Getting to know meditation (Part Four)

Even though the downsides of meditation are few and far between (I haven’t experienced any) much, they remain a possibility. Rather paradoxically, meditation can sometimes initially increase anxiety. When people stop distracting themselves, they may become more aware of fears, worries and unresolved emotions and while it’s temporary for some, it can be distressing for others. 

Meditation can also uncover grief, trauma, shame and unresolved conflicts, something that’s not necessarily harmful, but that can be overwhelming without proper support. 

Beginners sometimes believe they are meditating when they are actually worrying, replaying arguments or obsessing over problems and this can reinforce distress rather than reduce it as they would hope. 

A small minority also experience feeling detached from themselves, disconnected from reality with a sense that the world is unreal ; these effects are usually temporary but could be frightening to some. Practitioners could also become less engaged with family, work and relationships as meditation is taken as an excuse for disengagement. 

There’s also the case of practitioners avoiding difficult conversations, therapy, emotional work and using "acceptance" as an excuse to ignore problems. More concerning is excessive self-focus as some individuals become overly preoccupied with their thoughts, emotions and their inner states. Instead of increasing freedom, practice can become self-absorption. 

Ironically, meditation is found to sometimes increase self-criticism if expectations are unrealistic. Interestingly, long-term practitioners often describe a different outcome as meditation does not necessarily make their life easier but enhances their experiences. That increased visibility can feel pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant depending on what is being observed. 

I must admit that I’ve never felt any of these negative effects. I must be just a very lucky guy!

Getting to know meditation (Part Three)

Under its most various forms and iterations, meditation isn't a black and white practice, nor does it have clear benefits and drawbacks. As we’ve seen, "Meditation" encompasses hundreds of practices—from focused-attention techniques and mindfulness to mantra repetition, Zen, loving-kindness, transcendental meditation, and intensive retreat practices. Their effects overlap, but they are not identical. 

A useful way to think about meditation is that it is a mental training method that can produce benefits, neutral effects, or occasionally adverse effects depending on the individual, the technique, the intensity, and the context. 

The strongest evidence of well-documented benefits comes from mindfulness-based interventions and related practices that have been studied in clinical settings. Most consistently, practitioners report feeling less overwhelmed, recovering more quickly from stressful events, less emotional reactivity and greater ability to pause before responding. 

Then, there’s improved attention and concentration as well as better emotional regulation as experienced practitioners often develop greater awareness of emotions before those emotions become overwhelming. Specifically, less impulsive anger and rumination, greater emotional stability and increased tolerance of difficult feelings. 

Anxiety symptoms also are reduced, even though meditation is not a cure for anxiety disorders, but many studies show meaningful reductions in generalized anxiety, worry and stress-related symptoms. In a related category, one of the strongest clinical applications of meditation is preventing relapse in recurrent depression in which practitioners often become better at recognizing negative thought loops before becoming trapped in them. In terms of health benefits, while meditation generally does not eliminate pain, it often changes pain perception, suffering associated with pain and lessens emotional reaction to chronic pain. 

There are also modest improvements in blood pressure, cardiovascular risk factors and stress-related physiological responses. Finally, many experience shorter time to fall asleep, less pre-sleep rumination and improved overall sleep quality. Surveys have shown that effects vary considerably between individuals. Many report noticing habits sooner, recognizing recurring emotional patterns and understanding personal motivations more clearly. There’s also increased compassion and empathy, greater patience and improved interpersonal relationships.

Tomorrow, we’ll check the downsides...

Getting to know meditation (Part Two)

Meditation isn’t easily defined. To begin with, there are hundreds of techniques, but most practitioners fall into a few categories. On top stands mindfulness meditation (currently the fastest-growing), followed by mantra meditation (better known as Transcendental Meditation), Zen meditation, Vipassanā (insight) meditation, loving-kindness (Metta) meditation, yoga-based meditation and Christian contemplative prayer (see chart).

