Politics

By Perry Swisher

By Mark Balzer

Believe it or not DR and the auto industry bailout fiasco have brought me back to our discussion on high speed rail. Congress has (so far) refused to give the “big three” the bailout money they demand; now we hear the big three will be bankrupt by the end of the year and this spells an end to the auto industry in the United States.

In reality the auto industry in the United States is not in trouble, only three of the sixteen auto manufacturers in this country are in trouble, this is less than 20% of the auto makers. If bankruptcy is the only way to fix the problems plaguing the big three then that is the correct solution.

As the big three emerge from bankruptcy they may be unable to recover the market share they previously held. Under a new business model they may be interested in joining with the airlines and power companies to develop a nationwide high speed passenger rail system.

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler could all produce parts of the track and rolling stock needed for the maglev system along with other hardware to support the use of high speed passenger and light freight traffic such as UPS and FedEx packaging.

This would require a national standard for the maglev system to be employed and a level of federal involvement that usually makes me uncomfortable. However federal involvement can be limited to setting a standard design and providing the tax incentives for the companies involved. The government would also need to streamline the permitting process and shut down the air corridors for flights under two hour’s duration.

There are new ideas on how to make a maglev train work; older designs relied on superconducting magnets or coils requiring expensive cryogenic cooling systems. Less expensive, more efficient systems can be built with permanent magnets.

The developers of these permanent magnet systems claim a maglev train system can be built along present right of way with minimum changes to existing systems. The permanent magnets have a lift to weight ratio of 50-1 meaning a one pound magnet can lift a 50 pounds payload, this allows you to move one ton with 100 watts of power.

The true beauty of this system is it cost. A maglev system based on superconducting coils or magnets costs over $50 million per mile. A system based on permanent magnets would cost less than $7 million a mile, pretty cheap when you consider the cost of a mile of freeway is $25-$50 million a mile. Giving a tax break to one oil company can yield 6000 miles of track.

The initial column addressing this issue was published last summer when gas prices had topped $4.00 a gallon and the price of oil was at a record high. At the time this is written the price for a barrel of oil has dipped below $50.00 for the first time in over three years and gas is below $2.00 a gallon.

So does that mean the crisis is over and we don’t need to worry about this now? No it means the time to address this issue is now before we have a real energy crisis.

This is a realistic solution to a part of the energy use in this country and it addresses so many other problems facing our nation right now. Building this system will reduce overcrowding at the airports and eliminate flight delays.

A nationwide building project of this type would reduce unemployment by providing job opportunities and training to many who currently do not have these options.

Opening up tax incentives to businesses that participate in the project could help the auto mobile manufactures emerge from the threatened bankruptcy with a new business plan and stronger corporate structure.

If this project is coupled with a serious effort to increase domestic oil production we may actually be able to meet the goal of reducing and possibly eliminating our dependence on foreign oil.

With the issues of Cap and Trade carbon credits and the insistence upon reducing the “Carbon Footprint” of the country the maglev system described here is a viable solution that will achieve most of these goals without using public money or crippling the economy.

If Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Elect Obama are serious about their energy goals then they should pass the tax, airspace restriction, and permitting legislation that would give the companies interested the ability to make the investment necessary for a maglev system to be built in this country.

Idaho State Journal Editorial

Should Idaho establish a distributive medical education program, or should it seek to place twice as many Idaho students (up to 40 or so) in the University of Washington’s School of Medicine in Seattle? Or should the state delay doing anything at all, in light of the dire economy which is shrinking tax revenue?

A joint interim legislative committee decided last week to recommend both of the first two options, pending the far-from-certain approval of the State Board of Education and the full Legislature. It is unlikely that both plans will reach immediate fruition, given the looming holdbacks in budgets ordered by Gov. Butch Otter.

Nonetheless, the interim committee’s recommendation carries weight. It means the question of how to deal with a shortage of physicians will be front and center next year, even despite the budget pinch.

The lawmakers are forced to confront a fact: The state has 400 family doctors and a population of about 1.5 million — one family doctor for every 3,750 people — and ranks 47th nationwide in the ratio of primary care doctors to residents, according to the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Furthermore, when the state sends students to Seattle under the WWAMI program, it doesn’t always get them back. The program emphasizes family medicine in rural or underserved areas and encourages graduates to work in the Northwest, but in 2005 only 10 of the 18 graduates from Idaho returned to practice in the state. This year, six of 14 graduates from Idaho came back to work in primary care specialties such as geriatrics and pediatrics, The Association Press reports.

