Author: Tony

I hate the tiny screen of MLB.tv.

I’m beating Major League Baseball’s anti-fan deal with DirecTV repeatedly, but it keeps providing fodder.

In Demand president Rob Jacobson, whose company is owned by affiliates of the companies that own Time Warner, Comcast and Cox cable systems, offered to carry the package on the same terms that DirecTV is for the next two seasons while putting off the issue of The Baseball Channel until it launches.

“This would ensure that for the next two years at least, all baseball fans would have access to the `Extra Innings’ package,” he said. “If we’re unable to reach an agreement when the channel launches, we’d give baseball the right to cancel the `Extra Innings’ deal. We think this is a fair compromise.”

[Sen. John] Kerry, trying to play the role of mediator, got behind the effort.

“What’s the matter with that?” he asked Bob DuPuy, baseball’s chief operating officer.

That’s a valid question, but only coming from a fan. [And I’m asking it: what’s the matter with that? – ed.] Congress, in its official duties, should not be determining the specifics of business deals in the private market. I know baseball and television aren’t fully private markets the way a corner store and a candy producer would be, but they should be.

“When fans react, Congress reacts,” [Sen. Arlen] Specter said. “You may be well advised to act before we do.”

Sen. Specter’s first statement is wrong because it amounts to nothing more than mob rule. He’s parading it as democracy, but we’re talking about the same beast. I’m angry about the deal. Still, it’s not something I expect my congressman to address. Sen. Specter’s concern may be correct. His actions are not.

Which gets to his second sentence. Stop threatening. Act or shut up. I’ve already stated that Major League Baseball should not have antitrust exemption. As long as it exists, though, dictate. That way everyone understands the true nature of the deal. Instead, we get blabber about the interests of consumers until someone inevitably steps up with cash or politicians back down without dignity. It’s tiresome.

I still hold out hope that a deal will get done. I can’t fight the fear that Major League Baseball only offered the Extra Innings deal to cable and Dish Network as a front to later pass blame on an outside party for not meeting the terms. I despise Bud Selig.

Informed, educational thoughts on antitrust absurdity at A Stitch in Haste.

The parallels are spooky.

As I stated when this story first appeared, the need to continually challenge assumptions is critical in any scientific endeavor.

Propping open clogged arteries with a tiny wire mesh tube called a stent is no better at reducing the risk of heart attack or death in patients with stable heart disease than treatment with medications, according to a large new study that challenges routine use of a procedure that rapidly became standard medical practice.
…

The researchers and others stressed that angioplasty clearly benefits patients who are in the throes of a heart attack or are at very high risk for one. But the findings indicate that for a patient whose condition is stable, medical therapy is just as effective at reducing the major risks. Such patients constitute at least one-third of those undergoing the 1.2 million angioplasties performed each year, and perhaps as much as 85 percent.

I’ll be interested to see if Americans switch from surgery to medicine. I wonder if we’ll see doctors continue to recommend surgery for male patients, while offering medicine to female patients. It hasn’t worked with circumcision and UTIs, so why should it be any different with heart surgery. That’s more important. Are we willing to trust aspirin on our fathers when we can’t trust antibiotics on our sons?

The findings underscore the danger of rushing to adopt a procedure before careful studies have been conducted to fully determine its benefits, Boden and others said.

“There was just this intuitive belief that it would be beneficial,” Boden said. “But no one had ever done a proper randomized trial to see whether it actually improved outcomes. In the meantime, a whole industry has been created around this.”

… this intuitive belief that it would be beneficial. It’s hard to believe that’s not enough. Hard to believe, indeed.

New meaning to “elective” surgery.

Does this sound like it’s based on principle or politics?

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was part of the last significant effort to overhaul the system during her husband’s administration. That attempt failed, but the Democratic candidates said Saturday that the conditions exist to push for dramatic change.

But Clinton warned that getting there would still be difficult. “We don’t just need candidates to have a plan,” she said. “All of them have plans. We need a movement. We need people to make this the number one voting issue in the ’08 election.”

