kagmi

I've heard such wildly contradictory claims about this lately that it's frankly a little embarrassing.

The current official income tax rate for people making over $250,000 is 33%, which is the highest income tax bracket. But I keep hearing liberals claim that rich folks pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than do middle-class workers, and I keep hearing conservatives claim that the rich pay over 70% of their income in taxes.

Does anybody know where these people might be getting their figures? I know that capital gains tax is only 15%, which means that investors might end up paying much less on investment returns than on earned income, but that's not written into the income tax code, and I can't figure out where people are getting this 70%+ figure. Near as I can tell, income tax rates on the rich haven't passed 40% since the days of Richard Nixon. Am I missing something fundamental about how taxes work?

Any info on the matter would be appreciated.

Hello all,

I've been interviewing for full-time research jobs lately, and I've noticed something that makes me a bit nervous--I often pass other candidates going into or out of interviews who are dressed more casually than I am.

I've been going with the usual protocol for business jobs--a black suit including matching skirt. But I don't know if this is giving off too much of a businesslike vibe for academia. At my last interview I passed a girl leaving who was wearing only a dress shirt and tailored pants.

Should I be looking into buying less intimidating businesswear, or is it even possible to be overdressed for an interview?

All opinions appreciated!

Hi all,

I was talking with a friend yesterday, and she raised an interesting point. The Bible, Torah, and Qu'ran do give commands regarding sexual conduct which believers are presumably supposed to follow. But they also give commands involving a lot of other things--put God first in your life, love your neighbor as yourself, honor your father and mother, even guidelines for the humane treatment of livestock, etc..

So why is it that in our society, sex is the major issue that the religious and nonreligious clash over? You see so many religious groups opposing things like gay marriage and comprehensive sex education--but very few of them dedicated to opposing things like lying, violence, unfair economic practices, and animal cruelty. Why is that? Is it because sex is what the religious and non-religious disagree on most strongly, while everyone generally agrees that things like lying and cruelty are bad? Or does sex pose some other special threat, greater than the other sins, that I'm not understanding?

I'm also wondering if it has been like this historically. I know there was a lot of paranoia about sexuality (at least female sexuality, men seemed to get away with whatever) during the Middle Ages in Europe, but I know there was also just generally a lot of emphasis on sin and I'm not sure if things like dishonesty and avarice were dealt with equally.

Thanks for any thoughts and info on this matter!

Hi all,

I've been hearing a lot about this controversy with the "sexist" question Michele Bachman was asked during debate last night. If you didn't hear, the debate moderator asked her what it means to her to be a "submissive wife," and how that would effect her presidency.

This didn't come out of the blue--it was prompted by a speech that Bachmann gave to her church, in which she described herself as a submissive wife and encouraged other church women to be the same. She went so far as to suggest that she only got her tax law degree because her husband encouraged her to do so.

Liberals and conservatives alike have since been attacking the moderator who asked her as being "sexist" and "inappropriate." I just don't see how this works. Would we not be equally concerned if a husband campaigning for president had described himself as submissive to his wife and described his wife as having guided his career goals? I would think there'd be a bit of an uproar if that happened.

So why isn't it appropriate to ask Bachmann the same question?

The main thing I'm wondering about here is the "Born Alive Act," an act which Obama has often been criticized for rejecting. What concerns me is that the critics often claim that by rejecting this bill Obama has denied unwanted fetuses/babies their only legal protection--but as far as I've been able to find, late-term fetuses and babies are -already- protected under U.S. law.

I know that the U.S. Supreme Court has long since declared abortion after the 24th week to be unconstitutional except in the case of a medical emergency. I also know that an abortionist is currently being charged with murder for killing fetuses/babies delivered alive in his clinic. But I haven't been able to find out for sure if he's being charged under federal or state law.

So my question is, if these laws are already in place, what exactly was the "Born Alive Act" supposed to do that was new? I'm not real familiar with the contents of the bill except for the repeated claim that it was supposed to offer the only legal protection for unwanted babies, which confuses me since near as I can tell such protections were already in place.

Thanks for any info on the matter!

Hi all,

I'm probably not alone in being confused about the recent possible changes to the Western zodiac. Actually, I understand exactly where the changes are coming from--from the movement of the Earth's axis in the 3,000 years since the Western zodiac was put together.

What I don't understand is why many astrologers are saying that the movement of the stars is actually irrelevant to astrology. I've heard it said that the new changes are not valid, because astrology is based on the planets and the seasons, not the actual constellations. But wasn't the original idea of it that the constellations themselves -were- important?

I'd really like to get some insight into how Western astrology is really supposed to work. I may soon be testing it, and I want to be sure that I'm testing the right system!

