The Fake Hearing Scam

Various news platforms reported in early 2026 about a scam being perpetrated in the name of workers' compensation in Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. For some reason, the victims are primarily Spanish speakers. 

There has been some alarm about this in various other states, including Virginia and Colorado. No incidents there have been documented in the news coverage, but the Virginia Commission has issued warnings, citing incidents in Kentucky. The Tennessee Department of Workforce Development has also issued an alert. 

KPTV, KOIN, National Today, and others have highlighted the scheme. KPTV reports schemers are notably flexible, using "phone, email, social media, or video calls" to contact injured workers. They inform them that they will receive benefits if they appear at a video hearing. Those involve "a fake judge, attorney or government representative, according to the state."

The outcome of the hearing is in favor of the worker, and some are provided with "an order in their favor that appears to be official." However, to collect the awarded benefits, the worker has to pay the schemers that they think are the state workers' compensation system.

The issue has become prevalent enough in Oregon that the state has begun publicizing the scheme and warning people. They urge workers to believe that there is never a request from the state for "any payment to receive benefits," and that there are avenues to check the validity of any communication that seems to be from the state workers' compensation system.

KOIN expanded on the approach method, noting that the social media of choice seems to be "Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp." Notably, the Oregon Workers' Compensation Board "does not use social media to communicate about hearings or mediations."

National Today noted the approach to "Spanish-speaking" may be based on their being "unfamiliar with the workers' compensation system." The National article concludes that "this scam highlights the importance of educating vulnerable workers."

WFLA Radio recently noted another example that involved similar subterfuge. Four were arrested for impersonating participants in immigration hearings. Allegdly, the defendants 

"brazenly stole their victims' money and deceived them by sending fictitious documents and holding sham court proceedings."

"staged fake immigration court hearings over videoconference, with members playing the roles of judges, lawyers, and law enforcement officers."

In the years I have studied workers' compensation around the country, I have never come across any instance in which an injured worker is required to send money as a condition of receiving either a hearing or payment of their benefits. That element alone should be a red flag to anyone seeking benefits.

The video hearing, however, has become common. Before there were video opportunities, many hearings occurred telephonically. The judges make efforts to verify the identity of hearing participants, and yet there have been instances in which an imposter has successfully borrowed someone's identity and stolen their case.

The potentials abound around us, and we all see the reminders daily. It takes two actions to access email or bank accounts. There are PIN, two-level authentication, persistent password updating, and more. These hurdles are thrown into our path by organizations seeking to stem the tide of ne'er-do-wells and their amazingly imaginative permutations for separating people from their resources.

For the sake of edification, the Florida OJCC does not communicate about hearings or mediations on any social media platform. There is never any reason to make a payment to this Office as a requisite for a hearing, mediation, or order. Anyone who is asked to provide personal information or payment should hesitate and look into the request fully.

The best way to approach such an investigation is never through someone who has contacted you (by email, phone, or mail). If you receive such an inquiry or request, ignore any alleged or stated urgency and contact that company through their published phone, email, or U.S. Mail address. Make sure you are communicating with who you intend to speak with.

The National Today admonition is sound, though likely too limited in scope. There are many, in various populations, who may be trusting or naive as to the potential for harm from scammers. Indeed, "this scam highlights the importance of educating vulnerable workers." Every worker is deserving of this information. 

It's Your Kids!

Doc Brown arrives from the future in search of our intrepid protagonist, Marty. The film is Back to the Future; the year is 1985 (Universal), and the spirit is comedic. The warning remains critical:

"It's your kids, Marty. Something's gotta be done about your kids!"

Not to put too fine a point on it, but our education system has committed a major misstep. Certainly, they were likely enabled and even empowered by well-meaning facilitators, so-called experts, and a raft of helicopter parents. Nonetheless, we are in serious trouble, and the present inflection point will be looked upon as history judges us.

The machines are all around us. There is a growing dependency, and too many are mindlessly walking to their doom and ours. I have striven to warn against the ascent of machines. See Competency for Incompetents (January 2026); More Proof of Idiocracy (September 2025); Indeed Sancho Panza (July 2025); Will the Heimlich be Required (June 2025; We are Regressing (March 2025); Disuse Atrophy (December 2024); Sharing a Drink Called Loneliness (May 2023); Evolution and DNA (November 2022); Are You Innumerate? (July 2018).

There is a great threat to our future. I have seen it, and it is us. We are threatened by our own offspring. No, Doc Brown has not visited me. I have not the power of prescience or prediction. The simple truth is that these screen devices and the pablum of Tick Tock are rotting the brains of our youth.

Fortune reports that the U.S. has invested tens of billions of dollars in the drive to put a screen in the hands of every youth. We have abandoned the tried and true of yesteryear (pronounced "/bʊk/"). We have abandoned the tried and true of "reading, writing, and arithmatic," commonly refered to as the "three Rs," and misspelled "reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic."

Applied Scholastics suggests that we should never have abandoned these three. There is some degree of doubt that any of them are critical in today's digital world. Nonetheless, Applied suggests that in our desertion, we have "students (who) have not been taught the true basics of how to study and learn." There is, arguably, as much value in the learning of "how" as there is in "what."

What has the massive investment in screens since 2002 accomplished? Precisely zero progress. In fact, Fortune reports that for the first time in a century, a generation has "scored lower on standardized tests than the previous one." Yes, Virginia, we have regressions as a replacement for progress.

Let that sink in: "Gen Z is less cognitively capable than previous generations, despite its unprecedented access to technology." To be fair, we have not achieved Idiocracy (2006, 20th Century Fox). To be real, the early symptoms are all around us. Must we end up there to understand?

The Fortune article is quick to assuage feelings. No, the decline of test performance is not necessarily "indicative of intelligence." Nonetheless, test scores "are a reflection of cognitive capability." And capability is on the decline. We have lost the drive for critical thinking. This is described in Screen Time Wins (February 2026), noting "Johnny can't read," and the Sowell conclusion that the real problem is "Johnny can't think."

An inflection point is "a moment when significant change occurs or may occur." In the education of our youth, we have passed several such points and yet face another. Will we put away screens and learn to read, to think, to process, and to express? Or shall we watch another short video of an idiot eating a laundry pod?

Shall we strive to comprehend the subtleties of Hamlet, or watch another short video (or 100) extolling the inherent value of absurdity and stupidity (insert your own definition of each here).

There is correlation demonstrated between time on screens and "dipping test scores." That is not to say time on screens is evil. Spend that screen time effectively. Youth can learn to code, debug, and integrate knowledge. But the short video has to go.

Don't take my word for it. Who knows the "screen-focused world" better than the billionaires who built it? No one. These insiders are acutely tuned to the enticement and even co-dependency of these social media platforms and the screen time they demand. Fortune noted recently that "tech leaders are keeping their own children away."

Why? They don't believe there is strength or value in being an "iPad kid." They are opposed to "short-form content" and believe it is diminishing attention spans and, thereby, intellectual prowess. How much is acceptable? One Tech guru allows his kids "1.5 hours per week of screen time," compared to the national average of "7.5 hours per day."

How do mom and dad get "some peace" without parking the kids in front of an iPad? The same way mom did it in the 70s, when the current harbinger of doom was television pablum delivered in 30-minute doses loaded with ads for sugar bombs and detritus. Drive children to read, to self-engage outdoors with peers, to paint, to build, to create.

No, education is not so complex. The mind likes problems, puzzles, and challenges. They can be found in a multitude of places, degrees, and repetitions. Parents and teachers need only engage them. Communities need only support libraries, egalitarian youth athletics, band, choir, oh, you have heard it all before. This is not an epiphany, merely a return to the tried and true.

Or, we can keep planting the kids in front of digital babysitters that provide incessant, blather, pablum, and mental sedation. AI is so often raised as a bogeyman, but "I have met the enemy, and he is us." The helicopter parents have to calm down. The teachers have to teach. The screens have got to be minimized. The short-form brain acid has to go. 

Retail Biometrics

I have been thinking of surveillance for a long time. See Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015); Judicial Bullying in the News (April 2018); The Evolving Issue of Body Cameras (July 2018); Who Ya Gonna Believe (November 2018); Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020); Surveillance, Conflicting Rights, and Balance (May 2021); Pay Attention (July 2023); Optics and Options (September 2025); Triggered (September 2025); and Is Privacy Gone (January 2026). 

Surveillance, facial recognition, and technology are increasingly part of our personal privacy and even perspectives. Everyone is getting in on the movement. In 2023, some claimed that "20% of U.S. internet households have a video doorbell." Two years later, the New York Post reports that "eight in 10 American homes now contain smart tech," and "35 percent have doorbells that inform them of visitors."

Recently, according to Fox4, a grocery chain in the northeast is "collecting biometric data on anyone who enters their stores in" some locations. Pursuant to government regulations there, it "has posted mandated signage to notify customers about the technology." Their system apparently collects facial recognition data "on everyone who enters the store."

This is being portrayed as a safety precaution. The company has noted that the collected data is used only "to identify individuals who have been previously flagged for misconduct." 

Furthermore, they assert that "Images and video are retained only as long as necessary for security purposes and then disposed of." The company also stresses that it does "not share facial recognition scan data with any third party."

Ben Franklin is credited with writing, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." That is more directly focused on government action or threat, and the will of the people to stand for their own rights. And, it is reasonably clear that we already have little to no privacy in public places. See Is Privacy Gone (January 2026).

CNN reports this grocer is not alone. It asserts, "The biggest chains in America are using facial recognition technology to try to stop shoplifting." But, unlike the grocer example cited, CNN claims that "most customers are unaware their faces are being scanned while they shop." 

The authors assure that "New York City is one of the few places in the country that requires" disclosure. Therefore, they claim that there is broad "lack of oversight, transparency, and bias with facial recognition technology." As prevalent as this apparently is in the U.S. there is some suggestion that it is even more so in Europe.

One may wonder what spectrum of uses data is being put to in these other jurisdictions and instances. While the retailer featured in this story has made commitments not to share these images and other data, to even hold it only temporarily, what of the vast spectrum of retailers outside that venue? Are thousands of images of you being stored and shared by other cameras across the continent? World?

CNN warns that biometrics have "been misused," and that there have been allegations of "false identifications and wrongful arrests" associated with the systems. Somewhat less impairing, the systems have resulted in people being denied entrance to "sporting events and concerts in New York City."

The CNN story also stresses that there is minimal federal or state regulation on these programs, and that the use of these tools is allegedly very widespread among retailers.

An AI User Guide

I was recently privileged to receive access to a Student's Handbook for Leveraging Technology. The author is Allison Seitchik, a professor at Merrimack College, and it was interesting to read. A critical strength of the work is an abundance of examples and "how-to" advice. 

I am astounded at the impact that artificial intelligence has had on higher education. As I speak with educators, they consistently express concerns about how AI will impact them and how they will or can adapt. 

Let's pause there for clarity. The impact has been on higher education. That matters. That is not limited or constrained. Too often, that label is broadly applied to academics and academia, but anyone who discounts the importance of students is simply missing the point. You can be a research institution all you want, but higher education is primarily for students and for learning, and they cannot be discounted or forgotten.

