CORI Bulletin And Skeptics’ Digest
Our 10th Year of Bologna Detection!
“What you think you know - may not be so.”
Skeptics’ Forum – The Public Is Welcome
MEETING: Saturday March 5 at 10 AM
LOCATION: Hilliard Branch Columbus Metro Library
4772 Cemetery Road, Hilliard, OH 43026
Phone: 614-645-2140
TOPIC: An Overview: Social Security; privatization issues.
SPEAKER: David Chew, M.BA, C.P.A.;
lecturer in Accounting and Business at Ohio Dominican College
BUSINESS: Follows Speaker
LUNCH: Follows Meeting; attendees are invited to gather at a nearby venue.
IN THIS ISSUE:
FALLACIOUS ASSAULTS: Bible thumping is about to take on new meaning in Kansas! AGAIN?!?
EDITORIAL: Are we living according to a “Daily Show” script?!?
2 - ARTICLES: “Why we need Social Security”; & “Our best anti-poverty program”.
RATIONALLY SPEAKING: “And they say liberals are whiny.”
[Dr. Massimo Pigliucci]
MINUTES: February Meeting
QUOTE - UNQUOTE
"I would rather live in a world where my life is surrounded by mystery than live in a world so small that my mind could comprehend it."
[Harry Emerson Fosdick ]
Truth comes out of error more easily than out of confusion.
[Francis Bacon]
Fallacious Assaults
Bible thumping is about to take on new meaning in Kansas!
“Kansas City Strip - the sirloin of Kansas City media, a critical cut of surmisin' steak that each week weighs in on the issues of the day” – by TONY ORTEGA @ Pitch.com - February, 2005
The Strip is outraged by the intelligent-design squabble going on in the Kansas public schools!
So far, the local media have done a pathetic job of explaining the ideas behind "ID," giving us no real clue what's actually at stake in the effort to change science teaching standards.
Well, this meat patty will clue you in to the awful truth: The people pushing intelligent design are godless interlopers who want our children taught that the Bible got things wrong. As far as they're concerned, the good book is just a bunch of fairy tales. The Lord creating the Earth in six days just a few thousand years ago? Didn't happen. Adam naming the animals? Just a myth. Noah saving Earth's creatures from the flood? No more than a bedtime story.
Nope, these ID-olators don't have much respect for the holy word. They suggest that the Earth is billions of years old and that animals have evolved pretty much the way Charles Darwin described more than a century ago. For these folks of little faith, science answers most of the world's mysteries, explaining the history of the universe and the proliferation of life on Earth. The girlie-man God they worship steps in only to fill in small gaps in scientific knowledge and to lend a gentle helping hand in ways that cannot be measured, tested or debunked.
A couple of weeks ago, the Strip watched in dismay as intelligent design backers put on a pitiful display at a state board public hearing at a high school in Kansas City, Kansas. The speakers took to a microphone, urging a board subcommittee to insert intelligent-design wording into the state's public-school curriculum. But did anyone cite the Bible? Did anyone stick up for God's version of what happened thousands of years ago?
Oh, no. ID wussies stepped up one after another to talk about the "weaknesses" in biological evolution, the "controversies" that they wanted their children to hear about. The complete surrender of religion to the onslaught of science was a pathetic sight. The utter defeat was not lost on Celtie Johnson, a God-fearing Johnson County mom who was largely responsible for the last battle over evolution in Kansas schools. Back in 1999, she led an honest fight for biblical truth, attempting to get the Genesis creation story taught to schoolchildren. She's back again, fighting evolution once more, but this time she's standing up for the watered-down ID agenda. We asked how she really felt about intelligent design's unbiblical assault on the schools. "It's pitiful. But what can I do?" she told this curious cutlet. "It's not that difficult to understand the Earth being 6,000 years old. But they [the ID crowd] tell me it's an incremental program."
An incremental program! Johnson was referring to people such as lawyer John Calvert and University of Missouri-Kansas City med-school professor William Harris, who have spearheaded the Kansas school effort with a Johnson County organization they call the Intelligent Design Network. Johnson claimed that the ID bigwigs assured her they have the same ultimate goal that she does -- to get religion into science classes -- and that ID allows them to take small, less controversial steps toward that goal.
