Quote of the Day

"Government should not parent the parents."

- Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, referring to FCC move to restrict TV violence.

Business groups get behind Dems' tax plan

I love how selective the Free Press is when they say that business groups support the State Democratic business tax plan. They point to the Michigan Manufacturer's Association and suggest that 3/4 of businesses are receiving tax breaks.

So, what are the 1/4 of businesses who are going to be paying so much more in taxes that they can fund tax breaks for the 3/4 that are getting them? The service industries - finance, banking, insurance, lending, medicine, legal, accounting, technology, business consulting. You know, the segment of the economy which is actually growing and keeping the state afloat. Of course, the manufacturing industry will love it - it'll shift taxes from the less profitable manufacturing industries (which are hemorrhaging jobs) onto the highly profitable service industries (which are creating jobs in record numbers). That's okay, though, because insurance companies and mortgage lenders and banks are evil and we should punish them as much as possible. After all, who needs home-owners insurance when there are no mortgage companies around to loan you money to buy a house?

Joseph Lieberman rocks

Lieberman Floor Speech on Joint Iraq Resolution
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 14, 2007

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) today addressed the current Iraq debate on the Senate floor.

The text of the speech, as prepared for delivery, is below.

"As everyone here knows, we are now in the thick of the battle for Baghdad - a critical battle whose outcome hangs in the balance. A new commander, General David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by this Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action.

The question we now confront is simple: will Congress give General Petraeus and his troops a fighting chance to succeed?

The joint resolution before us would deny them that chance, forcing our troops to break off the battle of Baghdad before it has barely begun. Instead of providing General Petraeus with the necessary reinforcements he has requested - the reinforcements he is counting on - it would begin to strip troops away from him.

We need to be clear with ourselves, and with the nation, on this point: the joint resolution we are debating would impose a fixed date for the beginning of a withdrawal. One hundred twenty days after this legislation is passed, American forces would be required by law to begin redeploying out of Iraq. This would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, regardless of the wishes of our allies, regardless of whether security is improving or deteriorating.

It would bind the hands of General Petraeus, substituting the judgement of Congress for the judgement of our military commanders, our diplomats, and of our friends in the region.

Congress has many responsibilities, but the micromanagement of war is not one of them.

In fact, the proponents of this resolution make no attempt to justify why 120 days from now is the right time to commence a withdrawal. That is because there is no military or strategic logic at work here. This is a deadline that is as arbitrary as it is inflexible. It specifically denies General Petraeus the room for maneuver that history tells us any successful commander requires.

Surely we know better than this. Surely we cannot think that this is a path to success.

I remember hearing many of my colleagues arguing against precisely this kind of fixed deadline - some of them right here in this chamber - just a few months ago.

I ask my colleagues, what has changed? what is the strategic logic here?

We hear opponents of the current strategy insist that our troops should not be 'policing a civil war.'

That position might come as a surprise to the soldiers who have been serving in Bosnia and Kosovo over the past decade, dispatched there under a Democratic President with the support of Democrats in Congress - the support of many of the same colleagues of mine who today are clamoring for withdrawal.

I ask you, what has changed?

I could not agree more.

Joeseph Lieberman: A JFK Democrat

Senator Lieberman's Statement on Majority Leader Reid's Comments that the War is "Lost"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 20, 2007

WASHINGTON - Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) today made the following statement in response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comment that the Iraq War is "lost."

"This week witnessed horrific terrorist attacks by Islamist extremists in Iraq, killing hundreds of innocent civilians and leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to declare that the war is 'lost.'

With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid's statement is not , based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there.

Al Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to reignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq.

The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes - abandoning the future of Iraq the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week's atrocities - or whether we stand united to fight them.

This is exactly the wrong time to conclude that we have lost the war in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed. Instead, we should provide General Petraeus and his troops with the time and the resources to succeed. We should not surrender. We should not surrender in the face of barbarism."

Professor Fired Over Va. Tech Discussion

Another victory for academic freedom:

BOSTON (AP) - An adjunct professor as fired after leading a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings in which he pointed a marker at some students and said "pow."

The five-minute demonstration at Emmanuel College on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood," said the professor, Nicholas Winset.

During the demonstration, Winset pretended to shoot some students. Then one student pretended to shoot Winset to illustrate his point that the gunman might have been stopped had another student or faculty member been armed.

