Stick to baseball, 8/6/16.

Seems like it’s been a lot more than a week since my last links post, since I’ve traveled twice in the interim. Here are all of the Insider pieces I wrote in that span, all of which relate to the trade deadline:

How the Yankees’ rebuild gives them a top 3 farm system
The Liriano/Hutchison trade
The Matt Moore trade
The Jay Bruce trade
The Lucroy trade
The Will Smith and Zach Duke trades
The Carlos Beltran trade
The Reddick/Hill trade
The Andrew Miller trade
The Melancon trade

My review of Quadropolis, the fun new city-building game from Days of Wonder, is also up over at Paste. It’s a little more complex than Ticket to Ride (DoW’s biggest title), but my daughter, who’s now 10, loved it. There are many ways to score, so it’s a game of choosing two or three of those paths to focus on rather than trying to do a little of everything.

There was no chat this week due to travel, and I’ll be taking the beginning of this week off to work on my book, returning to ESPN duties on Thursday (and chatting as well).

And now, the links:

  • HTTPS is now now vulnerable to a new exploit. This is kind of a big deal because the “s” is supposed to mean that the connection is secure.
  • The Rio Olympics are probably going to be a disaster, and the IOC is a corrupt mess, but the inclusion of a separate team of athletes who are refugees was one of the IOC’s most noble decisions in ages. One of those ten athletes is a Syrian swimmer who swam for three hours to push her refugee boat to safety, saving the lives of 20 other refugees in the process.
  • This week, vaccines and the Presidential race collided in a big way, as delusional Green Party candidate Jill Stein continued to pander to the anti-vaxer movement with equivocations so broad the Porter in Macbeth thought she was overdoing it. She’s wrong, and so is snopes’ defense of her statements, according to the important pro-science (and anti-pseudoscience) blog Skeptical Raptor.
  • Stein’s moment of science denial means Hillary Clinton is the only one of the four candidates who hasn’t pandered to anti-vaxers. This is important, because if you think people who believe something so monumentally stupid as this anti-vaxer bullshit are a constituency you can and should capture, I’m not voting for you.
  • The Sacramento Bee, a paper in a state where I’d guess Stein has some support, also ran an op ed calling her view disingenuous.
  • On to the election … Meg Whitman, a politically active Republican who ran for governor of California on the GOP ticket, has chosen to support Hillary Clinton with her money and her time, because she views Trump as a dangerous demagogue, comparing him to Hitler and Mussolini and – the part I both liked and agree with – “warned that those who say that ‘it can’t happen here’ are being naïve. I connected the Sinclair Lewis book of that name to Trump back in March.
  • The former head of the CIA quit his job at CBS and endorsed Clinton, explaining why he believes she’s the right choice for our national security in this first-person op ed.
  • In the left-wing British newspaper The Guardian, columnist Nick Cohen writes that the cowardice of other Republicans has allowed Trump to get this far. This isn’t the GOP of Ronald Reagan, nor is it the GOP for whose candidates I have voted dozens of times in federal, state, and local elections since I first gained the vote in 1991.
  • I thought this was the best political-comedy tweet of the week:

