The Oklahoma Lewdness entry is fixed now.

Lonnie Latham, a highly-placed member of the Southern Baptist Convention was busted on lewdness charges for trying to pick up a plainclothes cop outside an Oklahoma City hotel.

From the article:

Latham, who has spoken out against homosexuality, asked the officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex. Latham was arrested and his 2005 Mercedes automobile was impounded, [police Capt. Jeffrey] Becker said. Calls to Latham at his church were not immediately returned Wednesday. When he left jail, he said: “I was set up. I was in the area pastoring to police.” The arrest took place in the parking lot of the Habana Inn, which is in an area where the public has complained about male prostitutes flagging down cars, Becker said. The plainclothes officers was investigating these complaints.

My attorney wishes to alert everyone to this particular scene in downtown Austin, TX.

Go read this right now. Here’s a bit:

When the New York Times revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it. But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew it and–going even more boldly on the offensive–that those who had made his law-breaking known had committed a “shameful act.” As justification, he offered two arguments, one derisory, the other deeply alarming. The derisory one was that Congress, by authorizing him to use force after September 11, had authorized him to suspend FISA, although that law is unmentioned in the resolution. Thus has Bush informed the members of a supposedly co-equal branch of government of what, unbeknownst to themselves, they were thinking when they cast their vote. The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses “inherent” authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President?

Where does this lead us? Schell goes on:

The danger is not abstract or merely symbolic. Bush’s abuses of presidential power are the most extensive in American history. He has launched an aggressive war (“war of choice,” in today’s euphemism) on false grounds. He has presided over a system of torture and sought to legitimize it by specious definitions of the word. He has asserted a wholesale right to lock up American citizens and others indefinitely without any legal showing or the right to see a lawyer or anyone else. He has kidnapped people in foreign countries and sent them to other countries, where they were tortured. In rationalizing these and other acts, his officials have laid claim to the unlimited, uncheckable and unreviewable powers he has asserted in the wiretapping case. He has tried to drop a thick shroud of secrecy over these and other actions.

Bush must be stopped. If he does not stop, he must be impeached. His doctrines and actions endanger our country far more than bin Laden ever has.

Every year, Ed Felton over at Freedom-To-Tinker makes some predictions. This year, his list includes an event we’ve been saying was coming for a while:

(19) A name-brand database vendor will go bust, unable to compete against open source.

The power of tools like PostgreSQL is undeniable, and the growing popularity of its rival MySQL has definitely made it safe to pilot or deploy with an open-source database instead of paying big bucks to Oracle and the like. We’ve seen what can be done with these tools, and it makes us wonder why the hell someone would BUY something like SQL Server.

Still, we’re not sure a vendor bust is in the cards for 2007. Collapse takes time, and so far I don’t think the FOSS options have grown quite enough yet. However, Felton is usually more right than wrong, and there’s no denying that this year will see PSQL and MYSQL take more market share from their commercial competitors. The effects of that market grab will definitely be interesting.

In any case, the big trophy comes to Austin for the first time in 35 years: Texas 41, USC 38.

Aside from points, perhaps the most telling stats are these:

• USC total yards: 574
• UT QB and Heisman runner-up Vince Young total yards: 467 (200 rushing, 267 passing)

Actually, since we’re posting other stats, we’ll also provide this:

• Heisman trophies won by active USC players: 2 (Bush this year; Leinart last year)
• Heisman trophies won by active Texas players: 0.

(We’ll join the chorus once again pointing out, however, that the USC Trojans were not in fact competing for 3 in a row. They were the winners last year (despite Auburn’s record), but there were TWO champs the year before. LSU, much as it pains us to say it, was the other “title” holder that year.)

On Sunday, Patriots backup QB and Heisman winner Doug Flutie completed the first drop-kick PAT since 1941.

Wacky.

The RIAA is now bullying witness into lying on the stand. Oh boy!

Atrios quotes Novak, of all people in speculating that Lott may retire from the Senate after his term — and that it’s Democratic Mississippi AG Mike Moore, not nakedly-ambitious GOP tool (and Heathen cousin) Chip Pickering that is the oddsmakers’ favorite in the ensuing race for Lott’s seat.

Attorney Farmer? Got any comment?

They’re on fire this time:

• Coal Now Too Expensive To Put In Christmas Stockings;
• Rising Home-Heating Costs Hitting Reptile Families Hardest; and
• Rove Implicated In Santa Identity Leak, which is PERFECT, including a Weekly Reader reporter jailed for refusing to name a source.

The final entry also includes this gem:

If Rove is responsible for leaking Santa’s identity to the world’s children, it would not be his first political “dirty trick.” In 1988, he was fired from George H. W. Bush’s presidential campaign for sending an unsigned letter to the young daughter of a Dukakis campaign adviser. In the letter, he revealed the sad ending of the film Old Yeller.

Pope Ratz is the CREEPIEST POPE EVER.

