animal rights, capital punishment


Got the following email yesterday:

More horrible news. One 17 – year – old w*anker threw a live lamb on a bonfire to celebrate his birthday, and only got 200 hrs community service. He said ‘I was just having a laugh’. I think he should be burnt alive, see how he likes it.

Agreed: let us burn the wee bugger alive in front of family&friends! Oh, right, the UN has just voted for a moratorium on capital punishment (thanks to our Radicali friends). Don’t matter: what I am proposing isn’t for the state to try the bugger and sentence him to the electric chair. I’m just saying, let’s go pick him up; let’s round up his family&friends; let’s make a big bonfire; and then let’s throw the wee bugger in it! Jolly good fun, I would have thought.

P.S. My American friend at tells me that I was wrong, in my previous post, to accuse Barack Obama of misunderstanding ‘separation of powers’; actually, in the States ‘government’ apparently refers to all three branches of power, so that it was perfectly legitimate for Obama to claim to have had ten years experience in government even though his experience only amounts to legislative power. What this use of the word ‘government’ says about democracy in America, let’s just not comment on.


2 thoughts on “BURN HIM ALIVE!

  1. I imagine it would look strange compared to a Parliamentary system where there is sort of an overlap between elected members of Parliament and what we would separate into a separate Executive Branch.

    When it seems strange that people who have never been in the Executive Branch are running for President, keep in mind that there is a very small pool of people who have been elected into the Executive Branch. Only the President and Vice President are elected, with everyone else appointed. The VP is often chosen for political reasons which are unrelated to their suitability to later becoming president, further narrowing the number of people who have been in the Executive Branch who are potential candidates.

    If you think that only someone who was in what you think of as “the government” should become president we are left with former VP’s (many of which would not make good presidents) and Governors, who have executive experience but lack experience at the federal level.

    This year is unusual in a number of ways. The Democratic candidates who have the most experience, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd, are all stuck in single digits while the three leading the race have far less experience. Of these Richardson has the best resume on paper, having been a Governor and a member of Clinton’s cabinet, but he’s made a number of gaffes during the campaign. Then we have the unique situation with Hillary Clinton, the relevance of whose experience in the White House is debatable.

    I would assume that even in Parliamentary systems people might wind up becoming Prime Minister without “government” experience if the opposition wins, especially if the opposition has been out of power too long to have leading members who have been in the “government” in the past.

  2. Hi Ron,

    I think you are maybe being too restrictive with your definition of ‘executive experience’. I would say that everyone that has ever served in a cabinet has ‘government’ (in my sense) – executive – experience.

    And I am not sure that I would link this with having served in an elected post. A very good example of this being Condi Rice, I guess. I would say she is someone with extensive (or at least ‘senior’) government experience, even though she has never been elected, if i remember correctly.

    So if you take presidents, vice-ps, secretaries, and governors, then at any given time there are plenty of people with senior government (in my sense) experience.

    Finally, I was not claiming, and I don’t want to claim, that someone with no ‘executive’ experience is not fit for president. Indeed, a senior senator is probably, in general, a much more experienced politician that someone who has been governor for a couple of terms or maybe sectetary of state, say (obama thogh is obviously very far from being a senior senator)

    My claim was only that Obama’s statement to 10 years of government experience was unwarranted. I now see that people use the word ‘government’ differently, in the states. It remains true that Obama cannot claim to have 10 years executive experience.

    All this is a different issue, i take it, from the general obama-hillary battle of experience. What Hillary’s supporters are saying is, and i think rightly so, that Obama is lacking experience full stop – not just lacking executive (government in the european sense) experience

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s