Pay Attention

There are a great many cameras in this country. They seem to be everywhere you look. See Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015); Evolving Issue of Body Cameras (July 2018); Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020); and Orwellian Store Security (August 2022). The bottom line from all of these examples is you just have to assume you are on camera, all day, every day.

Okay, perhaps there remain a few places in which we might expect our privacy. But people have allegedly found hidden cameras in rental cabins, toilets, public spaces, and even our own homes. The technology is becoming cheaper and easier, and the implications are increasingly intrusive. The best advice? Remember that old Rockwell song "Somebody's Watching Me."

The subject of cameras and immense responsibility coincided with the challenge of being a judge in an Oklahoma story recently. This concerns a lawyer elected to the bench in November 2022. The judge took the bench and has been presiding for months. It is no small feat to be elected to anything in most examples. Graduating law school is also not easy, nor is even getting into law school in the first instance. This judge has "been a lawyer since 2003" according to the Associated Press.

This judge is in Lincoln County, a rural area in central Oklahoma. About 34,000 people lived there when the last census concluded. The county has some reasonable-sized municipalities and is intersected by Interstate 44, running east to west. It is likely a pretty quiet place at times. But, like anywhere else, there is some measure of violent crime. Recently that led to this new judge presiding over a murder trial as reported by the Associated Press.

The judge's performance has made headlines and is being investigated by an "Ethics Panel" after one of those surveillance cameras recorded her activity during trial. She was perhaps not aware that there were cameras in the courtroom. The Insider reports that the judge allegedly was "scrolling through her phone throughout a seven-day murder trial." There are accusations that the judge "used her phone throughout jury selection, opening statements, and witness testimony."

It is possible that this is simply boredom. Perhaps it is hard to remain interested through a seven-day murder trial in which someone stands accused of "beating a two-year-old to death." Perhaps the "tearful testimony" was not compelling or interesting? Perhaps the proceedings are so mundane that the judge's attention is not really necessary?

In fairness, judges in jury trials are frequently left without much to do. The trier of fact there is the jury. It will decide what did or did not happen. It will decide whether guilt has been proven. The judge in a jury trial is primarily responsible for gatekeeper roles, deciding what the jury does or does not hear.

There can be many long periods without any evidentiary objections. There can be moments that are perhaps tedious. In a jury trial I participated in as second-chair years ago, the judge fell asleep on the bench. That was bad enough, but this judge had a snoring habit and his narcolepsy was noticed by everyone in the courtroom eventually. The lawyers were afraid to awaken him.

Oddly, the Oklahoma judge recognizes the potential for electronic distraction. The news says that the judge "began the trial by instructing the jury members to turn off all electronic devices." They were told that this was to allow them to "concentrate on the evidence without interruption." Apparently, there is some value in hearing the evidence? Sarcasm.

After using the "phone throughout jury selection, opening statements, and witness testimony," apparently the judge became aware that Candid Camera was watching. That is a reference to a television show that ran in several iterations beginning in 1948. We have all had a great deal of exposure to the fact that cameras might be watching us. Nonetheless, after becoming aware of the survellance camera, instead of changing behavior, "the judge . . . (allegedly) moved the position of the ceiling security camera."

Instead of paying attention to the trial, instead of foregoing Facebook, instead of abstaining from texting, the solution seemed to be to move the camera. Changing the behavior might have brought the attention of the judge to the trial. The interest of justice and due process might have been enhanced by paying attention to the trial. But the solution, it seems, may have been simply to move the camera.

The local news reporting has to be uncomfortable. The national coverage can only be more so. And, these are merely allegations. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Despite a picture sometimes being worth a thousand words, there is also the potential for cameras and video to lie and mislead.

That said, this judge has some explaining to do. The behavior alleged implicates competency, complacency, and the public faith in the judiciary. The news coverage, true or not, will cast doubt on judges everywhere. The public perception of judges and courts will not be enhanced these news stories. If the video is eventually published (too late, it is on social media now), people are bound to watch.

What is the point of having a judge in the courtroom? The judge is there to keep the proceedings on track, to rule on objections, and to assure that the justice system works. I have never presided over a jury trial, nor a murder trial. But, all trials are important. As I have said many times, the most important case in the world is the one happening today. That is, it is the most important to the people in this case, today, now.

The judge owes all the parties to any case the full attention and respect for the most important case. The parties deserve to be taken seriously, to be paid attention to, to be respected. That said, there are distractions on the bench. There are often dates and details to verify in the docket. Here, there is recording software to monitor and check. There a multitude of good reasons to use that computer on the bench.

Facebook is simply not one of them. Text messaging is not one of them (unless you are texting for assistance with the case - "bring me the arrest file," etc.). The bottom line is that the parties to the case deserve the judge's full attention. The job of judging deserves the judge's full attention. The community that puts a judge on the bench deserves the judge's full attention.

To me, the choice is binary and simple. A judge should either be willing to pay attention and do the job or they should simply move on to a less critical occupation and let the good people find someone else to earn the approximately $165,000 salary. Being a judge is intellectually challenging, interesting, and engaging. It is a tremendous calling with immense responsibility. It is an honor and burden and is immensely rewarding.

All that said, if it is not something that can hold your attention and respect, move on and let someone more suitable do the job. If you are caught disrespecting the job, leave the cameras where they are, and move yourself somewhere else.

The Oklahoma ethics panel investigation will be interesting to watch. One always wonders how stories will play out beyond what the press reports. There are always two sides to a story and hearing both is imperative before there is any judgment. Will the panel listen to the judge’s side or just play on their phones throughout? Regardless, the press reports here are certainly troubling, concerning, and upsetting.

The world is watching persistently. There are cameras everywhere. Critics abound. Your role as a judge puts you at center stage. Put away the social media. Defer the text messages. Pay attention. Someone's life or livelihood may depend upon it. 

Inflationary Cycle

During the pandemic, there was a significant shift in American work. A population of employees enjoyed telecommuting, gasoline savings and decreased expenses generally. See Economy Intelligence. Forbes notes that employee spending was decreased even in regard to necessities such as health care. So, essentially consumption slowed. There were rumors that restaurants and retail actually closed or altered hours of operation. I cannot attest to that firsthand, as it did not happen here in Paradise, but rumors persist.

There was generalized angst that without consumers the producers would lose money. Without diners, a restaurant might not profit from food preparation. That was not calculus, but simple math. The government solution was to use piles of federal debt to provide ongoing support to those businesses. The purpose was to allow them to maintain payroll and support those workers, whether their efforts were necessary or not.