Academics are scared of AI and what it may do. They are enticed by it, drawn to it, and yet anxious. Are the instructors, professors, and other academicians really any different from the students in these regards? The students are likewise drawn, curious, intrigued, and frankly terrified. I have seen students informally surveyed, and some still have not experimented with AI due to these fears. I suspect informal instructor queries would yield similar responses. 

Professor Seitchik leads with the commitment that there is "importance and benefits of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools." The world of academia is going to have to adapt to this. We can strive to prevent students from using these tools for a time, but the inevitability is that there will be no stuffing this genie back into a lamp.

She then provides clarity on the how. The paper is about 70 pages and provides significant guidance for the student. However, it is likely as useful for the instructor in modeling how to define and enforce guardrails.

She lists activities for which AI is acceptable and for which it is not. This is no different than other guardrails; driving your car on the highway is acceptable. Driving it in my backyard, not so much.

Acceptable use (mostly quoted directly):

1. Use it to help you take a topic and develop a research question.
2. Narrowing topic or subject matter ideas.
3. Find articles for your paper.
4. Summarize those articles even through an annotated bibliography.
5. Grammar check.

Unacceptable use:

1. You can NOT use it to write your final paper.
2. Write papers, assignments, discussion posts, presentations, or any other information that you present as your own for any kind of grade.

It is noted, clearly, that presenting work the student did not create is viewed as plagiarism. I have noted the potential for plagiarism complications here before. Plagiarism Now? (February 2025). While a great many lawyers proudly cut and paste their brethren's or sistren's work, that is simply not acceptable in academia.

There is also ample advice offered for "writing your prompts." These include specificity, ambiguity, examples, feedback, engagement, and trying various approaches (trial and error) in seeking advice, brainstorming, or substantive research. There are examples of actual prompts and AI interaction that are illustrative and helpful.

A final piece of advice Dr. Seitchik offers is "document everything you do with AI." This is an imperative for the student to be able to document sources and the path that led to their structure, arguments, and conclusions. In the event the student must defend their work, such documentation would be handy indeed. In the grand scheme of things, this is great advice for anyone using AI for prose. 

In the end, this article is an excellent foundation for educators who might wish to issue their own guidance. For the student whose instructor has not provided guidelines, this may be a great starting point for understanding boundaries and getting started either with research itself or conversations with an instructor or advisor.

Seitchik, A. E. (2025, August 25). AI research and writing companion: A student’s handbook for leveraging technology. OER Commons. Retrieved from https://oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/115610.

Reality, Perceptions, Problems

Obesity has graced these pages before. The threat of obesity is among the most challenging in modern society.

See Fat Discrimination (June 2023), Obesity Again (January 2023). See also What's in a Name (August 2020); The BMI Conundrum (August 2022), Comorbidity of Obesity (October 2021), Stool Transplant? (October 2019). Obesity Can Kill Me? What Could Be Worse!? (March 2015), How will Risky Behavior and "Choices" Affect Employment Decisions (April 2013).

For years, Americans have spent incredible sums on health and fitness while obesity rates have recalitrantly soared. According to USA Facts, in the 1960s, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) categorized 13% of Americans as obese. Using the same definitions, that was over 40% in 2018. There was similar growth in the "severe obesity" and "child obesity" subsets.

To be fair, obesity is simultaneously deceptively simple and incredibly complex. The simple piece is math: calories consumed versus calories burned; burn fewer than you consume, and the body grows. But various hormonal, endocrine, and other contributors impact individuals differently or even uniquely.

Then came the solutions. There have been a variety of easy solutions. Some will remember the miracle of Fen-Phen, a cocktail of fenfluramine and phentermine prescribed in the 1990s. After approval and widespread use, the lawsuits were enough to drive it from the marketplace. It was not alone; there have been various panacea solutions: fad diets, cleanses, stimulants, and worse have been tried over the years.

The 21st century brought GLP-1 drugs for diabetes. These became newsworthy when users reported associated weight loss. That led people to seek them specifically for weight loss. That drove demand, price, and marketplace acceptance. It also led to evolution, and drug makers began marketing GLP-1 drugs specifically for weight loss.

The results are notable. While the GLP category contains various name brands and compounds, some claim it is reasonable to expect 5-10% decrease in body weight in 3 months. For a 5'4 person weighing 174 pounds, that could be an almost 18-pound loss.

Recently, a 28-year-old "opened up about her addiction" in a "vulnerable moment." The headline stopped me because it included "GLP-1," featured last year in Whoa Nelly! (June 2025); and Connecticut Price Fixing (July 2025). I know people who are taking these drugs, and have read much about them. 

Nonetheless, I had not heard the word "addiction" associated with them. I had presumed those who undertook the therapy would use GLP-1s chronically. There are multiple references to addiction. 

Scientific American noted that an AMA analysis concluded " the vast majority of people quit taking these drugs within two years," about 85% overall, with a larger drop "among those without type 2 diabetes." The study included "more than 120,000 people, with and without type 2 diabetes."

The immediate question is therefore "how sustainable" the drugs are in terms of effect. In other words, will the weight loss persist post-drugs? The Scientific American article notes that

"when a person who had been taking one of these medications stops, the hunger cues it had suppressed often come raging back, which causes the weight to return."

Admittedly, the study did not investigate results of cessation, but, relying on other investigations, the conclusion is that "regaining weight is almost inevitable." There is also a discussion that we are each preset to "a specific weight range their body naturally tries to maintain." Thus, when the drug-induced inhibitions disappear, we are inclined to regain weight, to return to our preset weight or range.

