That’s a Wicked Google-y!: Refine Your Googling with Search Operators and Latent Functionality

I’ve written previously here at the blog about some of the nifty applications and programs that the folks over at Google have introduced. Not that I ever really get into web stuff, but I have been generally impressed with Google. My like affair began when I made two almost concurrent moves: I stopped searching in Yahoo! and went to Google, and I switched my email over from Hotmail (Hotmail used to be good, but the new Hotmail (Windows Live) really, really, really . . . really sucks) to GMail. I love the threading of conversations, GChat and the search features in GMail. Google searching is much better than Yahoo! searching, and I don’t know why I wasn’t searching Google from the beginning: Oh, it was because Google wasn’t around when I was younger. Wow, I guess that makes me old. Depressing. And, I don’t know why I wasn’t using GMail from the start, either: oh yeah, see above. Damn. It’s gonna be a long weekend. If there is one thing that I have learned about the Google Universe, it is that it is vast, and there is always more to learn. As the great Socrates knew, I am now knowing that I know nothing. This makes for a lot to learn.

So, I was at a debate tournament this past weekend. (I know what you’re thinking. Wow! A debate tournament. Jared is even cooler than I thought he was. I know, I know. It’s a burden I’ve carried my whole life. It is difficult, but we all have our crosses to bear.) So, one of the coaches is talking about searching in Google, and how you can limit searches to specific websites (The New York Times, for example) or specific website types (.gov, .org, for example). Overhearing this, I immediately put down my Hershey’s dark chocolate (for the antioxidants) bar down, and eavesdropped. (I didn’t pick it back up--flu season and all.) And, of course, my first thought was not for myself, but for the faithful readers of the LOMAP Blog. Yes. Another week I would not have to think about my own topic: I had my blog post for the week of Halloween.

The search for Google search operators could only lead to one place: Google. A Google search for Google search operators yielded favorable results. And, what I learned was that my grail cup was overflowing, and that Google had unshrouded its mysteries, so easily. So, there was more to the story: there are a number more of helpful Google search operators to apply to the refining of your searches.

Most of you probably know about some of the simpler operations here: putting quotation marks around a phrase will make for an “exact phrase” search (for “exact phrase”, in this case--creepy); placing an OR between search terms means that your results will yield either of those options (Boston Red Sox 2004 OR 2007, for example); and, you can exclude certain terms from search by placing a minus sign before them (the Google web search help page gives a great example: jaguar –car –football –o(perating)s(ystem)). Beyond the simpler search operators, there are also some further nifty tricks (and treats) you can use: to search within one site, use the “site:” term before the website at which you’d like to search exclusively (balloon boy site: nytimes, for example); you can include an asterisk within the search box if you want Google to attempt to supply a missing word (try “jumbo *”--I thought I’d get jumbo shrimp, or something. Instead no, I end up reading through to a depressing story of an elephant that they hanged in Tennessee. Only in Tenessee, home of Miley Cyrus (well, pending the resolution of the Hannah Montana Movie, whatever that is) and Andrew Johnson. There appears a good lift of other, deep discovered search operators available at the Google Guide, which is unaffiliated with, and unendorsed by, Google: here’s a list, and a guide specific to using the search operators. Most of the simpler, and simpler complex, search operators, are on display, with examples, at the Google basic search help page.

In my travels around the Googlosphere, I also picked up on some other interesting uses for the Google search engine, that serve to convert it to some other operation. Let me explain: Need a calculator? Punch “9 x 3” into Google, and see what results. Here’s a hint: the answer. Google can also do far more sophisticated calculations, as well, for you interested math majors out there. And, I do wish that this was around when I was in 10th grade and had to buy that redonculously expensive graphing calculator. In addition to making calculations, Google can also run certain mathematical conversions (try 145 miles in km, for example). You can also access stock information by typing in the ticker symbol (try CSCO, for Cisco), find weather reports (type weather Boston MA) and even locate natural phenomena (try earthquake Cincinnati OH) like historical regional earthquakes. The Richter Scale comes home . . . well, not too close to home, but you get the idea, like, near at hand, or something.

Google is pretty good about providing information on some of these latent search tips if you know where to look, and start looking there. The Google search features page and unaffiliated Google Guide (which provides an historical record of Google search features added through September 2005) were pretty easily discoverable, and pretty helpful, too. If you use iGoogle, you can get Daily Google Tips broadcast to your homepage. Sign up here.

