3:03 PM
Tyler Riggs
This is featured post 1 title
Replace these every slider sentences with your featured post descriptions.Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
This is featured post 2 title
Replace these every slider sentences with your featured post descriptions.Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
This is featured post 3 title
Replace these every slider sentences with your featured post descriptions.Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Utah wants to destroy open government?
This past week has been a bad one for open and transparent government in Utah.
On Tuesday, Utah House Rep. John Dougall, a man who I respected by virtue of his limited government stance, introduced HB477, revisions to the Government Records Access Management Act, that makes many changes to Utah's open records laws, nearly all of them bad.
The changes that are getting the most headlines are ones that exempt electronic communications from government officials from public scrutiny. Right now, e-mails, voice mails, text messages, etc... are presumed open to the public unless they contain material that allows them to be exempted from an open records request. This is a good thing. Lawmakers like Rep. Hendrickson have been quoted in the press, however, as saying that allowing all e-mails to be public allows devils like THE MEDIA to go on "fishing expeditions" to try and dig up dirt on lawmakers.
Well...NO KIDDING. That's exactly one of the reasons it's there for, Rep. Hendrickson, to allow the media to be the public watchdog and make sure you and your cronies are keeping your hands clean.
I'm pretty outraged by this, but the best I can do is contact my representatives. I am still registered and maintain my vote in Logan, despite temporary dwelling in West Valley, so I contacted Rep. David Butterfield and Sen. Lyle Hillyard. Rep. Butterfield already voted in favor of passing HB477 through the house, and Sen. Hillyard is the Senate sponsor for the bill, so I never really had much hope of changing minds. Let me note that I respect both of these men and they're good men, but they're dead wrong on this issue.
E-mail to Rep. Butterfield:
Now, with Sen. Hillyard, one of his concerns was that as a lawyer, he would have clients e-mailing him confidential, privileged information on his Utah Senate account. So with him, I sent him two e-mails: One to his law office address, and one to his Senate address.
E-mail to Sen. Hillyard (Law firm address):
Senator Hillyard:
E-mail to Sen. Hillyard (Senate address):
Senator Hillyard:
Interestingly enough, Sen. Hillyard replied to me from his law firm address. This is something that HE is going to need to change. The burden is on the individual representative to distinguish which business should be handled by personal e-mail and which should be handled by government e-mail.
Here is Sen. Hillyard's response:
And my response back to him:
On Tuesday, Utah House Rep. John Dougall, a man who I respected by virtue of his limited government stance, introduced HB477, revisions to the Government Records Access Management Act, that makes many changes to Utah's open records laws, nearly all of them bad.
The changes that are getting the most headlines are ones that exempt electronic communications from government officials from public scrutiny. Right now, e-mails, voice mails, text messages, etc... are presumed open to the public unless they contain material that allows them to be exempted from an open records request. This is a good thing. Lawmakers like Rep. Hendrickson have been quoted in the press, however, as saying that allowing all e-mails to be public allows devils like THE MEDIA to go on "fishing expeditions" to try and dig up dirt on lawmakers.
Well...NO KIDDING. That's exactly one of the reasons it's there for, Rep. Hendrickson, to allow the media to be the public watchdog and make sure you and your cronies are keeping your hands clean.
I'm pretty outraged by this, but the best I can do is contact my representatives. I am still registered and maintain my vote in Logan, despite temporary dwelling in West Valley, so I contacted Rep. David Butterfield and Sen. Lyle Hillyard. Rep. Butterfield already voted in favor of passing HB477 through the house, and Sen. Hillyard is the Senate sponsor for the bill, so I never really had much hope of changing minds. Let me note that I respect both of these men and they're good men, but they're dead wrong on this issue.
E-mail to Rep. Butterfield:
...I'd be interested to hear your line of thinking in voting in favor of Dougall's GRAMA changes bill. The people of Utah (myself included) are outraged by the House passing this bill, especially by the margin it passed. This bill was a major punch to the face of transparent government under the guise of "protecting the taxpayer." When I hear people like Rep. Hendrickson criticize media "fishing expeditions" I have to laugh, because the media's job is to be the watchdog of government. I'm really pretty disappointed, as a resident, in the House as a whole for voting for this. It's the most disrespectful piece of legislation I've seen...ever, especially the haste in which it was pushed through. It seemed very "Pelosi-esque." This isn't personal to you, I would be interested in hearing your rationale though...As of 11:07 a.m. Friday, I'd received no response from him.