Back to the 28-year-old with the "vulnerable moment." She is a model, and "has been open about her use of GLP-1." She says she is an on-and-off user; she "fluctuates." She uses the word "addiction," but there is little in the article to support that word. An addiction is

"a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activity having harmful physical, psychological, or social effects,"

According to Merriam-Webster. Nonetheless, the implication is that some people seek these drugs, abandon them after a time, and feel a need or desire to return to GLP-1. This may lead to questions about source and control issues. These are prescription drugs, but the internet abounds with sources and suppliers who offer access without those pesky doctor visits or other hurdles.

Thus, there is some indication that these diabetes drugs are regularly used by non-diabetics. And, it is practical that they are used by those who are not obese. Beyond the health risks of obesity, there is some feeling that weight loss and body image are important on a general level.

There was a time when compulsive weight loss received ample news coverage. The psychiatric diagnoses of anorexia and bulimia were newsworthy. Then came an era of "body positivity," when some believe the "self-love" and excuse led to increased fat-forgiveness and unhealthy lifestyle choices. Whose business is obesity, eating disorders, and drug use?

Earlier this year, as a movie franchise edition loomed, some questioned the appearance of one movie star. They noted that people were "talking about her body," and perceived a marked weight loss in recent years. The celebrity responded, essentially suggesting that people mind their own business, "I think we should be gentler and less comfortable commenting on people’s bodies, no matter what."

She suggested that we should, societally, 

"dismantle fatphobia, and to slowly but surely push us toward a world where the size and shape of our bodies don’t function as indicators of our value." 

That may seem a noble goal, but the American public loves body image. We spend almost $33 billion on diets and weight loss and $72 billion on GLP-1s each year. The whole of "fatphobia" and body image is big business. And there are causative or coincidental effects noted. The "vulnerable moment" model above says her business and income increased notably while on GLP-1.

In fairness, weight loss is tied to caloric consumption in some degree. Thus, if you elect to lick the donuts instead of actually eating them, weight loss may be inevitable. And, perhaps people will believe you are advocating against juvenile obesity. Others may believe you are disingenuous, which is mentioned in some reactions in that CNN article.

Fact Complications

There are occasions in which people ask questions, harbor doubts, and ponder explanations. The potential was recently illustrated in a string of stories regarding a professional football player in Ohio.

Injuries in football are not uncommon. The players expend significant energy, push limits, and, at times, intentionally throw their bodies into the ground or other people. Michael Mandelbaum once noted that "football is controlled violence, but it is violence." That is eloquent.

Various news services reported that a Cincinnati Bengal player, Cam Taylor-Britt, suffered a "Lisfranc injury" to the left foot back in mid-November 2025. The news reports note this condition is likely surgical, and there was a prognostication that it would end his 2025 season.

A Lisfranc is a "joint at the top of your foot," and injury there "can include dislocations, fractures, and sprains." Some of those injuries will require surgery, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

Lisfranc injuries can be challenging for medical providers. The "presentation ... is as diverse as the possible mechanisms," according to Sacha Wynter and Cameron Grigg, Lisfranc Injuries. These can be "subtle." The authors address causation, noting:

"These injuries can occur in numerous circumstances, such as motor vehicle accidents, crush injuries, and falls. Indirect mechanisms include axial force through the foot or twisting on a plantar flexed foot."

It is therefore most certainly plausible that the strain of football activity, running, twisting, and turning, could result in such an injury. Lisfranc injuries do occur. The National Institute of Health has actually studied the occurrence, prevalence, and prognosis of Lisfranc injury in NFL players. Overall, though, Lisfranc injuries are relatively uncommon. They "account for 0.2% of all fractures," but there is a concern about how many go undiagnosed.

Not surprisingly, they are largely coincident with "high-energy injuries." In fact, "45% arise from motor vehicular crashes ... and 10% from sports injuries." The reading is informative; see Buchanan BK, Donnally III CJ. Lisfranc Dislocation, StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448147/.

So, such an injury might raise suspicions or causation questions. Certainly, suffering an injury in a nationally-broadcast event might result in reasonable confidence regarding causation. But did millions witness the injury happening on the field on November 16, or witness a worker acknowledging the presence of injury while on the field?

Weeks after Cam Taylor-Britt's season concluded, the modern world brought him notoriety again. First, there were apparently some people posting videos on social media. Then, news reports began. The video purports to show a vehicle associated with Cam Taylor-Britt being involved in a serious accident. Coincidentally, the accident was "the night before (the) season-ending injury," according to BengalsWire.

Initial reports noted that Cam Taylor-Britt was a backseat passenger at the time of the accident, and a lady was driving. There were differing statements later as to who was driving and the cause of the accident. Eventually, there was an admission that Taylor-Britt's brother was driving. Confusion, misstatement, and conflicting history can be challenging. 

To make things less clear, some news stories in January identified the "season-ending" injury as a "left quad injury" (the large muscle on the front of the thigh). That could be simple confusion regarding current statements or a reporter's mistaken recollection of Taylor-Britt's 2023 injuries. Could a physician, therapist, or other professional just as easily mistake or misstate an injury description in a medical record?

Those January news stories also note that Taylor-Britt was involved in reckless driving earlier in 2025. The WLWT coverage says that it included descriptions of other instances that allegedly involved running red lights, driving "sideways down the street," and "driving without a license." Is past behavior of any relevance? Might someone avoid admitting they were driving a car during an accident based on the repercussions of a past event?

This is not to suggest that any of the foregoing is true or not. The point worth consideration is that every day, people are injured. Workers' compensation disputes can involve the extent of an injury or the duration of recuperation, as well as treatment or wage replacement. There, everyone agrees that there was an accident and injury, but the extent of the effects is disputed in some way. 

