I like to link to wikipedia articles. I like the value added by a site that aggregates knowledge while setting up controls - computer and human - to screen contributions for self-promotion and inaccuracy. Of course, the law-related entries on there are not SCOTUS truth nor are they to be quoted for exams. But they often give a good thumbnail of an issue or discreet topic - particularly, if you’re a blogger looking to point someone to a thumbnail of collateral estoppel. One way though I think a1L can use wikipedia to his or her advantage is to contribute to it.
Ok, so it’s not like writing onto the Law Review. But the process of figuring out how to accurately convey information that we’ve learned in an objective, fact-based manner with citations can serve as extra practice, particularly as you outline and begin to grasp the intricacies of what you’re studying.
A close friend of mine was recently bitten by her beloved dachshund. (Mercifully, she’s alright.) I’m also told that her husband was able to stay his murderous wrath and not punt the dog, which makes him a better man than me. Like everything these days, it got me wondering what the legal ramifications of being bitten by a dog were, for the owner and the victim. Especially if it was by a wiener dog, which I’ve never thought of being deadly to anything but badgers. Continue reading ‘Attack of the Wiener Dogs.’
I’m generally busy at work. So when I get an extra reading assignment from a professor at 2:20 p.m. for that night’s class, I’m not happy. I got such an assignment today - and I was livid. Particularly since in tonight’s Torts class we’re discussing proximate cause and that hopelessly ridiculous case, Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad.
So, I finally get to a point where I can take a break and look at the supplemental reading and it starts with this little video about a tanker spilling oil into the water (ala the Wagon Mound Cases):
The other bit of “supplemental reading” was a column by law professor Andrew McClurg that contained this little snippet of the “in-chambers colloquy” between the judges that wrote opinions in the case (Cardozo for the majority and Andrews in dissent):
Cardozo: Let’s really mess with their heads by writing about two completely different subjects. I’ll go on and on about duty, then just when they think they might be figuring things out, you start talking about proximate cause. Use that ridiculous hypo you’re so fond of.
Andrews: The chauffeur and the car full of dynamite? That’s no hypo. It’s a joke. The chauffeur says to the guy with the dyna-
Cardozo: Whatever. Just cram it in there somehow. And remember-the overriding goal is to write an opinion that makes the reader think he’s losing his mind.
This week I made a mistake - the second time I’ve made it really.
In a way, we opened this blog to goof off. I wanted to improve my web design skills and write about this all-consuming experience I was having. After putting up version 1.0 of the design, I found friends wanted to join in the fun. When things around here got serious, our goal was to focus on our law school experience with a hefty dose of sarcasm, snark, and tomfoolery. By and large, we’ve slowly begun to figure out how that works. And we’ll continue to do so.
But we had a relapse in two recent posts (Gong Show and Second Amendment). While I think what we’ve written is good, it’s not new or original or law-related or funny or entertaining or insightful - all qualities we hope define our writing here. For a blogger, politics is like crack or junk food - something eaten when hungry or bored or in need of a quick fix and instead of finding a good snack (nice piece of legal news or gossip), you go to the old standby (political screed). Trouble is, we’re not really that good at writing about politics and there are plenty of people much smarter that we are writing about it. To those put off by our political digression this week, we apologize.
Anyway, it’s been a learning experience. When we approach “serious” topics that have political overtones we will try to tackle them from a legal perspective, rather than debate the political calculus. These are the sorts of things I feel like we should be doing. We’ll have more fun this way and we think you will too.
Also, look for some fun new features coming soon to Fight The Hypo - at least a few design tweaks, launch of the shameless commerce division, petitions, and there are rumors that a love and law school column is in the makings.
Dr. Bombay is convinced that I’m going to walk in one day and, much to his delight, burn my Right Wing Conspiracy Membership Card in front of our Torts class. That’s not about to happen, but several beliefs of my conservative brethren do give me pause.
Since BigShow has joined in the fray here at Fight The Hypo and since the Supreme Court is in the middle of considering its first Second Amendment case in decades I thought I’d begin the painful process of revealing my drift from certain tenets of modern conservative orthodoxy (to the extent one can “confess” to something pseudonymously anyway).
Let me start with a gross generalization… why is it that the very people who support limits on First Amendment rights oppose limits on Second Amendment rights? It’s as if some say, “No, you can’t burn that flag, but here’s an AK-47 to protect yourself and, in the meantime, hunt some deer.”
Say what? Hopefully we’ll hear from our Second Amendment friends on this, but hear me out…
