If it weren't for my books, I would have almost no earthly possessions.

I kind of like Rick Warren.

There. I said it. Many people I know, be their political and religious inclinations to the right or to the left of mine, aren't big fans. So they're probably less than thrilled with my stance. But, to be honest, that's kind of why I like him. I think there's a lot to be said for pissing a lot of people off. Most people only like things that they can easily label, name, put in a box, and own. If you've managed to make two completely different groups of people upset for completely different reasons, I say congratulations. You've become your own person. The right is mad that Warren will be blessing Obama's inauguration, and the left is mad that Warren will be blessing Obama's inauguration. Such unified yet disparate outrage can only mean one thing: this is exactly the right decision.

I may not agree with everything Rick Warren says or does. In fact, his opposition to gay marriage--primary cause of the most recent Warren-related whinging--is a stance I quite strongly disagree with. But isn't it our duty, as Americans and as sensible, thoughtful people, to live in harmony with and find common ground with people who don't agree 100% with our every conviction? That's one thing I do respect Rick Warren for. During the election, he held an open, constructive forum where both candidates had the right be heard on issues, regardless of their disagreements. I think Warren's owed the same courtesy.

Fact is, Obama's right. The only way to govern for lasting change is through consensus building. Throwing Warren out on his ear isn't likely to make him change his mind on gay marriage, nor is it likely to make those who follow him change their tune either. If anything, they'll just chat about how their "values" are "under attack" and feel all the more justified in their stance. But what happens if they're brought into a situation in which they might actually have to interact with people who hold other ideologies? What happens if they (hopefully) discover that these people are sensible, thoughtful people, and not shrieking harpies? This hope, that we can all find a way to interact meaningfully despite differences, is the best hope we got. In fact, given the impossibility of building 100% agreement, it's our only hope.

If you think you can do better, if you think you can come up with a pastor whose selection will not offend any Americans, then please. By all means. Let's hear your suggestions.

I'm also not too moved by the notion that Warren shouldn't use the name of Jesus in his prayer. Part of me wants to say that it's a stupid discussion because surely no one is ignorant enough to believe a prayer offered by Warren, a Christian, on behalf of Obama, also a Christian, isn't being offered to Jesus. But I can't quite go that far. Words have meaning, always. And they have meaning beyond the intent in which they are offered.

My problem with it is this. The whole idea of free exercise of religion doesn't end because you're the president. Obama has as much right as any of us to invoke whatever deity he so chooses. And the rest of us have the right to participate in or to opt out of the invoking of that deity. The inaugeration is not a compulsory event, and the prayer is not a compulsory part of this event. Again, surely we are better served by allowing people to voice differing opinions than by going with the "la, la, la, not listening!!!" approach.

The left finds Warren's opposition to gay marriage heinous and unforgiveable, and thereby decides that he is owed no public voice--though I'm sure the right sees opposition to gay marriage as a perfectly legitimate position. But the right finds support of abortion rights heinous and unforgiveable, and would much prefer that all those who hold that position be denied a public voice--though I'm sure the left sees support of abortion rights as a legitimately position.

Now, I think both sides see their respective views as a perfectly consistent application of solid democratic principles and values. I doubt either side feels like they're cherry-picking. I'm not, at this point, interested in taking away either side's right to examine the issues and come down on the side they see fit. And, surprise surprise, I too believe that there is a right and a wrong answer to both those questions. But it seems truly arrogant and blind to deem completely legitimate your position on Controversial Issue #1, and then decide that your opponent's position on Controversial Issue #2 disqualifies him or her from public discourse.

Somehow or another, we're all just going to have to break out the big boy pants, put them on, and find a way to handle our disagreements.

It occurred to me while I was working on my lats. By this time next week, my gym will be packed with New Year's Resolution'ers.

Precisely what I was hoping for: an overcrowded, and therefore overhot, gym filled with people who don't know how to use the equipment but won't ask for help for fear of looking like the noobs that they are.

After almost 30 years of tangling with customer service bureaucracies, I think I have finally perfected a system for getting satisfaction regardless of the issue at hand.

The trick rests in a common technique known as "Good Cop, Bad Cop." However, given that there is just one of you, you will have play both the Good Cop and the Bad Cop. The idea is to build a relationship with the individual, which will make them want to help you, while at the same time instilling fear as to what might happen should they choose not to help. Plus, the changing keeps them off balance and vulnerable. If I remember my Psych 101 (and maybe I don't), Pavlov and Skinner both discovered that inconsistent reinforcement was the best way to produce a desired behavior. Keep the subject guessing, and s/he is more likely to do what you want.

Here's roughly how this might work.

1. Start off being nice. Real nice. Super sweet, in fact. This is as much for your benefit as it is for theirs. For all you know, this could be an easily resolved issue. No point in raising your blood pressure if you don't need to.