Eleven and one-half million "loans" were issued. That is a euphemism. Loans are typically a "grant of temporary use." They are used and then paid back. It is a simple concept that is becoming alien to Americans. All kinds of people now think that "loan" is a synonym for "gift." The implications are beginning with those 11.5 borrowers. ProPublica says that $790 billion was "loaned" and the government "forgave" $757 billion. It was never paid back. It never will be. You can see who got the money by searching on that ProPublica page. 

The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank has analyzed whether this was sound and made some interesting observations. First, "the PPP was not well targeted. Only about one-quarter of PPP funds supported jobs that otherwise would have disappeared." Thus, government money paid workers that businesses could or would have paid. As concerning "The PPP’s benefits flowed disproportionately to wealthier households rather than to the rank-and-file workers that its funds were intended to reach." Whether the plan was successful or not is left to the reader.

But, in the end, the supply of money in the market increased. It was largely conserved (saved) by workers because of the rumored lack of opportunity for spending. The San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank notes that "U.S. households built up savings at unprecedented rates following the strong fiscal response and lower consumer spending related to the pandemic." The result was referred to as a "savings glut."

In multiple instances, I heard from people who claimed that money literally "appeared" in their bank accounts. They had not asked for the money. They frankly admitted that they did not "need" the money. To a person, however, they certainly kept the money. And they waited. 

When the pandemic ended, some portion of the population did not rush to return to work. They had enjoyed the deferral of expenses through mortgage forbearance, eviction moratoriums, and load deferrals. There were help-wanted signs everywhere as businesses strove to meet the demands of customers venturing back into the world at large, out there beyond Paradise. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted a noticeable labor shortage. 

When there is a shortage, in instances in which demand outstrips supply, the price of goods and services increases. That is a natural consequence of "scarcity," and a common economic issue. Post Covid-19, there were people with money to spend, and businesses wanted to serve them. Thus, pay increased for the labor that did exist. That led to more money in the marketplace, thus resulting higher demand for goods and services. This, coupled with the already constrained supply, may have edged prices higher still.

After the pandemic, people were upset that rents increased. Some could not understand that landlords had been unable to enforce leases for months. Some tenants had stopped paying rent, but remained in the apartment/home. The landlord's payments (mortgage, maintenance, etc.) continued, but their income dried up. When normalcy returned, who did not expect those landlords to strive to recoup their losses? Nonetheless, many complained.

Retail faced product shortages. The lack of workers in world markets beyond little spots like Paradise meant that products were not being produced, shipped, unloaded, and delivered timely either. Thus, a decrease in supply of goods and a resulting change in the price equation. Prices rise when demand remains constant and the supply decreases. PBS reported on this extensively. 

More recently, there is news of increases in fast food prices. The internet is alive (apparently) recently with people upset that a sandwich is now selling for $5.00. Some say it is "outrageous." The author of the article found one cheaper than $5.00, but assured nonetheless the sandwich "isn't nearly as affordable as it used to be." Well, what is as affordable as it used to be? 

That there is outrage is interesting. When the price of a product doubles, there may be reason. First, when you double the price of labor from $7.50 per hour to $15.00 per hour, you might think there is a possibility that the price of the output (sandwich) might also double. And you have to remember that the price of the shop's labor is not alone in rising. The people that sweep up at the chicken packing plant, the people that pack the boxes, load the trucks, and more all rose with the mandated increase in our average weekly wage. Inflation hurts. 

The price of inputs increases, and the price increases. The supply of money increases, and there is greater demand, and the price increases. A lunatic invades a country halfway around the world and destroys or isolates crops, food supply diminishes and prices increase. The astounding aspect of the news stories is that consumers are genuinely surprised that prices are increasing. Forgive student loan debt, and it is the same as the government printing millions of dollars and dumping them into the economy. 

The lenders are getting paid, your government is printing or borrowing the money to pay loans. I always assumed that my car would never depreciate. I always thought I would get pay raises year after year after year. I was wrong. The car turned into rust and quit working. I still owe money on it. Should the government step in and pay off my car loan because I (1) overbought, (2) miscalculated, (3) succumbed to slick marketing by charlatans, (4) was wrong? Whether it should or not, it backed loans that were bad investments and now it is printing money to pay those loans. Thus, inflation. 

The general public, it seems, simply does not grasp supply, demand, and inflation. The results are unfortunate and frustrating. That is a given. But surprising? Not so much. What is the solution? More debt? More government cash payments to consumers? Incurring more government debt for canceling personal debts and obligations? Maybe not so much. 

That people are upset is clear. Reuters reports that people hate inflation and that "runs deep."  The Wall Street Journal says that it is hitting them on groceries, utilities, rent (the essentials). All that government debt ($32 Trillion this morning and rising fast) will consume ever-increasing portions of the national budget. Tomorrow is mortgaged (deeply). Will anyone forgive the government's debt? Or will taxes increase to cover the largesse of unsolicited checks and bailouts? Or will services decrease to cover the largesse, e.g. less police protection, crumbling infrastructure, etc. (sorry, that is already happening). 

With all of this on the scope, the big story is that a particular sandwich is now more expensive. Go figure. There are some who believe it can be difficult to see the forest for the trees. The result will be disaffected workers. There will be those working two jobs to make ends meet. They are the ones that won't qualify for the government largesse, the ones that pay their student loans (and other commitments), the ones we used to refer to as our middle class. They used to make a good living here, for instance building cars, before the consumers switched to foreign labor, Toyotas, Hyundais, BMWs, and more. 

There will be staff instability. People will be shifting jobs, searching for better pay. That is a natural trend but enhanced in this economic setting. Business will struggle, labor shortages will persist, and those in the workforce may become frustrated. That could lead to more job changing as well. 

In short, there are implications in the workplace that could well mean more fatigue, persistent presence of inexperienced workers, and thus management distracted from production by training. In short, it is a prime time for businesses and employees to focus on safety, accident avoidance, and worker well-being. While the economic woes wrought by the government will be harmful to the working people, there is no excuse for being complacent in the occurrence of accidents and injuries that will only make matters worse (for business, fewer workers and less-experienced workers; for the worker - well obviously). 

No one can stop the reckless flow of money. No one can personally impede the inflation juggernaut. At best, we can affect our own environment. A great focus in that regard is workplace safety. That would be a better focus for us all than a $5.00 sandwich that was as inevitable and predictable as the sunrise. Get over inflation you cannot change and focus on what you can control. Safety is a great place to start. Or, you could join the next movement and strive to double the minimum wage to $30. That has to be good for everyone right? Sure, but don't complain when your chicken sandwich price doubles again. 

Freedom of Speech

I was intrigued by a college professor who had personal difficulties and was Triggered and Violent (June 2023). That story was about violence and untoward behavior of a pedagogue who struggled with anyone having a different view of things. She was so troubled that students were distributing anti-abortion materials that she labeled them as "triggering" and engaged in violence. It cost her a job in academia. But whether it will impact a career remains to be seen.