The Department of Transportation wants very badly to track your car wherever you go all the time with mandatory, tamper-proof GPS transponders. And they’re making progress. Pay attention:

The problem, though, is that no privacy protections exist. No restrictions prevent police from continually monitoring, without a court order, the whereabouts of every vehicle on the road. No rule prohibits that massive database of GPS trails from being subpoenaed by curious divorce attorneys, or handed to insurance companies that might raise rates for someone who spent too much time at a neighborhood bar. No policy bans police from automatically sending out speeding tickets based on what the GPS data say. The Fourth Amendment provides no protection. The U.S. Supreme Court said in two cases, U.S. v. Knotts and U.S. v. Karo, that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they’re driving on a public street.

Be afraid. Then be mad, and — again — pay attention.

That story about the DHS goons visiting a kid who requested Mao’s book via interlibrary loan was a hoax after all.

Back before the turn of the century – heh – our Congress elected to impeach the President because he lied under oath. Regardless of what you think about the Whitewater witchhunt, Clinton did indeed lie, and he deserved to be punished for it. Taking it all the way to impeachment and attempting to remove him from office over that lie still strikes us as pretty ridiculous (far afield of the actual Whitewater land deal as it was), but we’ve definitely learned in the last five years that the Republicans don’t care so much about law as they do power. No impeachment would have been possible if Clinton had not made false statements under oath, and there is no question that he did that.

Well, now we have a real acid test for rule of law — and for our aformentioned theory about Republicans, law, and power. Our president has admitted, in front of a national audience, that he committed felonies, and that he will continue to do so. These crimes are far more serious that lies about a blow job; they strike at the heart of our system of government, and show contempt for Congressional oversight and the rule of law. He’s not saying he didn’t nail someone he shouldn’t have; he’s saying he can eavesdrop on anyone he wants without a warrant, law or no law. He’s saying the law — approved by both houses of Congress and a President — simply doesn’t apply to him.

It couldn’t be much clearer; Gonzales’ tortured reading of the Iraqi war resolution is just plain garbage, and the claims that Clinton and Carter did similar things are lies of the basest sort; the most cursory readings of the documents being selectively quoted by some on the Right makes this clear. The facts remain: there is a law covering precisely the sort of surveilance Bush wanted to do — a law enacted in response to government misconduct in the past! — and he elected to break it.

No one — repeat: NO ONE — with any principle at all can now maintain that Clinton deserved to be impeached and Bush does not. In fact, no one can argue honestly that what Bush has done does not warrant a serious investigation and, quite possibly, impeachment. This is more than party politics. Bush has violated the very Constitution that he has twice pledged to uphold, and for that he must be held accountable. Period.

Security expert Bruce Schneier examines the implications of the wiretapping scandal and the presidential power doctrine behind it — and what it means in terms of our real security. Our Founders created a system of government that included checks and balances on the power of any one branch; Bush & co. are openly contemptuous of that. Remember, this is the doctrine:

In defending this secret spying on Americans, Bush said that he relied on his constitutional powers (Article 2) and the joint resolution passed by Congress after 9/11 that led to the war in Iraq. This rationale was spelled out in a memo written by John Yoo, a White House attorney, less than two weeks after the attacks of 9/11. It’s a dense read and a terrifying piece of legal contortionism, but it basically says that the president has unlimited powers to fight terrorism. He can spy on anyone, arrest anyone, and kidnap anyone and ship him to another country … merely on the suspicion that he might be a terrorist. And according to the memo, this power lasts until there is no more terrorism in the world.

It’s a power grab, plain and simple, and one that must be slapped down with all possible speed and, if at all possible, serious consequences for those involved.

More from Bruce:

…[A]ccording to the Yoo memo, the president can define war however he chooses, and remain “at war” for as long as he chooses. This is indefinite dictatorial power. And I don’t use that term lightly; the very definition of a dictatorship is a system that puts a ruler above the law. In the weeks after 9/11, while America and the world were grieving, Bush built a legal rationale for a dictatorship. Then he immediately started using it to avoid the law. This is, fundamentally, why this issue crossed political lines in Congress. If the president can ignore laws regulating surveillance and wiretapping, why is Congress bothering to debate reauthorizing certain provisions of the Patriot Act? Any debate over laws is predicated on the belief that the executive branch will follow the law. This is not a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans; it’s a president unilaterally overriding the Fourth Amendment, Congress and the Supreme Court. Unchecked presidential power has nothing to do with how much you either love or hate George W. Bush. You have to imagine this power in the hands of the person you most don’t want to see as president, whether it be Dick Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. Laws are what give us security against the actions of the majority and the powerful. If we discard our constitutional protections against tyranny in an attempt to protect us from terrorism, we’re all less safe as a result. (Emph. mine.)

The GWB-appointed judge has given the (since ousted by voters) Dover, PA school board a serious bitch-slapping:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. StCynic

More here; PDF of decision here.

Truth, from MSNBC’s Jonathan Alter, via Atrios:

Dec. 19, 2005 – Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate — he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda — but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation. The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists — in fact, all American Muslims, period — have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab. No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story — which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year — because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.