The Broom

Various Links

2009-03-05T12:13:00.000-08:00

This post is a repository for what used to be the melstrom-myers.com home page.

My stuff:

Wiki materials.
I closed the independent consulting company, Mindful Software. The site, www.mindfulsoftware.com, has been sold. Materials from my site are available upon request (though most have been added to one of my blogs). (If you still have rob.myers@mindfulsoftware.com or RobMyers@mindfulsoftware.com as an e-mail address, use the comment area of this blog post to reconnect.)

Recommended Friends and Family (all links will open a new browser window):

http://www.american-firefighter.com/ - All things for and about firefighters, and the families and friends who love them. A very popular site designed and run by my extremely talented nephew. Adjectives cannot describe my pride!
http://www.completegrowth.com/ - Personal investing advice from two Motley Fool alumni. Tom Jacobs was my landlord in Minneapolis, and is still a very close friend. We weathered some rough patches together in our personal lives and at the Minnesota Zen Meditation Center. We also hosted viewings of new Babylon 5 episodes as they were aired. Ages past...
http://www.dvw.com - We moved to the Bay Area for the California reds, and we end up with a cellar half-full of German whites. Blame it all on these wonderful people!
http://www.jamesshore.com/ - Colleague, friend, author, and software development coach extraordinaire. Jim is on my "Dream Team" for any project.
http://www.systemelite.com/ - Hair and skin products from George Michael Lowhigh's System Elite Salon in Minneapolis.
http://www.millevigne.com/ - A Napa B&B owned and operated by a dear friend. We love you, Rebecca!
http://www.stonecreekzencenter.org/ - 'Nuf said.

Always Set Two Alarms

2007-10-10T21:15:00.000-07:00

The title says it all! This business-traveler's rule is so obvious that you may think it doesn't need posting. If that were so, why do I often forget it, myself?

Numerous times (greater than mere statistical randomness would allow) I have set an alarm to wake up for an early flight, and for some surprising reason, the alarm doesn't go off.

I've set the alarm time, but didn't turn on the alarm.
I've set the AM/PM incorrectly.
I've set everything correctly on a hotel clock that had its AM/PM setting reversed.
I've set my cell alarm after a day of having the cell set to silent mode.

The most infamous occurrence of a Visit from Murphy was in Eugene, OR. I had indeed set two alarms (okay, maybe the rule should be "Two Alarms and a Wake-Up Call"). I think I had set my cell-phone alarm time, but forgot to turn the alarm on. I had also set the hotel room clock, but the clock's AM/PM setting had been reversed. I literally woke up 45 minutes before my departure time!

Knowing that there was only one flight out per day, I decided to try to get there rather than just give up and reschedule. 30 seconds to pack, a minute to check out, 15 minutes to drive to the airport (and thankful that there were no patrol cars waiting for me that early in the morning), two minutes to drop off the car... They actually let me check my bags and get on the plane...but this was Eugene, remember: Friendliest airport on the planet! I was extremely lucky.

(Many thanks to the wonderful folks at the Eugene airport that day. All eight or nine of you. :)

The real trick seems to be setting the next day's alarms while you're alert, rather than waiting until you're sleepy and crawling into bed.

During my most recent trip to Boston, I decided I trusted my very reliable cell phone alarm to wake me up. I set the alarm carefully, made sure it was on, had AM/PM set correctly (note to self: consider going to a 24-hour clock), yet it didn't go off! I usually go back and try to identify the problem, and usually I find it, but this time there was nothing. Nothing but a mental image of my phone peering back at me through it's stupid little camera, and laughing at me.

Again, I was incredibly lucky. I had scheduled a room-service breakfast (the only way to get breakfast at this hotel at 6AM), and the kitchen folks had a question about my order, so they called the room only ten minutes after my alarm time. But my heart raced until I looked at the clock, because I immediately assumed it was the front desk, calling to tell me that the taxi driver was tired of waiting, and was leaving without me.

So, I'm saying this just as much for myself as for others: Two alarms, or one alarm and a wake-up call. And, if there's only one flight per day and it's the flight home, then do all three!

Bells wake me up almost fully. It only takes one alarm to wake me up, and I usually turn on a light to keep from falling back to sleep. If this isn't enough for you, set an alarm across the room, so you have to get up to turn it off.

Get Bumped

2007-10-10T21:05:00.000-07:00

Things really fell together for my flight from Boston to San Francisco last Saturday.

When I checked in, I was asked by the kiosk if I'd be willing to take a later flight in exchange for a full-fare travel voucher. I said "No" because it didn't say how much later, and I figured they would get plenty of takers.

I got to the gate, and they were still looking for two more people to bump. It turns out that they had canceled an earlier flight, and they couldn't get a family of three onto my flight. This family needed to be on my flight in order to make their connecting flight back home to South Korea!

"Say no more!" Having had some coffee, and time to think about my schedule, I jumped at the chance, and so did one other traveler.

I couldn't believe my luck. I got a voucher for a free round-trip ticket with no black-out dates. There are some fare restrictions (only W, Q, and V, or something like that), but those sound like fairly common fare categories. I got an exit-row seat on the way home, and a food voucher that bought me dinner at SFO before driving home. And presumably there's a young family that made it back home to South Korea on-time. All parties benefit.

The part I enjoyed the most was the four free hours I had before I needed to be back at Logan airport. Prior to Saturday, my "Week in Boston" had actually been a "Week in Woburn" which meant I got to tour yet another joyless office park in the middle of nowhere, so here was a chance to see Boston!

Boston's rail system looks to be about 200 years old (exaggerating a bit, here...not everything in Boston is 200 years old). The ride was rough and I'd never seen so much rust on a subway train, but the ticket system was high-tech, and I was in the heart of Boston in less than 1/2 an hour.

I had a great time walking through the historic areas and seeing the harbor. The weather was beautiful (hot for the natives: it was in the 80s by 11AM) and the air was fresh.

So, if you have an open schedule and something to do near or at the airport, it often pays to "get bumped."

Mitt Romney Breaks World Record for Shortest Political Contradiction

2007-09-18T22:24:00.000-07:00

...we must oppose discrimination and defend traditional marriage: one man, one woman...

-- Mitt Romney, in a recent Iowa radio spot

What a twit.

It Ain't Me

2007-09-12T19:17:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine asked me if this man was any relation. His name is the same as mine, and he lives in the Phoenix area, where I grew up. No relation that I know of.

Such a tragic accident. I feel for the family of those who perished. I also can't help but feel quite a bit of compassion for this man, whose face has been plastered on the nightly news for making a mistake. A serious, grievous mistake, but does his arrest require world distribution? Do all mugshots now appear on the 10 o'clock news?

Yes, I see the irony of posting his picture on my blog. But no one reads my blog.

The accident that similarly took my sister almost 35 years ago barely made mention in the Arizona Republic. Even then, I doubt it made the news. Or maybe we didn't read the paper or watch the news for months after that. (Wow, people didn't even have 300 baud dial-up yet, did they?)

Hmmm. That reminds me of another post I've needed to write for a long time...

The Mis-Adventures of a Breakfast Cereal

2007-08-22T08:21:00.000-07:00

Years ago we discovered Post's "Blueberry Morning" cereal, and loved it.

Then the entire country was politely informed that trans-fats, which had been in the food supply for decades ("because natural coconut oil was unhealthy"), were killing us softly. Blueberry Morning had trans-fats, so we stopped buying it.

A year or two later, Post dropped the trans-fat, and this fine breakfast cereal again became one of my favorites. The first two ingredients were corn meal and dried blueberries. Their inspiration, they said on the box, was a blueberry corn muffin. And this stuff was quite tasty! Blueberry Morning was low in sodium, nutritious, and contained no partially hydrogenated oils at all.

Partially hydrogenated oil (aka vegetable shortening) is the food additive that adds trans-fats, and is still found in numerous products labeled as "0 grams trans-fat! per serving". If the amount per serving is less than 0.5 grams, they can claim 0 grams. If the serving is 1/2 cup and you eat two cups, you could be eating nearly 2 grams, which is nearly 2 grams over the recommended safe levels. Trans-fats, dear friends, are the worst food additives since the "jagged metal Krusty-O" Bart Simpson found in his lucky box.

Back to Blueberry Morning. Just months ago, it underwent another re-formulation. "New! Improved!" The first two ingredients are now rice, and high-fructose corn syrup (i.e., sugar, created from in-bred corn, fed with petroleum-based fertilizers...yum!). Again, I stopped buying it. The first two ingredients have nearly zero nutritional value. I'd be better off with a bowl of packing peanuts. (Perhaps literally, since you can now get packing peanuts made of corn-starch! You just toss them in the sink and let them dissolve...)

Last night, at my favorite local grocer, I discovered that they had discovered one remaining old box of the prior (perfect) formulation. The box was beaten, tattered, stamped with an expiration date in the not too far future (Dec 07), and perhaps a little stained with rat urine, but the goram ingredients were corn meal and blueberries!

Breakfast this morning was...(say it with me)...a Blueberry Morning!

How to Get Bigger...Slower

2007-08-21T23:08:00.000-07:00

The hurrier I go the behinder I get.

-- unknown

Continuing with a sporadic "Fitness Over Forty" theme, here are some not-so-hurried techniques for adding muscle without injury. Those in their 20's and 30's may want to read it, too. The same advice applies:

1. Give up

Quit measuring. Try to give up your calipers, measuring tapes, or scales. Try also to stop comparing yourself to others. The mirror, and how you feel, are all the sources of feedback you'll need.

Berating yourself for the past is not constructive. Nor is thinking that "it's impossible." "Giving up" on particular goals and images of yourself does not imply defeatism. It's an acknowledgement of the reality that you see in the mirror, and that there is only one person who can do anything about it, and that it's going to take many small steps. There is no quick fix, and you don't even need fixing!

