woo hoo!  finals are over (again)...

and it was crazy.  my income tax I exam was nuts, and I know I missed at least 3 questions.  

the problem is that with 30 questions at 3 points each, and you get an additional minus 1 point for wrong answers, I did the math and it turns out that if you answer the 3 questions and get them wrong, you get 78 points.  if you didn't answer the questions, you get 81 points.  the discrepancy grows as the number of wrong answers increases.  For instance, if you answer 10 questions wrong, you get 50 points.  But if you didn't answer those 10 questions, you get 60 points. 

the worst example of unfairness in this system is where you have student A who answered only 25 questions, but got them all right (5 no answer).  This person gets 75 points.  But, if student B was in the same position (5 no answer), and decided to take a stab at one of them, but gets it wrong, then this person will end up with 74 points.  the discrepancy grows as the number of no answer/make a stab at it decisions increases.  

the cutoff is at 26 correct answers -- here, you get 78 points for answering 26 correct questions.  If you make a stab at one of the four unanswered questions, if you get it wrong, you are still at 78 points.

but below 26 correct answers, you are a fool to answer them unless you know you are absolutely right.  while this may discourage random guessing, it seems to encourage not completing the exam.  when it comes to the top few people in the class, the highest grade goes to the person who figures this system out (before the exam).   usually, it is a tossup between two potentially correct answers, and in a normal system you have a 50-50 chance of getting the points.  But where you are dinged for making the wrong choice, your chances are decreased.  it becomes a system of "better no answer" -- which is not what I thought testing was all about. 

Problem:  we were not warned about this grading policy before the exam.  If we had been, we would have had enough time to figure it out and decide our test taking strategies. 

if you can't defeat terrorism with conventional means -- use the tax laws!
Andrew C. McCarthy on Holy Land Foundation

read this article! besides not being afraid to use the "T" word, he actually does a pretty good job summing up the problem with hamas.

no more 501(c)(3) status...and about time.

unfortunately, however, two of the hamas culprits have fled the country.

finally, at least, one of the prime money sources will be cut off. but, there's always europe, and the islamic secret money exchanges.

Woo Hoo!  I made Law Review!
 
I can't believe it, I'm so excited!  I'm jumping around doing the "woo hoo" dance...
 
Hard work, no pay, miserable cite checking...
 
what more could a law student want? 
 
another round of the "woo hoo" dance...time to C-E-L-E-B-R-A-T-E!!!

Internet Access Tax Moratorium Debte

Gene Quinn has a great collection of information on the current debate, and links to his 2000 article:
Tax Implications for Electronic Commerce Over the Internet, 4.3 J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 1 (2000).

much ado and I haven't had much time to investigate this lately, though I've been tracking developments for the last few years.

my basic position: access should be completely free of taxation, but commerce could be taxed in a reasonable way.

why access should be free:
to explain by the oft-touted analogy to the "information superhighway"...
we do not pay a direct tax any time we take an on ramp on our local highway (unless you are on a toll road, and that is a usage fee, not a tax). by the same analogy, we should not pay a tax simply to jump on an information superhighway.

in the first, you pay tax when you buy your car, when you buy gasoline (which yes, I do recognize includes some "highway tax", but it is administered as a consumption/sales tax), and when you make repairs.

in the second, you pay tax when you buy your computer (like the car), when you buy something on amazon (like gasoline), and for repairs from usage or damage from viruses.

with both the car and the computer, we access the highway in order to locate and purchase/consume things, to produce income in order to purchase/consume things, or for personal pleasure.

those who can't afford cars or computers still need to access the highway, and they take the bus or go to the library or an internet cafe.

When we have long had the tradition of a free highway system (with the few toll roads as an exception) for cars, is it not only fair but right to have access to the internet free from taxation?

But more importantly is the issue of double taxation -- we already pay tax on our internet bill (especially if you are using your telephone line). And we pay tax on our cell phones and pdas which also access the internet.

Now I'm not against reevaluating the situation if access to the internet was ubiquitous, but we are still in the first 50 years of this project. not everyone can afford access yet -- many people can't even afford a computer. the federal government should continue to encourage expansion of access unhindered by yet another consumption tax which will impact the ones who can afford it the least the most.

and on that note, I will realize that it is getting later and I have some final exams to attend to...

and in two weeks, my "all tax, all the time" summer will come to an end (woo hoo!). then it will be "some tax, some of the time" before it becomes the "work you to death" year.