Obama Administration Fails Literacy Test

[RugbyD]

Unless today is opposite day, the language is being redefined.

...Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told consumer groups, farm groups and meat industry leaders Tuesday that he will ask the meat industry to voluntarily follow stricter guidelines for new package labels designed to specify a food's country of origin...

...If the industry does not comply with the stricter guidelines, the administration will write new rules, according to those who spoke with Vilsack on Tuesday...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD96E4M002

[Art Vandelay]

I don't understand where the discrepancy is. They want stricter guidelines, they're asking producers to follow the stricter guidelines voluntarily, if they don't do it on their own, they will write the guidelines into law. It basically sounds like they are trying to put the guidelines into effect without taking the time/energy/money of actually making them policy.

[Big Pimpin]

I think it's just the "do it voluntarily or else" message.

[Amazinz]

It kind of reminds me of Tom Coughlin's voluntary mini-camps.

[RugbyD]

I don't understand where the discrepancy is. They want stricter guidelines, they're asking producers to follow the stricter guidelines voluntarily, if they don't do it on their own, they will write the guidelines into law. It basically sounds like they are trying to put the guidelines into effect without taking the time/energy/money of actually making them policy.

..and so there is nothing voluntary about this. The end result is X. For something to be volutary, the potential outcome must include something other than X.

[knapplc]

I suppose they could have just issued a decree, but it's probably the old saw, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

[Art Vandelay]

I don't understand where the discrepancy is. They want stricter guidelines, they're asking producers to follow the stricter guidelines voluntarily, if they don't do it on their own, they will write the guidelines into law. It basically sounds like they are trying to put the guidelines into effect without taking the time/energy/money of actually making them policy.

..and so there is nothing voluntary about this. The end result is X. For something to be volutary, the potential outcome must include something other than X.

Right. I guess I just don't understand what makes this unique, or why it stands out. Officials saying "we want X. Do it 'voluntarily' on your terms, or you're going to have to do it on our terms" happens at every level of government. I follow the Ag Dept. fairly closely, and similar "requests" certainly happend under Schaffer, and I would assume under every Ag Secretary.

[RugbyD]

I don't understand where the discrepancy is. They want stricter guidelines, they're asking producers to follow the stricter guidelines voluntarily, if they don't do it on their own, they will write the guidelines into law. It basically sounds like they are trying to put the guidelines into effect without taking the time/energy/money of actually making them policy.

..and so there is nothing voluntary about this. The end result is X. For something to be volutary, the potential outcome must include something other than X.

Right. I guess I just don't understand what makes this unique, or why it stands out. Officials saying "we want X. Do it 'voluntarily' on your terms, or you're going to have to do it on our terms" happens at every level of government. I follow the Ag Dept. fairly closely, and similar "requests" certainly happend under Schaffer, and I would assume under every Ag Secretary.

You don't find anything wrong with blatant dishonesty like this? I'm not saying it's unique, it's just the principle...

[Neato Torpedo]

I don't understand where the discrepancy is. They want stricter guidelines, they're asking producers to follow the stricter guidelines voluntarily, if they don't do it on their own, they will write the guidelines into law. It basically sounds like they are trying to put the guidelines into effect without taking the time/energy/money of actually making them policy.

..and so there is nothing voluntary about this. The end result is X. For something to be volutary, the potential outcome must include something other than X.

The end result must be X but the means through which they attain X can be the individual company's method A, B, or C. Any of A, B, or C could be more cost-effective, less time consuming, and/or less limiting than government's method D.

[Neato Torpedo]

..and so there is nothing voluntary about this. The end result is X. For something to be volutary, the potential outcome must include something other than X.

Right. I guess I just don't understand what makes this unique, or why it stands out. Officials saying "we want X. Do it 'voluntarily' on your terms, or you're going to have to do it on our terms" happens at every level of government. I follow the Ag Dept. fairly closely, and similar "requests" certainly happend under Schaffer, and I would assume under every Ag Secretary.

You don't find anything wrong with blatant dishonesty like this? I'm not saying it's unique, it's just the principle...

I guess if you're hung up on the dictionary definition of "voluntary" I guess you could call it dishonesty but I don't see any hidden agenda or anything here. Probably not the best choice of words, but it all depends on how you read it (or how you want to read it). Besides, there's no need to vilify them for a single word when it's pretty clear what the message is.