Hi all,

I've been researching a little about world religions, and I've been struck by the fact that monotheistic Gods are universally jealous. All monotheistic religions seem to have strict commandments against the worship of any other God, or the practice of any other religion.

What I'm wondering is, why? It seems logical for a human to be jealous and not want people to give others credit for their hard work, but why would the perfect creator of the Universe be so concerned about being worshipped by humans?

I've heard the argument that if one worships the wrong God or follows the wrong religion, one may end up making immoral decisions--but then why is the practice of the "wrong" religion considered to be a serious sin in and of itself?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Hi all,

I know I ask this same question around this time last year, but there has been little progress on the issue. The situation is this: I am a 21-year-old college senior who recently moved back in with my parents for economic reasons. My parents are devout Catholics and as such believe that believers must attend Mass every Sunday and that it's a serious sin not to. I am atheist/agnostic and have been for a few years now.

The dilemma we're facing is whether I should continue going to Mass with them on Sunday. My parents can't seem to tolerate the idea of me "sitting at home doing nothing" while they're out doing "the most important thing in the world." I'm not really comfortable in the church they're going to, and I think it's giving the wrong idea to the clergy and other parishioners to see me there every week when I'm no longer trying to be Catholic in any way, shape, or form.

My parents don't force me to accompany them if I can find something that requires me to be out of the house on Sunday afternoons, but they get extremely upset if I try to stay home from Mass without an "excuse." It's at the point where my discomfort with being there isn't too bad, but two Catholic friends both recently told me they don't think there's any point to me continuing to go and that they think I may be nurturing a form of denial in my parents by doing along.

What do you guys think? Advice from Catholics would be appreciated.

Hey all,

A friend of mine has been having some disturbing eye-related symptoms. Several weeks ago she was diagnosed with a small hemorrhage in her retina. Today she began experiencing vision trouble again. She was evaluated by her eye doctor and told that she had some more, small retinal hemorrhages, but that the visual disturbance she described was typical of migraine sufferers. This disturbance was in the same eye as the first hemorrhage. The visual disturbance went away about an hour after starting.

My friend has never experienced a migraine, and she is not diabetic. She has had brief spikes of dangerously high blood pressure in the last few years, but her blood pressure day-to-day is pretty normal. The causes of her previous high blood pressure spikes has never been confirmed, although emotional state was suggested as a possible cause.

We're wondering if there's anything that could be going on to cause these symptoms in one eye, other than the above conditions. I'm suspicious that there's something going on with that eye specifically, but her eye doctor keeps just telling her she must have either diabetes, high blood pressure, or migraines. Any doctors here who have heard of anything similar?

I don't know about in other countries, but in America we hear a lot about "family values." Some politicians even make it a big point on their platform that they represent "family values" and will support them through legislation.

What I'm wondering is, what do family values mean to you? Part of the political divide in this country seems to be that people have very different ideas of what makes a good family. I'd like to hear your views.

Please also include why you think what you think!

Thanks

Hi all,

One question that's been on my mind lately is why faith is considered a virtue by many world religions. I'm not talking about trust between persons here or trust based on prior experience--I'm talking about the kind of blind faith referenced in the passage "blessed is he who has not seen but has believed."

What I'm wondering is, why is this considered a good thing? If we are to believe the teachings of one religion without seeing evidence, what's to stop us from believing any old teaching we come across without seeing evidence? And if we are supposed to look for evidence, then why is it a bad thing to be a "doubting Thomas?"

I've heard various interpretations of this some say you "just know" when you hear the truth, "as the sheep know the voice of the shepherd." Others say that faith is not a virtue but rather a gift from God, as St. Paul seems to reference when talking about his conversion. Still others say that we should try having faith and wait for evidence to follow as a result of our faithful practices.

What do you think?

I recently received a flier from a local church group listing various claims about the famous image, "Our Lady of Guadalupe." Some of the claims are pretty striking, including the claim that doctors examining the painting have found lifelike signs such as a pulse and maintenance of human body temperature.

I've had very little success finding objective sources for the technical details of the image online. Almost all the sources I can find, including the official Catholic ones, say a little bit about certain physical attributes of the image but either don't address or don't really clear up these claims.

One of the claims I'm most curious about is the purported presence of near-microscopic images in the eyes of the painting. I've read some claims that they contain clear images of people which are too small to have been painted by a human hand, while I've heard others say these are mere tricks of the brain's tendency to look for face-like patterns in the random distribution of black and light within the paintings' eyes.

What do you know about these questions?

