Two Sportswriters Go To Jail, And The Rest Go Nuts

Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, the two San Franciso Chronicle reporters who blew the lid off the BALCO grand jury and further shed light on Barry Bonds' steroid use, are now facing 18 months of jail time for refusing to disclose the source of the grand jury leak...

Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada won't have to report to prison pending their appeal of Thursday's ruling, which could keep them behind bars for more than a year.

The reporters repeatedly have said they would rather go to jail than reveal how they obtained the transcripts from a grand jury that investigated the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative. The pair published a series of articles and a book based partly on the leaked testimony by Bonds, Jason Giambi and others.

"I'm supposed to keep my promises when people help me and take me at my word," Williams said in court Thursday. "I do despair for our country if we go very far down this road, because no one will talk to reporters."

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White rejected the reporters' request for simply a monetary fine, or even house arrest, saying that prison time would best compel them to testify before the grand jury investigating the leak.

"The court is hopeful that perhaps they'll reconsider their position when faced with the reality of incarceration," White said.

I admire the reporters for sticking to their principles... but the judge is also right to send them to prison for it.

The political press went through this during the Plame imbroglio. Much as the press would like to be some protected elite, they're not, particlarly in a world where just about anyone with a computer can practice some form of journalism -- not necessarily of the highest quality in every instance, but it's not like the mainstream media is flawless (see Blair, Jayson and Rather, Dan).

Of course, the press doesn't get this. Sportswriters are distraught. Check out Rick Telendar in the Chicago Sun-Times, talking about how he and many other sportswriters showed up to support their brethren...

The men's research tore the lid off the steroid abuse in major-league baseball, helping a nation understand and react to the sad fraudulence that had rooted itself like crabgrass in America's pastime.

Their reward?

Subpoenas to give up their private sources of grand-jury testimony.

The law is as gray as Williams' hair in this matter.

Never mind that in the entire BALCO investigation, no criminal had gotten more than three months of imprisonment, while Fainaru-Wada and Williams were looking at time that could dwarf that.

Never mind that President Bush had congratulated them personally for their honorable service.

Goodwill was gone.

Reasonableness had been discarded for vindictiveness.

The betterment of society had been done in for pettiness.

...Indeed, the two writers were terrified they stood alone, two working reporters against an increasingly repressive government bent on molding the press to its wishes.

In the courtroom, we sportsmen fill many of the pews, our T-shirts now stowed away out of respect for the surroundings.

I have the signatures of perhaps 200 sportswriters and editors who can't be here.

But as the judge and prosecutors drone on in their dry and stilted legalese, it is hard not to wonder if any of this means anything to these automatons.

Increasingly repressive government? Ye Gods, were these guys writing in Venezuala or something? If you think that's bad, check out Mike Lupica's screed a couple days ago, before the sentencing...

Ours is a government that is much better at wars against the press and the First Amendment than it is with a war like the one in Iraq. Ours is a government that now thinks it can convene a grand jury to get anything it wants out of reporters, starting with their confidential sources. But then if you ran a country the way the current administration does, turning this into an America in which the government's version of things is the only one that is supposed to matter, you'd want to shut down investigative reporting and scare off whistleblowers, too.

...Fainaru-Wada and Williams became the heroes of a story that began with an IRS raid on what was then a little-known Bay Area company called BALCO. They did not deal in the kind of half-truths that this administration used to send us into war in Iraq. Fainaru-Wada and Williams told us the truth. That has become a risky business, though, in George Bush's America.

... No, it is just Bush's America, where the people in charge think that if they tell a lie often enough it eventually becomes the truth. And in Bush's America, there is no longer any balancing test of any kind, no determination that if some information is leaked, even out of a grand jury, it might be more valuable than punishing the person who leaked it. It is a disgrace.

The same Republican yahoos, the ones who want us to believe they are so vigilant about individual rights, the ones constantly screaming about states' rights, now let the feds trample California's shield law for reporters - one on the books to protect people like Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams - because Fainaru-Wada and Williams won't tell them who leaked information out of the BALCO grand jury.

The government says: If you don't tell us who leaked you grand jury testimony - from (alleged) drug cheats like Bonds and Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield - we will convene another one and use it to send you straight to jail.

Jeez, the points sort of get lost in the proseletyzing (I missed where steroid use was linked to the Iraq war, but I should probably be grateful Lupica didn't link it to Abu Ghraib), but I think I figured out Lupica's points. First, Bush is bad. Second, these reporters are decent, honorable men. Third, who cares that their course broke the law, because a greater truth emerged?

Let me start by noting that I generally like both Telendar and Lupica's columns -- they're pretty good writers and damn good reporters. But in this case, they're so full of themselves (particularly Lupica) that "insufferable" might not be sufficient as an adjective.

Going back to Lupica's three points of emphasis, I'll just address the third (I think I address the first one pretty regularly). Lupica thinks the information leaked is more important than the little law that was broken in leaking that information. So much so that he seems to believe the prosecutors are abusing their discretion in going after the leaker here.

But as a lawyer, I disagree. If someone's leaking grand jury testimony in a case like this, what's to stop them from doing the same in another case? And why should I trust their judgment on what information is important? Sorry, but this argument doesn't wash with me. But better yet, they can make that argument to a jury of their peers if they wish, when they're tried for the crime they committed.

As a lawyer, I'm obligated to keep client confidences, even if I learn that a client may be doing something morally repugnant. In almost every instance, I can't reveal the information, even if it is for the betterment of society. If I choose to do so, then I have to pay a price -- I may better society, but I will likely lose my job, my profession and potentially my freedom. If confronted with such a choice, I need to make a decision. The same is true for the two reporters here -- they can stick their guns and keep their source confidential, but the law can punish them for doing so. It may be admirable, but it's still illegal.

And as for protecting reporters under a shield law (as Wright Thompson at ESPN advocated and Congress is currently debating), I don't want a bunch of demi-gods running around pretending that they're exempt from the rules by virtue of some special status (yes, I know I belong to another class of demi-gods called lawyers, but we'll discuss that another time). Frankly, I don't know how you limit that status to a few -- as noted earlier, there's an increasingly large number of people who consider themselves journalists, and the First Amendment does protect their right to practice it (which differs from the law).

The lesson of this case is not that the government is trying to chill free speech or a free press. There are really two lessons here. First, no one's above the law. Second, if you are a reporter, you can put information in the public sphere and promise never to reveal the source, but that promise is one the law does not have to respect. Nor should it.

What Annoying Song is Stuck in My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

Yes, everyone's favorite feature is back. Better yet, with YouTube, I can now torment you with video as well.

And this song's been running through my head for weeks now. I do actually enjoy it, but still, it's time to share. Besides, any group with a name like Panic! At The Disco needs more publicity. So here's the video for I Write Sins Not Tragedies...

No Left Wing Bias To See Here, Part 901

Gotta love the left-wing dishrag, publisher of all the news that's fit to print, so long as it can be misinterpreted and manipulated first. It's been awhile since I've had a chance to chop up the Times, but it's good to see others taking up the cause.

Here's the first two paragraphs from Adam Nagourney's article regarding the polling numbers for Congress, titled "Only 25% in poll Approve of Congress"...

With barely seven weeks until the midterm elections, Americans have an overwhelmingly negative view of the Republican-controlled Congress, with substantial majorities saying that they disapprove of the job it is doing and that its members do not deserve re-election, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The disdain for Congress is as intense as it has been since 1994, when Republicans captured 52 seats to end 40 years of Democratic control of the House and retook the Senate as well. It underlines the challenge the Republican Party faces in trying to hold on to power in the face of a surge in anti-incumbent sentiment.

Wow, I guess GOP staffers on the Hill might want to start looking for new jobs. Unless they choose to read a few paragraphs further down...

What is more, it seems highly unlikely Democrats will experience a sweep similar to the one Republicans experienced in 1994. Most analysts judge only about 40 House seats to be in play at the moment, compared with over 100 seats in play at this point 12 years ago, in large part because redistricting has created more safe seats for both parties.