One of my favorite things about these Google search tricks (or treats, depending on how you look at them), is that the good folks at Google have extended the concept to the GMail search function, which was, even absent advanced search options, one of the best features of GMail to begin with. The GMail search operators are even easier to use than some of the headier Google search operators. Some of my particular favorites include: searching in folders (in: inbox/in: trash/in: spam); searching by message type (is: starred/is: unread/is: read); searching by to:/from:/subject:; searching with date restrictions (before: 2009/10/31; after: 2009/10/31); and, searching by attachment (filename: report (name)/PDF (type)). All of the GMail searching tools are available for your perusal, here. This help section also includes a short video link, generally covering the GMail search features.

If Google dressed up for Halloween, it would be a ghost, because, after reading this blog post, you can see right through it.

For Halloween this year, I am a Law Practice Management Advisor. Crazy Pickle Arm was taken.

Speaking of Halloween, let’s award some things, apropos of nothing:

Best Costume: Wolfman/Werewolf

Best Song: (tie) “Monster Mash” by Bobby “Boris” Pickett and the Crypt-Kickers; “Thriller” by Michael Jackson; “Savoy Truffle” by The Beatles

Best Candy: “100 Grand” (eaten) by me

Best Monetary Gift: 100 Grand

Worst Train Commute: the Newburyport/Rockport Line (passing through Salem)

(Hey, Wait, that’s my line. Check that. New best costume: Disgruntled Lawyer.)

Thanks to Professor Susan Miskelly, of Bridgewater State College, for jogging this post out of me by referring to the site specific search available through Google.

Preach What You Practice: LOMAP Debuts New Podcast, "The UnBillable Hour"

Back in July (which seems like it was just yesterday, given our being recently hit with a heat wave two days following a snowstorm--the Spirit works in mysterious ways, does he not), Rodney wrote here at the blog about the importance of listening to podcasts. Taking not wanting to be hypocritical to the extreme, Rodney has decided that just listening to podcasts is not good enough for him. Oh, no. He must, instead, host his own podcast. The man is just insatiable.

In wanting to practice what he preaches, and because of a concurrent, joined desire to preach what he practices (as well as a likely secret boyhood desire to be a disc jockey--now he just needs a catchphrase), Rodney has managed to finagle LOMAP’s debut podcast, “The UnBillable Hour: Law Practice Advisory Podcast”, which premiered last week.

The podcast, produced by the Legal Talk Network (providers of fine legal podcasts), and sponsored (most generously, I might add) by AbacusLaw, (purveyors of fine law practice management software), will run for six monthly episodes.

The first episode is currently available at Legal Talk’s UnBillable Hour homepage. The topic of the first podcast is “Legal Marketing for Success”, and features Rodney’s comments, and interview with Lee Rosen, attorney marketer extraordinaire and practicing attorney out of the North Cackalacky. (Erik Mazzone loves this guy, so you know he’s got to be good.) The podcast itself totals 25 minutes in length, and is a good listen. Check it out. Two points if you can tell me who the voiceover guy at the beginning is. What do those two points count for? Probably nothing.

If you like the podcast, check back monthly at the UnBillable Hour homepage to listen to further installments. If that does not even sate your appetite, and you still can’t get enough, join The UnBillable Hour Group on LinkedIn.

Thanks for listening.

. . .

And, you know, Rodney is not the only budding DJ within these LOMAP walls. I do a little unsanctioned DJing myself. That’s right: pirate radio (of a sort), right here at the LOMAP blog, where you can find my musical selections sprinkled throughout any of the posts hereat.

What does this have to do with law practice management? Absolutely nothing.

But, if you want to hear some sweet Buffalo Springfield, or some rare JT, or some rollicking Zevon, or even some Son Volt and this song, and whatever else pops into my head every now and again, you know where to find me. Don’t worry, though, I was not the first DJ, and I will certainly not be the last.

