...we interrupt this program for a moment of sheer panic...

My parents, appropriately, spent today outside replanting our yards for spring and starting our new herb garden. I spent the day in front of my computer continuing to re-analyse 170 years of legal precedent, taking on (that wonder, that awe) the "reasonable person" standard.

As the 19th crisp, white page rolled off my printer I had a flashback to the day in class when Lady T (she of the cat stories and "cover your ass" legal tips) warned us to be very sure we were confident in our analyses should we choose to question the logic of the great justices of the legal tradition, since they are (understandably) very smart people.

At this point I had the first stirrings of unease, followed by the rush of absolute terror. I thought back to my paper, and all I had decided I believe about the problems in application of the "reasonable person" standard to negligence law. I considered the line near the end where I suggested that the standard leaves room for bias and interpretation by justices with varying degrees of commitment to corrective justice as the aim of civil law... do I really believe this? I thought I did... but varying commitments - am I doubting the motives of Supreme Court justices?

I imagined myself waking up in the morning after hours of fretful sleep, pondering the issue further on my ride into the city, handing in the paper... only to come back minutes later, chasing Lady T down the halls of Larkin... "SUBCONSCIOUS! They were only uncommitted in their SUBCONSCIOUS!.

I also, more rationally, thought about rereading the paper and making revisions, but decided against it. To thine own self be true, right?