The message of your own forms of constructive feedback should not be "I'd better push, push, push!"

For example, very little can be changed with the words "cold turkey." They imply a "never" or "always" which is setting yourself up for more negative feedback down the road.

2. Fewer sets, fewer reps

Some of the biggest natural bodybuilders I've met do not spend hours on the same muscle group. (Usually those who spend their lives at the gym are socializing most of the time anyway.)

Do three or four sets of 8-10 reps, and move on to the next exercise. Choose from one to three exercises for each muscle group. (For example, do three different chest exercises, then stop. You can always do the other three chest exercises next time.) Overworking the muscle via numerous reps is a good way to reduce muscle growth by courting injury.

3. No cheating

Full range of motion, and slow. 40-year old tendons do not like being shocked into growth. Instead, they tear. Think of yourself like a machine. A hydraulic machine. Smooth, constant, slow, powerful. Enough weight so it's very hard to finish 3 sets of 8. When the muscle fatigues, DO NOT force it. Forcing the rep is for the young, and (without a spotter) usually results in cheating, anyway. Just stop! You're done with that exercise for the day (and the next). After a few weeks, on a good day, you'll get those 3x8 done, and you can try increasing the weight next time (assuming you're having another good day.)

Don't be in a hurry. Let's face the facts, you have to live with some form of exercise (and your own body) for the rest of your life. Let the focus be on health and on how you feel. The rest (looks) will come.

4. Don't Ignore Your Legs.

There's a mildly magical formula for growth: Legs. Your body will react to leg weightlifting workouts with increased growth-hormone production. Real, and safe, hormone production. (Steroids and most supplements are for the young and foolish, too.) One leg workout per week, at least. All the same rules apply. If the workout doesn't make the muscle sore, or DOES make the joints sore, STOP. If it isn't clearly working the muscle you had intended to work (you can tell by which muscles are slightly sore in a day or two), the exercise could be putting you at risk.

5. If you smoke, QUIT!

Otherwise your body is going to spend too much time trying to rebuild lung tissue, etc. to spend any extra energy on growing muscles. Yes, some young studs will smoke in order to stay lean and "cut." That is, again, short-term thinking. They must have absolutely no idea how much they'll wish they hadn't smoked when they turn 40.

If you want to lose weight or stay "cut" then find some form of cardio exercise you can do for 30 minutes.

Cozumel

2006-10-14T00:58:00.000-07:00

I've been wanting to post some old photos, and I'm going to start with one of my favorites.

Dave and I met in 1997, and I think this was sometime during that Winter. Perhaps early 1998.

The photo was taken by our friend David Allen, who introduced us in '97.

Vegonomics

2006-10-01T23:50:00.000-07:00

A number of people, from family to friends to total strangers, have asked me, essentially, "Why are you vegetarian?" Then, as they see me struggling for words, they usually provide multiple-choice answers: "Health? Spiritual reasons? Animal welfare? The environment?" (Okay, very few people actually know about the environmental benefits of vegetarianism, but some have indeed included it.)

I'm always thankful for the multiple-choice format, because my answer is always the same: "Yes!"

They are all good reasons, of course, and it's fun giving cryptic answers. But I never hear the follow-up question that I hope to hear, so I'll ask myself right now:

"Do you really think it matters?"

Let's face it, we live in the United States in the early 2000's, where eating meat is still a deeply ingrained part of our culture. It is a right, and also an expectation, to some degree. The amount of meat consumed in America is not affected significantly by my efforts.

I recognize the power of the masses, and I know that the masses are made up of individuals capable of making their own choices. I can choose to be a very tiny part of a very large problem, or a very tiny part of the solution, I suppose.

Glazed with a Layer of Abstraction

I recently read an odd description of the Thai relationship to meat. (I found it in a Thai cookbook, so it has to be true.) Apparently, because many Thai people are Buddhists, and Thai Buddhists are taught not to kill animals, that they are used to having meat chopped up into small pieces, so that it doesn't look like animal parts.

I don't know about the Thai, but this is certainly true for most of us Americans, right? I recall a particular meal when I was a boy: I was given a whole chicken leg, both the thigh and the drumstick. I discovered that I could make the joint move, just as the chicken had done when it was alive. I was "grossed out" to say the least. Throughout most of my life, meat has been presented as unidentifiable pieces: Fillets, patties, chunks, tenders. That chicken-leg was an eye-opening experience for that chubby little city boy.

To add to the abstraction that is "meat," much of the meat we eat retains, conveniently, the names derived from French livestock: Beef, Pork, Veal. I recall learning that we call chicken "chicken" and turkey "turkey" because the French would not eat such fowl [sic] creatures. But, for the most part, we Americans eat an abstraction called "meat" which is far removed (at least, in our minds) from animal flesh.

Back to the Thai. Why would a Buddhist not be allowed to kill an animal, but still be allowed to eat it? Buddhists around the world, and within America, have numerous approaches to diet. The Buddha, himself, was not a vegetarian. He died from a bad bit of pork. You may have also read that the Dalai Lama is not (or is no longer?) a vegetarian. Vegetarianism is not prevalent amongst Tibetan Buddhists, and for good reason. How easy do you suppose it would be to grow crops up in the Himalayas?

The Thai Cookbook approach has a flaw. (For the record, I don't think the cookbook was written by a Buddhist Thai. All the more reason for it to hit closer to home.) If you eat meat that isn't recognizeable, are you a vegetarian?

"So, why bother?"

In order to avoid killing animals, I don't ask for meat in my food.

By not eating meat over the last few years, I have probably "saved" one cow (I was never a big beef eater), and dozens (perhaps hundreds) of chickens.

"Well," you say, "But someone else would just eat those chickens instead!"

The Law of Supply and Demand

I was sitting with a wonderful friend and highly respected colleague of mine at a restaurant close to his home. We ordered, and I asked for a pasta dish that came with chicken, and I asked to have it without chicken. Simple enough.

My friend ordered his dish, and then he added "I would like to have Rob's chicken."

Quite logical from a business expense perspective, whether or not it was his turn to buy! And, could he not have proclaimed "Besides, the critter is already dead!"?

No. We know from the simple law of supply and demand that they'll only manufacture McNuggets as long as we continue to order them.

I use my friends mild "faux pas" as example, only. I was not the least bit upset, nor did I comment. Besides, he enjoyed the extra chicken, and--for all I know--he may have felt a little short of dietary protein. Nor does it bother me to watch people eat meat, even a big juicy steak.

I do, however, think that our American society (i.e., its individual citizens) ought to examine the industry's treatment of food animals when making those dietary choices. Reality may be painful, but it's the only route to informed decision-making.

"Re-cy-cling?" -- Montgomery Burns, The Simpsons

A while back, I heard a story about a woman who sold a 40-year-old fur coat that she had inherited from her mother's estate. She was berated by animal-rights activists for selling fur.

What nonsense. She was selling from an existing supply, and satisfying someone else's demand without harming a living animal. It's not perfect, but it's a start.

Nobody's Perfect

I do know of vegetarians who prefer their food to be prepared so that it cannot come in contact with any meat products, such as the grease remaining on a fryer. Personally, I'm not one of them. What I try to do is reduce the demand for animal products. (For me, the ethical and "spiritual" benefits lie in avoiding harm to others. Sure, I'd rather that my garden burger is not swimming in grease, but that's the health thing.)

It's basic economics. Eventually my grocery store stops carrying things we (as a community) don’t buy. Eventually farmers will use their lands for something much more productive and healthy. Eventually. Give it another one or two hundred years.

I enjoy looking for simple ways to reduce the overall amount of suffering caused by my actions. I can't force anyone else to do the same (I would have to break the precept in order to enforce the precept, and we have too much of that going on in the world already), but I feel compelled to be this miniscule and insignificant lack-of-contribution-to-the-problem (for lack of another precise term).

A Yearly Ban on Tofurkey

What a wonderful holiday, Thanksgiving! It's a chance to give thanks for your great fortune to be living with a high degree of wealth and comfort (if you're able to read an English BLOG, you're probably in darn good financial shape), and to simply be alive! It's also the only nationally recognized four-day weekend, and the start of the Christmas shopping season!

If I’m invited to Thanksgiving dinner, I can let the hostess know that she doesn’t need to count me when calculating turkey size. And, when the plate goes around the table the second time, I may grab a slice of turkey for myself, anyway, if there’s enough for everyone. "What?!" The bird is already dead, and it has been offered to sustain my life.

I’m expecting this to seem hypocritical to some. Well, we must all make these choices for ourselves, of course. I suppose I would call myself (if I must use a label) a "mostly-vegetarian." I discourage the suffering of animals for my benefit, but will not always turn down fish or fowl when it is subsequently offered.

(Aside regarding labels: I've noticed that there is a way to let people know without labeling myself, and it truly seems to put people at ease with my choices. Rather than "I'm a vegetarian" I often say "I'm eating vegetarian these days." Labels (nouns) sound so permanent. It's as though we limit ourselves, and listeners instantly share that limited image of us.)

I have heard that the original disciples of the Buddha, when they went begging for food, were allowed to eat meat as long as it was not killed specifically for them (i.e., leftovers were okay). I've used a "rule of thumb" that is almost the opposite of that: If I forgot to tell the host at a dinner party that I'm a vegetarian, and the cook has prepared something for me, with meat, I'll eat it. I would rather skip being a vegetarian for a day than make my host feel incredibly uncomfortable.

Apparently my hero, Robert Aitken (my, how my heroes have changed over the decades), has a similar take on this. I don't recall the exact quote (or where I read it), but to paraphrase: The creature is already dead; the hostess is not.

