A rite of passage for every law student is reading the famous torts case, “Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad.” It is the major case in the study of proximate cause–I’d even go as far as saying that “Palsgraf” puts the “P” in “proximate cause.” (I know, I’m really clever.)

Anyway, for those who don’t know what I’m talking about, the story goes something like this:

Ms. Palsgraf was standing on a platform waiting for her train to arrive. While waiting, another train was disembarking–which was apparently the train a mystery man did not want to miss. The man jumped onto the moving train, but wasn’t able to get stable footing, so railway officials on the train helped the man board. Somehow the man’s package fell him his grasp and onto the tracks–the package being filled with fireworks which exploded. The explosion caused scales to fall onto Ms. Palsgraf, who was still standing on the platform some 30 feet away, and injured her.

Anyway, the whole reason why this case is famous is because Ms. Palsgraf lost her negligence suit against the train station because it wasn’t foreseeable that she would be harmed when the station negligently helped the man board the train. Afterall, she was standing 30 feet away, and the package didn’t indicate that it was filled with fireworks. All in all, she was not within the “zone of danger” and therefore lost.

The extent of a Palsgraf study usually ends at that. However, did anyone ever wonder what happened to Ms. Palsgraf after her lawsuit? Of course you did…and here is the answer!

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1102543076693

I’m not about to paste the whole article because it is a bit too long for a blog; but I can type that the Palsgraf family has suffered what they call a “curse” because they have had more than their fair share of misfortunes—which lead them to sue and, guess what, lose.

While driving home last night after class, I was listening to 97.1′s “Conway and Whitman” show and the topic was why men tend to get turned off by women who are well educated. Apparently there was an article in USA Today or something entitled, “Smart Women Finish Last,” and it mentioned how a greater number of intelligent women are single compared to dumb women. And of course, being a radio talk show, the host fielded phone calls from listeners, and most of them happened to be men. And guess what? All the opinions I heard were about how intelligent women tend to be more opinionated and argumentative, which turns men off. Therefore, men prefer dumb women because they don’t say anything.

Naturally, as an educated woman, I was turned off by these comments. These men, who don’t like smart women because they “nag” too much, are obviously the type who crush beer cans on their foreheads and wipe their asses with beef jerky. You know, the kind of guys who still believe in “barefoot and pregnant,” and think beating their exgirlfriends will convince them to come back. Yeah, real winners. And do you know why they don’t like smart women? Because smart women are capable of seeing through the veil of chauvinism–and therefore know when a man is trying hard to hide the fact that his testicles are full of air.

Here’s the thing: you don’t need to be smart to have opinions. And you don’t need to be smart to realize when someone says or does things that are wrong. So the argument that smart women tend to be more argumentative is completely hollow.

So what’s the real issue? Some guys prefer to be ignorant of their own shortcomings; it makes them feel manly and dominant…and dumb girls have bad taste and therefore don’t notice those shortcomings.

But smart girls, they’ve got class. They prefer men of their own kind, their own breed, and they’re aware that they are in a position to be able to pick and choose. So if you’re a guy with a minor flaw, but it irritates a smart girl, she will leave you and go find someone better. Because she can take care of herself, and therefore isn’t in any rush to get married to a breadwinner. She is the breadwinner.

So for every guy who believes smart women are the Devil because they talk too much or whatever, those guys are exactly the type of guys that women with brains actively avoid. If we are the Devil, then you are the Plague. And you know…I would not trade my intelligence for all the money, fame, or success in the world—because that is my protection against deadbeat losers who spend their weekends sitting in ratty love seats and high-five each other whenever they hear someone on television say “ass.”

Happy Birthday, Loretta! 

You are 4 years old today!

I am more than blessed to have you as my sister. You are the only person who understands my jokes, and you laugh with me at things no one else finds funny. And you are always there for me whenever I need someone to share my troubles with–I owe you a lot for keeping me sane.

If it weren’t for you, our Greatest Hits album would never exist.

