Thu, 22 May 2008 I know the economy is tough. I also know that jobs are hard to come by, and its even harder for employers to keep good employees once they find them. However, today I saw a sign in lovely, downtown Manville, New Jersey that made me wonder. It was for an Arby's, and said "Now hiring: happy employees." This caused me to wonder. How happy do you have to be to work at Arby's? I've been to Arby's, and generally, the people that work at Arby's are not necessarily the happiest people that you've ever met. In fact, some of them are tougher to deal with than Arby's roast beef. Perhaps they are looking for an image change. Maybe, on the interview form there is some sort of five-star rating for happiness. Perhaps they are going to try to cut into Chuck E Cheeses' turf. Frankly, I do not believe that this is a good idea, as that rat is an absolute mobster. However, to be honest, when I have my double-cheesy roast beef, dripping with chemical laden cheese, with a side order of death fries, I don't necessarily need Suzy Sunshine dealing me my gallon of just-for-the-sake of it Diet Coke on the side. I need some surly former high-school lineman whose dreams of much, much more lay somewhere between Summer two-a-days and one too many at the after-prom party. Because if I'm going to eat crap like Arby's that's ultimately is going to take decades off of my life - I certainly don't need it served with a smile. Category: general -- posted at: 8:02 PM Comments[3] |
Wed, 21 May 2008 Thanks so much for the guys at Libsyn.com for helping out - the page looks great. Go buy some Wizzard stock. Category: general -- posted at: 4:18 PM Comments[1] |
Sun, 18 May 2008  Ok, we're back in the swing of things, with another show back at you very quickly. Tonight, featuring:
As of today, I have 1628-close personal friends on Myspace. I have 622-devoted followers watching my every move on twitter. I have 79-business associates on linked in, who are devoted to my career growth. I have 279-collegues on Facebook, and 575 uh fans on Mevio's social network. I say all this not to brag, well not too much, but I say this because if you are one of my apostles, I thank you. A recent article on Law.com called "Is the Party Over for Social Networking” really bemoaned the state of affairs regarding social networking among lawyers. It mentioned that at the American Bar Association"s Techshow in March, social networking was only discussed on one out of sixty programs. It mentioned that an ABA survey of Young Lawyers, which means that they are still in their “catch and release stage”, that only 8% felt that it was very important to network with legal colleagues via online social networking. Indeed, it started with the Great Expectation’s-esque tag line of, “What if you gave a party, hundreds of people showed up, but almost nobody talked to each other? That describes the state of social networking for lawyers. The masses get the idea, but only the evangelists are using it.” To answer the primary question, I’ve been to hundreds of lawyer parties where hundreds of lawyers show up and nobody talks to each other. Jeez, and these are the good parties where there’s like an open bar and stuff. Jeez, I’m pretty shocked that I ended up reading a stuffy website like law.com to begin with. But let me pause the whole essay for a second - there is a ABA Techshow? Wow, why didn’t I get the memo on that one? What kind of Star Trek meets Matlock convention must that humdinger of a party be? What kind of talk must there be at the bar that night, “Wanna come up to my room tonight or do I have to have to have some fun pro se?” or “Hey baby, what’s your thoughts about former New York Judge Learned Hand?” Any time I can sneak Billings Learned Hand into an essay, it’s a good week. I honestly believe that for all of the gnashing of their terrible teeth, and gnashing of their terrible claws, this law.com article was just another piece of fluff, just another wasted bandwidth. As much as I enjoy meeting you all on some of these social networking sites, that’s all they are is social. Maybe it works for some fields, but for the most part, most lawyers are going to get the ol’ breeze by on a social network from potential clients. I mean come on, does law.com really think that any lawyer is going to successfully market themselves to new clients on Myspace or Facebook? Please, I’ll represent you in your car accident claim and beat your ass in Scrabalicious? Now frankly that may sound like a conflict of interest, but the New Jersey Ethics folks are not going to hold me back from playing a seven-letter scoring word like “Aqueous” if them tiles come out of my virtual tile bag. These social networking sites – as much as they