Hank Kalet

The state Legislature is considering a ban on youth baseball and softball leagues using aluminum and composite-material bats, a move prompted by the cardiac arrest of a 12-year-old pitcher who was hit in the chest with a line drive off an aluminum bat. (See our stories in the South Brunswick Post and The Cranbury Press.)

I was ambivalent about the proposal initially, mostly because I remember the bats from my youth. But I have to say that the arguments against the ban are pretty weak and the potential dangers too great not to take this proposal seriously.

The arguments against the ban are pretty straightforward:

— baseball and softball, in general, are dangerous because they both involve a fast-moving projectile and inexperienced fielders

— wooden bats, because they break, will lead to greater replacement costs

— and the heavier wooden bats might discourage some smaller or weaker kids from playing.

None of the arguments really hold water, however, when examined rationally.

First, it is true that the games are dangerous, but that does not mean that the state should just throw its hands in the air. Imposing limits on the equipment that can be used (bat type and/or size), requiring the use of specific safety equipment (helmets, etc.) and establishing other rules (distance between bases or location of the pitcher’s mound) are of compelling public interest. And it is clear that he Little League and bat manufacturers have no interest in addressing the concerns.

Second, broken bats will need to be replaced, but the cost of wooden bats is significantly lower than some of the better aluminum (which can cost several hundred bucks), meaning that you can buy several wooden bats for each aluminum or composite bat you would otherwise purchase.

Third, the lighter aluminum bats might be easier for smaller kids to swing, but they also enhance the games of the bigger kids, possibly widening the skills level further and discouraging the smaller kids from participating — the exact argument made against wooden bats. Basically, this is the proverbial red herring and should not even be part of the discussion.

Proponents argue that the safety concerns are so great that the ban is necessary. But few studies have been done about the difference between the bats, but one, conducted in 2002, backs up those who are seeking the ban. As reported on 1010 WINS radio:

A 2002 study by Brown University said balls hit off an aluminum bat averaged 93.3 mph, compared to 86.1 mph for wooden bats, and found 2 percent of balls hit off wooden bats exceeded 100 mph, compared to 37 percent hit off metal bats.

The study did not look at safety, only performance, and it remains unclear whether injuries are on the increase. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, for its part, has said that safetu differences between the two kinds of bats are minimal.

But what seems obvious to me at this point is that we need to really ask ourselves what benefits we are getting from aluminum bats, while also looking at the Little League diamond with an eye toward changing its dimensions to reflect the needs of today’s bigger players. Ban the bats, expand the diamond and let’s see what happens. It can’t hurt to err on the side of safety on this one.

And there is the side benefit of possibly slowing the game down for kids and forcing them to learn the nuances of baseball and softball and not to always rely a fast bat to drive the ball into the outfield.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

One of the biggest canards that the right likes to toss around is the notion that addressing global warming will be an economic disaster. Cutting greenhouse gases, the argument goes, would cause the national economy to slow down or stop because of the high cost of making changes.

But the argument always has had two flaws. One is the underlying assumption — that the costs of pollution and warming are to be born by society and that the manufacturers (or consumers buying Hummers) bear no responsibility for dirty air and water or higher global temperatures.

The other is the basic assumption that the costs of making changes would not be offset by other savings or by creating new jobs and new industries.

Finally, a new report is out that debunks this argument.

According to the BBC (by way of TruthDig.com), economist Sir Nicholas Stern has calculated that global climate change could cut global growth by a fifth while addressing the problem would cost only 1 percent of global gross domestic product.

Sir Nicholas’s report warns unless the world moves to cut green house gases it is heading for a “catastrophic climate change” which would create the worst global recession ever seen.

The Stern Review forecasts that 1% of global gross domestic product (GDP) must be spent on tackling climate change immediately.