Hey, maybe Nagourney's not really trying to do anything misleading. After all, it's not like his numbers are misleading in any way. Wait -- maybe they are. Dean Barnett notes the following...

Naturally, this being a Nagourney write-up of a New York Times poll, it contains a predictable casual falsehood. In June of 1996, a scant 19% of Americans approved of Congress. That would seem to be more disdainful than the current 25% approval, and it would also seem to be “since 1994.”

...As far as the larger point is concerned, the Republican congress in 1996 spent the entire year bopping along with poll results similar to the current Congress’. Oddly, the fact that those polls failed to produce a Democratic tsunami escapes Nagourney’s highly trained reporter’s eye.

If they had produced any sort of tsunami, Nagourney would have noticed, because Al Gore would have blamed global warming. Mickey Kaus has more...

For a top-tier reporter, Nagourney's surprisingly weak in the deceptive-but-not-inaccurate ass-covering billboard hype-sentence-construction aspect of his job. .... I'd add that Nagourney flatly says "Bush had not improved his own or his party's standing through his intense campaign of speeches"--this before noting that a) the percentage of Americans who approve of his Iraq policy had increased (30 to 36%), and b) the "number of people who called terrorism [a rare GOP-leaning issue] the most important issue facing the country doubled." Not a huge turnaround, but not "not improved" either.

(hat tip: Instapundit) Tom McGuire and McQ have even more fun with Nagourney, particularly Maguire.

To be fair, I think I've noticed something -- Nagourney effectively sees no difference between 6 percentage points in Bush's approval rating on Iraq, as Kaus noted. He also sees no difference between Congress' 25% approval rating this year and the 19% approval rating in 1994 -- again, 6 points. Maybe reporters at the dishrag are simply bad with small numbers. They better learn, considering newspaper circulation numbers generally.

The Virginia Senate Race and the Ugly Nature of the Mainstream Press

First off, before I begin -- I'm a supporter of Senator George Allen. I don't know if he's a future President, but he's one heck of a good Senator and represents my state very well. I have contributed money to his campaigns in the past and continue to do so today.

And I'm utterly disgusted by the mainstream media for their coverage of the Allen-Webb race.

Let's start with background here -- if you're not already aware of it, Allen got into trouble last month when he referred to a young Indian-American staffer for his opponent by the term "macaca." Being Indian-American myself, I'd never heard the term before (and trust me, I've been subjected to racial taunts that are stunningly creative... and not so creative, like "Slurpee jockey"). Apparently it's been decided that this constitutes a racial insult (we'll discuss who's injecting race into the story in a minute).

My view is that it was a dumb comment by Allen, but I tend to believe that he has no idea what macaca means -- he was looking for a short-hand way to mock the guy working for the other campaign, and picked a term he'd heard somewhere or made one up. It's stupid and a case of bad judgment, but we tend to forgive politicians for bad judgment in this country -- if we can forgive a guy for playing hide the cigar with an intern while he's the subject of a sexual harassment suit, we should be able to forgive someone for trying to call someone else a moron and using a term some people find offensive.

When the story first happened, I didn't pay much attention. But reading it now, I see the following point within the article...

Asked what macaca means, Allen said: "I don't know what it means." He said the word sounds similar to "mohawk," a term that his campaign staff had nicknamed Sidarth because of his haircut. Sidarth said his hairstyle is a mullet -- tight on top, long in the back.

Allen said that by the comment welcoming him to America, he meant: "Just to the real world. Get outside the Beltway and get to the real world."

But the apology, which came hours after Allen's campaign manager dismissed the issue with an expletive and insisted the senator has "nothing to apologize for," did little to mollify Webb's campaign or Sidarth, who said he suspects Allen singled him out because his was the only nonwhite face among about 100 Republican supporters.

Leave aside the lack of taste for anyone to be wearing a mullet who doesn't play hockey (granted, that's probably an unfair generalization -- Sidarth may play hockey, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't do it professionally, and mullets are best left to Canadians in the NHL who know what they're doing). But I find it interesting that this guy decides the reason he's singled out is because he's the only nonwhite in the room. Maybe the reason he's being singled out was because he's the guy working for Allen's opponent?