"With media opposition, you can only go so far," she admitted. And for people like her who still believe in the Bible's origin story, she said, "It's a step back." But the ID people with whom she has allied herself are deluding themselves if they think they're doing heaven a favor with their "incremental" program. "They are not getting the whole picture, and they are not pleasing Jesus Christ, who is God," Johnson reminded us. "If you don't believe parts of the Bible, why are you calling yourself a Christian?"
Well, we wondered the same thing. So we asked Harris why he was so down on the Lord's story of life's origin. "Some are lukewarm to the ID perspective because they feel that it does not go far enough and hence gives aid and comfort to believers who only want to believe halfway," Harris responded. "That's their privilege. It does not weaken the ID argument for design, though, in my opinion."
OK, so Harris is convinced that there's a "designer" behind the proliferation of life. But what's with the coy act? Isn't he really talking about the Christian God? "As a Christian, I would equate that designer with the God of the Bible, but I know Muslims who equate that designer with Allah. I also know non-theists who, although agreeing that the evidence points to an intelligence behind nature, simply don't equate it with anybody."
Well, that's a relief. It's nice knowing that we could believe the universe was designed by our pet cat Whiskers and still belong to the ID club. But, hey, here's what this rump roast really wanted to know. If ID folks like Harris acknowledge that the Bible's big, cinematic opening chapter gets things completely wrong, how can they be sure the rest of it isn't a fairy tale as well? For example, how can Harris be sure the Bible gets the whole "God" thing right? "I think we get off on an unproductive rabbit trail when we start debating what's true and what's not in the Bible," Harris answered.
Oh, sure -- he wants to rake evolution over the coals, but the Bible is off limits? ID folks, you see, really don't want to bring the Bible into the equation. They're very careful not to mention Genesis in front of school boards. And you won't find an ID adherent who attributes the vast abundance of Earth's life forms to God's six-day plan. Truth is, they know evolution has pretty good answers for that. Instead, to support their ideas they point to tiny flagella, those little hairlike things you find flopping around on bacteria.
In 1996, Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe gave intelligent design its biggest boost when he made a big deal about the lowly flagellum and how it's put together. He argued that the flagellum is a wondrous structure of amazing complexity. In fact, Behe argued, it's such a marvel of interlocking parts that it's impossible to imagine a less complex version of the flagellum being useful to any creature. Therefore, he concluded, there's no way evolution, through random chance, could have produced a flagellum from simpler forms. Instead, some intelligent agent (wink, wink) must have "designed" it.
Well, isn't that special? Evolution produced millions of species on Earth, but God pitched in by making the flagellum. Go, God! If you're a biblical Christian, that's gotta be pretty underwhelming. And if you're a scientist, it's just plain stupid.
Ask a biologist -- just because Behe can't imagine how a flagellum could have evolved doesn't necessarily mean someone smarter than Behe couldn't come along and discover an evolution-based explanation that's quite sufficient. (In fact, several scientists already have.)
Now, don't expect ID promoters like Harris to bring up the complex structures of bacteria to the Kansas school board. He knows better. Board members aren't likely to know a whole lot about science, and with a 6-4 conservative majority after last fall's elections, it won't take much to convince them to go along with Harris' slick pitch for "objectivity" in science standards. Sometime in the next couple of months, the Strip imagines that the board will approve Harris' suggested changes to the state's science curriculum, allowing nonscientific attacks on evolution to become standard fare in the public schools.
Not that anyone will be able to tell the difference. Al Frisby just retired after teaching science for 30 years in the Blue Valley School District, and he tells the Strip it's already impossible to talk about evolution's concepts to today's Kansas teenagers without getting a lot of eye-rolling in return. He's now teaching across the state line in Liberty, and he says in recent years, students' outright hostility to science has made it difficult to do his job. Well, this flank steak reckons that's only to be expected when so many Midwest youngsters figure that Jesus is wicked rad.
But we wonder how our God-fearing youngsters will react when intelligent design becomes a regular part of the curriculum. We're just glad it won't be our job to teach ID and tell churchy students that their favorite book is a joke.
Click
Editorial
Are we living according to a "Daily Show" script?!
The 2004 U.S. presidential election was decided by voters who oppose the theory of evolution or await the Rapture or speak in “unknown tongues” or trust faith-healing or have a name for their angel or send money to television preachers or think Satan is a real spirit stalking America. Some people predict a clash of civilizations – between the irrational theocracies of the Middle East and, uh, well . . . whatever! [ - Ed]
SLATE
ARTICLE: Why We Need Social Security
It has radically reduced poverty in old age. And it protects the middle class against inflation and the ups and downs of the market.
By Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect - February
EXCERPT: For nearly three-quarters of a century, Americans have taken Social Security for granted. Now we had better learn how it works, what it has done, and what the true facts are regarding its future -- or else we are going to lose it.
Superficially, Social Security resembles traditional employer pensions: Americans pay into the system during their working years and receive a monthly pension during retirement. But the differences are fundamental. Social Security benefits are based on a balancing of two principles: equity and adequacy. Equity means that what you put in is related to what you get out; in other words, workers with higher wages, who pay more into the system, receive higher benefits later on. But under the principle of adequacy, the Social Security benefit formula overlooks years of low earnings (for example, when a worker may have been disabled or unemployed), and it replaces a higher proportion of earnings for the poor than for the rich. That’s why it’s our most successful anti-poverty program. In addition, Social Security benefits are indexed against inflation and protected from the ups and downs of the economy and financial markets. That’s why the program provides security for the middle class.
Privatization would do away with the idea of guaranteeing a minimally adequate income for the elderly who have worked all their lives ...
The elderly used to be an age group with an especially high rate of poverty. One of the signal achievements of Social Security, hardly noticed today, is that poverty has fallen dramatically among Americans over age 65 to just 10 percent, lower than the 12-percent rate for the population as a whole. For millions of the elderly who would otherwise be poor, Social Security is the single biggest source of income, the financial bedrock of their lives. Indirectly, their working-age children are beneficiaries of the program because the elderly no longer have to move in with them. People under age 65 also benefit from two other elements of Social Security that often get forgotten: benefits during long-term disability and survivor benefits for dependents if a worker dies before retirement. These are also important anti-poverty programs that don’t carry the stigma of welfare ...
Social Security works because it is a compact that extends across income groups. If the affluent leave the system, it would become a welfare program, shorn of the political clout that comes from universal participation. The result would be a self-reinforcing cycle of decline.
Social Security also works because it has been a rolling compact across generations. For decades, the basis of the program was entirely pay-as-you-go -- the taxes paid by workers went to pay for current retirees. When those workers retired, they depended on the next generation to support Social Security. Then, in 1983, Congress raised payroll taxes above the level needed for immediate benefits in order to accumulate savings for the baby-boom generation’s retirement.
These funds have been invested in Treasury bonds -- that is, the federal government itself has borrowed from the trust funds. Though opponents of the program question this practice, it’s no different from individuals investing in Treasury bonds. Ever since the founding of the republic, the federal government has paid off its debts; it must fulfill these obligations to the elderly no less than its debts to bondholders in Japan. But what this highlights is that future Social Security beneficiaries, like previous ones, ultimately depend on the next generation of workers to pay taxes and keep the system going for themselves and their children.
... ever since the 1980s, conservative think tanks have sponsored proposals to shift from Social Security to individual retirement accounts. The opponents’ biggest resource in this effort has been public skepticism about government. When a 1981 opinion survey asked how much money out of $100 in Social Security taxes went to administration, the median answer was $52, though the real figure that year was $1.30. Today, Social Security continues to deliver benefits with overhead at a fraction of what private accounts would cost, but few people understand that in this case the government enjoys a huge edge in efficiency.
The ultimate consideration is this: Social Security protects people against a variety of risks to ensure them a basic floor of income in old age and to enable many people who have struggled all their lives to look forward to a decent standard of comfort and dignity when they retire ...
ARTICLE: Our Best Anti-Poverty Program
Private accounts cannot match Social Security’s guaranteed benefits.
