On one of my former blogs, I had a feature called "Ask Jack" where I would answer questions on any topic posed to me by readers.

That's an easy feature to have when you have about 2 dozen readers. Since Ace has way more than 2 dozen readers (I think he's up to about 4 score, which I am told is more) I don't do that here.

However, I couldn't resist the following e-mail. What can I say? I live to serve.

Dear Jack M.,

You seem like the only regular coblogger who has ever dated a member of the opposite sex. You also seem like the kind of guy who gets dumped a lot.

I want to end a relationship with a guy, but I want him to think it's his idea because I'm a wimp. Can you give me advice on how to do this? I'm sure you know.

*Name Withheld*

Well, flattery like that will get you everywhere! So let's answer the question. more...

Posted by: Jack M. at 03:53 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 1785 words, total size 10 kb.

Not even with the Lightworker in Chief?

In the House:

"I don't think Pelosi thinks she has the votes. ...She goes out and makes statements that get all of us all upset and gets her applause from the Hispanic caucus. But ...there were right around 50 Democrats who co-sponsored the SAVE ACT last year, which was a very, very strong enforcement bill. This amnesty will not have nearly the strength of that. I think one of the reasons that those Democrats signed that bill is that they're from districts whose constituents are pushing them hard on this. So, I think we'd have a good chance to get 60-70 Democrats in the House to vote against that and I don't think we ought to lose more than a half dozen Republicans. If we did that well, then we'd beat it in the House."

This actually helps the Lightworker politically, that he can be seen as attempting to fulfill his pledge while his caucus blocks him from doing so. He gains support from open-borders enthusiasts without risking the public wrath.

Posted by: Ace at 11:35 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

The New York Times, which I'm certain stands against efforts by GM and Chrysler to force the UAW to make major labor concessions, plays hardball with the union representing the workers at its Boston Globe affiliate.

By the way -- the Globe will almost certainly be shuttered. Or will be merged with the NYT, with only a skeleton crew to handle local issues while the rest of the Globe publishes AP articles and stuff from the Times.

The New York Times [NYT] Co. wants Boston Globe unions to remove lifetime job guarantees and agree to sweeping layoffs with slashed severance - while increasing work hours for those who survive, workers were told last night.

But the president of the Boston Newspaper Guild insisted the union will hang tough and refuse to give in on the lifetime job perks.

“That’s a nonstarter. We will not give up seniority and the lifetime job guarantee,” said Dan Totten, addressing his membership at a Boston union hall.

He said union leadership would fight as “loud and long” as necessary against $10 million alone demanded from the Guild as part of $20 million in overall concessions by the Times.

For the first time, workers represented by the Newspaper Guild were given stark details of draconian cuts being demanded by the paperÂ’s out-of-town owners under threat of shutting down the Globe.

The meeting in the Boston Teachers Union hall was marked by an angry confrontation between some union members who are willing to give up the job guarantees and the unionÂ’s top leaders, all of whom have the lifetime perk but have been resisting calls to make that concession, sources told the Herald.

...

Times executives last week threatened to shutter the Globe on May 1 unless all the newspapersÂ’ unions cough up the $20 million in concessions.

...

Another reporter called the cutback plan “a union-busting tactic.”

Pat Daly, a retired advertising sales representative who worked at the Globe for 35 years, said the paperÂ’s executives are asking Guild employees to cut too deep, without making sacrifices themselves.

“To see these people who got bonuses ask for concessions, it’s sickening,” he said.

But I'm sure the NYT will continue its pro-union jihad against Wal*Mart.

Thanks to JackStraw.

Problem, Meet Solution: What a great idea! Just have the government run the newspapers!

Posted by: Ace at 09:37 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

All within 24 hours.

• Third of Illinoisans went without health insurance in last 2 years: Sun-Times

• Report: 2.5M in Michigan lacked health insurance: Chicago Tribune

• Study: 29% of Ohioans have gone without health insurance: BizJournals

• Report: More NJ residents lacking health insurance: Forbes

• Study: Many Kansans are uninsured: BizJournals

• Report tallies uninsured in Hawaii: KPUA AM 670

• Study: 1 in 3 Alabamians have no insurance: BizJournals

• 1 out of 4 NH residents lacked health insurance within last two years: WBZ

• 1 out of 3 Coloradans lacked insurance in past two years: Denver Post

• Nearly 1 in 3 Idahoans lack health insurance, study says: Idaho Statesman

• One in four nonelderly Minnesotans has been without health insurance, study shows: Twin Cities

• 1 in 3 are uninsured in Georgia, study says: Augusta Chronicle

• 1.3 million Louisiana residents uninsured: Independent

• Millions in N.C. lack health plan: Winston-Salem Journal

• Uninsured are mostly working: Sun-Herald

• Nearly one-third of Wyoming residents went without health insurance in past two years: Wyoming Tribune

• Report finds health insurance lacking in W.Va.: Charleston Gazette

• Nearly 1/3 Of Kentuckians Uninsured Says Report: WFPL Radio

• REPORT: 254K Rhode Islanders Uninsured at Some Point from 2007-2008: ABC 6

The "study" frequently mentioned in the headlines was done by Families USA, a liberal advocacy group:

According to Discover the Networks, Families USA is a member of the "Progressive States Network", which works closely with (you guessed it) ACORN and the SEIU. These ultra-partisan groups have truly one agenda: big government.

