There were two 18th inning baseball games on last night, both home teams lost, and both involved divisional rivals. Cubs/Houston, Arizona/Colorado. Houston lost again today -- 1-0, a solo homer ruing Pettite's compelete game lost vs. a call-up who replaced the scheduled starter, who pitched the last two innings of the game earlier that day. The Astros were swept, even with their best starters on the mound. Their hitting was again pretty subpar, ending with 21 shutout innings.
Since I have WGN, but not YES (Yankees), I had the chance to catch parts of the former game, which involved the Astros repeatedly getting men on -- including bases loaded with no one out -- in extra innings, but never getting to the promised land. This was apiece with being down 5-2, coming back 6-5 (thus, though pissed when he left, Clemens was on the way to a win), but blowing it in the 9th. The starter and loser of the game went sixth innings, but were not the same person. And, the Cubs used every player -- two starters pitching in relief (most of the staff these days is relief quality), two used as pitch hitters. Nice sense of completion there.
Meanwhile, also in baseball news, the two reporters key in bringing to light the BALCO scandal involving steroid use in baseball are in trouble. The feds wants them to testify to the grand jury respecting their sources, the jury concerned with invasion of the sanction of the grand jury (leaks a common occurence) as well as perjury (very hard to prove) and obstruction of justice (related in part to the grand jury leaks). Barry Bonds' trainer also doesn't want to testify, though he doesn't quite have similar First Amendment concerns on his side. He might serve as something of an alterative source for some of the information, but the feds say they are at their wits end. The reporters' testimony is essential.
The feds have pushed for more press testimony and release of materials of late. The Plame matter is but the most well known. The cases are still generally few in number, but along with everything else (things like threatening reporters with prison for reporting the news, use of them as paid proganda agents, increasing fines to protect the nation from Janet Jackson's nipples, and so forth*), it is troubling. Thus, some see a need for a federal shield law, which would just put the nation on par with forty-nine states ... though the breadth of the privilege depends on the particular locale.
Anyway, arguably, federal judges already have discretion to formulate a common law privilege. Judge Tatel in the Plame case so argued, but noted public interest would not merit it in that case. His fellow judges were distressed at such balancing, but privileges rarely are absolute. Thus, even such things such as attorney-client privilege has limits, especially when particularly dangerous clients are involved. And, simply put, the BALCO reporters can be differentiated from the Plame duo. Not only did they actually report the newsworthy information -- Rove et. al. as sources even as the President's mouthpiece firmly said otherwise etc. -- the nature of the desired information is different. This simply is not on par with outing CIA agents and their covers by top executive officials.
The public interest in forcing the reporters to testify also is unclear. Such action could very well help temper the will of others to be as forthright in their reporting. Some think this an overblown claim, but secrecy is an important aspect of various privileged relationships. This is so even though the relationships suddenly won't collapse if the secrecy is not so honored. Thus, a firm protection of the Fourth Amendment is not always necessary to protect the privacy of the home ... privacy survives limitations. But, we are a bit greedy with our freedoms. We want more than "some" protection. And, when we limit it, we want to make sure it is for a very good reason. The good the reporters did here should be taken into consideration. Their discretion clearly furthered the public good.
I guess, bottom line, one can say that prosecution of the law is fundamental so the reporters here should testify. After all, many shield laws are not absolute either. [The grand jury testimony deal is not either in the sense that federal prosecutorial policy is to do so only when necessary ... and the rules are somewhat different during the petit jury stage, at least depending on what federal circuit you are in.] Thus, even with a federal shield law, the Plame "reporters" very well might have not been protected. But, at best, the BALCO prosecution is a tough case. It might be a good time to try again in the courts, this time in the Ninth Circuit, especially given the more sympathetic factual details.
Anyway, bottom line, Bonds is an ass. This doesn't mean I want to harm the two reporters here to jail it.