At what age do people begin? This varies by culture. In traditional cultures with strong Buddhist or Hindu traditions, many children are introduced before the age of 10, with formal training beginning in adolescence. In modern Western countries, people begin much later, between an individual’s 20s to 50s, which is the most common starting period. 

Often entering the practice is triggered by stress, illness, burnout, or a life transition. In the US, meditation users are disproportionately middle-aged adults. You can wonder if meditation usually become a lifetime practice and the answer is yes, at least traditionally. In Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, and contemplative Christian traditions, meditation is generally viewed as a lifelong discipline, similar to physical exercise or prayer. 

However, modern secular meditation is different as many practitioners meditate for stress reduction and many quite once the immediate problem improves while others yet cycle in and out of practice. Research on meditation apps consistently finds that long-term adherence is difficult. There’s no single global figure, but dropout rates are high. Depending on the program, short mindfulness courses often lose from 20 to 50% of their participants before completion.

Meditation apps frequently lose the majority of users within a few months and only a minority maintain a daily practice for years. In the US, one large study showed that about 79% of people who had ever meditated had also practiced within the previous year, suggesting many continue at least intermittently, so meditation is not usually abandoned completely, but consistent daily practice is much rarer than occasional one.

In the next blog, we’ll explores the most well-know and also potential drawbacks of the practice...

Getting to know meditation (Part One)

For almost six and a half years I’ve been meditating without missing one single day. I had begun in 1969, dropping off and restarting for short periods every now and then. With that in mind, don’t jump to the conclusion that meditation is addictive, because it’s generally not considered pathological, though some people become attached to the pleasant mental states it can produce. 

It’s simply hard to stick to it for a wide variety of reasons. Yes, there are hundreds of millions of people who meditate worldwide and the practice is gaining rapidly more followers, especially in the mindfulness category. Unlike myself, most people can’t maintain a strict daily practice for long periods of time as dropout rates are substantial, especially during the first few months after they get started. 

Meditating begins anywhere from childhood (in traditional cultures) to middle age (in secular settings like our Western world). Reliable country-by-country statistics exist only for some nations; the highest participation appears in countries where meditation is integrated into religious and cultural life (see table). 

The biggest uncertainty lies in Asia, where meditation is often embedded within religious life and may not be measured separately from prayer, temple attendance, yoga, or other spiritual practices. For countries such as India, Thailand, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, China, and Japan, the cultural importance of meditation is clear, but rigorous nationally representative prevalence figures are surprisingly scarce. 

One interesting conclusion from the available data is that modern secular countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States now report meditation participation rates comparable to—or sometimes higher than—those measured in many traditionally Buddhist countries, depending on how "meditation" is defined, which is a dimension we’ll explore in the next blog.

Barbecue spring cleaning

A few days ago, I received a postcard from Bar-B-Clean, a local franchise inviting me to have someone come to my house to clean our patio barbecue, so I wouldn’t have to get my hands dirty. I did it myself last year and must admit that it’s not one of my favorite chores!

In addition to that, Americans love to have someone to inspect, repair if necessary and lube their bicycles before riding season or “detail” their car right at their home, so why not their sacrosanct summer grill? I checked the prices and for an average size barbecue like ours, it would cost us from $250 to $350. 

What might influence an exact final quote include the size of the device. For instance a larger or built-in grills might exceed $800. If something additional might be required, just plan on a base rate of $125 per hour and parts. 

The company utilizes deep steam cleaning and degreasing so the inside of the grill is free of residue and completely clean to the touch. 

With about $25 in supplies, my wife and I (almost) did as good a job in less than 2 hours that afternoon. 

Our grill doesn’t quite look brand new, but still is very clean and saved ourselves a pretty $275!

Park City’s last patch of snow

Same thing every year. June 16 holds a special significance to me. On that day in 1985 as I was house-hunting and had rented a large camcorder to shoot a movie of the house we bought in Park City, for my wife to see and hopefully, get her stamp of approval. 

There was a bull-eye window in the house, and through it, I accidentally captured Jupiter Peak with a tiny snow patch left just below the summit, just like you can see on the picture below! 

What’s amazing is that this winter was our worst snow year ever, and yet after an excellent 1984-1985 snow season, we have as much snow left this year not to mention even more around the main bowl and Portuguese Gap, thanks to some cool weather in April, May and June. 

Amazing isn’t it?

 

Disappointing skier visits!

At long last, I just heard about Utah’s skier visit numbers for the 2025-2026 winter season. At just 4.8 million (an amount rounded up it seems, to suggest a bit less in reality) this represents a drop of 26.2 % for our 15 ski resorts compared to the previous season, a significant decline, even more than Colorado’s down by 24%. 

It was also a large drop-off from the record-setting 7.1 million visits recorded when Utah received a record-high snowfall during the 2022-2023 season. A Ski Utah spokesperson said that “...The big takeaway from this year is that it really is just an anomaly, and the ski industry here in Utah is really at the mercy of Mother Nature.” 

I wish I could agree that it’s just an “anomaly” when in fact, I believe, it’s more the beginning of a trend, showing that global warming is here to stay, should be taken much more seriously and won’t go away any time soon. 

Historically, Utah experienced its lowest snow-pack on record, which reflects the amount of water in new snowfall, but many resorts also struggled to maintain operations because of record-warm temperatures throughout most of the winter. Long, warm periods between storms and warmer precipitation that produced more rain in higher-elevation areas than is the case typically, while also making it difficult for them to produce artificial snow. 

What this dismal season tells me is something about politics. Short-sighted politicians are woefully unable to address long-term needs, like global warming and have no problem sacrificing long-term solutions for short-term gains. Not only in the US where Trump and his republican allies are turning their back to the environment, but also in Europe where the sacrifices required from a sound climate protection strategy seem unaffordable in their short-term lens.

Finding good information today (Part Five)

We all want to “develop a sound opinion” and today we’ll talk about a framework that will move us out of tribal narratives. We’ll start with the problem, not the positions by asking: 

• “What is the underlying issue?” 
• “What are the incentives of the actors involved?” 
• “What constraints shape their behavior?” 

We then identify the trade-offs, not the “right answer” Every real issue has costs, benefits, winners and losers. So, sound opinions come from mapping trade-offs, not picking sides. Nothing, for the most part, is ever black and white, plus constant mistakes are the background and fabric of our lives. 

Then we’re ready to separate the facts from the interpretations, as facts are verifiable, interpretations are narratives and predictions just guesses, while most media love to blend all three. In the end, let’s remember that we’re not looking for “news”, we’re looking for meaning, and meaning doesn’t come from volume. 

Instead it comes from context, synthesis, reflection, conversation and frameworks. If this discussion subject interests us, it also shows that we’ve already had the instinct for this, and what we need to build and be comfortable with, is a structure that protects our attention and channels our curiosity. 

The resources are overwhelming, so pick a selection you feel comfortable handling and stick to it. Good luck!

Finding good information today (Part Four)

In this section, we’ll see how to keep a critical view. If we want a method for keeping a critical view (without becoming cynical), we should say that critical thinking isn’t skepticism but a form of structured curiosity. 

Here’s a simple method we can apply to any issue; let’s call it the “The 5-Question Filter”. When we encounter a piece of news, let’s ask ourselves 

• “Is this important or just urgent?” 
• “Is this new information or recycled garbage?” 
• “What long-term trend does this connect to?” 
• “What would change in my life if I ignored this?” 
• “What is the strongest argument against the position presented?” 

If a story fails questions 1–3, we can safely let it go and ignore it. Then, use the “two sources, two perspectives” rule, for any issue we want to understand: We begin by reading one mainstream source, then we read one outsider or contrarian source. 

