Reelin' in the Years

Ever get an earworm? That is a term for experiencing "a song or melody that keeps repeating in one's mind." It happens to me periodically, and I sometimes wonder what drives it. 

I have had Steely Dan running through my head recently, and I cannot figure out why. The band recorded Reeling in the Years long ago (Village Recorder, 1973). It reminds us of the passage of years and offers poignant advice. It faults our misperceptions and suggests differences.

The fragility of our existence opens the song:

Your everlasting summer

And you can see it fading fast

We have a limited time in this life. There are evolving perceptions because we age. That was a difficult concept for me to comprehend in my youth. Eventually, though, you find the perspective to realize that time is not unlimited. 

The epiphany for me came more recently as my contemporaries began to pass. See What is Important? (November 2020); Judge Robert Dietz (January 2022). Though not my contemporary, the recent passing of a legend was another reminder. See Steve Slepin (November 2024). 

The band plays on, helping us with the difference in perspective:

Well, you wouldn't even know a diamond

If you held it in your hand

The things you think are precious

I can't understand

I was quick, so many decades ago, to fault my elders. I perceived so much awry in the world. The failings of past generations were so apparent and screamed for attention. The perspective point of youth is simpler. It really only allows focus on the present challenges, and there is a lack of appreciation of the past. 

Too often, it is easy to fault today when you have no perspective on yesterday and the people who persevered and succeeded there. The recent immediacy includes wars, terrorisms, failed policies, and more. To our youth - everything you have, technology, safety, and security came at a price - you did not pay it. In fairness, most of it was not paid by the Boomer generation either. 

It is easy in the era of our youth to assume omniscience and to fail to see what is good in society and the world. A smart lawyer once explained to me that humans are "hardwired" to solve problems. He lamented that the people inclined to the practice of law are often particularly so. They see the world through that prism of what they can fix or at least improve. That said, much of the "improvement" is a subjective, and perchance flawed, assessment. 

The "problem solver" is a valid observation about some. I have known that attribute to vary among people, from the Don Quixotes to the Laissez Faire. As they say, "It takes all kinds to make the world go around." Author Bill Bryson expanded that one, and it makes me think about our differences:

"As the saying goes, it takes all kinds to make the world go around, though perhaps some shouldn't go quite so far around it as others.”

It is easy to fault others. There are those who are too emotional and those who are not emotional enough. There are those who similarly are too or too little mercurial, analytical, simple, complex, hard, soft, and the list goes on. They are not those adjectives in a vacuum but in our perspectives of them. We each measure others from the reference point of our own experience, bias, and our personal adjectives. Perspective is both personal and critical. 

We see things differently, and that is both healthy and understandable. But, in fairness, some of us are incapable of anything intellectual and so we cling to emotion. Others are the direct inverse. As we contemplate the onset of Artificial Intelligence, ponder intellect without true emotion and the harm it might cause. 

If you doubt the opposite, emotion overriding intellect, think of the poor Cleveland Browns fans who emotionally invest year after year in their passionate but utterly illogical conclusion that team could win the Super Bowl. The heart might tell you "hope," but history screams it will never happen.

Intellect cannot support it, but the emotion drives devotion. Sure, the Browns might someday. But, as likely, You might become the Queen of England one day (sorry Browns fans). Steely Dan brings us rapidly to those perspective differences with:

You been tellin' me you're a genius

Since you were seventeen

In all the time I've known you

I still don't know what you mean

That is it in a nutshell. We can achieve levels of interpretation that lead us to the admission of incomprehension. Some of us simply cannot understand others. Or perhaps we cannot understand some others. Or cannot understand some of the perspectives or actions of some others. The permutations are extensive. 

We may strive, over the years, and eventually, just admit we just "don't know what (they) mean." That is a powerful admission for any intellect. Admitting you cannot grasp something or someone is a big hurdle. But in the modern world, perhaps inevitable.

The Dan takes us beyond that admission of the who, "what you mean," and provides a touchstone to some listener or muse:

The weekend at the college

Didn't turn out like you planned

The things that pass for knowledge

I can't understand

I have many times reflected on that listener, distracted in the moment from the main message, "I can't understand." Did you ever wonder what happened "at the college?" It is not likely relevant, except that the plan was not fulfilled. We have all been there in some moment. Plans fail, intentions are unfulfilled, and yet life goes on. 

However, the "what" is ready and patent "The things that pass for knowledge." And around us in this world, there is much that is cited as knowledge, accurately or not. In that, comes acceptance that despite our perspectives, genuine differences are there also. Knowledge may be of facts: "The sky is blue, water is wet." The Last Boy Scout (Geffen, 1991),

The Song turns out to be a love song. A failed love, but a love song nonetheless. So many are; musicians are drawn to that muse. It ends with a corollary to the knowledge analysis, flipping it to 

The things you think are useless

I can't understand

In the end, the song is about perspectives. You decide what is knowledge and what is useless. This is based on your experiences, background, and education. It is a personal perspective. It will not be wrong or right in the sense of any objectivity, but only in the perspective that you or some observer brings to the analysis. 

You will never find peace in striving to understand why others value or do not value, appreciate or do not. You may find value in examining and analyzing others, knowledge, perspective, and personal growth, but not peace. There are beliefs that are simply too alien for any of us to grasp, simply  because they are not our own. 

And we will be reminded of periodically of our differences. We will be exposed to those beliefs and perspectives in society, social media, and elsewhere. We will, as we are "reeling in the years," come to find personal peace knowing that we cannot change those beliefs or perspectives. Those people genuinely hold them and covet them. 

That they disagree with us does not necessarily make them evil or require pariah status. But there are lines that cannot be crossed in civil society and those lines must be maintained. 

As I ponder this day, I am thankful for much. Much that I understand and much that provides me fodder for further study. I am thankful for a world largely at peace and perhaps capable of greater harmony still. I am grateful for much and cognizant of my subjectivity. 

In the news, there are those who think their personal challenges warrant "canceling Thanksgiving." I would suggest that despite those challenges, we should embrace it. Get over your relative's different perspectives, incomprehensible new baubles, or incredibly churlish demeanor. 

Be thankful for your likes and the freedom to have dislikes. Embrace those who you cannot understand and be thankful for the perspective they bring you. You will miss them when they are no longer there to be disagreeable and amaze you. 

Now if I could just figure out how to get that tune out of my head. How it got there I shall never know. 