"A classroom is supposed to be a place for academic exploration," Winset, who taught financial accounting, told the Boston Herald.

He said administrators had asked the facility to engage students on the issue. But on Friday, he got a letter saying he was fired and ordering him to stay off campus.

Winset, 37, argued that the Catholic liberal arts school was stifling free discussion by firing him, and he said the move would have a "chilling effect" on open debate. He posted an 18-minute video on the online site YouTube defending his action.

The college issued a statement saying "Emmanuel College has clear standards of classroom and campus conduct, and does not in any way condone to use of discriminatory or obscene language."

Student Junny Lee, 19, told The Boston Globe that most students didn't appear to find Winset's demonstration offensive.

John Edwards: I'd invest billions in Michigan

Interesting that it's John Edwards and not John Dingell making this proposal...

The U.S. government should invest billions to help Michigan become the hub for transforming the nation's energy economy, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Saturday.

Speaking to more than 1,800 Democrats at the annual Jefferson Jackson dinner at Cobo Center in Detroit, Edwards said he'd like to see Michigan evolve.

"We should put billions of dollars into creation of the new technology and $1 billion should go right to the car companies," he said. "I don't want to see the cars of the future built anywhere else."

Crow Calls for Limit on Loo Paper

This is the problem with many so-called "environmentalists" these days. Instead of doing something that actually matters, they're concerned about napkins and toilet paper. How hard is it for some people to understand that paper is a renewable resource?

Crow has suggested using "only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required.

The 45-year-old, who made the comments on her website, has just toured the U.S. on a biodiesel-powered bus to raise awareness about climate change.

Reid: Congress Will Endores Iraq Pullout

A more accurate title for this article:

Reid: Congress Will Endorse Iraq Genocide

Overturning a law that doesn't exist?

Some may see it as a bizarre realignment of the starts, but I agree with the (conservative leaning) Detroit News' support of a Democratic initiative to eliminate the ban on stem cell research in Michigan. However, I have been unable to see such a ban in the laws. Currently, in Michigan there are tax incentives and other state benefits for biomedical research. By law, that excludes embryonic stem cells. I haven't seen anything which outright bans this research, however. Is this a situation similar to the Federal funding ban, where the research is allowed but public moneies can't go toward it? Or, is there a genuine, outright ban on embryonic stem cell research. If, indeed, this research is outright banned, we need to correct this immediately. If this is a mischaracterization and the ban is on state funding, well, that's a different situation all together.

"End the War"

Mohammed at Iraq the Model is exactly correct. Every time I see war protesters with their "End the War" signs, I am flabbergasted. How do they expect the war to end? If the U.S. pulls troops from Iraq, how will that stop extremist Sunni or Shia groups from attacking each other? How will that stop the neo-Bathists from trying to reinstitute a Saddam-styled government? How will that stop Al Qaeda in Iraq from trying to install a repressive regime based on a perversion of Islam? How will that stop Iran from supplying weapons to militia groups? How will that cause the militias to put down their arms and join the government?

How will that secure the tenants of liberal democracy?

Snitches, and not the golden kind

CBS's 60 minutes last night ran a story about snitches in the rap community. This will no doubt get a lot of attention today, with a large focus on the perennial "rap music is bad" mantra which is going to grab the media's focus in the coming months in light of the Virginia tech horror and the Don Imus firing. The basic premise of the article is that in order to have "street cred", one must resist cooperating with the police about anything. The story focuses on the marketing of the "stop snitchin'" credo.

The part which will be overlooked is the real reason why witnesses are refusing to cooperate: a combination of mistrust of police and fear of retaliation. For all of the bravado of the "stop snitchin'" slogan, it's fear and mistrust which keep the average citizen from cooperating with the police and not some misplaced machismo or the favored liberal "brainwashing" theme. If trust can be rebuilt between police and citizens, if criminals who commit crimes can be reliably sent to jail, if police who cooperate with police can be kept safe, then nothing that Busta Rhymes, L'il Kim, or Com'mon can do would matter.

CAFE Standards - will anyone listen?

