According to the reputable TV Guide.

But if you change the question to be a bit more specific — “Are you absolutely certain in the existence of god?” — 42% will say no.

My education in psychology, or more specifically psychometric, taught me to view all subjective response surveys with a critical eye. That is, the answer is wholly dependent on the question, and many times the questioner. A simple and sometime harmless change in the question can render a completely different response.

What is interesting to me is the difference in “absolute certainty” found in difference religious denominations.

76 percent of Protestants, 64 percent of Catholics, and 30 percent of Jews say they are “absolutely certain” there is a God. However, most Christians who describe themselves as “Born Again” (93%) are absolutely certain there is a God.

That is some consistent certainty.

Also, it is interesting to see what demographics tend to have more “absolute certainty” than others — 50 and over, female, African Americans, republicans, and with no college education.

But they do agree on one thing — god is *not* a female. Only 1% of people found this to be true (and I assume with absolute certainty). The public is almost equally divided between those who think of God as male (36%) and “neither male nor female” (37%), with 10 percent saying “both male and female.”

Thankfully, this type of fanatical thinking is on the decline. Three years ago 79% of adults stated they believed in god and 66% were absolutely certain in the existence of god. Now, 73% believe and 58% are certain. If this remains linear, in about 25 years more people will be certain in the non-existence as the existence.

Note: I’m not saying anyone is right. I’m just considered with a position such as “absolute certainty”. I respect, or at least understand, the Doubting Thomas. Typically, the only thing I am going to be absolute certain about are mathematical facts (1+1=2).

I was watching 42 and Up on Netflix. It follows the life of several British children with interviews every 7 years from the age of 7 (14, 21, 28, 35, and 42).

This documentary is definitely not for everyone, but it fascinated me. You see how the children had such hope at 7, but by the years of 14 and 21 they are dark, confused, and sometimes cynical. By the time they are 28, they have have “found” themselves and don’t think they will deviate much from these ages. But 35 and 42 often show that is indeed not the case. Even when we think not much will change, life has some surprises. And how often the plans we do have change.

• Tony - as a child he wanted to be a jockey. Now, he is married, admitting unfaithful. At 42, he feel he has “gone as far as he can in life; anything else is a bonus.”
• Suzy - Born into a privileged society, she is sent to a boarding school and at 14 feels she was abandoned. At 21 she is cynical, doesn’t want to be She didn’t want to be married or have kids at 21. At 28, she was married with 3 kids.
• Symon - born an illegitimate child of a white mother and unknown black father, he struggles with this situation well into his 20’s. As a kid, he wants to be a film star, and later an electrical engineer. At 21 he is working in a freezer warehouse. At 28, he was married with 5 kids. By 35, he is divorced. At 42, he is remarried with another child named Daniel after his father. He now works in an office.
• Bruce - At 7 he is already discussing his ambition of teaching immigrants in India. At 14 he is outspoken about education and poverty. At 21 he is studying at Oxford studying math. At 28 he is teaching immigrant children, thinking about starting a family. At 35, he is teaching in Bangladesh and single. At 42 he is back in London teaching at an all girls school, just married, and in “middle-age content”. “When you have a partnership, that definitely makes you more mature because you aren’t always thinking about yourself.”

8 out of 10 stars.

I was watching King of Kong: Fistful of Quarters.

Meet Mark Alpiger, who plays with a weight lifting glove.

Billy Mitchell, who signs his name as USA and consistently wears USA-theme neck ties because he is playing for all American. And speaks in third person.

Roy Shildt, who goes by Mr. Awesome, a name he gave himself.

This is the universe of competitive arcade gaming.

This documentary is painful to watch, but highly intriguing at the same time. The stories, and egos, are as big as sports and movie celebrities. They cry at defeat, there are accusations of cheating, and they won’t look at each other when they are in the same room.

While the movie is about arcade gaming, the theme is more universal. What it means to be competitive, how competition can come to define us, and what we do with defeat.

And the ending is simply fantastic. Take THAT Billy.

8 out of 10 stars.

Looking to increase your protein intake? Here are the best sources of protein due to their low fat / low carb / high protein composition.

Meats as good source of protein

Beef, Maverick or Sirloin
Boars Head Roast Beef, Canadian Style Bacon, Chicken Breast, Ham, Turkey Breast
Chicken breast, no skin and roasted
Pork tenderloin
Turkey breast, no skin and roasted

Seafood as good source of protein

Crab
Fish (white)
Lobster (no butter)
Salmon
Scallops
Shrimp
Sashimi
Tuna

Dairy as good source of protein

Cheese, non-fat/low-fat
Cottage Cheese, non-fat/low-fat

Other good source sof protein

Boca Burgers
Egg Whites (or, add a yolk to every 3 egg whites)
Egg Beaters
Eggs (hard-broiled)
Protein Powders
Protein Bar
Seitan
Soybeans
Tofu
Boars Head Canadian Style Bacon

Atlanta, cancer patients need your blood. 25% of all blood products are used to treat cancer patients.

Atlanta, that car accident you saw on the way to work needs blood. Nearly 50 pints/units of blood are needed for mass blood loss.

Atlanta, your grandparents need blood. 43% of the blood supply is used for those 65 and older. As the Baby Boomers age, more and more will be in need.

The fact is that approximately 40,000 pints/units of blood are used each day in the United States; every few seconds someone needs blood. And yet, only 5% of American give blood. Are you that 95% who won’t give? Don’t be.

Atlanta, please consider scheduling to give blood today. And if you are type O, B, or AB, you are in the most demand. The process takes about 15 minutes, and from sign-in to check-out less than 1 hour. Know you are probably saving a life with that hour.

Fact list: http://www.bloodbook.com/facts.html

I have several friends and family in California. Around the holidays, when families and friends join together to give thanks for all their blessings, often I push the immigration conversation. Well, less I push and more I respond to comments such as “the Mexicans are taking all our jobs/bringing down the area/ increasing crime.” Those darn Mexican invaders!

But, then I remember something called the “Mexican War” (Apr. 25, 1846 - Feb. 2, 1848). Mexicans sometimes call this the War of North American Invasion. It should be clear who won this war by the name of the war — those dirty Mexicans starting wars with us innocent Americans.

Here are the main historical perspectives as to what started this war.

• A dictatorial Centralist government in Mexico began the war because of the U.S. annexation (1845) of Texas, which Mexico continued to claim despite the establishment of the independent republic of Texas 10 years before.
• The United States provoked the war by annexing Texas and, more deliberately, by stationing an army at the mouth of the Rio Grande.
• The administration of U.S. President James K. Polk forced Mexico to war in order to seize California and the Southwest.
• The war arose simply out of Mexico’s failure to pay claims for losses sustained by U.S. citizens during the Mexican War of Independence.

So it isn’t clear who started it. But I know it takes two to tango, especially with war. If it was just about war, then the US would have stopped at the Texas issue. But they didn’t. They took all of California to boot. And let’s not forget about the Manifest Destiny of the time.

Let’s go back a decade. Texas stated its independence from Mexico in 1835. They made this declaration mainly because of the dictatorship of Santa Anna. Interestingly, the declaration was based on the US Declaration of Independence from the British. Many a high school students know of this period with the Battle of the Alamo, in which several hundred US whites (including Davey Crockett), blacks, and Tejanos held off the Mexican Army of 6,500 for 13 days.

While the Republic of Texas stated its independence and had such battles, Mexico still did not recognize its declaration. Enter the US — the Republic of Texas approved annexation by the US in 1844. But the US Senate didn’t approve it at first. It wasn’t until early 1846 that the US Senate approved annexation and but by a narrow margin. This prompted Mexico to attack (remember, they still viewed it as their property). So much for an US isolationist policy.

So, let’s review. Mexico had rightful, internationally recognized claims to the land. Some of this land declared independence. The US then, seeing this as an opportunity to expand its empire to the Pacific ocean, eagerly annexes the property upon request. Mexico declares war. Mexico loses.

In the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the US got not only Texas, but as well as the whole southwest including all of California. Mexico lost 55% of its pre-war territory for $15M (about $313M in 2006 dollars), and the US wiped clean $3.25M in debt from the 1821 Mexican War of Independence from Spain. Wars, wars, wars!

So, do Californians have a right to complain about illegal immigration? I’m not so sure. Wars were fought, treaties were signed, monies exchanged, and lands assigned. In the end, Mexico forfeited the area because they lost the war. I guess this is just another situation of where might equals right.

But let’s not forget who first “owned” this land: Mexico had controlled the area in question for about 25 years since it had seceded from the Spanish Empire in 1821 in the Mexican War of Independence (which the US kindly loaned some cash, and later forced the money back). The Spanish had conquered the area from the Native American tribes over the preceding three centuries. Geez, back to those Native Americans again. Won’t they ever just go away?

===================================
Disclaimer: I suppose I take this a bit personal because my parents are legal immigrants. I feel I should say “legal”, but only because of communism (my father received citizenship because those dirty Communists invaded Hungary, and my mom met him in the US while on a work visa).

I have this theory about fashion. Fashion, like history, repeats itself. In the mid 90’s, the fads were bell bottoms — a disco revival. Tie-dye even made a bit of a comeback.

Then, in the early 00’s, it was tight jeans and leggings.

So, taking this trend, this is my prediction of the next year. Neon. Greens, yellows, pinks, and oranges, but just very vivid.

Also, purple. Expect purple clothes, websites, cars, and accessories. 2008 will be known as the year of purple (or neon).

And this fall? All the plaid you can stand.

Now, I am by no means a fashioner. I prefer warm-ups and t-shirts. But that is my bet. What do you predict will be the fashions of the next few years?

I read some great reviews of this 2004 documentary called Bright Leaves.

Ross McElwee directs this autobiographical documentary about his family’s roots in the tobacco business in North Carolina. Taking a sabbatical from his home in Boston, he offers a culturally interesting history of the South as viewed through the biggest, wealthiest tobacco enterprises. Meanwhile, he examines a Hollywood movie that was based on the same topic, BRIGHT LEAF, the 1950 film set in 1894’s tobacco-ruled South, which stars Gary Cooper and Lauren Bacall and was directed by Michael Curtiz (CASABLANCA). Though McElwee doesn’t have firm proof, he speculates that the film is actually based on his great grandfather’s rise and fall in the tobacco industry, and he splices in segments of that film to illustrate some of his historical points. It goes without saying that BRIGHT LEAVES’ dominant purpose, and strongest message, is anti-smoking, and in its grimmer moments the film shows hospitalized victims of smoking-related illnesses, and conducts interviews with those who have lost dear ones to lung cancer. Packaged as an exploratory and educational dabble into McElwee’s past, this documentary is enjoyable and enlightening.

What I found mesmerizing is how personal Bright Leaves is. It is as much a documentary about tobacco as it is about his family, from his great grand father and forward to his son, and how it is tied to tobacco.

That aside, it was an interesting thought that the great grandfather left the family little money, but rather, a “trust fund” of a cancer-ridden culture for his grandfather, father, and brother (all doctors who treat cancer patients).

I stumbled upon the US Department of the Treasury website and found this hidden gem — the history of taxes. This is fascinating stuff. Some highlights, in chronological order. Overall, the lesson to learn is that some Americans have paid upwards of 96% in income tax, and that every war has resulted in an increase in taxes. Taxes fund wars, so maybe we should be pro-active and figure out if we can fund things that would decrease their chance of occurring.

US Taxation in Colonial Times

There was little to no tax during this time as there were few expenses. Taxes collected, however, came from excise, tariffs, and duties. And when taxes did occur, Americans get pissed (see 1765 Stamp Act and Boston Tea Party).

US Taxation in Post Revolutionary Times

The initial federal government had few responsibilities so looked to “donations” from the states. The fed received the right to levy taxes in 1789, but left collection to the states. The biggest expense was the war debt, which was paid by taxing spirits, tobacco, and sugary. However, early Americans also got pissed at this tax (see Whiskey Rebellion).

In 1790, taxing of property (including slaves) was introduced. Jefferson dropped this in 1802 as president. Taxation would remain quite for the next half century.

US Taxation during the Civil War

The Revenue Act of 1861 introduced income tax to the US — 3% on all amounts above $800/year. A year later, a two-tiered system was created — 3% on all amounts up to $10,000/year, and then 5% thereafter. Also introduced was that taxes were withheld at employer level to help ensure collection.