We read one left-leaning analysis, followed by one right-leaning analysis. We don’t do it to “balance” but to triangulate. Finally, we learn the “slow opinion” principle in which when an issue is emotionally charged we wait 48 hours before forming an opinion, as most early takes are either wrong, incomplete, or manipulated. 

If that sounds like luxury, it is as I don’t have quite that time at my disposal! In the next blog we’ll discover a method for forming sound opinions, so we’re not done yet.

Finding good information today (Part Three)

It’s pretty clear that faced with the information mess that is besieging us, we must build a personal information architecture, so instead of asking “What’s the right media?”, we should ask “What information do I need to live well, think clearly, and act meaningfully?” 

Based on that premise, we could structure our inputs around these questions. It begins with three tiers of information working as an effective filter: 

Tier 1 — Structural information (high value, low noise) These are long-term forces that actually shape our world. They are demographics, economics, technology, climate, geopolitics and institutions. Good sources for these, I am told, are The Economist (weekly magazine), the Financial Times (weekend edition), Foreign Affairs (magazine, 6 issues a year), MIT Technology Review (bi-monthly magazine) and long-form podcasts (Ezra Klein, Sean Carroll, Conversations with Tyler). Currently, I don’t subscribe and never read any of these, except the Economist on occasions. I will have to seriously look into these. 

Tier 2 — Curated analysis (medium value, medium noise) These are designed to help us interpret events without drowning in them: They are newsletters by domain experts, Substack writers we trust (online publishing platform that allows writers, podcasters, and video creators to publish content directly to their audiences via email newsletters and a dedicated website). There are think-tank explainers (Brookings, RAND, CSIS) that should be just skimmed. 

Tier 3 — Daily news (low value, high noise) This is what I use and according to the experts where the rabbit holes live. Again a “rabbit hole” is a situation where a seemingly simple inquiry leads to a complex, time-consuming chain of related discoveries, making it difficult to stop exploring or return to your original task. A list of these daily news sites are AP News, Reuters, the BBC and NPR Morning Briefing. 

These are factual, low-drama, low-spin and AP News as well as NPR are part of my daily news diet and are likely to remain that way. In the next blog, we’ll try to focus on keeping a direct and simple critical view...

Finding good information today (Part Two)

Yesterday, we wondered about finding a structured, practical way to gather good information, not necessarily a list of “better media outlets,” but a system that helps us stay informed without drowning. The fact is that today, as we seek good information, there are three forces are working against us: 

• A. The firehose problem By far, the worst of all problems, too much information, too intensively. News is no longer a daily digest; it’s a 24/7 stream optimized for engagement, not to make us think or provide us with insight as it creates constant novelty, shallow context, emotional overload and the illusion that everything is urgent. As a result, our brain is doing triage all day without having the time necessary to digest the information it encounters. 
• B. The fragmentation problem Every issue is broken into micro‑controversies, each with its own rabbit hole. This is a perfect recipe for ending up with more information, more data scattered all over, less meaning, more uncertainty and far less confidence. 
• C. The actionability gap By “actionable”, I mean providing the necessary information, tools, or grounds to produce an immediate, practical outcome. 

With this in mind, it’s also true that most news is not actionable, nor is it relevant to our life and totally disconnected to long-term trends, resulting as we finish reading that nothing has really changed. 

To address these points, we’ll explore in our next blog how we can develop a much better way to develop a mode of gathering information that is useful to us. So please, stay tuned!

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 !

Jesus and a hot planet

I used to communicate with Jesus through Skype, but since this service is closed, we’ve both switched to WhatsApp. A week ago, as Europe was under an unseasonable heat wave, we talked about global warming. The conversation went like this: 

Go 11: Hi, Jesus! How are things upstairs? 

Jesus: Not bad, we’re trying to cool France and England at the moment… 

Go 11: As I tell my countrymen, that early heatwave is good training for the time they get to Hell 

Jesus: You might be kidding, but we have the same cooling problem in Heaven. The facilities are very old. Poor insulation, leaks everywhere with the heat that seeps from downstairs. It’s becoming a problem there too… 

Go 11: What are your plans for earth warming in the future? 

