Author Archives: BZ

The REAL Truth

Posted on by


Remember President Bush’s fabulous “economic stimulus” package?

Well, the TRUTH comes home to roost. The following correspondence from the IRS was mailed and received at my home, which I have completely retyped for your examination and consideration. Please note; the various emphasized aspects are of my doing:

ECONOMIC STIMULUS PAYMENT NOTICE

Dear Taxpayer:

We are pleased to inform you that the United States Congres passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which provides for economic stimulus payments to be madeto over 130 million American households. Under this new law, you may be entitled to a payment of up to $600 ($1200 if filing a joint return), plus additional amounts for each qualifying child.

We are sending this notice to let you know that based on this new law the IRS will begin sending the one-time payments starting in May. To receive a payment in 2008, individuals who qualify will not have to do anything more than file a 2007 tax return. The IRS will determine eligibility, figure the amount, and send the payment. This payment should not be confused with any 2007 income tax refund that is owed to you by the federal government. Income tax refunds for 2007 will be made separately from this one-time payment.

For individuals who normally do not have to file a tax return, the new law provides for payments to individuals who have a total of $3,000 or more in earned income, Social Security benefits, and/or certain veterans’ payments. Those individuals should file a tax return for 2007 to receive a payment in 2008.

Individuals who qualify may receive as much as $600 ($1,200 if married filing jointly). Even if you pay no income tax but have a total of $3,000 or more in earned income, Social Security benefits, and/or certain veterans’ payments, you may receive a payment of $300 ($600 if married filing jointly).

In addition, individuals eligible for payments may also receive an additional amount of $300 for each child qualifying for the child tax credit.

For taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) of more than $75,000 (or more than $150,000 if married filing jointly), the payment will be reduced or phased out completely.

To qualify for the payment, an individual, spouse and any qualifying child must have a valid Social Security number. In addition, individuals cannot receive a payment if they can be claimed as a dependent of another taxpayer or they filed a 2007 Form 1040NR, 1040NR-EZ, 1040-PR, or 1040-SS.

All individuals receiving payments will receive a notice and additional information shortly before the payment is made. In the meantime, for additional information, please visit the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov/.

Please read that second red-emphasized paragraph. That means the wife and I will receive nothing from the government, though we pay the greatest amount of taxes. I guess we’re simply considered, by the government, to be simply too filthy rich in Fornicalia, there being a huge difference between gross and net. It was a poor idea, poorly executed. But it lets me know precisely what it is that my federal government thinks about me:

At first I wrote in response for this post: “I guess I should just take a big cup of Shut The Fuck Up and bend over for my monthly piece of white-hot governmental rebar shoved up my ass. ‘Thank you sir, can I have another?’ “ However, after a few days’ consideration I’ve simply decided to write: “The Revolution, Dear Government, is actually beginning to achieve form. I would highly recommend you tread a bit more daintily in the next 10 years should you decide to more deeply exploit the fount of your largesse.”
BZ
 Share

Favorite Westerns

Posted on by
Yes, I know today is Easter; I’ll let you all celebrate and honor as you will. In the meantime my mind wandered (as it is wont to do on occasion) and I recalled Ranando making a post about the film “The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford,” which was a very good, detailed but moody character study on the topic.

And that brought me to a question: what were MY favorite Westerns? Perhaps not my “ultimate pedestal” Westerns forced on me by opinion, but the ones I like to watch over and over — that’s my benchmark. In no particular order but only as they come to mind:


1. The Long Riders
Made in 1980, the movie featured the brothers Carradine, Keach, Quaid and Guesteach. There is something remarkably alluring about this Walter Hill film. It never seems to lose its fascination for me. I could watch this DVD weekly and find something eloquent about its presence.


2. The Wild Bunch
How classic can it be? The quintessential Sam Peckinpah movie, with slo-mo and all. Despite that distracting tool, TWB (1969) featured prototypical performances by, primarily, William Holden. Who’d’a thunk WH pigeonholed as a Bad Guy? Few, then. Plus stellar performances by Warren Oates, Ernest Borgnine (already saddled by alcohol, as was Holden), Robert Ryan and Edmond O’Brien. Classic western filmmaking!


3. Unforgiven
Eastwood made hordes of fabulous Westerns. Hell, it could be said that his entire career was proffered on the back of Westerns. This film, in my opinion, supercedes them all but not necessarily by design. A culmination of every film aspect he’d yet learned to date, Unforgiven simply shines in its darkness. Somehow Eastwood, in the guise of William Munny, seems to focus and focus and focus. It is spare and dense and thin and sparse and evocative and beautiful and ugly.


4. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
This 1972 film featured Paul Newman as the Judge His Own Se’f. I cried at the demise of the Watch Bear. I absolutely loved Stacy Keach’s albino Bad Bob. Ava Gardner was classic as Lily Langtry. Heavy sigh.


5. Jeremiah Johnson
Am I stuck in 1972? Or is it co-inky-dink? This was the benchmark film that clearly pushed Robert Redford over the Liberal Top. He connected with the land and, because he could, purchased thousands and thousands of acres for his future Sundance Ranch. Hell, he snaked away hundred of acres for a couple of thousand dollars. Despite that, JJ is the quintessential Mountain Man film, despite the film itself called The Mountain Men (Charleton Heston and Brian Keith). I find this film watchable again and again. Simply good film-making and captivating story-telling.