Director Blue goes on to take apart the study.

Isn't it odd that the moment a hardcore liberal group sends out a study to the media, 200 headlines blossom?

I'm not sure that happens when Heritage or the AEI sends out a study.

I sorta think it doesn't.

Posted by: Ace at 08:00 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

Interesting post about what the law had been, at least until recently.

Our problem with pirates is the same as the one with al Qaeda et al. We have extended legal rights to people who do not deserve them. We need to return to an important distinction first made by the Romans and subsequently incorporated into international law by way of medieval and early modern European jurisprudence, e.g. Grotius and Vattel. The Romans distinguished between bellum, war against legitimus hostis, a legitimate enemy, and guerra, war against latrunculi — pirates, robbers, brigands, and outlaws — "the common enemies of mankind."

The former, bellum, became the standard for interstate conflict, and it is here that the Geneva Conventions and other legal protections were meant to apply. They do not apply to the latter, guerra — indeed, punishment for latrunculi traditionally has been summary execution. Until recently, no international code has extended legal protection to pirates.

So first, we should revive that distinction. When they are caught, they should be hanged.

More at the post.

Posted by: Ace at 07:35 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Or to vote in favor of reducing death taxes, anyway.

But it will be a brief victory, as liberals intend to strip out the rate-reducing language in the House-Senate conference, and I doubt it would ever be signed into law by President Spendthrift.

Posted by: Ace at 07:23 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

There's a catch:

From the United States to Europe to China, the global economic crisis has forced offices to close and factories to cut back. That means less use of fossil fuels such as coal to make energy. Fossil-fuel burning, which creates carbon dioxide, is the primary human contributor to global warming. A recession-driven drop in emissions “is good for the environment,” says Emilie Mazzacurati of Point Carbon, an energy research company.

Cost of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-tax scheme? $4.8 trillion to the American economy by 2030.

Of course, if you just impose those costs on the economy anyway, as Obama is doing, you can reduce carbon output without any new laws.

Win-win. Or something.

Posted by: Ace at 07:16 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Was this covered here? I didn't post it. Someone else probably did.

I caught a Jimmy Kimmel repeat about O'Reilly's "erotic" audiobook. It's funny, even if it's old.

Here are more clips from the Village Voice. Yeah, I hate linking the Village Voice, but what are you going to do.

Another one: more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:54 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 133 words, total size 3 kb.

Since both of the recruiting videos are now in play, I will post the ultimate answer to the question of Rangers v. Special Forces. (as if there was really any question)

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 06:09 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 546 words, total size 4 kb.

I'm starting to think he's only planning on one term. Maybe he has a mind to do as much as possible to Transform America (TM) and then get the hell out of Dodge before the public can reject him.

Either that or he's hoping to mint 12 million new Democratic voters for 2012.

Yeah. That seems more likely.

While acknowledging that the recession makes the political battle more difficult, President Obama plans to begin addressing the countryÂ’s immigration system this year, including looking for a path for illegal immigrants to become legal, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.

...

Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.

...

But with the economy seriously ailing, advocates on different sides of the debate said that immigration could become a polarizing issue for Mr. Obama in a year when he has many other major battles to fight.

Opponents, mainly Republicans, say they will seek to mobilize popular outrage against any effort to legalize unauthorized immigrant workers while so many Americans are out of jobs.

...

Administration officials said that Mr. ObamaÂ’s plan would not add new workers to the American work force, but that it would recognize millions of illegal immigrants who have already been working here. Despite the deep recession, there is no evidence of any wholesale exodus of illegal immigrant workers, independent studies of census data show.

Opponents of legalization legislation were incredulous at the idea that Mr. Obama would take on immigration when economic pain for Americans is so widespread.

“It just doesn’t seem rational that any political leader would say, let’s give millions of foreign workers permanent access to U.S. jobs when we have millions of Americans looking for jobs,” said Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, a group that favors reduced immigration. Mr. Beck predicted that Mr. Obama would face “an explosion” if he proceeded this year.

“It’s going to be, ‘You’re letting them keep that job, when I could have that job,’ ” he said.

The number of Jobs Americans Just Won't Do (TM) has dropped quite a bit in the last year, hasn't it?

Timing: “He intends to start the debate this year,” an adviser says.

Starting the debate this year means no legislation this year, presumably. So when?

Next year? Just before the midterm elections?

Perhaps -- but only if the economy is doing gangbusters business and Obama and the Democrats calculate they can take this big political hit. Otherwise, it will have to be put off until it's safe to do so -- after the 2010 elections, in 2011.

Although he could try to ram this monstrosity through at any time, it appears that he's just pandering, playing for time. Voting present. At least for the moment.

But he's extraordinarily arrogant, and believes his own press clippings, so who knows.

Posted by: Ace at 06:03 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 522 words, total size 3 kb.