Utah Governor 'Honored' With Blackhole Award

The national Society of Professional Journalists plans to 'honor' Utah's Gov. Gary Herbert with the first-ever Black Hole award for a restrictive new open records law. From the article: "David Cuillier, SPJ's Freedom of Information Committee chief and a journalism professor at the University of Arizona, said he'll try to present the award to Herbert on Wednesday. The award, Cuillier said, is part of Sunshine Week, an annual initiative begun in 2002 to promote greater transparency in government. Nominations were gathered from around the country, but Cuillier said 'there was no question' the award should go to Herbert as the chief executive of the state."

Comments

Utah: More of the same

[fishybell]

As a resident of Utah I can't help but notice that national news always seems to revolve around polygamists and bass-ackwards politics. Woo Utah!

Re:Utah: More of the same

[jandrese]

Holy crap, 1% of Utah residents are polygamists! That's out of a national average of around 0%, so it's pretty impressive.

In related news, some residents of Wisconsin don't own foam cheese hats.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Gohtar]

As a resident of Utah also, I noticed we have appeared on Slashdot more than normal the past 2 - 3 weeks. Herbert deserves this award.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[ByOhTek]

I think that was part of the point...

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Bucc5062]

Seriously, you forget Christine O'Donnell? The Party hearty wiccan from New Castle County that put the republican party of DE under a spell and had them vote out a moderate candidate for her?

There was the President allowing the media to document the unloading of KIA soldiers at Dover AFB, big stink when they couldn't do it, now not even a glance...such honor the news gives...

Then there is Joseph Biden himself, the ex senator, now VP of the US of A who's humble comments proceed him...

(ex Delawarean)

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Penguinisto]

You forgot about the LDS (Mormon) church.

As a former resident of Utah, I've lost count of how many Mormon jokes I've had to hear out here whenever folks ask me where I moved here from (in spite of the fact that I'm not Mormon). Kinda gets old sometimes... :/

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Doc Hopper]

Correction: Approximately 2% of the population of Utah practices polygamy or currently lives in a polygamous family. That's around 40,000 people. So around 98% of the state isn't polygamist.

Source: James Brooke. "Utah Struggles With a Revival of Polygamy. " New York Times [New York, N.Y.] 23 August 1998, Late Edition (East Coast): 12. ProQuest Newsstand. ProQuest. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 11 Dec. 2007

Re:Utah: More of the same

[clarkn0va]

Polygamy is, according to wikipedia, "a heterosexual marriage which includes more than two partners." Substitute relationship or cohabitation for marriage and 1% starts to look like a really low number compared to their neighbours.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Qwertie]

"This is unquestionably undeserved," Isom [Herbert's spokeswoman] said. "The Legislature first passed this bill with a veto-proof majority.
"Were it not for the governor's action, the original HB477 would take effect. What the governor signed was an amended HB477 and, because of his leadership, we now have a process to remedy HB477."

I am not familiar with Herbert, but if this bill is his fault, why isn't his spokesperson eager to defend the bill?

Re:Utah: More of the same

[interkin3tic]

I did indeed successfully forget O'Donnell, and the country has successfully forgotten that there's that there's still a war with casualties. But I apologize. For those two things. Not for Biden though: he's not so much "Delaware politics" as he is "National political distraction."

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Locke2005]

Since you are a resident, I can't help but blame you for helping to elect these Neanderthals into office...

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Locke2005]

California: home to more extremists on both the right and the left, and very few moderates. I guess that's balance, of a sort. But the old adage comparing California to granola still remains true: take away the fruits and the nuts, and all that's left is the flakes!

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Locke2005]

You need to remind people by using her full name: Chistine "I'm not a witch!" O'Donnell. ("And I'll put a curse on anyone who says I am!")

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Unkyjar]

Yes, the ones who don't own foam cheese hats use real cheese hats.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Locke2005]

"He's harmless! Back in the sixties he was part of the Free Speech movement at Berkeley. I think he did a little too much LDS."

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Coren22]

Turns out that the "bridge to nowhere" is actually a bridge being built to an airport that is on an island. There is no population there as people don't tend to live at the airport...at least not by choice. The fact that this made national news without the supporting facts on the bridge shows the smear campaign for what it was.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[uberjack]

I would imagine that most of those who practice polygamy wouldn't readily admit to it. So while I don't think Utah is all polygamist, I wonder about the accuracy of the 2%.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Slur]

It's called "conventional wisdom" and it allows the media to readily program any person who identifies with a group. In other words, ~90% of our zombie populace.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[interkin3tic]

But you admit it was messed up local politics, if not in the building of it, in the using it as a smear campaign. And, lets be honest, that's how most people know it.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[PopeRatzo]

Florida: just refused an assload of money.

They believe high-speed trains and a black man in the White House are signs of the fulfillment of Revelations.

I guess the Antichrist had planned to arrive via a supertrain. Or something.

But they won't have to worry about that now, because they've made damn sure nobody's going to make them get their teeth fixed and the government's going to keep its hands off their God-given Medicare.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[PopeRatzo]

I did indeed successfully forget O'Donnell

I understand Christine O'Donnell is planning to run for president, this time under the name "Newt Gingrich".

Re:Utah: More of the same

[t2t10]

So what if it went to "an airport"? The airport is served--and served well--by a ferry.

No, this wasn't a national "smear campaign", this was corruption in politics; it was an attempt by local developers to enrich themselves at the tax payer's expense. If the airport traffic and development of the island actually had justified building a bridge, then the bridge could have been paid for privately. That's something any red-blooded, free-market Republican should understand.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[monkyyy]

99.99% and even then they only stay near the idaho boarder, in order to move in the middle of the night and get protectoin from the red tape trip the law

Re:Utah: More of the same

[monkyyy]

ehhhh? whackos? no, while the trust in fox news is high here thats got nothing to do w/ their (my) beliefs
and for the extremists, [strawmen] next time i see a atheist defending pedophilia because monkeys do it, i`ll be sure to call them out on it[/strawmen]

sorry but i had to feed the +2 troll

Re:Utah: More of the same

[PopeRatzo]

I don't have a problem with adults making an informed decision to engage in most any relationship but do have a problem with child abuse.

But see, it's not child abuse, because you're helping those 14 year-old girls get into heaven.

What a racket.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to the new musical by the creators of South Park, The Book of Mormon. That should make for some pearl-clutching among the religious Right and the mainstream media concern trolls.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[PopeRatzo]

ehhhh? whackos?

Yes, "whackos". Do you really want to see an accounting of the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? You want to go there?

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but don't act shocked and start clutching your pearls when fun is made of, how shall I say, the rather creative nature of the Mormon teachings.

Nobody's going to stop you from whatever you want to believe, but if you decide to smear chopped liver all over your body and walk down the street with a bunch of shaved siamese cats wearing nothing but an umbrella, please don't be shocked when small children stare and point. [Note: those are NOT customs of the LDS, as far as I know, and I'm not suggesting that they are.]

sorry but i had to feed the +2 troll

It's always dangerous to make reference to the moderation score of a comment to which you are replying. They sometimes change in unpredictable ways.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Coren22]

I wouldn't know what a Republican would understand, as I am more Libritarian leaning. But in general, people don't finance bridges of this magnatude. Frankly, looking at the Google maps of the area, I can't see why they couldn't just build a normal bridge, the bridge that was proposed was enormous, and way too much for the need. Essentially, between the town and the airport is a river, just have the bridge on one side of the town, and push the huge ships to the other side of the island, or the other side of the river-like section to reach the town. The airport being served, according to Wikipedia, is the second largest in Alaska, so it would be worth the state's money/time to build the bridge, just not such a large one.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[dryeo]

I don't have a problem with adults making an informed decision to engage in most any relationship but do have a problem with child abuse.

But see, it's not child abuse, because you're helping those 14 year-old girls get into heaven.

What a racket.

That's their argument and with freedom of religion being high on the list of freedoms they may get away with it.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[monkyyy]

" creative nature of the Mormon teachings."
did you miss my point? those are extremists the worse the main part of it has are people who believe fox news, everyone has them, including atheists, any idea can be exaggerated till no one sane would ever agree with it, it has less to do with the base belief system then what the people part of it want to believe

" Do you really want to see an accounting of the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?"
id love to, if u get a valid source and not some strawmen ^__^"
which i dont think you`d know where to find the parts people strongly disagree w/ that are valid beliefs of mine

Re:Utah: More of the same

[PopeRatzo]

any idea can be exaggerated till no one sane would ever agree with it

Actually, "Love one another" and "take care of those less fortunate than you" are exempt from that. If religions want to stick to "love one another" and "help the poor" I'm perfectly OK with that. When you're putting money into elections to create laws because God told you to, a rather big line has been crossed, unless of course those laws are specifically designed to promote "helping the poor".

And it wasn't the "extremists" in the LDS who poured money into the California elections to prevent gay people from getting married, it was the mainstream LDS church. (see the link in my original post for details).

Re:Utah: More of the same

[PopeRatzo]

freedom of religion being high on the list of freedoms

"Freedom of religion" isn't mentioned in the Constitution. It's very specific and very narrow. And it's been interpreted to not include things like ritual human sacrifice or sanctioned rape, as in the case of a grown man forcing a 14 year-old to "marry" him.

If rastafarians can't legally partake in their sacrament under "freedom of religion" I don't see how you can let an old pervert get away with raping a 14 year-old girl and call it "religious freedom".

Re:Utah: More of the same

[dryeo]

As I said, here in BC (we have a Mormon splinter group about a mile north of Idaho). So it is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which has as section #2 (after the guarantee)
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

        (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
        (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
        (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
        (d) freedom of association.

So freedom of religion even comes before speech. Section 1 does include the reasonable limits clause so it is not quite as all encompassing as the US Bill of Rights though your Supreme Court acts like you also have a reasonable limits clause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Two_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_One_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Re:Utah: More of the same

[monkyyy]

"And it wasn't the "extremists" in the LDS who poured money into the California elections to prevent gay people from getting married, it was the mainstream LDS church."
those were who listened to fox news not the official view of the church, its conflicting w/ the acceptance and someones personal freedom(two values that tend to be overlooked in the church); the extremists were "if half a dozen women want to marry some patriarch"

"Actually, "Love one another" and "take care of those less fortunate than you""
id give one of the sect`s of any church a generation of brainwashing and cultural isolation before they could do it
the first one: forced town-wide orgys, then the next(w/ the teaching "this is the only way into ANY happiness") "teaching" ur beliefs to others in a kidnapping, daily chanting, and threatening sort of way
but excellent examples, had to think on the 2nd one for quite a while, these would still be unlikely to even try, and would need government-during-wartime level propaganda to teach it

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Sulphur]

Good grief, there are Muslims who blow themselves up to kill people who don't share their beliefs. And yet I don't see Slashdotters cracking jokes about them.

Sounds logical to me.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[dryeo]

I should add the current ongoing court case is about polygamy which has morphed into whether the polygamy law is constitutional.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[triffid_98]

If rastafarians can't legally partake in their sacrament under "freedom of religion" I don't see how you can let an old pervert get away with raping a 14 year-old girl and call it "religious freedom".

The problem with this sort of thing, is that of zero tolerance. You know, that thing our government is ever so good at these days.

She was 17 and it was consensual. But that's also rape, unless you live in Kentucky. After that I was put in cell block B, now that was rape...

Re:Utah: More of the same

[oliverthered]

Hey this is /., the only bird he's dated was the inode date on his Tux desktop background.

Obviously the only explanation is that there must be loads of polygamists raping all the women up their bad ass he find's to be 'ackwards politics'... Though I believe if he stopped givijng his software away for free and sold it like a good Capitalist then for $50 he could be a consumer of the delights of the flesh, by finding a Gay guy with a harem who does a second-hand job as a pimp.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[PopeRatzo]

monkyyy, I'm telling you this as a friend: You've been texting too much. I couldn't understand most of your comment because the written English is so poor. I don't know what work you do, but unless you are a day laborer, you really need to learn how to write a little more clearly.

I don't mean to offend - maybe it's the teacher and father in me, but I'm offering this in the spirit of generosity. I'd have told you this privately if I could have sent you a private message. I'm not trying to embarrass you.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[PopeRatzo]

She was 17 and it was consensual.

So you say...

After that I was put in cell block B, now that was rape...

So you say...

Re:Utah: More of the same

[overlordofmu]

PopeRatzo, your English is clear, coherent and gramatically correct. I find your writing easy to understand (while not being simplistic) and I believe your points are delivered effectively. It seems that you care about the communication you are making and you do so adeptly.

Please continue this behavior, if you would be so kind, as it gives me faith that all is not lost. You see, on most days, I feel like Henry Higgins in "My Fair Lady" and want to sing:
Why don't the Americans teach their children how to speak?

. . . or write, in the case of monkyyy. You are not picking on that person. The post you responded to really was atrociously bad writting and I was about to respond myself to it myself. However, you took care of that for me. Thank you, sir.

Re:Utah: More of the same

[penguin_dance]

"As a resident of Utah I can't help but notice that national news always seems to revolve around polygamists and bass-ackwards politics. Woo Utah!"

After reading comments following this...

"As a resident of Utah I can't help but notice that Slashdot news always seems to revolve around polygamists and bass-ackwards politics. Woo Utah!"

Fixed THAT for ya!

Re:Utah: More of the same

[Jane Q. Public]

"But that's also rape, unless you live in Kentucky."

Uhhh... no.

The age of consent in 31 states is 16, and it is 17 in 8 other states.

Where are you from, prude?

Was he supposed to be the

[Compaqt]

most restrictive government official/entity in the whole world regarding information openness?

Not the people reportedly torturing PFC Manning prior to trial? Or angling to extradite Julian Assange? Or any of the Arab dictators?

Re:Was he supposed to be the

[drinkypoo]

The goal is to promote openness. So you give the 'award' to someone who you can specifically and publicly name and shame in order to generate some buzz.

Now if only the buzz weren't on a website with more javascript than a tutorial site...

Re:Was he supposed to be the

[WatertonMan]

Should have shamed Obama for not living up to his openness and actually being worse than Bush along with the Democratic Senate. I'm not expecting great things out of the Republican Congress but give them a few months to live up to Pelosi's low point.

Re:Was he supposed to be the

[Locke2005]

"goatse", "black hole"... what's the difference?

"When you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back into you." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Re:Was he supposed to be the

[bryan1945]

Wow, someone on /. saying Obama is worse than Bush. Kinda freaky.

Re:Was he supposed to be the

[Nocturnal Deviant]

and your surprised about this?

Bad Bill

[dogmatixpsych]

I have yet to meet someone in Utah (other than politicians) who likes this law that was passed. Utah politics gets a lot of things right (IMO) but this was not one of them. This bill will not last long as passed. It should not have been passed but it will be changed or removed later.

Re:Bad Bill

[OutSourcingIsTreason]

Do the citizens of Utah have the ability to repeal bad laws via ballot initiative?

Re:Bad Bill

[dogmatixpsych]

Yes. It's already in the works as are court challenges and a lot of contact of representatives. Why this even passed baffles me but politicians do inexplicable things all the time.

Re:Bad Bill

[WatertonMan]

I don't agree with the law but from what I understand the main issue was the cost of storing all the data and accessing it. The governor signed the bill to deal with the cost cutting but then promised a few months of public hearings before June in order to modify it. But the way it has been defended is as a budget issue. I admit I'm skeptical but then I'm surprised it got so much support which makes me think there was a lot of hassle to the prior bill but that politicians hadn't thought through this bill. So I hope the public hearings lead to a lot of revision.

Re:Bad Bill

[Sponge Bath]

"...the main issue was the cost of storing all the data and accessing it"

Funny, politicians never consider that when imposing (usually surveillance related) requirements on private business.

Re:Bad Bill

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes but it's blatantly obvious that the citizens of Utah don't know what's good for them, and they're protesting a necessary initiative to take some load off the government and put sane policies in place.

That the government is doing something only it favors doens't indicate that it shouldn't be doing something. What it indicates is that something is wrong and needs to be fixed. The fact that the people don't agree with it doesn't necessarily indicate that they know what's good for them; however, it does indicate that there is a problem somewhere else. The Utah government thus needs to examine this problem further and come up with another solution that both solves the problem (that the people are too god damn stupid to understand is actually a problem) and satisfies the people.

That's what government is supposed to do.

Re:Bad Bill

[retchdog]

are you sure, or do you just disagree with their conclusion about the cost-benefit analysis?

Re:Bad Bill

[BergZ]

Why can't one of the cost cutting measures (since we're all so worried about pinching pennies) be ending the war on drugs?

Re:Bad Bill

[dweller_below]

In theory, the citizens of Utah could repeal this bad law via ballot initiative. Here is a good summary of the current law concerning Utah Ballot initiatives: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Utah

In practice, we haven't seen a ballot initiative in years. In the last decade, we have seen a constant stream of state legislation tightening the restrictions on ballot initiatives.

I believe that the Utah legislature is attempting to avoid a repeat of the 2000 Civil Forfeiture Initiative. In 2000, Utah voters voted overwhelmingly for a initiative that placed common-sense limits on Civil Forfeiture. The most important reform required that income from seized assets be delivered to the School funds. It took the Legislature 4 years to repeal it and return Utah to the business of Policing for Profit: http://www.instituteforjustice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3289&Itemid=165

In recent years, attempts to achieve ethics reform by Utah ballot initiative have been blocked by the many hurtles imposed by current law. They include:
1) You have to get more signatures than 10% of the vote cast for Governor IN 26 of the 29 counties. Miss that total in one county, and you are blocked.
2) You have 1 year to collect signatures. If your 10% in 26 counties is not certified by the end of the year, you have to start over.
3) You are blocked if the Lieutenant Governor thinks your initiative is patently unconstitutional; nonsensical; or if he determines that the Initiative contains more than one subject.

So, years since we have seen a ballot initiative. Don't expect to see another one in my lifetime.

Miles

Re:Bad Bill

[Cwix]

Because the politicians are paid well by the pharmaceutical companies, and the private prison industries to keep it illegal.

The budget works like this, if you send money (aka bribe) to a politician then they protect all the budget items that are good for you. The problem is all the big players have paid their protection monies to the government, the only place to cut is from the little man. The government is actively trying to cut the little people out of the budget, why not they havn't paid their bribe.

Expect every single cut to services for the individual to be explained away with "budgetary reasons".

Re:Bad Bill

[dogmatixpsych]

That's not how politics works in Utah. The LDS Church voices its opinion in very, very few matters. On a recent one, the LDS Church hinted at not being in favor of harsh anti-illegal immigrant policies that would break up families, at least policies done at the state level yet Utah is moving towards an immigration policy similar to Arizona's. The LDS Church does not dictate politics in Utah. A number of the legislators are LDS but they certainly don't report to church leaders about political matters.

Re:Bad Bill

[dogmatixpsych]

Most of the protests are over the fact that the bill was introduced, passed, and signed within a few days before anyone else really was able to read it. Plus, you add on top of that the fact that the bill looks like a "secrecy bill" and it's a recipe for people protesting what looks like the heavy hand of government trying to hide its actions. You don't, as the governor said, pass a bill then sort it out. Sort it out first, then pass it, then tweak it as needed. Give time for people to engage in dialogue. I'm not saying politicians need to do everything their constituents say - we're not a simple democracy - but politicians don't help themselves when it looks like they are hiding things.

Re:Bad Bill

[bluefoxlucid]

From what I gather, the governor had no say in the matter: legislature had veto override power.

is there progress?

[Hazel Bergeron]

the current law was written 20 years ago when such informal modes of communication as text messaging and e-mail were not widely used.

Did people just meet in person instead? A quick 'phone call? The first problem with recording official communication is that anything devious is communicated off the record.

Blackmail on the highest level

[deweyhewson]

It is worth noting here that one Republican legislator in Utah has come out so far and talked about being blackmailed by the leadership in the Legislature to vote for the bill without even considering or debating it.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=14729423&s_cid=rss-960

The Utah Legislature is representative in name only, and have barely attempted to make any secret of their disdain and disregard for the Utahn people for years. Why do they keep getting elected then? That's the power of the (R) in this state.

The more national shame they receive, the better.

Re:Blackmail on the highest level

[Bucc5062]

I am not buying this line of bull:

“I think it was too much one-party control in our state,” Powell answered.

“That's the way the Legislature runs,” he added, when asked to clarify. “It's terrible. It's an atrocious law,” he continued without prodding.

“It's the worst thing I've ever seen, not just in the time I've served, but in my lifetime in the Utah Legislature, but it's because of the way the party controls the Legislature.”

“So you voted against it?” Powell was asked.

“No. I'm a Republican,” he replied.

So if i understand this convoluted thought process,

1. The legislature runs via blackmail
2. He's think bi-partisan politics is better
3. This was a horrible, bad bill
4. --- (wtf???)
5. I voted for it because I'm republican (profit)

yeah, sure beats doing the right thing up front. So he's on record being against it, even though he voted for it (great for campaign sound bites), he doesn't have to lift a finger to change it because only the leadership can "do something" for all Utahites, and they law stands so he does not have to reveal any communications.....right, bad bill indeed, for the populous. That stinks worse then a dead fish rotting in the great salt lake during the middle of summer.

To make me a believer, rally your republicans, gain a majority of moderates in the party and make a fucking change instead of whining about blackmail....God they really are just assholes. (ex believer in the US of Ca)

Re:Blackmail on the highest level

[sorak]

It's never a wise idea for voters to give all the control to one party. In fact I think we should try to restore the 1700s political system, where parties did not exist. Maybe make it illegal to be an affiliate of a party, once you enter the Legislature?

Exactly, but with preferential voting, so that the intention of the voters is more closely represented.

Re:Blackmail on the highest level

[Lucidus]

Populace. The word you want is populace.

Re:Blackmail on the highest level

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the law a church-led/influenced thing, then? Not to harp on the LDS, but if anything is perceived by the Quorum to affect the church, then odds are perfect that they can and will strong-arm the legislature into doing/voting whatever's best for the church. Since only like 1-2 legislators are not practicing LDS members, it's a pretty easy task.

Contrary to what most people think, the "Freedom of Religion" clause was inserted in the Constitution to protect churches from government, not government from churches. That latter notion is a modern interpretation, originating almost entirely from the political left. What freaks people out is that Utah happens to be the only place in the US where any single religion is dominant enough to create a state-level electoral majority. But having lived in Utah for 10 years at one point in my life, I can say that the LDS Church actually stays out of politics for the most part. In fact, it explicitly bans political discussion from the pulpit and the use of church property and membership records for fundraising and other political uses. It really only speaks out when it perceives a proposed law as affecting public morality (ex gay marriage), which isn't really uncommon--plenty of churches do the same, including the Catholic Church.

And while Republicans certainly dominate in Utah, there are plenty of Mormon Democrats. Of the 15 Mormons in Congress, 4 of them are Democrats--27%. Salt Lake City even has a Democrat mayor. So it's not like Mormons vote as a total right-wing political bloc--that notion is a total myth.

Re:Blackmail on the highest level

[dogmatixpsych]

Not at all. The LDS Church does not lead any politics in Utah. The Church itself becomes involved in very few political matters, and only when they have moral implications.

Re:Blackmail on the highest level

[DNS-and-BIND]

Now hold on, I have received it on good authority, right here on Slashdot, that there is no difference between the two parties. This typically happens when there is a story about (D). Now, the story is about (R), which have been concluded to be uniquely evil? It can't be both, man, make up your mind.

Re:Blackmail on the highest level

[Jane Q. Public]

"Contrary to what most people think, the "Freedom of Religion" clause was inserted in the Constitution to protect churches from government, not government from churches. That latter notion is a modern interpretation, originating almost entirely from the political left."

If you mean the U.S. Constitution, that is absolute nonsense. What Kool-Aid-soaked history books have you been reading?

The Founders were aware that religious persecution was a profound evil that had plagued man for centuries... longer, really. Therefore the government would have no power to establish official religions.

But they were ALSO aware of the evils that have historically occurred when religions were in charge of government. Some of the darkest days of Western civilization happened in those circumstances.

Freedom of Religion can not exist without Freedom From Religion. They go hand-in-hand. And our Founders were well aware of that.

Re:Should go to Obama

[skids]

Awwww. The guy trying to change the subject to Obama didn't get first post this time. Such a pity.

give it to the legislature, not the Governor...

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm....if you knew the whole story, you would realize the Governor did what he did so that in the end the bill would be defeated....it's the LEGISLATURE leadership that needs the award!

Re:give it to the legislature, not the Governor...

[WatertonMan]

He could have just vetoed the bill. But yeah, the way it is being portrayed makes it appear like the governor was behind it when he wasn't and he is trying to get it modified.

Re:give it to the legislature, not the Governor...

[Daemon69]

This was my understanding as well. The legislature had the votes to override the Governor's veto. So, he signed it but gave it time to become law so it COULD be hashed out in public. Shame on the legislature indeed.

Re:give it to the legislature, not the Governor...

[moderatorrater]

The legislature had enough votes to overcome the veto. The legislature leadership truly is to blame in this instance.

Re:give it to the legislature, not the Governor...

[unjedai]

That makes no sense. If he vetoed it and his veto was overridden it would still become law so that, as you say, "it COULD be hashed out in public". But you'd have sent the message that this bill sucked and was vetoed. I don't see a reason why you would sign a bill you are against. Just makes him look stupid if you ask me.

I'm surprised and disappointed

[overshoot]

Why not President Obama? Unlike his Nobel Prize, he's actually done something to deserve this one.

After promising us the most transparent Administration ever, he's actually (hard as it is to believe) racked up a worse record on FOIA requests than the Bush43 administration, set new records in cracking down on whistleblowers, and (to top it off) actually taken to torturing a political prisoner to fudge up a case against WikiLeaks for doing the exact same thing that the New York Times did [1].

[1] No, not the whole bit about knowingly publishing Administration lies -- that's totally cool and the fact that Wiki doesn't play that kind of ball may be part of the reason that they're in the Administration black book.

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[mr1911]

The only thing different about Obama is that his worshipers bought his load of BS hook, line, and sinker. He is a career politician who will say or do whatever it takes to further himself. Those that believed his "hope and change" story probably send money to Nigerian princes too.

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[vux984]

After promising us the most transparent Administration ever, he's actually (hard as it is to believe) racked up a worse record on FOIA requests than the Bush43 administration,

Yes and No.

"Obamaâ(TM)s directive, memorialized in written instructions from the Justice Department, appears to have been widely ignored."

Yes, the foia situation is getting worse. But the real question is why?

Clearly he's not reviewing all the FOIA requests personally... so who is reviewing them and why are the seemingly clear instructions to be more transparent being ignored?

Is Obama secretly telling them to be less transparent, while very publicly signing instructions to be more transparent?

Is there an entrenched bureaucracy that is essentially acting with impunity?

I give his administration a failing grade on this too, but I'd like to give Obama himself the benefit of the doubt on this one. I don't think he's the problem. Whereas in the Bush years, both Cheney and Bush were part of the problem.

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[airfoobar]

Not to mention his disgraceful attacks on the internet, the very thing that arguably helped north-African countries overthrow their repressive governments...

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[rotide]

"The only thing different about Obama is that his worshipers bought his load of BS hook, line, and sinker. He is a career politician who will say or do whatever it takes to further himself."

News flash, it's the same on the other side of the isle. If you're willing to do what it takes to get elected, you're probably not worth voting for.

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[Scutter]

I give his administration a failing grade on this too, but I'd like to give Obama himself the benefit of the doubt on this one. I don't think he's the problem. Whereas in the Bush years, both Cheney and Bush were part of the problem.

LOL WUT

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[vux984]

LOL WUT

Did I stutter?

1) Obama personally gave instructions to improve transparency
2) Obama administration fails at transparency
3) I'm not convinced Obama is the reason transparency is the problem.

4) Bush / Cheney administration also failed at transparency.
5) Bush / Cheney were personally part of that failure, having personally publicly and repeatedly defended the lack of transparency.
6) I see Bush / Cheney as part of the problem causing lack of transparency.

What part didn't make sense?

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[Scutter]

If he gave specific instructions then why weren't they followed? He's the President of the United States. The buck stops with him. It's his job to take responsibility for the departments under his control. Giving him a pass and saying it's someone else's fault that his personal and specific instructions were completely ignored is disingenuous at best.

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[vux984]

If he gave specific instructions then why weren't they followed? He's the President of the United States.

The President is not God-Emperor.

A CEO typically has far more direct power over their organization.

The buck stops with him.

