top gun – Moe Lane

Tweet of the Day, Why The HELL Was I Not Notified Of This? edition.

This was literally the only reason I wasn’t planning to see the new Top Gun flick. The only reason. Now it’s back on the rotation…

Of note: @erichschwartzel reports that Chinese firm Tencent backed out of co-financing TOP GUN: MAVERICK amid concerns over how the film would play with the CCP. Which probably helps explain why the Taiwanese/Japanese flags wound up back on Mav’s jacket. https://t.co/NH7GZ47QpL
— Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) May 27, 2022

Via @presjpolk.

Tweet of the Day, Yeah Forget The New Top Gun Flick edition.

I didn’t see the point of the new Top Gun remake much, and this both annoys and offends me.

There’s a new Top Gun movie coming out. And Maverick is wearing the same leather jacket – only this time it’s Communist Party of China-approved, so the Japanese and Taiwanese flag patches are gone (screenshot on right is from the new trailer)… pic.twitter.com/gUxFNFNUKX
— Mark MacKinnon (@markmackinnon) July 19, 2019

So, Val Kilmer’s coming back to be Iceman… hold on a second.

OK, sure, fine, Val Kilmer’s going to be in Top Gun 2. He probably loves the idea of the paycheck. But what, exactly, is Top Gun 2 going to be about? Continue reading So, Val Kilmer’s coming back to be Iceman… hold on a second.

#rsrh “Did China Try To Pass Off Top Gun As Air Force Footage?”

There’s no way I can beat that title, so I’m not even going to try.

Also: HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Moe Lane

PS: No, wait, the new spokesman for the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (ChiComs ain’t too imaginative, are they?) has a statement to make:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOF6Vazusho

Danger Zone, Kenny Loggins

Here comes a VAT for health care?

Turning to domestic news for the moment (and as a distraction from my worries, frankly), I see via @mkhammer that a value-added tax is on the Democrats’ horizon, the better to pay for free health care*:

Unlike a sales tax that applies only to the point of purchase, a VAT taxes the value added at each stage of production. Thus, if the VAT rate is 5% and a producer of raw materials, a manufacturer and a retailer each add $1.00 of value to a product, then each owes the government five cents.

A source close to the Ways and Means Committee said House Democrats may be considering a VAT of 1% to 1.5%. That could raise $70 billion-$105 billion annually, based on calculations from a Con gressional Research Service report.

[snip]

A VAT would be a major headache for President Obama, who has consistently pledged not to raise taxes on 95% of Americans. Republicans are sure to portray a VAT as a violation of his vow.

Well… yes. That would be because it is a violation of his vow. It’s hardly the GOP’s fault if the President’s electoral strategy wrote checks that his governing methodology can’t cash… yes, yes, Top Gun put it better, but then Top Gun had the advantage of F-14 / MiG dogfights. At any rate, there’s no earthly reason why we should avoid bringing up a broken promise just because nobody believed it anyway; if this administration wants to avoid facing the consequences of its rhetoric, it is perfectly welcome to take more care in the crafting of it.

Moe Lane

*There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. And that’s a book that I heartily recommend, by the way.

Crossposted to RedState.