Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kelton]

I was just watching a little of Jay Leno and his "Headlines" feature with amazing news and funny misprints and he had one that he thought was simply amazing and maybe not so funny, even without a misprint:

he showed a picture of some small children and some young pigs together in the large front-loading bucket of a very large earth-mover all squealing with delight.  He said, "From Twin Falls, Idaho at the county fair, children and pigs being raised up and down in the shovel of a giant earth moving machine, can you believe it?  "Who would allow kids to be put in something like that. . .? wow!  "

--Well, Jay,  from the state that offers more rights to parents than any other state, being the most free in the country for homeschooling, overall;  offering extensive freedom on maternity and birthing rights, rights of fathers, compulsory school attendance, insurance mandates, very limited Child Protective Services, limited state child services, recognition of maternity for jury duty, young driving age, young hunting age, no trigger-lock laws, religious exemptions for immunizations and a host of other freedoms, where parents are trusted with their own children,  I guess the answer is the good people of Idaho would allow parents to put their own children in a ride that wasn't first approved for safety by some bureaucrat!

  Having enjoyed bucket rides in front-loaders myself as a kid, growing up in Utah, I would have to say that yes, there was a certain amount of risk, more depending on the operator than the equipment, but I'm glad my parents didn't go to jail for letting me have such fun like they would have in some other states where the question of "what about the children?" is asked alarmingly and incessantly at an increasing rate.

[varrin]

FYI, regarding the air service comments above:

MHT (Manchester, New Hampshire) does have a significant amount of air service.  In my air service report I ranked Boise #1 and Manchester #2 for airports in state but it's a tough call between the two of them.  Both offer a range of mainline jet, regional jet, and turboprop service.  I gave the nod to Boise simply because of the fact there are two additional low-fare carriers there v.s. Manchester (Frontier and America West).  Otherwise, Manchester is a great choice for air service.  

V-

[johnadams]

FYI, regarding the air service comments above:

MHT (Manchester, New Hampshire) does have a significant amount of air service.  In my air service report I ranked Boise #1 and Manchester #2 for airports in state but it's a tough call between the two of them.  Both offer a range of mainline jet, regional jet, and turboprop service.  I gave the nod to Boise simply because of the fact there are two additional low-fare carriers there v.s. Manchester (Frontier and America West).  Otherwise, Manchester is a great choice for air service.  

V-

Yes, Boise and Manchester both offer excellent airports. NH and ID are both excellent states for the FSP, with both having vibrant, entrepreneurial economies--and WY offers a great place for a Free County Project.

Many people may not be aware how much the Manchester airport improved since it underwent a major terminal, ramp and hanger expansion in 1999. State-of-the-art technology was incorporated, including audio communication systems with optimized acoustics, airport visual paging systems, emergency notification fire alarm systems, and an efficient baggage-claim area designed to minimize hassles. The airport also offers easy road access and plenty of affordable parking. There are nearby hotels that offer state-of-the-art conference rooms and shuttle buses to and from the airport.

A fly-over or drive-by of Manchester’s old-fashioned-looking mill buildings does not do the city justice, for it has industrial parks with state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities. Also, nearby Bedford, NH is home to inventor Dean Camen’s assembly plant and company HQ. Camen is the world-famous inventor of the Segway and the stair-climbing I-bot wheelchair. After doing extensive research and site exploration, Camen chose the Manchester area over anywhere else in the U.S. to situate his innovative company. Greater Manchester is developing into a world-class small city with a high-tech entrepreneurial spirit.

Despite the national economic slowdown, venture capitalists invested $40 billion during a recent 12 month period (ended in 2002) in entrepreneurial businesses. And that’s DOWN 10-15% from 2001! NH has not seen the sharp decline in business funding that other MSA’s in the country have experienced. The diverse economic base has helped NH weather the storm.

Also, the brand-new, state-of-the-art Verizon Wireless Arena in downtown Manchester offers minor-league hockey, arena football, concerts, circuses, Boston Celtics and Bruins pre-season games, and a host of other events. In only its first year of operation, the arena added $43 million in new direct, indirect and induced spending to the Manchester economy.




There is even a state-of-the-art recording studio in Derry, NH, the owner of which holds patents in the development of stereo television transmission and reception.

Are you getting the sense that NH is a state-of-the-art state yet?  

[Kelton]

News from Idaho' neighboring state, Wahington:

Washington LP Cheers Demise of Blanket Primary

"Washington state Libertarians are applauding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's blanket primary."
___________________________

What does this have to do with Idaho?