At least Sen. Obama had the decency to speak of “the need to solve the problem now,” although I’m sure his solution will involve the kind of theft proposed by John Edwards. Instead, Sen. Clinton made a transparent plea about getting elected above any need to debate the merits of this “problem.”

I can’t imagine any of these candidates getting my vote in 2008.

There’s no crying in baseball government.

Am I supposed to feel sympathy for Harford County, Maryland because it financed a baseball stadium and is now losing money?

Ripken Stadium was meant to give the city a boost. Instead, the city with an annual budget of $16 million loses hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Mayor S. Fred Simmons has talked to several potential buyers but he said the most promising involve hometown hero Cal Ripken Jr. He owns the Aberdeen Iron Birds, the team that plays in the stadium, and a youth baseball operation nearby.

The original solution was flawed. The city should not have financed the stadium. Minor league baseball stadiums are not a public good. This is not a difficult concept. Yet, here we are:

The team pays $1 a year to use the stadium and keeps almost all the money generated from games.

One dollar. The owes on almost $5 million in bonds for the stadium, with the tax shortfall costing the city up to $485,000 a year in losses. The basic proposition should be easy to see. When built, would the stadium generate the revenue necessary to pay the debt? If yes, Mr. Ripken should been forced to build the stadium if he wanted it. If not, he wouldn’t have built it because it wouldn’t be a productive use of his capital. Notice that the city is involved in no part of that. Instead, the city played central planner and sticks its citizens, both baseball attending and non-baseball attending alike, with the bill.

“The deal they made with the Ripken thing is one of the worst deals they ever made, and now they expect the taxpayers of Aberdeen to pay for their ineptness,” said state Sen. Nancy Jacobs, a Harford County Republican. “That was a terrible deal, for very little return. It could’ve been a gold mine.”

Actually, the city is suggesting a tax on hotel rooms, so it expects visitors to the city to pay for its ineptness. But the more annoying problem is Sen. Jacobs’ contention that the deal could’ve been a gold mine. Government is not in the business of earning a “gold mine”. It has essential duties, and that’s it. Instead, city officials wanted in with professional baseball (and probably a bit of interaction with Cal Riplen, Jr.). It played with taxpayer money, and in an unsurprising twist, it lost.

This would be a valuable lesson if I thought the government, any government, would learn.

Is previous monopoly power to blame?

I have no opinion on this ruling’s merits, but I am mildly concerned.

A federal judge [last week] dealt a potentially fatal blow to Vonage Holdings, the Internet-phone service that offers one of the few alternatives to traditional carriers, by ordering it to stop using a technology that connects its network to the public telephone system.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton approved the request by Verizon Communications for a permanent injunction two weeks after a jury in Alexandria found that three of its patents had been infringed by Vonage, including one for the technology allowing the Internet company’s 2.2 million customers to call regular phones.

I don’t have the intellectual hissy fit that many libertarians have about intellectual property protections. I think they’re necessary and appropriate in capitalism. Intellectual property has subjective but identifiable value, much like other forms of property. If Verizon innovated a technology, to an extent, it should be able to reap the benefits of that.

That said, I’m a Vonage customer. I like its service. I refuse to pay Verizon’s prices, which I deem absurdly high. If Verizon wins through the appeals process and decides against licensing its technology to Vonage in favor of forcing voice-over-Internet protocol companies out of business, I will not become a Verizon customer. I suspect many VoIP customers feel the same. I have a cell phone, which will be enough. Frustrating, but enough.

If it ultimately wins, this should be an opportunity for Verizon to figure out that it can earn an additional revenue stream if it doesn’t kill the golden goose. The mere existence of VoIP should tell it that it’s been passed. Will it listen?

Giving him a dollar is as likely to make him a millionaire.

Anything to make parents feel better is logical, I guess.

Even though the studies (and circumcisions) were performed on grown men, the study results are relevant to baby circumcisions since the biology is the same — presence of penis foreskin increases the risk of contracting HIV, whether the circumcision was performed at birth or in adulthood.