Now, with Sen. Hillyard, one of his concerns was that as a lawyer, he would have clients e-mailing him confidential, privileged information on his Utah Senate account. So with him, I sent him two e-mails: One to his law office address, and one to his Senate address.
E-mail to Sen. Hillyard (Law firm address):
Senator Hillyard:
If I were a client of your law firm. I would contact you at this e-mail address, lyle@hao-law.com. I would assume that any clients of yours who were contacted you regarding law firm business would contact you at this e-mail address. Law firm business sent to this e-mail is not something that I, as a member of the public, can request by law.
E-mail to Sen. Hillyard (Senate address):
Senator Hillyard:
If I contact you at this e-mail address, lhillyard@utahsenate.org, the communique should be presumed to be public business and, like it or not, constituents need to understand and respect that their e-mail to you as a public official can, may and likely will be made public at some point. I'm an individual who loves transparency and wants our conservative lawmakers to preserve open government. House Bill 477 is an absolute affront to open government and is a slap in the face to the people of the state of Utah. It is my understanding that you are the Senate sponsor of Rep. Dougall's HB477. I beg of you to reconsider and listen to the overwhelming negative feedback for this unneeded legislation. This legislation is not becoming of this state, is a major step backward and is flat out embarrassing. As a former member of the media and a current voting member of the public, I ask you and your colleagues to abandon this miscarriage of policy.
Interestingly enough, Sen. Hillyard replied to me from his law firm address. This is something that HE is going to need to change. The burden is on the individual representative to distinguish which business should be handled by personal e-mail and which should be handled by government e-mail.
Here is Sen. Hillyard's response:
But my law office e-mail is public and easy (I hope for client's) to find. Some people who know me don't know there is a difference and some think that when I am out of the office that my senate e-mail is the only way to contact me. Our staff is tired of the threats from the media and we plan on working with them if they want after the bill is passed if there are changes to be made but let's do it without threats of going to court. When staff shares with us the threats made by the media attorneys of what they think the law means from the outdated language of GRAMA which was adopted well before the changes to the current electronic media, you will see a strong bi-partisan support for the bill. It may be a good idea to have a delete/ forward button we could push for all the meaningless e-mails we get to a central place for all the media to read and then have a weekly test so they can prove they have now read all the material they are seeking.
And my response back to him:
Senator Hillyard,
Thanks for the response.
I understand where you are coming from, but I really think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. I get the feeling you are looking at this from the perspective of worst case scenarios on your end, and as a result, are disregarding the great harm to the public that will be done with this legislation.
Every single one of you up there are public servants. The media is the watchdog for the public. To hear you say that "our staff is tired of the threats from the media" is frustrating, because our freedom, our transparency, our efficacy as a government requires the media to be vigorous and aggressive so they can successfully out any corruption that may exist. And let's be honest, corruption has existed in most levels of government throughout our history.
Returning to your law firm e-mail argument, the burden is on you to let your law clients know the appropriate way to contact you for law firm-related issues. If you receive a law firm message on your senate e-mail, reply and tell them the correct place to send the message, and even explain why if you have to. This argument is a pretty weak-kneed excuse to destroy one of the hallmarks of Utah's open government laws.
At the very least, Senator, won't you consider circling the bill and bringing in some people to consult on it to fix some of the areas that there is great concern from the media? Maybe I'll put it this way: If you and staff are tired of the "threats" coming from media now, what do you think is going to happen when this law passes? National freedom of the press groups and attorneys will descend on Utah and protest and create even more problems. In addition, Utah will stand as the ONLY state in the country that statutorily and automatically exempts the electronic communications of elected officials from public scrutiny.
Utah is better than this. The public demands better than this. And bipartisan support from 75 men and women in the House and 29 men and women in the Senate is meaningless when the core constituencies affected by the bill are uniformly, and loudly, opposed to what you're doing.So there you go...First off, thanks to Sen. Hillyard for at least responding. I'm being told by others that they're not having so much luck. I just posted these because I figure if the government doesn't want to be transparent, I will be.
Finally, do you realize how bad this looks that the bill text was released Tuesday, it was heard in committee Wednesday, voted on Thursday and brought to the Senate today? Last time I saw so much secrecy and haste in moving a bill through a legislative body was Obama's healthcare bill. Add this to the news reports of Governor Herbert giving conflicting information about his level of involvement with this bill and when he found out about it, and this whole thing stinks to high heaven.
You all are wrong on this, Senator, with all do respect. There's a chance to make it right. What can we do to help you and your colleagues see the light before it's too late? I am not mincing words when I say this is the biggest slap in the face to government transparency I've seen in Utah since I started paying attention.
Posted in: Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Piers Morgan is awesome
Piers Morgan is great and I can't wait for his show to debut on CNN.
In a time when our choice in cable news is crap coming with a huge slant from the right or crap coming with a huge slant from the left, there's just not much out there worth watching. That is, until later this month.
If you aren't familiar with Piers Morgan, you've probably been living under some type of a rock. He's been prominent in American pop culture the past few years as a judge on "America's Got Talent" and also as the winner of season two of "Celebrity Apprentice." Prior to those exploits, however, Morgan was a very respected British newspaper editor and journalist.
Later this month, he'll be taking over Larry King's timeslot on CNN. It's a show I'll watch until I have a reason not to.
Larry King had way, way, way outlived his usefulness on the network, so it's good to see him gone. He hadn't asked a germane question in six years and had the same old and tired guests on all the time and more often than not had worthless guests on.
I've got high hopes for Piers Morgan's unique interview style and believe he'll really be able to get people to open up on the show. Fortunately for those of you who don't know Piers, CNN put out a little taster of him interviewing Anderson Cooper on 1/3.
This is good stuff. If Piers can make every guest looks as human as he made that closet case stiff Anderson Cooper look, then we're in for a real treat.
Incidentally, I also recommend following Piers Morgan on Twitter.
/Piers Morgan lovefest over
In a time when our choice in cable news is crap coming with a huge slant from the right or crap coming with a huge slant from the left, there's just not much out there worth watching. That is, until later this month.
If you aren't familiar with Piers Morgan, you've probably been living under some type of a rock. He's been prominent in American pop culture the past few years as a judge on "America's Got Talent" and also as the winner of season two of "Celebrity Apprentice." Prior to those exploits, however, Morgan was a very respected British newspaper editor and journalist.
Later this month, he'll be taking over Larry King's timeslot on CNN. It's a show I'll watch until I have a reason not to.
Larry King had way, way, way outlived his usefulness on the network, so it's good to see him gone. He hadn't asked a germane question in six years and had the same old and tired guests on all the time and more often than not had worthless guests on.
I've got high hopes for Piers Morgan's unique interview style and believe he'll really be able to get people to open up on the show. Fortunately for those of you who don't know Piers, CNN put out a little taster of him interviewing Anderson Cooper on 1/3.
This is good stuff. If Piers can make every guest looks as human as he made that closet case stiff Anderson Cooper look, then we're in for a real treat.
Incidentally, I also recommend following Piers Morgan on Twitter.
/Piers Morgan lovefest over
Monday, January 3, 2011
Shopping carts as a matter of personal responsibility
I've decided there is no greater sign of laziness amongst our society than failing to return a shopping cart at a store to the "cart corral."
I was at the 1300 South Target tonight (a beautiful new store that opened in October) and on my way out of the store, I noticed there were stray shopping carts all over the parking lot.
 |
| This cart someone took the effort to mount up on the curb, you'd think they'd be able to move it 20 feet to a corral? |
I snagged one cart as I was going to my car (because I figured if I'm going to walk by a stray cart, AND a cart corral on my way to my car, shouldn't I put it in the corral?) Then after unloading my groceries, I grabbed two other nearby carts and took them both to corrals.
 |
| Here you can actually see a cart corral in the background. |
 |
| Even more carts. This was just the north side of the parking lot, too. |
I'm going to argue that the failure of people to do something as simple as returning a cart to its corral is a microcosm of a larger issue, being the decreasing value some in society put on personal responsibility. Some people just don't care about anyone but themselves, even at a base level of returning a shopping cart.
----
UPDATE:
When I linked to this on my Facebook page, an excellent comment was posted. I am calling on all retail stores with shopping carts to adopt this process in their operations:
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
"The Social Network" could be great, but could be sucky
When I went to the movie theater over the weekend to see "The Other Guys" I was drawn into one of the trailers before the film. It was for "The Social Network," which is (a version) of the story of Facebook.
To be sure, there's a lot of drama behind the creation of Facebook, certainly much more than most people realize between planting their crops in FarmVille, offing a rival gang in Mafia Wars or getting into arguments on friends' status messages.
"The Social Network" is based off Ben Mezrich's book, "The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal."
For those not familiar with Mezrich, he (I felt) hit the ball out of the park in his 2002 book, "Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six MIT Students Who Took Vegas for Millions." Mezrich followed that -- his first work of non-fiction -- up with other books such as "Ugly Americans: The True Story of the Ivy League Cowboys Who Raided the Asian Markets for Millions" and "Rigged: The True Story of an Ivy League Kid Who Changed the World of Oil, from Wall Street to Dubai."
Sensing a theme from Mezrich? He writes about nerdy Ivy Leaguers, in the latest case Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin, and peps up the story with sex, booze and adventure.
Now, I did very much enjoy "Bringing Down the House" and thus was very excited when it was adapted into a movie. But that adaption ended up being the dungfest that was "21," a movie not at all true to the book and that embellished even more than Mezrich may have in his prose. It's the poor treatment the book received in "21" that makes me wonder whether "The Social Network" will be fantastic film or is just a great concept with a trailer that is buoyed heavily by a phenomenal rendition of Radiohead's "Creep," performed by the Scala and Kolacny Brothers.
Back to the point. While the Facebook story is great and dramatic and a fantastic case study for business, I'm concerned that Mezrich only got one side of the story for his book. He did not interview Zuckerberg at all (Zuckerberg reportedly refused to speak to Mezrich.) Meanwhile, Facebook co-founder (and guy who you never hear about so he has an axe to grind) Saverin was a consultant for Mezrich. Moreover, no one associated with Facebook was involved with the film project.
So while "The Social Network" might be very entertaining, a little will be taken away for me if there are excessive embellishments or facets of the film that are just not believable.
But that's Hollywood. And I'll almost certainly see "The Social Network" opening weekend regardless, unless that happens to be the time that Andy Morgan gets me into a screening and hooks me up with the steak he owes me for his colossal malprediction on recent box office figures!
To be sure, there's a lot of drama behind the creation of Facebook, certainly much more than most people realize between planting their crops in FarmVille, offing a rival gang in Mafia Wars or getting into arguments on friends' status messages.
"The Social Network" is based off Ben Mezrich's book, "The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal."
For those not familiar with Mezrich, he (I felt) hit the ball out of the park in his 2002 book, "Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six MIT Students Who Took Vegas for Millions." Mezrich followed that -- his first work of non-fiction -- up with other books such as "Ugly Americans: The True Story of the Ivy League Cowboys Who Raided the Asian Markets for Millions" and "Rigged: The True Story of an Ivy League Kid Who Changed the World of Oil, from Wall Street to Dubai."
Sensing a theme from Mezrich? He writes about nerdy Ivy Leaguers, in the latest case Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin, and peps up the story with sex, booze and adventure.
Now, I did very much enjoy "Bringing Down the House" and thus was very excited when it was adapted into a movie. But that adaption ended up being the dungfest that was "21," a movie not at all true to the book and that embellished even more than Mezrich may have in his prose. It's the poor treatment the book received in "21" that makes me wonder whether "The Social Network" will be fantastic film or is just a great concept with a trailer that is buoyed heavily by a phenomenal rendition of Radiohead's "Creep," performed by the Scala and Kolacny Brothers.
Back to the point. While the Facebook story is great and dramatic and a fantastic case study for business, I'm concerned that Mezrich only got one side of the story for his book. He did not interview Zuckerberg at all (Zuckerberg reportedly refused to speak to Mezrich.) Meanwhile, Facebook co-founder (and guy who you never hear about so he has an axe to grind) Saverin was a consultant for Mezrich. Moreover, no one associated with Facebook was involved with the film project.
So while "The Social Network" might be very entertaining, a little will be taken away for me if there are excessive embellishments or facets of the film that are just not believable.
But that's Hollywood. And I'll almost certainly see "The Social Network" opening weekend regardless, unless that happens to be the time that Andy Morgan gets me into a screening and hooks me up with the steak he owes me for his colossal malprediction on recent box office figures!