Idaho does not have a blanket primary, but it does have a similar non-partisan registration,  (and so does Montana, I've heard).  Since voters are not registered by party affiliation, the primary for each political party with ballot access (currently Republican, Democrat and Libertarian) may be attended by all voters.
This ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which also covers Montana) ruled against Washington's blanket primary on grounds that it was cited in a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar primary system in California.  The article goes on to say that,  In the court's 16-page decision, Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld wrote that political parties have a right to let their supporters select their candidates for public office.

"Party adherents are entitled to associate to choose their party's nominees for public office," he wrote. "The right of people adhering to a political party to freely associate is not limited to getting together for cocktails and canapés."

Now, notice that one phrase, "party adherents are entitled to associate to choose their party's nominess for public office"  Such language could be used against Idaho's current system.  If Idaho voters continue to not wish to be registered by party affiliation, and Idaho is forced to comply with the outcome of these rulings, there may be some minor changes in how things go in Idaho.  The most significant may be that, due to the dynamics of Republican politics, primary elections may begin to cost much less for candidates.

Of course, it is possible that administrative rulings that came out earlier this year already have tried to remove the fray by holding the primary elections in a slightly different manner with a different distribution of the ballot.  A move which the ID LP chair applauded, (for reasons I do not yet fully understand).


 

[phylinidaho]

Of course, it is possible that administrative rulings that came out earlier this year already have tried to remove the fray by holding the primary elections in a slightly different manner with a different distribution of the ballot.  A move which the ID LP chair applauded, (for reasons I do not yet fully understand).

As a 20 year resident of Idaho and a relative newcomer to the political scene, I am puzzled by the above statement. Could you please clarify?  

[Kelton]

As a 20 year resident of Idaho and a relative newcomer to the political scene, I am puzzled by the above statement. Could you please clarify?  

Hmm.  I sound like I'm rambling on a bit, don't I?

Watching Idaho from California I am at a big disadvantage.  I would love to hear more about how it all works from an actual Idaho resident.
That administrative ruling I refered to was from this:

From the State Chair: Election Law may change soon
Posted by statechair on Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 06:52 PM MST

 
 
 
Confirming the rumor that the Secretary of State’s office was interested in removing "minor parties" from Idaho primary elections, I made an appointment to meet with them. Ben Ysursa (Sec State), Tim Hurst (assistant sec state), Penny Ysursa (office manager) and I (Idaho LP Chair) met today and discussed that and related issues.


We started off with general, congenial conversation wherein I explained that members of the Idaho LP felt ‘strongly both ways’. While some were sure being in the primaries moved us into the realm as a significant party, others thought it was detrimental to our image. Regardless of that split, I assured them that those who wanted us in the primaries would be quite active against any move to take us out of them.

Other issues of significant concern to them were the costs of "minor party" primaries, challenges of large numbers of last-minute filings, costs of reprinting ballots because of those filings and the overtime costs related to all that.

We also discussed a problem in election law that makes it impossible to organize a new party central committee within the letter of the law... it requires a county central committee chair to call the meeting of the elected precinct committeemen; but you have to have the meeting before you can elect the county chair... unless the state chair calls the meeting, but the county chairs (and others) have to elect the state chair before the state chair can appoint the county chair. The law as written today is a Catch-22 with the unintended consequence of eliminating any possibility of legally forming ANY party (including the majors).

As I mentioned, we got along well. In an hour and a quarter, we came up with agreeable compromises that solved nearly all of the concerns. They accepted my suggestion that the 80-20 rule applied here, wherein most of the problems could be resolved with little effort and some of it would be best left alone.

Thus they will recommend to the legislature that the wording to who can call the initial meeting of the elected precinct committeemen will now include the phrase "or other such person as designated by party rule" so we and others, can qualify to form county, legislative district and state central committees.

They will recommend adding one week to the distance between the closing of the filing period and the election, thus allowing time to deal with the last-minute rush.

They will suggest retaining primaries for any party in any region or district that has a contested primary, but eliminate primaries where there is only one candidate running for the office - regardless of party affiliation. Thus, if there is only one person filing for a particular precinct committeeman position, there is no ballot for them, they are automatically victorious. This should save printing effort and expenses for all party elections including the ‘big one’.