2. As it becomes clear the issue will not be easily resolved, begin to get in touch with your inner bitch. Be firm and demanding without ordering them around. Be snide and even a little bit haughty without being outright rude. Gradually escalate as long as issue appears unresolved.

3. Once you sense that the subject is frazzled enough by your bitchiness that s/he is about to shut down, pull back suddenly and without warning. Distance yourself from your inner bitch. Apologize, even. I like to go with something like, "I'm sorry. As you can tell, this is a very frustrating situation for me. But you had nothing to do with it getting messed up—in fact, this is probably the first you're even hearing about this. Yet here you are getting the brunt of my frustration, which is not fair. Can we figure out a way to work this out?"

[Note: Obviously, does not apply if this person has screwed things up prior to the current conversation. In that case, continue with escalating bitch mode.]

Continue alternating nice and bitchy as the situation dictates. At certain points, it might even be necessary to be both in the same sentence.

Example:

My health insurance company recently denied a claim of mine. It's a long story. But to make it short, the problem is that they can neither read nor do simple math.

By correctly performing steps 1-3, I was able to make the telephone representative see that an error had been made. His solution was to ask me to resubmit the claim. My response was a perfect marriage of deferential and demanding. "I don't see why I should have to resubmit this claim. As you yourself admit, all the information needed to properly resolve the claim is already there [bitchy]. However, you deal with this everyday and so you know the system better than I do. If you think resubmitting is the best way to get my money, I'll be happy to do that. I'll drop it in the mail first thing tomorrow [nice]. But I won't actually be sending in any new information. I'll just be resending everything they already have with a note that says, in effect, 'Please get it right this time' [bitchy]."

At this point, it was after 6 PM on a Friday evening. Mr. Telephone Representative responds with, "No, you're right. Let's see what we can do without resubmitting. The department I need to talk to is closed right now, but I will call them first thing on Monday morning. If they can review this same-day, you'll hear from me on Monday. If they can't, it might be Tuesday."

"That's wonderful. I so much appreciate you taking care of this for me [nice]. I just want my money back. If I have to wait until Tuesday, it will be a small price to pay for having this finally resolved correctly [subtly bitchy]."

Well, they were actually able to locate a supervisor from the other department who hadn't gone home yet and who reviewed my claim immediately. So at about 7 PM that same night, I received a call that my check would be on its way. So much for Tuesday!

Emboldened by my success, I used the same technique at the post office. In one conversation, I went from telling the clerk how grateful I was because he was the only person who had ever in my life bothered to listen to my pleas for assistance, to insinuating that he was illiterate, and back again.

The result? A missing package was hand-delivered to my residence at 7:30 PM, also on a Friday night.

Nothing is more satisfying than having people postpone their weekends in order to do your bidding.

Commuting is like camping.

Permit me to explain--as though you had a choice in the matter.

One of my favorite things about camping is the fact that you can carry, on your person, pretty much everything that you need to make it in life. Even if you don't do hardcore, backpacking-style camping (hey, we don't), it's just the act of packing up your car and then, through your own labor, turning the campsite into a perfectly self-sufficient operation. For our technology-addicted society, I think camping is like a codependent having a breakthrough. Imagine a codependent who finally realizes that she doesn't need to rely on another person for her happiness. She has everything she needs within herself. So with camping. You realize you don't need all the bells and whistles. You can hold within yourself everything you need to make it.

That's how commuting is. OK, you have to rely on trains and buses to get you where you need to go. But you learn to decipher train schedules. You use your two feet to get you here, there and everywhere. You don't need the crutch of a car to move you around.

Here's another way they're alike. My sister dislikes camping because she finds it dirty. Now, it's true that shower facilities are often iffy, and that you're a lot closer to the actual dirt. If you go into camping applying the same standard of cleanliness that you apply in your normal everyday life, then yes--camping will be a failure. But if you accept that a little dirt never killed anyone and you adjust your standards accordingly, then you can stay quite clean while camping.

I'm often asked how I can commute in this weather. First of all, I barely can. I've spent the last few weeks bitching and moaning with the best of 'em. But you survive by adjusting your standards. We mostly spend our lives traveling from one temperature-controlled building to another, moving between them via a temperature-controlled transportation device that we call a car. For most of human history, winter meant you were cold, and summer meant you were warm. Now we expect that, when the weather changes, we will remain immune to it.

If you expect to commute and retain the same level of temperature stability that you get by moving from house to car to work to car to store to car to home, then yes--you will be too cold or too hot. But if you accept that the change in seasons means a certain level of temperature variation, then you can adjust your standards accordingly.

And hey, if you make it through a Chicago winter without losing a finger, you might just call that a success.