This tax repealed after the Civil War, however, in 1872. 90% of taxes would then come from excise tax on additional products such as feathers and professional legal documents.

US Taxation during WWI

Things were quiet for another half century. However, war showed its face, and income taxes re-emerged in 1916. This time, in the form of a Constitutional amendment — the 16th Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Income taxes ranged from 1% to 7% for those making $500k/year. To appease voters, Congress stated that information collected would remain confidential. To this day, illegal aliens can select to pay taxes without fear of being picked up by immigration.

The Revenue Act of 1916 further increased taxes, from 2% to 15% for those making more than $1.5M. It also welcomed business taxes into the picture by charging excess profit taxes.

Within one year, those making $40k were taxed at 15% while $1.5M was now taxed at 67%. War is expensive, indeed.

In 1918, the bottom was increased to 6% and the top was placed at 77%. As a result, yearly taxes increased revenue from $761M to $3.6B in 2 short years, funding 1/3 of the war. Interestingly, only 5% of Americans had to pay taxes as a result.

US Taxation Post WWI

After the war in the 1920’s, there were 5 tax cuts resulting in a range of 1% to 25%. Relief! However, it was rather short-lived. In 1929, the stock market crash
was a huge factor in cutting tax collections from $6.6B to $1.6B. In fact, the US Stock Market wouldn’t get back to pre-crash levels until 1954.

To respond to the decrease in collections, the Tax Act of 1932 once again increased taxes — 4% to 79%. Also introduced was the Social Security act of 1935, which added an additional 2%. Half was paid by the employee, the other by the employer.

US Taxation during WWII

In 1941, the bottom was increased to a then record high of 23% and 94% for those earning over $1M. Why? You guessed it! War!

Income tax collections surged from 8.7B to 43.2B. Rather than 4M people paying taxes, now 43M were.

US Taxation during Post-WWII

Taxes never really dropped. We changed the name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to the Internal Revenue Services (it’s so service oriented), starting using one’s social security number to track taxes, and by 1967 all returns were processed by computers.

Social security increased from 2% to 6%. By 1988, it was 12.3%. By 1990, 15.3%. You should be happy to know that most of that money has been “borrowed” by the govenment to fund wars, and the chances of it being refilled is unlikely with the Baby Boomer situation.

US Taxation during the Rule of Reagan

So many Conservatives love Reagan because of what he did for taxes, particularly those in the high income brackets. In 1981 Reagan reduced taxes 25% across all brackets and indexed them for inflation (the 70’s saw an inflation rate of 13%). The IRA was introduced.

But the big change came in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The top was decreased from 50% to 28%, while the bottom was increased from 11% to 15% (note: this fact was not in the US Treasury website under the Bush Administration — I wonder why?).

US Taxation during the Rule of Clinton

Clinton is hated by the wealthy because he started to reserve Reagan’s work. In 1993 he started to increase the top income tax rate to 31% and then 39.6%. The Medical Savings Account was introced, as well as the Education IRA and Roth IRA. He was into savings.

We had a surplus of $281B.

US Taxation during the Rule of Bush

Bush said screw you to Clinton and reduced the upper income tax to 31% over time.

We no longer have a surplus.

Cycle to work. For the next year if you would commit to cycling for:

• 1 day/week you would lose 7 lbs
• 2 day/week you would lose 15 lbs
• 3 day/week you would lose 22 lbs
• 4 day/week you would lose 30 lbs
• 5 day/week you would lose 37 lbs

How losing nearly 40 lbs by cycling was calculated

Let’s say you live 5 miles from work, so you have a 10 mile daily commute. Now, let’s say you cycle at a moderate 12-14 mi/hr pace. You are a male that weighs 200lbs and are in your thirties. Thus, your daily caloric use for the commute will be about 500 calories/day, 2,500 calories/week, 11,00 calories/month, and 130,000 calories/year. Since a pound of fat has 3,500 calories, that is .14 lbs/day, .7 lbs/week, 3.14 lbs/month, and 37 lbs/year.

The faster you ride, the more calories you burn. For example, upping to 14-16 MPH would have you burning 600 calories/day, or .17 lbs/day. That’s nearly 45 pounds/year of weight loss.

It is numbers like this that keep me motivated to keep up my cycling commute.