In other cases, there is a dispute as to whether there was a work event or whether any injury occurred from a work event. Even when there is evidence of injury, the cause and source may be disputed. The question may be, did this happen at work? Those are questions of compensability. 

What is discussed in compensability situations? Well, did the person have any other events that might have caused this? Were they in a jeep that flipped at 03:30 the day before the work event? Thus, there may be issues about what was damaged, what symptoms are related, and what treatment or compensation is appropriate.

Is the present injury a new event, or is it a recurrence of something prior? That is, if the present injury is a quad, is it the same quad as was injured in 2023? This may seem irrelevant from the standpoint of an employer (same team both years), but it could be a problem as far as coverage if the insurance has changed. 

These are questions of causation and compensability. Often, they will be decided based on the credibility of the witnesses who saw or heard the alleged event. They may be witnesses to whom a worker spoke, such as nurses, doctors, or coworkers. They may all require credibility assessment and determination.

Credibility may be impacted by misstatements. Taylor-Britt's brother was a witness. He reportedly told police a drunk woman was driving the Jeep. He was contradicted by physical evidence, such as the position of the driver's seat. He later claimed he was driving. 

Taylor-Britt's brother allegedly first asserted that Taylor-Britt was not even in the vehicle at the time of the accident. He and Taylor-Britt later admitted he was, but in the back seat. Might misstatements impact whether the brother is or is not believed about other facts? Is his eventual admission unimpeachable evidence that he was the driver?

Following the significant accident, everyone in the Jeep left the scene. When an accident happens, a departure to obtain help may be viewed positively, while simply leaving may carry a negative connotation. 

Does it enhance the credibility of witnesses when police at the scene conclude, "I smell weed reeks of weed?" Is the credibility of those officers impacted when there are nonetheless "no charges filed" (ticket, arrest)? What if the injured person tests positive for weed? Does it matter if they smoked it or if they were merely in a car where others did? 

In actuality, the season-ending injury that occurred mid-November was likely exactly as described and witnessed on television. The point here is not to impugn Mr. Taylor-Britt. The point is that such a series of events can raise fact questions. Questions fuel litigation because uncertainty, innuendo, and misstatements drive a need for clarification and resolution. Ultimately, facts can raise complications.

There can be different perspectives on any event. The potentially inconsistent perspectives or recollections don't necessarily change that there was an accident, or that there was an injury. But they may change the outcome on compensability, which is merely about who pays for the resulting loss, see Someone has to Pay (May 2016).

Returning to Oxford

Benjamin Franklin is noted for focusing us on the importance of the little things. The little things add up. He addressed this using a horseshoe nail, which many today may not even know exists:

“For the want of a nail the shoe was lost,

For the want of a shoe, the horse was lost,

For the want of a horse, the rider was lost,

For the want of a rider, the battle was lost,

For the want of a battle, the kingdom was lost,

And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail.”

See, the nail holds the shoe to the hoof of the horse that the rider rides into battle to save the kingdom. Lose the nail, and it all erodes downhill. That came to mind recently when I revisited the structure provided by our language. Words matter, and so does punctuation. I stressed this in I Never Knew Oxford had a Comma (March 2017).

That was several years ago. As an aside, has anyone else begun referring to periods in history as "pre-COVID" and "post-COVID"? Just asking for a friend.

The Oxford piece highlights the importance of a simple, little, and critical punctuation mark (see what I did there?). The comma may be extremely important. The Oxford piece describes an instance in Maine where a statute omitted such an "Oxford comma," and the results were significant.

The absence of an Oxford Comma in the Maine instance resulted in a multimillion-dollar settlement regarding overtime pay. The British Broadcasting Company (it is noted that this publication may have credibility challenges) reported that the "lack of a comma" between two words resulted in a significant payout. Other reports noted the missing comma created a "loophole." See e.g., Scripps News, Artlangs, and others.

Discussing the financial loss, the BBC cites some examples with a focus shifted from loss caused by missing punctuation to a platitude about not "feeling too sorry for the firm" and noting its overall past profits. The implication is you cannot feel sorry for someone who suffers a loss if their life otherwise is rosy. That seems a bit distracted. There, the perspective is perhaps less about the comma and more about an amorphous fairness or equity. 

The linchpin there is the Oxford comma, and it is back in the news in Arizona workers' compensation. Two lawmakers are backing legislation "to correct what firefighters say is a missing comma." This is characterized as a "punctuation error" that creates "a loophole" that makes firefighters "fight for their benefits."

The law in question is one of the "presumption" statutes that are featured at many educational programs. There has been a trend towards treating certain workers, occupations, or maladies differently under the law across the country. These are not necessarily identical state laws but are seemingly generalized as "presumptions." Within that population, there are various distinctions and differences that are perhaps worthy of discussion.

In Arizona, according to ABC15, there is no comma included "after the word 'adenocarcinoma.'" their statute reads:

"Any disease, infirmity or impairment of a firefighter's or fire investigator's health that is caused by brain, bladder, rectal or colon cancer, lymphoma, leukemia or adenocarcinoma or mesothelioma of the respiratory tract and that results in disability ..."

This is being interpreted as creating a presumption for "adenocarcinoma" only if it is adenocarcinoma "of the respiratory tract." The argument is that if a broader definition were intended, there would be a comma (adenocarcinoma, or mesothelioma).

The discussion is worthy of consideration. The legislature conceives, drafts, and passes laws. The choices of words, punctuation, and organization are all open for discussion and debate. Most have professional drafters, proofreaders, and subject-matter experts. Once the law is passed, the world will then operate under its definitions and delineations.