RIP Chair Stephen Slepin

This week, word came of Steve Slepin's passing. Most in the world of Florida workers' compensation will not remember Chair Slepin. I am old, and yet only met him once. He served for a period in the regulation and adjudication of workers' compensation and made some significant contributions to the evolution of workers' compensation (r) in the 1970s.

He then left this neighborhood and practiced law in other areas. In the 40 years since he left workers' compensation, his practice was diverse and deep. He was known for his advocacy and intellect. He left the bench largely to regain his advocate role. 

Chair Slepin served the state as Florida's Commission era waned and the administrative agency era dawned. Those who study the history of Florida workers' compensation would be hard-pressed to overlook Mr. Slepin. I have previously noted:

Stephen Slepin, “Director, Division of Labor, Florida Department of Commerce and Chair of the” IRC appeared before the National Commission in 1972 (Langham, Floridiana and the Workers’ Compensation Adjudicators, 2024, P. 154).

In that appearance on the national stage, he was an imperative. In his service, he was critical of the methods and practices in this area of the law and set out to professionalize the workers' compensation adjudication process. Many would say he revolutionized adjudication. He was, in a word, a "force," and his contributions are remembered by many (see below). 

Chair Slepin was the first to chair an Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) composed of only attorneys. The old Florida Industrial Commission (FIC) had just been sunsetted. The age of Florida partisan committee management was over. The adjudications and regulatory duties shifted to an administrative agency, and the Florida Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) was formed for appellate review. It was a revolutionary time in the early 1970s. 

For the first few decades of workers' compensation, appeals had been heard primarily by laypersons on the FIC who were statutorily pre-disposed to one side or the other (1935-1971). The IRC brought a new level of legal acumen and knowledge, and Chair Slepin was the guiding force. As part of the professionalization effort, he was there when the legislature in 1971 precluded the political involvement of adjudicators. Many find it anathema that there was a time when adjudicators were involved in campaigns and political organizations.

It was also a time of societal change. During Chair Slepin's leadership, the first black adjudicator (“Former assistant state attorney general Jesse McCrary, Jr., of Miami,” see Langham, P. 154) was appointed, serving on the IRC. The administrative age was coming into its own, and Chair Slepin was guiding it. He was reportedly one of the leaders "who helped create the Workers’ Compensation Section of the Florida Bar," which will celebrate 50 years of service next summer.

It was Chair Slepin who ushered in the "first workers' compensation procedural rules." That referred to the first rules adopted by the Supreme Court in 1973. There had been such rules previously, but adopted by the FIC rather than the Court. the 1970s were an age of changes and the value of a uniform set of rules was readily apparent to Chair Slepin, and worthy of his efforts. Those 1973 rules persisted until 2004 when the Court acknowledged it had no legal authority for adopting rules of practice before an administrative agency.

Chair Slepin passed in October 2024. I did not know him well. I was fortunate to have one conversation with him at a Hall of Fame induction dinner several years ago. I was amazed at the retention and currency of his knowledge about workers' compensation, though he had been otherwise engaged for several decades. He understood workers' compensation on a level few might claim and remained conversant so many years later. 

When his passing came to light, there were tributes in my inbox. I will not identify the speakers, but some poignant thoughts were:

"He ... taught me much about work ethic and a lot of other matters. "

"A brilliant, articulate, genial individual that uplifted our practice with his involvement in the Industrial Relations Commission and appellate contributions."

"He amazed me ,... how smart and witty he was as I started the practice of law. For me he was the foundation of my interest in Workers Compensation law."

"He had a huge impact on my career."

"A great man in every sense of the word."

"There was no doubt of his brilliance.  He was a worthy opponent." 

He fought "to give Judges independence but also to get pay raises, the name Judge in their title,  their own Chief Judge, and so many other things."

He had a "massive vocabulary, steeped, as it was, in all classical literature and history. Steve Slepin was a modern-day renaissance man."

One former judge observed "that he was one of the smartest lawyers he had ever known."

Another former judge said about conversations with Mr. Slepin: "I know he was struggling to use one-syllable words for me to understand our conversation. Thoughts of conversations with Mr Slepin in the first 20 years of my career put a smile on my face."

"He was a brilliant and exemplary gentleman."

One of his law professors reportedly said to him "Mr. Slepin, you seem to have the uncanny ability of shedding darkness on issues which are already obscure."

Rest in Peace indeed Chair Slepin. Your contributions are legendary here in the world of Florida workers' compensation. Our system and state are better for your involvement and investment here. You brought honest debate, critical thought, and a demand for professionalism that started a new era. You positively touched so many lives. RIP indeed.  

Remediation and Reminders

There is empathy, there is sympathy, and there is a genuine need for help. I lecture my students persistently about their desire to become part of the legal profession. I caution them about the statistical evidence that consistently finds lawyers in the top echelons of professions for alcoholism, drug challenges, divorce, and even suicide. See Construction (June 2024); Risks for Attorneys (June 2019). 

Stated simply, most people seek a lawyer when they experience challenges and their goal is to have those challenges become the lawyer's burden in exchange for some price. I have seen lawyers who absorb such burdens and suffer under them, and others who seem utterly ambivalent to the emotions or challenges of the client. For a time, I thought the indifference was a callus or protection that had evolved, but experience taught me that neither age or experience is necessarily an accurate predictor. 

A "problem" leading to representation is not universal. There are those instances in which a client wants to accomplish something uplifting like an adoption or the launch of an inspiring non-profit. However, even in those instances, there are stressors, deadlines, and complications that lead the client to seek expertise. The lawyer takes on these challenges and the stressors. 

It is likely the same for others. Doctors, dentists, psychologists, counselors, and more are in the very business of assessing, addressing, and remediating their customers' problems. That may not mean a daily dose of despair or tribulation, but there is the probability that problems will come as part of some of the professional's practice. 

I caution young lawyers to remember that they are not alone. I openly admit to them that I think we all have hidden behind our veneer of confidence or competence. I believe there is no lawyer out there who has not made a crucial mistake, missed a critical deadline, and faced a troubling consequence. If I am wrong, and you are the perfect one, please email me. I would be happy to feature your flawless life in a future post. 

It is critical that we accept our humanity. Humans are imperfect. They fail periodically through this or that. The causes are not as important in my opinion. It is the fact that we make the mistakes, missteps, and errors that is important. That they are part of our humanity is what is important. Certainly, there are such errors that are difficult to repair or even remedy. But that does not change the reality that they are part of our humanity. 

One critical point is that "when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging." Too many are bent on avoidance and refuse to simply own the mistake and begin remediation. 

