The interesting article in the Boise Weekly about the football program and its athletic trainers was somewhat wrong. (BW, "Dawn of a Juggernaut," Dec. 15)
I was the first athletic trainer that Lyle Smith hired for Boise Junior College, Boise College, Boise State College eras--1958 thru 1970. I played football for the Broncos in 1957 and 1958. A football player suffered a very bad injury while we were playing Grays Harbor Junior College in Grays Harbor, Washington--a ruptured spleen.) I was hired as a football trainer after the third game of the 1958 year. I was the football trainer until 1959, and then came back as a full--time trainer from 1965 until 1970. I was an Associate Professor in the BSU Physical Education Department until 1982.
The second trainer, Mike Prentice, was there for only one season, 1970. Mike was a former Boise City Police Officer.
Gary Craner came to Boise State College in 1971. I assisted Gary for the first year of his tenure.
--William A. "Bill" Jones, Boise
The bigger they are...
If a yellow ribbon adorns your SUV perhaps you have forgotten the meaning of irony.
"Support our Troops"What can you mean? Driving that gas-guzzling monster machine? Dollars for oil buy bombs and guns,Used in turn to kill our sons. Wouldn't our troops be safer by far,If you were driving a compact car?
--Kimberly Browning, Boise
Amazing what tripe you'll print just to spew disinformation. I mean that garbage Ted Rall wrote about fighting for our country. (BW, "They fight and die, but not for their country," Dec. 8) So Ted, WWII wasn't a fight we needed to get into? Okay, let me paint you a picture. America doesn't declare war on Germany, which allows the Nazis to shift over 15 divisions to the eastern front. Germany clobbers the Russians and takes Moscow. The Nazis then have the time and luxury of finishing their jet propulsion work, which, since we didn't capture the information during the war, leaves the Allies at a significant disadvantage. The concentration camps are expanded to include all the captured Russians and any other dissidents. Nice plan, Ted.
Diana Arbiser responded (BW, Opinion, Dec. 15) to my letter (BW, Opinion, Dec. 8) but it seems she only read two words in my letter: overpopulation and immigration, and then launched into a rant. She accused me of all kinds of evil motives, like racism and not liking French fries. Life continually offers us choices. At this point, I have a choice. I could take the low road and join her in the politics of personal destruction or take the enlightened path and present my point of view honestly and ethically. It is an easy choice, although the high road is a more challenging intellectual exercise.
Overpopulation is a real problem, and should rate right up there in importance with problems like the inequitable distribution of wealth and the counter-productive influence of religion on societies. Overpopulation is actually an environmental issue. I hope that Ms. Arbiser would agree that it is people, and not trees, flowers and elk that cause pollution and environmental destruction. The population density of Asia is 203 people per square mile and in Europe it is 134 people per square mile. In North America it is 73 people per square mile (geograpy.about.com). Ms. Arbiser may be offended by me, but numbers like those cited above are what offend me. America's population density cannot be allowed to increase to match that of Europe or Asia. The world needs a sustainable level of human population, and some of us think we passed that number long ago.
Whether Ms. Arbiser likes it or not, nations are allowed to have borders and are allowed to govern within their own borders. That governance includes the right to regulate or even end immigration. Ending immigration is simply one tool in the anti-overpopulation (and environmental protection) toolbox.
--Rod Burt, Boise
A final solution?
Our world is facing many tragic problems today. Children are starving, men are fighting, women are being oppressed and the countries are overpopulated. Worldwide the mortality rate of children under the age of five was 80 out of every 1,000 in the year 2003. There are many wars currently being fought all around the world where civilian and military alike are being killed. There are so many conflicts it is hard to keep track. Women are treated as second class citizens throughout the world. In the United States this may be a small problem where women make 63 cents to the dollar that men earn. However, this is nothing compared to the economic, religious, educational and human rights infractions that occur in Muslim, Buddhist, and Christian countries throughout the world. Nearly six trillion people currently inhabit the planet and there is an expected 1.2 percent increase in the next 10 years. Where are we going to put them all? There is not enough room or resources to handle this many people.
It is time America takes matters in to their own hands. America is the only country who has the power to save our deteriorating planet. America has military superiority, its space technology is the best, and its democratic election system is far better than anyone else's. We are the Big Brother of the world. America has the money and resources to help the world get back on its feet. The United States goes in and saves any small country who has a despot leader. We rule the air, the land and the seas!