The idea of free speech on American college campuses is not novel or unique. There are periodic discussions of professorial censorship. A tenured professor in California was recently terminated by Bakersfield College. The school alleges a history of behavior, the professor contends the school is merely punishing his speech and association freedoms.

An academic advocacy group contends that "targeting" of speech in academia is becoming more prevalent. While that is seemingly supported by their statistics, it is possible that reporting of such targeting perceptions is becoming more ready. Perhaps people are speaking up more than they used to? This group notes that "Targeting incidents occurred most often in the disciplines of law, English, political science, and medicine," and "Scholars were most often targeted for comments made in the classroom."

I spend a great deal of time in classrooms, lecture halls, and programs. I am nearing my 2,000th professional lecture. I am fundamentally certain that I have made references and contentions somewhere that someone found uncomfortable, troubling, or even offensive. That is going to happen when the environment is one in which we would like to challenge minds. That said, classrooms are not a place for violence and vitriol.

And more recently there were opportunities to consider whether they are a place for humor. Funny or Offensive (October 2022). Some believe that making fun of others is ok for some people, but not for others. In a world in which some will discuss inclusion, do we each persistently question our personal attitudes toward it? Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (October 2022). When it is discussed, is it about treating people equally, or is it about treating me (the speaker in any setting) better than others? Speech. What does it mean, and is it truly free?

A professor is suing Pennsylvania State Univerisity (you remember the home of Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky), an educational institution venerated by some. The professor contends the school "pressured him to ensure consistent grades for students across 'color line[s]." He alleges that the school concluded that if persons of the same race received different class grades reflecting their individual performance, that "would demonstrate racism and he would be condemned as a racist." The Philadelphia Enquirer reported on this July 5, 2023. The professor claims "he and other white professors were targeted as racist simply by virtue of teaching while ‘white.’”

Meanwhile, in Colorado, a professor is suing a law school alleging pay discrimination based on race. Reuters reports that one of the allegations there involves retaliation in terms of a teaching assignment. The school has apparently responded and alleged that action was taken because the professor "used 'racially offensive and gender biased' comments in class the previous year." Speech, on a college campus, causing concerns and offense? Is the view of speech consistent regardless of the speaker? Should it be?

Also in July, a "pro-abortion" professor filed a lawsuit against a student publication at Notre Dame in Indiana. She alleges that her free speech has been constrained and that this newspaper has published stories that included “defamatory and false statements.” The National Review reported that the newspaper intends to seek protection from an "anti-SLAPP" lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) against the professor. Only in America would the response to a lawsuit be another lawsuit. Intriguing indeed. 

This professor was apparently engaged in activities regarding abortion and might be viewed as advocating for the procedure. Some might even perceive her as offering medical advice, though she is not apparently a physician. See Is there a Doctor in the House (June 2022), or I'm a Doctor Too? (April 2023). Regardless of academic credentials or licensure, the reporting is silent as to any potential recent temporary residency at a Holiday Inn Express. 

The National Review article supports that since the press coverage of her activities she "changed her Twitter display name," "updated her bio," "removed signs from her office door," and "deleted tweets."  Notably, the professor is at a private, catholic university. It is likely that her described views run counter to those of her employer. She complains she “has been harassed, threatened, and experienced damage to her residential property" since she spoke her mind and publicly advocated a position. Did she make her comments as a private person or as (even purportedly) an employee of that university?

As regards the allegation of defamation, The National Review reports that original recordings of the Notre Dame professor may substantiate that she actually said things that support the student publication's reporting. Truth, if proven, is a strong defense to defamation claims. When we say things, there may be repercussions. That we believe things is not necessarily wrong. It is possible that we are merely different in our beliefs or perspectives. 

Do we want college environments in which teachers and students fear? Do we want professors to self-censor? Close to half say they do so. One survey found 83% of college students self-censor. That may be normal angst about public speaking (many a shy student hates speaking in class). But 83%? Is cancel culture a must or even a desire in education? Who benefits from students who are afraid to speak?

As a side note, there is suggestion here that "triggering" maybe goes in more than one direction? That said, there is never room for threatening or physical violence. The Hunter College professor with the machete cannot be condoned, and that is an extreme example. But likewise, no physical violence or property damage can be condoned regardless of "triggering" ("I was triggered" is nothing but an excuse, and a bad one). Similarly, there are those who perceive the news as labeling with editorial aplomb using "peaceful" regarding violence or "riot" regarding dissension. Those labels perhaps influence public perceptions, feelings, and credibility. 

Is this all new? Are dissent and disagreement in educational settings a "new normal?" Or, has there been persistent discord and discussion in classrooms and lecture halls? A Google search for "professor sues college" or "professor sues university" might yield results that would surprise. Possibly, there is a fair volume of dissent and disagreement regarding speech. Do institutions threaten their own credibility when they label speech whether to condone or suppress it? 

Should all speech be protected? The Supreme Court long ago dispelled that. Should all speech be welcomed? That is a different question. Should speech be answered with violence or threats? That is an easy "no." Should we all be conscious of the potential that speech has to reflect upon us? Absolutely. Will the world be fair in its judgment of us? Really? Will social media, the press, and the public provide us each unerring and faithful coverage? Well, "no." 

Bill Watterson, a comic artist and commentator included an exchange between the strip's protagonist Calvin and his father:

Father "the world is not fair Calvin."

Calving "I know, Dad, but why isn't it ever unfair in my favor"

The world is not fair. As TayTay mentioned once, "Don't say I didn't, say I didn't warn ya." Blank Space, Republic (2014). Are we seeking it to be fair in some objective sense, or are we each looking for it to be in our own favor?

Freedom of speech is important. Speech should not result in threats, violence, or property damage. But speech may have consequences. You may be criticized, ridiculed, or even sued. There may be repercussions. You may be "Cancelled" for speaking your mind. Think about the patriots who signed the Declaration of Independence. That was speech. Many suffered greatly for their decision to speak out. They did so knowing the potential for detriment. 

In its broadest context, as noted by Ronald Reagan, "Freedom is not free." That also applies to Freedom of speech. If you hear things with which you disagree then you may voice your disagreement. If you wish not to speak, then remain silent, that is your right. If you choose to speak, don't expect universal acclaim or acceptance. It is beyond belief that everyone, everywhere, will agree with one another and live in harmony. That is a fool's errand. But, it is imperative that we find room to speak with one another. 

For my critics (there are many) who are sometimes quick to remind me that this "is a workers' compensation blog," this space is about workers' compensation, the law, education, community, and more. That does not mean you cannot criticize. I welcome your thoughts and responses. 