Data Privacy Creep: SJC Joins Club, Approves Interim Guidelines for Prevention of Identity Theft; File a Way

The grand Commonwealth of Massachusetts has, of late, taken a serious interest in the protection (from identity theft) of its residents’ private information. This is, to be sure, a good thing, in the abstract, and far better than other objects that the state could be/has been engaged in. I have been fortunate enough (knocking on wood as I write this) to not have become a victim of identity theft to this point in my young life. And, I am well-pleased each time I learn of a new way devised by the aggressively clean-living Puritan ancestors loving and legislating and judging within the confines of my home to protect from prying eyes me and my credit card numbers and those of my fellows. Of course, in reality, what is good for the gooses is not always good for the ganderers; and, in the case of the newly-unveiled Supreme Judicial Court Interim Guidelines for the Protection of Personal Identifying Data, what is good for the citizen, generally, may not be so good for the lawyer, advocatingly.

As is the case with the Massachusetts statutory and regulatory data privacy regime (as embodied via the Massachusetts General Laws chapters 93H (and CMRs) and 93I, which topics have been much addressed, perhaps ad nauseum, by LOMAP, generally, and, specifically: here and here and here (in chronological order) here at the blog), so is the case with the Interim Guidelines: protection for residents means additional administrative burden for businesses and for law firms/attorneys. With the imposition of the Interim Guidelines, the courts have decided, in essence, that, well, it is especially important to protect residents’ private information as it would otherwise appear in court filings, since that personal information is made a part of the public record, by way of court submission and recordation, and under the auspices of public access laws. Thoughtful of the court system to redact sensitive information from your submitted documents, isn’t it? Well, not so fast there, chief. You’ll be the one doing the redacting, or, at least, it’s suggested that you, please, be the one who does the redacting.

Here’s why and how:

On July 17, 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced that it had approved Interim Guidelines for the Protection of Personal Identifying Data (PID) in Publicly Accessible Court Documents. The Guidelines became effective September 1, 2009. In addition to the requisite press release, the SJC also released the full Interim Guidelines, if you like to read. If you don’t, the SJC has also released what is a really very-well-done (which is just how I like my stake), quickie, summary fact sheet, that outlines the purpose and effect of the Guidelines. You can read them for yourself as linked out; but, for the purposes of filling out this blog posting, and just in case you like to read even less than I thought, here’s the upshot:

The Guidelines apply to all cases in all Massachusetts courts with respect to documents that are (or become, once filed, I suppose), publicly accessible.

. . .

Henceforth, the Filer (i.e.--you, and not some superhero who likes to keep his nails trim) should delete (white out, black out, omit) to the last four digits personal identifying data (PID) that includes the familiar 93H data sets, plus taxpayer identification and passport numbers or to the first initial of a mother’s maiden name. Any deletions made are then to be tagged with the following information: filer’s name, the date, the phrase “PID Guidelines”.

. . .

Exceptions (labeled “Exemptions”, in the Guidelines) are five, as follows: (1) when full inclusion is required by law or rule; (2) for certain PID in criminal or youthful offender cases; (3) when filer reasonably believes complete information must be included, in order to resolve a particular issue or for the identification of a person; (4) for transcripts of court proceedings; (5) for documents that are produced directly by non-parties in response to court orders, or subpoenas.

. . .

Clerks are directed to encourage compliance with the Interim Guidelines, but will not be reviewing documents for compliance, nor will they be rejecting documents for non-compliance.

. . .

Some interesting points from the full Guidelines, which you should obviously review, as well: (1) the Guidelines apply to both paper and electronic filings; (2) “filer” is broadly defined, and includes, by way of example, police officers applying for search warrants and amici curiae; (3) filers must maintain and make available unredacted copies of redacted documents (exhibits, but e.g.--not drafted motions, or other documents drafted specifically for filing with the courts, which documents should be drafted to avoid inclusion of complete personal identifying data sets); (4) the Guidelines introduce specific additional mandates for Appellate Court filings, since those documents become more widely available than trial court documents.

So, that’s not so terrible, right? And, if you think about it, it makes sense for a variety of reasons. Court documents are widely, and more widely so everyday, available, and are available online, to boot, which means that there is a large treasure trove of otherwise unprotected personal information available to the diligent identity sneak thief. My reading of the General Law Chapter 93H is that the court system is not required to comply with the law, as a department of the state government (if you disagree, just bear with me for a moment, it may become immaterial, our disagreement, that is) . . . but, that would represent a massive gap in the law, given the becoming public nature of court documents, and given the aforementioned loopholiness of the entire system design. If the courts were asked to comply with the statute, they could not make many existing court documents public, as they are required to do. If they were asked to redact documents on the order of the Guidelines produced, it would cripple the entire court system, which is already overburdened and underfunded. So, really, the only way to protect personal information/PID of residents (what have you) is to eventually make redaction (really reduction) of PID an affirmative duty of submitting filers/parties, mostly attorneys. (Let’s not fight anymore.) And, in any event, it’s likely best practice anyway: I was doing this myself in the drafting of documents, at least, in the long ago days of my practice. Besides, a savvy application of systems creations, the adaption of workflows and the adoption of appropriate technologies will make the bit of redacting just another minor matter that attaches to court filings, in the end. Applying electronic redactions is far easier than using the typewriter. (Get rid of it already!)