This is the sort of hyper-sensitivity that drives me nuts, and I'm a minority. If you're the only non-white guy in the room, believe it or not, you're (a) not the center of attention and (b) not being subjected to stares by every white person in the room. As someone who's been in countless gatherings where I'm the only non-white person, I've come to the conclusion that the only reason 99% of the white people might look at me a moment longer than expected stems from a wish that they had a tan like mine. Or that they're glad that they have better hair than me.

Getting away from that... this controversy was bound to have some legs, since Allen is running in Virginia and the national media is nearby in DC (granted, thanks to the traffic on I-66, they may be several hours away). Allen and Webb had a debate in Tyson's Corner Monday night, not far from my home. And here's the opening question from Peggy Fox of WUSA-TV...

Senator Allen, you have said several times that you made up the word macaca when referring to S.R. Sidarth, the young man of Indian heritage born and raised in Fairfax County who attends your alma mater. But word is a racial slur in French-influenced African nations, most notably Tunisia. Your mother's Tunisian--are you sure you never heard the word and if you were just making up a name, to call Sidarth, why not just call him John, something that--rather than something that sounds derogatory. Was it because he looked different?

Let me state this categorically -- if some reporter or anyone else decided to call my mother a racist, which is basically what I read into this question, I'd probably step down off the podium and ask them to step outside. That's probably why I'm not a politician. Allen handled it much better, as you can see from this part of his answer...

I hope you're not trying to bring my mother into this matter. I have said, and I'll say it once again, I made a mistake. It was a thoughtless moment. I have apologized for it, as well I should. I had never heard that word before, from my mother or from anyone else. If I had any idea that in some parts of the world, for some cultures, that this would be an insult, I would never use that word, because that's not who I am, that's not how I was raised, it's not what I believe in.

Whether it was from my father's football teams, where he had people from all different parts of the country and different backgrounds--you don't care about, on football teams or on sports teams what someone's race or religion is or ethnicity is, all you care about is whether they can help the team compete and succeed. And that's the meritocracy that we should aspire to in our country. And if there's one lesson that I learned more than from anyone else it was my mother, whose father was incarcerated by the Nazis in World War II. And of all people in my life who told me about tolerance and not judging people by their religious beliefs or their ethnicity or their race, it is my mother.

Basically, Allen is telling Fox, in a gentlemanly way, "Don't bring my mom into this." And I think this is a country where most of understand that sentiment, for two reasons. First, most of us love our parents, and making fun of someone's parents, particularly their mother, constitute fighting words. Second, as a more important matter, we're a country where we're not judged according to the characters and actions of our parents, but our own character and actions. Trying to ascribe guilt to someone because of the sins (whether real or fabricated) of their parents or ancestors is un-American. In this country, we want people to be able to make their own way in life, whether they're the son of a President or the son of a convict (whether that happens is a different issue).

All of this makes Allen's response to Fox's unseemly question the right one. And it leaves me stunned at the follow up question...

Following the macaca episode, the Jewish press published a story on the internet that explored your possible Jewish ancestry on your mother's side. You've been quoted as saying your mother's not Jewish, but it had been reported her father, your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forbearers include Jews, and if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?

Seriously, what the hell was Fox thinking????

The audience started booing, and I don't blame them one bit. This is probably the result of poor phrasing on her part, but that last question almost sounds like something coming out a World War II movie. It almost sounds like she wants Allen to tell her what percentage of his blood is Jewish.

Someone needs to explain to me why it's relevant that Allen might have ancestors who were Jewish. On any level, this question is offensive, ridiculous in the extreme and thoughtless. It reminds me of John Kerry's reference to Dick Cheney's daughter during the third Presidential debate, which Kerry spokesperson Mary Beth Cahill characterized as "fair game." Theoretically, at least, Kerry's reference was relevant to answering a question about gay marriage, even though it was unseemly and dead wrong.

Is this a big issue on which the Senate campaign should turn? No, and neither is the flap over macaca (I still have no clue how to spell that word). But the Washington Post has now run two days of articles about this story, with a page 2 story Tuesday and a front page piece today. There are some who wonder if this hurts the Allen campaign, since some reports characterized him as defensive about his grandfather's background (the video of the debate and the transcript contradict that in my opinion). But I'm betting that this issue hurts Jim Webb, Allen's opponent, because it transforms Allen from some sort of closet racist into a bit of a victim.

Put it this way -- if and when I have a son someday, let's say he runs for political office. There's a chance he could be asked a similar question, since he would be coming from a mixed-race background that also includes three major religions. I'm hoping he'd be just as indignant about being asked to explain when his bloodline stopped being Hindu or Jewish or Catholic or whatever.

And Allen's statement nails the point...

"The notion peddled by the [James] Webb campaign that I am somehow embarrassed by my heritage is equally offensive, and also absurd.

"I was raised as a Christian and my mother was raised as a Christian. And I embrace and take great pride in every aspect of my diverse heritage, including my Lumbroso family line's Jewish heritage, which I learned about from a recent magazine article and my mother confirmed.

..."Some may find it odd that I have not probed deeply into the details of my family history, but it's a fact. We in the Allen household were simply taught that what matters is a person's character, integrity, effort, and performance -- not race, gender, ethnicity or religion. And so whenever we would ask my mother through the years about our family background on her side, the answer always was, 'Who cares about that?'

I wish this would shame the mainstream media. But I tend to doubt it.

The Pope and Islam

I haven't blogged on the Pope's recent comments about Islam. But Jim Geraghty captured my point of view perfectly...

The Pope’s comments, quoting one of a historical figure's (I had previously, erroneously, said one of his predecessors) negative view of Islam – was honestly, just a nicer version of what’s being said in lots of circles around the world; endless variations of, “Wow, these folks are nuts.” It’s mean, it’s insensitive, it’s a broad generalization – but it is what is being said, all around dinner tables, barstools, and office water coolers around the globe.

I recall noting during the Danish cartoon riots that the most angry and extreme voices in the Muslim world were claiming that their blasphemy laws – and their fatal punishments – apply to those of us who are not the Muslim faith. Now they’re contending that the Pope – the head of an entirely different religion – is forbidden from criticizing their faith. In fact, he's forbidden from quoting a predecessor's criticism of their faith.

Look, I have a hard truth for a lot of religious believers around the world: No matter what you believe, there are people out there who think your faith is nonsense. If you’re Jewish, there are people out there who think you’re the pushy, nosy embodiment of Kyle’s mom from South Park. If you’re Christian, there are people who think you’re naïve, intolerant snake-handlers who lack critical thinking skills and are obsessed with and simultaneously terrified by sex. (We call these people “New York Times editors.”) If you’re Muslim, I hate to break it to you, but somebody out there thinks that there is a God not named Allah, and that Mohammed was not a divinely inspired prophet. And there are a lot of people out there who think all religions are baseless superstitions.

There are people who don’t share your faith, who don’t like your faith, who mock and criticize your faith, and you’re going to have to learn to live with it. Christians and Jews have largely learned to deal with this.

Sure, when somebody in Hollywood thinks they can earn a reputation for being “brave” or “edgy” by mocking Christianity or Catholicism, it rankles at me. (Occasionally, somebody will make fun of certain Christians’ tendencies for holier-than-thou or eager-to-judge attitudes - I’m thinking of Dana Carvey’s Church Lady – that stings a bit from a bit of accuracy.) But largely, the jokes cross over into bashing, or a cheap, easy, “boy, aren’t these-Bible-thumpers stupid” attitude.

But as much as it bothers other Christians or myself, the snide types have a right to that attitude. They’ve got a right to look at a faith and find it meaningless. They’ve got a right to say, “I don’t think that faith is divine, I think it’s all mumbo-jumbo” and tell mean jokes and not fear for their lives.

Something I've never understood -- if you've got the one true answer, and other people are mocking it, shouldn't you just feel sorry for them? Aren't they all effectively headed to hell?

