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?
#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.
#80 This is the product of too many wars and plagues. Instead of the bright being left to live, only the most stubborn & snide were left alive. At least it seems that way.
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.
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. WoW! I hadn’t described it that way before. Thats (which is?) how you got back to being No 2 in my book.
Sounds more like a magic trick. Also makes me wonder just how much I have forgotten as I’m sure I new that at one time. I came across my 8th Grade Essay on Wilson’s 14 Points. I remember the category but could not remember a single point until I started reading the essay and then I could only remember 5.
From essay to ignorance in only a few decades.
#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.
BTW, going back to the article, I’ll reproduce Adam Curry’s words on the subject, which reflect my own feelings on the matter perfectly: Transparency my ass!!
#87 MiMu: I beg to differ.
#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.
#86 Frustrating when people don’t want to see reality, huh? Boy, who knew!
Still, I beg to differ, MiMu.
#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?
#93 Nah, my work is done. Most hilarious is that MiMu and Fused haven’t figured it out.
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?