Jesus: We’ll probably relocate part of the population to another planet. I mean the Evangelists. I was thinking of sucking them up with a big hose over another spot… 

Go 11: You meant like the rapture? 

Jesus: That’s exactly the idea… 

Go 11: What do you do with the rest? 

Jesus: You mean the other seven and a half billion? 

Go 11: Yeah, if you say so… 

Jesus: We’ll let them roast and use them for fertilizing planet Earth 2.0 

Go 11: And you’ll let the creation start again? 

Jesus: Not quite like the first time, we’d do it the Charles Darwin way, it’s more credible 

Go 11: What about the Evangelists, then? 

Jesus: We’ll suck them over to Mars and let them fight out with Elon Musk, that might bring some good entertainment value!

Michel Rudigoz, 1944-2026

The legendary ski coach and restaurateur Michel Rudigoz passed away Friday, May 29, from Alzheimer disease, at his home north of Ketchum, Idaho. He was 81. Born on July 29, 1944 in France, became one of the most successful US Olympic Alpine ski coaches in history, leading both the men’s and women’s national teams in the late 1970s and 1980s. 

In 1982, he led the American women’s team to the FIS Alpine Ski World Cup Nations Cup, a season-long competition in which points are tallied by individual nations. At the 1984 Winter Olympics in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia, he guided racers Debbie Armstrong and Christin Cooper to gold and silver medals, respectively, in giant slalom and slalom. 

He began his ski coaching career in Tignes. He also preceded me at Mt. Buller where he taught skiing in 1967 and 1968. In 1972, Sun Valley ski coach Lane Monroe met Rudigoz in the Alps and asked him to come to the US to coach. Rudigoz landed in Sun Valley, and eventually took on the role of coach of the US men’s Alpine team in 1978, leading accomplished racers such Phil Mahre, Steve Mahre and Andy Mill. 

He then assumed leadership of the women’s team, becoming known as a master motivator who praised his skiers’ talents but pushed them to always ski faster. In the mid-1980s, Rudigoz bought “La Provence” from our longtime friends, the Dussers in Ketchum, before opening “Chez Michel” down the road, and got involved as a coach for the Sun Valley Ski Education Foundation. 

In 2011, Rudigoz was inducted into the Sun Valley Winter Sports Hall of Fame, one of a variety of awards and accolades he would receive.

A great communication tool (Part Two)

Here’s a handy toolkit of clarifying questions we can use when conversations start to heat up.

They’re short, neutral, and designed to slow things down, invite reflection, and keep the dialogue both civil and constructive: 

• “What do you mean by that?” This signals curiosity, not confrontation. Helps the other person unpack their words. 
• “Can you tell me more about how you see it?” Opens space for explanation, shows we’re listening. 
• “Why is this important to you?” It moves the focus from the argument to underlying values or concerns. 
• “I’m not sure I understand — could you explain differently?” This one buys time, lowers tension, and invites rephrasing. 
• “What outcome would feel fair to you?” This response shifts from conflict to problem solving. 
• “How does this situation affect you personally?” One to humanizes the issue, making it less abstract and more empathetic. 

Again, tone matters a lot: Ask calmly, not sarcastically. Timing matters: Use this questioning technique right when we feel the conversation tipping toward escalation. Follow‑up matters: After asking, listen actively and never, never rush to counter. 

Think of these tips as conversational “pressure valves.” They don’t end disagreements, but they keep them from exploding. To conclude, here’s a simple step‑by‑step “flow” we can use in real time when a conversation starts to get tense. Think of it as a de‑escalation sequence we can run through: 

1. Pause and breathe. Before responding, take a beat. Even a 2‑second pause can reset the tone. 
2. Clarify gently. Use a neutral question: “What do you mean by that?” This slows the pace and signals curiosity instead of confrontation. 
3. Explore feelings Invite them to share: “Why does this feel important to you?” This shifts the focus from the argument to underlying values. 
4. Reflect back Paraphrase what you heard: “So you’re saying you feel overlooked?” Reflection shows you’re listening, even if you disagree. 
5. Redirect to solutions Ask: “What outcome would feel fair to you?” This moves the conversation from conflict to problem solving. 
6. Close with respect End with a calm statement: “I appreciate you explaining that — let’s see how we can work on it.” 

This shows us a fabulous alternative to Trump’s insulting technique as it reinforces dignity while always keeping the door open. Now you’ve got all the tools from the toolbox that are needed to try this method. Good luck!

A great communication tool (Part One)

Here’s a great strategy to stop most disagreements by asking simple questions like: “What do you mean?”, “Why do you feel that way?”, “I don’t quite understand?”, etc. When there is tension and whether it is perceived or real, very little can take a conversation south and take it into a very intense and combative exchange. Some questions are meant to “push someone’s button” or provoke, either accidentally or through some existing stress or a deliberate mean streak.

It seems to me that responding by asking a question that seek to clarify or perhaps buy some time is a good strategy. Indeed, those clarifying questions can be a surprisingly powerful tool in tense conversations and here is why they work. First, they slow the pace when emotions run high, as people often speak faster and more forcefully. 

A simple “What do you mean?” forces a pause, giving both sides a moment to breathe. They also shift the focus, so instead of counter‑attacking or defending, we’re inviting the other person to explain themselves. That moves the dynamic from confrontation to exploration. In addition, they can help validate without agreeing. Indeed when we ask “Why do you feel that way?” we show that we’re listening, even if we don’t share the view. That recognition alone helps defuse any hostility. 

As suggested above, these questions also buy us time. For instance, “I don’t quite understand” is a gentle way of saying: I need a moment before I respond. It prevents knee‑jerk reactions that often escalate a conflict. Finally, they expose intent if people are deliberately trying to provoke as the clarifying question reveals that we detected the provocative intent and diffused it skillfully. 

In communication theory, this approach is called active listening / defensive questioning. It’s a way of turning potential arguments into dialogue. One of the keys is tone: the same words can sound curious or sarcastic depending on their delivery. While this smart strategy doesn’t guarantee agreement, it can often prevents conversations from degenerating and keeps them in a space where mutual respect remains possible. 

In the next blog we review a toolkit of questions for specific situations, so please stay tuned...

What’s this cloud?

On two occasions, I’ve observed these particular clouds, first when we drove to California late April, and this morning as we were out on our morning walk. 

At first, I thought it was a cirrus cloud, but cirrus clouds are detached clouds in the form of white, delicate filaments, mostly in patches or narrow bands. They may have a fibrous, hair-like, and sometimes silky sheen appearance. 

Since I don’t know much about clouds, I had to do some research and found out that based on the distinct smooth, lens-like, and somewhat aerodynamic shape of that cloud, it was a lenticular cloud (technically classified as Altocumulus lenticularis). These clouds are famous for looking like flying saucers, pancakes, or lenses. 

The one I photographed has incredibly clean, smooth edges, which happens when the air is moving in a stable, consistent flow (that day was quite windy). The lenticular clouds typically form when moist air is forced upward over a mountain range or large hill. As the air drops back down, a standing wave is created on the downwind side of the mountain (similar to water rippling over a pebble in a stream). 

If the temperature at the crest of the wave drops to the dew point, the moisture condenses into this beautiful, stationary cloud. Even though the cloud looks like it's just sitting there perfectly still, air is actually constantly flowing through it, in fact, condensing into a cloud as it hits the peak of the wave and evaporating as it moves down the other side. 

​These clouds are a favorite for photographers, but pilots generally give them a wide berth because they indicate strong, bumpy turbulence hiding in the upper atmosphere.