12 Days of Christmas

Nell and I couldn't remember all of the things that went with the days in the song, so I looked it up. Since this is probably a common problem, I thought I'd post them to help everyone out. Also, having a christmas song in your head during finals time may relieve the stress. Maybe.

First day: The Partridge in the pear tree, of course
Second day: Turtle Doves
Third day: French Hens
Fourth day: Calling birds
Fifth day: Golden Rings
Sixth day: Geese a-laying
Seventh day: Swans a-swimmin
Eighth day: Maid a-milking
Ninth day: Ladies dancing
Tenth day: Lords a-leaping
Eleventh day: Pipers piping
Twelfth day: Drummers drumming

Additionally, I have discovered there is religious significance to each of the days. Though not a believer myself, I thought it was a little bit interesting. And its always nice to have some additional context. So here is the christian hook to each day:

1 True Love refers to God
2 Turtle Doves refers to the Old and New Testaments
3 French Hens refers to Faith, Hope and Charity, the Theological Virtues
4 Calling Birds refers to the Four Gospels and/or the Four Evangelists
5 Golden Rings refers to the first Five Books of the Old Testament, the "Pentateuch", which gives the history of man's fall from grace.
6 Geese A-laying refers to the six days of creation
7 Swans A-swimming refers to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the seven sacraments
8 Maids A-milking refers to the eight beatitudes
9 Ladies Dancing refers to the nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit
10 Lords A-leaping refers to the ten commandments
11 Pipers Piping refers to the eleven faithful apostles
12 Drummers Drumming refers to the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed


Source

The Peeling of an Orange

Oh, the many-fold pleasures of peeling an orange. First, there is the peel. For maximum satisfaction, I recommend nothing but the bare essentials: the fingernail. Plunge the finger and nail into the peel of the orange. Be sure not to pierce to fruit, though. Then the peeling begins. The satisfaction of removing a large, unbroken area of daffodil-meets-rose peel rivals the contentment of paring away the section of sunburnt skin--but a husk of once-epidermis--that now is only ghostly film flaking from the shoulder. Scores of minutes elapse. Still I strive to remove the orange obstruction; every whit must go. And then, an exposed citrus.

Or is it? Close your eyes. Breathe in. Then out. Now look: you are not done. An opaque layer of white flesh lingers on the so-called "orange." What to do? Too thin to use the tough protein--known as keratin--to pierce and rend the residue of peel from the pome.

A knife! Not to stab or plunge or destroy the fruit, No! But to gently coax the fleshy whiteness from the succulent profit of the sweet, sour, citrus meat of the orange. It is here that the wisdom of the orange becomes lucid; for peel and pull and prod and poke as you might, there remains more to unfasten.

Never orange. Always, still, white.

The lesson of the orange is patience, forbearance, stoicism. The true ecstacy is in the process, the journey, the methodology of creating an unsullied fruit. To reveal and create... an Orange.

Crazy World

The headline says it all: Police say mother microwaved her baby. Wierd and creepy with plenty of horrible.

King James was gay?

It's true. Some of the things he wrote to his friend are pretty homo-erotic. Apparently, he wrote this to George Villiers, the first duke of Buckingham: "I naturally so love your person, and adore all your other parts, which are more than ever one man had." Kind of sounds like a Foley email.

Source

WashU Law Review on TaxProf

Congrats to my law review friends! I think I may have predicted this, but I think we can all agree that this was a good choice for publication. It helps, I guess, when you publish something written by the blogger himself.

I just don't know

Finals are coming up. That means long days and late nights studying. Rereading cases that I highlighted months ago. Actually, the only way I know I've read the case before is that is has highlights in it. I read some of these cases in disbelief; there is no way I've read this before! But the yellow marks all over the page beg to differ.

Classes blur together at this time of year. Did I read that case in Admin or Fed Jur? Is the "zone of interests" test the same as the "nexus" test? Private actions are implied under 10b-5 AND 1983? Which has the Court cut back on? Is that IRC 404 or ERISA 404 or Sarbanes-Oxley 404? I don't know.

It's possible I might know soon. But only for a short time. Did I really do this last year? Or maybe I just remember being more prepared than I actually was. But I didn't have to give a presentation last year.

I don't know. Sometimes, too many words are in my head. Probably too few. I don't know.

NCAA and Tax Exemption

Recently the House Ways and Means Committee sent a letter to the NCAA asking it to justify its tax exempt status. The NCAA has posted the reply from President Myles Brand. I’ve had numerous conversations lately about exemptions under Section 501 under the Code, and I think this issue regarding the NCAA is perhaps even more interesting than the debate over religious organizations.

The stated tax exempt purpose of the NCAA is to “maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body.” The question raised (or one of the questions raised) by the Committee chairman, William Thomas (R-California) (who will soon be replaced as chair by Charles Rangel of New York), is a really good one. In light of the fact that college football and basketball have become billion dollar industries, what justifies the disparate treatment of professional sport and college athletics?

The reply letter uses familiar (and sometimes very convincing) arguments. It also mentions this statistic which I was unaware of:

“However, even if the more inaccurate federal rates are used, student athletes in Division I graduate at 63 percent, two points better than the general student population. Of note, African-American male student-athletes graduate 11 percentage points higher than African-American males in the student body, and African-American female student-athletes graduate at a rate 16 points higher than their counterparts in the general student population.”

That alone seems a pretty compelling reason to maintain college athletics. Another familiar and compelling reason to treat the NCAA favorably:

“Divisions I and II intercollegiate sports provide $1.5 billion annually in athletics scholarships to help pay the cost of education – including for many low-income students who would otherwise have to forgo the college experience.”

But the question that should be asked whenever Congress writes a social-policy-based exception into the Code is, “Is the tax subsidy necessary to encourage the socially desirable behavior?” In the case of nonprofits, the general thought is that an incentive is needed for taxpayers to contribute money to charities. This rationale is clearly borne out by empirical evidence: when the limit on deductions for charitable contributions is reduced, charitable giving declines in lock-step. Another justification is that taxing the income of charitable organizations would discourage the work of the organizations and be antithetical to their purpose. This justification seems fine to me also. Depending on the actual purpose of an organization, nonprofits are generally providing services that the government would otherwise be compelled to provide.

How about the NCAA? Do they need an incentive beyond the insane revenues from television contracts and sportswear sales to encourage them to provide scholarships to talented athletes? Do people actually donate money to the NCAA? Couldn’t football and basketball be spun off into a for-profit corporation?

One of the reasons I have animosity toward the NCAA is exemplified in the answer of Myles Brand. Even though the line between professional sports and college sports are being blurred, one clear distinction remains: the players are not compensated (other than by scholarship). This explanation seems to me to suggest not that the NCAA should continue to get special treatment, but that they should lose their tax subsidy and be required to pay their players. The only people not making big money off college sports are the ones putting in all the work. While it is true that a few students are compensated for their efforts with lucrative professional contracts, the vast majority are left with nothing but bad knees and degrees in communications. How is that a desirable result?

My rebuttal

Below is my rebuttal to the email in the previous post. It's not that great and I would have liked to develop some things a bit more, but election day is tomorrow, after which my rebuttal will be irrelevent. So here it is:


The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are back. A new direction from there means what?

I’m not sure what is meant by “back.” Defined contribution pension plans have been increasing since 1974. In recent years defined contribution plans have been gaining even more popularity as employers are shifting away from more costly defined benefit plans, shifting the investment risk from employers and onto employees. The recent pension legislation that was enacted and signed into law by Bush will continue to cause defined contribution plans to become even more popular as the compliance costs of administering defined benefit plans increases. The fact that very recently 401(k) contributions have increased is a predictable and ordinary result of recovering from a recession. Were wages not stagnant, 401(k) contrubtions would be even higher. The fact that they are as high as they are despite stagnant wages is a result of a greater level of wealth consolidation among the richest Americans. I don't view an increase in income disparity as a positive.

Unemployment is at 25 year lows. A new direction from there means what?

This statement is only true if one looks at the household survey of unemployment as opposed to employer reporting. According to the more reliable employer reporting, which has been used by economists and the government for years, unemployment is decreasing very slowly. But more importantly, wages are stagnant, an almost unprecedented occurrence in an economic recovery. In other words, people are getting jobs, but their wages are not even keeping up with inflation! Does that sound good to you?

Oil prices are plummeting. A new direction from there means what?

Plummeting? Really? Because just a couple months ago oil prices were the highest ever per barrel. You don’t have to be a cynic to think that the cause of dropping oil prices is connected to the mid-term election. The president has significant ties to the oil industry and has an uncomfortably close relationship with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. So why do you think OPEC would want to lower prices before an election? Maybe because it is in the best interests of the cartel to keep Republicans in control of the American government. If you think that oil prices will continue to drop or even simply remain constant after the election, then you are naïve.
A new direction would mean developing new fuel sources and technology, including renewable energy technology and cleaner burning coal. A new direction would mean pressuring car manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency.

Taxes are at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means what?

While marginal rates at the top and bottom are lower, the result of the tax cuts is an increased burden on the middle and upper middle class. The tax cuts significantly reduced the proportion of government programs supported by the top 1% of the population. They also reduced the tax burden on the very poorest in society. The result is a tax that puts the burden of supporting our troops, paving our roads, and providing government services on the middle 60% of the country. Now this may not bother some people, but I happen to believe that a country should apportion tax liability according to a person’s ability to pay. Because of the marginal utility of money, a person’s millionth dollar is of less value to that person than his thousandth dollar. I believe that taxes should be apportioned according to the marginal utility of one’s income. This means a highly progressive tax with a large exemption at the bottom.
So a new direction from there means demanding that the government bring in enough revenue to meet its obligations, and that the revenue be collected from all Americans according to their ability to pay.

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there means what?

This is quite a misleading statement. While it is true that tax revenue for the 2005 tax year was nominally quite high, after adjusting for inflation and population growth, per capita tax revenue is at the same level it was in 2001.

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year. A new direction from there means what?

This is simply not true. The projected deficit for 2006 is almost 50% lower than predicted by the Bush administration in February of this year. But the deficit at the end of the year will be 2.3% of GDP. And even the Bush administration predicts that this will increase in 2007 and beyond. The Bush administration’s predictions also assume that the exemption amount for the Alternative Minimum Tax will return to its pre-2006 amount. Neither a Democratic nor Republican controlled Congress will let that happen, as the CBO and JCT forecasts acknowledge. The administration’s predictions and the calculation of the current deficit also count the principal and revenue from the Social Security trust fund as general revenue. This is particularly disturbing considering the increase in Social Security payments that will correlate with the retirement of the baby boomers.
A new direction from the Republicans’ Tax cut-and-spend policies would be following a course of fiscal discipline by passing budget resolutions that make revenues and expenditures meet. I would not let this Republican Congress control my household budget. Would you?

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction from there means what?

I’m not sure how maintaining and exacerbating the housing bubble is a good thing. The fact that housing is and continues to be overpriced is a signal of market inefficiency. And in light of the following assertion regarding inflation, I've got to say that you should pick one or the other. Either inflation is bad and it has been kept in check, or inflation is good and Bush has managed to infate housing prices.

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means what?

Inflation has been held in check for the past 20 or so years. For the most part, this is due to the Federal Reserve Bank’s manipulation of interest rates. It is also worth pointing out that the goal of an economy is not to keep inflation at the lowest rate possible. An ideal inflation rate should be between 1 and 2.5 percent. To the extent Bush has had anything to do with inflation, his contribution to low inflation has been following policies that have kept wages stagnant for the entire duration of his time in office. Ironically, inflation is even lower once you adjust for artificially inflated oil prices. I say "artificially" because the prices are driven up by the decisions of the OPEC monopoly, with which Bush has significant ties.

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. A new direction from there means what?

I’m not really sure how to respond to this one. It is true that “terrorists” have not attacked inside the US since Septembet 11, 2001. However, there is no evidence that the Bush administration has had a hand in stopping any legitimate plan. It is also the case that Bush has declared on numerous occasions that serious threats had been foiled when in reality, there either was no threat at all or the threat consisted of a half-dozen indigent Americans talking about how they wanted to fly a plane into the Sear’s Tower while taking (and having the resources to take) not a single step in furtherance of their plan.
In addition, there have been numerous terrorist attacks within the United States in the form of people walking into schools, malls, office-buildings, etc. and gunning down numerous people, often children.

Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel. A new direction from there means what?

Pointing out that Osama is still alive and putting out videos and tape recordings would seem to militate against Bush, not in his favor. The fact that Bush has failed to capture or kill the mastermind behind 9-11, in large part due to the distraction of an unnecessary war in Iraq, is not a point in his favor.

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks. A new direction from there means what?

There has only been one verifiable, legitimate terrorist plot that has been foiled, and that is the British plot he mentions. However, it was the liberal Labor government of Great Britain that gets the credit there.

Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are alighting the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here. A new direction from there means what?

The militants in Iraq who are killing US soldiers are not “terrorist cells.” They are native Iraqi insurgents who either were loyal to Saddam or are opposed to the new proposed government. Sunnis and other religious factions, unhappy about being forced from their position of power, are attacking both rival factions and US troops. Just because someone is Arab and opposed to US occupation of Iraq does not mean that he is a terrorist. At least, not a terrorist in the same way that Al Qaeda or Hezbollah are terrorists.
I guess a new direction here would mean leaving the Iraqis to fight their inevitable civil war and hope that the side that wins isn’t to mad at us for fucking up their country even more than Saddam did.

Moreover, bear in mind that all of the above occurred in the face of the 1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corporate scandals throughout the 90's, and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on NYC years in the planning which collectively sucked 24 trillions dollars and 7.8 million jobs out of the US economy even before G. W. Bush had time to unpack his suitcases in the White House.

Excuses are like assholes. Every has one, and they all stink. And what was the title of that memo Condi Rice received in early 2001? That’s right, it was titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the U.S.”

It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they do. What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no matter how they might try.

It is easy to discredit Bush, isn’t it? I guess that is because he is the most dishonest President since Nixon. And while it might be hard to refute irrefutable facts, it is not that hard to refute generalizations and deliberate misinterpretation of facts.

Do yourself and this country of ours a favor and don't be a mindless sheep or a blind liberal lap dog, bent on hate and blame-shifting simply in the name of hate and blame-shifting. Take heed of reality, use your head and cast your vote wisely in the upcoming elections. The stakes are far too high today, as America's very future, and yes, even its very survival is now at stake.

No one should be a mindless lapdog. People should look at the facts and vote their conscience. Some people's consciences push them to help people less fortunate, to tell the truth on issues fundamental to self-governace, and abhor the manipulation of terrorism to scare people into belief. Some don't. The stakes are high, but America’s survival is not at stake. America has survived a lot and it will get through a lot more, whether that be a Republican Congress or a Democratic Congress.

Do we really want change?

My former boss and friend sent me a bit of conservative propaganda. He's a bit conservative and he used to loved busting my balls about my liberalism. Everyone once he a while, he would draw a stick figure on my paystub next to the federal and state withholdings. The stick figure would be bent over, being metaphorically sodomized by the government. He was convinced that actually experiencing the trauma of receiving one's first paycheck and seeing first hand the deductions from one's pay would immediately turn me into an anti-tax conservative.

It is many years later and I am still a liberal. I'm a bit more moderate in many ways, but that does not include my opinion of taxation, on which I am even more liberal and pro-tax than I ever was before.

Anyway, he sent me this email suggesting that Democrats who suggest that we need a change are misguided. It is my intention to send a rebuttal to my boss, and I would appreciate everyone's input. Even if you agree with any of the statements, let me know. I would appreciate references to support any criticism or support you might have. I may or may not post the rebuttal I draft.

The content of the email:

A NEW DIRECTION FOR AMERICA - VOTE DEMOCRATIC ?

By now you've all seen the Democrats' latest campaign slogan: "A New Direction For America -- Vote DEMOCRATIC!"*
Let's analyze this empty and misleading promise.

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are back. A new direction from there means what?
Unemployment is at 25 year lows. A new direction from there means what?
Oil prices are plummeting. A new direction from there means what?
Taxes are at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means what?
Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there means what?
The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year. A new direction from there means what?
Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction from there means what?
Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means what?
Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. A new direction from there means what?
Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel. A new direction from there means what?
Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks. A new direction from there means what?
Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are alighting the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here. A new direction from there means what?

Moreover, bear in mind that all of the above occurred in the face of the 1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corporate scandals throughout the 90's, and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on NYC years in the planning which collectively sucked 24 trillions dollars and 7.8 million jobs out of the US economy even before G. W. Bush had time to unpack his suitcases in the White House.

It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they do. What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no matter how they might try.

Do yourself and this country of ours a favor and don't be a mindless sheep or a blind liberal lap dog, bent on hate and blame-shifting simply in the name of hate and blame-shifting. Take heed of reality, use your head and cast your vote wisely in the upcoming elections. The stakes are far too high today, as America's very future, and yes, even its very survival is now at stake.

And that is the content of the email.

High School Musical

RULES!!!! Nell and I just watched it for the first time on the Disney Channel. And it was awesome. Great tunes. Likeable characters. It is pretty much just a remake of Grease. But that being said, Grease was great, and this is great. Probably my time would have been better spent studying for the MPRE tomorrow (on which I have to score an 85 to be admitted to the bar), but I have no regrets. Great movie. I might even make you a creme brulee.