That does not mean we are without medical care, since physicians obviously come here from other states or countries. But recruiting them is a difficult game, and training doctors in-state is conducive to keeping them here.

Under the distributive education plan devised by Idaho State University President Arthur Vailas, the school’s existing health science resources would be used to train medical students in their first two years, while their last two years would be spent at clinical sites around the state for hands-on training.

How much would this cost? That’s a question which must be answered when the State Board and the Legislature start to address the issue. But the costs do not seem nearly as great as starting a medical school from scratch.

Among scoffers is the Lewiston Tribune, which points out ISU is preparing for deep spending cuts even as the medical education plan advances. The paper says “odds that a cheapskate state would authorize a new school were near those that Ron Paul would be elected president of the United States…. Who can take the proposal seriously today?”

Vailas and his supporters in the medical community take a more sanguine view. They believe medical schooling will produce not only more home-grown physicians, but an economic infusion as well.

“I think this is a step forward for Idaho,” Vailas said after the interim committee’s report. “That’s where my position has always been. It’s a good thing that we can add to our project.”

At least there will be a choice, provided we can afford it.   

By Phil Quinton

 

The election is over and we have a President-elect. People cast their votes and the majority had their say. It’s been interesting reading comments in this paper and hear others speak of this election. In some states the counts were close, with several still counting, but it appears as an election not about or for Democrats, but against Republicans. I can agree with that. To a point. Republicans did start believing in the power and were quickly put into place. But it’s been interesting watching how the Democrats, after the 2006 elections, managed to do even less, other than belittle the office of the President and personally run the man down. Hats off to a full agenda and remember, in a “democracy“, the majority is supposed to rule.

I’ve read comments made about propositions in other states, especially one that has apparently made an impact here. People in California voted in favor of Proposition 8, meaning that the state must recognize marriages between male and female. The gay and lesbian groups are not happy. Neither was the reader that sent a letter to the editor. In it he expressed that though he is a minority here in Idaho, he is with the majority nationwide and that he is proud to be from Idaho and to be an American. Great. It seemed as if he was congratulation the majority for the national vote for President, then chiding that same majority in California for not agreeing with his point of view. In a Democracy, we can’t have things both ways. Either we are for something or against it, period. The vote is what it is. The people have spoken, accept it. You’re eager to do that when it suits you, but not when it doesn’t. Once again, free speech only if it agrees with ideology.

That same letter expressed a lack of understanding as to why conservatives and religious warriors have a hard time with same-sex marriages. I can explain that easily if you like. I am a believer in Messiah and do try to live according to His Word. I fail often, but get up and try again. I can tell you, that I have gay friends and respect them as people, just not what they do. But that’s their choice and I accept it. But to label all that don’t agree with homosexuality as conservatives is wrong. Some of my friends are more conservative than I am. Are they to be targeted now just because they’re conservative in their politics? The gay community has for years raised such a ruckus about getting out of the closet. Are my conservative gay friends (some of whom voiced opposition to gay marriage) supposed to go back into the closet? How’s that free speech?

About the religious warriors. Here are a few reasons why they might be against gay marriages. I hope you look these up. Genesis 2:22-25 speaks of Adam and Eve and how man will leave his mother and father and join to a wife. Leviticus 18:22 is pretty clear that man should shall not lie with a man and goes on to speak what can happen to a nation to gives itself over to this type of lifestyle. And in Leviticus 20:13 speaks of man with man again and the punishment, as does Romans 1:24-27. Perhaps this is why people of faith have a hard time with gay marriage as well as abortion. I don’t pick and choose what I want to believe. I believe that if I’ve agreed with any of it, I’ve agreed with all of it. It’s called faith.

