tuckerm

I don’t think it’s so clear what some of the money is going to. From the article:

the package includes $3.5 billion for “essential wartime procurement” […] and a $5.2 billion grant for air defenses. The ministry said the $5.2 billion for air defenses “will significantly strengthen critical systems such as Iron Dome…"

With Hezbollah launching rockets towards civilians, I am in favor of strengthening the Iron Dome. But it sounds like that $3.5 billion could be to resupply Israel for their attacks on Gaza, thereby enabling new ones.

That was a great explanation.

I remember hearing an interview with John Boehner on NPR (former Republican Speaker of the House) a few years ago. He was talking about the government shutdown that happened shortly after far right wing was elected in 2010. Apparently, a few of them barged into his office after the shutdown and demanded to know why the government had actually shut down.

And Boehner was like, “Um…you said you wanted it to?”

And the right wingers said, “Well we didn’t think it would work!”

These are irresponsible people who think they should just get to play games in life.

This headline is easy to read wrong – my brain grouped the subject of this headline the other way at first. I read, “Marjorie rages at (Mike and calls to fund government)” rather than “Marjorie (rages at Mike) and (calls to fund government).”

Man, I had forgotten how much the “purity” of stars like Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson was talked about. It didn’t even seem weird at the time. (Although I was a little kid, so I probably just couldn’t notice the hypocrisy.)

A quote FTA:

“Wokeness is dead,” gloated right-wing commentator Richard Hanania on X back in March, over a video clip of Sweeney in a black dress with a plunging neckline, her breasts at the center of the frame. Hanania’s logic was obscure, but it seemed to go something like this: Sweeney’s prominently displayed chest was somehow inextricably opposed to the progressive ethos currently fashionable in popular culture.

This whole issue that this article is describing is a perfect example of why it’s impossible to argue against the right on their own terms. Their process is like this:

1. Have a very loosely defined set of ideals. You can believe anything at any time. Have more of a vibe than a set of principles.
2. Invent an enemy. This enemy should be vaguely defined; it is everything and nothing at the same time. For example, wokeism.
3. Because your enemy is whatever you want it to be, and because your values are whatever you want them to be, you alone get to decide when you’ve won. You can declare victory at any time, for any reason. This conveniently fits your insecurity-based need to feel like a winner.