Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Utah Governor 'Honored' With Blackhole Award 161

Posted by samzenpus
from the prize-nobody-wants dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Utah Governor 'Honored' With Blackhole Award

Comments Filter:
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 15, 2011 @03:14PM (#35495120) Homepage Journal

    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...

  • by overshoot (39700) on Tuesday March 15, 2011 @03:27PM (#35495248)
    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.

  • by mr1911 (1942298) on Tuesday March 15, 2011 @03:44PM (#35495420)
    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.
  • by WatertonMan (550706) on Tuesday March 15, 2011 @03:48PM (#35495458)
    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:Bad Bill (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sponge Bath (413667) on Tuesday March 15, 2011 @04:27PM (#35495986)

    "...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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15, 2011 @05:47PM (#35497076)

    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.

  • by unjedai (966274) on Tuesday March 15, 2011 @07:38PM (#35498246)
    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.
  • by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @01:17AM (#35500488) Homepage
    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.

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Working...