In the end, Islam is probably going through a maturity process that Christianity and Judaism have already undertaken (sort of like when Peter Brady's voice changed... okay, not really, but I needed to throw in that reference). The problem is that the violence-loving perverters of that faith have the capacity and ability to cause untold damage in today's world.

It's not a unique problem historically in nature, but it is in the potential impact. The nice thing is that we're going to win eventually. The bad news is that the short term costs may be greater than anyone wants to acknowledge.

That's Entertainment

The best thing about returning to blogging is that I will now be reading other blogs as well. Wojr is a good example, since he's busy praising Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, NBC's new series that (as I understand it) basically shows the behind the scenes story at a fictional show modeled on Saturday Night Live. Apparently, while Wojr enjoys the show, our mutual friend Bronc has opted to avoid the show, swearing off the liberal pablum from Hollywood.

Wojr, if it makes you feel better, this (somewhat) known conservative will probably watch it tonight (the wife Tivo'ed it yesterday, and I'll probably end up watching it after House this evening).

If it makes Bronc feel better, I expect this show to eventually devolve into the same pseudo-liberal fantasy world we saw on West Wing starting in Season 2, but it may take longer, since it's more difficult to openly project politics into a comedy show.

Jokes aside, most of the entertainment I watch is created by pinko liberals (or Scientologists). That doesn't make it less entertaining, if it's entertaining. I thoroughly enjoy both House and Lost, and I'm betting there are plenty of liberals on the writing staff for both shows. Ditto The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (although the hosts of both have gotten to be ridiculously smug in interviews outside the show, which is annoying at best and self-important preening at worst). The biggest problem with the latter two is that they may be the most intelligent commentary we hear from the Left on most issues. Seeing liberals cite to comedy shows is often painful. It's sort of like me citing to Pat Robertson -- and while there are plenty of conservatives who do that, I tend to avoid it ( mostly since I don't want to misquote someone who can leg press 2000 pounds). But that's a different point for a different day.

The truth is, this stuff is funny (or dramatic) and good writing can be at odds with one's ideology or personal beliefs and still constitute entertainment. It's when the writing starts to reek of the writers' personal viewpoint to the detriment of the entertainment value (see any recent episodes of Law and Order) that they start to lose me.

It is frustrating when I know my talents as a writer far surpass most of the crap that passes muster for the entertainment industry (I know, I'm very modest). Instead, I'm writing legal treatises that can cure insomnia. The better question is why Wojr isn't writing television sitcoms -- I'm pretty sure there's a ratings winner lurking in our collective college past.

Update: Wojr has now noted my return appropriately. And quoted Hudson Hawk while doing so.

Wow! Free Markets Work!

Remember how everyone was suspicious when the price of gas climbed suddenly? I keep expecting everyone to begin complaining about low gas prices and sudden fluctuations in price (somewhere, the Lord of Truth is laughing). USA Today noted that the price of gas is down over the past month. Of course, empirical proof that markets work can't be the reason, at least according to some people:

A hefty 42% of Americans polled over the weekend said they think fuel prices are being manipulated by the Bush administration to help Republicans in an election year. The USA TODAY/Gallup Poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Petroleum analysts say the reasons are less Machiavellian: Supplies are above average, partly because summer's high prices attracted record imports. Hurricanes haven't knocked out Gulf of Mexico production. U.S. regulations permit a cheaper-to-make fuel blend in fall and winter.

“Without a shadow of a doubt, there is not any manipulation, and it has nothing to do with the approaching election,” says Peter Beutel, head of energy-price consultant Cameron Hanover. The petroleum market is “too big a market to manipulate. The price just … could not sustain itself.”

As it happens, I was at the Wawa in Gainesville, Virginia (which was mentioned in the article) on my way back from a wedding on Saturday night. Gas was actually down to a $1.97 by the time we stopped there, although the article said it was at $1.99. But to keep the conspiracy theorists happy, I think I did see Republican operatives paying off my Indian brethren who owns the store to keep lowering the price.

I also grabbed myself a Wawa hoagie and a vanilla milkshake. Sometimes, you don't realize what you're missing. Someone needs to explain to me why I don't have a Wawa anywhere within the Beltway.