  • Let’s move on to food, including this piece from 2015 on how resting the meat improves barbecue, even when the resting time is a few hours.
  • I missed this outstanding piece from the New York Times when it first ran in October, on genetics Ph.D. and wheat breeder Stephen Jones, called Bread is Broken, which explains how our wheat and thus our bread has become so much less nutritious over the last two centuries, and how we might fix it.
  • I’ve saved this recipe for watermelon rind preserves with ginger and lemon to make the next time we buy a whole melon.
  • The nation’s third-largest poultry producer is defying rising concerns and even a CDC warning about prophylactic use of antibiotics in our food chain, even running ads bragging that they still use these drugs. Antibiotic resistance is as real as evolution – the latter causes the former, inevitably – and this is flat-out irresponsible. But I’m glad they’re outing themselves so I can try to avoid their products.
  • Remember when I was horribly sick in January with a fever of 101+ for six straight days? The drug that finally defeated the infection was Levoquin, part of a class of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones, but those drugs have some nasty side effects, including tendon damage. WHO considers these antibiotics an essential medicine, one of the most effective drugs against gram-negative bacteria, but more doctors need to reserve them, as my doctor did, until other safer antibiotics have failed.
  • Germany’s Condor Airlines has started a “book on board” program that grants travelers an extra kilogram of weight allowance if they show a sticker from their local bookseller.
  • Jess Luther has done great work on the systemic problem of coddling college athletes who rape women, especially the rampant corruption in Baylor’s football program. Her book on the topic is coming out this fall and here’s her first interview about it.
  • In a related story, the University of Florida appointed a booster of the football program to adjudicate a Title IX hearing on a rape case involving Gator football players.
  • Deadspin reports on the opening hostilies in the battle over the Texas Rangers’ new ballpark boondoggle. The City Council of Arlington approved the stadium proposal 7-0 despite no evidence whatsoever of economic benefit and some early signs of public dissent.
  • ISIS has become a hot-button term in our Presidential election, but that doesn’t change what they are, the evil the Daesh do in Syria and Lebanon, or their attempts to sow terror in Europe. This piece on how they’re kidnapping and training child soldiers will chill your soul.
  • House Speaker Paul Ryan is facing an opponent in the Republican primary for his seat. This wouldn’t be notable except that his opponent wondered aloud why we allow any Muslims to be in our country.

Comments

  1. Stein’s unwillingness or inability to unequivocally support mandatory vaccinations means I’ll be leaving the top of the ballot blank for the first time. In a Youtube video I came across recently, someone at one of her rallies asked her again if she’s against vaccines, and she stated that she wasn’t…but still wouldn’t say anything affirmative to mandatory vaccinations or acknowledgement of how serious the FDA, etc. are about vaccines, even if the FDA at times has conflicts of interest in other areas.

    • “The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.” – Dante

      I am going to presume, based on your almost-vote for Stein, that you are left-leaning. This being the case, you DO understand that leaving the ballot blank helps Donald Trump, right? Whatever Hillary Clinton’s weaknesses may be, those who say they simply cannot choose between her and Trump have not been paying attention. The two candidates are not remotely similar, and therefore are not “equally bad.”

    • Well I never leave the entire ballot blank, for one. Second of all, I vote in California, so it doesn’t matter anyway. Third, if I lived in a swing state, I would vote Clinton this time for the sake of political pragmatism, yes. Fourth, there are ways to ask without assuming or condescending toward a person.

    • I vote in Delaware, so my vote for Hillary won’t matter a whit either … but I think this is one time where the margin in the popular vote will matter too. I don’t just want Trump to lose; I want him to be utterly repudiated by the electorate by a historically wide margin. Then perhaps his brand of race-baiting populism will go back under its rock and the Republican Party could resume providing a reasonable alternative to the Democrats, which they aren’t doing right now.

    • Please spare me the lectures on tone. My assumption was proven correct, and I think my question was a fair one.

      You Bernie Bros. need to take a chill pill.

    • LOL, CB’s at it with the ass-umptions again, nice. I never voted for Sanders and wouldn’t have voted for him in the general unless he was in the same scenario as I mentioned above for Clinton.

      As for Trump and the GOP, Keith, you’re far more optimistic regarding the possibility of the GOP coming back to the middle in the near future than I am. It’s not like the GOP has been reasonable anytime this decade (especially with racial issues and dog-whistle racial politics), and while it’s nice to see so many party leaders denouncing Trump, they’re also rank hypocrites in many of their criticisms against him. Younger Republicans seem to have less regressive social views, but they’re still a minority of the party for a while.

    • I do respect the rationale behind your decision, Keith, even if I disagree in practice.

    • Choosing not to endorse any of the current candidates is a rational choice IMO. Yes, in our system a non-vote for “A” is a vote for “B”, and a vote for “C” is a vote for the lesser of “A” or “B”, but here’s an idea — how about an honest and principled campaign that earns an affirmative vote, instead of this game theory bullshit?

