Blessed art Thou, o Lord, teach me Thy statutes

The thing is I was also thinking of policy, e.g. Hegseth's belief that the military has gotten slack and we need healthier, more fit soldiers AND ALSO they shouldn't have to get vaccinated, or Trump's belief that we are far too dependent on foreign oil and that's why we need to stop building solar and wind power.

Also only white south Africans are allowed to claim asylum in the US.

"Big tent" indeed.

Okay, let them stay up till 5 in the morning and feel like shit for the next day, eat a bag of candy in one go and have a huge stomach ache, go out without an umbrella and catch a cold, watch a violent movie and get scared?

"So you want more funding for the arts?"

As followers of my blog will know, I'm a big fan of English folklore, folk culture and heritage. As a kid, my standard weekend activities included "playing at the local Roman fort" and (after we moved) "hiking up the local Bronze Age hillfort" and "playing at the medieval castle".

I have a degree in archaeology, focusing heavily on British archaeology - my laptop has a homemade table with the differences between the British Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age taped to the back of it. Talking walks in the countryside is one of my main hobbies.

And then there's folklore! I have a bookshelf full of folklore books, I celebrate May Day and celebrated Halloween last year by carving turnip jack-o'-lanterns and singing "The Unquiet Grave" and the Lyke-Wake Dirge. I took St. George as my baptism saint when I converted to the Orthodox Church partly because he was the patron saint of England (he's also patron saint of Palestine, which makes the use of his flag by the EDL very funny and irritating to me), and I've visited Walsingham and Lindisfarne and walked multiple times to my local saint's shrine.

Now, I can't tell you that you should, for example, leave a comment about your concern for the way Grok has been promoting white nationalist beliefs, but public comments in the regulatory process are a key step and they shape what comes next. If the regulatory agency doesn't fully consider the comments and form a reasonable response to the ones it disagrees with, that can form the basis for overturning a regulation in court.

Last week, the Trump administration quietly released a sweeping new federal rule that would use funding threats to force institutions across the country to reject transgender people. The 400-page proposed regulation would codify the administration's anti-trans executive orders into binding federal policy, imposing a blanket prohibition on federal funds going toward "gender ideology"

The proposed rule, formally titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," rewrites the government-wide framework governing all federal grants across every agency. Among its most consequential provisions, it requires that before a federal grant recipient can receive money, the award must pass a "pre-issuance review" conducted by a political appointee—not a career expert or peer reviewer—to ensure it is "consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest." The regulation explicitly instructs these appointees to screen for "denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic." [...] An institution that acknowledges transgender people exist—through its policies, its training, its healthcare, its bathroom access, its HR procedures, its name-change processes—could be deemed to "deny the sex binary" or to “support the notion that sex is mutable” and have its federal funding blocked.

This torches everything. And I do mean everything.

A very abbreviated list of its ramifications include (but are not limited to):

ending funding for ALL DEI related initiatives

allowing the government to terminate grants at any point for any reason

preventing researchers from publishing, going to conferences, and being part of academic societies

requiring that topics must support the president’s agenda.

What this means, and if anything I’m under selling it, is the death of science and research in America. It allows the government to restrict any topic they please at a whims notice, putting officials who have no background in the topic in charge of deciding funding continuity. It controls what gets researched and if/how researchers are allowed to share their discoveries. There are no books to burn if the government never allows them to be written. This is fascism plain and simple.

Public comments are not a vote, it is a chance for you to say "here is an issue with this law I think you need to address" and provide justification for legal challenges if it goes forward:

"Comments raise the bar that agencies have to meet when making a rule; “if an agency fails to adequately respond to significant, relevant comments in a final rule, members of the public may seek to challenge the rule in court on that basis and claim it could be struck down.ˮ"

This year’s is different. They are now federal REQUIREMENTS, which means there’s no flexibility. As was said previously, the 400 pages are not singularly devoted to being absolute shitheads to trans people. Theres a lot of stuff in there, some of which is the standard dry boring grants stuff, some of which is the horrible ideological warfare outlined above.

This document is issued by the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, which is currently lead by fucking Russell Vought, the principal architect of Project 2025. This is how they’re going to implement all the horrible shit in there that wasn’t covered by Executive Order. Russell Vought is actively coming for my job, my marriage, and my kid, and most of my friends lost their jobs last year because of him. He is the fucking arch villain behind the heinous shit the current regime is doing.