Watching people marching on churches waving banners that say No on 8, seeing them assault guards and old women makes me sick inside. Must be the free speech thing. The marchers were demanding that the proposition be overturned and they marched on the Mormon temple in L.A. and on the Saddleback church. Why only these churches? Why not T.D. Jakes’ or Fred Price’s church? (both predominately black churches) Apparently it was the vote of the black community that help pass the proposition . I guess it’s only newsworthy if it’s politically correct. You can’t have it both ways. If the gay community were to respect the rights of an elderly woman to express her “RIGHT” to free speech, perhaps more of the majority would be more sympathetic with your cause. Maybe people are getting tired of having the gay word shoved down their throats.

I try to be respectful of everyone. You know, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”. I wouldn’t encourage or go with anyone that wanted to have fun by ‘gay bashing’. Just as I wouldn’t attend a cross burning in northern Idaho or Mississippi. I love my friends, just not what they do. And I would defend them with my life. This country needs to stop appeasing the demands shouted by the few and acknowledge the choice of the majority. As of right now, this country is still a democracy.

By Norm Semanko

By Richard Larsen

 By Craig Bosley

 

What really happened on Nov. 4?  Whom did we elect as President?  Did we elect a liberal, leftist, socialist President; a gun control President or a welfare President? 

Maybe we elected an African-American President, a hyphenated President that Theodore Roosevelt expressed displeasure with in a speech in 1915 saying, “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism…. This is just as true of the man who puts ‘native’ before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen.  Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul.  Our allegiance must be purely to the United States.” 

We hear all these descriptions of our new President, but on Nov. 4 we did not elect any of these men.  We simply elected an American President, the 44th President of the United States.  Nothing more.  Moreover, I believe President-elect Obama would agree.

But how did he get elected?  He should not have been the candidate nor should he have won the election.  No one knew him.  He had little experience and minimal national exposure.  But he got people excited.  He got people to donate money.  He got people to register.  He got people to vote.  He was elected because he touched the most people.  He ran what historians may view as the finest campaign for the presidency in the history of our country.  Both candidates had messages.  Both made their case.  Both did their best.  One message won and one message lost.

The voters were unhappy with the past eight years and followed the advice of Thomas Jefferson when he wrote, “Should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights.”

And these same voters elected a new President. Now what?  What should those who did not vote for Barack Obama do now?  Is it time to get even?  Is it time to treat him the way President Bush was treated?  Why not?  There is plenty of ammunition, plenty of questions, plenty of innuendos.  Fair’s fair.  Shouldn’t Obama face the same assaults, the same outrageous claims, and the same character assassinations that Bush received?  Or can we do better?

Is it right to offer character assassinations of the man in the most powerful office in the world?  If we refuse reasoned debate and instead assault the President’s character, does that damage his character, or does that more accurately reveal our own lack of character?   It is certainly easier to attack the character of the President than intelligently debate the issues.  Perhaps the assaults suggest those making the statements actually have nothing intelligent to offer to the discussion. 

Perhaps, if not the man, at least the office of the President deserves to be treated with respect.  When President Reagan walked into the Oval Office on the day of his first Inaugural, he got goose bumps and wasn’t ashamed to say so.  Don’t we owe the office of the President of the United States some goose bumps?  Doesn’t the President deserve our respect even in the face of our disagreement?

So what do we do?  How do we move forward?  We do what we always have done.  We make our feelings known.  We make our opinions known.  We compliment.  We complain.  We criticize.   We disagree.  We challenge.  We protest.

We may not like the President.  We may not agree with the President.  We may even be working to get someone elected to replace him in four years.  Nevertheless, he is our President, and he represents the Constitution of the United States of America and the office of the presidency.  He has earned our respect and he deserves our respect.

Was this presidential campaign and election what our Founding Fathers designed and envisioned?  Did our democracy work?  Did our Constitution work?  Would the Founding Fathers be pleased?   I think so.  I think we paid our respects to them, honoring that amazing experiment of their design—a government created and selected by the people. 

What really happened on Nov. 4?  On Nov. 4 we witnessed the greatest system of government in the history of the world select a new President without armies, without wars, without a coup. 

And on Jan. 20 we will once again witness the marvel of our government as Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States says, “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Over 200 years later, our Constitution still works.  We owe our Founding Fathers a thank you.

 

 

 

Dr. Craig Bosley is an emergency physician who moved to Pocatello in 1981.  He is a graduate of the University of Colorado Medical School and a former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.    

