Last day

Today will be the last day of class. I will be extremely sad. Sad enough to go out afterwards and consume quite a few alcoholic beverage which will perhaps be captured in photos that someone will use in a few years as potential blackmail. And then I will wake up on Friday with a ginormous hangover and begin a three-week period of hell, with a brief break to go out to the Rose Bowl on Saturday to see UCLA get crushed by "that other school" across town. At the end the aforementioned period of hell called exams, I will receive a letter defined from the A/B/C curve recently raised to 25/70/5. You gotta love grade inflation.

Musak

Today I installed Examsoft, the infamous software law students use for exams that shuts down everything else on the computer. And my computer crashed as a result of it. After some "please continue to hold, your call is very important to us," musak, and directions to visit a website for technical assistance (I would have loved to, except that my computer was broken and that's why I'm calling), I was placed on the phone with a guy in India who helped save my computer.

I have less reason now to trust this Examsoft.

Welcome back

Hope you all had a good long weekend. I ate a lot, slept a lot, got stuck in horrible traffic, saw some people I really like, watched a good college football game, and did not do a minute of this thing I hear people refer to as "outlining."

Why? Because I've been outlining since day one and I update it weekly (I subscribe to a rebellious law school philosophy as set forth by various "rebel" law school how-to-guides). Plus, I believe that people need a break from law school and to spend four days cooped up doing outlines and practice exams is bad for one's mental health. This is not a knock against the "traditional" law school way; I would simply rather spend my time working smart than working hard.

P.S. I am featured on Legal Underground this week, as "Love tips from an expert." Interesting that people view me that way.

Eat, drink, and be merry

I have turned off anonymous comments. From now on, if you would like to leave a comment, you will need a username (you can get one free in under a minute). If you still wish to let me know how you feel anonymously, you can email me uclawblog at g mail.

Happy Thanksgiving everybody. One of our professors has a strict recommendation against law students packing law school books for Thanksgiving, and being the obedient student that I am, I am following that advice. Be safe and see you soon.

Helping out a brother

(Here's a reader email I got after I wrote about TheLadyFriend, but neglected to respond to since the whole graded memo and taser thing kind of got in the way.)

Hey Fox,
I'm a 1L at [name of law school] and you seem to be very comfortable around females. I guess I'm sort of a shy guy, so I was wondering if you had any advice on how to have more success in the female department.

Thanks
[name]

I found the email odd, since I don't view my blog as a relationship/dating blog, nor do I intend it as such. I don't really have a formal philosophy on "how to have more game," but the email got me thinking, and so I've formalized The Fox's Five Rules on Gamesmanship. (I know these rules might not apply to all females, but I view these rules as generalized rules that apply to most.)

Rule #0.5 (needed to even play the game): Thou shall not be a dirty slob.
That means some basic things should be a given, and even more so now that you are in law school. That means showering regularly, brushing your teeth, using deodorant, not wearing pizza-stained t-shirts, etc. If you don't master this step, you're out before you've even started.

Rule #1: Thou shall not obsess over any one particular girl:
If a girl turns you down, cut your losses and move on. Don't obsess over her. It's simply unproductive. Be an adult (don't say, "fine! I didn't like you anyway!") Hanging around or constantly calling her will only make your stock drop lower in her book. Not obsessing over her shows your maturity and your desirability. (See Rule #5)

Rule #2: Thou shall not be an open book:
If you put yourself out there all at once, you are doing a bad job. Putting just enough of you out there to keep them curious is the preferred way to go. It has been my experience that girls like to peg guys into boxes and think that they know who a particular guy is. By giving off enough mystery to keep them guessing, you make yourself more desirable.

Rule #3: Thou shall learn to read female signals:
Lots of times, a female friend will see their male friend talking to a girl, and later when he comes back empty-handed, the female will remark that the girl was totally into him, while the guy will be perplexed and ask "how do you know"? It's because all girls have this instinctive way of demonstrating their interest in a guy that other girls recognize but often times guys are oblivious to. (Crossing arms, eyes looking around the room, etc.=cut your losses. Touching her hair, playing with the straw in her drink, etc.=green light) Paying attention to signals and body language is key.