These Kids Today

These kids today. Listless it seems. Everyone says so. Complaints are predictable and somewhat rampant. 

I ran across a story recently of a young person. He graduated high school and set off for college at a fine institution, but did not stay after the first year. He then worked in his father's business for a year, but that did not last. He got some financing and started his own business for a year, but "it was not a success." He moved to Florida and worked. But, he fell ill and returned home. He got a job in retail, but "wasn't happy." 

He returned to college, then to law school, and graduated. He apparently did not attract the attention of the big law firms. He opened an office in his Georgia hometown, but lamented "I wasn't making a living." He moved to a small Florida town, took the Florida Bar examination, and began practicing again. He stayed for ten years and got married, but did not take root. The big city beckoned, and shortly thereafter he moved his family hundreds of miles to Orlando. He was seventeen years out of high school, well-educated, and seemingly listless.

Kids, right? What are you going to do?   

He took root in Orlando. After that long path, he found a place in the legal profession that fit him. He earned a living, raised a family, and contributed to his community. 

His name was Giles Lewis. He was a Free Mason, a volunteer firefighter, a national guardsman, a World War I military veteran, was in the American Legion, was director and president of the YMCA, was President of the Orange County Bar, and a charter member of the Orlando Civitan Club. He was a contributor to his community. 

He was an appointed General Master in Chancery of the Circuit Court for decades. Judge Giles Lews was appointed to hear workers' compensation cases for three years in the midst of that service (1945-1948). He was a member of The Florida Bar for over 50 years. 

He passed in June 1969, at eighty. 

These kids today, right?

He was born into what they call the "Lost" generation (and you thought being called a "Boomer" or an "X" is troubling). His story is inspirational and perhaps contradicts your perceptions of "the good old days" and the people that lived then. Perhaps the world and its people were not all that idyllic, or perfect, but we project our perceptions on them in retrospect and lack perspective on their challenges?

There are those who will graduate high school with a vengeance. They will get through college on the first try, with exemplary grades. They will attend the best law schools, enjoy the finest internships, and thrive in prestigious firms. They will have storybook opportunities and glorious existences (or the appearance of them anyway). And others not so much. 

Some may instead be listless. They may have slow starts. They may experience detours and delays. Resumes may show gaps. There may be challenges in finding the right path, the good fit, the career home. That may be their fault or failure, but maybe not.

Perhaps it has less to do with the "today" and "these kids" than we might admit?  Perhaps if we are honest with ourselves, there is a bit of imperfection in each of us and always has been? Perhaps we are too quick to fault the young, amplify their faults, and bemoan their pace and motivation? "These kids today . . ." Really?

They undoubtedly have their failings. We all do. Maybe the key to attracting young people to your business, retaining them for the future, and preparing them to assume command is more a function of you and your strengths than of theirs? Maybe the next new hire you are looking for is right under your nose, but is not getting the chance they need, didn't attend the right school, took a detour (or two), or failed at something? Imagine if no one had given Giles Lewis a chance?

We have the opportunity to build a bridge to the next generation. See Positioning Comp (April 2023). You can choose that path, or you can sit and complain. Which will solve your challenges?

What we Intend

We are in a state of transition. The world is changing around us. Tomorrow will not necessarily look like today. That said, anyone, anytime could write that conclusion and be as prescient. The world is, and always has been, changing. This is true of the physical, just ask your neighborhood brontosaurus. It is true in many ways. One that I have focused on over the years is technology. We are so proud of our technology. 

The law often struggles to keep up with technology. See Salim Ismail and a Lifechanging Seminar (May 2015). He explained that there are laws requiring cars to have rearview mirrors, but none that require a steering wheel. We, therefore, have driverless cars on the road today that have mirrors never used but do not have steering wheels. Some will see incongruity in that. Others will see humor. Others will wonder what mirrors are for anyway (they think the turn signal is all that is needed, and it is the other driver's job to avoid them when they turn or change lanes). 

The law struggles. That is not to say it is overcome. The law also evolves. That is the nature of law sometimes as legislative bodies change the language of statutes. It can also be the nature of law when courts make turns, even U-turns. See Child Factory Labor (July 2022). The occurrence of change in the law is a strong probability in many instances. 

I have learned to text over the years. That was an evolution that I did not take to easily or voluntarily. In the end, it became apparent that texting would be a necessary adjunct if I wished to communicate with my kids. The next generation took to the concept way before there were smartphones. These people were texting on a simple 10-digit flip phone, and a vast array of abbreviations were coined. Lists were published to help us seasoned citizens to play along. 

That next generation soon became enamored also with emojis. They were first deployed in Japan in 1998. We likely all know what an emoji is, a small caricature or picture intended to communicate something. They became common for communicating emotions, and their convenience strongly drives their appeal. In a world where many type with their thumbs or struggle to text with one finger, the brevity and simplicity of the emoji is a dramatic attraction. 

The problem with emojis is that they have some potential for misinterpretation. In 1921, Frederick R. Barnard, wrote that "One look is worth a thousand words." This became the catchphrase "A picture is worth a thousand words," and that saying has become a part of our lexicon. And there is truth to that assertion, but which of those thousand words is intended when an emoji is selected? I have received many texts over the years, and admittedly many emojis. Often, I have no clue what the sender is trying to communicate. More than once, I have replied with "what does that mean?"

Over time, there has been evolution from that original set of little face pictures that each cell phone provider developed. About a decade ago, various tech providers agreed to quit providing their proprietary emoji collections and instead to agree to a single emoji library for use by all. That evolution brought the hope of greater uniformity and perhaps greater comprehension. "By 2014, there were a total of 722 emojis in the standard Unicode 6.0 set. 

As that population has grown, some of the additions have been pretty easy to interpret. Grinning face is reasonably simple:😀.  Others perhaps less so, such as "angry face" 😠and "confounded face" 😖. Confounded, to me, always looks angrier than "angry." Perhaps the easiest is the food, such as pizza 🍕, watermelon 🍉, french fries 🍟, and cookies 🍪. Over time, I have received many of these, and there is a persistent chance of either miscommunication or misinterpretation. I had someone ask me once "what does this face mean," and showed me the cookie. I told her it means "hungry face," but she did not get the joke. 

In July 2023, a court actually concluded that an emoji was "just as valid as a signature" in a contract dispute, as reported by the Guardian. An important point is that the two people in this contract knew each other and had done business before. In contracts, under the uniform commercial code, prior dealings between parties to a contract may be relevant in determinations of intent. In this case, it was a grain buyer and farmer. The buyer texted a picture of a proposed contract to the farmer, who replied with a "thumbs up," 👍. 