Beef and pork are another story: For me, mammals are out. I find it far too unhealthy (animal fats), risky (mad cow), and repulsive to eat a creature that is so similar to us biologically.

Don't get me wrong: When I'm watching you eat your filet mignon, butterflied and cooked medium-rare; I'm more apt to drool than to turn my head in revulsion. And don't get me started on the joyous childhood memories of McDonald's cheeseburgers! But those joys have been replaced, and I really don't miss 'em. Much.

Apply Gentle Pressure

Christmas 2004: I was talking to Mom before Christmas and she said that we would be having some homemade stew before going to see A Christmas Carol. I let her know that I was vegetarian, and that I could not eat pork and beef. She let me know that I would be able to remove the meat from the stew. That was fine, and I told her so.

The night of the play, she had a wonderful, savory vegetable stew waiting for us! (No meat.)

Thanks, Mom. Essentially, I didn’t make it an issue, and she didn’t make it an issue, either. Mom’s great! :) I hope Dad didn't miss the meat too much. He has made so many sacrifices ove r the years, but his tend to be less obvious. Dad is great, too!

And, yes, I had some turkey with my Christmas meal. Just a little, and with much gratitude to the poor fat bird who gave its life for mine.

All -isms please report immediately to the Iron Cage of Death

2006-09-26T19:45:00.001-07:00

There's been a recent upheaval in my "spiritual backyard," so to speak. Apparently there is a movement in Gujarat to declare Buddhism and Jainism as sects of Hinduism.

I have yet to read the numerous related articles at http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/, but I wanted to record my first impressions upon reading the headlines. (Yes, a very dangerous thing, that. I've been so wrong so many times when guessing at the contents of articles based on their headlines.)

Disclaimer: In fact, I should clarify that the following is not my opinion of the events in Gujarat. Religious freedom, and the rights of people to identify their own selves, are critical human rights. If they are being interfered with, this is certainly a serious issue. But the following is not meant to be so serious...

I practice and study a particular flavor of the Buddha-dharma known as Zen. I want to take a moment and reflect on all the traditions that have molded (contributed to, transformed, mutated, enhanced, rarefied) the original teachings of Siddhartha Gautama into what I get as American Zen:

Siddhartha lived in a time and place where Hinduism thrived. He often used Hindu terms (even Hindu gods) to express his knowledge.

As Buddhism washed repeatedly over China, it picked up various Chinese influences, including Confucianism and Taoism. Ch'an Buddhism was particularly influenced by Taoism. And as Ch'an rode its Eastbound tsunami (repeatedly) into Japan, it picked up a bit of the Shinto traditions, and certainly a strong dollop of potent Japanese culture.

Looking at all this, I suppose I could either lament, or rejoice.

Lament that the pure and original words of the Buddha have been through such a thrashing that I could never recover their wisdom. Perhaps I should look elsewhere? The earliest writings in Pali or Sanskrit? Sure, that could give me a better idea of what he actually said and did. Right?

We need only look at today's media battles, e.g., CNN vs. Fox in the Iron Cage of Death, to know that words--even when originally issued in a familiar language and recorded earnestly--are open to interpretation. Of course, the Buddha spoke repeatedly, in different ways, in order to convey his realization. But which sutra is the Pinnacle of Wisdom? Which sect of Buddhism is the One True Buddhism?!

Bah! I choose to rejoice. I've found some wise words that resonate, if you'll pardon the new-agey term. (What a perfect description, though: resonate...) Your Mileage May Vary. Find what resonates in you!

I am currently reading an old Tricycle article by Stephen Batchelor, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite Buddhist authors. In the article, he makes the argument that traditions are inherently living and changing (and dying) things, and that this includes Buddhism. He likens it to members of a family: There is a resemblance, but each is an individual. (I can't find a copy of the article on the web, probably because I'm reading the Winter 2000 issue. Don't ask... :-)

Wisdom is all around us, in all traditions. Is it any wonder that The Golden Rule is so similar in numerous traditions? (The Buddhists use negation: "Do NOT do unto others what you would rather NOT have done unto you. Like, um, waterboarding." Okay, I added that last part. So many of us learn best from examples. I'm hoping the Bush administration reads my blog. HAR! HAR! *snort!*) Look at the similarity between the Ten Commandments and the Ten (Five/Eight/Dozen/Baker's Dozen) Grave (Moral/Pure/Enumerable) Buddhist Precepts, particularly that one special principal that might translate into blogspeak as "Please STOP f***ing killing each other, right now!" Perhaps adding "I mean it, dude. YOU. STOP."

Buddhism is, after all, pragmatic stuff about reality, here and now. If awakening were metaphysical, and beyond the reach of us ordinary humans, the Big Guy wouldn't have bothered speaking at all. Remember, he thought about it for a while. "What can I possibly say about this?!"

So, do I care if someone starts calling what I've been studying and practicing "Hinduism"? Nah. It's really more Taoism anyway! ;-)

Of course I care. But I also try to remain aware that American Zen has probably adapted and evolved in the great leap over the largest pond on Earth. How not?!

I'm happy to have the Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and Christian traditions (raised a Lutheran!) each providing their wisdom to the subjective synthesis that is my personal spiritual path. Yes, it is subjective. There's no other choice, really. Your religion is what you take it to be. As any good Zen teacher will tell you (in their own words, of course), "You are your own teacher!"

Of Mice and...Lobsters

2006-07-13T20:04:00.000-07:00

I'm in Charlotte, NC on business, and I noticed an editorial in the local paper inspired by a recent spate of local animal-cruelty issues (and regulations) about cooking lobsters live, and keeping them in those grocery-store aquariums.

She (the author, and I'm recording this from memory, so I don't recall the name) brought up some very good points about this issue.

She mentions that vegans and vegetarians should stop and think before claiming the moral high-ground. She points out how many field mice are chewed up by wheat-harvesting machinery, and the environmental costs of having baby greens wrapped in plastic and shipped across state lines.

She wasn't suggesting that we should give up wheat for lobsters, but that we should try to be more aware of the trade-offs, and to eat food produced locally. She lives in a place where lobsters are plentiful, and are fed in a semi-wild fashion for about seven years before being harvested. She knows a lobster fisherman, and he pointed out that lobsters have more in common with mosquitoes than humans, so why are we so ready to defend the lobsters but eat the beef? Even if we stop boiling lobsters alive, you know we'll just start buying pre-boiled, packaged lobster nuggets, just so we don't have to hear those screams...

She mentions the book The Omnivore's Dilemma as a good place to read about the realities and trade-offs of our meals.

I think the biggest point was about proximity: Eat what's locally available (and therefore seasonal).

I'm not planning to change my diet, but then I have the great fortune of living very close to farms that bring fresh produce to the grocery store, and dairys that treat their cows quite humanely. (We have also planted an organic vegetable garden, and berry bushes, in our yard.) And that pretty much sums up my diet: Vegetarian, with a lot of dairy.

I hope I'm not being smug. I know I'm very fortunate. If my good fortune helps a little, great.

I may have to give some thought to those field mice, though...

No Pain, No Gain?

2006-07-12T18:49:00.000-07:00

Here is something I sent recently to a friend (part of my thought-process that led to the current blog posts on health and fitness):

I was at the gym tonight, and had to resist giving a young guy advice. He was doing calves with too much weight and not enough range of motion. Skinny calves forever. He wasn't doing anything overtly dangerous (like bouncing or hopping up), so I just let it go. I don't want to be one of those old washed-up know-it-alls.

I see this mistake happen all the time. How do I know it's a mistake? Because those who do it always have skinny calves.

The "secret" to calves (and most muscles) is simple but painful: Full range of motion. Start over with a lighter weight (as though you've never done calves before, because--quite frankly--you probably haven't). Possibly a much lighter weight.

I usually use the standing calf-raise rack, so I'll describe that exercise. Start out with your heels settling towards the floor, the calves in a gentle stretch. (Presumably, you've already warmed up and done some actual gentle stretching of the leg muscles, including the calves.)

Rise up slowly and naturally, neither bending nor locking your knees (legs are straight, but not locked). Do not bend at the waist or back. You are standing straight up throughout the exercise, pivoting only at the heel. Go slow, and fa' Pete's sake do not bounce. Push your toes down until your foot is pointed towards the ground. That's the critical part for growth: Push yourself up there! Essentially, you will be standing on the balls of your feet, with your feet fully extended. That, my friend, is full range of motion (and you will feel it). Slowly (even more slowly than the upwards motion) let yourself back down until you feel the stretch again.

Please, give yourself one or two sets before pushing on much weight at all. You may decide not to add weight after doing your first rep or two with full range of motion. You're going to do at least three sets, so let your first one be a "warm-up." You'll thank me tomorrow.

Three sets of 8 reps is plenty to start with, going up to three or four sets of 8-15 reps, eventually. Yes, it will be painful (in that good, burning-muscle way). If you overdo the weight or reps, you will not be able to walk for days. That's a pretty good sign that you overdid it, but at least you'll know you got the form right, eh?

Welcome to a real calf work-out.

And watch out for cramps. Eat your bananas, drink plenty of water, and try to remember not to point your toes while sleeping or swimming until the ache goes away. Calf cramps can take weeks to heal enough for you to do your next leg workout!

Which is one example of how overindulgence of something good for you can be counterproductive!

See, that's one of the problems with starting a weight-lifting routine, or trying out a new exercise: If you do it right, it will hurt a little. If you overdo it (and that's easy to do when you first try a new exercise), you'll hurt so much that you'll stop doing it, or you'll start doing it in a way that doesn't hurt at all. The old adage, "no pain no gain," is actually true up to a point. The muscle tissue should feel fatigued, or perhaps "burn" a little during the exercise. If anything else burns (deep within you, as though your bones/tendons/ligaments were hot, or pinched, or swollen), then you need to STOP immediately. That's not growth-producing pain.