This past weekend, The Detroit News makes a compelling argument regarding CAFE standards. Will anyone listen? CAFE increases mean tens of thousands of American jobs lost and previous CAFE increases did nothing to reduce the total fuel consumption. It's doubtful that their well-reasoned comments will resonate within the government. Even John Dingell - the Michigan Representative who heads the Energy House Committee - has shown a willingness to sell out Michigan and accept CAFE increases if they're part of a "comprehensive" plan. What's frightening for our state's economy, already among the nation's worst, is that while Congressmen of other districts are fighting to prevent regulations being enacted which would cripple their economies, Rep. Dingell seems to have surrendered the fight and is willing to accept job losses.

40% better mileage with one simple, available technology

Today's Detroit News points out what everyone should already know: diesel engines need to play a role in this country's comprehensive energy policy. Diesel engines are both more reasonably priced and more effective for extending fuel economy when compared to gas/electric hybrids. It's great to see that someone it talking about this, but it's a shame that it's no one in the government.

Quote of the Day

Dahlia Lithwick, law columnist for slate.com:

Viewed in [a certain] light, Gonzales did exactly what he needed to do yesterday. he took a high, inside pitch to the head for the team (nobody wants to look like a dolt on national television) but hit a massive home run for the notion that at the end of the day, congressional oversight over the executive branch is little more than empty theatre."

Certainly, Dahlia doesn't agree with the notion that congressional oversight of the executive branch should be "little more than empty theatre" but she is recognizing the fact that, except for incidences of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the power of the purse, Congress has no actual power over the executive whatsoever.

Of course, this is merely an example of the balance of powers: other than the veto, the President has no power over the legislative whatsoever.

AP sides with Schumer

Is this more ridiculous AP bias, or does this author really think the Senate has any power to decide in Gonzales remains Attorney General?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was to be summoned to a Capitol Hill showdown Thursday as he fights to save his job in the face of calls for his ouster over the bungled firings of eight U.S. attorneys that Democrats say were driven by party politics.

The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a daylong hearing for Gonzales' first appearance under oath since the firings set off an uproar in February that has only escalated with a bewildering series of conflicting accounts from the attorney general, his current and former aides and White House officials.

Outsourced Democracy

Scott Adams took a break from vainly trying to convince people that stealing copyrighted material is, in fact, stealing to suggest a novel idea. His basic idea is to leverage the innovations which have given us barely comprehensible, hesitantly English speaking tech support workers to solve the problems of our democracy:

It's common knowledge that all major government decisions in the United States are made via a process that Thomas Jefferson described in the constitution as 'lobbyists bribing weasels'. Voters attempt to solve this problem by electing the weasels who do the best job lying about their intentions to change the system. So far this hasn't worked.

That's why we need to outsource the important decisions to India. I'm sure a consulting firm in India could help the United States come up with a coherent energy policy, a plan for universal health care, a cure for global warming, and an anti-terrorism plan.

He further goes on to suggest that these plans would then be debated in the public sphere for implementation by our politicians. Having the plans available, though, would allow for public debate which is completely lacking now.

"Environmentalists"

Perhaps the group I hate the most are the self-congratulatory "environmentalists" who spend far too much time telling the world just how great they really are.

Count Kathleen Hughes of the New York Times among them.

She writes this sickly saccharine, self-gratifying column in the Times in which she goes on and on about how great she it is that she is sacrificing so much to dry her clothes on a clothesline instead of in a dryer. She's so needy for everyone to know just how much she cares for the planet that she initially wanted to hang her clothes out in the front yard, just to show all of her neighbors. Thankfully, her family had more of the right idea. What kills me the most, though, is how impossibly wasteful her electricity usage is.

She started using the clothes line after getting a monthly bill of over $1,100 last summer. She prides herself on having a March bill of "only" $576. In March. When it was cold. The unmitigated gall she has lecturing the public on how wasteful they are with their electric use when she's spending that much on it herself shouldn't shock me anymore, but I guess it still does. After all, when you take a peek at the electric bills of Al Gore and John Edwards, all the while they're preaching about conservation. I have sadly come to expect this from the right, elitist leftists. Sadly this lack of self-perception seems to have infected her daughter as well, who notes: "It looks like we care about the earth, " when clothes are hung on the clothesline, but who is "always busy at the computer."

This is the essence of their hypocrisy: trying to look like they care about the earth while blowing through 3 to 5 times as much energy as average Americans.