6. Tombstone

Kurt Russell was a far distant second choice for Wyatt Earp. And, in my opinion, this film kicks the living ass out of Costner’s Wyatt Earp. In 1993, director George Cosmatos had a striking film in his mind. And with Powers Booth, Val Kilmer, Bill Paxton and Sam Elliott; it doesn’t get any better than that. Russell is the better Wyatt, plain and simple. And any western without Sam Elliott is, well, pretty much diminished.

There are, of course, many others:

  • Little Big Man;
  • Wyatt Earp;
  • Silverado;
  • Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid;
  • Dances With Wolves;
  • The Outlaw Josey Wales;
  • Stagecoach (original);
  • Open Range;
  • Hombre;
  • Lonesome Dove (series);

And even more. Plus this: you can be guaranteed that any western film containing Sam Elliott will be excellent, to include “The Quick and the Dead,” “The Desperate Trail” and “Conagher.” Certainly Mr. Elliott has made more, but I particularly enjoy his starring roles. An aside: I can’t write that of other actors known for westerns such as John Wayne or Clint Eastwood; yes, Sam Elliott is an actor that quintessentially good.

What are YOUR favorite Westerns?

BZ

 Share

Boeing v. EADS-Northrop Grumman

Posted on by

As you’ve likely already heard, the consortium of EADS (Airbus) -Northrop Grumman was recently awarded, by the USAF, a $30 to $40 billion contract for the production of the newest series of military in-flight refueling aircraft.

Some people believe this award to be of little consequence; others believe that proffering a contract of this magnitude to the French (and Europe) is an error of monumental proportions.

I tend to embrace the latter thought.

It gets down to: the Airbus 330 v. the Boeing 767.

The things you won’t hear or read:
  • EADS (Airbus) has never built a refueling platform.
  • The 767 tanker is in current production (for overseas customers).
  • EADS has to build an entirely new factory in order to fulfill the contract.
  • The 767 line has been running for 20 years, and doesn’t have enough new orders to keep it open. Its unused capacity can be ramped up to whatever rate the USAF wants.
  • The 330 tanker can’t refuel the Osprey OR any Navy or Marine aircraft, or any Army helicopter.
  • The 767 can already refuel most of them.
  • The 767 tanker can be maintained by current KC-135 (the military equivalent of the 707)facilities.
  • The 330 will require all new maintenance facilities, because of it’s larger wingspan.
  • The USAF repeatedly told Boeing it wasn’t interested in a 777 tanker, because they wanted a smaller airplane. They also didn’t want tankerized, refitted MD-11’s (the USAF’s most recent tanker platforms) because they were too big.
  • Then they buy the 330.
Clearly, money exchanged hands somewhere.

Allow me to be blunt for just a few moments.

If this were a commercial and non-military contract, I would voice little opposition. But when you have technology that is not only ground-breaking (the US pioneered the concept of in-flight refueling!) but proprietary, I hold issue with freely providing this technology to countries not continuously and loyally espousing US interests — not to mention an entire union.

France stands not alone; these days EADS is linked to the UK, Germany, France, Spain. Airbus is primarily funded by a governmental joint powers agreement of countries.

Precisely what Boeing isn’t.

Boeing stands alone against a litany of linked countries whose sole job is to compete with and overturn offered U.S. contracts. In order to appear “fair.”

Those issues aside; let’s examine the specfics:

Q: What will this airframe do? What is its objective?
A: Refuel as many U.S. air platforms as possible on various military air configurations. Propeller-driven; turboprop; jet; helo; hybrid (Osprey);

When we speak or write of technology, it isn’t simply about the platform to be created; it’s also about the technology required to mate with the greater bulk of aircraft extant in the complete U.S. inventory. This devolves to individual craft, flight configuration, airspeed, type, platform, trim, general characteristics, minimum airspeed, flap setting, attitude, power settings, stall speed, mounting hardware, procedures. Those in receipt of this contract need to know some very specific information about some very sensitive aircraft in our inventory.

Why is it, I posit, that we would even remotely consider handing control on any military basis over to countries already completely infiltrated by our Islamist enemies — like the European Union?

This is simply, as I see it, an equation for failure.

The award to EADS/Northrop Grumman needs to be immediately overturned. For the first time ever, Boeing has made an appeal to the GAO. I can only hope our nation is favored.
BZ
 Share

Crashing The Economy

Posted on by

The Demorats, and Representative John Dingell (D), want to completely crash the American economy.

Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee creating new climate legislation, says:

I’m trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it’s going to have a measure of pain that you’re not going to like.”

This is what 81-year-old Demorat Dingell (15th Congressional District in Michigan) wants:

—A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.
—A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.
—Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

In the interview (on C-SPAN’s ‘Newsmakers’ airing Sunday), Dingell acknowledged that voters may not be willing to bear the cost of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and that he would propose the new tax “just to sort of see how people really feel about this.”

“I sincerely doubt that the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them,” Dingell said in the interview.

So let me see: this guy is going to “float” a crippling tax just to “see” what people think about paying an additional 50-cents per gallon on top of what they’ll pay in the future?? Not to mention, the Demorats have stated they’ll allow the current tax cuts to simply expire in 2010. And they want you to pay more taxes as well, even absent this fuel tax.

You cannot tell me that Fornicalia has the Moonbat Market cornered; I think at this point one would have to include Michigan (not to mention its burgeoning Muzzie populace and its government’s and businesses’ capitulation to Islamic “conveniences” — foot basins at the airport, taxi drivers refusing fares, etc.).

If you think that I don’t believe the threshold of this is, in fact, the tanking of our economy, then you’re entirely wrong.
BZ
 Share