In addition to focusing on males circumcised as adults, these studies only analyzed female-to-male HIV transmission. Any assumption beyond that is nothing more than an assumption, with potentially dreadful consequences for the male circumcised as an infant to prevent an unlikely HIV infection. We’re not discussing insignificant decisions. We’re discussing medically unnecessary surgery. There should be more than “this is probably true”.

That’s all nice, but the specific facts of the writer’s theory are fascinatingly wrong. The biology is fundamentally not the same. The infant foreskin is attached to the infant glans by synechia. This bond will not separate for several years, at the earliest, unless forcibly torn apart as is required in infant circumcision. Any sort of tearing may lead to bleeding and scarring. The surgeon will also have no effective method for determining how much skin is too much. He or she must guess how the infant’s penis will develop. Of course, he or she will not have input from the patient as to how much of his foreskin he might like to keep. (The answer might be 100%.)

With adult circumcision, the foreskin is no longer attached to the glans. The bond is broken. There will be no need to forcibly separate the two parts of the adult penis. The adult penis is fully developed. The surgeon may judge how much foreskin he or she has to work with. But his or her judgment isn’t necessary. The male to be circumcised is fully aware of the decision. It’s his penis being operated on and he is presumably intelligent enough to request how much foreskin he’d like to keep. The decision changes from an uneducated guess to informed consent.

The study results are not relevant because the biology is not the same.

Justice is blind, right?

From Charles Krauthammer in today’s Washington Post:

Alberto Gonzales has to go.

Okay, we’re off to a great start. Gonzales should’ve never been confirmed as Attorney General because of permissive stance on torture. And Mr. Krauthammer has shown a less than admirable permissiveness on torture. But that’s a great opening line.

I say this with no pleasure — he’s a decent and honorable man — and without the slightest expectation that his departure will blunt the Democratic assault on the Bush administration over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. In fact, it will probably inflame their blood lust, which is why the president might want to hang on to Gonzales at least through this crisis. That might be tactically wise. But in time, and the sooner the better, Gonzales must resign.

I don’t get it. The Democrats are to blame. What? And doing the right thing would only fuel the out-of-control Democrats? I’m lost. So, “tactically wise” is better than leadership? I know I’d be foolish to expect leadership from the President, but we should at least demand it.

It’s not a question of probity but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none. That is quite an achievement. He had a two-foot putt and he muffed it.

How could he allow his aides to go to Capitol Hill unprepared and misinformed and therefore give inaccurate and misleading testimony? How could Gonzales permit his deputy to say that the prosecutors were fired for performance reasons when all he had to say was that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and the president wanted them replaced?

Oh. Now it makes sense. Gonzales didn’t do anything wrong, you see. There is no scandal in firing U.S. attorneys because they didn’t prosecute Democrats vigorously enough. People like me who think that politics should not be involved in deciding who to prosecute are mistaken. We’re being silly. A monarchical privilege is attached to the office of president.

Mr. Krauthammer goes on, but his logic isn’t worth pursuing. The clear paper trail showing nothing but slimy intentions to pervert the justice system for partisan ends is wrong. Mr. Krauthammer should not now celebrate that because his chosen party is in power in the White House. The Democrats will return to the White House. And if/when a Democratic president pulls this, we should all be equally appalled. This is not complicated.

Firmware Upgrade from the Eyeball Factory?

Some interesting science news today:

Providing a kaleidoscopic upgrade to creatures that are largely colorblind, scientists have endowed mice with a human gene that allows the rodents to see the world in full Technicolor splendor.

The advance, which relied on imaginative tests to confirm that the mice can perceive all the hues that people see, helps resolve a long-standing debate about how color vision arose in human ancestors tens of millions of years ago. That seminal event brought a host of practical advantages, such as the ability to spot ripe fruit, and unveiled new aesthetic pleasures — autumn foliage, magenta sunsets and the blush of a potential mate, among them.

This is fascinating to me. I can’t imagine what it would be like to be colorblind. I’d assume that, if this pans out, many colorblind people would seek out a genetic improvement. That’s only a guess, of course. Still, the capability of the human mind fascinates.

One line in the story made me chuckle.