There can be discussions of what someone may have intended words or punctuation to mean. Nonetheless, in the end, the real point is not intention or feelings, but simply what the words and punctuation say. When careful, collaborative, and ponderous processes reach results, perhaps the intent is in the patent, plain, and published words? The Arizona debate may remind those who draft legislation, regulation, or policy (notice that?) of the importance of punctuation.

The commas here are red for a purpose. They are illustrative. The Oxford comma is critical in some settings. And "for want of a comma," what may be lost?

The intent of those who wrote the Arizona law does not change the debate about what any such language could mean. Nonetheless, that is a different debate than what the language does mean. 

It Does not Matter Who

Recently, a football player unexpectedly ended his life. There were expressions of angst and surprise. Yahoo Sports noted that "Deaths of young NFL players never make sense," and then listed several other examples in recent years. the author lamented their ages, their "dreams," and their "too much to live for." This was all somewhat focused perhaps on the monetary rewards of professional sports and the attendant or parallel fame.

The exposé proceeds to mention mental struggles, appearances, and risks. There is little effort there to illuminate or expound on these. Having glossed over the collective lack of real familiarity in the fan/athlete relationship, the author wanders through the potentials for fans to perceive various issues or instances in which there may be no signs or indicia.

There are instances cited in which retirements have similarly been surprising. The theme of these is the underlying physical pain endured by those who make a living crashing into each other in pursuit of a pigskin. The author notes these examples as more readily accepted by fans. There are two coincident tangents there: that those athletes provided explanations, and that the explanations were seen as rational and reasonable.

But what of the suicide? No one likes that word. Articles that use itoften lead with something like:

"This story contains references to suicide. If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide and needs support now, call or text 988 or chat with the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988lifeline.org."

There is merit in that. Warnings are positive, and resources are worthwhile. See AI Lacks Conscience? (September 2025), Mental Health Emphasis (February 2025), Remediation and Reminders (November 2024), Construction? (June 2024), And September is Awareness Month (September 2022).

There is room here for some criticism. The focus of the author is on "the struggles of athletes we watch." I have never seen Marshawn, and if you have and are impacted, please accept my condolences on your loss. 

The criticism is that there is a seeming conclusion that struggles, hidden issues, and challenges are an "athlete thing." They are not. The lamentations regarding Marshawn might as readily be directed at a great volume of people who have taken permanent action in the face of temporary circumstances.

The fact is that many people die by suicide. The Centers for Disease Control says, "Over 49,000 people died of suicide in 2023." That amounts to a death every 11 minutes. It is nowhere near the accidental overdose rate (the total this century is over a million, the rate of which is improving, but still outrageous), but it is very significant. Additionally, 1.5 million people tried suicide in 2024. Another "12.8 million seriously thought about suicide."

Note to file: not all or even most of these were young athletes involved in high-profile, high-paying occupations. None of them was more than the football player; none was any less. 

Midway through the Yahoo Sports article, the author finally hits the real point worth discussing: "We don’t know what we can’t see." It was that sentence that spawned this blog post.

You simply do not know what someone is going through. I have written on that before. See Judge Jails Teen (August 2024) and Starfish (February 2022).

There is no explaining the why, whether it is a promising young athlete, a Ms. USA, or the person on the corner. Each has value. Each faces challenges. Each is as opaque as the next, and no one can expect or anticipate being able to see through their polished exterior to directly perceive what troubles them beneath. To try is a fool's errand.

The Yahoo author suggests we are disconnected. There is blame for our digital habits and lack of human connection. There is a perceived lack of empathy, personally and societally. There is much to lament, much to ponder, and much to be done.

In every profession, endeavor, school, and beyond, there are people who struggle. This will include the popular, the intellectual, and the abled, whether their particular talent and value have been perceived.

I say that because a great many people I know fail utterly to appreciate their own talents and values. There are too many who think that temporary challenges, however objectively insignificant or devastating, can be addressed with a permanent reaction.

We can do better. Reach out today and give someone a call. Share a joke, catch up on trivialities, and connect. They may need your call. For all you know, you may need it more than they do.

Yes, but How?

Some perceive appellate courts as courts of justice. They are courts of error. The displeased or disappointed party seeking review ("appellant") is pointing out an error(s) and asking the court to direct a different outcome. The answering party(ies) are seeking to show there was no error or that any error was harmless. See Understanding how Justice Process Works (March 2016).

There are many opportunities for legal interpretation and growth. I was recently reflecting on the role of appellate courts and other tribunals. There is a primacy in the trial tribunal contributed to by both function and economics.

The fact is that litigation is an expensive method for solving disputes. This expense, in pure economic terms, is noteworthy in terms of time and currency. Success requires investment of each, and there is the persistent chance that any party's investment will yield no return; they will not prevail. Therefore, most disputes are resolved through negotiation.

Thus, a small subset of filed claims reaches the point of a judge, or in the civil context, a jury, deciding issues of fact in a dispute, and some party prevailing.

The majority of those decisions are distasteful or disappointing to at least one party. That is widely accepted as axiomatic. The observer should also know, however, that it is not uncommon for all parties to find disappointment or dissatisfaction in the result of the trial.

This is anachronistic to some. They see any contest result as being binary, a "win" or "loss." There is some truth to that. The non-prevailing party is generally disappointed or worse. Nonetheless, the prevailing litigation party may not get all that was sought or desired.

As a general proposition, any disappointed party may seek review of the trial tribunal decision. These opportunities are defined by various statutes or constitutions. The party seeking review is the "appellant," and the responding party is the "appellee."

To make that more confusing, both parties may seek review. In that instance, each party is both. The "appellant" may also be the "cross appellee," and the "appellee" also the "cross appellant." This can be quite significant because appellate courts are courts of error, and the probable outcome of an appeal is affirming the trial tribunal.