    • I suggest that anyone who plans to read Aaron B.’s words should dim the lights, and perhaps even light up some incense, since he is obviously so much more enlightened than the rest of us.

      @sansho1: Time to put on your big-boy pants and get realistic. I teach and study U.S. history, and I am unaware of ANY presidential campaign since 1800 that was 100% principled and 100% honest. That is not the nature of the game.

    • sansho, there are material detriments to having the current GOP gain any significant offices, from the presidency down to your local city council. While I agree that politicians should actually earn their trust as opposed to just being not as bad as the opponent, there are significantly worse consequences for the near future when these particular politicians have more power than others. And of course, if you’re in a state that’s majorly one way or the other, your singular vote for president will almost certainly not matter.

      Also, I would like to apologize on behalf of the rest of the historical profession for CB’s embarrassments in this conversation, particularly her/his inability to understand simple sentences others post. We do our best to train future faculty well, but some of them just slip through the cracks.

    • Wow, Aaron B. chastises me for making assumptions, and then uses a few comments on a blog to infer that I am an incompetent as a scholar and teacher. Hypocrisy, much?

      Note to others: You can be 100% certain that Aaron B. is an academic. This kind of Mercedes Marxist holier-than-thou snobbery is epidemic in the profession; there’s at least a few of them in every department. The rest of us roll our eyes and try to avoid them as best we can.

    • I think our political parties are savvy enough to receive the message that a large number of withheld votes would represent.

    • I think the GOP moves more center in the future not just because of Trump but also if other tea party candidates get soundly beaten in other elections. Trump is a tea party-lite candidate. He may not share all the same ideologies as the tea party, but his persona and background are tea party (rank outsider, wants to shake-up the whole system, doesn’t care who he offends as he campaigns, etc). So the Republican party will have a choice to either continue to appeal to the far right and hope the center comes along or appeal to the center and force the far right into a game theory choice (ideological purity vs. pragmatism). Of course, we may see in about 5-10 years a similar shift on the left where the Bernie fans don’t think enough progressive work is being done and start a breakaway group there.

    • This is my argument too – as a matter of political economy, if a party sees that its platform is never going to capture a sufficient share of the electorate, they move or they die. I don’t think the GOP leadership just rolls over and dies; there may even be people atop the party who want to get trounced in November so they can try to return to Reagan Republicanism, which had broader appeal and a better focus on economic and foreign policy issues than today’s Tea Infusion.

    • Oh CB, your deflections would be so cute if you realized for a second how silly you look in trying to ascribe your shortcomings to me (along with even more assumptions lol). There there, your bruised ego and demonstrated inability to actually try and understand other people’s comments will soon be forgotten by us. /pats on head

    • Guys, this thread has gotten kind of unproductive … I don’t think either of you is about to move to the other’s position, so maybe we could call a truce?

    • Truce

  2. Given all the Republicans endorsing Clinton, I wonder if all living current and former Presidents will all endorse her. We know Obama, Bill, and Carter have done so. Given that both Bush’s have said they don’t support Trump, I wonder if they will throw their support behind Hillary as well in a sort of September/October surprise. I don’t think they want to hurt the Republican ticket and that might explain their reluctance so far. They may also be waiting for the best time to announce this.

  3. In your review of “It Can’t Happen Here”, there was no specific mention of Trump. Did you mean you connected them in another place?

  4. Hillary Clinton is of course correct that all children should be vaccinated (my own reservations about the federal government mandating such notwithstanding). However, she has at least dabbled in antivax bullish–.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/vaccine-debate-presents-a-political-minefield–as-hillary-clinton-can-attest/2015/02/03/1fa7fc4c-abc7-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

    As a right-leaning person myself, I am happy to see a major donor withhold her support for the nominee. If only other party members had raised their objections a year ago, when we had more than enough data to arrive at the same conclusion…

  5. Curious. I’m not an anti-vaxxer myself but why do you think it is not ok to pander to people who believe something so monumentally stupid as the anti-vax bullshit but it is ok to pander to people who believe something so monumentally stupid as that organized religion has any basis in fact or reality?

    Both groups of people are extremely delusional and equally anti-science.

    Why should the idea of banning Muslims be a non-starter? Not to give a pass to adherents of other religions but to relate it back to vaccines, it is true that some diseases are quite simply deadlier than other diseases.

    I don’t have any hard evidence to base this on but I have a serious question: what is the greater risk, dying from a communicable disease that is passed on to you by someone who hasn’t been vaccinated or dying at the hands of a Muslim terrorist?

    I know that if you have an understanding of math, it both possibilities are extremely, extremely unlikely.

    Just wondering why it is ok to criticize one group of delusional people but not the other.

    • “About 620 000 people die every year as a result of hepatitis B virus infection. A vaccine against hepatitis B has been available since 1982.” (Source: WHO)

      “Since the
      beginning of the 21st century, there has been over a nine-fold
      increase in the number of deaths from terrorism, rising from
      3,329 in 2000 to 32,685 in 2014.” (Source: IEP)

      Nearly 20 times as many people die each year of a single vaccine-preventable disease than died in 2014 form all terrorist attacks, not just those by Islamists. People who try to cast Muslims as a group to fear are the panderers.

    • Also, white people (self-proclaimed Christians usually) are the predominant practitioners of extralegal terrorism in the U.S., so why would Muslims even be in the discussion here? (rhetorical question)

    • I guess I did a poor job of making my point. Sorry about that.
      I’m not talking about people who refuse to get vaccinated and then they themselves die of a preventable disease. They made their own bed. Who cares about those people.
      I’m talking about how often does a refusal to be vaccinated actually result in the death of an innocent person who couldn’t be vaccinated for some legitimate reason? I’m guessing not very often at all.

      But my larger point which I guess I didn’t get across either is you are very critical of vaccine deniers and global warming deniers calling them monumentally stupid, delusional and anti-science, correct?
      Well what could be more anti-science and monumentally stupid as believing stories made up 2000 years ago and passed down orally for hundreds of years before even being written down have any basis in fact or reality?

      Why can’t we question and criticize people for believing in something so completely absurd?
      If you think it’s ok to mock and call out people for their anti-scientific beliefs on vaccines and global warming, shouldn’t you be questioning why someone would believe that something so fantastical could actually be true?

      I don’t mean just you. Shouldn’t we all be doing it? Wouldn’t the world be better without religion? Why is questioning someone’s religious beliefs the only thing that’s off the table?

  6. Thanks for the interesting reading, as always.

    I hope your first trip to Gen Con was fun. I’d love to see a write up of what you saw and played.

  7. Not surprised to see an abortion fanatic such as yourself ignore the dropping of all charges against the makers of the Planned Parenthood videos.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/last-charge-dropped-against-anti-abortion-duo-behind-videos/2016/07/26/418cc92e-5340-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html

    Even though you were more than happy to use this space to gloat about the clearly political indictment when it came down.

    • I’m a huge abortion fanatic. I’ve already had three this week.

    • None of what happened in court suggests that those assholes didn’t actually commit a crime, just that this particular grand jury didn’t have the jurisdiction to bring those charges. Did you read the article you posted?

    • Snark is a solid way of cowering away from the reality that you’ve made it part of your brand to support, vigorously, elective abortion up to and including in the 3rd trimester. You should be proud of yourself.

      Tom – I read the part where they aren’t facing any charges for anything.

    • Michael Kay

      I am pro-choice, for the most part, but I am strongly against an organization like PP giving political contributions to either party.

      Having said that, abortion dis-proportionally affects blacks, so it’s curious how one can claim to fight for minority rights and on the other hand support a policy that kills millions of black babies. Hillary says that Margaret Sanger is one of her heroes. It’s akin to supporting the LGBT community and then settling members of ISIS in their community to throw them off rooftops.

    • Methinks Charl = Mistro.