Rule #4: Thou shall not ask questions with one word responses:
Guy: Hi, I'm Steve, what's your name?
Girl: Lauren.
Guy: What do you do?
Girl: I'm a designer.
Guy: So do you come here often?
Girl: Sometimes. (Girl thinks "what is up with all these questions?")
This type of conversation is not very interesting, and will not get you anywhere. The key is to phrase open-ended conversations that elicit responses that let you show your personality and/or elicit her values--i.e. something she is wearing reminds you of this trip you once took, that you took advantage of the weather and went surfing this weekend, etc.

Rule #5: Thou shall be seen around females:
This means that you are automatically more attractive to females if you are seen around other females. Any girl can tell you of the strange feeling that a guy just seems hotter if he is around another girl. Perhaps this is because if he is around another girl, he has already been screened and vetted by a similar someone with two X chromosomes and is therefore not a crazy ax murderer or because of the natural human tendency to want something that we can't get. So, the moral of the story is to find yourself some platonic female friends (and if you don't have any, your sister will do) to improve your worth in the eyes of the opposite sex.

These rules are not exactly very formal or systematic and is simply what is coming to my mind. (Of course, the easiest way is naturally to be outgoing, tall, confident, funny, etc., but that's not most guys.) Hope this helps.

*One more caveat: this is meant to attract females so as to allow them to see the great guy you are. If you're naturally an a--, these rules will probably not get you very far. Nor will these rules work for you if you're just trying to get into a girl's pants (frat parties will work better for that purpose).

*Caveat #2: you do realize that this is dating advice from a law school student, right?

Does it really matter?

I have recently heard/learned/been informed of various attempts to learn my identity. I do find it flattering that learning who I am has been providing a good distraction from working on our graded memos. I guess this tells us what is really more important in law school.

I will neither confirm nor deny any of the speculation here in this blog.

Here’s the way I see things:
Someone can claim to being me, but then would have to take responsibility for everything that I post.
But most (including myself) will deny, and we’re back at square one.

Unless I post something really determinative (i.e. that I’m from S.F. or that I went to Berkeley, both of which might or might not be true) or am actually caught posting in class, I do think that I will enjoy this cat and mouse game.

My final post on tasers

Extreme right reaction to the taser incident: U.C.L.A. Security Set-Up By Agitators

Come on, are there people who actually believe that this incident was set up by the huge, vast "liberal conspiracy"? That there was video because the incident was set up in advance (along with the other two video incidents in LA this week) and not because of the proliferation of video cellphones? That the incident was reported in the papers because newspapers are bastions of the liberal conspiracy and not because taser incidents are big news on college campuses? Why do some people automatically construe events based on political ideologies?

Beside the ridiculous, the belief that this whole event was staged rests on a huge major logical fallacy. To assume that the incident was staged also requires assuming that the police behavior could have been predicted by "the planners." Except the whole reaction by most of campus was based on what people view of as an extreme (and thus unpredictable) act by the police.

There is an ex-police officer in the 1L class. His view is this: that both sides messed up. The student was being a jerk, and he should have cooperated. The police overreacted because you don't stun someone who is refusing/can't get up. Tasers are used to subdue, rather than to compel. If four officers can't pick a student up off the floor, you call for backup. The word he used was that both sides were being "boneheads."

A whole three dollars

An example of my superb reasoning skills:

Gas here in Westwood: $2.59
Gas 30 minutes away: $2.19

Savings: $0.40/gallon

Savings on 15 gallons: $6.00
-Round trip gas spent: $3.00
_______________________________
Total savings: $3.00

So I just drove a whole hour to save $3, when I could have been working on my graded memo.

Can't we all just get [some common sense]?

"But [Assistant Chief of Police] Young said at the time the police likely had no way of knowing whether the individual was armed or that he was a student."

Some ways you can tell if he was a student without a BruinCard:
-run his name through the system
-have him use his password and log on to a computer terminal
-have him show his textbooks, course reading, etc.
-have his friends with BruinCards vouch for him

Whether he was armed:
When can police ever tell if someone is armed? Some extensions of that logic: if someone is pulled over for driving without a license, police should taser the driver, since there's no way to know if the driver is armed. If someone is given a jaywalking ticket (they actually give those in LA), police should taser him if he can't produce ID.

As we all know, college libraries are extremely high-risk areas and college library patrons are extremely high-risk individuals and police can reasonably expect these high-risk individuals to be armed in these high-risk area.

1,2,3,4

Here we go, making the news again…

Last night, an undergrad was at the main undergrad library studying. (You don’t need a UCLA ID to get into the library, as it is a public facility funded by tax dollars.) But after 11PM, security goes around and randomly checks people for their ID. The student did not have his BruinCard with him, and the guard asked him to leave. Campus police are called. No efforts were made to check that he was a student in another way.

(Here the facts get murky…Police report says student was being belligerent and uncooperative, eyewitness reports say that student was being cooperative.)

He is arrested, and while in handcuffs, he is tasered at least four times. When one student complains to police for excessive force and asks for his badge #, the police threaten to taser him as well.

(And by the way, the student is a student of color of Persian descent.)

My take…
It depends on what the real facts of the case are.

In facts most favorable to the police, I think that the police still overreacted. Common sense suggests that someone of student age dressed like a student who is studying at the campus library at 11:30PM is a likely a student (I know they’re going be naysayers, but come on…has being in law school eliminated the use of common sense?) Other efforts should have been made (i.e. run his name through the campus system) to ascertain his status as a student. At least 4 police officers were involved in the incident, and there was a single student. If he was being belligerent and refusing to leave, police might have had reason to arrest him. Taser him once maybe if he was really resisting. But these four trained officers, who presumably had control over this student (belligerent and all) felt the need to taser him not twice, not three, but at least four different times. The video shows that after he is shocked once, he is unable to stand. It doesn't make sense (at least to me) that police would shock someone in order to make him stand. And I think the police realized it eventually, as the video clearly shows that by the end, the student is limp from the taser, and had to be dragged out by two officers. And to refuse to give out his badge #, as mandated by law?

In facts favorable to the student…I don’t think I need to address that.

Here’s the Daily Bruin article, also with a condensed video of the incident: http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=38960
Here’s the LA Times article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cellcamera16nov16,0,4794591.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061116/wr_nm/rights_cameraphones_dc

Being in law school, what do you think was the topic of conversation all morning? The law school consensus is that the University will be paying up. If the case settles before any legal action is taken, the school will pay. If it gets past summary judgment (and most likely it will), the school will be eager to avoid the trial and publicity and will pay up. And if it goes to the plaintiff-friendly juries of Los Angeles, the school will most definitely be paying something in the 7-figures.

Official announcement

-------Start of announcement--------

The Fox is officially off the market.

After an interesting four months of single life in LA, I am now "officially" with TheLadyFriend. For those not introduced to her through previous posts, she is the northeast boarding school raised, Ivy League educated (is way smarter than me), recent grad who turned down medical school to try and make it in Hollywood. "I can always go back and cut open corpses if this whole acting thing doesn't work out," she says.

Sorry to disappoint all my female readers.

-------End of announcement--------

On a side note, school is picking up and the Graded memo for Lawyering Skills is due next week. As with a common 1L blogging trend I've noticed, I too will be diminishing the frequency/quality of my posts. My newfound curricular and extracurricular commitments will have to take priority.

Quote of the day

[Middle-aged male law professor, being totally serious]: "Legally Blonde is a phenomenal movie. It's an inspiration as to what the law should be."

Tisk tisk

To the (I assume) 1L from a Weyburn IP who arrived at this site through a google search of "ucla law 'graded memo'": did you really except to find the answer to our Ari Gold graded memo online? As technologically challenged as law professors might be, I think they would be smart enough to avoid anything that could be googled.