Studies have concluded "that roughly 90% of appellate court decisions affirm lower court rulings." See Barry C. Edwards, Why Appeals Courts Rarely Reverse Lower Courts: An Experimental Study to Explore Affirmation Bias, 68 Emory L. J. Online 1035 (2019). That is a compelling consideration; most trial decisions are the end. It is exceedingly important that parties invest their best efforts at trial in the disputes that they elect to litigate.

It also bears mentioning that the impact of minimal reversal rates is hierarchical. Any jurisdiction's primary level of review is more accessible than its next. Simply stated, most litigants have a right to have trial tribunal decisions reviewed; however, further review beyond that initial foray is rarely a right.

Thus, despite the oversimplifications taught in secondary school, consideration by a state's ultimate court (often "Supreme") is far less accessible, and consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court is exceedingly rare statistically. Thus, it is likewise also exceedingly important that parties invest their best efforts in the initial appeal of any disputes they pursue there.

As an aside, the Edwards paper scratches the surface of inherent predisposition or "bias," addressing one concern: "Affirmation Bias." The reader should consider that there are at least 150 identified and named biases or predispositions. While Affirmation is worthy of study, it is no more so than the others. Though the topic of appellate affirmation is not the focus, the reader might consider Langham, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025), available at https://dwlangham.com/free-publications.

The topic of stare decisis, or "to stand by things decided," is a legal imperative. Trial tribunals are effectively bound to follow precedent. The Florida First District Court, in the realm of Florida workers' compensation, has admonished:

"Although a lower tribunal or court may bring its concerns regarding the application of specific case law to the appellate courts, it is nonetheless bound to follow precedent." Andrews v. McKim & Creed, 355 So. 3d 957, 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023).

That is an academically correct foundation. Nonetheless, appellate authorities have been less contrite about their own adherence to precedent. Departures from established precedent may disrupt predictability and stability, leading to community perceptions of activism and ideology.

It also bears discussion of the potential flaw in the admonition. While free to "bring its concerns," there is the potential that the trial tribunal may be frankly unable. Few disputes reach trial, fewer still are appealed, and far fewer still achieve any appellate outcome beyond "affirmed." The path to consideration of change is very narrow.

Thus, it is incumbent on the trial tribunal to follow the law, statutory and decisional (stare decisis). Nonetheless, when the statute or decisional interpretations are not square with the facts at issue, the trial tribunal is free to distinguish that authority.

The paths for that discourse may lie in explaining the application of some contrary authority. It may instead lie in a factual distinction that renders application of a statute or prior authority inapplicable or questionable. To the point, it is incumbent on the parties to bring such authority to the trial, to both drive favorable interpretation and distinguish contrary authority.

It is for the trial judge to analyze authority and to either follow the arguably controlling authority or explain why departure is appropriate in the particular dispute presented.

The shortfall in Andrews was in stepping into why an appellate interpretation was incorrect. Make no mistake, many appellate interpretations are at best questionable. Appellate bodies are no less prone to error than any human endeavor; thus, there is always potential to appeal the decision of the appellate body to yet another, to a legislative body, or to the people from whom all governmental authority flows. 

Such appellate decisions, expansions, or retreats may conclude an appellate decision was incorrect. That path, however arduous or narrow, remains open for any party to advocate. Nonetheless, it is appropriate that only the appellate body in question ventures down the path to concluding "incorrect" or "wrong." When one does so, that label should be clear, with acknowledgement of the error's source. 

Thus, the "how" is not for the trial adjudicator to explain why appellate authority is flawed or poorly reasoned. The "how" is for the trial adjudicator to explain why such analysis is inapplicable or inapposite in the factual setting presented at trial. It is then for the parties to elect appellate review or not, and for the appellate body to (re)consider the application of law or not. 

Those who litigate should remember. Those who appeal should consider. Those who predict should harken back to the Edwards article and the array of predispositions that are the human psyche. 

 

Screen Time Wins

There is little doubt that the next generation is different. I have frequently lamented that, but it is a reality for which I have strenuously advocated acceptance. They have chosen their course, and the world is their oyster. We cannot change people, but must find a methodology for supporting their ascendancy and success somehow.

They are the TickTock generation, and they love screen time. Videos rule the information space, and they are exceedingly brief and abrupt, often utterly pointless, and sometimes dangerous. Gen Z is different. No doubt, others have been too; see These Kids Today (July 2023); Let's Make a Change (April 2023), and Making Legacy (January 2026). 

I have advocated for accepting the differences. I have been tolerant. I have railed against my inner balcony-man. I have even persistently let them play on my lawn.

GMA reported last month that "screen time alone doesn't tell the whole story." The challenge is the "immersive ecosystem designed to keep kids engaged." This is "social media, games, apps, and algorithm-driven feeds built around autoplay, notifications, and targeted content." Our young people are under targeted and near incessant attack.

So what? A recent Fortune article threw me. The author contends that students are now utterly unprepared for college work. For years, I have heard professorial types pontificate about the demise of critical thinking. In this, there is likely merit in reinforcing that college does matter, despite its naysaying critics. 

As an aside, college itself may be a fluid construct. Some of them are beginning to accept and embrace artificial intelligence. See Competency for Incompetents (January 2026). They are rethinking their value exchange, or at least their side of the exchange.

Economist Thomas Sowell addressed the critical thinking criticisms in his 1992 book Inside American Education:

"The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."

He was springboarding off of another author; more on that in a moment. But he was beating the drum on thinking over 30 years ago.

Physicist Carl Sagan had similar thoughts in his 1995 book, Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

"The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance."

Though these gentlemen and other luminaries have passed, I suspect their views on social media and Tick Tock would be entertaining and insightful. I hear Monty Python in my head: "and now for something completely different ..." (1971)(video and short attention span is not new). 