Quote of the Year

Majority Decision, Gonzales V. Carhart:

We assume the following principles for the purposes of this opinion. Before viability, a State "may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy." 505 U.S., at 879 (plurality opinion). It also may not impose upon this right an undue burden, which exists if a regulation's "purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." ld., at 878. On the other hand, regulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman's right to choose." ld., at 877. Casey, in short struck a balance. The balance was central to its holding. We now apply its standard to the cases at bar."

Most important note of all: the "ultraconservative" Alito and Roberts agreed with the above - an affirmation that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability, that the state can not place "substantial obstacles" in the pate of a woman seeking a pre-viability abortion, and can only act to limit abortions if they are not "a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose."

So, despite all the ballyhoo of the supposed "ultraconservatives" on the court and the "threat" to Rode v. Wade and to Casey, we end up with the result that if Roe v. Wade was to be challenged before this court , it would be a 7-2 decision to uphold Roe v. Wade. Only JJustices Scalia and Thomas were willing to support a move to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Communist Art

In today's Dilbert Blog entry, Scott Adams posits:

I think a reasonable person can dislike capitalism and wish for a more socialist world where art is free for all takers. But a reasonable person can't expect that a socialist world would produce nearly as much art. That's bat-shit thinking.

His justification is that the time and effort he spent building Dilbert, pretty much dawn-to-dusk for 10 straight years with minimal time off, wouldn't be worth it if he wasn't able to achieve his level of economic wealth. This is, basically, the main problem with strict communism: the number of people willing to put forth the time and effort to become a doctor, start a business, create new technologies, etc., wouldn't be wouldn't be so inclined if they received the same rewards as a cubicle worker who spends more of his work hours on the Internet than doing actual work. This being said, I can certainly appreciate his argument.

However, it falls apart in that the vast majority of artists don't have his level of dedication (or, to be honest, talent). The vast majority of artists putz around with their painting or sculpting or hot gluing or cross-stitching, assuming that it should be enough to make them a living. Most artists, i.e., the non-commercially viable artists, don't have the talent or dedication to actually put out art that other people would actually place value in (shown, in our society, by paying money for it). As they can't make a living as an artist, they instead find a job working as a barista or English Garden's cashier. If we lived in a communist society, they'd be able to make the same living creating their shitty art that they would by ringing up my flat of azaleas. It's just the good artists - the ones who put in the time, effort, and dedication to make items of true value to society - who would be disinclined to create art.

The net result isn't that we would have less art, as Adams suggests. We would have less good art and a whole lot more shitty art, while I'd have to learn how to steam a latte without burning myself.

Fake voters all around us?

Cynthia Tucker, an editorialist witih the Atlanta journal-Constitution blames the GOP of making false, "paranoid" accusations of voter fraud and describes voter ID cards as "attempts to supporess voting by people of color" and unconstitutional. She cites a study that sees voter turnout drop, especially among minority voters. The question must be asked: why?

Here's the scenario: The government provides free photo identification cards to individuals who register to vote. All you need to do is show up, register, prove your citizenship, get your photo taken, and you get an ID card which allows you to vote. When you go to vote, someone looks at your card, looks at the list, and then hands you a ballot, which you fill out in secret and submit in secret.

Now, assume that Ms. Tucker is correct and the above scenario results in a decline in overall voter turnout of 3% and 6-9% decline among minorities.

How is this not evidence of some people voting illegally, using other peoples' names?

Let's set that aside for a moment. Let's assume that everyone who votes at a polling station where there are no ID checks follows the law, votes legally and properly, and does not vote under someone else's name - despite the ridiculous ease with which this can happen. The fact that it is easy to fraudulently vote and that it is equally difficult to catch someone voting fradulently casts doubt on the process. In the 2000 Presidential election, Florida was decided by a few hundred votes. In effect, the election of the President was decided by a tiny handful of votes. How can we be sure that 20 or 30 determined, morally vacant, rabidly pro-Bush supporters didn't go around to 15 to 20 different polling places, walk up to the line, glance down at the book and just rattle of a name, then illegally cast a pro-Bush vote in a heavily Democratic district? We can assume that didn't happen. However, the specter of voter fraud, and the ease with which it is perpetrated, is enough to cast doubt on the entire system.

America's approach to democracy is a laughing stock to much of the rest of the world. The voting system lack standards, has no controls in place to ensure that only those who legally can vote are the ones voting, and we frequently utilize polling technology and machines from the middle of the last century. America is supposed to be the shining beacon of democracy throughout the world. How can we do that when we ourselves have such a faulty system?

The current situation in many states, with individuals being allowed to vote without verification, calls into question the legitimacy of our democracy.

Quote of the Day

Tracy Bridges, whose exercise of his 2nd Amendment rights helped stop Peter Odighizuwa's murderous rampage at Appalachian School of Law in 2002, speaking on NBC's Today show:

We saw the shooter, stopped at my vehicle and got out my handgun and started to approach Peter. At that time, Peter threw up his hands and threw his weapon down. Ted was the first person to have contact with Peter, and Peter hit him one time in the face, so there was a little bit of a struggle there."

An American problem?

Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006:
18-year-old Sebastian Bosse entered Geschwister Scholl School and used a firearm and a smoke grenade to injure 37 before committing suicide.

Erfurt, Germany, April 26, 2002:
19-year-old Robert Steinhauser used two firearms to kill 13 teachers and 2 students before committing suicide.

Zug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001:
Friedrich Leibacher entered the canton's parliament and shot dead 14 politicians.

Osaka, Japan, June 8, 2001:
37-year-old Mamoru Tukama, former janitor, killed eight children using a kitchen knife and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers before being captured. He was eventually convicted of murder and put to death.

Port Arthur, Australia, April 28, 1996:
28-year-old martin Bryant killed 35 and wounded 37 at the popular tourist destination of Port Arthur.

Why don't they care anymore?

Today, Europe reacted to the masacre at Virginia Tech.

The roughest part is how horribly inaccurate so much of this is. Suggestions that it's easier to get a machine gun than a driver's license, that this individual - who happens to be a Korean national - is indicitave of the violence inherant in American culture, that this has something to do with assault weapons or automatic weapons, or that rates of violent crime are rising are just flat out wrong. The bottom line is that college campuses are the most disarmed areas of American life. A single individual with a concealed firearm could have dramatically reduced the number killed.

Bild makes the most interesting points. They suggest, laughably, that it's easier to get a machine gun than a driver's license in the U.S. However, I can't help but point out that cars kill a whole lot more people than guns in the U.S. Also, the do mention the tragedies at Erfurt and Emsdetten. Germany is a country with a much smaller population, with vastly fewer firearms and they have had their own share of these horrors equalling our own. If anything proves that the strict control of firearms does nothing to prevent these sorts of horrors, Erfurt and Emsdetten do.

I do want to point out the editorial from Italy's Il Messaggero - "During the period following World war II, America was seen as the guardian of democracy and was equated with the defense of liberty; today, America is a superpower that begins wars and lives with the constant necessity of having to defend itself against the enemy..." This is an attitude throughout the world reflected when the view the U.S. What is so disconcerting is that the actions of the U.S. haven't changed, except that we're less likely to engage in warfare than we were in the "period following World War II". What's changed is only the perceptions of Europe. It's amazing how little some care for the spread of democracy when their own democracy isn't being threatened.

Why should the people of Italy or Germany or France or, hell, the American Left care about the plight of women in the middle east (regularly murdered as punishment for being raped, denied the right to vote, subject to beatings from their husbands, fathers, and brothers, treated as prisoners in their own home, denied the ability to earn their own livings outside of “temporary marriages” if they are divorced or widowed, denied education)? Why should they care about the slaughtered innocents of Darfur? Why should they care about the tyrannical oppression of the North Korean people? Why should they care about terrorists wanting to exterminate the Jews or reconquer southern Spain? Why should they care about narcoterrorists in Central America? Being the guardian of democracy and the defender of liberty sometimes means that you have to do the dirty work of deposing a dictator. Of course, it’s much easier for Europe or the American Left to pretend that the women of Iraq chose the rape rooms and the people of North Korea chose starving to death and the people or Darfur chose the systematic annihilation of their homes and their children. That’s their government and it would be wrong of us to impose our on them. It’s much easier for Europe and the American Left to sit back in their benighted racism and assume that the peoples of Africa, south-eastern Asia, and the Middle East are animals incapable of determining their own fates, incapable of living in a democratic country with liberty for all.

"You can't erase e-mails, not today."

Yesterday evening, Slate.com recycled an old post discussed the deletion of files from computers. This was published in response to Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) charging that the Republican Party's e-mail system could not permanently erase e-mails. Leahy: "You can't erase e-mails, not today." Presumably, they're using Microsoft Exchange to handle their e-mail. Microsoft Exchange Server is by the moist likely e-mail server used.