Its great rhetoric, but not much else.

You can blame one man for all that is wrong in the United States all you like but its absurd on its face.

The President is a figurehead. He has power, but it pretty limited.

It's his job to take responsibility for the departments under his control.

Fair enough. Just exactly how under his control is it exactly? And what exactly would you have him do?

Giving him a pass and saying it's someone else's fault that his personal and specific instructions were completely ignored is disingenuous at best.

Its "insincere"? Its "lacking in candor"? Are you sure you know what "disingenous" means?

That said, I'm not giving him a pass, but I do recognize there is a substantial difference between being ineffective at fixing a problem, and enthusiastically perpetrating a problem.

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[dogmatixpsych]

Exactly my thoughts. Logic, logic, logic, then throw all that logic out the window.

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[bryan1945]

The part where you forgot to mention you are an Obama apologist, maybe?

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[Paul1969]

What you fail to realize is that it may NOT be mere lip service. Obama may simply not have enough spare time to make sure that his directives are being carried out.
But no, you assume "sinister sleaze."
Here's a little point of comparison for you - government sources in Russia state that they estimate that approximately 60% of Vladimir Putin's orders are simply being ignored. More than half. And Putin has a hell of a lot more power over his underlings than Obama does.

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[mr1911]

News flash, it's the same on the other side of the isle.

I must assume you are a liberal by the way you inserted what you wanted to read into what I said. "The only thing different about Obama" and "He is a career politician" clearly did not differentiate him from any other politician, regardless of party affiliation. Don't project your bias into what I say.

If you're willing to do what it takes to get elected, you're probably not worth voting for.

That is something we agree on.

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[Shotgun]

arbitrary obama bashing? really?

It's an article about an award being given to government officials hiding the workings of government. Obama is arguably among the worst in US history, after promising to be the most transparent ever. Arbitrary?

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[spxero]

I think the part that doesn't make sense is that Bush is responsible for the actions of those under him but Obama isn't. Bush never comes out and says "hey, we've got an open thing going on here!" and then continues to stall or deny FOIA requests. He just never says transparent in the first place and you liken that to them being the problem.

On the flip side of that coin, Obama says "Hey, we're going to make things transparent" and _nothing_ changed. The difference is you think Obama is not responsible for his subordinates but Bush is. Hence, "LOL WUT".

FWIW, I don't like either policy.

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[vux984]

He just never says transparent in the first place and you liken that to them being the problem.

Bush and especially Cheney both repeatedly spoke out in favor of extending government secrecy. Cheney wouldn't even disclose how many people worked for him, he invented a new classification "treated as secret" for the stuff he wrote that wasn't actually even classified, he personally ordered secret service logs destroyed, and so on... he was about as anti-transparency as it gets.

If Bush & Cheney were simply silent on the issue that would be quite different, and I'd agree with you. But they weren't remotely silent.

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[vux984]

I'd defend Bush's lack of personal involvement in many of the previous administrations issues just as readily.

I hardly qualify as an Obama apologist.

I'm simply a realist who recognizes that the president (ANY president) isn't directly behind every single decision "the government" makes.

Re:I'm surprised and disappointed

[overshoot]

If you're willing to do what it takes to get elected, you're probably not worth voting for.

And if you're not, you won't be elected.

Life's a bitch.

Try to present it on Wednesday?

[makubesu]

You idiots! He probably read the slashdot article. Now the surprise is ruined!

Re:Try to present it on Wednesday?

[Penguinisto]

Oh, hell... most of *us* don't read TFA - what makes you think a politician will?

Not really the full picture.

[slycrel]

As a resident of Utah, I've been casually following this Bill. I was very perturbed to find out that it had passed, but I think I understand after hearing the governor's explanation. He gave an interview the day after and said basically that even had he vetoed it it would have passed. So he instead amended it, calling a special session so that there would be time for public debate and changes. I don't know all of the nuts and bolts of the process, but as a casual interested party that was good enough for me. In fact I respect the fact that he told the public why he voted for it and why he amended it -- it was in everyone's best interest (except Utah's congress maybe) for him to do what he did. He was handed a crap sandwitch and he sent it back to the kitchen, even if he's still sitting in the restauraunt that served it. In the end basically it's a law that will be re-voted on before it goes into effect, with public participation and transparency. The fact that the governor is being given this award over those who pushed the bill through in the first place is fairly disgraceful, assuming that it would have gotten through regardless of what he did.

I'm cautiously optimistic, and I know enough people involved in the political process here in Utah that I expect this won't stand for long even if it goes through in a bad state.

Re:Not really the full picture.

[slycrel]

Interview l heard on the radio to come to these conclusions:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14661633
(click the "Interview with Gov Herbert" link on the right side of the video pane)

Re:Not really the full picture.

[jhmaughan]

Mod parent up. The reality is that this bill is focused on the cumbersome nature of tracking all forms of electronic communication. The legislators didn't want to deal with such a massive record keeping need since they are all part time anyway (IMHO). Herbert does want to effectuate a balance in what the public wants and what is realistic.

Re:Not really the full picture.

[slycrel]

Thanks for the links, I didn't know personally how that process worked.

I was not saying that's a fact, that's just what he said and it seemed reasonable at the time. I really am casually following this. As in, I'm listening and paying attention, but I'm not a wannabe lawyer or legislator or researcher -- I don't have time to be. His solution sounded reasonable and I am familiar enough with local politics and his stances to have an idea that he's not BSing on his answer here. I may not fully agree with what's happening, but it doesn't really matter; I'm glad that this isn't settled, that it's getting more attention. I've also heard there is more to this story than just privacy concerns, and this extra time will help address those issues as well. Throwing it all out is setting the stage for another potential sneak attack. This way it gets addressed.

Re:Not really the full picture.

[dogmatixpsych]

Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't heard his reasoning and I admit I was in the group who was criticizing him. His solution does seem like the only reasonable one in light of the legislature's actions. Thanks again for sharing that explanation.

Re:Not really the full picture.

[yoshi_mon]

The votes that pass something don't always really show the votes that could be gotten. It is a long established practice for people in all forms of congress to vote no if they can get away with it, even if they personally wanted to vote yes, if it will play well in their districts/states.

Example: I am sitting in congress and Bill X comes up for a vote. I personally want the bill to pass, be I think it is a good idea or more likely I'm being paid to like it, but the people back in my district don't want the bill to pass. So I wait while the vote takes place.

And during the vote there are enough yes votes for the bill to pass which then lets me cast a no vote that I can take home and say, "See you yokels! I am on your side!" While saying behind closed doors to my donors that if needed I would have voted for it.

Re:Not really the full picture.

[Shotgun]

Doesn't matter. He's a Republican, right? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!

Black Hole Award?

[RevWaldo]

Well that sucks!

.

Well said.

[Benfea]

The right spends so much time going on about how Obama is some kind of super liberal that is totally indistinguishable from a socialist, when in fact he is largely indistinguishable from Bush. Hell, his much-maligned health care bill was almost a note-for-note copy of a Republican health care proposal from the 1990s. He has proved to be exactly the kind of conservative appeaser/collaborator that I expected him to be.

Re:Well said.

[Shotgun]

And the left spends so much time going on about the right spending so much time going on about how Obama is some kind of super liberal that is totally indistinguishable from a socialist, when in fact they were equally disgusted with Bush43. The right also got fed up with the previous Bush, what with his read-my-lips turncoat and running all over the world to fight other peoples wars. Clinton and Obama were elected in part, because many on the right said, "What the hell is the difference" and stayed home on election day. Consider the rise in enthusiasm with the introduction of the Tea Party.

Works for me

[Zorque]

As a Utahn, I've followed a lot of Gary Herbert's exploits. The man's a huge piece of shit, to say the least. It was amazing (if not infuriating) watching him get elected despite the fact that he never ever ever gave a straight answer to a question, was publicly proven to be the corrupt pawn of several different industries, and not having a single valid point against the challenging candidate.

I really wish Huntsman hadn't resigned to become ambassador to China. Even for a Republican he was a good governor.

Re:Works for me

[Shotgun]

watching him get elected despite:
- the fact that he never ever ever gave a straight answer to a question,
- was publicly proven to be the corrupt pawn of several different industries,
- and not having a single valid point against the challenging candidate

Do you know what they call candidates that do not follow that game-plan?

Losers.

Re:Stony Californians

[PopeRatzo]

Don't worry California, we're learning from your mistakes and will get it right here in Colorado.

Oh, don't get me started on Colorado. You've got a whole 'nother level of religious whacko in Colorado. Except for Boulder and parts of Denver, Colorado might as well be Utah for all the bible humpers and mega-churches. Colorado Springs was the first place I ever saw one of those posters with Anglo-Jesus holding the Springfield rifle. It was in a diner just inside the city limits and they also had the poster of Jesus and Ronald Reagan looking down on America with love and steely resolve.

Y'all got your own problems in Colorado. Best not be pointing fingers at California.

What's a black hoe?

[bronney]

They teach you that in Utah huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoMspJqqVcA

I suspect

[ThatsNotPudding]

Utah is a lot like Kansas; a wonderful place to live, except for most of the people's insanely ignorant politics.

Gary Herbert ..

[BusyBeeNYC]

the guy.,. umm i dont know about him dont wanna offend anyone

Two words

[overshoot]

I give his administration a failing grade on this too, but I'd like to give Obama himself the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Bradley Manning.

Re:Two words

[vux984]

Bradley Manning.

is really a separate issue.

And for the record, I think Obama is wrong on this issue.

That said, I don't really think Manning would be better off under Bush, McCain, Hilary Clinton, Ron Paul, or whoever was running the Green Party...