I have railed against the demise of critical thinking in my several semesters of teaching. I have taught many semesters of college. I am wondering if I have the stamina to make it to 100 classes. It is one of my life goals, but it would require several years, and I am old. Nonetheless, I have seen many young people as students (well over 1,000). I see the challenges with thinking, engagement, and criticality. 

To summarize: critical thinking is a problem. Artificial intelligence is not helping; social media is not helping. They are, at best, impeding and more likely deteriorating our minds and souls. But I digress.

The Fortune article asserts that far worse than being unable to think, "students are arriving to classrooms unable to complete assigned reading." In fairness, Rudolph Flesch wrote Why Johnny Can't Read in 1955 (yes, likely the same "Johnny" that Sowell was referencing). It has sold millions of copies, in multiple editions, and is sound in title and content.

I must admit, I never read it, but the Cliff Notes are classic (get it?). If you prefer, Don Henley can sing it to you. Shortcuts are not new, folks. We weren't all Rhodes Scholars, and to be fair, neither were they. 

Reading has been a challenge since I can remember, with spots on Saturday morning cartoons, sound-biting math, history, policy, and even reading (we used papyrus tablets back then, but hey, they were tablets).  

Speaking of reading, or the lack of reading .... 

Back in the day, I was a fan of the Washington R*%&$(#s. It was a football team that offended many. One of the most colorful players in that era was Dexter Manley, a defensive end with a flair for post-game sound bites. I will never forget the day in 1989 when he:

"revealed that his entire experience as a full scholarship college student-athlete (at Oklahoma State) was fraudulent, as he could neither read nor write."

He finished his coursework at Oklahoma State and could not read or write. I suspect he was not alone. That was in 1980, almost 50 years ago. No, this is not a new issue.  

But Dexter was insightful. He was entertaining. He was fun to watch demolish offenses. He was no Yogi Berra, but I will never forget his statement that he was going to "ring (Joe Montana's) clock." He was belittled for it, but it was funny, pithy, and pure Dexter. A million pundits have threatened to ring a bell, but Dexter's version will resonate forever. 

Maybe not being able to read is not new? Maybe being able to read is not critical to success? Maybe there are various paths to career, productivity, and contribution to society?

Nonetheless, I cannot fathom or condone college students who cannot read. If they don't love it, I get it. If they hate it, I still get it. There is no reason that one must be enthralled with or enjoy a chore to be proficient. But, you have to be ABLE to do it.

All the AI in the world will only mislead and distract in the hands of people who have no actual intellect, education, or experience. AI in the hands of an expert is exceptionally useful, and in the hands of a fool, it is the most dangerous tool ever invented. 

The Fortune article notes that reading is generally decreasing. The American public is not reading as they once did. This may be preference or product; cause and effect are debatable. In short, I wonder if we are not reading because we don't like it or if we don't like it because there is nothing worth reading (Ah, the old chicken or the egg debate).

As an aside, Poynter.org says that 3,500 American newspapers have closed since 2005 (that is 175 per year), and two are currently closing every week. Even the flagships are struggling; the Washington Post will soon layoff a third of its employees. Why? Well, it is certainly not because readership is booming and costs are decreasing. Does this support a generalized deterioration of reading? Is it only Gen Z? I think not. 

Back to Fortune. It notes that "nearly half of all Americans did not read a single book in 2025." As much as we might commiserate with Mr. Flesch, Dr. Sowell, or Dr. Sagan on critical thinking, the problem may be with the foundational reading. Why are young people not interested in reading? The facts support that "Gen Z’s reading habits still lag behind all other generations."

One professor quoted by Fortune says instructors are now "tap dancing," reading aloud to students in class, and conceding that students simply "can’t process about the very words that are on the page.” The reaction is labeled with the pejorative "coddling." The professors are being accused of lowering standards, accepting mediocrity, and tailoring curriculum to the lowest common denominator.

Some lament that a typical preparation was once "25 to 40 pages of reading per class," and students did it. I can recall personally much higher volumes in my law school experience. And, to make it worse, I had to read some (pronounced "many") of those pages more than once. Kudos to those of you who get it all on the first pass. See comments on the Rhodes Scholars, above. 

The quoted professors say that level of preparation is not accepted by students today. They will not read such a volume, and "many students instead just lean on AI summaries and miss the point of assigned reading." Holy misdirection Bat Man! AI is not always right? This is a Hall and Oates moment: "Say it isn't so" (RCA 1983). I will never forget when Mr. Maxwell warned my 11th Grade English class that the Hamlet Cliff Notes were inaccurate and incomplete - Blasphemy! 

It may be important now to consider tomorrow. The lamentable challenge with reading is troublesome, but the next generation faces allegations that are perhaps worse. Decluttering Mom reports that primary school kids today "can code on a tablet but cannot tie their shoes, write a legible sentence, or remember their own phone number." What are the basics for this century? In fairness, my own phone number is the only one that I do remember anymore (sometimes I have to check the phone while reciting it, though). 

The fact is, regardless of recriminations, the American education system built the roads that lead here ("all roads lead to Rome," Liber Parabolarum, 1175). There have been many detours and fallacies over the years, but, nonetheless, here we are. The state of education is what we built or allowed.

Well, all roads don't lead to Rome today (literally), and all education does not have to lead to illiteracy tomorrow. That we now have a generation that either never fell in love with the written word or was spurned by it matters. We can be analytical and retrospective. But what matters more is what we do next. 

In our modern world, where will the roads lead? What will we value? How will generations judge content, volume, and delivery? Can we move beyond, retreat from, the 15-second stupidity?