By Henry Aaron - a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
In The American Prospect
Why does the United States and every other developed nation have a system of social-insurance pensions? The simple answer is that social insurance is intended to ensure basic income to those no longer able to work. These include the elderly, the disabled, orphans, and widows and widowers with small children. “Ensure” means that incomes must be available reliably; “basic” means that government’s obligation is limited. That is why social-insurance pensions typically replace a larger fraction of earnings of those at the bottom of the wage ladder than those at the top. Social Security benefits also rise as average earnings increase. As Bernard Wasow of The Century Foundation points out, in 1935, when the Social Security Act was passed, “basic” may not have included indoor plumbing and running water in much of the country …
Compared with other developed nations, the U.S. system is parsimonious. It provides smaller benefits compared with earnings, and at a later age. U.S. designers of Social Security never expected most people to sustain pre-retirement living standards on Social Security alone. They recognized that most people would need additional income from private pensions or personal savings if they were to avoid sizeable drops in living standards when earnings stopped.
The current system reflects that philosophy. Workers with average earnings who claimed retirement benefits at age 65 received an average of approximately $19,000 a year in 2001. For retirees with average earnings, this benefit replaced about 41 percent of earnings. (Nearly 72 percent received less because they claim benefits at an earlier age.) After the automatic deduction of premiums for part B (hospitalization) of Medicare, the remaining benefit equals only about 38 percent of earnings. Because of benefit reductions enacted in 1983 that take effect over the next few years, and because Medicare premiums are rising faster than Social Security benefits, “take-home” replacement rates are projected to fall still more -- to an average of about 33 percent of earnings for retirees in 2030.
In recognition of the need for sources of income to supplement Social Security, successive Congresses have offered tax incentives for employees to offer pensions and for individuals to save on their own, via IRAs, Keogh plans, and 401(k) accounts. These incentives have worked -- sort of. About half of all workers have pension coverage. Many have small additional savings, but few have sizable assets, and America’s household savings rate is one of the world’s lowest. Social Security still supplies more than half the income for more than three-fifths of all people over 65. It is the exclusive source of income for about one in five.
Against this background, President Bush would encourage workers to shift payroll taxes from Social Security into personal accounts. But all such individual accounts would be subject to financial market risk that is inconsistent with the basic objective of social insurance -- to ensure basic income …
Individual ownership means individual risk. Such risks are fine and proper as cold, hard incentives to direct the allocation of capital in a market economy. But the function of social insurance is to make sure that no one who has worked hard for a lifetime ends up destitute. Individual accounts cannot provide that guarantee. Social Security has done it for 65 years. It can continue doing so indefinitely, but not if proposals to strip it of revenue become law.
SLATE
Click
OPINION
Rationally Speaking - monthly e-column Number. 59,
March 2005 © by Massimo Pigliucci, 2005
And they say liberals are whiny!
It is rather amusing (when I’m in a good mood) to hear conservatives (especially religious ones) complain that they are “persecuted” in American society, that they don’t get a saying, that they have constantly to battle against the liberal media bias. What persecution? What liberal media? Don’t get a saying? What are these people talking about?
In the United States, conservatives now control the Presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and a large number of State Governorships. If we add to the list that the Supreme Court is increasingly conservative, and may soon become extremely so, in essence these people control the country -- and set the agenda for the rest of the world. What, then, is there to complain about? Why is this not enough?
Well, one thing to understand about ideological zealots is that they absolutely know they are right, so there really is no point in considering alternative opinions, is there? Moreover, since they tend to see things in apocalyptic terms, always painted in stark black and white, then anything less than 100% victory can be construed as a failure of cosmic proportions.
There is, of course, one little area of American life where conservatives are still by far in the minority: academia. By the latest estimates, about 70% of faculty at US universities consider themselves “on the left” within the current political spectrum. Of course, this has immediately raised the ire of conservatives, who have recently had the audacity to claim that there is a nationwide conspiracy to keep right-leaning faculty out of our campuses. It isn’t clear whether the charge applies only to state universities or includes the private ones (in the latter case, one wonders how many liberal-leaning faculty are on the payroll, say, at Bob Jones “University”). But the fact remains indisputable: academia is still a bastion of liberalism, and that ain’t gonna change overnight, no matter how widespread the “outrage.”
Outside of silly conspiracy theories, why exactly is it that academia is full of liberals, and why is it that the majority of the media used to be equally favorable to moderately progressive positions? (At the moment, only The Onion and The Daily Show are firmly into this category.) As in the case of any search for causal explanations, we must start with observations aimed at identifying the characteristics that separate the two groups in question (academia and “the real world”), to see if such differences may be conducive to the formulation of sensible hypotheses about the underlying causal links.