By C. Kent Chamberlain

 

North America is running low on traditional oil fields – that is, oil trapped in a reservoir below the surface where it can be drilled and pumped out.  Sources on the Outer Continental Shelves may be significant, but are yet to be drilled, proven and developed.  Petroleum from the North Slope of Alaska will be continually explored and developed, but will still not be enough.  We must resort to more stable areas free of disruptions from geopolitical upheaval or storms such as in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

 Other sources of oil include tar sands, shale oil and coal — that can be converted into oil.  Such sources are widespread and commonly denigrated for poor reasons compared to the general well-being of society.

 

Canada has vast bodies of oil sands (tar sands) that are reported to contain more oil than the reserves of Saudi Arabia.  Canada currently is the biggest supplier of oil to the USA.  Half of our oil imports come from the oil sands of our friends in central Alberta.  The USA gets 1.2 million barrels of oil each day from Canada and by 2020 that import is expected to reach 3 million barrels per day.  The crude oil produced from oil sands is refined in the upper Midwest.   Expanded capacity will use the Canadian oil increasingly as more pipelines are laid.

Canadian oil sand is close to the U.S. market and can be supplied by pipelines in Canada and the U.S.  A more secure source both in our relationship with Canada and the fewer petrodollars go to OPEC countries and fewer filtered off as finance to terrorist groups.

 

 Huge sums of money go toward oil-sands development from U.S. investors.  Two of the wealthiest Americans – Bill Gates and financier Warren Buffett – were reported as having toured an oil-sands project with possible investments in mind.

 

The United States will be looking increasingly to heavy oil resources to meet its energy needs.  Unfortunately, last December Congress approved a provision in energy legislation that prohibits Federal agencies from using oil products made from so-called “heavy oil” — oil sands, shale oil and liquefied coal.  The U.S. Air Force has asked Congress to rescind the ban, pointing out that some of the jet fuel it uses comes from oil sands.  The Canadian Government has also objected to the ban.  Congress needs to drop the provision.

 

Environmental groups are waging a campaign to stop oil-sands development.  They claim that it’s a major contributor to global warming, because oil sands contain twice as much carbon as an equivalent amount of conventional crude oil. And they say that the mining and processing of oil sands is damaging water systems and the boreal forest in northern Canada and thus killing wildlife.  Of course there is some truth in this.

 

 Alberta is the site of the fastest-growing oil extraction enterprise in the world, and not enough attention has been paid to the environmental impact it has had.   But the Canadian Government and the oil industry recognize the need to reduce carbon emissions and prevent damage to natural resources.  The Canadian Government says that since 1990 carbon emissions per barrel of oil sands have been cut 32 percent.  And U.S. refiners are working to reduce emissions resulting from the use of oil-sands crude.

 

Disdain for oil sands from the environmentally orthodox seems to have increased.  The Natural Resources Defense Council, probably the most influential U.S. environmental group, recently took legal action to block construction of a major pipeline through North Dakota that would carry oil-sand crude to the U.S. market.  A number of groups, including the Sierra Club, are trying to force the shut down of refineries that use oil sands, even though refiners are spending billions of dollars on scrubbers and other types of emissions-abatement equipment.   With the current concerns and problems in the U.S. economy, unwarranted delays and shutdowns would harm the economy and work force in areas already suffering decreasing employment.

 

In addition to Canada, crude from oil sands is being produced in the Middle East, Brazil, the Caspian Sea region of the former Soviet Union and the San Joaquin Valley in California.  Some 70 countries have deposits of oil sands.  The Clinton administration effectively blocked the evaluation and possible development of significant oil sands in the Colorado Plateau in Utah by creating extensive “monuments.”

 

In the near future, some of the oil-sands technology may be used to develop the enormous shale oil resources in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.  And if a practical method can be devised to capture and sequester carbon emissions underground, it would open the way for coal liquefaction.  The United States has a 250-year supply of coal.  Anything the U.S. Government can do to foster the development of technologies for producing different types of unconventional oil might do more to strengthen our nation’s energy security than all the subsidies for renewable sources combined.

 

Dr. C. Kent Chamberlain of Idaho Falls is a certified professional geologist. He has 30 years of experience with major and independent petroleum companies in the Rocky and Appalachian mountains and California.