The "pain" in "no pain, no gain" isn't really painful per se. Your muscles should ache a little the next day or two. (Like a tetanus shot, or a light bruise.) During those days, you should still be able to use the muscle (e.g., walk, or lift your arms, or touch your nose...) without others noticing a wince of pain.

Eventually, we develop a mild addiction to that endorphin-laden ache. We have to take care to find an appropriate, moderate level of indulgence.

Getting personal about your pectorals

2006-07-05T23:32:00.000-07:00

(Yeah, if you have a better title, I'm open to suggestions! ;-)

I got a note from a friend a while back...

...what exercises are good for isolating the pecs other than flys [sic] and bench press (and its million variations)?

For better or worse, I'm well-suited to answer this. Since my shoulder surgery in the mid-90's, I don't do traditional bench or military presses. For a while I thought my chest and shoulders would languish, and I drowned my sorrows in long bouts of running and leg workouts (until that combination resulted in knee problems...).

Here is the answer I gave him. Please keep in mind: Though "flies" would be the correct plural of "fly," it just doesn't seem right to refer to a weight-lifting exercise as "flies"...

Cable-flys [sic], or whatever they're called. The problem with bench and regular flys [sic] is that you don't get the full range of motion. Position yourself so that the cables are nearly perpendicular to your arms when you bring your hands together, so the very hardest part of the exercise is that last few inches as you bring your hands together. Start light, go slow. Don't CLAP the grips together. A light tap, and hold it for one count, pressing the grips together.

This takes special equipment, of course. Something with two pulleys set wide apart. Or, you could squish a volleyball between your outstretched hands. I suppose you could use a thigh-master. (Hey! Use for a thigh-master! ;-)

It's not for broadening the chest, but adds thickness, esp. near the sternum. Gives you that ripped look where the pecs attach to the sternum.

The Marriage Amendment is already unconstitutional

2006-06-17T20:36:00.000-07:00

The president firmly believes that marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women and has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage...
-- White House spokesman Ken Lisaius

Yes, the need to defend marriage and family from people who are trying to establish monogamous relationships and stable families--i.e., "the gays"--has again superseded the importance of war in Iraq, global environmental disasters, marital infidelity, and divorce. Queers, ladies and gentlemen, are The Greatest Threat to Civilization! Or so it would seem, if you listen to the latest carefully prepared Presidential speeches.

What a pickle for gay people! We're not allowed to get married, but we're off-handedly criticized for our sordid lifestyles. What's a guy to do...?

Focus on "Family"

But marriage is about families...children! Yes, those adorable little bundles of economic potential. From a social standpoint, they're what keeps civilizations going. It's no wonder that politicians are all in a fuss to make sure there are plenty of little ones to keep the economy going, at least until the current batch of politicians has served their terms.

I'm being unfair? One thing has been made very clear recently: Most of us are not planning for the long-term. Ten years from now? Barely on the radar. 100 years? Why give it a single thought? You'll be dead anyway. In about 150 years, you and (almost?) everyone on the planet today, will be dead. (And I'm an optimist!) Most politicians can barely see beyond the next election. It's hard to take seriously most of what they say or do.

I love kids. My niece is expecting, and I hope that there is plenty of healthy food and clean water and clean air and wild spaces for her child to grow. That's why I'm a progressive: It's not because I expect the world to coddle me. I keep hoping the current population of the country will become a little less selfish, take care of the world, and leave something for my grand-niece-or-nephew to enjoy. And for your children and grandchildren, too!

Anyway, this proposed amendment can't be about children. No one is insisting that married couples procreate. No one has to sign a contract saying "we will do our very best to have children so you can have your tax base in 20 years." I know plenty of people who were allowed to get married even though they couldn't (or wouldn't) have children.

So, what's a family? What exactly is this sacred union that we're trying to defend?

I remember thinking about writing something last time President Bush brought this up, but I was too busy, and the topic faded from sight. I suppose I should have known that I merely needed to wait for another election year.

Sacred Is As Sacred Does

In the quote at the top of this post, the emphasis is mine. Finally, someone is being honest about the real issue.

"Sacred..." we're told.

sacred
adj 1: concerned with religion or religious purposes... 2: worthy of respect or dedication... 3: made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use...

-- The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition

Of course! This debate is about religion.

This marriage issue has always been an issue of religion, and finally the administration has held out the cards for all to see.

It only becomes a political issue inasmuch as religion intrudes upon the political machine. We suspect Bush's heart isn't in it. Apparently a friend of his claims that he doesn't give "a s--t" about the gay-marriage issue. Unfortunately, he does care about pandering to the "religious right," and winning elections. Somewhere along the way, Bush squandered all of that good political capital, and is now trying to buy it back.

Have our ultra-conservative, ultra-wealthy citizens decided to declare a State Religion? Or could it be ordinary human nature, repeating itself as it has done throughout history: The need to be right?

Doctor, It Hurts When We Do This

The uber-conservatives are clearly arguing for their ideology. And they certainly have the right to do so. But they're not being forthright about their agenda. Legalized gay marriage is no real threat to the establishment of a family.

These folks need to focus their kindness and compassion on the psychological dysfunction that creeps into marriage. Let's face it, any relationship is tough work. The rewards don't simply appear, nor do the problems dissipate, just because a religious figure blesses the union. Marriage is where the hard work begins, if it hasn't started already.

Us gay people are really not trying to interfere with other folks' rights, or families. No, we're just trying to discourage the physical violence that killed Matthew Shephard and others. We, too, have the human need to survive.

We may not have suffered nearly 1/1000th as much as black folks have in this country, but wouldn't it be nice to avoid the suffering before it rips our country apart (again)? Just once, can't we circumvent the true evils of bigotry and hatred before we have to look back in shame and disbelief? I'm not suggesting that the conservatives are conspiring to cause harm. I doubt it's ever the wealthy-and-comfortable who directly promote violence. Violence seems to appear, rather, where and when minorities are not truly protected by equal rights and equal enforcement.

And no, I'm not being overdramatic. I have about 10,000 years of human history and pre-history backing me on this. Minorities don't actually have to cause trouble in order to attract the hatred of others. They merely have to be perceived as aberrant.

Did I mention that I'm an optimist? ;-) Well, I'm not trying to predict some doomsday scenario. Just trying to point out the subtle trends of civilizations in general.

God Bless the Pluralists

It's okay that President Bush allows his decisions to be informed by his faith. But this proposed amendment clearly crosses the line, and forces The People to agree with his beliefs (or those of his "base," if we're to believe he doesn't give "a s--t").

The Founding Fathers were apparently more forward-thinking than today's politicians. Fortunately, they gave us a simple amendment, the First Amendment, that protects us from the establishment of a state religion.

Marriage Proposals

Regarding the legal definition of marriage, we have only two legitimate choices available to us as a nation:

One: We broaden the definition of "marriage" to include any two non-blood-related consenting adults who choose to establish a family based on mutual love and caring. (Please, let's just keep the whole polygamy issue separate. It is a separate issue, and should be examined frequently. But I'm talking about gay marriage here, and I'd like to stay on-topic. Also, in case you're not following my argument, farm animals are not able to consent. And children are not adults. All these things are off the table. Are we clear? If you're into either of those, please seek professional help.)

Two: We acknowledge that "marriage" is a sacred religious bond, and allow only religious figures to perform marriages. A marriage also includes a civil union. I've heard it said that, currently, the legally and economically important part of the ceremony is the signing of certain legally binding documents after the ceremony. We can still let that be a part of the marriage ceremony, but let's call that a civil union license; separate from, or included within, a marriage license. And let's allow any two consenting adults to join in a civil union. A Justice of the Peace can perform civil unions. Religious leaders can perform civil unions or marriages.

Either one of these choices puts the question of whether or not to marry two people of the same sex onto the clergy, where it belongs. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, your clergy will decide if you can.

In other words, if we're going to make it an issue of religion, let's put all the cards on the table, and let each religious group decide what's right for them.

My Country, Right or Left

I recently heard Bill Bennett say (on the Daily Show) that all religions agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not true. Mine doesn't. Oh, and thanks for bolstering my argument that it's a religious debate, Bill.

If the marriage amendment were ever to pass, it would be in violation of the First Amendment. It isn't likely to pass, but it doesn't seem to want to die either. The fundamentalists in this country see themselves as answering to a higher authority than the United States Constitution. And, in some sense, they're correct: They are answering to their own human need to be right.

As adults, we need to get beyond that base need, and instead behave in ways that will cause the least amount of harm to all The People.

Orphaned Thoughts

2006-03-08T13:25:00.000-08:00

I have a whole collection of these, but they rarely ever find a life beyond their original discovery.

Sometimes a blog entry will occur to me, I'll write down a reminder, but there's not enough (perhaps yet) to formulate an entire entry. Or, sometimes a turn of phrase will roll around in my brain, and I just don't want to lose it.

Sometimes, I'm simply trying to channel Mark Twain. Let's face it: Recording one's own quotes is pretty egotistical!

Anyway, here are some of these orphaned thoughts:

Greed is now the greatest threat to capitalism.
The Fallacy of Command and Control: Trying to avoid mistakes by having fallible humans watching over other fallible humans.
Peace is not something we take for ourselves, but something we give to others.
One gentle nudge is worth a thousand rough shoves.
In my 20's it was "What am I going to do today?" In my 30's it was "What am I going to do this week?" In my 40's it's become "What am I going to do this month?" Boy, I'm worried about my 50's.
Security and control: two tiny faeries flitting a jig within our blind-spot.
We must not mistake the serendipitous for the miraculous.
Maturity is like altitude: There is always "higher." (Since there is no "highest," we can stop competing with ourselves and others.)
Book-learning is bullshit: Works as fertilizer, not as food.