The buyer took that communication as assent to the contract, "86 tonnes of flax at $12.73 per bushel." That alone might raise an eyebrow, "Tonnes" are a measure of weight and bushels are a measure of volume. Long ago, the grain market established a practice called "test weights" to account for just that incongruity.  The Canadian court sided with the buyer and concluded that the farmer had indeed agreed to the contract terms with the 👍.

In doing so, it disagreed with the farmer's contention that his intent with the 👍was merely acknowledgement, that is "I got your text." I had some dealings with "Silent Generation" fellow a few years back. He was enamored with the 👍. I recall voicing to him my perception that he had agreed to a course of action with the 👍 he texted. He was of the same mindset as the Canadian farmer, explaining that he only intended confirmation of delivery. Thus, in two anecdotal examples we see misunderstanding. Hopefully, the Canadian court did not editorialize and insult the farmer's intellignce. I should be so lucky. At least I did not have to pay $61,442 as the farmer did.

There were legal points. Opinions were expressed as to the meaning of emojis. There was legal wrangling as to whether a lay witness might express such an opinion, or whether expertise is necessary. There was testimony regarding intent, and the potential that such interpretations might  open a pandora's box of legal issues. If the 👍 is assent, then what of " the "fist bump and handshake?" One might argue these are equals in the eyes of the world, or perhaps the fist-bump not as much?

What is the "common usage” of emojis generally, and perhaps more importantly what is the common usage of the person sending it? That poor person I misled about the cookie may well be sending that to her grandchildren to express "hungry face" to this day. Poor children. The point is likely what the sender intends, and there is the challenge of what the receiver interprets. There is the specter of prior dealings (if a thumbs-up meant assent last time, then there is a good chance it will this time). 

The court characterized this a "the new reality in Canadian society" (emojis) and cautioned that "courts will have to be ready to meet the new challenges." Lawyers learned this lesson long ago, in a parralel sense. The common law of contract had specificity requirements and arcane constraints. The Uniform Commercial Code came along in 1953 and changed that for many transactions. With the decreased formality, contracts could be more easily formed. Commerce benefitted. Parties quickly learned to beware of the risks that presented. 

The "new reality" is no different. Communication remains critical to the contract. All that this decision from our northern neighbors means is that there is the potential for misunderstanding in communication. We knew that already. Pictures are quicker (a "thousand words" in a single picture, at a glance). So, with expediency (texting, emojis) can come speed and ease. But, so too can come misunderstanding. 

It is not that words cannot be equally unclear. They can. Punctuation has been critical in decisions over the years. See Oxford Comma (March 2017). The point is, for most of us, when dealing with tens of thousands of dollars there is likely value in taking a few minutes and at least striving for clarity in our communications. 

Rudimentary or Superfluous?

Over the course of a career in cases involving injury, I took a tremendous number of depositions (an interactive question and answer, on the record, to preserve testimony). A great many of those were to memorialize the testimony of injured workers. Some were college-educated, and some were not high school graduates. Some had intriguing and interesting stories to tell and others were more mundane. 

From some unknown source, I picked up the habit of asking whether the injured worker had education. And there were inevitably the questions about whether she/he could "read, write, and make change." Those were vocational questions that one might expect to potentially become relevant as an injury proceeded through the processes of remediation and amelioration. 

If the medical care did not restore full function, there was always the potential that the worker would be unable to return to her/his previous employment. In that event, it might be relevant that the worker sought alternative employment, and thus work history, skills, education, and more were of potential relevance. In the years since I have read a few depositions and know that some lawyers delve deeper into these topics than others. 

Read. Can't everyone read? What a question. I found in my practice a fair few could not. They were people in their late 50s and early 60s, and thus in the 1990s that put their dates of birth in the late 1920s, or the 1930s. They testified that they had quit school to work on a farm, to earn a living. 

Many had managed to operate extremely complex systems and equipment. They had created and maintained manufacturing processes and equipment. They were bright and often intelligent. But, I met several who could not read beyond the rudimentaries of their own name and various businesses or necessities that they needed to access. 

Write. Many of the same answers. Some could write their name, write a check, or sign a birthday card. But some testified that they could not write a letter or otherwise engage in significant written communication. 

These two flabbergasted me. I had grown up in a world that involved kids staying in school. I was blessed to be in communities that valued education and fostered performance. That is not to say that all of my schoolmates made good on the opportunities. But for the most part, there was a spirit of completing school in my generation. As a lawyer, I struggled to understand the testimony of these workers who were well-compensated, bright, and yet unable to effectively read or write. 

Make change? I may have met someone at some point who denied she/he could do this. However, I do not recall a single one. Regardless of other skills an injured worker might be missing, I recall them all scoffing at, taking offense at times at, the question about making change. Everyone was able to tell if their change was correctly dispensed to them. If it was not unanimity, it was sure close. 

This blog has repeatedly explored the evolution of our workplaces. There is a good chance that jobs will change as a result of artificial intelligence, see Intelligence (November 2022). Robots, droids, and more are going to impact the physical requirements of work in various regards, see Strong Back Days are History (February 2017). The fact is that technology is changing the workplace, in some ways it is an evolution and in others, it is a revolution. 

So, I found myself in a retail establishment and for whatever reason I did not have my card handy. Everyone these days has a card, whether debit or credit. They are ubiquitous. I am old enough to remember when credit cards were a novelty in the 1970s and people would often express some surprise when they saw one. In the 1980s, debit cards appeared. I still recall a finance professor at Ball State telling us that checkbooks would become obsolete. 

He was so out of touch and ancient. We made fun of him after class. What did that antique know? I reflect today and can still remember his face. I cannot recall his name. We thought he was absolutely daft. No checkbooks? Today, when I lecture business law, I have to put up a slideshow picture of a check so that the whole class knows what we are discussing. Obsolete? pretty close. I wish I could apologize to that professor. 

I wonder what he would have said about cyber-currency, Venmo, Apple Pay, and the raft of similar methods for passing value from person to person. Think about your life today, how often does currency actually change hands?

Without my card, I was forced to hand the clerk a $20.00 for my $8.22 purchase. The clerk pushed a finger about on a touchscreen and the readout clearly said $11.78. The clerk pulled a $5.00 from the drawer and began counting ones. When the clerk had $8.00 counted out, there was a pause and reconsideration. The money was carefully replaced in the drawer and the process was restarted. 

This time, two fives were pulled and then a pause. A single was added, and I thought we were gaining momentum. Then a dime, I was surprised. The dime was dropped back in the drawer and instead, a nickel was picked up. I was a bit worried. The nickel was dropped back and two quarters were picked up. I was wondering if I was being punked. 