There are three things, roughly speaking, that come to mind: the high diversity (ethnic, and of opinions) on college campuses; the financial independence of faculty (after tenure); and, oh yeah, the fact that the very idea of a “liberal arts” education is to foster critical thinking, dialogue, and the endorsement of positions based on thoughtful consideration of facts and values. Hmm, could it be that this triplet makes for an environment in which ultraconservative ideas just don’t flourish? Could it be that religious bigotry simply can’t take the challenge of an ongoing open discussion, where there are no sacred cows and everything is fair game for public criticism? Could this be why academic freedom tends to be extremely limited on ultraconservative, ultra-religious campuses?
But, wait! Aren’t those the very characteristics of dialogue and critical thinking everybody agrees should be encouraged among the general public, to maintain a healthy democracy in the long run? Ah, but there is the rub: the religious and ultraconservative right does not really want democracy, certainly not in the sense of a citizenry that is intelligent, well-informed, and capable of making decisions based on more than a knee-jerk reaction to MTV-style simplistic slogans. That must be why the Republican party, especially under Bush, is so clearly against fostering education (despite the risible “no child left behind” program) and systematically attempts to discourage voting among the American public.
The real question, unfortunately, is whether there is anything that even remotely looks like a “liberal” wing of the Democratic party, or more broadly a “left” in the American political spectrum. Frankly, Bill Clinton has always looked to me like a moderate Republican, and it is hard to believe that Howard Dean is considered a “radical” within Democrats. Have these people ever seen a radical in their lives? Thanks to the right-wing propaganda (and direct or indirect conservative control of most of the media), the American public has come to believe that the words “liberal” and “progressive” are akin to, God forbid, socialist or communist! There essentially is no left in this country, just a moderate center, followed by a right, an ultra-right, and a super-duper-ultra-right. Pretty sad, but one has to admit that the extensive, grass-root program of social reengineering began by the Christian Coalition and similar groups in the mid-70s has finally succeeded and, save for the unlike possibility of miracles, the political realignment is here to stay.
What, then, are we to do about it? We need to learn from the competition, and turn their own successful tactics against them. I am not talking about attempting to rig the vote during presidential elections, I am referring to -- quite simply -- going back to the basics and pick young, energetic people to run for office. And do equip them with simple, bite-size, messages. At the moment, that’s all that a large chunk of the American public seems to be able to deal with. The time for more sophisticated, dare I say European style? (see France, England, and Germany, for examples), political discourse may come again, in a few decades.
(Massimo HAS seen radicals participating in political discourse in Europe. I think he’s right – Bill Clinton was no liberal - for better or worse. I agree with former White House Counsel Leonard Garment and the recently-departed “gonzo journalist” Hunter S. Thompson – Richard Nixon was the last liberal U.S. president . . . so far! – Ed.)
Click
What’s a blog?
Charlie Hazlett and Art Hites have crossed over into blog world. A blog is a web log, a cyber journal, informal and personal. Both blogs are representative of their composers’ life views. Why blog? Why not?
Please Visit Charlie's Corner
Please Visit Rev. Art - Minister of Rants or Rev. Art's Atheist Pin-Ups
or The Saloon Singer Chronicles (Photos from long ago ...)
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! Please add your info to the *CORI* *MAILING* *LIST* @ the NEW and IMPROVED CORI Website
Thanks for your help! [- Charlie Hazlett ]
Q: How many paranormalists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. It’s done with psychokinetic energy!
CORI Minutes for February 5, 2004 Here’s an IRISH website Rev. Art administers:
Program: " Natural Cures They Don't Want You To Know About"
by Kevin Trudeau. link
Leader: Carl Miller, program chair
A small group met at Hilliard Library to discuss findings of the book. Discussion was led by Carl Miller, after a brief synopsis. Some of the conclusions about natural cures and remedies were challenged by the group as inadequate, inaccurate, or incomplete. The inability of the F.D.A. to crack down and prosecute those who make unsupported claims about vitamin and nutritional supplements compounds the problem.
Respectfully submitted, Eleanor Reibel, Sec'y.
Correspondence
To contribute to the Bulletin or to comment – Contact Art Hites, Editor @ [email protected]
Happy St. Paddy’s Day!
Robert Emmet Unit - INA