May they inspire you...or me...someday!

The 2006 Toyota Prius: Finally, My Bubble-Car has Arrived

2006-02-17T23:36:00.000-08:00

I'm quite happy with the new Prius we just bought. Almost immediately, we took it on a road trip, and it performed quite well over hill and dale.

I read an article recently that took two rather unfair stances against the 2006 Toyota Prius.

As reported in The Week, Consumer Reports suggested that the mileage for the Prius was not as advertised. The 2006 Prius is rated at 50 Hwy, 60 in the City. No, I don't have those reversed: The Prius is designed to get better mileage in slower, stop-and-go traffic. It thrives on braking, and uses the electric motor when accelerating from a stoplight.

There isn't a single car on the road today that meets its own advertised MPG. They are often around 10 MPG less than advertised. I've been driving my car in the mostly highway, hilly, and partly slow-and-go traffic that is common for a Bay Area commuter (Santa Rosa to one of the two "nearby" airports). I get around 47 to 49 MPG, as measured by the computer and verified by me at each refill. So, it's supposed to get 55 combined, but it's getting only around 48. Golly, I should be upset! ;-)

Now for the other point:

There is a huge Federal tax credit available to those who buy a new Prius in 2006. Since the car is supposedly a failure at what it was intended to do, the accusation was made that this is yet another George W. Bush tax break for the wealthy.

Well, yeah! But at least this one is attainable by someone making under $200,000 per year!

I consider myself quite fortunate to be able to leverage this tax break in my favor. I'm expecting a credit of over $3k for the Prius. The credit is based on the fuel economy and emissions ratings of the car. We also looked at the Honda Civic hybrid, which is about $5k cheaper (for a very nice car with a sleek, sporty interior). The Civic's rebate is not as high as the Prius rebate.

The tax credit can only offset taxes paid in, or owed, so if you don't need to pay in the total amount in one year, you may not get the full benefit. For example, a college student who does not have a Federal tax obligation of $3k would not get extra money back, and some of the credit would be wasted. There are legal ways to get around this, of course. E.g., parents could buy the car for the student. Personal arrangements could then be made for the student to make the payments, minus $3k (it seems only fair, right Dad?).

Granted, it's not a break for the lower middle-class or the poor, but it is a nice incentive to get the upper middle-class to buy vehicles that don't suck as much gas. And perhaps that will encourages car-makers to build more hybrids instead of traditional gas-sucking cars. Why isn't there a hybrid Taurus, or a hybrid Sebring? What are other car manufacturers waiting for?

Perhaps the next incentive should be $3k towards college tuition for every high-MPG/low-emissions vehicle purchased by/for a full-time college student.

I am truly enjoying the Prius. It handles well enough, has enough power to get up the steep hills (yes, the engine whines a little, but I've reached a certain level of maturity where not every road is my personal race track). And over 45 MPG! For a geek like me, what's not to love?

Rising healthcare costs - Part II

2006-01-23T19:39:00.000-08:00

I wouldn't consider reducing benefits because it's too hard to find great employees.

-- director at a high-tech Seattle-based company

(to see Part I, including the survey responses, click here)

1. Does your organization currently pay 100% of the medical premiums for employee, spouse, and family? If not, what percentages are paid?

I was surprised by how few respondents indicated that their companies paid 100% of the insurance premiums for employee, spouse, and dependents.

Apparently, I've been spoiled. I've always worked for small companies, and they've almost always taken care of all the incidentals. Those that did stand out in my mind as great companies. And not just from my point of view: They were also highly successful.

The sample is small--I've only worked for eight or nine companies in my 18-year post-gratuate career (and I haven't always had a spouse/dependent)--yet, I've sensed a trend: The most successful companies were those that focused less on managing income and expenses, and more on creative product development, competitive strengths, and a sense of community within the organization.

Income and expenses are important, of course, but secondary to the real work of running the business.

2. Does your organization have plans to reduce that benefit, particularly for spouse/family?

I was pleasantly surprised by the answers to the second question. A reduction in benefits, particularly while a company is turning a profit, is probably counterproductive.

It's true, health insurance premiums are sky high. Something has to be done. And a company should shop around for health insurance at a good rate. But what does it mean for a company to reduce the amount it pays by increasing the amount the employee pays?

It would be perceived as a pay cut, pure and simple.

It's true that the employee's portion can be deducted on a pre-tax basis, which would help. But it still has the exact same effect as a pay cut. And in my experience, a pay cut is a sign that it's time for employees to start searching for the life-rafts. Whether the company is profitable or not, the employee takes a small kick in a sensitive spot. Companies that make themselves more profitable by taking away money from their employees are really shooting themselves in the foot. After all, where does the company derive productivity, and where does the employee get money?

The most profitable companies I've worked for (as measured either by how rich the owners were by the time we parted ways, or by how immense the profit-sharing bonuses became over time) all followed what I call the "C-E-O Principle."

The What?

The following is a restatement of a "principle" I first put forward on Ward Cunningham's original wiki:

The C-E-O Principle:

In order to be truly successful, a company must foster a community of customers, employees, and owners. Decisions containing conflicting interests among these groups should be made in a way that favors those groups in the specified order: Customers, Employees, Owners.

I did get some grief from people who pointed out that CEOs are legally bound to serve shareholders (Owners). And apparently those naysayers were right: I just watched The Corporation, and learned that, indeed, CEOs really are beholden to shareholders and the bottom line. But that doesn't mean the principle is false, or (as some have claimed) illegal. Someone else on the wiki came to my rescue and pointed out that many CEOs have the freedom to follow their own instincts and experience in these types of decisions.

What I'm saying is that, in the long run, this is the best approach for the bottom line. And even though I've only once (okay, twice) worked for a company that was larger than 40 people and publicly traded, I'm apparently not alone in my beliefs.

There is the example of Hyperion's offer to give $5k to each employee who buys a hybrid car (mentioned in the wiki discussion). And how about Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, who was interviewed in The Corporation? You may think he's gone bananas, but I can see pure clear-eyed common sense in his words and his expression: This man has somehow seen through the haze of corporate greed to a better way to run his company. (Actually, he credits his employees for nudging him towards his "epiphany.")

As far as I know, no CEO has recently been terminated or jailed for turning the organization into a better corporate citizen. If nothing else, it's extremely good PR. Consumers like to know that someone is watching out for the "little guy."

General Motors (GM) may be heading for bankruptcy down the road, but I had to buy my 2006 Toyota Prius sight-unseen because they're selling as fast as Toyota can make them. Sure, in a lot of cases consumer choices are driven by self-interest. But Toyota has turned self-interest and environmental concern into a benefit to their own organization. Toyota saw a need and answered it, years before anyone else. Good for Toyota, good for me, good for America, and good for the Earth. A "Win-Win" scenario, and it has the added appeal of being more than just an idealistic mirage.

Of course I care about American jobs, and I groaned when I heard about Ford's huge layoffs. Let it be a message to American auto manufacturers: Follow the consumer's needs, not those of your oil-barron shareholders. If they follow this one simple rule of thumb, perhaps they will be the first to offer a sexy hybrid convertible, and I'll trade in my Prius!

Lowering the Stress of Business Travel

2006-01-19T21:37:00.000-08:00

My boss, who also travels a lot, reminded me of the One Big Travelers' Lesson that I have neglected to post until now:

Your Flight Will be Late!

So take a deep breath, and plan for it. Expect it to happen, and you won't be disappointed either way.

I'm not always a patient man, but this is one area where I may have finally developed a bit of real patience. Here are some steps to take to keep your cool when you discover--at the gate, of course--that your flight is delayed by an hour or more:

Schedule the flight so that you arrive at least two hours before you actually have to be there. If the delay doesn't make you late for an appointment, you won't feel as stressed. Perhaps the rule of thumb should be two hours per time zone: The further you need to travel, and the more stops you make, the greater your chances of being delayed.
Schedule any layovers so that they are sufficiently long, otherwise you may miss your connection. But obviously not too long. See #1 for guidance. Usually one to two hours is plenty.
Bring plenty of things to keep you occupied during all the delays. I usually take some business related tasks (call the boss, work on the laptop, fill out some paperwork, read something technical) and some personal tasks or relaxing activities (bills, books, magazines, music, movies). These aren't things that I have to get done today. If they were, then I'd be stressed when delays didn't occur! Also, extended phone calls are very difficult at the noise-laden terminal, so I won't call an old friend, or a new client. I try to bring things I can do on the plane, so I won't limit myself to electronic stuff. Reading material is best. I bring my own, but I'm rather particular about the books and magazines I read. If you like the usual magazines, fine newspapers, or the latest best-sellers, you can probably find something at the terminal.
Bring snacks. Unless you've had time to scope out the best snacks and restaurants at your usual airports, you may get quite hungry. A small snack can keep you going--and keep you calm--during the delay. I usually bring or buy one small but complete meal to eat at the terminal or on the plane, and then dry stuff (granola bars, bananas, nuts) to keep me going. I pack snacks in my briefcase, so I can munch on something at any time.
When you hear that announcement, try not getting mad. Note that I didn't say "try not to get mad," but actually make an effort to keep from groaning, yelling, or cursing under your breath. Are you really surprised? After years of business travel, I'm not. These days, I often find myself smiling, thankful for the time to catch up on some reading.
If it helps you to feel self-conscious about your anger (which, for me, is a great way to learn how to let it go), keep this in mind: Seasoned travelers can recognize the newbies by how upset and vocal they get when the flight is delayed.