The Shimi Shami Shamba wouldn’t have been a dance craze.

Strawberry Shortcake’s movie would have no fans.

Muzzy would just be a green creature that dances with elves.

No one would know what Peter Rabbit haded to do.

Datson wouldn’t have a theme song.

No one would trick me into eating bitter, red frosting.

Crispy meat wouldn’t be funny.

And so on…

Thank you for making me laugh every day.

I think all of us, at some point in our lives, have been scolded for wasting food–and the scolding usually consists of the phrase, “there are starving Africans in the world!” or some variation of the term. That’s the automatic chiding that comes out of a person’s mouth the instant they sense someone is going to toss their half-eaten sandwich, the Tootsi Pop that wouldn’t give up its chocolate center, the nasty left-over KFC that became all soggy after a night in the refridgerator. Move too close to a trash bin while you’re holding a bag of chips and *BAM!* 1 thousand people are going to start screaming, “what about the Africans?!?”

It’s scientifically proven.

But using the plight of the hungry as a way to get people not to waste food doesn’t make very much sense…since not throwing away food doesn’t make fewer people hungry, does it? Let’s think about this for second:

If you told me I should get a box for the leftover fatty pieces of chicken that I refuse to eat, and your only argument is that some homeless person is hungry right this second—I wouldn’t be any more inclined to box up the fatty pieces. Because even if I did, that hungry homeless person would still be hungry.  And even if I did force myself to eat the fatty pieces on behalf of the homeless, the orphans, or the starving Africans, they would still be starving. So unless you could show me how my finishing up every little bit of food on my plate will actually, physically, benefit those who are less fortunate, don’t open your mouth unless you’re planning on eating my leftover fatty chicken pieces for me.

Okay, I know all that stuff I wrote is based on my taking the “starving Africans” phrase literally. I know the actual purpose of the phrase is to get us to appreciate what we have. That is a very good purpose…no one should take their good fortune for granted. But I actually think throwing food away is an indication of my appreciation, and not a sign that I am ungrateful. Because if I throw food away, that means I’ve been able to eat as much as I wanted, and now I no longer need to eat anymore–it essentially shows that I have a full belly and am thankful that I am not starving and needing every bit of nourishment I can get my hands on.

And if that doesn’t work for you, then maybe this will: I am not throwing food away, because when I put it in the trash can, I am actually donating it to someone who will eat it later for dinner.

Note: this doesn’t mean I don’t care about the starving people. I just think there are much more effective ways of helping people out than eating all your leftovers…ever heard of donating money to charity?

I have conquered the behemoth known as “IRAC.”

Pronounced “Iraq”–but not having anything to do with the country–IRAC is the standard format for writing legal documents: Issue, Rule, Application (of the Rule) and Conclusion. Deviating from this basic structure results in red marks and low scores–I should know, for I created the IRARCAC…and apparently I was the only one who thought of myself as a genius.

Last year I had a really hard time figuring this IRAC out. Whereas in high school and college you can get by as long as you maintain a linear train of thought, it doesn’t work that way in law school. I’ve never been forced to restrict my writing until I got here: issues only go in one place, rules follow the issues, do not put rules in the application section because that’s not where they belong, analyze the rule before the conclusion, etc. And you end up having to forget everything you learned about writing so you can teach yourself something completely different. It’s really quite taxing if you’re set in your ways.

Since I didn’t fully grasp IRAC in my first year, my writing projects were usually average or below average. It was pitiful and a real b*tch slap to the pride…I probably would have continued to do sub-par work if I was able to advance into the 2L classes. Who knows what would have happened if I actually graduated on time! I would have writing skills and an even worse background in basic law subjects. In that respect, I’m very thankful that I’ve been given the opportunity to take another crack at 1L life…because, if I didn’t, I wouldn’t have gotten the highest score in the class on our first office memo.

Nyahahaha. Sometimes it pays to be stupid.

Whee! Contract midterm tomorrow! SWEET!