Don't worry, he's got more

I was driving down the 405 today in my [name of a cheap car] when I saw a bright yellow Ferrari along the divider, crunched up like an accordion.

Cars are to LA what designer bags and shoes are to New York and what fake boobs are to porn...the things by which people measure themselves to others. So, in all likelihood, FerrariMan has a spare $180K Ferrari at home.

Professor gossip

Anyone in law school knows how it is like high school for many reasons. Chief among them is that it is a closed universe and anything you do wrong or scandalous (which in my case I guess happens a fair amount of time), the word travels around the school like a Malibu wildfire. 1Ls are told to do all they can to avoid the gossip loop, since law is a small circle and you will eventually be working with your classmates in the same profession.

But here's a concept I haven't seen talked about much, and it exists to a large degree (at least here). Students aren't content just to gossip and spread rumors about other students, but also want to gossip about the personal lives of their professors and other professors in general. "Hey, did you hear so and so about Professor [x]?" Even though I try to avoid the gossip loop, I've heard the following things about various professors:

-One who drives a Porshe
-One who drives a Jaguar
-One who drives a banged-up Accord (and earns upwards of 200K)
-One who doesn't know how to drive and the school pays for a car and driver
-One who used to date/is dating a law student
-One who dropped out of high school and has a GED
-One who is cheating on his wife
-One who was spotted at a strip club
-One who's mother and brother are/were justices on the 9th circuit
-One who was married to a famous Hollywood celebrity

We're not content to gossip about ourselves, but also to gossip to break down the mystique of law school professors, who at the end of the day, are just as prone to indiscretions and put on their pants one leg at a time like the rest of us. Law school creates one big incestuous family is the moral of this story.

[EDIT: Because this is a state school and it is required to report their budgets to its constituents, the biggest fact of them all is that the salaries of every single professor is available online with a click of the mouse.]

Uniquely Californian

California pioneered the proposition system, and I've realized that you can tell lots about CA by looking at how it voted. Here's a rundown of this year's propositions.

Proposition - 1A Transportation Funding Protection
Yes 76.58
No 23.42

Proposition - 1B Highway Safety ($20B bond issue)
Yes 61.22
No 38.78

Proposition - 1C Housing and Emergency Shelter ($3B bond issue)
Yes 57.47
No 42.53

Proposition - 1D Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities ($10B bond issue)
Yes 56.51
No 43.49

Proposition - 1E Levee Repairs
Yes 63.95
No 36.05

Proposition - 83 Sex Offenders
Yes 70.49
No 29.51

Proposition - 84 Parks and Water
Yes 53.75
No 46.25

Proposition - 85 Notify Parent Before Abortion
No 54.10
Yes 45.90

Proposition - 86 $2.60/pack Cigarette Tax
No 52.09
Yes 47.91

Proposition - 87 Alternative Energy ($4B program)
No 54.63
Yes 45.37

Proposition - 88 Education Funding ($50/house tax)
No 76.87
Yes 23.13

Proposition - 89 Campaign Financing
No 74.44
Yes 25.56

Proposition - 90 Bar Eminent Domain
No 52.47
Yes 47.53

Lots of people compare California to New York, but looking at these results, one can see that CA is a lot more libertarian and less liberal (in the traditional sense). There's quite a big proportion of anti-big government types (look at the 30% who voted against increased punishments for sex offenders and 52% who voted against a cigarette sales tax). Exception to its aversion to taxes: to improve the roads (since CA drives so much) and to protect the environment.

And in other news, the Governator handily won reelection.

Rare political post

I generally try to avoid writing about politics for two reasons: 1) I can't stand the back and forth of political conversations and 2) unlike many law school students who eventually want to enter politics, I have zero interest in being a politician or working for one.

For regular readers, you probably can deduce my political leanings. Even though I subscribe to a political party, I actually believe that control of all levels of government by any one party, Blue or Red, is a bad thing. Working unilaterally because one party has absolute control is not in the best interests of national unity. Split branches, on the other hand, will actually require people to compromise, to determine priorities, and to step back and see the big picture political landscape. In other words, to fully integrate themselves with the advantages and burdens of a democratic system of government.

So, here's my broad, very neutral take on the events of 11/7.

For Republicans:
Blame for what happened lies in three words: Bush, Iraq, Ney. The party squandered its good will it gained over the last twelve years and did not stick to its principles it started out in 1994 with. Power has a tendency to do that to people, and absolute power in the form of the White House, House, and Senate exacerbates the situation. It needs to go back to examine its core principles, and to revamp its message for 2008.

For Democrats:
It's taken 12 years, and it needs remember that being complacent with power was what started the downfall the last time around. The party has convinced Americans that the country is headed in the wrong direction, and needs to follow through on what it promised. If it does not follow through on its campaign promises or get too giddy over the win, they will quickly be booted in 2008.

Vote people!

Today is Election Day. Here's my public service reminder to you all to vote. It doesn't matter who you vote for, so long as you do it. People around the world clamor for a chance for democracy and to vote, yet we Americans take a lackadaisical attitude towards voting. I'm sure you all have complained over the past few years about certain policies set forth. If you don't like something, MAKE YOURSELF HEARD.

I will be going bright and early to my voting place (and I quote from the notice I got from the LA County Clerk):

Meeting Room/Orange Table
Fraternity House
10918 Strathmore Dr.

This will be the first time in my life I will be voting in a frat house.

Life in LA

1. Today is November 6, and the high temperature today is 88.

2. Screw law school. I'm currently in the search for the perfect street taco. For you Angelenos out there--if anyone knows where I can get a mean street taco (I assume I will have to go to the East side), please let me know.

[EDIT: Here's the story behind the taco hunt: LA is largely Mexican, and it occurred to me the other day that I have yet to eat a good taco. Hanging around the Westside, most of the Mexican places have resembled the gringo-fied Baja Fresh types, and just don't have the sabor of an authentic street taco. The only time in my life I've had a good taco was from a street stand in Tijuana. (No, I was not there to get bovine steroids or Viagra from one of the thousand pharmacies there, but to bail/bribe a friend who got put in jail for his inebriation.) Outlines, schmoutlines...I'm excited now about my "Harold and Kumar"-esque search for the perfect street taco.]

Quote of the day

Prof: "I really need to get a drink after class, and I'm sure that I am not the only one in this room that feels this way."

Well said.

I really need to hunker down and do some work this weekend, so unless something major comes up this weekend that I feel the urge to write about, I will be MIA. This weekend is also the Cal/UCLA game up at Berkeley, and lots of Cal alums (probably 50% of UCLAW went to either Cal or UCLA for undergrad) have gone up to the game. So, a perfect weekend for work for me to be studious.

Law school humor

(Background: 1L female is telling me about how she is sexually frustrated. This seems to be a common theme running through many 1Ls, male and female alike.)

1L: I'm not sure I can take it anymore.
ME: You know, there's a real simple solution: Just go and have yourself some wild monkey sex.
1L: Is that an offer?
ME: Is that an acceptance?
1L: What do you think a contracts professor would say?
ME: Something about how offering sex would just be a unilateral promise and hence no consideration.
1L: Damn! I guess no valid contract then.
ME: I'm afraid not. Unless we can show promissory estoppel and how one of us changed our position adversely in reliance on the promise of wild monkey sex.
1L: Would damages then be specific performance?

Scandalous!

Today was the first day of November. 1 month of 1L classes left to go. People are freaking out. I went to the bar tonight.

Today was also Nov. 1, the first day law schools are allowed to talk about the "J" word. The higher ups in the national association of law schools or something like that have decided that schools can't talk about jobs until Nov. 1, and all this month, there are lunches and receptions and panels and strippers and workshops and seminars up the wazoo to get us ready for the 1L summer job hunt. (Just checking to see if you were paying close attention).

Except our Career Services office is a bit rebellious and we had our intro to career services meeting on October 30.