It warns that if no action is taken:

Floods from rising sea levels could displace up to 100 million people

Melting glaciers could cause water shortages for 1 in 6 of the world’s population

Wildlife will be harmed; at worst up to 40% of species could become extinct

Droughts may create tens or even hundreds of millions of ‘climate refugees’

The study is the first major contribution to the global warming debate by an economist, rather than a scientist.

Do you think those who live outside the reality-based community might listen to this?

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

I ran the Run with the Vikings 5K this morning, posting a 27:41 — slower than I’d, but still better than my goal given my recent training inconsistencies.

The race course is pretty decent, along local streets in the Fresh Impressions development, but the wind was brutal. I pushed too hard to start, burning myself out with an eight-minute opening mile and progressively slower splits the rest of the way. The last half mile was like pushing a blocking sled, wind in the face making it impossible to find anything left for a big kick.

I guess more training is in order.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Sad news for basketball fans. Red Auerbach died today at age 89.

Born Arnold Auerbach in Brooklyn, N.Y. on Sept. 20, 1917, Auerbach was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame in 1969.

“I never thought he’d die,” said author John Feinstein, who last year collaborated on a book with Auerbach on the coach’s reflections of more than 70 years in basketball. “He was a unique personality, a combination of toughness and great, great caring about people. He cared about people much more than it showed in his public face, and that’s why people cared about him.”

With the Celtics, he made deals that brought Bill Russell, Robert Parish and Kevin McHale to Boston. He drafted Larry Bird a year early when the Indiana State star was a junior to make sure Bird would come to Boston. The jersey No. 2 was retired in Auerbach’s honor during the 1984-85 season.

He coached championship teams, including eight straight from 1959 through 1966, that featured players such as Russell, Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Bill Sharman, K.C. Jones and Sam Jones, all inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Auerbach coached and then ran the despised — by Knicks fans like me — but he stands as one of the men who helped put the sport on the map.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Bill O’Reilly, the nation’s pre-eminent bloviator, made the talk rounds Friday, venturing out his “no-spin” bubble into hostile territory.

Making stops on “Oprah” and “Late Night with David Letterman” to hawk his latest book, O’Reilly spewed his standard invective, blasting the vast left-wing conspiracy for ruining the nation with its amoral behavior and complete control of the power apparatus.

It is the standard argument that the right has been making for years, that the liberals — what he calls “secular-progressives” — are using their power and influence to destroy American values. It is an argument that builds off the obviously false notion that so-called SPs actually run things.

His rant on “Oprah” targeted people ike George Soros and organizations like MoveOn.org (those left-wing Web sites, as he said), the entertainment industry and, of all things, a left-wing media that disdains traditional values (does he actually ever read the paper or watch the news?
To which news organization are we to assume he refers?).

His arguments on Oprah made his Letterman appearance all the more significant, because Letterman of all people called the Grand Bloviator on his tenuous grasp on the facts (“I have no idea what I’m talking about,” Dave said, “but I don’t think you do either.”)

In the end, the O’Reilly argument — advanced by others on the right like Sean Hannity and even the vice president — is designed to do little more than promote the myth of a hidden power elite when the real power is pretty obviously in the hands of right-wing hatchet men like Bill O’Reilly (the right controls all three branches of government and corporate interests tend to be value-neutral, supporting those politicians who will do the most to help pad the bottom line).

There is an echo here of the argument used by the Nazis in German (no, I am not equating the American right with the Nazis; I’m only pointing out the rhetorical similarities) — that a hidden elite (then it was Jewish bankers; today, it is secular-progressives and the media elite) has taken over and is eroding what has made the nation great.

It is, to be kind, a bunch of hooey. But their argument also poses some danger because fascism has its seeds in a culture of blame. What makes it all the more disgusting, though, is that O’Reilly and his minions know the argument is the proverbial red herring, something to get the plot rolling and to distract us from the real stakes. They have dressed their naked thirst for power in patriotic and traditionalist garb.

As Keith Olbermann might say, “have you no shame, sir?”

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick