My Letter to Chipotle

All right, I'm a little embarrassed. And I should probably be more than a little embarrassed. This is my third blog entry about Chipotle. Here are number one and number two. However, for someone who has a history of publicly despising and trashing Chipotle, this latest entry will tell a slightly happier story. The following is a letter I sent to Chipotle via their website.

***

Last night, I visited Chipotle for the first time in years. I had previously sworn I'd never again grace Chipotle with my patronage. Here is why.

It was 2006. I was having a heated debate with a friend in law school about the poor quality of Chipotle's food. I declared it bland, tasteless, dry, and served at room temperature. He vehemently disagreed, and at his insistence, I accompanied him to the nearest store to order the "best" thing on the menu. I obediently mimicked his order, getting the chicken burrito with all sorts of lukewarm-looking fillings stuffed inside. We sat down to eat and I bit into my burrito-flavored otter pop . As expected: bland, dry, and tasteless. I shook my head at my friend as if to say "Is this the best you got?"

Years passed and I lived a happy, Chipotle-free existence. Then I went on a date with a Chipotle-lover. Because I am a gentleman, I acceded to her wishes and we pulled up the online order form. I decided to again go with the chicken burrito, keeping it simple with just rice, beans, and chicken, and cheese. But in the special comments section, I typed the following: "Please add salt/flavor. Make sure burrito is hot." When we got to the store, I watched in grim amusement as the worker handling our order studied the slip in confusion. I could almost hear him thinking, "Give the burrito flavor? How am I supposed to do that?" "Make it hot? I have no microwave and these fillings have been sitting just above room temperature all day!" I had some sympathy for him. He wasn't entirely at fault; he was just working with what the Chipotle gods had given him.

Food in hand, we returned home to eat. One bite into my burrito was all it took to realize that nothing had changed in the past five years. I looked on in despair at the 800-calorie cylindrical piece of cold garbage on my plate. But then I got an idea--my house was equipped with a microwave. Excited now, I put my burrito in and hit the 30-seconds button. Half a minute later, a piping hot burrito emerged. After waiting a minute or two for it to cool (what a refreshing change!), I took another bite. Shock. Surprise. Happiness. Joy. The emotions churned through me as I chewed. Could this be the same burrito? Was my microwave secretly a portal to an alternate reality in which Chipotle makes really good food? No...it couldn't be. The burrito I was now eating had flavor. The heat gave it the impression of being juicier. The cheese had actually melted! I marveled that a mere 30 seconds in the microwave had transformed a tasteless burrito popsicle into something not only edible, but enjoyable.

And thus, Chipotle gods, I offer some humble suggestions. First, keep your fillings HOT! The burrito will have cooled sufficiently by the time your customers start eating, especially for those who like to put sour cream and lettuce (which I understand need to be kept cool) in it, too. Second, if you don't want to keep your fillings hot, then buy small conveyor ovens for your stores. Offer your customers the opportunity to send it through that oven for taste optimization (at a small fee, of course--come on I know you guys like extra revenue streams). Third, if neither 1 nor 2 are feasible, then maybe just put up a sign that says "Put our burritos in the microwave for 30 seconds and prepare for your minds to be blown." Do these things and those lines stretching out the door will start wrapping around city blocks.

Finally, as a separate, somewhat unrelated suggestion, how about some seasoned rice? Enough of the bland white rice with green specks in it. It doesn't taste like anything. Give us the option of seasoned rice of some sort. You know, something that has some flavor in it. Maybe add butter, I don't know. It's not like your customers are counting calories, right? I mean, they're pounding down ~900-calorie burritos for crying out loud.

Please take this feedback seriously! I think it could really go a long way in improving the taste of your food.

Sincerely,

My name.

The difference between boys and girls

I'm sharing this story from the latest book I'm reading: "Seal Team Six: Memoirs of an Elite Navy SEAL Sniper," by Howard Wasdin. This is around page 113. Hilarious.

***

My son, Blake, really liked hanging out with the SEAL Team guys, and they loved him, too, especially after a particular incident when Blake was four years old. One day after work, I returned home to find Laura in the kitchen, out of her mind.

"What's going on?" I asked.

"Little Debbie was over, and they got into Blake's wading pool. Naked!" Little Debbie was a neighbor's six-year-old daughter.

"Oh."

"I called her mama and told her. She thought it was funny. You better talk to him."

So I walked down the hall to his room. Blake was playing Duck Hunt on the Nintendo, shooting flying ducks with his Nintendo Zapper Light Gun.

"Hey, buddy, how was your day?"

"Good," he said.

"What'd you do today?"

"Played."

I left him to his game and returned to Laura in the kitchen. "He's fine. Didn't even bring it up. Must not be such a big deal."

"Oh, no. You have to make him talk about it. He's probably traumatized."

So I returned to Blake's room. A dog on the TV monitor sniffed out the dead ducks in the grass and congratulated Blake.

I became more direct with my questioning. "Did you go swimming today?"

"Yep."

"Well, did anyone go swimming with you?"

"Yep, Debbie went swimming with me."

"Did you and Debbie take y'all's clothes off while you were in the wading pool?"

"Debbie took her bathing suit off, and told me to take my bathing suit off."

"Do you know you're not supposed to let people see your pee-pee?"

"Yes, Mom told me not to let people see my pee-pee."

"Well, did Debbie see your pee-pee?"

"Yep, Debbie saw my pee-pee." He laughed.

Did you see Debbie's pee-pee?"

He stopped playing his game and put down the gun. There was a hint of concern in his voice. "You know what, Dad? Debbie doesn't have a pee-pee." He seemed to feel sorry for her. "She's got a front-butt."

Watches...am I missing something?

I was about to include this little rant in my previous post, but didn't want to get too off topic. I honestly don't understand what the big deal is with watches. Maybe this is just me not understanding jewelry in general. The watch pictured above [2022 update - link no longer good; can't remember what it was] costs around $500,000, I think. I'll quote a little bit from the site I pulled the picture from:

Everybody would definitely be attracted to this timepiece because of its glow and sparkling effect. As you can see, this timepiece is bombarded with baguette diamonds found on the case, dial, and even on the bracelet. Its case is also presented in oval shape giving it additional appeal. Aside from the diamonds, this watch also has sub dials for the seconds and power reserve indicator found on the moon shaped detailing on it along with the star.

If you are looking for a precious timepiece to collect, this Girard Perregaux should definitely be included on your list. With this watch on your wrist, expect to catch everybody’s attention. Wear this at night with your gown for a more glowing and glamorous look.

Did I read that last part right? Isn't this a man's watch? I haven't worn a "gown" since I was 8, and it was actually one of my dad's t-shirts. Maybe it's a lady's watch. I don't know. Needless to say, I can't even comprehend purchasing a watch like this, for that much. I love how the author even tries to talk up its utility: "It has sub dials for the seconds and a power reserve indicator!" Oh good--I'm glad I just spent more money than 95% of the world's population sees in a lifetime on some fancy sub dials. I think the last time I consistently wore a watch was during my mission in Brazil. I didn't have a cell phone (this was 2000-2002) and had a pocket full of appointments. The watch was highly useful, so I used it. Ever since then, I can't say that I've consistently worn a watch for any significant period of time. And when I did, it was when I was going through a phase and thought man jewelry was somehow cool (I confess I occasionally wore a couple rings during this period). In fact right now I'm looking at the above-pictured decent-looking watch that my dad got me for Christmas, and I've worn it maybe twice. It even has buttons on the side, and a tiny digital portion behind the hour/minute hands. If I mash those buttons enough, I can eventually figure out the date, start and stop/reset the stopwatch, accidentally set the date two days off, mess up the clock as I try to fix the date, and finally hurl the damn thing across the room in frustration. In the meantime, I could have checked my email on my iphone and passed a couple levels of Angry Birds. If I were to ever buy a $500,000 watch--no, actually let's not even go that high. If I were to ever buy a watch with a price tag exceeding $1,000, in addition to telling me the time, it should:

1. Measure my heart rate, blood pressure, and blood sugar
2. Count calories
3. Double as my car key
4. Double as my cell phone (or at least link by blue tooth)
5. Be a walkie-talkie
6. Sound an alarm when bad guys are near
7. Have a tazer function
8. Remind me to call my mother
9. Order pizza
10. Tell the future

I could probably go on and on. You get the idea. People need to stop pretending watches are anything more than simple time-keeping devices. If you paid more than $50, then I've got some beautiful ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you, as well.

Getting Your Money's Worth

I didn't purposefully mean to come back to my blog after a two-month absence and write on a topic substantially related to my last post, but that's just how it worked out. I mourn the fact that my blog isn't really funny anymore. Guess I'm getting old and boring. If you want laughs, go here.

Lately I've noticed something about myself---my personality to be specific. I don't know that it's very unique. I'm sure a lot of people [who grew up in the great depression] are also like this. I like to make things last. I like to get my money's worth. While some people like to stay on top of the latest trends and fashions, I try to see how long I can keep wearing a shirt before it's in tatters and/or hopelessly out of style. (Fortunately, t-shirts probably won't go out of style in my lifetime.)

A few principles guide my tastes in this respect. First of all, I'm not one for sacrificing too much utility in order to make something last a long time. For instance, I could probably still be using my old motorola flip phone I got back in 2005 (or something similar). The utility of a smartphone far exceeds any personal preference I have to make an older cell phone last longer. Also, I'm not going to hang on to some old thing that becomes unreasonably expensive to maintain (like an older car).

I'm now sitting in my room looking around for stuff that I've had for a long time. Hey let's make this a little more photographic.



That wrinkled shirt I'm currently wearing...I probably got that in 2003 or so. I am definitely not a skater, but hey it fits well and only has one or two tiny holes. Why not keep it?




I got these sandals in Sao Paolo, Brazil in 2000. They told us about parasites we could get in our feet if we ever walked around barefoot, so we all went out one day and got flip flops. One of the straps came loose once as I was walking at the beach, so I took it to a shoe repair shop and got it fixed. They're as comfortable as ever.


These gym shorts I got back in 2005 or so. They have a tendency to fall down when I'm doing plyometrics (jump training) at home. It's not that I have any special attachment to them; I think I'm just too lazy to go buy some new ones. Also not shown are the comfy/lounge pants I'm wearing. They're cloth on the inside and that semi-waterproof ski material on the outside. I probably got them around the same time or earlier as these shorts. Sweats would probably be a better choice. Again, lazy. (I didn't take a picture because I've decided these pics are pretty lame. Also: lazy.)



This is the oldest item I have in my room that comes to mind. I got these on my 8th birthday and that trusty outer cover has kept them in relatively good condition for the past 20+ years. Items like these get more valuable with age as you go marking them up. You can even look back on what you marked (like during seminary) and chuckle a little bit over what you found interesting or deep back then. In that sense it's a little bit like a journal.

And the device taking all these pictures is my iphone. Still rocking the 3G (over three years old--ancient in electronics age) and milking it for all its worth. As I explained elsewhere, I don't like being manipulated into purchasing new products. Therefore, I have vowed to use this iphone until no longer practical. (When it comes to electronics, I'm typically much more indulgent in getting newer things since it is such a rapidly evolving industry.)

Well that concludes this exciting tour of the old stuff lying around my messy room. I just noticed an unopened bag of cashews lying on some shelves. Wonder how long I'll keep that around. Some might call me "cheap" for being like this, and that is perfectly fine by me. I figure if I can stay equally--or even more--satisfied with older stuff than a person who always must have the latest and greatest, then all the better for me and my wallet. Besides, then I have more money to spend on other people who might want or need newer and/or better stuff.

Needs vs. Wants

‎"The wealthiest person is not who has the most, but who needs the least." -Richard Watts

Needs and wants. Many people conflate the two. They see the stylish new whatever Kim Kardashian is wearing and think "Oh I need to get one of those!" That's an easy one, clearly he/she really meant to say "I want." Given this imprecision in everyday speech, the prefatory quote I listed above should probably be understood to mean that the wealthiest person wants the least. (However, that small change also carries a connotation of being unambitious, so I can see why the author opted for "needs.")

Actual needs are pretty much the same for everyone. Thoreau defined them as food, water, shelter, clothing, and fuel. Five basic needs that all human beings share. After that, however, everything is a question of "wanting." Wants come in all shapes and sizes and will vary from one person to the next. One premise we'll have to agree on is this: one whose wants are met is content/happy. One whose wants are not met is discontent/unhappy. Based on that premise, it should follow that someone with less extravagant wants will be contented more easily, or in other words, find happiness more easily.

Take the following example. Bob and Carl are two men who want a vehicle. Both men have exactly the same job, the same net worth, the same skills, talents, intelligence, and all their other wants are exactly the same. Both men are identical in all respects except for one: Bob would be fine driving a cheap used car, while Carl wants nothing less than a new BMW. Because Bob's wants are less extravagant than Carl's, he is going to have a much easier time having his wants met than Carl will. Bob may only have to spend $10k-$20k on his car, while Carl will have to spend well over $50k. Bob is thus left with much more money to spend on other wants he might have, while Carl is not. Both men ultimately get what they want in terms of a vehicle, but by the time Carl has gotten his BMW, Bob has been able to take his wife on a trip to Europe, pad up his 401k, and save for a rainy day. Bob not only reached contentment sooner and more easily than Carl, but he was also able to satisfy other wants which Carl couldn't.

That illustrates the empowerment that comes by having modest wants. A person with modest wants is still perfectly free to be ambitious and obtain all the fancy things that a "Carl" wants, but his happiness doesn't depend on it. He's not going to get discouraged if his neighbor has something better than him as long as his wants are independent of whatever anyone else has.

The bottom line is that the more aligned one's wants and needs become, the more easily contented one will be. That isn't to say that it's wrong to have wants above and beyond one's basic needs, since needs are pretty easily satisfied. But unreasonably inflated or extravagant wants and expectations are a sure way to unhappiness.

How to Eat Right (no, not really)

I have a confession to make. I often see eating as a chore.

Hear me out. If you consider what I eat, you'd understand why. Here is my typical daily regimen:

-Four scrambled eggs and glass of milk for breakfast
-Two ham & swiss sandwiches for lunch
-Two handfuls of almonds, 40 grams of dark chocolate, and several tangerines for snacking throughout the day
-Large protein shake at night after exercising
-Dinner: either costco chicken bowl, chicken breast with rice, or something nasty and nukeable

Sometimes I feel like an animal, eating out of necessity. I'm in the business of counting calories. I want to gain weight (muscle), but I have trouble disciplining myself to consume the 3500 daily calories or so that I would need to make serious gains.

Now before you cry bloody murder, keep in mind that those 3500 calories have to be quality food. I can't just fill in the gaps with sugary donuts. That would be worthless. On the other hand, I suppose that if I ate tastier (yet still healthy) food, it would be easier to reach that goal? Hmmm, food for tho....nevermind.

One obvious advantage to a diet like mine is economic in nature. I don't spend a lot on food. Pretty much everything I eat during the week comes from the grocery store or costco. I get by on less but I'm still content, and I find that empowering.

Also, consider another benefit. Because my daily fare is so routine and repetitive, when I do switch things up, it is all the more special and unique. So for example, when I go out to eat at a restaurant, the food is that much more exquisite because it stands in such contrast to my regular drill, even if it's just someplace like TGI Friday's. Can someone who eats out daily or even several times a week say the same? The more exposure to any particular stimulus, the less reaction it will elicit, whether positive or negative.

Since this particular blog entry has no discernible structure to it, let me also just say that almonds are really, really delicious. I'm not talking about the roasted or salted or sugared ones. Just the raw kind you can buy in bulk at costco (they're back in the baking goods aisle). I've discovered that the less extra sugar I consume in my diet, the more I enjoy the sugars and flavors of natural food. Do you not like dark chocolate? I used to be the same way. Your taste buds adjust and after a while it's like regular chocolate, except much healthier. Same thing with carrots. Did you know they're actually a sweet vegetable? Stop drinking all that horrible sugary soda and see for yourself. Also: soak them in water to bring out the flavor.

And along the same lines as what I said before--cut most of the sugar out of your regular diet, and those deserts you occasionally indulge in will become all the sweeter and more delicious. It's a win-win: you learn to enjoy the regular flavor in your foods AND dessert tastes better.

And since I'm already rambling, let me also add that our bodies were never meant to handle so much sugar. I read in one of my Mens Health mags that during the Renaissance, the average person's total yearly consumption of sugar (from cane) was something like half a teaspoon. Now you get like 10 teaspoons in a single can of coke. One can of coke and you've had the same amount of sugar someone in the 15th century would have consumed in a period of twenty years. Sugar didn't start becoming so cheap and plentiful until they discovered how to crystallize the juices derived from sugar cane, making shipping from India considerably more manageable. Makes you wonder what everyone looked like back then. Less round, I imagine. Something to think about!

"Everything Happens for a Reason"

I don't like this phrase. Typically you'll hear it after something bad happens to someone, and they'll utter it, shaking their head and staring wistfully off into space. I suppose people say it to make themselves feel better about whatever happened. In reality, it's a worthless statement. Too often, I think it represents a person surrendering power and further externalizing their locus of control.

Of course everything happens for a reason. That's a truism that doesn't even deserve stating. How could anything happen if not for some "reason." Cause and effect. You never get the effect without some cause. The problem I have with this statement is that it often robs people of the introspection they should be experiencing to determine said "reason." The "reason" is often construed as some mysterious unknown, beyond the powers of mortal detection. What people cannot quickly and easily discern is chalked up to "fate" (which is merely a secular version of God). The idea is that there is a "good" reason for this bad thing happening, but that the reason simply isn't visible due to our limited perspective and/or information.

But people should only resort to such external attributions after they have reasonably eliminated all possible "reasons" that are within their control. For example, take a person who gets in a car accident and then afterward cries "Why me?? Oh well, I guess everything happens for a reason." Most likely, the car accident happened because of a driving error. Perhaps the error was the product of habitually poor driving. If the person is quick to look outward for some greater "reason" for the accident, he/she may fail to detect the real reason and accordingly continue his/her poor driving habits. The correct order would be to look inward, first, and then if nothing presents itself, chalk it up to "fate" or "life" or however you choose to describe that which is beyond your control. Alternatively, the person may opt strictly for self-pity, without any attribution whatsoever. Even then, he robs himself of the opportunity for introspection and potential growth.

Similar is the situation of a person recovering from a failed relationship. One option is to wallow in misery, concluding that it just "wasn't meant to be." (That's another phrase that irks me.) Another option is to look inward at what he/she might have done to contribute to the failure. Unless the person can honestly say that he did everything in his power to make it work, then it is premature to start attributing the cause to some mysterious unknown. Naturally, such introspection takes effort and can be uncomfortable. That's why I don't think it happens a lot. But it's the accountable and responsible thing to do, and is necessary for personal change.

Now even though bad things happen because of our own mistakes, that isn't to say that there isn't some greater lesson to be learned from those mistakes at a later point. And for those who believe in God, it might be said that the ultimate "reason" that thing happened was so that we would learn that future lesson. That's fine. My point here is simply that looking forward too quickly for that lesson may cause a person to miss out on detecting the true reason staring them in the face: their own behavior.

In his book "Man's Search for Meaning," Victor Frankl points out that one of the ways people find meaning in their lives is through experiencing unavoidable suffering. If the suffering is avoidable, then of course the solution is to avoid it (to me, this would involve detecting the cause of the suffering and reacting accordingly). If it is unavoidable, however, then that is when a person should start looking outward and transcending himself, to find (or create) the "reason" for the suffering. That reason then becomes a gem of meaning, which makes the suffering bearable. Same principle here.