Well, Sammy Sosa hit a milestone home run last night, and Fernando Vina and John Kruk spent a few moments (ESPN spent far more time over the course of "Baseball Tonight" and "Sportscenter") touting the achievement. They discussed Sosa's Hall of Fame worthiness (of course independent financial advice he is, sayeth the experts), whether he's a first balloter (not sure, sayeth the experts). But one thing they didn't discuss was steroids (the AP mentions it near the end of an ESPN-linked game summary ). Neither of the former players uttered one word about the suspicions surrounding Sosa, his "testimony" to Congress, or his physical changes that, in replays of his 1st, 100th through 600th dingers, were ridiculously obvious. It's like a time warp has happened back to '98-'99, and all the ignominious, bulging history of those days has just been left for dead. It's ironic, then, that on the day Sosa hits #600, fireworks went off over Arlington, Tom Hicks (who employs Sosa and paid for the fireworks) felt the need to carpetbomb accusations of someone else's suspected transgressions, while Jason Giambi checked his calendar for openings. All this as fans are encouraged to celebrate Sosa, as former players inflatedly gush over his "comeback".

Well, Sammy Sosa hit a milestone home run last night, and Fernando Vina and John Kruk spent a few moments (ESPN spent far more time over the course of "Baseball Tonight" and "Sportscenter") touting the achievement. They discussed Sosa's Hall of Fame worthiness (of course he is, sayeth the experts), whether he's a first balloter (not sure, sayeth the experts). But one thing they didn't discuss was steroids (the AP mentions it near the end of an ESPN-linked game summary ). Neither of the former players uttered one word about the suspicions surrounding Sosa, his "testimony" to Congress, or his physical changes that, in replays of his 1st, 100th through 600th copy files to dvd dingers, were ridiculously obvious. It's like a time warp has happened back to '98-'99, and all the ignominious, bulging history of those days has just been left for dead. It's ironic, then, that on the day Sosa hits #600, fireworks went off over Arlington, Tom Hicks (who employs Sosa and paid for the fireworks) felt the need to carpetbomb accusations of someone else's suspected transgressions, while Jason Giambi checked his calendar for openings. All this as fans are encouraged to celebrate Sosa, as former players inflatedly gush over his "comeback".

Why not bring back corporal punishment? That's a question raised by Blair's macho talk about overhauling windows xp install the criminal justice system. Corporal punishment has obvious advantages. It's cheap. And it would satisfy the public's desire to see criminals punished. Sure, it wouldn't take criminals off the streets, so it's an alternative to non-custodial sentences rather than to jail. Would it be an effective deterrent? This is an empirical question which could be tested in pilot studies in different areas: how would the stocks, flogging or the pillory fare against tagging or community service? If the government is serious about evidence-based policy-making, it would want to find out. There are two objections to corporal punishment that aren't good enough. One is that it's illiberal. I just don't see this. Are a few public floggings really a lesser exercise of state power than a full therapeutic-managerialist approach to trying to change criminals' characters? And remember - corporal punishment is consistent with the due legal process that Blair is trying to undermine . Who's being anti-liberal? Another misplaced objection is that corporal punishment is barbaric. New Labour cannot use this objection - not when it wants to spend billions on the means of burning millions of innocent people to death. What's more, good deterrents are necessarily barbaric.

Well, Sammy Sosa hit a milestone home run last night, and Fernando Vina and John Kruk spent a few moments (ESPN spent far more time over the course of "Baseball Tonight" and "Sportscenter") touting online login the achievement. They discussed Sosa's Hall of Fame worthiness (of course he is, sayeth the experts), whether he's a first balloter (not sure, sayeth the experts). But one thing they didn't discuss was steroids (the AP mentions it near the end of an ESPN-linked game summary ). Neither of the former players uttered one word about the suspicions surrounding Sosa, his "testimony" to Congress, or his physical changes that, in replays of his 1st, 100th through 600th dingers, were ridiculously obvious. It's like a time warp has happened back to '98-'99, and all the ignominious, bulging history of those days has just been left for dead. It's ironic, then, that on the day Sosa hits #600, fireworks went off over Arlington, Tom Hicks (who employs Sosa and paid for the fireworks) felt the need to carpetbomb accusations of someone else's suspected transgressions, while Jason Giambi checked his calendar for openings. All this as fans are encouraged to celebrate Sosa, as former players inflatedly gush over his "comeback".

Why not bring back corporal punishment? That's a question raised by Blair's macho talk about overhauling the criminal justice system. Corporal punishment has obvious advantages. It's cheap. And it would satisfy the public's desire to see criminals punished. Sure, it wouldn't take criminals off the streets, so it's an alternative to non-custodial sentences rather than to jail. Would it be an effective deterrent? This is an empirical question which could be tested in pilot studies in different areas: how would the stocks, flogging or the pillory fare against tagging or community service? If the government is serious about evidence-based policy-making, it would want to find out. There are two objections to corporal punishment that aren't good enough. One is that it's illiberal. I just don't see this. Are a few public floggings really a lesser exercise of state power than a full therapeutic-managerialist approach to trying to change criminals' characters? And remember - corporal punishment is consistent with the due legal process that Blair is trying to undermine . florida boat ramp Who's being anti-liberal? Another misplaced objection is that corporal punishment is barbaric. New Labour cannot use this objection - not when it wants to spend billions on the means of burning millions of innocent people to death. What's more, good deterrents are necessarily barbaric.

Well, Sammy Sosa hit a milestone home run last night, and Fernando Vina and John Kruk spent a few moments (ESPN spent far more time over the course of "Baseball Tonight" and "Sportscenter") touting the achievement. They discussed Sosa's Hall of Fame worthiness (of course he is, sayeth the experts), whether he's a first balloter (not sure, sayeth the experts). But one thing they didn't discuss was steroids (the AP mentions it near the end of an ESPN-linked game summary ). Neither of the former players uttered one word about the suspicions surrounding Sosa, his "testimony" to Congress, or his physical changes that, in replays of his 1st, 100th through 600th dingers, were ridiculously obvious. It's like a time warp has happened back to '98-'99, and all the ignominious, bulging history of those days has just been left for dead. It's ironic, then, that on the day Sosa hits #600, fireworks went off over Arlington, Tom Hicks (who employs Sosa and paid for the fireworks) felt the need to carpetbomb accusations of someone else's suspected transgressions, while Jason Giambi checked his calendar for openings. All this as fans are encouraged to celebrate Sosa, as former players inflatedly gush over his "comeback". alka slim