I recently had the impetus to re-explore a lawyer's error. I found myself in a conversation that involved a proposal to bestow an honor. From my perspective, the lawyer under discussion is an honorable, focused, and admirable attorney. This is a person that has devoted a lifetime of effort and contribution to a particular field of law, and the people who practice it. The lawyer is admired and even revered. 

Nonetheless, there is a mistake lingering in the wake of this luminary. And the lesson here is that a mistake or two can follow you for longer than you might think. Yes, there are consequences both possible and probable. That is reality. That said, there are paths to redemption and returns to promise. Those paths will restore professional stature, community acceptance, and livelihood. Those paths may begin to atone for the mistake, but perhaps will not completely erase the mistake or its memories. 

In any event, it is critical that the professional not internalize the stresses that are brought to her/his door by the customer. The problems are to be dealt with. The challenges are to be faced. But those are the client's problems and challenges. The professional has to deal with them without adopting, internalizing, and owning them. 

I was reminded of that by a recent news story of a suicide published by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). It features a veterinarian. That is a special group of people. I have met various medical doctors who seemed detached from their patients, but every veterinarian I have worked with has been an animal lover at heart. They seem inclined to both those feelings and their public display. That is anecdotal, but I suspect it is easy in that role to love one's patients. 

This vet perceived people as waiting too long to seek help, and thus eventually presenting ill pets incapable of remediation. He perceived people of means who were unwilling to face the expense of various treatments, and his disappointment in their decisions was palpable. He faced a frustration in his profession, and perhaps if my love of animals hypothesis holds he faced a frustration with people on a more foundational level. 

There is therefore some potential that frustration and perceptions led to his decision to take his own life. That is certainly a theme of the article. However, it is also possible that his "double life" and "secret affair" with another lover were difficult to balance, reconcile, or excuse? Nonetheless, the veterinarian's frustrations became insurmountable in his estimation. He found himself in a place from which he perceived only one outlet, and misused animal medication to end his life.

The confluence of this news story and my recent experience with a lawyer's redemption reminded me of the potentials for anxiety and depression. There is sometimes a human nature to make macro decisions based on micro foundations. Stated otherwise, never make long-term changes based on short-term events. See Mental Health News (September 2020).

There are paths out. If you think you have made an unfixable critical error, you should talk that out with someone. There is no sin in admitting you are human. Find a friend, a mentor, or a counselor. There is a real chance that reality is different from what your self-critical perspective suggests. Know that there is redemption, and many manage to recover admirably from misstatements, mistakes, and missteps. See Remediating (November 2022). The path to remediation is easier with the help of others. 

Remember that there are various resources at your disposal, here and elsewhere. Details for Florida connections are in Dealing with Desperation (November 2019). Nationally, there is a "988" hotline at your disposal, see September is Awareness Month (September 2022). The point is that help is available, troubles and challenges are transient, and redemption or remediation is possible, despite being a journey in themselves at times. 

The Masquerader and the Ringer

The regulation of attorneys is a mysterious subject for many people. Those with no involvement in this community are often curious, and from time to time I get questions from the public. I have written about the issue, see A Lawyer Discipline Story (January 2018); Don't Double Down Dummy! (June 2017); Anger and E-mail (May 2019); Twice Blessed (April 2019); Then Arrested (January 2021); Reproval for AV Preeminent® Lawyer (December 2023).

Los Angeles Magazine reported in November 2024 on "a bogus law firm" that operated "on Rodeo Drive" in Hollywood. A partner in that firm has been disbarred according to a November 2024 report. The story refers to this attorney as "a private jet-flying career conman" and an "Armenian organized crime figure." His former law firm office is said to have been festooned with selfies celebrating his supposed association with various high-profile celebrities like "President Barack Obama and California Governor Gavin Newsom."

The story reads a bit like Tony Curtis' The Great Imposter (Universal 1960), or the more recent Catch Me if You Can (Dreamworks 2002). 

This masquerader is said to have "turned confidential informant" in a criminal case, and there testified that he never took the California Bar Examination. That is intriguing. There is a great deal of effort devoted to security for such examinations.

The case in which this particular masquerader was an "informant" apparently involved a 2022 prosecution of an FBI agent (72 months), a Homeland Security Agent (121 months), and a police detective (21 months). The three were sent "to Federal Prison" following the masquerader's testimony and admission regarding his invalid law license.

The masquerader testified "that he paid a ringer to take the California Bar Exam for him" in 2015. He claims that he paid the Ringer "$20,000 a month to study for the test" and gifted the Ringer "a Rolex when he passed it." The story describes the bar security efforts being frustrated by "a fake ID and smudged fingerprints."

This is unique. I could not find other examples in which someone similarly managed to flummox a legal system. The British Broadcasting Corporation reported on a man in Kenya who "stole the identity of a real lawyer." Times of India reported on someone that "was practising (sic) in different courts by forging certificates and degrees." The Miami Herald reported "A man who may have qualified as the world’s worst attorney," who lacked a license and a law degree. But, I could not find another example where someone paid a ringer to take the exam for her/him. 

The alleged Ringer and the fraud then allegedly became law partners, and "According to Sargsyan’s (the masquerader/fraud) testimony," the firm provided the location from which "he ran a labyrinthine identity theft scam, laundering some of his scheme's proceeds with political campaign donations." The masquerader is listed as "disbarred" on August 23, 2024, and as "suspended" as of November 30, 2020.

At this point, it bears the reminder that this story was OCCURRED in Hollywood; it was not written by Hollywood. That said, it sure seems like a zany movie script.

When the three law enforcement officers were convicted, the masquerader "was hit with a mere six months in federal prison in recognition of his cooperation." And, "his whereabouts are (currently) unknown" (However, the California Bar site has an address and phone number listed).

The Los Angeles Magazine  poses two interesting questions:

"why it took such a long time to (disbar) . . . Sargsyan" in 2024, and

"why (the "ringer") continues to practice"

In fairness, those questions are connected but not identical. The first is seemingly more clear. The fraud (Masquerader) admits in sworn testimony that he did not take or pass the bar examination. That admission was covered by multiple news outlets. However, the Los Angeles Magazine article does not mention the California Court action suspending the masquerader rapidly in 2020. 

While permanency (disbarment) required time and due process, the protection of the public appears to have occurred much more rapidly. Thus, the interest of the public appears to have been protected as a process proceeded for four years and led to disbarment. Despite that more immediate suspension, some will take issue with the ensuing four years. 