But, if you still and really, really hate these Guidelines, or even if you’d just like to see them tweaked, you can complain and cajole, as well as send, your comments and suggestions to PIDGuidelines@sjc.state.ma.us. Remember, these guidelines are just that at the moment, having not yet become effective requirements. They, or something like them, though, will become requirements, however; but, as of now, you still have the ability to affect the final form of rules by voicing for your changes.

. . .

That’ll be all for me, as I am off for a long weekend of my own making. But, when I return, you can be sure that I’ll be right back at the blog, carrying on the good work that’s always gone down here in #2.

But, for now, Let the wild rumpus start!

Jump Like Jack Flash: Get to Windows Folders Faster Using QuickJump (It’s Alright Now)

TechHit, inventor and purveyor of “Outlook utilities that save you time”, as well as other various and sundry utilities and add-ins for use with your email, social networking websites and operating systems, has recently released its QuickJump software, which is a way to “quickly” (now) navigate to Windows folders.

Sounds simple. Why is that important? Well, think of how many folders and subfolders you have on your computer. If, rather than clicking through/drilling down to subfolder number nine to get to the document you need, you could find that subfolder more immediately, by typing its name, or a form of its name, and by clicking on it first, rather than it ninth, so that it opens to reveal your document . . . wouldn’t that be easier? If you could do that, you’ve just added some typing, but have saved yourself, not only, 8 clicks, but also the time it takes to search among what may be a vast number of subfolders to get to the one you need, too. Wouldn’t that be nice? Well, that, in a nutshell, is what QuickJump does.

The term “in a nutshell” was practically invented for QuickJump--my apologies to those purveyors of same-named law school guides that I never bought. (“Look at the size of this bloody great big nutshell.”) The phrase, “So easy, a child can do it” (or, a caveman lawyer) was also invented for QuickJump. Once you have set up QuickJump (a download and adding directories to be searched as you wish) it is literally a three step process to get to any subfolder on your computer, as follows: (1) Hit Control + Shift + J to bring up the QuickJump menu; (2) Begin typing a folder name; (3) Click on the folder when it appears, to open it. That, my friends, is beautiful in its simplicity. Watch this video to get the Quick How-to. Now, if you can’t figure out how to use this product after watching the video I will contribute exactly $0 to your purchase of the product. People have told me that I’m crazy before. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last.

But, what I can do is give you 20% off the purchase of QuickJump through the end of October. Just go here to get the discount rate. That’s right. We know people. At least until Halloween, when we turn into pumpkin squash, or some other such flattened Gord.

Beyond the simplicity, there are a few other potential advantages related to the use of QuickJump. Obviously, it can be a real time saver, like flying through, your folders and subfolders, especially if you’ve adopted a complicated tiering pattern. This is an especially useful tool for attorneys who have many matters pending and closed and likely have all those matter files and matter subfiles organized ad infinitum on their computers. But, beyond the obvious uses, one further feature that I really like is that you can create a new folder or subfolder at the QuickJump dialog box. Another is that you can utilize QuickJump out of the “File Open” and “Save As” boxes in Windows applications (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc.), so that you can find your documents and save your documents more quickly by navigating immediately to specific folders to do so. This sort of maneuverability is heartwarming, especially, to those of us who are anal retentive: Now, I can create as many tiered folders and subfolders as I want without spending a million clicks figuring out where I set myself up to have to go next . . . That is, if I wasn’t OCD, as well, and didn’t like counting the clicks so much . . . But, I’m learning that using QuickJump will allow me more time to count other things, like the minutes I’m saving using the product. And, beyond the ease of use and nifty, time-saving subfeatures, the price is right. Even without the LOMAP blog reader discount, you’re still paying only $29.95 for the download at full price.

