Chuck U Farley

Let's parse these issues -- because I think you touch upon several valid questions. 1. There is obviously no way to replace a loved one or a hero to our society -- BUT, we can set a standard for redirecting the remaining years of the guilty party -- toward some redeeming effort such as repaying society and/or the survivors. It's not a perfect solution, but it does represent a net positive. 2. Prisons are not resorts. You wouldn't want to live in one, would you? And they vary wildly, so I think the generalizations are kind of a red herring here. A better argument could be made for defining specifically what the death row inmate's existence should be like. Which I've defined as consisting of value-deriving, physical work. I am not an advocate of being soft on prisoners, nor am I one for "cruel or unusual punishment" -- but I would argue that there's a LOT of room between the two extremes. We just need to find the right one to make this work. 3. Fear of the death penalty is a broad misconception. It may or may not deter you and me, but there are MANY factors that will override that deterrent -- poverty, mental illness, addiction, heated conflict, etc. I believe the murder statistics in DP vs non-DP states would more than bear that out. 4. I think we can argue the merits of what defines "slam dunk" for ages and possibly never agree. Being a life or death question, I find that to be the most troubling factor in the whole DP debate, and ultimately the primary reason why I have always been against it. It is simply not acceptable for even ONE innocent person to be murdered by official decree -- that is not and should not ever be what we're about. Which is why I keep going back to the question of what we hope for the punishment to accomplish. Should it be about separating the danger from society (yes), punishing the guilty (yes), deterring the tempted (yes, if possible), revenge/retribution (I would argue NO). Objectively speaking, I think everything and more can be accomplished without putting anyone to death. Lower costs (vs years of due process (which is non-negotiable)), plus potential revenue recovery via labor, plus a plausible enough deterrent based on a long and unpleasant existence -- that's the way I see it. And then there's the question of what our penal system says about our society and where it's heading. I firmly believe that every incarceration is a result of a societal failure of some kind, where the individual may have done the deed, but with some intervening breakdown providing either the impetus or the facilitation. We need to always ask "why?" and own our failures if we are to actually make progress as a society.

This thread is a perfect representation of all the reasons why the death penalty is just wrong. Due process guarantees years of frustration for those of us who really want those murderous SOB's to fry. It's something that in America should never be subject to politics or compromise, and it must take precedent to our primal desire for revenge, punishment or whatever you want to call it. And the slightest chance that an innocent person can get offed by our criminal justice system is just too much -- certainly too much to compromise the aforementioned due process. I think a life sentence of productive (forced) labor and reparations to the victims, their families and society seems at the same time logical, effective and efficient.

I'd seriously question the accuracy or at least the scope of such a report. Seems more likely to me that it's really a question of whether one includes media $ in that equation, or whether losing some nominal amount of money (to a billionaire, anyway) is of any great concern to AM at this stage of his life. I suspect that if we examined all financial considerations relating to the club, we'd find Arte to be well in the black. And if not, it wouldn't be by enough to affect his motivations as an owner/fan IMO. He wants to field a winner and is willing to pay for it. That said, I don't think he'll want put his thumb on the scale when it comes to deciding what to do with Ohtani. Given the general shift in tenor of the organization's moves over the past few years, it really does seem like he's found some comfort in letting his "baseball people" call the shots. Billy Eppler is no Tony Reagins (thank goodness). Ohtani will be in the rotation all year and will perform just fine overall. Yes, there will be a learning curve, just like with any other young player. But he's ready and will improve with time. Hitting-wise, I'm not so optimistic -- but we will see. Exciting times to be a Halo fan, right?

Source?

I predict that by the halfway point of the season, two things are going to happen: 1. The 6 man rotation will be scuttled. This club might be better served with a 4 man with a bp full of stretched out swingmen anyway -- but that also won't likely happen. 2. The Ohtani two-way experiment will be put on indefinite hold -- unless his pitching proves as hard to watch as his hitting.

Let's not panic just yet. Recall three years ago, when Ohtani was embarrassing MLB hitters in the WBC. ST is the best and only time for ML pitchers to work on different things without risk. Come opening day, he'll be just fine. Not Cy Young fine, but at least good enough to be a passable #3 -- which is all they need from him from the get-go. And he will get better in time, versus major league hitting, not AAA scrubs.

DILLY F*CKIN' DILLY! Guess what the cat dragged in? Dino Ebel had best be hittin' the weights -- he's gonna be hurtin' from wavin' in all them runs, baby!