LETTERS: Saturday

Use polling info wisely

An article in a recent issue of The Gazette by Mark Barna on the issue of evolution reminded me of a book my dad once owned called: “How to Lie with Statistics.”  It’s one thing to use polling information honestly and as a whole to support one’s opinions, but to selectively take from that information only what supports your previously formed opinion is, at the very least, dishonest.   

Barna says that a Gallup Poll taken in 2009 shows that only 39 percent  of Americans believe in evolution.  What he doesn’t tell us is that an additional 36 percent of those polled don’t have any opinion at all.  Only the remaining 25 percent stated that they do not believe in evolution.   

Another aspect of the poll of which Mr. Barma doesn’t bother to tell us is the educational factor involved in the various opinions expressed.  74 percent of people with postgraduate degrees and 53 percent of those with college degrees do believe that evolution is valid.  It seems that the less education you have the less likely you are to think evolution is a valid theory.  This is a case for more education, not for more Christianity.

According to Gallup, if you regularly attend church, are over 65, identify as a Republican or have a high school diploma or less, the more likely you are to believe evolution is not true and that God created humans “as is,”  and the effect of these characteristics is additive and independent such that having a combination of them even more strongly indicates the likelihood of a belief in the biblical creation stories as science.   

Education is extremely important in all of this.  Only 30 percent of people with a high school diploma or less even know that Darwin is associated with the scientific theory of evolution.  The pollsters did not ask if people understand the theory of evolution or if they know who Charles Darwin was.  Of the 36 percent who did not have an opinion on evolution  one may fairly assume that a great many of them don’t think they know enough to answer the question.  Of the 25 percent who have a negative opinion, it’s safe to assume that quite a few of them don’t know what it is either. To announce triumphantly that a movie will not be shown in my town because Mr. Barna and another Christian fundamentalist in some small town in Colorado do not agree with its topic constitutes the glorification of censorship, denial and the reduction of the whole to its lowest common denominator.   

Mr. Barna and his friend Lee don’t seem to understand that atheism is an absence of faith, not faith itself, but perhaps their dictionary is different from mine.  Maybe it’s a biblical dictionary and doesn’t contain words that aren’t in the Bible. They do seem to believe that anything tht isn’t in the Bible either doesn’t exist or is open to any interpretation they may wish to attach to it.  

I think Mr. Lee and his Christian friends should have to live on that premise.  They can simply move to some other planet and start their own society based solely on biblical “science.”  That way they can live just like our ancestors did 7,000 years ago.  Or maybe it would be simpler if Mr. Barna moved to Simla, that wonderful “speck of a town” as he describes it.  Where people believe as he does in spite of all the evidence.  

Jo Ann Nieman, Colorado Springs

Military still needed

The comments by Ms. Cassandra Hill in The Gazette recently were correct in terms of the seriousness of the current economic crisis, and the 78 percent increase in defense spending since late 2001, but those facts do not logically support a freeze in future military spending or acknowledge the root causes of our current budgetary crisis.

The national economy was devastated by the 9/11 attack, instigated by extremists with no respect for people or governments.  

That jihadist attack changed the world forever, and began a war that continues today, without any sign of abatement.  

Eight  years of fighting terrorism without cease, combined with a history of worldwide wars, natural disasters, nuclear threats, and rising threats to world security in the East, Venezuela, Iran and South America, have spotlighted the need for continued and increased funding for the most effective, well run, and reliable entity in the world, the United States Armed Forces.

 Were the Congress and Executive branches to impose the military’s ethical and financial standards upon themselves, the nation’s banks, and their own political contributors, the current level of outrageous self dealing and back room deals would abate.  We need the military more than ever today!

Bill Windsor, Colorado Springs

Story of uncountable failings

Senator Schultheis’ bill, far from being a benefit to Colorado and the business community, would threaten to pull licenses and fine businesses out of existence when they are unable to comply with the E-Verify program.  

Small businesses employ approximately half of the entire U.S. workforce and generated most of the new jobs our country has created since 2000.  These businesses, already struggling in the current economy, would face additional bureaucratic burdens if required to use E-Verify

Colorado’s 2006 immigration enforcement laws, which included mandatory use of E-Verify for all state departments, cost $2.03 million and failed to identify a single undocumented worker.

E-verify is such an unwieldy program to implement that our nation’s very own Social Security Administration (SSA) failed to use it correctly, according to a report released two weeks ago by the SSA Inspector General.

The SSA, a huge federal agency with every conceivable technological support and advantage, tried to implement E-Verify and failed miserably.  The SSA failed to timely verify new employees under E-Verify program rules almost half the time.  The SSA also completely failed to verify one in five new hires. In addition, the agency improperly ran E-Verify checks on existing employees, volunteers and people who hadn’t yet been hired — all in direct violation of E-Verify program rules.  

The lesson to all this is clear: if the SSA cannot implement and use E-Verify correctly, and if the state spent over $2 million and didn’t find a single undocumented worker, imagine asking small businesses in Colorado to navigate this program.  

According to the American Council on International Personnel, the reason 99 percent of employers have not enrolled in E-Verify is not because they are hiring undocumented workers or shirking their employment verification responsibilities. It’s because  E-verify requires personnel, technology, internet access and a host of other resources. Taking into account the realities of many small businesses here in Colorado, implementation of that program for every employer in the state would create a logistical nightmare.

We’re talking about a system that fails even when employers have the resources to implement the program and do their best to follow the rules.

A problematic employment verification system exposes workers to unjust treatment but it is also risky for employers. If an employer uses e-verify incorrectly, or if the system has an error, and someone is fired erroneously, an employer could become liable.   

The intended purpose of e-verify is keeping those who are not eligible to work off of business payrolls. We can all agree that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. However, in the absence of a common sense overhaul to our nation’s immigration laws, local business owners should not be charged with enforcing immigration policies via an unreliable, inefficient, and expensive mandatory E-Verify system.

Eric Popkin, PhD. Colorado College, Colorado Springs