The second question is more difficult. The bar has the sworn testimony of the Masquerader. That levels serious allegations against the Ringer. That testimony is four years old and how that Ringer remains seemingly unaffected by is at least interesting. The distinction may be in that the Masquerader's own admission is sufficient for his discipline but to discipline the Ringer requires more proof?

That seems a bit at odds with the criminal proceeding. The Masquerader's testimony was sufficient there to put three law enforcement officials in jail. One might conclude that there is at least some credibility to his story, allegations, and accusations? According to the California Bar, Henrik Mosesian Mosesi, the alleged Ringer, remains an active and licensed attorney.

The questions raised by the Los Angeles Magazine article are reasonable and fair. There is a fundamental interest in affording due process to all. Everyone accused of wrongdoing is entitled to the resumption of innocence. Nonetheless, there is room to criticize when processes lack public transparency and move at a pace that it difficult to comprehend. 

The end result of the Los Angeles Magazine story is an innuendo of distrust in the system that tests and licenses attorneys in California. As the story receives national attention, it has the potential to foster the same curiosity, questions, and distrust in unrelated venues. 

A critical conclusion might be that increased transparency in all venues could be a genuine benefit to the public trust and confidence across the country. If lawyers are to be self-policing, transparency might make the public more comfortable with it. There is asking for the public trust and then there is earning it. 

The Ambassadors of Kids' Chance

It is Kids' Chance Awareness Week. See Just Another Week? (November 2024). Every November, this organization strives to makes itself better known in the workers' compensation community. There is a vast array of professionals involved throughout the country.

Kids' Chance began in Georgia many years ago (1988), with the admirable goal of helping students whose parent or guardian has been significantly injured in a work accident. That is a fairly simple definition or mission. A great many people are hurt at work each year in America, and a natural consequence is that there are impacts. There is a Kids' Chance affiliate in each state. 

Certainly, there are obvious impacts. The worker who is hurt is the most obvious. Anyone who has ever worked with someone who was injured knows that there can be an impact on coworkers, management, and the business. That is who workers' compensation was designed for, employees and employers.

But there is undoubtedly an impact on families. Anyone who has ever been a parent knows that there are a variety of daily challenges with keeping a household running. There is cleaning, personal care, homework, school activities, and so much more. When I think back on the school-age years, I wonder that I ever survived it.

What happens when one of those parents is challenged with the aftermath of a work accident? There are less hands contributing to the household needs and challenges. There are often additional tasks necessary in the care of the injured worker. And in some households, there is only one parent at the outset.

Time and again, we see amazing young people applying for scholarships from Kids' Chance. They have persevered through the challenges faced by a parent or guardian. Many have actually thrived. I have seen those who worked 40-hour weeks, finished high school, achieved stellar grades, been involved in clubs and activities, and even concurrently earned an associate degree with their high school diploma. "Amazing" does not do them justice. 

They are beyond amazing. The opportunity to meet and work momentarily with these students has been amazing. To play any small part in their success is an indescribable honor.

It is Kids' Chance Awareness Week. 

I am so proud that Kids' Chance of Florida passes the decade landmark next month. I recall with clarity so many conversations in the early days. One recurrent theme was persistent: "How do we find more kids." I hated part of that one. Sure, this is Kid's Chance, and the use of "kid" is inevitable. but these are not children we are dealing with.

Early on, the small group of founders struggled with the burden of awareness. We had a multitude of challenges that seem so mundane in retrospect. We needed bylaws, a bank account, an address, officers, lines of responsibility, and so much more. We had to grapple with taxes, registrations, and reporting. There is no one "way" to start a corporation, and we had many decisions to make.

Awareness. How would we let the community know we exist? How would we get the word out to the students that might benefit from our efforts? That was a formidable task. We had a suggestion from Kids' Chance of America (some misconstrue that our Florida corporation is somehow a "chapter" of that company; it is not. At most, it is an affiliate). And, the KCOA even provided us some seed money for that first scholarship. But we had to find a student!

Their suggestion nonetheless was to deploy a group of fans, supporters, and publicists. They suggested we create a group of "Ambassadors." We took months to discuss the how, when, what, and who of Ambassadors. In the beginning, we found one or two industry leaders willing to be a face for us in the community.

As detailed in yesterday's post, some of those Ambassadors went on to join our Board. But a host has dedicated themselves to the more challenging role of integrating the Kids' Chance message into their daily professional lives over the last decade.

They start conversations with their business contacts. They show up at conferences and meetings to sit at information tables or to take the stage to speak of the Kids and the opportunities. They wear lapel pins. They volunteer at events. They answer questions, build bridges, and engage the workers' compensation community for Kids' Chance of Florida. In truth, we would be lost without them, their dedication, and their efforts.

As we strive this week to make the world more aware of Kids' Chance, I pause for a moment to recognize the current Kids' Chance of Florida Ambassadors and thank them for their service to our community and the dependents of those injured at work.

The Ambassadors:

TINA BROWN, Professional Rehabilitation Consultants 

MARY CLIVER, FFVA Mutual 

KRISTIN GREEN, The David Corey Brands

JASON HALL, Iconic Investigations 

ALEXIS HARDIGREE, Global Neuro & Spine Institute 

JEANNETTE LOPEZ, Creative Comp Solutions 

BRANDI WALKER MADDOX, NeuroRestorative 

MELISSA MENDIETTA, RN, Infinity Nurse Case Mgmt 

SANDY SHTAB, Healthesystems 

BRIAN RICOTTA, Esq., HR Law, P.A. 

JOSE MONTEAGUDO, Rehab Without Walls 

JANEL STEPHENS, Bichler & Longo 

SHAWN TWISS, Paradigm 

FRED WEBSTER, Linea Solutions 

DONNIE WOODS, TriFlex PT Network

Some have been around years. Some have joined more recently. The common thread is that they are welcoming, effective, and so sorely needed. It is a formidable list of outstanding personalities and professionals. If you want to know more about Kids' Chance, I encourage you to reach out to one of them and discuss. 

 

Just Another Week?

The Life and Times of Kids' Chance of Florida.

This year marks a transition for me. We all face change as we age. We all face the challenges of transition, replacement, and growth. I have been privileged through my career path to be involved in many organizations. Some required more time and effort than others. In fairness, some were more productive than others.

I have striven to keep an open mind and to try things. That periodically leads to failure. But it also leads to some successes. One of which I am most proud is Kids' Chance of Florida.