I was more than a little surprised by the speed of all this as I thought I was just going in for an informal chat with Ben to find out what they were thinking or planning to do. I was pleasantly surprised that they appreciated my opinions, ideas and suggestions and furthermore that we got most of what I thought we wanted. Of course all of this still has to go to/through the legislature. However I suspect, given the simplicity of the changes, that it just might make it.

As a general overall mood, I will add that they seem very supportive of EVERY party in this state and show absolutely no interest in getting involved or otherwise making it difficult for anyone to associate or express their political opinions. In other words, they will let us run this 'shadow' or imitation central committee structure without any interference through the next primary wherein we should easily be able to make ourselves compliant within every letter of the law.

Ted Dunlap

Idaho LP Chair
http://www.lpidaho.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=18

[Kelton]

I was recently on a SkyWest (Delta Connection) jet and read their SkyWest magazine and found a really good article all about Idaho.  There is also an article about Missoula, MT in there too.  Luckily, but a little too late, I just discovered that this article is online:

Fall In Love With Idaho
 By Amanda Bjerke

Really good secrets are hard to keep.
So, I have to give this one up right away.
Idaho is paradise.

I know, there’s not much poetry in the name. Idaho doesn’t have the same lilt as Colorado, or Montana, or even Arizona. Maybe that’s why my home state remains anonymous in much of the world. (Even some Californians, our “almost near” neighbors, get it mixed up with other multi-voweled locales—Iowa, Ohio, even Indiana.) More often than not, those who have heard of it, tend to play that unfortunate word-association game. I say “Idaho.” You say “potato.” If you’ve been here, you know better.

Idaho, suitably nicknamed the Gem State, is much more than a cosmic-sized stretch of spuds. Warmer than most Rocky Mountain states, drier than the PaciÄc Northwest, Idaho beneÄts from a mild four-season climate. Its diverse terrain, greater than the surface area of New York, includes mountains and rivers, high-desert plains, large lakes, and the greatest chunk of wilderness in the lower 48-states. Its rich heritage is populated by the likes of Lewis and Clark, Sacagawea, Chief Joseph, and lesser-known individuals who left a communal mark on society—Chinese, Native Americans, Basques. The state’s historic landscape lingers in ghost towns, mining camps, and rustic high-country communities. Its vibrant modern cities and bustling towns are populated by friendly people—strangers who smile and say hello. It’s what lots of places used to be and wish they could be again. . .



To read the rest of picturesque article,
Go to http://www.skywestmagazine.com/, click on the link to "Delta Connection Fall 2003 "  Scroll down to the bottom, you'll find the link there.

[phylinidaho]

Watching Idaho from California I am at a big disadvantage.  I would love to hear more about how it all works from an actual Idaho resident.
 

Thanks, Kelton. I do remember the email you have quoted.

To give you a little background, as nearlly as I understand it: for longer than my experience includes, the Libertarian Party has been allowing individuals to place themselves on the ballot for various positions (for the general election). In fact, the party has had nothing to say about this, except to endorse or refuse to endorse individual candidates. Anyone can file for any office without endorsement of the party he claims to represent. The solution for the major parties was to weed out their candidates in the primary. Primary elections were limited to Republican and Democratic candidates.

Since we do not register by party, the primary is open to everyone. You simply choose to vote either the R or D primary ballot. Then, in 2002 (before the Convention and change of State Chair) our eager 24-year-old State Chair got the bright idea of recruiting candidates for most positions on the ballots, with opposing candidates for 2 or 3. This forced a separate primary ballot for the Libertarian Party (many Libertarians still voted the R primary).

With this precedent, the Secretary of State, who had been quite content with the haphazard way in which elections had been conducted in the past, saw a problem with continuing this state of affairs, in that it would cost the counties a lot of money to print the extra ballots. (Also, the Chair had personally delivered the filings at the last minute - causing confusion and expense for the Secretary of State's office) As a solution, the Secretary of State proposed eliminating minor parties from the primary. This was what inspired the new State Chair (who had inherited the bad will engendered by the actions of his predecessor) to ask for the meeting described in the email.

The method of forming political parties as spelled out in the Idaho law had never been followed by *any* Idaho party until a group of Libertarians in Kootenai County began to implement it. I admit being totally baffled by the whole subject - it involves getting precinct committeemen on the ballot (presumably, you would not have to be a member of the party to vote for a precinct committeeman).

Clear as mud....I know! I told you I am a newcomer to the political scene. Perhaps someone more politically savvy can explain it better.