803
A new government memo feels like it’s straight out of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ (www.huffpost.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
218 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Summary

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued a memo prioritizing federal funding for communities with marriage and birth rates above the national average.

The directive, which applies to grants, loans, and contracts, also prioritizes projects benefiting families with young children.

A congressional aide criticized the policy, saying, “Considering fertility rates when prioritizing federal grants? We obviously have no idea what the full impact of that will be… It’s absolutely creepy. It’s a little ‘Chinese government.’”

The memo also blocks mask mandates and requires compliance with immigration enforcement.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 69 points 2 years ago (15 children)

I feel like they've buried the lead.

In addition to its directives related to marriage and babies, the Transportation Department’s memo blocks recipients of federal money from implementing “mask mandates,” a reference to requirements that transit agencies followed to limit the spread of infection during the height of COVID-19.

The memo also requires recipients to comply with federal immigration enforcement in order to receive funding — the latest effort by the administration to target undocumented immigrants, conduct mass arrests and deportations, and deny federal transportation funds to so-called sanctuary cities.

So (1) no ability for public transport systems to implement measures to stop pandemics (which will be important since avian flu is around the corner) and (2) no federal funding for transport to sanctuary cities (of which Washington D.C. is arguably one).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 46 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    (just fyi, it's "buried the lede")

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Both spellings are correct and do not impact the meaning. “Lede” has only this one meaning whilst “Lead” can mean a few different things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    But "burying the lede" is a common term in journalism for exactly this kind of thing. "Burying the lead" is common only in that it's a mistake people say because it's phonetically similar (plus "lede" is an uncommon word, I'll admit)

    Kind of like should've vs should of. Have and of are both words, but one is very wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I didn't realize! I thought in this context lede was the only correct spelling, I suppose I should thank Cunningham's Law for learning something

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Hello again,

    I’ve just been talking to my friend who is an editor of a US paper and she says (and I don’t doubt) that “lede” is the only correct spelling of the word in the US - but the rest of the English speaking world has the choice of spelling both ways with no hard and fast rule.

    Guess we were both right - and both wrong - at the same time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Thanks. Just did a quick search and it seems that spelling is more prominent in the US than elsewhere, which is probably why I'm not familiar with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Both of those are illegal. The president cannot impose extra strings on federal funding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I know it’s possible for conditions to be tied to federal funding (like how interstate funds were withheld from Louisiana until they raised their drinking age to 21), so is it just that the Executive branch can’t impose that? (Genuinely asking since I’m not sure.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    So, fun fact, that was also illegal. The MADD campaign was just so pervasive that nobody cared. Extra fun fact, it wasn't a teenager problem, it was an education problem and is much reduced. The remaining people who drink and drive, or drink underage, just don't care about the laws, so there's no reason to keep the drinking age laws except for tradition at this point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    The right wingers are just so chock full of rage-filled idiots. Wearing a mask IS annoying, but you aren't some kind of freedom-fighter to not wear one and go out of your way to disrupt public health, FFS.

    But that's how all of these assholes see themselves: vanguards of "freedom". By completely ruining any chance of a sane response to a pandemic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent