Umpires seem to be asserting themselves: good or bad?

It seems that the umpires are striking back at Questec and the league's attempt to reel them in and establish a consistent strike zone.

My question is: is this good or bad?

On the one hand, I think there's something nice about having different varieties of umpires. It's interesting to watch the pitchers and batters trying to figure a strike zone out. It makes for more varied games... and everything does even out in the end. A game with an umpire who gives the corners has a completely different complexion than a game with an umpire who won't, etc. It's kind of fun.

On the other, it doesn't really do much for better baseball. Hitters shouldn't have to guess whether an umpire's going to call a ball a strike, or the other way around. Moreover, it actually penalizes good hitters - since the randomness detracts from their ability to judge. Also, I think you always want baseball to be the focus... not the umpire, or the vagaries of his strike zone.

I want a consistent strike zone. I understand that umpires don't like being evaluated by a machine (especially an imperfect one)... but it wouldn't have been necessary if these guys made more of an effort to have a single consistent strike zone - the one, you know, mandated by MLB.

Any one disagree?