Journalists Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada reported some of the testimony leaked from a grand jury investigation into the use of steroids by professional athletes. As TalkLeft noted here, the reporters adhered to their promise of confidentiality when prosecutors asked them to reveal their source, and again when a judge ordered them to answer. The judge held them in contempt.

In a brief filed yesterday, the San Francisco Chronicle argued in favor of a reporter's privilege:

"Confidentiality is essential for the reporters to sustain the relationships they need with sources and to obtain sensitive information from them," Jonathan Donnellan, a lawyer for the newspaper and reporters, said in the court filing. "Without it, the press cannot effectively serve the public by keeping it informed."

It doesn't pay to party in Macomb County, Georgia Michigan.

In what her father called "outrageous" and her attorney called "ridiculous," a 23-year-old Eastpointe woman was sentenced to 30 days in jail and highly restrictive probation conditions after being given a misdemeanor ticket for excessive noise at her house.

Some neighborhood residents signed a petition complaining about Carmen Granata's parties, but Granata says her immediate neighbors support her, and her father notes that the person who circulated the petition has a pattern of complaining about his neighbors. Whatever Granata's neighbors may think, jail is an obscene response to a loud party. Granata thought the charge wasn't a big deal, and she should have been right.

The sentence, tougher than many defendants in Macomb County receive for a first felony conviction, came after Granata pleaded guilty to violating the ordinance. Granata, who did not have an attorney, had been told by a city attorney that she likely would be fined a minimal amount if she pleaded guilty, according to her father, Joe Granata.

TalkLeft wrote here about the phenomenon of "contagious shooting." In an excellent essay, "Breathing While Black," Christopher Rabb argues that "contagious shooting" is "symptomatic of something larger that undoubtedly correlates to when such contagions most often occur and to what degree": institutional racism.

It's almost sunset here in Key West. Incredible weather, great company. I'm sitting at the dock of the bay on the Gulf of Mexico, 100 yards from the Atlantic Ocean. We're hoping to see the Green Flash.

Here's an open thread for you.

The Constitution prohibits any religious test for public office and forbids the establishment of an official religion, making this proposal the stupidest idea of the week:

The American Family Association, a nonprofit organization that focuses on the news media's influence on society, has entered the fray, calling on people to ask members of Congress to pass a law that would make the Bible the only book that could be used during swearing-in ceremonies.

Some are upset because Keith Ellison, a Muslim who is newly-elected to Congress, might hold the Quran in his hand when he takes his oath of office. These are the same people who insist the United States is a Christian nation, when in truth it is a religiously diverse nation.

Whether Ellison holds one of the many versions of the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, or the most recent Playboy magazine is his business. That's what freedom (including religious freedom) is all about. Why does the AFA hate our freedoms?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's website has a link to the affidavit and search warrant in the search that led to the death of Kathryn Johnston on November 21st, previously posted here.

The no-knock provision was based on the alleged surveillance cameras that the informant reported to the police which showed up in the affidavit. (No surveillance cameras or monitors were found.) The affidavit for the search warrant also described the house as having a wheelchair ramp in the front. The latter would seem to be a tip off to the police that there was somebody else in the house besides the alleged drug dealer, if they had bothered to investigate.

CNETnews.com has this article by By Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache: FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool.  Brave new eavesdropping via a cellphone that is not even turned on:

USA Today on Friday had, via AP, an article about the controversial body scanner with "backscatter" technology that graphically reveals everything about your body, in an effort to see what an airline passenger may be carrying on his or her body.  Don't want to be seen nude on a computer screen?  Then you can be subjected to a patdown instead.

Via Federal Defender David Beneman in Maine:

New Federal Rules take effect December 1, 2006.

Criminal Rules 5, 6, 32.1, 40, 41, and 58.

Evidence Rules 404, 408, 606, and 609.

Appellate Rule 25 and new Appellate Rule 32.1

Criminal Rules:

The ACLU (received by e-mail, on line link should be here later) brings our attention to a new Government program in the works called the Automated Tracking System:

The American Civil Liberties Union today condemned an unprecedented new program for generating terrorist ratings on tens of millions of travelers, including American citizens, maintaining those ratings for 40 years, and making them available throughout the government.

"Never before in American history has our government gotten into the business of creating mass 'risk assessment' ratings of its own citizens," said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project. "That is a radical new step with far-reaching implications - but one that has been taken almost thoughtlessly by expanding a cargo-tracking system to incorporate human beings, and with little public notice, discussion, or debate."

Originally intended for cargo, it's now going to be applied to people, and scheduled to be implemented December 4.

Update: It also tracks what travellers eat.

It's official. House speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has named former Border Patrol agent and current Congressman Silvestre Reyes to head the House Intelligence Committee.

What's his background?

Known as "Silver" to friends, Reyes was drafted into the Army and served during 1966-68 as a helicopter crew chief and gunner. His service included 13 months in Vietnam.

He rose through the ranks during 26 years of service in the Border Patrol, leaving as a senior law enforcement official in Texas in 1995. He won his seat in Congress the next year.

What will the agenda be?

Bob Somerby does excellent though sometimes he goes off the rails. But his column today is Grade A, as he explains in clear detail how our Media simply fails at its job. This time he discusses Margaret Carlson's latest travesty in discussing Al Gore and the 2000 election:

There are no words, except bad words, to describe this new column by Margaret Carlson . . . [She] muses about the lessons we can learn from the events of Campaign 2000. And omigod! Even today—even after Iraq—Carlson simply refuses to stop. Her cohort is shameless beyond all compare. They’re disgraceful, like those who enable them:

CARLSON: George W. Bush's win (if that's what it was) over then-Vice President Al Gore was attributed in part to style. Gore took every opportunity to lecture voters on how a bill becomes a law. He even invoked the “Norwood-Dingell” patients' bill of rights legislation in a debate to show how much his 24 years of government experience mattered versus his opponent's five.

Even today—even after their conduct has led to Iraq—these people are determined not to stop. In the first paragraph quoted above, Carlson refers to the third Bush-Gore debate, the “town hall forum” held in St. Louis on October 17, 2000.

Question: Did Gore mention the Dingell-Norwood bill “to show how much his 24 years of government experience mattered versus his opponent's five?” Did he mention this bill because he “took every opportunity to lecture voters on how a bill becomes a law?” Yes, that’s what the laughable fellow did—if you live in the fictionalized world of a moral disgrace like Carlson. In the real world, though, a different reason intrudes; Gore mentioned Dingell-Norwood (not “Norwood-Dingell”) for a good and obvious reason. Bush had been saying that he supported a “patients bill of rights” too; Gore wanted to show that Bush was supporting a weak bill, one that was favored by industry.