I was engaged in a conversation at the Florida Workers' Compensation Conference in 2015. Ray Neff (Former President and CEO of FCCI Insurance) and Bob Wilson (WorkCompCollege.com) were gathering thoughts and perceptions regarding the expansion of the existing Kids' Chance family into Florida.

They had been gathering data, striving to understand various perceptions of the community, and talking with many people throughout that conference. We spoke that day about many aspects of Florida, workers' compensation, and the community of interests that surrounds and permeates it.

Eventually, Bob Wilson asked me simply "is this something you could be involved in?" The thought of serving the deserving kids was a draw. I nonetheless responded with a couple of reminders of my "can't do" list: fundraising, recruiting volunteers, etc.

A couple months later, at the inaugural meeting of the Board, I was elected to that body and to the role of Secretary. As Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Treasurers have come and served their terms, I have remained Secretary.

The Bylaws provided a default process through which officers progress to being President. I have remained, nonetheless, Secretary.

That inaugural Board was:

• Geoffrey Bichler
• Stacy Hosman
• Pamela Jennings
• Dr. Kery Maher
• Ray Neff
• Jane Ann Nolte-Weiner
• Claude Revels
• William Rogner
• Linda Vendette
• Bob Wilson

That inaugural Board from 2015 remained reasonably steadfast. Only two of that group were no longer on the Board in 2023 as we came to the realization that we had done a poor job of planning for Board transition and succession. And, in the meantime, we had been joined by 

• Tammy Boyd
• William Donnell
• Kimberly Staats
• Basilios Manousogiannakis
• James McConnaughhay
• Andrew Sabolic

Nonetheless, in 2023, we were faced with a new recommendation that members should serve at most 10 consecutive years. And we had the realization that most of us had served since the beginning.

It occurred to us that if all of the founders rotated off the Board in one moment, we would leave confusion in our wake. That made us pause. We deliberated and planned, and at our 2023 Annual Board meeting, we transitioned founders Stacy Hosman (former President), Linda Vendette (former President), and Bob Wilson (former President) to Emeritus Board Status. The goal is transition, and the hope is the retention of their talents and dedication.

With that transition, we gained new Board members who are each bringing new perspectives and purpose to the Board and the non-profit:

• Liz Corona, Zenith Ins.
• Jenna Sutton, Medical Mgmt and Re-Employment
• Marissa Shearer, Commercial Risk Mgmt.
• Olivia North-Menthonennex, State of Florida

We are proud of all these, but Ms. North-Menthonnex marked a special moment. She started her relationship with Kids' Chance as one of our scholarship recipients. Her election to the Board brought us full circle and reminded us of what we had accomplished.

In 2024, we plan a similar transition for Jeff Bichler, Ray Neff (former President), William Rogner (former President), and me. With these efforts, the founders leave behind a Board poised for the future. And the 2024 transition will bring another list of new Board members, new ideas, and new enthusiasm. It is a new day for Kids' Chance, as it enters adolescence and continues to mature.

It is an apropos moment to reflect on the service of those Emeritus Board members. Kids' Chance of Florida has existed for a decade. As we accomplish our goal of transitioning the Board, and perhaps assisting with future transitions through this effort to stagger service, I reflect on what these people have accomplished:

• Created Kids' Chance of Florida
• Developed partnerships that provide scholarships and applicants
• Launched and perpetuated an annual golf tournament at WCI
• Awarded 85 scholarships
• Allocated or paid $375,000
• Built a community presence that includes our Board, 16 Ambassadors, and many volunteers and partners.

I am proud of the achievements of these people. I am particularly proud of those who have led this corporation, denoted with "(former President)" above. Their dedication and service to these youths are both admirable and inspiring. They have devoted time and effort to their community and the result is a parade of 85 young college students, graduates, post-graduates, and even one doctor. There is room for pride at this pause, And yet there is ample room for further achievement.

That said, I have seen enough of these students to tell you, unequivocally, that they would each have made it with or without help. To a person, they are an amazing array of hopes, dreams, majors, minors, goals, aspirations, and motivations. They are inspiring in their stories, their presence, and their success. I count myself privileged to have gotten to meet them, hear their stories, and watch them grow.

It is Kids' Chance Awareness Week. Now you know much about where Kids' Chance of Florida came from and where it is headed. Are you aware of a Florida student whose parent or guardian suffered a serious or catastrophic workers' compensation injury? If you know such a student, encourage her or him to apply. Or, just make an anonymous referral on the website.

Pertinent Questions

I get some intriguing emails from time to time. I received one recently in which the inquirer expressed some questions for the good of the community. The writer laid claim to the role of "sounding board" and suggested that dissemination of information would benefit the workers' compensation community writ large.

There is no prohibition on asking broad questions. Obviously, we are not permitted to comment on any particular case. That becomes frustrating because often people's interests are defined and driven by some particular case. Undoubtedly, there are those with academic interests, but then there are those who only want to know how many ounces in a gallon when that information is needed for a particular measurement task.

I provided the best response I could to the three inquiries submitted. I now post them here for all to read at their leisure, whether they are or are not in contact with the "sounding board."

1. There seems to be a split of “authority” amongst judges about the need for time records in a Miles setting. Obviously, the rule does not require this, but some judges are insistent that they must have them and an affidavit will not suffice. Can you shed any light on this please?

There is no rule I know of regarding what is or is not required for any fee approval, except 60Q6.123 and 124. The court has declared a standard of “reasonable,” and the assigned judge whose approval is sought has to make that call. Any party feeling affronted by any ruling can seek review from the Court for clarity, action, or constraint. 

I am not aware of what would patently distinguish one fee from another in terms of reasonableness. The creativity of the Court in its Lee Engineering legislation, reinforced in Castellanos has been discussed in many seminars I have attended. There seems to be some community attentiveness to those two decisions (apologies for no italics, but this email platform does not afford that).

2. Is there an OJCC policy about how Extraordinary writs are to be filed (with the JCC vs. the DCA). I recently filed a writ with a JCC and was advised by the OJCC office that it needs to be filed with the 1st DCA. My reading of the rule suggests otherwise. As a result, my writ sat filed with the JCC for 30 + days with no action taken. I wanted to know if there’s any policy or internal operating procedures for the OJCC on how extraordinary writs are handled when filed with the JCC.

There is no OJCC policy. OJCC policy is published in the 60Q rules. We have no local rules. Nonetheless, judges are called upon to make decisions interpreting both expressions and omissions.

The statute includes: “Procedures with respect to appeals from orders of judges of compensation claims shall be governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court.” 440.25(5)(a), Fla. Stat. That is specific to “with respect to appeals from orders.” Some might argue whether a particular writ is or is not (1) an appeal and (2) “from (an) order.” I do not note any procedures for extraordinary writs in the 60Q Rules. Does labeling matter? Some might suggest Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(C) means "no" regarding labeling. Others might disagree.

In the event of an appeal "from orders," the main reference is Fla.R.App.P. 9.180.

But, the appellate court rules have a specific rule for “original proceedings,” 9.100. That sounds like it would address all of the extraordinary writs. That references filing with the court and omits reference to what the OJCC might or might not do in that process. 

The rule purports to apply to:

"for the issuance of writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, and habeas corpus, and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of the courts’ jurisdiction; and for review of non-final administrative action."

Instigation is: 

"The original jurisdiction of the court shall be invoked by filing a petition, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the court having jurisdiction."

The term "original" as regards writs might suggest to some that the proceeding is instigated in the court whose jurisdiction is invoked. There is certainly an argument for such a proceeding to be filed in the appellate court directly, originally. I cannot recall any such proceeding being filed with the OJCC in a case but recall several filed directly with the District Court. That said, I cannot speak for either the Court or the rules in terms of actual impact and effect.

Of course, all rules, statutes, and regulations are subject to interpretation. If you ask two lawyers where you should file an extraordinary writ, you might get three or more answers (people change their minds). Lawyers seek relief (filing), judges make decisions (orders). Some rulings are accepted, and others are challenged. That is for the appellate courts. If you believe a trial judge is in error, that is a subject for the appellate court.

3. With more JCCs setting live hearings, the need for fast and reliable Wi-Fi at the OJCC office becomes a big issue. Is there any news on improving Wi-Fi connectivity at the OJCC offices?

I appreciate hearing this. However, it is difficult to accept it is a large issue. I have not had anyone raise this issue in at least the last 24 months, and frankly do not recall it since we made the bandwidth adjustments in 2021 during the COVID era. That rehabilitation involved much hardware replacement and upgrade as well as software adjustment.

Bandwidth is like lanes on a highway. If I tell someone we need to address "traffic" in Orlando, where would one start? To say the traffic is a problem describes perceptions but does not facilitate diagnosis or treatment. It is like "I hurt." 

So, if anyone is having a problem, the best course would be an email that says something to the effect of what, where, when: "I was trying to open a document from a case docket (DN 45) on October 21, 2024, at about 1:30 p.m. in Judge Anthony's hearing room in Tampa." Or, I tried to open multiple documents in the docket of case yy-000xxx during a 1:00 hearing in the Tampa office."

This is more the equivalent of "My right knee hurts when I stand and turn, the pain is on the inside of my leg," or "The traffic on October 21, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. between exits X and Y kept me from exceeding 20 MPH on I-4."

With detail, we can evaluate what the causes might be (who else is using the bandwidth or lanes), is there a clogged or disabled exit, a non-functioning traffic signal at an intersection, a large event on a side road, etc. We are happy to strive to address those issues to enhance the customer's use of the space and the electronic tools.

That is the end of the original email. I am hopeful that this information is of assistance to the community. I encourage you to contact me at your convenience regarding GENERAL QUESTIONS (Please do not make inquiries about a specific case unless you provide copy of that inquiry to all parties and counsel). 

Armistice Yesterday

Somehow, the Beatles came to me this week. I was thinking about the holiday on November 11, 2024 and various thoughts ran through my head. First was that I don't post on Mondays, and second that I could always publish about Yesterday (EMI, 1965). Well, November 11 was yesterday, but so too were so many memories, cataclysms, and heroes. 

We cannot change yesterday. But we can remember it. 

Who recalls why November 11 is important or was chosen? The date seems random. Unlike so many U.S. holidays, this one sticks to the actual date rather than rolling to a random Monday. We celebrate this one, well many of us celebrate this one, on a specific date.

The Veteran's Administration explains the significance. Following the "War to end all wars," there was a remembrance movement. That was not new, many wars had inspired memorials, recognitions, and remembrance. But, that was a World War, our first. It ended in 1918, not so very long ago.

The age of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence had not dawned. Some casualties could not be identified. A movement arranged for the burial in Arlington of the "unknown soldier," and similar internments were accomplished in England and France. The ceremonies were held on November 11, 1921. That date commemorated the end of the "War to end all wars."

That war ended "at 11 a.m., November 11, 1918 (the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month)." The effort was to remember those many who had suffered the challenges of combat in an incredibly complex, widespread, and unprecedented violence. There was celebration that there would be no further war ("end all wars").

Those contemporaries were sincere. Wrong. But sincere. They believed that the world had learned its terrible lesson. They sought succor for their loss in remembering those casualties, and in committing to not repeating the horror. And that "day became known as 'Armistice Day.'” In 1947, after the next "war to end all wars," the term "Veterans Day" was coined.

There is significance in November 11. We celebrate it each year. It is a recognition of the vagaries of war, the casualties, and more broadly the amazing and diverse population of men and women who serve in the armed forces here and abroad.

For a glimpse at the number of Americans who have fallen in war over the last 250 years, see Nitazenes are Worse (June 2024). War is destructive. However, more Americans have died of drug overdose than in all our wars combined. But yesterday we honored the veterans.

Memorial Day is for the fallen. See A Day to Reflect (May 2022). Veterans Day is broader. It is for them all. Whether officer or enlisted, serving in Kansas or a war zone, briefly or for a career, Veterans Day is for all of those who sacrifice to defend this country, but more importantly us. They stand between us and a litany of evil and malevolence that constantly threatens us.

We too often forget them. It is nice to hear them mentioned. I like it when the gate agent calls the "active duty" to board the plane first. I enjoy it when the announcer at the ball game takes a moment to "recognize the men and women of the armed forces." Here in Paradise you hear recognition often. This is a Navy town and always will be. 

But regardless of location, there are opportunities every day to thank those who served. November 11 is nonetheless a great and specific moment, but it is not exclusive. 

A great many businesses close for Veterans Day. But some businesses simply ignore it. Consider that if it were not for those Veterans we would not have the freedom and discretion to make such choices.

Did you attend a parade yesterday? Did you send someone a card? Did you take the minute required to simply say to someone "Thank you for your service?" 

Return to the point above. There are opportunities every day. Veterans Day is a great opportunity, but any day will work. The next time you see a bumper sticker, cap, or t-shirt proclaiming service, simply say "Thank you." It costs you nothing. It symbolizes gratitude. It means everything. 

X-Files or Poltergeist?

The "Godfather of AI" recently gave an interview that is available on YouTube. Dr. Geoffrey Hinton is a British computer scientist, and he is convinced that we will soon have "things more intelligent than us." He is convinced that the machines can think, have experiences, and can make decisions based on their experiences. They currently lack self-awareness, but he is convinced they will become self-aware.

Humanity, in his opinion, does not understand what is here today in neural networks and certainly does not understand what is coming. The AI Chatbots have about a trillion connections in their neural network compared to the hundred trillion that you have in your human brain. Despite this size differential, the Chatbots are already more capable than we are in terms of recall and citation. 

They find and provide information more efficiently than we can. Consider that. Your network is believed to be 100 times the Chatbot, but the Chatbot is more effective and efficient. It has a consistency in performance that is perhaps born of enhanced capability, or perhaps it is more efficient because it has less territory to cover? It finds the car keys quicker because it has a one-room apartment to search and you have a 100-room.

Additionally, the Chatbot is far more consistent in putting the keys back in the same place each time they are used. As we age, we tend to find such tricks (we have "the place" where we put things). It is an aging thing because in our youth we don't need such tricks. It is as we age that the volume of things to remember starts to clutter up that 100-room expanse, and it is in that mess that our keys, or the name of that song from the 1960s, might get lost. 

Software for AI, the Chatbot, is layered, with each layer handling a portion of an analysis or problem. When an outcome is deemed successful or appropriate at any level, that decision is "transmitted down through all the levels." Successful outcomes "become stronger and unsuccessful become weaker." The machine "learns" through this trial and error. And it has a better chance of retention of those paths because it is repetitious. It is also singularly focused.

In this, some will immediately remember Joshua striving to achieve the launch codes in War Games (MGM 1983). The WOPR (the central processing unit that has been tasked with undertaking the management of the nation's defenses) seeks the ability to launch a preemptive thermonuclear strike. The implications are ominous. Only through the incredible intellect of our teenage protagonist was the world saved in that outing. 

The War Games protagonist, David (Matthew Broderick), does not beat the machine by superior intellect. He beats the machine through its own conclusion. As the machine begins playing tic-tac-toe, it finds that most matches end in a draw. The game is premised on inattention or misdirection. For careful players, there is frequently a draw. Becoming frustrated with that outcome, the WOPR switches to scenario potentials for nuclear strike and with ever-increasing speed learns the futility of every potential scenario is similar. The machine concludes the "only winning move is not to play."

Back to the 60 Minutes interview, Dr. Hinton is the winner of the Turing Award, referred to as "the Nobel prize of computing." Alan Turing was a British mathematician who became involved in multiple fields. He is said by Britannica to have contributed significantly to

"mathematics, cryptanalysis, logic, philosophy, and mathematical biology and also to the new areas later named computer science, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and artificial life"

In 1950, long before the personal computer, the internet, or smartphones, Turing hypothesized the Turing Test. Britannica describes this as a foundation for distinguishing rote repetition from intellect per se. Anyone can memorize and regurgitate a litany of facts or figures. Ask anyone who was educated in the last 200 years. We all memorized and regurgitated much, from multiplication tables to historical dates, and beyond. In fact, memorization has long preempted investment in a better path: learning to think.

The Turing Test is significantly subjective:

"a remote human interrogator, within a fixed time frame, must distinguish between a computer and a human subject based on their replies to various questions posed by the interrogator."

Thus, there is the challenge of who the interrogator is, and how tuned that person is to the task. And, there is the challenge that this test relies only on the formulation of increasingly human-like responses, replete with the commonality of humanity: error and mistake. Whether a machine passes the Turing test may be as complex as whether someone in your life is actually your friend. 

Dr. Hinton, having alerted us to the complexity of us (100 trillion), then admits that we do not "really understand" how neural networks function. That is true whether the network is in our brain (100) or in a computer (1). That functionality remains a subject of debate and investigation. Some will immediately question how humans created a neural network, AI, without knowing how networks work.

Dr. Hinton explains that instead of designing such a human-copy network per se, the creators of AI wrote an algorithm. A "learning algorithm." The algorithm created its own neural networks and is using them. They are an evolutionary effect of their own trial and error. Thus, there is some potential for their networks to function as ours do, but also the probability (less coincidence) that they will evolve and function differently than we do. 

This is worrisome. That they will likely be different will make our comprehension more challenging (think how two languages would be harder to study or use than one). Our conclusions about the how and why of one may or may not translate into a better foundation of knowledge about the other. This is perhaps illustrated in the ridiculous hate texts in recent news. There are errors in grammar and syntax. Perhaps the original text was written in another language and did not translate well? 

The electronic versions, the bots, will be evolutionary. These systems will "learn from all the novels ever written." They will understand and process knowledge on a far more rapid and thorough level than we can hope to. Therefore, Dr. Hinton contends that these machines will be both manipulative and convincing. They will "know a lot of stuff and know how to use it." They will influence and persuade us. As we have already learned from social media, that may be for either good or bad. 

A small bit of research into the foundations of AI can peel back a great deal of the onion. In The X-Files (20th Century, 1993-2018) one of the main characters reminds another "the truth is out there, but so are lies." Many have quoted that line over the years, and some have adapted (co-opted) it instead. One adaptation is "the truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head."

The truth is that humans have created algorithms that function as logic loops. They emulate our own neural networks but do not yet replicate them. These programs test a potential solution to a problem and gain statistical knowledge, advantage, and predictability. Even Dr. Hinton concedes that Generative AI is merely striving to predict the most likely "next" word when it writes something. It is doing so with statistical knowledge. In this, it lacks soul, sensitivity, and nuance. It lacks humanity but makes up for that with speed and ease of use.

Nonetheless, the truth is that is no different than what humans are doing when we string together a group of words. We are doing so with the belief that those are completely intellectual decisions. But, the fact is likely that we have tried various phrases, combinations, and even words that did not work as we intended. We have likely learned not to use various words or combinations based on prior feedback. 

When Steve Martin asked his teacher if he could "Mombo . . .  to the Banana Patch," (Wild and Crazy Guy, 1978), he got no permission to leave the classroom. He undoubtedly did not use that phrase the next time he needed the restroom. He learned, eliminated, and refined. 

We have learned, over time, to put thought into context. We have come to understand how to turn a phrase, where, and with what emphasis. Certainly, some of you are better at this than others. Some have a talent for it and others build and gain through struggle. Why should algorithms be any different?

For now, even great brains like Dr. Hinton concede that we do not know how neural networks function. What we do know is that with human conception, and extremely efficient evolution, computers today are doing what our last generation saw as science fiction. They are establishing and refining neural networks.

They may be maleficent or benevolent. They may be efficient or inefficient. They may be easy to understand or beyond our comprehension. In this moment, the great brains are both impressed and concerned. And what we know for sure about these new tools, replacements, or overlords was best said by Carol Anne Freeling (Heather O'Rourke) "They're here" (Poltergeist, Warner Bros. 1982).

Prior posts on AI and Robotics

Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)

Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)

How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)

Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)

The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)

Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)

Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming, (March 2016)

Chatbot Wins (June 2016)

Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)

Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)

Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)

Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)

Strong Back Days are History(February 2017)

Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)

The Coming Automation (November 2017)

Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)

Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)

Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)

Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)

Robot in the News (October 2021)

Safety is Coming (March 2022)

Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)

You're Only Human (May 2023).

AI and the Latest (June 2023)

Mamma Always Said (June 2023)

AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)

AI Incognito (December 2023)

The Grinch (January 2024)

AI in Your Hand (April 2024)

AI and DAN (July 2024)

AI is a Tool (October 2024)

Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)

X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024).

Relevance

I recently ran into Horace Middlemier* who has enjoyed a long and storied career in his legal community. He was more reticent than usual, and eventually our conversation turned serious. He asked, essentially, "How do I remain relevant." That one took me by surprise.

It is a valid question for anyone, but perhaps should be preceded with a careful and thoughtful consideration of whether your perceived present relevance is real or in your mind. The question in this context was with a view to ending a legal career, to retirement from the challenges and exhaustion that are litigation.

I have witnessed a great many attorneys reach the point they no longer want the conflict, the hours, the stress, and more that define legal practice. They have invested lifetimes in the problems of other people and find that brings permanent wear and tear.

I spent a great many hours in my youth in kitchens. For a time, I thought my career path might lie in cooking. Despite the conceited tone it carries, I was once an artist in the kitchen. No, not a Julie Child, Emeril Lagasse, or Giada De Laurentiis. No, those folks are inspired creators. I was never that imaginative, but I was (superciliously) very good at repetitively and consistently producing sandwiches, entrees, and pizzas.

I once perceived a career path there. But, in time, I found the repetition challenging. Each work of art I produced was consumed with gusto and was no more. Each effort was in vain, too soon forgotten. In the restaurant business, it is far more likely that a customer will speak up with a complaint than with a compliment. With each excellent rendition from the kitchen, I merely reinforced expectations. The exceptional and memorable evolved into the norm. It is too easy to allow that repetition to evolve into boredom and even discontent.

I never worked in fast food but had friends who did. One sticks in my mind, employed at a burger place. I recall one burger (out of millions over a lifetime) at that particular place. My friend prepared it, and the result looked just like the picture over the counter. I mentioned that was unique and my friend said, essentially "Oh, yeah, we can make them that way, we just don't." The theme in that setting had abandoned quality and commitment and had become speed, just about slapping together ingredients and pushing it out the door.

I departed the "widget making" of cooking and pursued other paths. After many years of legal practice and profession, I realize that the product is different but the process is not so much. With each project or assignment, lawyers are tasked with producing some excellent rendition. The discovery, contract, plan, complaint, answer, memo, letter, brief, or otherwise requires attention, devotion, and focus. I realized, eventually, that the professional role is not that different from cooking.

Lawyers are afforded a raft of potential ingredients. Each must have an appreciation for what can stand alone, what does or does not go together, and that care is appropriate in the what, when, and how much. There are artisans in the profession. Some are creative and innovative. There are sound practitioners who may lack that creativity but who deliver quality again and again, day after day.

Unfortunately, among the many artisans producing exceptional output, there are a great many in "fast lawyering" who, like the burger joint, are merely slapping together the same ingredients and pushing it out the door. They see no value in the output, no art. The output is merely a means to an end. They file a motion like the one they saw someone else file and are amazed that it did not work for them in their case. They are immune to the distinction, nuance, and relevance.

There are artisans in this world. There are carpenters but also nailers, artists but also painters, cooks but also assemblers, lawyers but also automatons and even dullards.

How do I remain relevant?

Are you relevant now?

Life is a journey. I explained to Horace that I am at a moment now when I can see the runway. My journey is not over, but I am confident I can make the field from here, even in the event of a catastrophic system failure. Horace crossed that threshold some time ago, and he has likely landed (some landings you can hardly tell). The remainder of his current journey consists mostly of taxiing to the ramp. When he arrives at the gate, this journey ends.

When that occurs, he still has valid choices. He might file off with his fellow passengers, return home, and sit in his chair. That is a valid choice. There should be rewards for a journey's conclusion.

He might proceed immediately to another journey, be it by Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (Paramount 1987).

And, even if his immediate choice is the chair, that does not preclude a revision tomorrow and a new departure. No decision needs to be permanent.

Dr. Seuss long ago titled a book “Oh the Places You’ll Go.” The children’s book was long a favorite graduation gift for young adults. After an educational journey, it was a reminder that the world lay before you.

To some extent at least, aspirations become limited over the years. We were likely all told at some point we could grow up to be anything. That is the promise of youth. As the years pass, forks in the road are passed and choices are made. Each decision likely makes some ultimate outcome less likely and perhaps less possible.

That does not mean that your destination is foretold or destined. The end of any journey can be the beginning of yet another. The only truly critical element in that process is you. If you decide that tomorrow will bring challenges, then it will, even if you have to look for them to some degree. If you decide that you are no longer up to challenges and want to go home and sit in a chair, that is valid too.

In either, there is relevance. Horace’s perception is that relevance must be in activity, engagement, and involvement. Since that is his relevance, then he is right. If your relevance is less energetic or frenetic, so be it. It is nonetheless relevant because you chose it. You decide what relevance means for you.

And in that, we answer the question above quite simply: "Are you relevant now?" You decide. If you don't like your answer, then change your course. 

*Editor's note: Horace Middlemier does not exist. He is, at times, a figment of the writer's imagination, and, at times, an amalgamation of various personalities or tacks. Any resemblance to any particular person, living or dead, is purely coincidental, accidental, or apocryphal (and perhaps all three).