It has received the least attention of his first-day decisions, but President Barack Obama’s memorandum on reviving the Freedom of Information Act stands as the clearest signal yet that his campaign talk about “a new era of open government” wasn’t just rhetoric; it’s for real.
The key phrase comes right at the top: “The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.”
Later in the memo: “All agencies should adopt a presumption of disclosure. … The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.”
Furthermore, “In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act properly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.” In fact, “All agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public.”
This could not be clearer. The new president was calling for a complete reversal of the Bush administration’s directives on this matter—and a restoration of the Freedom of Information Act’s original purpose.
In other redefining government news from the Obamanation…
President Barack Obama is staffing his Justice Department with some of his predecessor’s fiercest critics, among them lawyers who were fired by President Bush or who quit jobs working for his administration.
Now, the opposition is in charge, and lawyers who spent years defining the limits of executive power will be helping wield it.
[…]
“I think they will be an irritant for Obama in the best possible way — they’re very honest lawyers,” said Rosa Brooks, a professor at Georgetown University Law School, where Lederman also taught. “When Dawn and Marty and David think that he is asking if he can do something that in their view pushes the envelope and goes beyond the bounds of what is legal, they’re going to say, ‘Sorry Mr. Obama, we think that would be illegal.’”
Honest lawyers at the Justice Dept. What will they think of next?
Oh, and ‘dro? Since you seem to like copy and paste from grammar texts, I’m surprised that you left out the rest of the “indicativo” and “subjuntivo” and “otras formas” sections, so here they are for your enlightenment. Note especially the last line. The formatting will be fucked up, but figuring it out will give you something to do, so you don’t embarrass yourself any further.
_________________________________________
Presente perfecto I have done he hecho has hecho ha hecho hemos hecho habéis hecho han hecho
Futuro perfecto I will have done habré hecho habrás hecho habrá hecho habremos hecho habréis hecho habrán hecho
Pluscuamperfecto I had done había hecho habías hecho había hecho habíamos hecho habíais hecho habían hecho
Pretérito anterior1 I had done hube hecho hubiste hecho hubo hecho hubimos hecho hubisteis hecho hubieron hecho
Condicional perfecto I would have done habría hecho habrías hecho habría hecho habríamos hecho habríais hecho habrían hecho
Subjuntivo
Presente I do, am doing haga hagas haga hagamos hagáis hagan
Imperfecto2 I did, was doing hiciera hicieras hiciera hiciéramos hicierais hicieran
Futuro1 I will do hiciere hicieres hiciere hiciéremos hiciereis hicieren
Presente perfecto I have done, did haya hecho hayas hecho haya hecho hayamos hecho hayáis hecho hayan hecho
Futuro perfecto1 I will have done hubiere hecho hubieres hecho hubiere hecho hubiéremos hecho hubiereis hecho hubieren hecho
Pluscuamperfecto3 I had done hubiera hecho hubieras hecho hubiera hecho hubiéramos hecho hubierais hecho hubieran hecho
Participio pasado done hecho
Oh, fer Chrissakes, how did an article titled “Obama Is Reversing Bush’s Closed Government Policies” degenerate into a ridiculous discussion of abbr. vs. acronyms? Jeez, guys, go to Cage Match and continue this topic.
NATO is, BTW, an acronym, not an abbr. for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Defined. Done. Over. Out.
Bobbo and ‘dro,
Please, accept that Mustard knows what he talks about.
Lyin’ Mike,
I think you have been thoroghly owned on this one.
Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath, Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop, Pretend Constitutional Scholar, Fake California Labor Law Expert, Pseudo Military Historian, Phony Climate Scientist, and Real Leading Troll Extraordinare,
You are still an asshole who hasn’t a clue about this or, for that matter, a clue on anything.
# 69 Mr. Fusion said, …
Mr. Fusion. You’ve already been registered in the NeoLib Psycho registry. More posts won’t get you multiple listings…
#71 – ‘dro
Lead by example, ‘dro. Accept that YOU are wrong.
More war crime atrocities committed by the Obama regime:
Karzai’s latest criticism follows a Saturday Jan 24 raid in Laghman province that the U.S. says killed 15 armed militants, including a woman with an RPG, but that Afghan officials say killed civilians.
Two women and three children were among the 16 dead civilians, Karzai said in a statement.
That was the way it was meant to be. Was it not ?
#57 – bobbo,
I tried several definite acronyms on merriam webster. Not a single one of them was listed as an acronym. I think they don’t really make a distinction for that category, check scuba, laser, and snafu for references.
I think the real answer is that all acronyms are indeed abbreviations. Not all abbreviations are acronyms. Typing the word in all upper case has nothing to do with it, as far as I can tell. In fact, when an acronym goes from all caps, as laser, scuba, and radar all were at one time, they become ordinary words. Some ordinary words may also be acronyms, as evidenced by this. However, it does not mean they are not acronyms. When one sees the derivation of the word, the history is still obvious.
So, NATO is an abbreviation that is also an acronym, as is FEMA, because both are typically pronounced as words. I have never ever heard anyone spell out NATO. I have never ever heard anyone attempt to pronounce STFU. (Although, for grins, I did try it in my head just now. It didn’t go well.)
So, I would personally not dispute that NATO is an abbreviation any more than I would dispute that a square is a rectangle. However, when looking at a perfect square, I will say that I always call it a square and only acknowledge its generality as a rectangle when pressed. Ditto for acronyms. I would acknowledge them as a form of abbreviation, for indeed, they do abbreviate the concept into a new shorter word. But, when I look at laser or NATO, I call both acronyms.
If you choose to look at a square and call it a rectangle, you will not be incorrect. But, you may sound a tad silly.
#62 bobbo, that wikipedia link you provided has the following to say in the section under the heading of “Nouns” (which is a subset of words, I’m sure you’d agree):
“While acronyms have historically been written in all-caps, modern usage is moving towards capitalization in some cases (as well as proper nouns like Unesco).”
So it would seem that according to the material at the link YOU provided, acronyms are indeed words, although they may be used with special capitalization conventions, directly contradicting your silly little ramblings in #57 to the effect that full capitalization somehow implies non-word status.
My advice is, next time find material that supports your position, and find some medication that helps you stop being such an ass.
Kudos for your patience, Mister Mustard.
#75 – Scottie
>>I have never ever heard anyone attempt to pronounce
>>STFU. (Although, for grins, I did try it in my head
>>just now. It didn’t go well.)
I had never heard anyone attempt to pronounce USPS. After a particularly unpleasant failure-to-deliver experience with the USPS, I referred to them as YucePiss to a friend of mine who works for the Postal Service.
He liked it.
Watch for YucePiss in upcoming television and radio ads for the post office.
At Post #30 I thanked Musty for teaching/reminding me of something then I went on to what Musty himself could learn if he wished–that the relationship between abbreviations and acronyms is “dynamic.” While many things are set in concrete, others are not. Always good to know when to be flexible. In fact, we would all benefit if we started with flexibility before we got all calcified.
In that I learned and Musty did not, I’ll just have to give my self another point.
Very productive day.
You know, reading a thread like this — hell, most threads on any post on this blog — convinces me that if early man knew what would become of the human race by developing speech and language and writing he would have gladly gone extinct.
#80 – Uncle Dave,
They tried. A few outcasts refused. About 70-80,000 years ago, we had a total world population between 2 and 7 thousand. We came (fingers close together) that close to avoiding a global mass extinction!! Damn.
Kurt Vonnegut commented to the effect that most people have nothing to say most of the time. We talk nonetheless so that if by chance we happen to have something important to say we will know how to do it.
I would much rather argue the meaning of words than grunt which way the Woolly Mammoth is heading. To each his own I guess.
#79 – Bobbo
>>I’ll just have to give my self another point.
>>
>>Very productive day.
Congratulations on your self-awarded points.
#85 – Bobo
>>Well Musty, I certainly gave you a point as well for
>>reminding us of the subcategory of abbreviations
>>which (that?) are not words that (which?) are
>>acronyms that (which?) are words.
Jesus, Bobbo. Maybe a little punctuation would help that sentence? Maybe not.
I suggest you run, don’t walk, to the nearest junior college, and sign up for a course in expository writing. Not only do you not know when to use “that” and when to use “which”, your sentence structure needs the services of a good orthopedic surgeon/ heavy equipment operator. It’s getting to the point where I dread having to wade into the quicksand of Bobbonian rhetoric.
#85 – Bobo
btw, my point at the beginning of this nightmare without end was to point out to ‘dro that “STFU” is not an acronym.
With all his forays into faux gramática española, I hope that point was not lost on him.
‘dro: STFU is not an acronym.
#88 – ‘dro
>>#87 MiMu: I beg to differ.
Oh no. Say it ain’t so, ‘dro.
After all these thousands of words, you STILL don’t recognize the incontrovertible fact that STFU is NOT AN ACRONYM?
Christ. You’re like a multi-drug-resistant bacterium. No matter how high a dose of cleansing knowledge you are exposed to, you remain infected with ignorance.
No wonder you guys are always “developing”, but never quite seem to make it to “developed” status.
#90 – ‘dro
So. Let me see if I understand. You still claim that STFU is an acronym? “Yes” or “No” will suffice. Not necessary to go all Bobbonian on me, with a 10,000-word answer.
Moochos grassioss
I don’t care if STFU is an acronym or abbreviation, “dro STFU !!!
hehe, funny Pedro.
Aren’t you going to start a similar conversation about Spanish conjugation?
This is sure helping people discuss the thread topic. Then again, it is typical for people to twist an issue into something else if they have no way to criticize it.
#95 I think grammar is a hot topic… I guess.
#96, Cow-Paddy,
If grammar is so hot, why not put some of your grammar to use and tell us where in the Constitution is forbids Congress from regulating CEO’s wages and give a citation of where Pelosi said she wants to settle Gitmo detainees on American soil?