The effectiveness of QuickJump is hard to argue against, if not impossible, to argue against. It does one thing, and does it well. It quite simply works. It truly saves time and effort. Unless you really love corn mazes (no, not maizes), you’ll really love QuickJump. My only quarrel is with what it does not do . . . yet. I’m sure the program developers are one and more steps ahead of me on these requests, but I make them nonetheless. It would be nice be able to drill down (search for, far) beyond folders and subfolders to documents within folders and subfolders. The program currently only works with Windows. So, at present, Mac and mobile users are largely out of luck. But, these are not reasons to avoid the program, if you are a Windows user: to say that a program could be improved is to say that a program exists. You’ll find QuickJump nonetheless helpful, even while waiting for the second iteration.

But, don’t take my word for it (God, I loved "Reading Rainbow"): see what these unpaid and unaffiliated commentators have to say!: here.

And, if you like QuickJump, you may like some other TechHit products, as well, including Outlook faves SimplyFile (for email categorization/folder management), EZDetach (automated email attachment removal and save) and MessageSave (email archiving).

Thanks to Andrew Gorman, the Massachusetts Bar Association’s Education Coordinator, for testing this product with me, and for relaying his impressions, which were useful in producing this blog posting.

Getting to No: Rejecting Opportunity as a Means for Expanding Potential

I Don’t Get No (ba da da) Re-ejection. I Don’t Get No Reject. Hell, no. Nah. Say Yes to the No. Well, then you’d know I’ve seen “Say Yes to the Dress”. No. Getting to No? A play on words. Better. Getting there. Okay.

Yes. However you caption it, the theory is the same: you can get as much, or more, out of saying “no”, as you can out of saying “yes”.

Lawyers’ time is the most precious commodity. Yet, lawyers rarely treat themselves to it; often, they’re too busy getting caught up in most, if not every one, of a number of daily distractions. Time management is essential to the efficient and effective practice of law, whether you are an hourly biller, or an alternative biller, which alternative billing is yet rooted in a consideration of time spent and output produced. And, a distinct part of time management, a measure of the value of your time, is to know when to say “yes” (this is meaningful and valuable to me and my practice) and when to say “no” (this is not meaningful or valuable to me or my practice, at this time, maybe ever). This is, I suppose a subspecies, perhaps, of knowing when to hold them, and when to fold them. Or something like that.

Especially when you are starting out, whether as an attorney generally, or as a solo, or as a small firm manager, it can be tempting to take on every assignment and every opportunity that comes your way. Remember, though, that doing so is a bad business decision. It means that others are controlling your schedule. It means that your time is not so valuable to you; and this will be reflected in your engagement with others. It means that you’re not properly vetting clients. It means that you’re a candidate for burnout. It means that your work-life balance tends to work. It means that you’re likely doing someone’s else work for them. Most importantly, it means that your time is not your own.

The next time you’re about to nod, but before you verbalize your commitment, consider, first, the folllwing:

To the Exclusion of Others. Since where you’re going, you need roads, you only have so much time. Twenty-four hours in a day is all that you’re allotted. You should sleep during some of those hours, of coure. But, you work hard, and you work much of the time, and, still, you never finish everything you planned when you plan to, and you never will. With this scheme prevailing, think of what effect that next commitment will have on your general availability, to practice, to market, to move your firm forward. Since our time is finite, every obligation you take on is time away from another obligation. Continual robbing of Peter to pay Paul will eventually mean that Peter calls his friends.

Work-Life Balance. Remember that there is life outside of the practice of law. I know. I know. It’s hard to believe. But, it’s true. So, make sure that you leave time available to introduce yourself to your children now and then. Every evening panel you speak on is a night away from home. Every article you agree to write is an evening or some weekend time take away from family and friends and some real fun. You need to get out there and show your expertise; but, measure the cost. Determine how much is too much. Lawyers work hard, and are prone to work too hard. You must set limits on yourself, on your time, and prepare to follow through with your directives. If what you’re being asked to do now is just too much, just say no. You’ll be fresher and more effective when you’re at work; you’ll get more done; and, you’ll have more time to spend at home.