I'm quite curious about people who call themselves "Satanists." I've heard and read so many things contradictory things about Satanism, I'm wondering if there's an expert out there. I've heard that it's an enlightened philosophical movement based on self-improvement; I've heard that it's a nature-based neopagan religion with positive and negative aspects; I've heard that it's a vicious cult dedicated to harming innocent people; I've heard that it's an atheistic movement based off a book written by an angry atheist in the 1960s.

What do you know about any of the various groups that call themselves Satanists?

Hi all,

I live in a college town that has many vibrant church groups as well as many nonchristians. Lately I have noticed a trend that bothers me. Many of the campus' church groups and Bible studies have adopted the practice of promising "good food," "great music," and "fun times" as a way of encouraging nonchristians to attend their worship services. The idea is presumably that it is acceptable to get nonchristians in to church in any way possible so that they'll have the chance to have an encounter with God, but I'm getting annoyed by what I feel to be skirting the issue. These tactics seem to be used to avoid an actual discussion of faith with the invitees, which would turn away those who are not interested in becoming Christian. Do you think it's worth it to get people into the church in hopes they'll start to develop an interest, or do you find it inappropriate to avoid discussing faith when inviting people to church?

Hi everyone,

I've got another weird question for you. I've been working on a sci-fi environment and I recently realized that, due to a miscalculation on my part, the gravity was going to end up being about 1/3 that of Earth's. I'm wondering if growing up under such low gravity is expected to significantly effect human height and bone structure; I know that it effects bone density, blood volume, etc.. But since no one has ever grown up in space I don't know if the skeleton would end up growing far taller with far less force to push against.

So what are your thoughts, biologists? Would the amount of force the skeleton is subjected to cause it to grow taller than we see here on Earth, or would the body's growth clock be likely to stop somewhere near Earth height?

Thanks so much!

Hi all,

There's a question that has been bothering me for a while. In recent months we've seen a lot of "anti-socialism" protests. Many of these protesters, perhaps the majority, seem to oppose socialism on religious grounds; many even explicitly say that they're protesting on behalf of Jesus and their Christian values.

My question is, how on Earth did capitalism become a Christian value? It's very clearly stated in the Bible that Jesus and his disciples actually practiced and preached communism. The first disciples lived in collectives where they pooled all their belongings, and "everyone had all that he needed." Jesus also preached extensively against amassing personal wealth and in favor of making sure the poor were provided for.

I'm genuinely curious about where this is coming from, especially since many of the Christians who are most vocally pro-capitalism are also very dedicated to sola scriptura. Any insight into this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Hi everyone,

I've been hearing a lot of protest against genetically modified crops, particularly by the Mansanto corporation. Now I'm no fan of Monsanto for other reasons, but I continue to wonder if there's anything to this anti-GM food hype.

I've heard of many scares and suspicions about genetically modified seeds, but the most serious problems with them I'm aware of are the transmission of weedkiller-resistant genes to wild plants and weeds. Now call me crazy but that doesn't sound like a major human health risk.

Is anyone aware of any incidents of people getting sick, having allergic reactions, nutritional problems, etc., because of eating genetically modified plants? Everything I've heard about genetically modified seeds has been positive--plague-resistant wheat, golden rice, etc.. But I can't help but feel that I'm missing some key piece of information.

Hi everyone,

I know that bacterial cells can be infected and killed by viruses. I also recently learned that many bacteria carry viral DNA within them that has been incorporated from viruses that attacked them in the past.

What I'm wondering is, is it possible for bacteria to be "carriers" for viruses the way multicellular organisms can be? Could a bacteria, in infecting a host, inadvertently release the virus into that host's system?

This isn't in regard to the flu virus or any particular known virus. It's just a hypothetical question. Have there been any known incidence of bacterial infection spreading a virus from host to host, or is it theoretically possible?

On a related note, is it possible for bacteria to substantially alter their hosts' DNA? I know some theories of cancer have microbes (not viruses) invading cells and causing DNA disruption, but I don't know how common or widely accepted that theory is.

Any input on the subject would be appreciated. Thanks so much!

There's a church with a large chimney right outside my bedroom window; every dawn and dusk for weeks, I've observed hundreds of small flying creatures launch themselves out of that chimney in the morning, only to funnel back into it at dusk.

They're the right size to be bats or small birds; but I think they're bats because I've never seen that many birds nest in such a narrow, vertical structure. What do you guys think? Are there any bats in North America that come out in the morning and return home at dusk?

Hiya,

While I appreciate the gesture, I was just wondering who decided to vote a bunch of my answers up today. I got a bunch of emails in rapid succession about being picked best answer, so I was wondering who you are, oh mystery voter!