The clerk looked up from the process, somewhat plaintively, and simply asked "what is 78." I replied "Three of the quarters and three of the pennies." The clerk held up the two quarters, "these?" "Yes, three of those and three of the orangish/reddish ones on the other end there." I got my change and departed. It was a bit surreal. 

However, I noticed something else. The quarters were brilliantly silver, and the pennies were likewise new. I wondered as I climbed into the car whether the clerk did not know how to make change, or simply never has to. Handing a customer change used to be a regular and repetitive part of my role in service and retail. It was what we did. But, with the new age of payment options, perhaps this is no longer a relevant skill. 

Perhaps there is simply no relevance to the age-old question "can you make change." Or, this person's life experiences did not provide the foundation for this skill despite its potential need. I wonder if I could have gotten away with an extra quarter?

What are the necessary skills of today? What will they be tomorrow? Where are we headed as a workforce, and how can we prepare ourselves. If a skill is generally obsolete, does that mean that not all employees need to possess it? If so, does it mean that someone on staff should nonetheless be able to perform it, just in case the customer who is always right turns out to be wrong? 

Social Media and Common Sense

I recently spent some time preparing for a presentation regarding judicial professionalism and social media. I look forward to presenting the topic at the premier workers' compensation judicial college produced by the National Association of Workers' Compensation Judiciary this August. See Lyric Choices (July 2023). 

That post goes to some lengths to emphasize that much in the realm of behavior and words is governed by professional and ethical constraints, but the social media aspect is not the real issue. The speech or behavior is the issue. The social media merely facilitates it, eases engagement, and allows distribution. 

No sooner had that post published than the case of a plastic surgeon in Ohio reinforced those themes. The case involves social media, but that is no more the crux of her challenges than it was in the case of the rapping karaoke judge in Lyric Choices. In other words, it was not about how information was transmitted, but more that the information was transmitted. Yahoo News reported the Ohio story. 

The story is years in the making, and involves allegations against a plastic surgeon. Notably, there is a great deal of education required to become a plastic surgeon, much sacrifice and effort. The job pays well, with Zip Recruiter estimating the national average is about $400,000. Not a bad paycheck. 

This plastic surgeon decided to "livestream() some procedures on the social media app TikTok." Thus, while the patient was being worked on, a multitude of people could log in and watch. Before you think that is too weird, google Dr. Pimple Popper. This idea of watching procedures is not new. 

The Ohio Medical Board was asked to investigate the plastic surgeon's behavior. She was accused of making "major surgeries with potentially life-altering complications seem like one big party." The state alleged that her activity "Put patients in danger." The article reports that she was previously "cautioned" about patient privacy, and "sharing photos or video on social media." 

In those events, she had been "urged" to "undertake remedial education courses related to plastic surgery complications, professionalism, and ethics." The Medical Board asked for "certificates of completion of the courses," and wanted the doctor to summarize "what she learned and how she would apply it to her future practice." There was at least some indicia here of pushing the doctor to remediation and personal improvement. 

It is noteworthy that state licensing authorities in various professions are known to push education and strive for rehabilitation with professionals. The goal in many instances is on mitigating harm, training, and correction of deficiencies. There are times that the public perceives that as protection of the offending professional, but there is at least some merit in the idea of rehabilitation in many instances. 

Despite the remediation in this instance, the Medical Board "alleged (the doctor) continued to film and live broadcast medical procedures of some patients." There were apparently complaints by patients, and some perceived the doctor as less than sympathetic with those complaints. 

After months of investigation, following a license suspension in 2022, the Board "voted to permanently revoke the medical license" in July. It concluded that the doctor 

"neglected her patients as she livestreamed parts of their procedures, spoke into a camera, and answered viewer questions – all while the surgeries were taking place."

There might be an inclination to blame this on social media. But arguably could have been accomplished with a platform as simple as Zoom. It was not that this was social media. It was that the doctor was allowing distraction. It was that patient trust was compromised. It was the perceptions as to whether the procedures were afforded the dignity and respect that might be expected. The same challenges could have been raised with a "live studio audience," rather than social media. In the end, the social media made the headlines, but that "how" is not as important to the story as the "what," the harm to patients. 

The plastic surgeon of course disagreed with the Board decision. There were arguments made regarding the public benefits that might come through better interaction between doctors and the public. There was at least some admission that the videos could be perceived as "silly" and "unprofessional." But, in the end, the Board concluded the correct path was revocation of the authority to practice in Ohio. 

That does not mean that the doctor will not practice medicine. We live in a constitutional republic founded on the concept of Federalism. The licensure of physicians has federal implications (prescribing controlled substances), but much of the regulation is up to the states. 

Thus, there are perhaps other states that will welcome this plastic surgeon to treat patients. See What do you know about Medical Providers (February 2015). And perhaps there are states that would welcome her livestreaming those procedures. In the end, Ohio's decision is Ohio's and the appropriateness of behavior is largely local. 

That is an important reminder for the legal practitioner and judge as well. The rules of professional practice, and the Code of Judicial Conduct are likely similar from state to state. But, there are potentials for different requirements and definitions. There are potentials for different interpretations and perceptions. When the subject of ethics and professionalism arises, it is imperative that one focus on the particular jurisdiction. That said, there is much we might all learn about common sense, perception, and remediation that crosses state lines. 

Customer Service

No one wants to be the old man that admonishes "You kids get off of my lawn." No one wants to be the aging critic who persistently refers to "back in my day." We each struggle with the burdens and benefits of growing older and perhaps it is human nature to believe that things today just don't measure up to our recollections of the storied past? That said . . . .

In recent months, I have been surprised by the “new normal” of customer service. That term has never been oxymoronic in my memory, but it is becoming so.

Most recently, I was scheduled for a flight departing in the early a.m. About 10 hours prior, I received the notification “We’ve canceled flight ___ because we need to take the plane out of service to address a technical issue.” In a keystroke, 170 passengers are disappointed. I placed an immediate call to customer service, wait time was predicted at 25 minutes. I began their recommended text process and waited only 15 for a human response there. The autobot tried to help me sooner but offered nothing but web addresses, platitudes, and apologies. 

Worth the wait for a human? No, the end result was essentially “sorry.” Sorry, we cannot carry you as agreed. Sorry, you cannot keep half the ticket (for the return), unless you pay the full price. Sorry, we have no authority here in customer service to provide you any accommodation or service. And sorry, but the other flights tomorrow are all full. Sorry, sorry, sorry. The customer service was indeed and consistently sorry. 

Merely weeks ago, I was booked on another airline trying to return from South Florida. The departure was delayed, delayed again, and delayed again. Upon each delay, I received a prompt text message that my flight from X to Y was delayed, and the new anticipated Y arrival. I received no texts about the status of my connection thereafter from Y to Z. I landed at the hub airport very late. My phone application still showed the Y to Z as “on time.” 

I sprinted through the airport like Usain Bolt (ok, maybe not exactly), bowling over small children and the elderly (ok, maybe I didn’t actually hit anyone), and arrived at the connecting gate huffing and puffing like a steam locomotive (that one is literal). The Y to Z flight? Delayed 40 minutes. But at least I got to meet some nice people and experience CPR from the receiving side (it is actually harder being the patient). 

Within the last year, I boarded a flight from Paradise to visit central Florida. The plane was clean, the price was reasonable, and I was impressed by the boarding process. We pushed (left the gate) early, not that common these days. We then sat on the tarmac. Ten minutes in, the pilot announced that we “could not take off” and would be returning to the gate to deplane. 

He explained the visibility was below the minimums and "no planes could" take off. Even in a computerized world of automated systems, pilots don't like to fly where they cannot see. I get that.  Someone once said "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots." I appreciate careful pilots as much as the next passenger. Let's all stay alive. 

I deplaned and sat in the terminal contemplating my next move, and the odds of making my meeting that morning in central Florida. Behind me, within minutes, I heard the airport PA crackle and then

“_________ airlines is boarding flight ________ for _________.”

That is curious, I thought the airport was closed. And then

“_________ airlines is boarding flight ________ for _________.”

And

“_________ airlines is boarding flight ________ for _________.”

And

“_________ airlines is boarding flight ________ for _________.”

Five other airlines took off within about an hour after we deplaned. The whole time, the gate agents at my selected carrier calmly and persistently informed passengers that the visibility was below minimums and that “no one can take off.” It was, to say the least, surreal. I kept thinking of Mom "if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?" In fairness, we never had a "cliff" growing up. We never did take off that day. But before they admitted they were not going, as the five other carriers all took off, they wasted over an hour of our time assuring us that this was a "delay" and not a "cancellation." Then they finally admitted it was a "cancellation due to weather." 

I visited their website to request a refund. It faulted and a pop-up instructed me to call customer service. When I called them, they informed me that they could not help, I would have to use the website (they suggested how to override the fault). I did what they asked, the website popped up and said to call customer service. I finally used a social media tool and found a helpful person to refund my flight. It was a waste of another couple of hours. 

As helpful as he/she/ze was/were, I had to repeatedly explain that since I had not flown to Orlando, and as it was a 6-hour drive to get there, I would not need the return flight to Paradise that afternoon. The nice person really wanted me to get to Orlando to make that return flight that day, and simply could not understand that their failure to depart had negated the purpose of the flight. After getting my refund, they nonetheless sent me an auto text that evening that the return flight the representative had so arduously advocated was, you guessed it, "canceled."

I visited a fast food company recently. That is a rare treat for me. Part of my “late-in-life” focus on health has been foregoing fast food. When I get it, it is a treat. I ordered at the counter and was given a number. There were three customers in the store, and perhaps four cars in the drive-through. The kitchen was teeming with bright-colored crew uniforms (about 10 people on the clock). I ordered that company’s signature food specialty (no special requests, no alterations). And then I stood with my number and waited.

And I waited, and I waited. I watched two managers wrestle with a new scoop for the ice machine under the soda fountain. They had an earnest debate on how the scoop should be holstered when not in use. They tried the scoop each way. They adjusted the height of the holster mounted to the machine with a magnet. And I waited. Twenty minutes after ordering, the ice-scoop manager explained that they had finally finished my order. He blamed the kitchen. Well, at least the sandwich was cold. 

There is a spot I occasionally frequent in a particular airport. I tell myself not to, and bargain with coincidence. I will not walk to that terminal for this particular food, but I tell myself that if chance brings me to that terminal I should have this food. That happened on a recent trip, with my flight arriving right across the hall from this place. I got in line. The line did not move. 

After about ten minutes of observing the staff (I could not get Lucy and Ethel out of my head for some reason), the manager announced "I am closing the register." The "kitchen is backed up and we have to catch up." There were, literally, 5-7 people waiting on food. This restaurant literally has sandwiches, fries, and drinks. They had 5-7 orders on the line and the four employees were not up to handling the challenge. There were groans and complaints. But what can you do? We walked away disappointed, but actually healthier. 

In June, I placed an order from an online retailer. The projected (not promised, there are no promises. I get that) arrival date came and went. I frankly forgot about the order. When I returned to the website to check, I had a message “your order is late, it is now projected for ________.” Well that was just a few more days. They provided a representation that the order had been “picked up by carrier” on a particular recent date and provided a “tracking number.” They did not say who the carrier was.

I tried that tracking number (a number that is specific to a particular package) on the website of every shipping company I could find. Not a single positive response. I texted the retailer, who advised that they were not responsible as the order I placed with them was actually delegated by them to a “partner.” I texted the partner through the website. All I got was Genesis (“no reply, no reply at all”)(Atlantic, 1981). I returned to the folks I place my order with, and they said “we’re sorry, the vendor should respond in 48 hours.”

I waited. I waited. And two days later I returned again to the vendor from who I had ordered. They advised again to wait 48 hours (in the same message thread). I explained that my first entreaty to them was on day one, and that twenty-four hours had passed. I explained that after that, another 24 hours had passed. I did the math for them and suggested that many might conclude that 24 and 24 is actually quite close to 48. Customer assistance replied and acknowledged the math, but suggested again that I wait 48 hours. 

Surprisingly, I then received a response from the company they delegated me to. The message? The item is “out of stock and cannot be shipped.” But, you see, it was already shipped. You said so. You gave me an imaginary tracking number. You wasted my time. I asked for an explanation. Genesis again. 

Just last week, I entered the drive-thru of an upscale restaurant for a simple iced tea. I ordered, waited in the line of cars, and eventually arrived at the window. The wait allowed me to catch up on the news on my phone. There was no employee at the window. There was a tea inside the window. Tantalizingly close, but not within reach. And I sat. And sat. 

After ten minutes of watching the employees joke, and josh at the far end of the kitchen, I called the store. I waded through its mandatory recitation of its fax number, its catering process, its address, store hours, and more. I finally got a human and asked that they hand me the tea. The manager of the store. And there was the briefest apology for the incompetence and inattention. The experience was not encouraging. The tea there is quite good, but is it worth the challenge?

It is likely me. I am probably just expecting too much. My memories of customer service in the "old days" are likely not real, and I imagined a time when people actually seemed to care about things. And perhaps customers everywhere are getting stellar customer service and I am having bad luck? Or, am I merely an example in a world of seemingly, generally, and increasingly disinterested and disconnected workers? Has the term "customer service" become a punchline, a bad joke? 

I struggle with that. I strive to be responsive and proactive. I am not perfect. I am concerned about the customer service we deliver. I am concerned that there are people out there that feel they do not get a straight answer at the OJCC ("no one can take off, the visibility is too low").

I would very much like to hear from you if that is the case. Are we providing timely and efficient service or are we just getting by? Can we do better, if so how? Are you frustrated and disillusioned with our process, technology, and communication? Please reach out and be critical. Offer suggestions. If we are not doing well, our only chance for improvement is for you to tell us. 

That communication thankfully happens. I received an email last week from a frustrated attorney. A mediation had been held, but no mediation agreement provided for signature. The attorney had searched our website for contact information for the mediator, called the assigned judge's office to be told (incorrectly) we don't have the mediator's email address, and was eventually provided a telephone number that was not answered. That was frustrating to hear. 

The attorney related contacting the "OJCC office in Tallahassee," which might mean the clerk's office, Judge Newman's office, or perhaps someone specific. The lawyer was provided with a description of email addresses generally and the Orlando district phone number. Neither of those brought fruit. In general, I sensed the attorney felt like someone sitting at a vacant drive-thru yearning for tea. 

It is helpful perhaps that Florida has a directory for all state employees. If you seek such information, it can be reached from our www.fljcc.org website (look for the "411" icon on the bottom of the front page). But, we have responded to this attorney's challenge by adding a phone numbers and email addresses to the OJCC website itself, under the "Mediator" tab. 

I am disappointed in the experience that the attorney had striving to reach a mediator. In the first instance, it is disappointing that the attorney needed to contact the mediator. But, everyone gets busy, distracted, and challenged from time to time. If you cannot find help, email me a question. You may cause a change in our efforts. I am easy to reach. Keep the questions general, and avoid referencing a particular case when possible. We must remain cognizant of ex-parte communication, but we can strive to be more aware and more interactive. 

david.langham@doah.state.fl.us

Time to Waste?

Time. It is a limited resource and without question absolutely finite. There are so many minutes in a day, or a year for that matter. In Seasons of Love (Warner Bros. 2005), we all learned that there are "Five hundred twenty-five thousand, six hundred minutes" in a year. Rent, 1996. That is one thousand four hundred forty minutes each day. And, we all know those are carved up into seconds. This is 86,400 seconds in a day, about 31,536,000 seconds in a year. You just spent a few reading this.

I knew a fellow once who reveled in anyone referring to a "moment." When wait staff would promise to "be with you in a moment," he would loudly question "What's a moment?" That is a fair question. Merriam-Webster says that a "moment" can be "a minute portion or point of time." That is a trick of the English language. This definition is not a minute (as in 60 in an hour) but a small portion as in minuscule or diminutive. They are spelled the same, but so different. Webster says that "moment" could merely mean "a comparatively brief period of time." Compared to what? In the scheme of this planet (4.54 billion years) a long human life (100 years) is perhaps a moment, perhaps not even. 

The news got me wondering about brief periods of time recently. Social media was alive and in the news in July 2023 because a platform limited the volume of posts that users could access. The Associated Press reported Elon Musk imposes daily limits on reading posts on Twitter. That seemed anachronistic to the purpose of social media. I have labored under the impression that the platforms are dedicated to maximizing the time spent wasted on and lost within them.

To view posts on this platform, people reportedly must now log on. The story says that initially people were limited to "600 posts per day," but that those who pay $84 per year, the "verified," could view up to 6,000. That apparently shifted through a day's time to 800/8,000 and then to 1,000/10,000. The constraint is driven not by the people though. Apparently, this is to constrain the Autobots and gremlins "pillaging," scrap(ing)," and "scour(ing)" the site to train their artificial intelligence.

Who knew? Like something out of a science fiction movie, Skynet is scouring your social media to learn more about you, about us. "Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my?" (Wizzard of Oz, 1939). I have been on social media, and struggle to understand what there is to learn from a picture of someone's sandwich, a profession of affinity, or some product endorsement. Perhaps I am on the wrong platforms?

If you looked at 10,000 social media posts, for one second each, that 10,000 seconds would take about 2.8 hours. But is that realistic? More likely, 2-3 seconds and thus more like 5 to 8 hours. Some people spend that long sleeping each day. In fact, how much time do we spend on daily tasks? Clockify has some estimates worthy of note:

• "Sleeping: 8 hours 48 minutes"
• "Working: 3 hours and 14 minutes"
• "Watching television: 2 hours 46 minutes"
• "Personal care activities: 47 minutes"
• "Eating and drinking: 1 hour 11 minutes"
• "Food preparation and cleaning up afterward: 36 minutes"
• "Housework: 33 minutes"
• "Work-related activities: 22 minutes"
• "Educational activities: 29 minutes"
• "Telephone calls, emails and regular mail: 9 minutes"

There are assorted other tasks/distractions listed. There is no listing for social media. The closest Clockify has is perhaps "Socialization and communication: 39 minutes." That 39 minutes might allow us to view 2,340 social media posts at one second each or 780 at three seconds each.

If you total the bullet-point list, you have accounted for about 19 hours of your day. So, that leaves you with plenty of minutes for 2.8 hours of social media, reviewing 10,000 posts, but not enough time to spend three seconds on each one. And if you scrutinize the bullet list, the "working: 3 hours and 14 minutes" might seem a bit far-fetched. Even if you only work 7 hours a day, five days a week (35 hours), then you still average 5 hours of work per calendar day. I suspect that "working" number estimate is a bit low, but you be the judge. 

Where would be the time to spend hours on social media? That is simple in a world of finite supply. You would simply take the time away from your other activities. One would find the time ("Who needs clean clothes?" "O.k. fast food again." "I'll exercise tomorrow."). Speaking of exercise, 17 minutes a day. Really?

I am reminded of Chicago and Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? (Columbia 1969)

"(I don't) Does anybody really know what time it is?

(Care) Does anybody really care?

(About time) If so, I can't imagine why

(Oh no, no) We've all got time enough to cry"

Do you care about time? Would you rather have the time to view 10,000 social media messages each day or the time to cry about what that would mean? And, in the grander analysis, who has time to complain about only being able to review 10,000 posts? What would you give up to have that complaining time? I would suggest, at least, that you not lose sleep about it. Whatever you give up, please don't let it be this blog. I literally spend minutes on this daily. This post is number 1,597, and as Casey Kasem remembered, the "hits just keep coming." 

Take some seconds today to smell some roses. Pet someone's puppy. Speak to your family. Call a friend. Put down the social media, acquiesce in the 1,000 post limit, and experience the real world in real-time. The world is worth your pause, and you are worth your investment.