Client Selection. Saying no also means rejecting representation of clients that you know will be trouble, from the outset. Taking on problem clients, when you just know it’s a bad idea, is, well . . . a bad idea. Don’t wear Bad Idea Jeans to work. It is difficult to tell people no, especially people who will potentially pay you cash money. However, you must resist the urge to take on problem clients, or clients whose cases are interesting, but which may not fall into your specialty, or intended specialty. I was watching MTV’s True Life: “I’m a Sports Addict” yesterday . . . well, I mean, my wife was, and, anyway: and this woman on the show was a model with a website at which she appeared in NFL licensed gear, without permission to use said gear. The woman received a letter from the NFL, basically telling her to cease and desist. The website being her only means of income, she did not wish to. So, she went to have a consultation with an intellectual property attorney, at which point, I turned to my wife, and said, “Watch this, he’s gonna take the case.” To my surprise, and delight, he reviewed her claims, paused for a moment, and said to her: “They’re right. You’re wrong. You’re screwed.” Now, that is saying no. Of course, there are certainly less crass methods to accomplish the same object; but, the point is: just don’t take cases that aren’t good for you. Tell your potential client, in no uncertain terms, that you will not take the case. Memorialize that decision in writing communicated to the client.

Technology. We talk a lot about technology at the LOMAP blog. We’re sort of into it, I guess you could say. But, having an appropriate technology base means that you must be considerate of your purchases. Don’t (1) buy every new gadget just because it’s new. Just because something came out brand new doesn’t mean you need it brand new. That’s a Ralphie mentality. Or, maybe it's a Ralphie’s Dad mentality. (Darren McGavin is the man, by the way.) You should only buy upgrades and upgraded products when the upgrading is useful to you, specifically. So, this is not just about researching a product, it is about determining your needs, and seeing if a product to be purchased truly matches your needs. Oh, and also, Don’t (2) buy more than one (2) of anything, if you don’t need more than one of something. Consider how many phones you have. How many laptops do you use? I visit with a number of attorneys who have different computers for different functions. Why is your accounting software on one computer while the bulk of the rest of your software is on another? Sure, you’re getting two screens, but the idea is to get those two screens tied to one machine. One of one device is easier to manage than two of one device.

Power Hour, OHIO and Hawaii. You can make yourself more efficient by saying no to distractions and to redundancy. Give yourself over to the Power Hour. Close your door. Turn off your email alarms. Turn the sound down on your computer. Put the DND function on on your office phone. And, work on something, solid and steady. You’ll be amazed what concentration can do for you. It’s a bit old-fashioned to stop multi-tasking, maybe even a little American gothic, but it works. I have recently adopted a version of the Power Hour in that I will leave my work computer on behind me, and physically turn around and work on a project on my personal laptop. (I know what you’re saying . . . But, Jared, you just said that you can’t have two computers. Well, I did qualify, as follows: if you don’t need more than one of something. And so, I need a personal computer, which personal computer I give over to work usage, from time to time.) It’s amazing how fast I become when I don’t have email, Twitter, the internet, etc., to distract me. I am quite literally shocked when I look up to see what time it is. It is as if time has slowed down. Try it some time, it will blow your mind. Just ask Alan Klevan. So, works for me. And, that’s part of the point here, too: Processes that you can apply to reduce distractions are not limited to those that people tell you about. Do what works for you even if what works for you is something of your own invention. Everybody talks about OHIO, the only-handle-it-once (at one time--there are stages for completion) principle, for clearing and managing your tasks. But, how you handle specific tasks using this principle is mostly up to you. Maybe your program is HAWAII. I don’t have a program called Hawaii. I just think that if you start to say no more, you’ll have more time, you’ll be more efficient, you’ll make more money, and maybe you can vacation there.

. . .

Liner Notes

Ben Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie and The Postal Service has teamed with Son Volt frontman Jay Farrar on the soundtrack for the Jack Kerouac documentary, “One Fast Move Or I’m Gone: Kerouac’s Big Sur”, soundtrack to be released October 20.

Speaking of Gibbard, I quite fancy “Little Bribes” from Death Cab’s new EP, “The Open Door". Cool lyrics.

My man Stephen Stills does a great acoustic version of the Manassas’ track “Johnny’s Garden” on “Later . . . with Jools Holland”, out of the BBC. (“Later . . . with Jools Holland”, by the way, is the best live music show you’ve never heard of.)

Here’s some sweet bluegrass to start your weekend. Steve Earle and the Del McCoury Band. Together. That’s right. Drink it in. “Texas Eagle” is just a smokin’ bluegrass tune.

(If you can’t get enough of Del and the boys, here they are doing “1952 Vincent Black Lightning” and here they are jamming with Dierks Bentley.)