—WARNING: This video contains R-rated content. Watch at your own risk.—

In the ABC4 news story we linked to earlier where Sen. Chris Buttars compares some gays to radical Muslims, there was a reference to a segment of the Prop 8 documentary that ABC4 couldn’t air as it was too graphic. That segment is shown in the YouTube video below. While some may think this video is inappropriate to post, it is very relevant in that it illustrates Senator Buttars’ misguided use of the knowledge he has in its application to the homosexual community as a whole. In the video, he references an act called “pig sex,” which is something I’d never heard of before and in brief discussions with others, they’d never heard of this act either. The Senator claims that “pig sex” is something that gays do. Ignorance. Watch the video if you want to see for yourself.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7es_yCUvwo[/youtube]

A few days ago during the show, the assertion was made that China or India would eventually overtake the United States as the next economic hegemon. While I don’t see the United States being replaced anytime soon as a global hegemon, the idea has made me curious about the future role of Asian countries like China or India, especially in light of their impressive economic growth.

I have been reading a very insightful book about the emergence of developing countries and their relationships to the United States. Fareed Zakaria’s The Post American World focuses not on the decline of the United States, but the “rise of the rest.” Nations like China, India, and Brazil have seen an unprecedented amount of economic growth over the past decade or so, and much of this growth can be attributed to the involvement of these nations in the arena of international trade.

Zakaria writes:

“America remains the global superpower today, but it is an enfeebled one. Its economy has troubles, its currency is sliding, and it faces long-term problems with its soaring entitlements and low savings. Anti-American sentiment is at an all-time high everywhere from Great Britain to Malaysia. But then the most striking shift between the 1990s and now has to do with America, but rather with the world at large… In 2007, China contributed more to the global growth than the United States did- the first time any nation has done so since at least the 1930s- and surpassed it as the world’s largest consumer market in several key categories.

In the long run this secular trend- the rise of the rest- will only gather strength, whatever the temporary ups and downs. At a military-political level, America still dominates the world, but the larger structure of unipolarity- economic, financial, cultural- is weakening. Washington still has no true rival, and will not for a very long while, but it faces a growing number of constraints.”

Many are beginning to call the last century, “The American Century,” and the current, “The Asian Century.”

From Doug Bandow of Cato:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is off on her first foreign trip, and the destination of Asia is well-chosen. Economic, cultural and political ties with Europe remain strong, but Asia is likely to dominate the future, containing two possible superpowers as well as several other states with growing international influence. American power won’t disappear anytime soon, but the twenty-first century seems likely to be the Asian Century.

One of the countries which has been shaping much of the world today is Singapore. In fact, one of the local school districts here in the valley will be adopting a teaching method (math) that was developed in Singapore… not to mention, when drafting US trade policy, Singapore is often used as a model.

Fareed Zakaria interviewed Singapore’s prime minister a few months ago about Singapore’s growth, and more importantly, the growth of Asia in general:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLyPpUsNkAE[/youtube]

What does this mean for the United States? Do you see China or India eventually becoming economic superpowers? Is it reasonable to assume that the US will experience a gradual decline?

- Marc

The Salt Lake Tribune  is reporting that several Salt Lake County cities are consolidating their police services (while retaining each department’s identity and autonomy in case they disagree with something) in order to save money.

This sounds like a fantastic idea for Cache County.

The “Valley Police Alliance” so far will consist of Cottonwood Heights, Draper, Midvale, Murray, Sandy, South Jordan, South Salt Lake, West Jordan and West Valley City. Taylorsville and SLC still have pending votes in their councils.

While such as Cache Police Alliance would be smaller than this, it would allow an official share of resources between Logan, USU, Smithfield, North Park and the Cache County Sheriff’s Office. Yes, to an extent these agencies do cooperate already, but it would be nice to see them follow the lead of these SLC agencies by expanding those partnerships to things such as buying equipment in bulk, sharing facilities, bringing training experts to Cache County and sharing training rather than traveling far for training and spreading caseloads if needed.

Lost in the inbox yesterday.  Courtesy of JM Bell:

Today at 2:00PM, the Utah Senate Public Utilities Committee will consider a joint resolution expressing support for nuclear power in Utah. This is the letter I sent to Public Utilities Committee chair, Steve Urquhart.

________

Hello Steve, I’d like you to consider a few points in relation to nuclear power in Utah.

1) The Atlas Tailings Pile, left behind by the free market uranium mine, to be cleaned up by taxpayers, still hasn’t been cleaned up in Moab.
2) There isn’t a nuclear plant in operation today that exists without government subsidy. They receive government protection for operation, and according to the residents of Delta I talked to, their local government failed to protect the IPP in a staged attack.

As I see it, Aaron Tilton should be able to do the following before beginning construction of a nuclear power plant in Utah:

1) Pay for it by himself, with no government subsidy or protection forever, with the same rates I pay for water.
2) Guarantee safe waste storage and mine clean-up for 10,000 years with a trust that will last that long.
3) Guarantee safe working conditions, respirators, and lung-cancer treatment for the miners who will mine and refine his “clean” uranium.

It would be nice if he cleaned up Atlas too. Maybe SJR16 should express appreciation to the taxpayers who are going to clean it up.

Best Wishes,

Pete

Go Pete!  Marshall @ Wasatch Watcher (who has finally returned to the blogging world… Welcome back, man!) has a thoughtful critique as well.

Like clockwork, Senator Buttars has offered his annual bigoted Gaffe of the Session.   Let me go on the record an predict by this time tomorrow Senator Buttars (or his minions like Gayle Ruzicka), will avoid responsibility for these comments by claiming:

• that they were taken out of context by a biased/liberal/”gotcha” media.
• OR alternatively Buttars himself will attempt to change the context of the statements themselves to something more innocuous.  I have no idea how he will do this, but it will be very creative and involved extraordinary mental gymnastics.
• And finally, we will hear from the Ruzicka crowd that Senator Buttars is a victim! HE’s a victim because he stands up for truth and righteousness and evil forces oppose him!

Take these predictions to the bank!

Oh you knew this was coming.

In an upcoming documentary about Prop 8, Utah Sen. Chris Buttars compares some gays to radical Muslims, ABC4 is reporting.

The audio is below.

“It’s just like the Muslims. Muslims are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it’s been taken over by the radical side.”

The full story that ABC4 has can be found by clicking here.

Salt Lake Tribune:

Schools should work with parent groups other than just the PTA, according to a bill that passed in committee Tuesday morning.

But some say the bill could keep the PTA out of Utah schools all together.

SB199 would require schools to give all parent groups equal access. But it would also prohibit schools from working with parent groups that refuse to waive membership dues upon request.

The PTA, which charges members an average of $5 a year in Utah, cannot waive dues, said Utah PTA President Marilyn Simister. She said those who can’t pay are given scholarships, but the dues can’t be waived. Simister said the state PTA would likely have to change its bylaws and consult the national organization before allowing dues waivers, a process she said could take up to a year.

Simister said the dues are reasonable and passing the bill into law would “be a great disservice to the children of Utah,” given everything the PTA does within schools.

Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, said he’s sponsoring the bill in response to parents who say they shouldn’t have to be PTA members to have a voice in their schools.

I have to admit I’m not up on the efforts of today’s PTA, but when I was, they seemed to be a great asset to Utah’s education system, one I would hate to see undermined. On the other hand, more voices in public education influencing our schools and our education system overall could be an even greater asset.

So that’s the question. Would this bill improve the education opportunities for Utah’s children, or simply dilute the effectiveness of an already successful organization?

On the campaign trail and well after his inauguration, Barack Obama has been critical of the Bush Administration’s “state secrets” defense against releasing evidence on extraordinary renditions.

When Eric Holder was appointed by Obama to be the US Attorney General, Holder made a pledge to review previous state secrets cases from the last administration.

From Eric Holder:

“I will review significant pending cases in which DOJ has invoked the state secrets privilege, and will work with leaders in other agencies and professionals at the Department of Justice to ensure that the United States invokes the state secrets privilege only in legally appropriate situations.”

“I firmly believe that transparency is a key to good government.  Openness allows the public to have faith that its government obeys the law.”

“Once the new Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel is confirmed, I plan to instruct that official to review the OLC’s policies relating to publication of its opinions with the [objective] of making its opinions available to the maximum extent consistent with sound practice and competing concerns.”

Yet Eric Holder has yet to live up to his promises.

In the Ninth Circut case of Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc,

There was widespread anticipation that the Obama administration would change course, especially given the administration’s stated emphasis on government openness and AG Holder’s commitment to review every pending case in which the Bush administration asserted state secrets.  (See here.)

But it didn’t.

Instead, a lawyer representing the administration told the panel that the administration would maintain the Bush administration position–a decision “thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration.”

Unfortunately, such news isn’t much of a priority for the American media, who appear to be more interested in reporting on the Bush’s Administration’s past sins, and less inclined to report Obama’s surprising continuation of the state secret privilege.

Thanks to the foreign media and constitutional law blogs, Americans still have an opportunity keeping informed of the issue.

From the United Kingdom’s Guardian:

Barack Obama‘s justice department has repeated a Bush administration policy of citing “state secrets” to prevent the release of evidence concerning extraordinary renditions.

The decision, revealed at a hearing in a San Francisco appeals court, came days after the British high court ruled that evidence of renditions and torture must remain secret so as not to endanger the intelligence relationship between the two countries.

The Obama justice department, under attorney general Eric Holder, today reiterated that position, to the disappointment of civil rights campaigners.

Saying that Holder had instructed officials to review the “state secrets” policy, a justice department spokesman said: “It is vital that we protect information that, if released, could jeopardize national security. The justice department will ensure the [state secrets] privilege is not invoked to hide from the American people information about their government’s actions that they have a right to know. This administration will be transparent and open, consistent with our national security obligations.”

Accusing Obama of turning his back on civil liberties, Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the parties in the case, said: “This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s justice department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue.”

Now the Obama Administration’s decision to implement the state secrets privilege case of Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., was a little more than a week ago, yet what makes this interesting is how Democrats and the Left in general, are reacting to the President’s continuation of the state secrets privilege.

As you may recall, Sen. Leahy has been calling for a “Truth Commission” to investigate the Bush Administration’s “asbuses of power;” one such priority has been to unravel the Bush Administration’s use and defense of the state secrets privilege. Leahy along with other Democratic lawmakers have been relentless in their attacks on the Bush Administration for their secrecy in executing the War on Terror, and yet, after the Obama Administration’s decision to continue the practice, Leahy has been a pretty quiet. But let’s be fair, “breaking the law,” as Sen. Leahy puts it, is only permissible if done by a Democratic president.

Instead of vocally opposing the President, Leahy is sponsoring new state secrets legislation, and of course, only makes mention of the Bush Administration’s use of the privilege.

Some on the Left are being true to their convictions and are being openly critical of Obama’s hypocritical reversal, yet many more, like Sen. Leahy, are keeping quiet or rushing to Obama’s defense. Afterall, the only partisans out there are Republicans…

From Salon:

We don’t actually have a system of government (or at least we’re not supposed to) where we rely on the magnanimity and inherent Goodness of specific leaders to exercise secret powers wisely.  That, by definition, is how grateful subjects of benevolent tyrants think (“this power was bad in Bush’s hands because he’s bad, but it’s OK in Obama’s hands because he is good and kind”).  Countries that are nations of laws rather than of men don’t rely on blind faith in the good character of leaders to prevent abuse.  They rely on what we call “law” and “accountability” and “checks and balances” to provide those safeguards — exactly the type that Democrats, when it came to the States Secret privilege, long insisted upon before January 20, 2009.

Democrats have large majorities in both houses of Congress; they ought to use it to legislatively bar the power that the Obama DOJ is now attempting to vest in the new President by enacting the legislation they spent all of last year insisting they favored.  Now that the Obama DOJ is seeking to acquire that power for its new President, the need for that law is more acute than ever.

- Marc

Lyle, my man. I like you. Always been proud of you. But this is just embarrassing.

Hillyard expected the stock market would rally if they thought the spending package would do what was promised. That did not happen, he says, and it went down sharply instead.

I know better than that. I know you know better than that. So in the end, the comment seems… well, silly.

Markets react negatively to many a thing in the course of a day (in this case, probably those with bank shares selling in a panic before their loss gets worse… not that I blame them). They also react positively to a great number of things. Daily. But what they don’t do is provide a sound litmus test for the effectiveness of a policy. Their daily ups and downs have very little relevance when measuring the stability of our economy. The “feelings” of stock brokers do not (and should not) serve as a weather vane for what we should or should not do, going forward. You said:

I would have expected the stock market to rally if they thought the spending package was really going to do what was promised.

And I would’ve expect more honesty with your constituents than being on record having made such a statement, Senator.

Especially as your legislature announces our state’s dependency upon (and the legislature’s eagerness to receive) the stimulus funds those at the federal level in your party just finished proudly voting against.

I have been adamantly opposed to giving Guantanamo detainees access to federal courts, as I feel that there are no true protections for such individuals and that it is setting a dangerous precedent which will certainly threaten this country’s security.

A recent Supreme Court case, Boumediene v. Bush (2008), effectively granted detainees the right to challenge their detentions in federal courts of law. Such a decision is surely unprecedented, especially in light of historical decisions like Ex Parte Quirin (1942), which determined that individuals considered “unlawful combatants” were not protected by the Geneva Conventions.

The closing of Guantanamo Bay by President Barack Obama was yet another effort to redefine the existing standards of dealing with suspected terrorists, individuals who hold no certain loyalty to a nation-state or government, and cannot be classified as a traditional “combatant.” By deciding to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, Obama followed the guidelines established by such legal cases as Boumediene v. Bush (2008),  yet ultimately this decision has posed a “string of legal and security issues.”

From The New York Times:

Beyond the prison and the specific legal issues with shutting it down are a series of more philosophical concerns. Broadly speaking, legal experts believe there remains a credible legal basis for the continued detention of terrorism suspects in America’s war against terror. But there is wide disagreement on how the United States should redefine its counterterrorism policies, and ensure the detention, treatment, and prosecution of suspects meets ethical and legal norms. CFR’s Prieto argues in a February 2009 working paper that these changes are needed “to allow the United States to end its war about terror and remove what is currently a damaging and self-imposed obstacle to achieving broader U.S. foreign policy objectives.”

Whether you agree or disagree with the President about the closing of Guantanamo Bay, it must be recognized that addressing the Guantanamo and moreover, detainee rights, will be a very problematic endeavor. There are thousands of legal questions which are to be discussed, not to mention, the intelligence community will be required to participate in the proceedings, which will undoubtedly be “messy.”

Now I may disagree with the President on his decision to close the prison and give these individuals access to federal courts, but I can applaud him for actually addressing the Guantanamo Bay issue itself, for the international community clamors for redress. Whatever the case, this will be a long and arduous experience, and I hope that the security of this country remains a top priority for this administration. For as we shall see, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

- Marc

Following are links to subjects we may be bringing up on tonight’s show:

Deseret News | Conflicts of interests are found in many bills.

U. wants to revive slumping Greek scene – Salt Lake Tribune.

Newsweek: We Are All Socialists Now.

The Herald Journal’s editorial board hit the mark dead on with their Sunday editorial about ethical lines being blurred in Cache County politics in relation to the appointment of a new Cache County attorney.

Specifically, the HJ calls into question the endorsement of James Swink by current attorneys in the CCAO. What happens if Joe Chambers is selected for the position and all the employees who endorsed his opponent now have to work under him? What happens if one attorney endorsed Swink and all the others endorsed Chambers and shortly after Swink gets appointed, he promotes the one who supported him?

Also, the paper questions Deputy Cache County Attorney Don Linton’s gifting of prints he’d painted to the members of the Cache Republicans central committee who voted at the mini-convention.

The editorial concludes with this paragraph:

Quite likely no law was broken with either the endorsements or gifts, but simple ethical questions do clearly arise in both instances. The people prosecuting the law in our county should be keenly aware of such boundaries and take greater pains not to cross them.

There seems to be a gap between what members of the county government think is ethical and what some of us in the media believe is ethical. KVNU, The Herald Journal and the Salt Lake Tribune all thought the meeting where the County Council discussed this appointment should be kept entirely in the open, for ethical and openness reasons, and the County Council unanimously disagreed.

I, and apparently the Herald Journal, feel there were some significant ethical lapses in this appoinment process and the election before it. It’s disappointing that those involved can’t see such lapses themselves, or worse yet, are apathetic.

The Democrats now own the stimulus, and it’s perceived success or failure will frame the 2010 midterm if not the 2012 Presidential elections as well. I think the political risk is marginal (see my previous post as a clue to why. Heh) and the recovery itself has a high chance of success. But there is an aspect of the battle over this legislation that didn’t see much light of day among the ridiculous speeches by Boehner and Cantor, and the self-induced (by Obama) “bipartisan” b.s.: Accountability.

There is a lot of good. Washington Independent:

The lead story in The New York Times Sunday serves as a sobering reminder of what can happen when government tries to spend a lot of money quickly, but doesn’t bother to keep track of where it’s going. In Iraq, no-bid contracts and nonexistent oversight led not only to brand-new trucks abandoned on roadsides and $45 cases of soda, but also to tens of thousands of dollars in cash delivered in pizza boxes and distributed as payoffs in paper sacks at drop-off spots around the Green Zone, according to a widening government investigation detailed by The Times.

The stimulus package goes a long way to keep that particular history from repeating itself.

For example, the bill creates a new board to oversee and coordinate federal spending and prevent “waste, fraud and abuse.” Any agency’s inspector general can review concerns about spending under the program, and the General Accountability Office (GAO) will conduct regular and reports on how the money is being spent. All this, plus a summary of the contracts themselves (the House bill had promised to put the entire contracts online—this was a concession to government contractors) are required to be posted online at www.recovery.gov.

The bill also requires the government to put most contracts up for competitive bidding — a sharp departure from business-as-usual under the Bush administration — and if for some reason the contract is not competitive, the government must publish a justification for the exception.

Sounds great. But if you were paying close attention to details rather than political grandstanding by “moderates” and screaming Republicans, it’s obvious this good news is a greatly reduced level of accountability than what was originally proposed. Why are the contracts not posted in full? What does a “summary” entail? Hundreds of millions are set aside for independent critics (GAO, general inspectors), but why did Claire McCaskill’s whistleblowing protections for employees of private contractors and transparency measures for state/local contracts not make it into the final bills from either the House or Senate, only to be returned to the legislation in final conference?

I think the answer is pretty black and white: Lobbyists arguing that full transparency would “hurt their business” and the propensity of Hill reps (both D and R) to not challenge lobbyists. Proprietary information, management expenses, trade secrets, employee safety… anything you can imagine was presented as a reason for reduced oversight, and both the House and Senate versions of the bill were more than obliging.

Obama is about to assume another responsibility beyond the success of the economic recovery plan. His administration will be responsible for the transparency promised, almost entirely. He can expect zero backing from the House, save a handful of Democrats, and modest support from Democrats and a few Republicans in the Senate. But overall, he owns not only the stimulus, but future efforts to restore a heightened “post-Bush” accountability to governing branches and any legislation that passes.

It’s not impossible, but it’s disappointing the House and Senate won’t be lending a hand.

UPDATE: Tangent alert, but an interesting take, very different from mine, on a possible usefulness of the “bipartisan” ploy complained about in my first paragraph.

Inside a Congressional Republican strategy meeting (w/ Video).

(h/t MyDD)

Explained, by foreign policy guru Stephen Walt.

To begin with, any romantic partnership is essentially an alliance, and alliances are a core concept on international relations. Alliances bring many benefits to the members (or else why would we form them?) but as we also know, they sometimes reflect irrational passions and inevitably limit each member’s autonomy. … Realists have long argued that bipolar systems are the most stable. So if any of you lovers out there are thinking of adding more major actors to the system, please reconsider. As most of us eventually learn, trying to juggle romantic relationships in a multi-polar setting usually leads to crises, and sometimes to open warfare. … Which brings me to an especially helpful IR concept: appeasement. The term has been unfairly denigrated since Munich, but it is a critical strategy for preserving any romantic relationship. And if you don’t believe me, ask my wife, who made me put this paragraph in.

538.com’s Nate Silver, with some food for thought on Huntsman’s civil-unions endorsement:

In case you missed the fine print, Hunstman, the governor of perhaps the most socially conservative state in the country, has just come out in favor of civil unions? And is being accused by his rivals of seeking to score political gain by doing so?

Back up a second. Is this, in fact, politically savvy for Hunstman? Civil unions are now supported by something like 60 percent of the country. It’s doubtful that a plurality of Republicans support civil unions at this time. But in four years, it might be pretty close. Support for civil unions has increased at an extremely predictable rate, gaining a point or two every year. If the pattern holds, then by 2012 around two-thirds of voters will support civil unions nationwide. Even then, I doubt that you’ll see a plurality of Republican primary voters in favor. But it might be not more than a small liability in the primaries, especially if it helps Hunstman appeal to independents (who will presumably not have competitive Democratic primaries to vote in come 2012.) And a position in favor of civil unions will probably be an asset — perhaps a pretty significant one — in the general election, a litmus test that independents and younger voters will use to determine whether a Republican opponent is reasonable or a Palinosaur.

Or perhaps Hunstman, who is not running for re-election and has plenty of popularity to spare anyway, is simply expressing his conscience.

Either way, this strikes me as a pretty significant moment — and in its own quiet way, just as much as a cultural signifier as Proposition 8. The days in which bigotry can be exchanged for votes may be numbered.

Shorter version: Huntsman reads SLCspin.

Time has an interesting article about Proposition 8 and the influence of the LDS Church.

Last week, before the nomination of Sen. Judd Gregg (R- NH) to the Commerce department, the Obama Administration began leaking information that the White House had plans of assuming responsibility over the Census Bureau.

While many seemed to glance over such revelations, Constitutional scholars, concerned citizens, and of course, Republicans, expressed outrage over such a intimation. And after the appointment of Gregg, amid much pressure from GOP leaders and more evidence of the Administrations designs for the Census, Sen. Gregg effectively stepped down saying that there were “irresolvable conflicts” with the Obama Administration.

While Gregg’s version of these “irresolvable conflicts” remained in Obama’s plans for the economic stimulus, more attention has been building over GOP opposition to future plans for the census.

Article I Section 2 of the Constitution provides for the taking of a national census:

“Representation and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers … . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

The responsibility for the census, therefore, is a power granted to the Congress. Beginning in the early days of the Republic (during the presidency of George Washington), a national census was taken, and from that time forth, this country has held a census in order to provide for adequate representation and apportionment.

In 1902, the Census Bureau was established and later fell under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce and Interior. Yet despite this change, the census was and always has been directly overseen and shaped by the Legislative Branch of government. If the Obama Administration were to assume responsibility over the census, there would be an obvious legal and constitutional problem.

Those in the GOP have expressed their objections to such a decision, as the President would be able to easily manipulate representation and apportionment at the most basic level.

From CNS:

At a press conference Thursday, Republican leader Rep. John Boehner (Ohio) said the White House plan would undermine the fairness and accuracy of the census. He also said that Obama’s plans could result in massive waste and fraud.

“This unprecedented move by the president, I think, would undermine the goal of having a fair and accurate census count,” Boehner told reporters at the press conference.

“I think it would also open the door to massive amounts of waste and fraud in terms of the $300 billion that’s distributed around our country based on the census data.”

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said that there was no legal or constitutional basis for Obama’s plans, citing the fact that Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which contains the census provision, spells out the powers of Congress — not of the president or executive branch.

“We [Congress] give to the executive branch and the Commerce Department the requirement to administer this constitutional duty, belonging to the Congress,” Issa explained. “By no means is there any basis, legal or constitutional basis, for the president to direct the census.”

Obama has made no formal announcement of plans to take over the census, but numerous press reports last week – citing unnamed senior administration officials – said that he planned to have the Census Bureau’s director report directly to White House staff.

Also, on Thursday, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.) withdrew his name for nomination as Commerce Secretary citing, among other issues, the Obama administration’s plans for handling the Census Bureau.

The White House issued a statement Feb. 5 clarifying the earlier reports, saying the Census Bureau director would “work closely” with the White House, not be controlled by it.

Notwithstanding arguments o

I don’t have much to ad to this from The Senate Site. I just think it’s an encouraging sign for engaging voters in the legislative process.

Turns out the bloggerpresser was also a Twitterpresser. Who knew?

@scottyriding (read bottom to top):

1. …in a creepy, online stauker sort of way. 4:41 PM Feb 10th

2. Fun to see some of the people whose blogs I read. For example, @sausagegrinder. 4:41 PM Feb 10th

3. @dfletcher r u watching the briefing? You would have the expertise on what Sen. Urquhart is saying. Is that an easy service to provide? 4:15 PM Feb 10th
4. Loving the blogger briefing. Honestly, I’m not super interested in the bill, but love the conference. 4:12 PM Feb 10th

5. http://bit.ly/2een0P VERY excited for the Utah Legislature’s first ever blogger press conference. I’m technically not a blogger. Twitterer? 3:32 PM Feb 10th

Some tweets from Pyrah:

1. @scottyriding The Web cam puts on 20 pounds and ages you 10 years. 4:51 PM Feb 10th from web in reply to scottyriding

2. Bloggerpresser, take 1. Wi-Fi cruising at the speed of 28.8 4:05 PM Feb 10th from web

And @dfletcher:

1. A response from the Daily Herald to SB208, announced at the initial bloggers press conference http://bit.ly/sRR8z #utpolitics about 12 hours ago from web
   

2. RT @padmasree Mobile traffic will increase 66X by 2013 http://tinyurl.com/dey4g4 5:17 PM Feb 10th from web
3. @scottyriding providing the legal notice site will not be quite as easy as suggested, and storage is not quite free 4:43 PM Feb 10th from web

4. 21 bloggers participated in today’s Utah Senate blogger press conference 4:42 PM Feb 10th from web

5. Senator Niederauser now discussing Transparency in Government on Utah Senate bloggers conference http://senatesite.com/blog/… 4:37 PM Feb 10th from web

6. I am expecting that the bill # of Senator Urquhart’s bill will be SB208 at http://tinyurl.com/b36vwy 4:24 PM Feb 10th from web

7. the Public Meeting Notice website being discussed by Sen. Urquhart is best found at http://pmn.utah.gov rather than http://archives.utah.gov 4:23 PM Feb 10th from web

8. Senator Urquhart discusses bill on legal notices on Utah.gov at Blogger’s press conf. wants online by July 09 4:14 PM Feb 10th from web

What is cool and interesting to me is how each person adds value to the discussion in real time. We just need to find a way to tie the disparate sources together so the legislator has easy access to all the info. Any suggestions?