Avoiding Burnout

Let me tell you about my schedule during most of 2002. This occurred weekly, almost every week for a year:

Sunday morning I would take a taxi to the bus station and take a bus to SFO. I would then fly to DTW, rent a car, and drive to Ann Arbor. That was at least an eight hour day, door to door. And, Ann Arbor is on East Coast time.

Friday evening, I would leave the client's office as early as possible, drive frantically from Ann Arbor to DTW (20 to 40 minutes), drop off the rental car, sprint to my flight (and, if you've been to the new Detroit Northwest Airlines terminal, you know that this can be a literal 1/2 mile jog, worst case, which was also the typical case, due to Murphy's Laws of Travel). One time, when the flight was on-time, they were about to close the doors with me on the wrong side of the porthole. That was as close as I have ever been to being denied a seat on my flight.

If the flight was delayed, then--upon arrival in SFO five hours later--I had to sprint from the arriving terminal to the bus stop. (On those weekly DTW to SFO flights, I never checked luggage!) Fortunately, I never missed the last bus (at midnight), but I often missed the bus that I had planned to take at 11PM. Hurry up and wait, as the saying goes. To top it all off, the bus had multiple stops between San Francisco and Santa Rosa. There were times when I wouldn't get to bed until 3AM Pacific, 6AM Eastern, after spending a week trying to adapt to the Eastern time zone.

And Saturday was usually spent sleeping off the jetlag, and doing laundry.

But I'm not whining. I actually enjoyed that gig. I made a couple of good friends in Ann Arbor, and I made an obscene amount of money. But the stress was starting to wear me down.

What would I do differently today? I would certainly park my car near SFO. Eventually the bus fare got so high that off-airport parking became cheaper than taking the bus round-trip. At the time, I was very frugal: I was the business, so a dollar of business expense was nearly a dollar out of my own pocket. With my own car readily available, I wouldn't have to arrive on-time, and I wouldn't have to wait. Less expensive in terms of money, time, sanity, and life-expectancy.

Other things I would do differently today would be business-related: I now schedule Monday as a travel day, and I would try to plan to be elsewhere at least one week every two months, at a minimum. To that end, a consultant should try to have multiple clients. These are subtle reminders to the client that (a) you're not an employee, and (b) you have other sources of income.

But even if that other client turns out to be your family, and your projects are mowing the lawn and painting the guest room, you will thank yourself. I've noticed that the more money I made, the more "expensive" a week of unpaid vacation would seem. "Missed opportunity" we self-congratulating investors like to call it. What a load of crap! We serve the clients better when we take care of ourselves, too.

With the wonderful job I have now, we try to keep travel down to every other week. And we mostly succeed.

Rising healthcare costs giving you a coronary?

2006-01-14T23:45:00.000-08:00

First: Many thanks to those who responded to the survey.

Here are the results of my small, informal, and unscientific survey of friends and colleagues, including (but not limited to) HR folks, executives and owners, and people in high-paying, high-tech jobs.

Fourteen people answered each question directly. Others provided interesting anecdotes, but didn't respond with values. I have included a little of both. First, the "statistical" answers:

1. Does your organization currently pay 100% of the medical premiums for employee, spouse, and family? If not, what percentages are paid?

Responses follow, with one paragraph per respondent. Where necessary, the answer has been edited to reflect the percent payed by the employer, not the employee. Where the response is a direct quote, I have added quotation marks.

Approximately 90% for the HMO plan, 75% for the PPO plan.

60-80%.

73%.

Approximately 85% for employee and dependents.

No. (This person's employer uses a tiered approach for families of varying ages and incomes.)

"100% employee. mumble% spouse (50?), child unknown."

75%.

100% for employee and 50% for dependents.

"We currently get 100% of the employee's medical and dental covered. There are upgrade plans, e.g., an improved medical plan and cancer insurance, which the employee pays group-rates for. Spouse and kids are covered at a rate that puts the company's overall expenses near the national average (for software companies?), which I think was 76%; I think the company covers something like 48% of the cost for spouse and family."

75% for employee and dependents.

"Yes." I.e., 100%.

100% for employee, 0% for dependents.

"We [the company] used to [pay 100%] until this January."

100% for employee and dependents.

2. Does your organization have plans to reduce that benefit, particularly for spouse/family?

The same respondents, in the same order:

No.

Not sure.

Not sure.

No.

No.

No.

No.

"Two digit rate increases would trigger one of the following: put the contract out to bid to see if another carrier will cover us at more reasonable rates or ask the employees to contribute more of the cost. Another option that companies consider are the HSA (health savings plans)...a good option for new companies - and they have the added benefit that whatever the employee doesn't use can be accumulated for their use at a later date."

"I expect the family benefit to increase, and perhaps the employee benefit to decrease..."

"No, in fact we had no spouse or dependent coverage until a recent benefit increase."

No.

No.

"They just did."

No.

3. If you were to reduce such a benefit, would you do so only for new hires, or would you reduce the benefit for existing employees?

The answer from all who chose to respond to this question was that such changes would affect everyone. I was not surprised. Some respondents made me realize that, though there are no stupid questions, there are some that qualify as absurd.

In the interest of fairness we would make the change across the board for all employees.

-- HR executive, financial sector

We firmly believe in the "same rules and perks for everyone" philosophy...

-- COO, software consulting firm

Grandfathering equity morsels is one thing -- not health benefits.

-- Colleague, at a company whose name is now a household synonym for "search" ;-)

Other Respondent Comments

A friend, ex-employer (early 90's), and company president had this to say:

As you know, I used to pay full medical benefits.

There can be enormous differences in costs. For a young person, it may "only" be $100 or so per month. For [my spouse] and I, and a fairly high deductible ($2000 or $2500 I think) it is a little over $1000/month now. But what is even more scary is that increases are very rapid. I've had increases in this cost of over 20% year to year at times.

Be sure to look at Health Savings Accounts. They may encourage better use of healthcare.

Since over 1/2 my business is with doctors, I hear a lot about health insurance. At best, it is a horrible mess. The inequities and stupidity in the current system are incredible. I'd estimate that over 25% of all healthcare dollars go into administering the finances. That number might be as high as 50% in reality. I could go on a rant...

Universal coverage makes more sense to me than most alternatives. I think that has worked OK for the most part with Medicare. Extending it to all would make sense to me in the long-run.

Another old friend says:

At the law firm when I started there 7 years ago, we paid $20 a month for medical (hmo) and dental (100% covered plan). When I left this year, we were paying $30 a paycheck (or $60 per month)... and the deductibles had gone from $10 copay for doctors and $5 co-pay for prescriptions, to $25 co-pay for doctors and prescriptions.

At the LARGE company I am with now... it is even worse.

We pay $51 a paycheck.... and have a mediocre HMO to choose from.

The owner of a small insurance agency had this to say:

Regarding health benefits, I only provide coverage for [one employee] and not her dependents. The other two employees are covered by their husband's insurance. I assume we will continue paying her insurance at 100%.

Industrywide deductibles are going up and employees are being asked to contribute up to 40% of the premium. In some cases the premium for family coverage is $1600/month.

Employers can't keep up with the 20 - 30% increases they're getting every year.

A good friend and single mom who is holding down two jobs, school, and a teenager, responded to question #2 with this:

They just did [lower our benefits]...However, they did do one smart thing in the process, in order to keep costs down, they have single, single plus one (which works for domestic partners of either sex and single parents with one child).

I'm planning to give my own impressions of the survey results in a different post. (I want this one to stand alone, untarnished by my interpretations.) But I will end with a quote from a colleague and director at a high-tech Seattle-based company. The emphasis is mine:

I wouldn't consider reducing benefits because it's too hard to find great employees.

Satorix, the Nirvana Pill! (Part I)

2006-01-09T23:37:00.000-08:00

You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

-- Morpheus [Wachowski A. and Wachowski L. (1999) The Matrix.]

Could we, one day, invent a pill that gives people an enlightened state of mind? And, if such a "Nirvana Pill" were available, would you take it?

While catching up on some copies of Scientific American that must have arrived during an exceptionally busy time, I found an intriguing article by Scientific American's resident skeptic, Michael Shermer. The article was about seemingly metaphysical phenomena such as out-of-body experiences, and the sense of "oneness with everything" that long-time meditators occasionally experience.

Apparently, these phenomena can also be induced through external physical stimuli. Dr. Shermer tells us, "Neuroscientist Michael Persinger, in his laboratory at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, for example, can induce all these perceptions in subjects by subjecting their temporal lobes to patterns of magnetic fields. (I tried it myself and had a mild out-of-body experience.)" (Shermer)

The article explains that there is a small section of the brain critical to your sense of physical orientation. During meditation, this area quiets down, as it would while you sleep, and you may experience a sensation of floating, or perhaps, "oneness." No matter how real the sensation may feel, even the recipient's own descriptions often revealed an illusion of sorts. One woman said she could "see myself lying in bed, from above, but I only see my legs and lower trunk."

Ask yourself:

Did this brief article just debunk meditation? Or, worse, all spiritual pursuits?

What if all perception--our entire experience of life, in fact--could be altered via physical means? Where does that leave my trust of my senses, and my reality?

"Whoa!" ;-)

Shermer, M. (March 2003). Skeptic: Demon-Haunted Brain. Scientific American <Click here for article>

A Merry Buddhist Christmas

2005-12-23T01:07:00.000-08:00

We recently watched one of my all-time favorite Simpsons episodes, called She of Little Faith. Lisa has a crisis of faith and subsequently converts to Buddhism. Marge makes a bold, loving, and hilarious attempt to win Lisa back during the Christmas season, but it backfires and Lisa runs away on Christmas eve.