The work also points to the possibility of curing some of the millions of colorblind Americans — and even enhancing the vision of healthy people, allowing them to experience a richer palette than is possible with standard-issue eyes.

A bit like combat boots or a new company laptop. Are we obligated to discuss who/what issued them as standard? So many questions.

Disclaimer: As a vegan, I’m supposed to be opposed to animal testing in all its forms. For the most part I am. My exceptions are practical and beyond what I care to discuss in this post. In not discussing them, I am offering no approval or disapproval for the animal testing in the article, from which many questions arise. Blah, blah, blah.

Thoughts on Internet Debate

When I came across this quote a few days ago, I liked it. As a blogger, it’s worth remembering when the battle of ideas gets heated.

“If I were to demand that everyone live up to my moral standards, I would be a lonely, cranky and judgmental person. And I’d be less effective. People respond better when you invite them to take a stand on behalf of what they love, than when you insist they conform to your beliefs.” – John Robbins¹

The importance of that sentiment makes more sense to me, based on an entry I never wrote precisely because I didn’t think I could be polite. The subject of that never written entry would’ve been this quote from Cathy Seipp:

“If you know a circumcised man who would like to experience some of the sensitivity nature intended for him, I would be happy to send you some Your-Skin Cones,” writes a guy who apparently sells these things, and for some reason assumes I would be eager to help him spread the pro-foreskin oh-what-a-feeling agenda. Less amusing, though, is when these nutcases add, as they often do, that male circumcision is the equivalent of female genital mutilation, an idiotic and misogynist argument if there ever was one.

This comment made me angrier than almost every other comment I’ve read or heard regarding circumcision, for reasons I’ve indirectly explained many times. Arguments that distinguish male and female genital cutting into “good” and “bad” categories, respectively, are flawed to begin with. But labeling any attempt to compare the two as misogynistic ignores the issue as if it’s already settled, with two ad hominem attacks for kicks. We’re talking about genital modification, not whether you should give your kid Crest or Tom’s of Maine.

Time has cooled my anger. Still, I never posted that, even when the opportunity arose. I didn’t think I could be dispassionate enough. And I only post it today in the context of the quote from John Robbins. My non-response to Ms. Seipp’s claim was a time when I exercised good judgment. I don’t say that to congratulate myself because I’ve failed at this more times than not. But my rare success struck me as important now because Cathy Seipp died Wednesday after a long battle with lung cancer.

I’m not going to get sentimental about her death. I didn’t know her. To my fallible memory, I don’t recall posting any comments on her blog. I’m certain we never had an exchange of ideas on any topic through her blog. Her death is sad, but it doesn’t hit me personally. Nor do I think it’s uncouth to challenge the opinions of those who have died, although the timing would be rude, if that’s what I was after here.

However, reading the news of her death made an impression on me. No matter how offensive or frustrating I found her views, there was still a human being there. That’s vital. I want to be treated with respect, even when someone disagrees with my views. That’s how I want to interact with others, regardless of whether it’s extended to me. Behaving with a touch of humanity is crucial because my opinion is in the minority. I want to end infant circumcision. Countering the all-too-common opinion that it’s “really nothing”, as Ms. Seipp also once said, is part of that process. But treating people who believe that with respect is the right thing to do. I don’t succeed as often as I’d like, of course, so news like this reminds me that kindness matters.

¹ “Reader Letters – 2006 Veggie Awards”, VegNews, April 2007: 21.

I want no part of this conservatism.

There are better places to get information about the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case now before the Supreme Court. (Kip’s explanation is a good start.) What’s more telling than anything is that the Bush administration is on the side of limiting speech. And, even though this isn’t a stand-in for the Bush administration’s opinion, the Wall Street Journal’s take should embarrass every member of the editorial board. Primarily, this:

The pious extension of First Amendment speech rights amid Vietnam from adults to students prior to college was a mistake.

So the Wall Street Journal believes that minors should have no free speech rights. How disturbingly authoritarian. I’ll pass. I think the nation’s children can be educated while possessing an opinion. I thought that was kinda the point of education.