Palin-Jindal, 2009

Let's see. How could this happen?

Refundable Tax Credits

If a person has a $1000 tax liability but qualifies for a $1000 tax credit, we could probably agree that the net tax take by government is zero. But if person A has a $1000 tax liability and person B, who owes no tax, qualifies for a refundable tax credit of $1000, what is the net tax take by government? In other words, can a politician credibly claim that wealth redistribution is possible without taxation? Obama claims that his economic proposals would result in a total net tax take of 18.2% of GDP. This is a very reasonable number and is close to the average since WWII. How does he get this number? He gets it by considering refundable tax credits to be subtractions from the tax! Taking $1000 from person A and giving it to person B as a refundable tax credit results in a net tax of zero! It should be accounted for as $1000 in tax receipts and $1000 in welfare spending. With this brilliant accounting tool at his disposal, Obama wants to fund all sorts of social welfare with the magic of refundable tax credits. College tuition, mortgage assistance, health insurance premiums, saving incentives, child care, earned income, are all on his list for refundable tax credits. When he increases these credits which he subtracts from the net tax take, he declares it a tax cut! He ignores the negative effect that the tax on person A has on the unemployment rate, because, after subtracting the refund, it didn't happen! Are the American voters stupid enough to go to the polls without getting this?

Sustainable Yada

The only thing sustainable is adaptation.
Transparency is the best regulation.
If you overtax the most productive, they will fire the less productive.

Carbon Dioxide & Temperature

Here is a graph covering the last 600 million years that I find interesting. If the climate reacts to CO2 with positive feedback, why didn't it superheat when CO2 was as much as 20 times current levels back in the Cambrian or 6 times current levels during the Jurassic? Current CO2 (350ppm) is lower than for most of earth's history. And we are in a general ice age climate unlike most of earth's history. How can one look at this graph and believe the current global climate computer models? Is this graph wrong, or are the computer simulations wrong? I question the global climate models that can't explain the temperature decline from the 1930s to 1970s.

Ash-throated Flycatchers

Our birdhouses were very successful this year. Western Bluebirds and Ash-throated Flycatchers are currently raising their young in our birdhouses. Here an Ash-throated Flycatcher brings home the bacon.

Bluebirds and Kingsnakes

I like birds so I build houses hoping to attract Western Bluebirds. This year we succeeded in attracting a nesting pair to a birdhouse mounted on a large oak. Hearing distressful chirping, I noticed this California King Snake that had somehow climbed the huge oak. It apparently could smell the eggs or young as it circled and then snaked up the face toward the hole. I went into action, knocked it down, and chased it away, thus interfering with the Darwinian fitness test. Next time I will kill it.

What is Science?

A better definition of science might help clarify the science vs. religion debate. Here goes.

Science is a concise language system for making consistent statements about the universe.

Consistency in formal language theory means that only true statements can be generated and that the language cannot generate a statement that true equals false. Since truth in science is tied to observation and experiment, the axioms of the language must survive empirical scrutiny. The limitations and complexities of observation and experiment add uncertainty to science and give job security to scientists who continually try to make science more consistent. Guidelines like Occam's razor help to ensure a concise language by advising parsimony.

Gödel's proof says that a language cannot prove its own consistency, nor can it make consistent statements about things not in the language. This means that science cannot make consistent statements about a possible meta-universe or God; it can only make statements about things having empirical support. Science is limited to statements that can be generated from its axioms and are thus tied to empirical truth.

If God violates the laws of physics with revelations, prophesies or miracles, science can only observe that there is some evidence of these exceptions. Those who believe the Gospel accounts see them giving at least some empirical evidence for such exceptions, whereas others believe that violations of physical laws have never occurred. The intelligent design motivation is to look for empirical evidence for these exceptions.