Feds must stop writing gibberish under new law
One of my first thoughts upon reading that headline: “Yeah, right.”
Reflecting current family realities, another thought wasn’t long in coming: “Where do I apply?”
My thoughts aside, here’s some of what Calvin Woodward had to write for the AP:
The federal government is rolling out a new official language of sorts: plain English.
That’s right: Pursuant to regulations promulgated thereunder and commencing in accordance with a statute signed herein by President Barack Obama, the government shall be precluded from writing the pompous gibberish heretofore evidenced, to the extent practicable.
That sentence contains 11 new language no-nos.
Obama signed the Plain Writing Act last fall after decades of effort by a cadre of passionate grammarians in the civil service to jettison the jargon.
It takes full effect in October, when federal agencies must start writing plainly in all new or substantially revised documents produced for the public.
The government will still be allowed to write nonsensically to itself.
Now that is a funny line. And telling, too. But never mind.
Ahead then, if the law works, is a culture change for an enterprise that turns out reams of confusing benefit forms, tangled rules and foggy pronouncements. Not to mention a Pentagon brownie recipe that went on for 26 pages about “regulations promulgated thereunder,” “flow rates of thermoplastics by extrusion plastometer” and a commandment that ingredients “shall be examined organoleptically.”
That means look at, smell, touch or taste.
By July, each agency must have a senior official overseeing plain writing, a section of its website devoted to the effort and employee training under way.
Like I said, where do I apply?
I think I could spare three hours a day at $25 an hour. Maybe the government could recruit me via the comments section below.
But can clarity and good grammar be legislated?
That remains to be seen. The law lacks teeth. You won’t be able to sue the government for making your head spin after October. And regulations are exempted.
Teeth or no teeth, why couldn’t sensible, nonnonsensical writing be legislated?
And if it’s the law, which can’t the government be held to account?
And why exempt regulations when some consequences are so dire if we the people fail to follow them carefully?
Instead of this advice:
“Timely preparation, including structural and non-structural mitigation measures to avoid the impacts of severe winter weather, can avert heavy personal, business and government expenditures. Experts agree that the following measures can be effective in dealing with the challenges of severe winter weather.”
Expect more like this advice:
“Severe winter weather can be extremely dangerous. Consider these safety tips to protect your property and yourself.”
I could do that.
Note to government: Use comment section below to recruit me and my red pen.
Begone, too, with “pursuant, “promulgated,” ” thereunder,” “commencing,” “in accordance with,” “herein,” “precluded,” “heretofore,” “evidenced” and “practicable,” to name just a sampling of the no-nos.
Note to Mr. Woodward and Mrs. AP: Last I knew, those should be italicized, not quotationized. (You could attempt to recruit my services as well.)