Lisa then visits the Springfield Buddhist Temple where Lenny, Carl, and Richard Gere are meditating, and she receives some excellent advice:

Gere: ...Buddhists respect the diversity of other religions, as long as they're based on love and compassion.
Lisa: Wha...?!
Gere: It's true. So why don't you go home? I'm sure your family really misses you.
Lisa: I can really celebrate Christmas?
Gere: You can celebrate any holiday. And, you know, my birthday is August 31st.

I have to confess, with a little selfconscious embarrassment, that Lisa Simpson is my favorite cartoon superhero: Her moral compass seems to be aligned with my own. And, in the aforementioned episode and others, whenever she takes her progressive leanings too far, she learns important lessons about tolerance and moderation. Yet she is always able to stay true to herself. (See Lisa the Vegetarian and Lisa the Iconoclast for examples.)

Which brings me to my own (disjointed) thoughts on Christmas:

Schitzophrenic Santa

For me, there have always been two sides of Christmas: There is the spiritual side, with august Christmas Eve church services, the wonderful story of the nativity, and some of the most spiritually moving music ever written. Then there was the celebratory side, with Santa, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, the Christmas Tree, gifts, feasts, candy, rum and eggnog.

Now, in twenty-first century America, the holiday seems a bit more...bipolar.

Less is More

As a child, both my joy and anxiety regarding Christmas revolved around gift-giving. Even before I had any money to spend, I wanted to find things that my family members would really want. When I finally got a salary, I went a little wild. It was certainly fun to buy people the things they most wanted, but it can also make them feel a little uncomfortable.

I eventually landed in a relationship with a true shop-a-holic. I discovered what the phrase "desires are inexhaustible" could mean when taken to the extreme. What's the point in trying to make someone happy with gifts, if, on the day after Christmas, they're still wanting? What's spiritual about enabling someone's addiction?

I was beginning to think society would eventually reach the point where we would all simply transfer funds to each other, and the goal would be to transfer more into the recipient's account than he or she had transferred into yours. Pretty cynical, eh?

Just within the past few years, my family has done away with most Christmas gift-giving. Most of our family can afford to buy for themselves whatever they need, and also most of what they want. Plus we're geographically dispersed, so it's difficult to pick up on subtle gift ideas. When every need and want can be met by visiting an on-line store, where's the challenge?

Instead we search for fun, light-hearted, inexpensive gifts based on a simple theme. One year the gift was limited to "Christmas-themed" items. This year was "food and drink" year, though we weren't able to participate due to the prohibitive cost of airfare. Next time that happens, I think I'll recommend "charitable donation" year. I can get all my shopping done on-line at Oxfam.

Christmas gift-giving (both the celebration and the shopping) is now more fun, and less stressful.

Christmas Without Christ?

Christmas is as religious or as secular as a family decides to make it. Those who have turned it into a political argument are spoiling the fun for everyone.

Of course, Christmas is a Christian holiday. But so many other religions have joined the season of celebration by increasing the celebratory fervor around December holidays. In some cases, those holidays were once rather subdued occasions.

In some ways, Christmas isn't becoming a secular (effectively non-religious) holiday, but a pluralistic (multi-religious) celebration.

I can understand, even relate to, a concern that Christmas could become spiritually compromised--watered-down, so to speak--by pluralism. The birth of Christ is a deep, holy, stirring event! Why would a belief in a different tradition be seen as a denial of what's considered holy to others?

Secular Is as Secular Does

Before my Christian friends worry too much about spiritual compromise, I would remind them of a few historical notes regarding Christmas:

In this country, and in others, it used to be blasphemous (and illegal) to celebrate Christmas. Puritans and other groups were big on the stoic. "No more fun of any kind."

Also, it's on the wrong date. I recall learning that the birth of Jesus of Nazareth was likely in the Spring, not the Winter. December 25 was originally the day that the Romans celebrated the Winter solstice and the birth of Mithras, who had some connection to the Sun (which becomes stronger after the solstice).

The Christmas Tree? Totally pagan.

And then there's Santa Claus, and the shopping, and the gift-giving, and the dancing and revelry (rum and eggnog...Mmmmmmm!). Various traditions from around the world, all frowned upon by the Puritans, the same folks who gave us Thanksgiving. Maybe they just felt the pressure, knowing that Christmas was just a few shopping weeks away...?

It's a Huge Celebration! Secularists didn't make Christmas into a commercial holiday. No one watches Miracle on 34th Street and thinks "Those damned secularists! Look what they've done!" Do they???

Sugar Plums and Pluralism

Christmas has changed so much over the centuries. Would it be so bad if everyone around the world joined in and declared it a multi-religious celebration of peace, joy, hope, tolerance, the birth of a wise man (or God, depending), patience, shopping, economic growth, and gift-giving?

I'm not trying to push a naive idealism here. I just don't think we have a lot of actual control over our own evolving culture. I think Christmas is headed that way, and we can either embrace the lively growth of American culture with joy, or we can be miserable, cranky grinches for the rest of our lives.

Jesus, The Buddha

There are numerous studies, theories, legends, and myths connecting Jesus of Nazareth to Buddhism. Some suggest that his teachings were influenced by the Far East. Others suggest that he may have inspired stories of Avalokiteshvara, the Bodhisattva of compassion. (At some point the female image of Kuan Yin morphed into the male image of Avalokiteshvara. Talk about cultural changes!)

Any historical flow of ideas in either direction could explain some interesting similarities between the teachings of Jesus and those of Sidhartha Gautama. For example, The Golden Rule, which has been attributed--in one form or another--to numerous wise men throughout the ages, and exists in every major tradition.

There is a different explanation that, in the absence of scientific data, I find more spiritually motivating: The truths uncovered by both the Buddha and the Christ are universal, and universally available to us all, regardless of tradition or belief.

The historical Buddha was probably not the first, and was certainly not the last, to awaken. Nor would he be the last to do so outside of the lineage of his teachings. Good ideas are often realized independently by numerous people. A lot depends on how vocal they are, and whom they piss off.

Emphasis on the divinity of a historical individual tends to reduce the impact of the lessons. We seem to fall into a hero-worship trap: "Oh, those are special teachings, and I'm not worthy, so I won't even try to fulfill them." Or worse, "I am loved and forgiven, so I can break the rules and get away with it." And the latest cop-out: "Those are great ideals, but we have to be realistic!" Is life and death and war and peace so much harder now than it was then? Or was Jesus just wrong?

I don't think so. To me, and to many Buddhists, Jesus was a Great Buddha, one of a handful over the millenia who had the insight, and the gumption to share that insight. He is known as the Prince of Peace. Why isn't our nation of mostly Christians known as the Country of Peace? Why don't we have a Department of Peace?

Too idealistic? I'm not suggesting we have to be perfect. I'm suggesting we try to live up to the ideals we claim as our own.

Too political? Yeah, you got me there. Apologies.

Have a very Merry Christmas!

Happy Holidays meets Merry Christmas in the Iron Cage of Death

2005-12-19T21:27:00.000-08:00

I wasn't going to say a single word on the subject. I wasn't really sure what I could add to the debate, anyway. But I was just at the grocery, and had a revealing conversation with the lady at the checkout.

Long ago, she had moved to the States from Poland, while it was still under communist rule. She was worried that she was seeing a familiar trend here in our country, regarding this whole "Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas" debate. I pressed her for more details, and she said that she worries about a small, ultra-liberal fringe that is trying to take away our freedom of speech, and secularize our lives. She claims--and I have no reason to doubt her--that she was told not to say "Merry Christmas" to customers. (She did not make it clear whether that was stated by management, or by an irate customer, but either way, it upset her.)

We "progressives" have been blaming the conservative right for making a lot of noise this year about this non-issue. Were we wrong?

Is it possible that we as a nation have become so polarized that we're pitting the First Amendment against itself? Freedom of speech vs. freedom of religion?

Do the secular liberals want us to stop saying "Merry Christmas" in public? Or do the neocons want us all to celebrate the holy days of Christmas as they do?

Both? Neither?

Hmmm...

It's "separation of church and state" not "separation of church and citizen."

Separation of Church and State is a good idea. Those who drafted the Constitution knew it, and felt so strongly about it that they included it at the very top of their list. Now it's arguably the single most important issue in politics today. Our feelings on this one topic affect what we think about every big news issue right now: Iraq, terrorism, abortion, prayer in school, evolution and Intelligent Design, gay rights, and, apparently, how to wish happiness upon another person.

After all, isn't that what we're trying to do? Do you say "Merry Christmas!" or "Happy Holidays!" as a wish for the happiness of the recipient, or as a challenging statement to identify whether the other person is friend or foe? The former, of course! If you say it like you mean it, who could possibly be offended? Let's try it out:

Human #1, with a genuine smile, says: "Merry Christmas!"
Human #2, with equal authentic enthusiasm, replies: "Happy holidays!"

End of scene. No altercation, no argument, no fisticuffs, no hurt feelings, no offense. Just two people wishing each other a joyous season. Who is reading more into it than that? Who is hoping there is more to it than that? Are we so bored or repulsed by the real news (Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iran, Iraq, and Iraq) that we have to rant about this?

Some people are just too darn sensitive.

I've always liked the phrase "No offense is given where none is taken." Okay, it's a Vulcan phrase from a Star Trek novel (Kirk-era), but it's a good sentiment nonetheless. I worry about people who are easily offended by words. I'm even more worried about those offended by kind words, like "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays."

We've always had loud, hypersensitive fringe groups in America. Perhaps it's the noise level that makes the fringe seem so large and frightening.

Or, perhaps the set of people who would agree with, say, Radical Idea #1282 is rather large. In fact, it's possible that both extremes exceed 50% of the American population. "Humbug!" you say, "Where did you learn math?!"

Consider: Given a particular issue, and despite the freakish absolutist rhetoric of both extremes, there is a kernel of truth on both sides, and most of us can recognize that truth long enough to follow the argument. At least at the moment. If we happen to be answering a poll at that moment, well... Let's try it. Imagine that you were asked to respond to the following survey:

How many of the following statements do you agree with? (If you want to be heard on our radio program, you have to answer quickly.)

I believe in a higher power.

All life is precious.

Children should not witness perverse sex acts on TV.

Freedom is worth fighting for.

We must strive to end poverty in our nation.

We must feed the hungry.

We must encourage democracy in other nations.

See? It's not even necessary that we be stupid or easily persuaded. We're smart, and we can see both sides of an issue. Perhaps we become polarized only when we're told about the growing threat "over there" on the other side of the aisle.

We become afraid of the growing fringe "over there", and respond by adjusting our opinions away from "them," thus increasing the size of our own fringe group. Polarization almost seems to feed on polarization, until there is only "us" and "them," only Red States and Blue States. But it really starts with fear at the individual, personal level. Fear fed to us by someone else (politician, parent, friend) who has drifted off into the fringe.

It takes curiosity and courage to see our own mental machinations, and to settle down and think rationally about an issue.

Back to saving Christmas...

So is there common ground? Sure! And the First Amendment guarantees it, without conflicting with itself, at all. The government isn't supposed to do anything to establish a state religion. Simple and clear enough. This isn't an attack on one particular religion, or on religiously-minded politicians, private schools, or charities. Nor does it imply that you can't wish someone a Very Merry Christmas. Freedom of expression, at its very best, in fact!

May I offer a compromise? When speaking, we can try to speak from the heart. If we're generous and true with our wishes for the happiness of others, they'll be able to tell. And when we receive such a wish, we can take it in the spirit it was intended, not as a challenge to our beliefs. If you want to offer "Merry Christmas" then do so.

People can boycott a store for posting signs that say "Happy Holidays." Others can boycott the store down the street for saying "Merry Christmas!" They're just stores after all. You get to vote with your dollars. But with other people's hearts, it's not such a simple transaction.

I would guess that, from a business perspective, "Happy Holidays" would be a better financial choice, overall. It covers Thanksgiving, New Years, and everything in between. It covers Christmas, Chanukah, and a myriad other holidays that are growing in popularity because other folks want to celebrate simultaneously with their Christian neighbors. And why shouldn't they? It's a festive time! It can remain thus, if we open our hearts and release those pent-up fears.

Let's have a Merry Christmas!

Keep an eye (or foot) on your luggage

2005-12-07T20:51:00.000-08:00

I bought new a new suitcase for the Copenhagen trip. I needed two large suitcases, one to carry books and manuals for the class. The old one had lost the sliding handle that allows me to wheel the suitcase around. In fact, that poor old thing was so beat up, I could tell it apart from everyone else's just from the scuffs, stains, and tears.

How do you recognize your luggage? Perhaps more importantly: How do others know it's not theirs?

A few travel tips to keep you from losing stuff.

Checked luggage.

ID tags. Of course, the airlines want you to have your name and address somewhere on the luggage. I like those simple luggage tags that hold a business card, and use a stretchy strap to hang on to the handle. (If you own a company and your employees travel a lot, get them all a few luggage tags with your logo on the back!) You should also toss your business card inside the luggage, in case the tags get torn away. My new bag has a built-in external place for my name and address. Strangely, it's not large enough for a business card, so I don't use it.

Colored luggage belts. I'm surprised by how few people use those luggage straps that make your luggage appear unique. The luggage carousels are still a sea of mostly dull, nondescript black suitcases. We have two straps that are red, white, and blue, and two that are rainbow. If I'm checking two bags, I select matching straps. I can tell which suitcases are mine from a ways away. And there's a much lower chance that someone will accidentally take my luggage.

Carry-Ons.

I once lost a very nice camera on vacation. I left it with my carry-on for just a moment in a hotel hallway. The thief must have been incredibly fast, and must have somehow sensed how much time was available.

After that, I started developing the following weird travel habits to keep track of my carry-ons.

Line of sight. The idea is to simply keep an eye on your stuff. This is required activity while in an airport, but it has numerous personal benefits, too. Set the luggage in front of you. Often airport urinals have a shelf in front of you, at eye level. You can see your luggage, without peeing on it. Take all carry-on luggage into a stall with you.

The trick with the feet. When sitting in the terminal and reading or talking on the phone, always have a foot pressed against each of your two carry-ons. You'll notice if the pressure on your foot suddenly disappears! In the airport bathrooms (those without the convenient shelves), set the luggage behind you, touching your heels, or to each side (and back a little, gentlemen). Just remember they're there, so you don't fall over them while zipping up.

It's all done with mirrors. If neither of the above are possible (usually due to room constraint), try to find a way to keep your stuff within eyesight. Is there a mirror nearby? Can you see them through the reflection on the flusher mechanism? Can you see them out of the corner of your eye? Of course, you have to be careful with this technique, lest the man standing next to you thinks you're looking at him...

Skype Rules! (Especially while I'm overseas)

2005-12-02T21:16:00.000-08:00

Copenhagen, Day 6:

With Skype (the amazing, free VOIP product), the internet really shines. Here I am, at 6AM in my hotel room in Copenhagen (I thought jetlag went away after a few days...?), on a wireless network, talking to my partner overseas with a clarity that puts cell phones to shame. I also called Mom, on her birthday, from Copenhagen! "And you sound like you're just in the next room!" I think that was a positive critique. Skype calls sound oddly realistic, even over cheesy laptop speakers and microphones.

And even when the other person is not using headphones, I rarely hear my own voice at the other end. When it does occur, usually the other party need only lower the volume. I don't know how Skype does it. I suspect that there is a smart bit of audio-manipulation software built in. And it has to be using some excellent compression, yes? I am again in love with the internet.

There's often a small delay that causes people to talk over each other on occasion, but it's no worse than cell-to-cell. (Or is that a Sprint-to-Verison delay?)

Skype is not limited to computer-to-computer VOIP, either. For a very small fee (essentially local-call fees), I used a feature called SkypeOut to call a hotel in Copenhagen while I was making initial arrangements for this trip. I've since used the same technology to call Northwest Airlines from Copenhagen, and to call my own US cell phone numbers to get messages.

http://www.skype.com/ Be sure to watch the cute intro movie.

What's In Your Luggage?

2005-11-27T20:06:00.000-08:00

More travel tips...

Even when I'm checking bags, I usually try to carry on a little overnight bag containing at least one extra pair of underwear and socks, and all my "toiletries" (also known in certain circles as "product"). The airlines rarely lose my luggage, but when they do, it's a disaster...

<...Flash back to me teaching my very first Extreme Programming Bootcamp with wild no-gel hair, no deodorant, and geeky logo T-shirts borrowed from Josh Kerievsky...>

This overnight bag, as the airlines will tell you, is permissible in addition to your purse or briefcase. It should be small enough so that even the most restrictive Alaska Airlines representative at Oakland Airport will not make you check it at the gate.

I have two tips on those nasty exploding bottles of shampoo/hair-gel/toxic face creams. But first we must face reality together: These messes are not created by careless luggage handlers. It's air pressure plus altitude. Plane goes up, pressure outside bottle drops, bottle squirts contents all over luggage. It's called "explosive decompression," and it ain't pretty.

Tip #1: Carry all the mess-generating tubes and bottles separately in a large zip-lock bag. Yes, you could use the cool bag that came with your luggage, but do you really want to clean it? Zip-locks can be tossed when messy. Though I'm not fond of filling landfills with "disposable" products, I have my limits. Besides, the bags last quite a while, especially if you follow tip #2, below.

Tip #2: Squeeze out some of the air from those mess-generators. While packing, shake the product to the bottom, open the cap, and squeeze a bit of air out. Also, be sure the cap is tight, but not too tight (e.g., Aveda bottle-caps will crack if you try to overtighten, thus defeating the purpose of this tip and leaving you again at the mercy of tip #1, above).

I've noticed that I now reflexively drain a little air out of any bottle after use. Even the milk bottle in the fridge... Clearly, I've been traveling too long.

How do I remember what needs to go in the zip-lock bags? I travel about every other week, so I keep two of everything that goes into the bags (gel, shampoo, tootpaste, toothbrush, floss, deodorant, nail-clippers, Tums, aspirin...). One set lives in the zip-lock for travel, and the other lives in my designated bathroom drawer at home. If you don't travel that often, build a printable checklist and record everything you may want to take.

Business Insomnia? Bring something to read that will stimulate, yet relax, your mind and has absolutely nothing to do with your work. If it's three in the morning and you're tossing and turning about that presentation, make yourself read a few pages. Contrary to popular myth, this should not be a dull book! It has to be interesting enough to take your mind off work. I use either Science Fiction or some book on Buddhism that I'm trying to work through. Stimulating yet relaxing! (Your Options May Vary.)

Another thing that I try to carry for Business Insomnia: A small, portable fan. Just enough to create a pleasant whirring sound. It's a white-noise generator, and it drowns out a lot of the noises you would otherwise hear when trying to sleep in a new place. I use one at home, too, and often sleep right through the Thursday Morning Garbage Truck Parade.

There are a number of other useful techniques: Milk, peanut-butter, stretching, alternatively tensing-and-relaxing muscles. But beyond suggesting you pack your own small jar of peanut-butter (without partially hydrogenated oils, of course), I'd be straying from the topic. Besides, if I knew how to handle all forms of insomnia, I wouldn't be writing this post from my Copenhagen hotel room at 4 AM.