The Slate article with an old story - Robert Johnson, former publisher of Newsday, who was indicted for possession of child pornography. He tried to use a program to clean out his desktop computer's local hard drive to conceal illegal material. The program failed and forensic tech experts were able to recover the files on his hard drive. The Slate article does a pretty good job explaining how this works.

What it doesn't do, however, in address anything even remotely relevant to the situation at hand.

Certainly, the basics are the same -- a computer has the information which is then downloaded to a hard drive. The hard drive, being magnetic media, will retain an "image" of previous data recorded to it so that even if it is erased and written-over once or perhaps twice, the prior data is possibly recoverable using sophisticated means. Other than that, however, there's nearly no similarity.

First of all, the type of file used as an example in the Slate article is completely different. Exchange stores e-mails as a database, which means that the e-mails are stored inside of a file itself and the data is moved around, resorted, and reordered on a continual basis as the database keeps itself in a neat, tidy order. So, where a single movie file would stay the same and sit on a hard drive, an e-mail database is constantly changing. The data for each e-mail is moved around as the database resorts itself to new data coming in, data being reorganized, or data being deleted. If an e-mail is deleted from the database, the space where the e-mail resided is going to be reused much more quickly and much more frequently than on a desktop hard drive. Every time the data is overwritten, this degrades the shadow of the previous information at that location. On a database which is being constantly written and rewritten, a deleted e-mail is likely to have been overwritten so often that trying to lift a shadow of the data is impossible.

Secondly, and much more importantly, the GOP is likely using an encrypted database (depending on their version of Exchange). It doesn't matter if the actual physical image of the file can be recovered, as it's encryption renders it useless.

Also, even if fragments can be recovered, nothing can be done with them. While fragments of a movie file can still be shown, fragments of an encrypted database are worthless. Much of what makes it so easy to find a deleted movie is its size. There's a good chunk of data out there. When you only need a small piece - when, for instance, a few seconds of a movie are enough for a conviction - then having a large source of data is a boon. When any missing data makes the entire data unusable, a large e-mail database is a killer.

Finally, the vast scale of trying to find missing e-mails is ridiculous. Even movie files - on the order of several hundred megabytes for low resolution movies or a few gigabytes for high resolution - are tiny compared to the e-mail database of a large organization. The Republican Party's e-mail database is likely on the order of terabytes, thousands of gigabytes. Even if the entire volume of every e-mail ever run through the system was available for the search and viewing of a well trained data miner, this is a ridiculous amount of data. Trying to weed through this volume of garbage, most of which no doubt are stupid forwards or endless e-mail exchanges trying to set up meetings, is a herculean task.

All this speaks only to the technical feasibility of recovering the several million e-mails the Democrats want. More importantly, though, is the legal justification. Even if the GOP is capable of compliance with the request, they should resist it. Neither Alberto Gonzalez nor any of his subordinates have been charged with a crime and are not suspected of committing a crime. This is clearly the Democrats trying their damnedest to get any member of the Administration to say something under oath which, after mining through millions of e-mails, they find to be incorrect.

I thought the Clinton impeachment took political grandstanding to an all-time low, but the new Democratic tactic of trying to manufacture perjury charges takes it to a ludicrous level. It's a shame that Patrick Leahy didn't work for Richard Nixon. Apparently, instead of breaking into the Watergate, the Administration could have just demanded the Democrats turn over their paperwork and then threaten them with perjury and contempt charges if they didn't comply.

U.N. finally taking action in Darfur

It has taken long enough, but it looks as though at least a few U.N. troops will be going into Darfur. The inaction on this front by the U.N. is criminal.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Sudan on Monday approved the deployment of attack helicopters and more than 3,000 U.N. troops, police, and other personnel in Darfur to beef up the 7,000 strong African Union force in the troubled region.

Sudan's U.N. ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem informed the secretary-general in a letter that the government had approved the U.N. plan to send helicopter gunships, the last outstanding item in the U.N.'s "heavy support package" for the AU force.

"It is the sincere hope of the Sudan that implementation of the heavy support package would precede expeditiously," Abdalhaleem said.

Sudan's Foreign Ministry confirmed the government's acceptance of the "heavy support" package.