are mildly entertaining, they’re not much better than the old thumb-tack bulletin board at your local Winn Dixie. Of course, the dude that you sat behind in English class in 8-th grade isn’t going to ping you to challenge you to a game of Texas Hold 'Em. Point. Winn Dixie Bullien Board 1, Facebook 0. Some people are not in your life for a reason, right… Hold on to your seats kids, this going to be a rough right turn. I’ve been thinking a lot this week about social networking and social media and it hit me. You know who are the mack daddies of social networking, the Gran Poobahs of communal effort – the Amish. I mean these people have existed for like millions of years working together for a common good. I had the opportunity to see them in action this past week. In our new town, we have an Amish market within tobaccky spittn’ distance from our house. Those wacky Amish took over an old food store, and subdivided it into different stands – one for meat, one for cheese, one for vegetables, one for pirated Japanese porn – no wait, that was the flea market. Let me say this about the Amish, they’re a funny bunch. First, as far as religious fundamentalists go, and maybe this is a personal preference, but the Amish make the Hassidics look down right hot. Look, look, look, maybe if I were a guy with a Beatle haircut and a beard with no ‘stache, some of these Holly Hobby honeys might look downright doable. But, right now, it would take a whole lot of that lemonade for me to have a barn raising in that situation, if you catch my drift. Second, this whole “no-technology” thing has some pretty darn loose rules. These good folk keep this store open Saturday and Sunday every week, and my lord, they take plastic! Now, there are no Amish flophouses that I know of in our neighborhood, so it begs the question of how do they staff this place. I’ve never seen a 12-seater Econoline horse and buggy travelling on the highway. Even if they have the capability of moving the troops from the farms, its got to be at least an hour by car to Amish land, so what I think must happen is that every Monday, they must send out a squad of Amish out from the farm, and on the way to the store, they must pass last week’s squad coming back from the real world, and they just kind of throw them the cash box on the highway. Looking Good Billy Ray! Feeling Good Louis! Ah yes, the Amish version of Trading Places. I like it. Look, I kid the Amish. I love the Amish. If I want to party like its 1899, who better than the Amish to cater it? The place was packed. Look its not like there are any Amish listening to this podcast, and if they do and get pissed off, I’ll just confuse them with a flashlight. My point is that the Amish don’t social network. They don’t need to. This may sound hypocritical for someone sitting in front of computer 10-hours a day, but if you’re an attorney and you really want to generate some business you’re going to have be like the Amish. You got to get right into those heavy flannel pants and suspenders and work with real people in real situations. Occasionally, you may actually have to deal with like other attorneys for a common effort to get some business together, you’re going to get out there and plow the fields, and milk some cows, and occasionally shovel some fertilizer. Jeez, if there’s anyone as capable of moving manure around….its certainly lawyers. Category: podcasts -- posted at: 10:09 PM Comments[1] |
Mon, 12 May 2008  All moved in and ready to rock. First podcast on the mac, so don't be too harsh - I'm a sensitive boy. Featuring Listen to the show here Yeah, I'm a cynic. Yeah, I question everything. Sure, I wonder how long that rabbit has been crammed in that hat, and secretly laugh to myself every time that nobody ever makes the magician put that hat full of poop on their head once the rabbit is pulled out. That's why when one of the world's greatest purveyors of all things magical, J.K. Rowlings was outed this week as the absolute Muggle that she really is, it just warmed the cockles of me heart. This week, she got a Court ruling allowing her to sue journalists in London because they took a picture of her kid with a telephoto lens and published it. The original court tossed that puppy quicker than you can say Shazam, but now an Appeals Court has said that the children of famous parents have the same right to expect privacy as the children of parents who are not well known. The case stems from a picture that was published in a newspaper of David Rowling being pushed on a buggy on a street when he was a baby, and sets the stage for a trial over damages. Now, I can't claim to be an expert in British law, and I certainly don't want to get into the poor, horrible state of privacy of our great and public celebrities, but I have no idea what these Judges were thinking. In fact, based on same, I don't give any credence to any British Judge who's last name isn't Cowell. I agree that the children of celebrities have a certain right to privacy. I agree that there is an inherent security concern here, but come on. The kid was probably surrounded by a phalanax of security guards, and was on a public street. You, I, and the rest of the muggles out there have absolutely no right to privacy on a public street. That's actually what its called - public, and if Rowlings didn't want to be in the public eye then I don't know, maybe she needs to travel by broom or something. Hell, the Court's ruling doesn't seem to make any sense, because I have no expectation that if I take my kids to a frickin sheep sheering event at our local dairy farm and some Jimmy Olsen wants to take a picture, then frankly I should be entitled to a free copy of the paper and that's it. At the end of the day, where is she really going with this - she's a billionaire already. Damages? What in the world is little David Rowling's measure of damages. Uhm, dude, you looked like a baby in the picture. We all have baby pictures. You're mom is a billionaire. What exactly is J.K. Rowling's 5-year old kid going to do with damages? I'm not saying that celebrity kids aren't entitled to go to Court, but the purpose of the Civil justice system in both the US and Englandia is to make an aggreived party whole. As such, I think you have to award damages in this matter, if its found to be compensable which I've said I already disagree with, in the the terms that would make a reasonable 5-year old feel as if he received justice - that's right - the horrible, evil newspaper, should provide him with a DVD of Dora the Explorer and a Juice Box. Jeez, do you think that the newspapers are really going to learn a lesson about this. Hell, by suing little book manufacturers or little newspapers Rowling's actually giving them more free advertising than she ever intended to do. Frankly, here's my two cents on it. We have, by her own admission, a bit of a nut job who somehow gets lucky in writing these books and all of a sudden her life has meaning and credibility beyond her wildest fantasies. You remember all of the talk about whether Harry Potter would get killed in the last book. I don't want to ruin it for anyone, but uhm, there was no way in the universe that he was gonna die because there would be absolutely no possibility of another book, which is 100% going to happen as soon as J.K. Rowlings realizes that she can't write her way out of a paper bag on any other subject. Oh yeah, Soylent Green is people. Kaizer Souze is Kevin Spacy, Bruce Willis is actually dead, and the Cloverfield monster looks like Dick Cheney's wife. Any other endings you want me to hit. jerseytoddshow@gmail.com In the end, J.K. Rowling was once accused of making the Harry Potter books to support witchcraft. I think that's ridiculous, of course. Its always a great thing when kids read. But now that she's shot her literary load, and is floundering around looking for some sort of purpose in life, perhaps its best she send the lawyers back to the hell from wence they came. Being accused of witchcraft is one thing, but bitchcraft...that's another story.
Category: podcasts -- posted at: 5:09 PM Comments[4] |
Mon, 5 May 2008 I'm still standing. Taken a few blows to the head, but they can't knock me down. Moving the family is nearly finished, and we are almost done living out of boxes. Now we have begun the process of moving you - the JTS Family. This weekend, I purchased an Imac. Wow. Wow. Wow. I have had computers since I was a child, the first being a TRS-80 Color Computer that was 16k. I have resisted the Apple temptation until now, and I now realize what a dope I've been. From the purchasing experience, to service tech. calls., to the rocking machine itself - I am an absolute convert. At 36-years old, I finally realized that I don't need a computer that does a billion things - I just need one that works consistently. So far, so good. That being said, I am still in the process of hooking the podcast rig up, and of course there have been some complications. I am also strongly considering producing the show in Garageband, and am concerned that the show might lose the "live" feel that we've come to know and love. We shall see - but its certainly exciting. Watch this space for additional updates as they become available, and if you have the time and want to use it charitably, I'm always available on Gmail and Twitter, and have loads of questions to pick your brain with. Category: general -- posted at: 12:57 PM Comments[5] |