In my humble opinion, the only way to bring equality to all women, save children from starving to death, and to bring an end to all religious and military conflict: bomb them. I propose that America annihilate the rest of the world with nuclear warheads. To paraphrase Randy Newman, "Let's drop the big one now."
America has weapons that can wipe out much of the world at the push of a button, and our trigger finger is twitching.These weapons are sitting in storage collecting dust but now it is time to bring them out. It is time to use these weapons of mass destruction to put every non-American out of their misery. Of course only the intelligentsia will realize that this is the only rational route and build protective bomb shelters fully stocked and prepared to live out the nuclear winter. These survivors, Americans of course, will best know how to efficiently utilize their stockpiled resources. Since people with higher education levels tend not to procreate uncontrollably, their birth rate will be at a modest level of 2.5 children, which will not strain their limited resources. Having higher than normal intelligence, these people will be able to network, share resources and educate their children, creating a new society.
Imagine a new dawn shining on the face of our new world. Our American new society will work with a clean slate, designing the planet Earth as it was meant to be. Hunger, disease, war, and oppression will be distant memories. All individuals of our new society will have equal opportunities for education. There will be no discrimination based on religion or race because there will only be one--white, Protestant. Our bright shining future is just a bomb away.
--Brittny Howell, Boise
An e-mail from Florida
I am currently experiencing a large volume of e-mails, and your questions will be answered as soon as possible.
If you are writing about a specific piece of legislation, your comments will be considered before I take action.
I appreciate hearing from concerned citizens like you. Please feel free to continue to keep me informed on issues that are important to you. Thank you again for writing.
To subscribe to my weekly news update via e-mail, go to: http://www.myflorida.com/subscribe.
--Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida
Editor's note: Thanks for the heads up Jeb, but as far as we know, we never sent you an e-mail in the first place.
Obstructionists Looking to Hit Idaho Again
No shocking news, some wolf advocates have and will continue to sue the federal government, objecting to any change in status for wolf protection under the Endangered Species Act. This time their target is an amendment to the rules that introduced wolves to Idaho in the first place--section 10j of the Endangered Species Act. Their claim is based on fear--fear that populations will decline through lawless behavior and new managers like the state of Idaho will not adequately protect the wolf. I propose, however, that their fear-based objections are simply that they will lose the club they wield over Idaho's resources and citizenry. How did we get here?
As owners of the game within our state, Idahoans primarily agree we want an abundance of healthy game. We want the maximum level of quality outdoor opportunities whether it is hunting, fishing, hiking, or photography. The reintroduction of the predator, the wolf, did not fit well with this shared vision for Idaho's game management. How did we react to this conflict?
First, our legislature barred state involvement and demanded the removal of the introduced wolves. There was much wailing, even some gnashed teeth. However, some, realizing the issue extended beyond the borders of our state, sat down with a cross section of interests and began work to develop a state plan. I sat in on many of these meetings and listened to the debate.
Traditional positions were represented. Sportsmen and ranchers feared any reintroduction would wreak havoc on game populations and the livestock producer's fragile profit margin. Wolf advocates pleaded their case claiming wolves would create healthier herds by eliminating only the weak, old or maimed. Eventually, there came an agreement. Minimum triggers were set for wolf populations (15 packs) in Idaho. Anything less would take management out of the State's hands and return it to the Federal government. In stark contrast to their initial response, the plan was approved by the state legislature. Additionally, Idaho's Fish and Game Department was given the nod to begin work to prepare for implementation. Finally, in a scientifically reviewed process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service accepted Idaho's plan as sufficient to protect wolves within our state for the long haul.
What has taken you a few short moments to read took years of work and much debate. But throughout the process, sportsmen remained skeptical and feared that somehow they would end up losers.
So where are we today? With 450-500 documented wolves in 51 packs (32 breeding pairs) and a population growing at an average rate of 25 percent per year (19 percent in 2004) on Idaho's game, sportsmen are understandably uptight. Without a doubt, any objection to state management now is blatant obstructionist behavior.
Why in the world would rational people object to management of wolves in Idaho as agreed in the state plan? The state, the federal government, ranchers, sportsmen and wolf advocates all agreed to a population of wolves that allowed them to remain viable yet provide protection to the state's game and its citizens' economies.
The demand is simple. Sportsmen ask that there is management of wolves, under the agreed plan, before we lose their long sought opportunities. We are not asking for eradication. We want management.
--Nate Helm, Executive Director, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
Beginning in January we will be selecting the Mail Of The Week. There may or may not be prizes involved but we fully expect to begin receiving postcards, objects, flame-mail and "special" compliments.