers a search for a trail shoe design that could literally fly on the uphill as well as in the downhill part of a course. 

Another Salomon alumni, Christophe Aubonnet and Sébastien Mazars designed a shoestring and in just a few months a totally new sole that will be the foundation of the Hoka One One, which means “flying on earth” in Maori. This time the sole is the opposite of minimalism as its bulky look goes in the opposite direction. At the start-up company, all the principals are sure the shoe will be seen as revolutionary and be loved at first sight. 

Reality however will be drastically different when the shoe is officially unveiled before the industry and the press. Some quickly say that it looks like podiatrist footwear for older folks, a far cry from the youth and trendy image hoped for the product. Even racers who’re seen on the shoe get mocked, hearing they look like astronauts walking on the moon! In the next blog, we’ll discover how that view will soon be turned around...

What makes Hoka shoes so popular? (part one)

It’s only this year, through and quite randomly, that I became fully aware of Hoka shoes. I had seen them before but without much interest. It’s when I saw a septuagenarian, neighbor of mine wearing a pair and after I talked to him about his experience with that footwear that my interest sparked up. 

After some quick research, I learned that Hoka was founded in 2009 by Nicolas Mermoud and Jean-Luc Diard, both former Salomon employees. This goes a long way in recognizing the reservoir of talent that Salomon truly was. 

Diard began with Salomon in 1981 and was promoted to marketing director in 1989, was put in charge of brand development in 1997, just when the ski company got sold to Adidas and began to lose its soul. In 1998, Diard became the company’s president and successfully developed its trail running division. 

Through 2005 Diard kept going in the complicated marriage with Adidas and finally the German based brand through the towel and sold Salomon to the Finnish group Amer that already owned Atomic skis, Wilson tennis and Suunto among other sport related brands. In 2008, the book “Born to Run” sparked running with "barefoot" or minimalist shoe designs and increasing interest in ultra-running and trail running, though some of its claims about shoes immediately created debate. 

The book popularized the idea that modern, highly cushioned shoes can cause injuries and that a more natural, forefoot-strike running style (as seen in the Tarahumara people) was healthier. This led to a boom in minimalist footwear, ultra-running events, and a broader interest in running naturally and for its own sake, rather than just for competition. 

In spite of athletic success with that kind of product, Jean-Louis Diard wasn’t so sure and at the same time, his relationship with Amer Sports deteriorating, he parted way with Salomon. Tomorrow, we’ll see how this would trigger the birth of Hoka.

On stopping a bully…

Stopping a bully early is everything. It ought to be done and someone should. 

This is the first thing I did when I moved to our new house in 2014 and was confronted by an irascible next door neighbor who had the audacity to “test me”, as all good bullies generally do, I responded forcefully and that was (almost) the end of his aggression (there was another incident that was repressed the same way). 

Had I not responded swiftly, the man would still be after me either because he disliked my face or my country of origin. At about the same time, in 2016, we had the Republican Primary debates, pitting Trump against a group of lackluster candidates. Two of them come to mind (Bush and Rubio) as they were copiously insulted by Trump.

Had either Jebb Bush or Marco Rubio grabbed Donald Trump by his lapels, shook him hard and told him to vacate the debate stage sine die, the US and the world would never have been terrorized by Trump and would be in a much better place than where we all are today. 

Just like Biden for running a second time against Trump, these two men bear an enormous, historical responsibility. Always stand to a bully when you experience one!