  8. @michael kay

    You realize that abortion is a medical procedure willingly undertaken by a pregnant woman? It is in no way akin to being thrown off a roof. Would we be more supportive of the rights, needs, and concerns of Black folks if we denied Black women access to a desired medical procedure? If so, how so?

    The tactic of some on the right to claim liberals are the real racists for supporting access to abortion for all women is ugly, deceptive, and demonstrates the sort of patronizing racism that some on the left are indeed guilty of is now being employed by the right. It’s like a racism sundae!

    • Kazzy beat me to it. The entire argument that legal abortion is racist is fallacious.

  9. Keith- I get that pro-lifers can be jerks as much as anyone else and you were responding to an ad hominem etc, but doesn’t it seem a bit hypocritical, or at least callous, to flippantly “snark” (can’t think of a better word, sorry) about an event that represents one of the most traumatic moments and enduring source of guilt in many women’s (and men’s) lives, whatever their reason for termination, just to defend your policy position which I imagine you see as protecting those same individuals? My point being- there’s a reason even the Clinton’s emphasized making abortion rare. If the pro-choice position wishes to discount the unborn, at least don’t compound the pain by neglecting the humanity of the parents after reproductive rights granted.

    Apologies in advance if it doesn’t seem like I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in my comment above. I was just genuinely taken aback by the tone from all parties about something that is a tragedy no matter how you slice it. And I especially can’t imagine a public figure wanting to go on record even in an informal and tongue-in-cheek manner with, “I’m a huge abortion fanatic. I’ve already had three this week.”

    Thanks for listening. Peace.

  10. There is a lot of awful marketing surrounding this HEIST attack:

    1. It’s not new (e.g. https://twitter.com/TalBeerySec/status/762439490258350080)

    2. Less of an attack on HTTPS than against all forms of length preserving encryption in which the plaintext is compressed prior to encryption.

    For 1, DEFCON doesn’t have very good refereeing and there is a lot of hype surrounding anything related to crypto. This paper should never have been accepted, at least not in its current form.

    For 2, Historically people didn’t care about this because they didn’t work with protocols in which attackers can inject their own plaintext into the plaintext of the victim prior to encryption — it’s wierd situation, but it happens on the web. e.g. suppose you control some data (a comment on a blog) consisting of three small pieces (each could be a byte or couple of bytes): X1X2X3.., and they preceded a secret that you don’t control but want to discover S1S2S3… The message is

    X1X2X3S1S2S3

    In the attack, you try to guess the first part, S1 and put it into your part of the message, creating:

    S1X2X3S1S2S3

    Now if this message is compressed, the two duplicate S1 pieces will lead to a smaller message after compression:

    CX2X3S2S3

    Therefore if you can inject your own data + observe message length, information is leaked about the content of the message. That allows you to launch a linear attack against the secret via repeated queries.

    A good description is in this 2002 paper: https://www.iacr.org/cryptodb/archive/2002/FSE/3091/3091.pdf

    Point being, because the web is such that attackers can often supply input but don’t know other secrets (cookies, CSRF tokens), anything that allows the attacker to also measure message length can be used to leak information. This could even be done with indirect measurements of message length such as the time it took to receive a response (averaged over many responses).

    This has been known for a long time. And every few years, someone discovers (or rediscovers) some way of leaking information about HTTPS message lengths, which is possible in a number of ways as the protocol doesn’t view message length as a secret to defend against. Then there is a big PR blitz. Vulnerability marketing nowadays includes websites (https://imagetragick.com/), logos (http://heartbleed.com/), and lots of scary announcements.

    The first such big splash for this compression bug used Flash and java applets to give the attacker knowledge of message lengths, and this one uses timings of javascript promise resolutions to get much coarser knowledge about how many http “chunks” were received.

    But there are a number of countermeasures for these attacks (e.g. disable compression or vary the secret with each request/response pair), and most of these attacks aren’t very practical — they require a precise set of conditions as well as huge numbers of request/response pairs that don’t change very much except in what the attacker provides. So you have to really engineer scenarios in which these attacks are practical.

    IMO HTTPS isn’t less risky today than before HEIST was announced, so don’t worry.