Today's US blogger
is . The script for his broadcast tonight is already on his blog. So if you don't want to spoil the surprise, don't click till 1800 GMT.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Ah, how the Prime Minister wriggleth and squirmeth, when asked if he wants Saddam executed.
Shame he didn't see that one coming, really. It was obvious the US would go for the death penalty.
It's equally obvious who calls the tune.
Margaret Beckett seemed to deal adequately with the same question yesterday. Why Blair can't use the same formula, I can't imagine - unless, of course, he thinks the death penalty is acceptable in this case. Wriggling just makes him look silly.
BARON Muir, now, eh?
I must admit I haven't had a chance to listen to todays' news conference. I hope I'll catch it tonight on PM...
Why haven't you used any of the new straplines yet Eddie?
I think that if Hussein could be placed on trial and sentenced, then the Cold War Vestiges of Republicans, Democrats, and Communists [such as Castro, Chavez, Ortega, FARC] should be brought to trial and sentenced to life imprisonment.
I will be doing more coverage of the US Midterm Elections in my blog alvarezgalloso.blogster.com
Re: Fifi & Rachel,
I'd be interested to know how many froggers think Saddam should be hanged as opposed to having a life sentence -- you know like one of those straw poles that Jonathan Dimbleby does so well.
Personally I'm against Capital punishment but in the case of Saddam and the overwhelming evidence stacked against him I think he should be hanged.
Roberto,
Have you seen
Best of luck
ed
Well, jonnie, I'm against the death penalty myself, and I would almost have to say that sentencing Saddam Hussein to life imprisonment would almost be more vengeful than death by hanging. (This is assuming that Iraq stabilises itself). Imagine what it would be like living out the rest of your years held captive by a country that you used to lead...
Ed,
I've just watched the video, its frightening.
On the strength of what of what I've just seen the Americans could have elected Mickey Mouse as President. Oh silly me, they did.
What with our "postal ballot", the question that begs to be asked, Democracy! what democracy??
Strange that the death sentence was announced close to the American elections. Was this a target driven trial?
Would it be fair to say that he knows what he did, and that he doesn鈥檛 see anything wrong in it?
Peter (11)
Strange you should mention that. From today's :
COURT FINDS HUSSEIN GUILTY, TWO DAYS BEFORE ELECTION
He'll be hanged two days before '08 election.
I love the scrolling headlines: "Thousands electrocuted by voting machines"
:-) ed
With Fearless Fred wholeheartedly on this one. No death penalty; no exceptions.
Well Ed, (8) after watching that, I don't think any of us should have criticised Eddie's comments counter ;-)
Ed (8):
I have an article on exactly the same subject. It's in a collection called 'Everything You Know is Wrong'.
Too long to re-type here, but if anyone wants a photocopy just email me via the website with an address to send it to.
Pete (11):
Exactement.
The argument against hanging Saddam Hussein is extremely simple: once he is dead, he cannot give evidence in any subsequent trial or legal proceedings. This will probably be very convenient for a number of people in any country that sold him weapons and gave him support when he was in power.
The argument for it is that he will be silenced.
In this case I am opposed to the death penalty: I want to find out what Saddam Hussein has yet to reveal.
Interesting that we can interfere with a countries judiciary and political process when it suits. Like Fearless I'm opposed to capital punishment. Perhaps a life sentence for Saddam with Kurdish guards might be a more poetic justice, if that's the word I'm after. But that would probably end up as a death sentence as well.
I refer anyone interested in how Saddam's mind works, and what has really been going on, to a 'novel' called The Fist of God by Freddie Forsyth.
I'm with Chris Ghoti on this one, 100%.
More from my favourite :
U.S. forces in Iraq are using a machine to translate for them when attempting to communicate with Iraqis. Which of the following phrases are most used?
A ) 鈥淕et out of the car.鈥
B ) 鈥淧ut your hands on the wall.鈥
C ) 鈥淪it down!鈥
D ) 鈥淪tand up!鈥
E ) 鈥淲e must search you now.鈥
F ) 鈥淓verybody stop talking.鈥
Hint: You may choose all of the above.
Like several others here I too am totally opposed to the death penalty whatever the crimes that have been committed.
In any particular case one may feel that the world would be better off without someone, but personal feelings should not be used to override a principle - in this case that we should not take what we cannot give.
Personally I agree with Blair (yikes) we should impose our values on other countries. For him this is a little two faced as that is part of the problem with the middle east.
That fact is that the US thinks the death penalty is fine and since they run Iraq and not the UK it will go ahead.
Yikes - I meant we should not impose our values.....
David,
Just a "little two faced"?
:-) ed
The thing is, when those values are anti-murder, anti-rape, anti-slavery, anti-mutilation... I can't help think that most of the poulation would be happy if they were imposed upon the minority who have power. Not a comfortable view for me, imposing things on others, but that's why politics isn't easy. What I'd most most like to 'impose' is a smack upon the face of anyone who suggests otherwise... but that's where I restrain myself, so I'm not so bad after all...
Aperitif (25):
Ach, just go for it, hen. Nobody will believe their claims of having been tango'd by a gorgeous and gentle creature such as yourself.
If anyone asks, say it was Chris Evans wot dunnit.
;o)
Thank you Fifi - what a jolly good idea... :-)
Drinks (25) - very interesting. Essentially this is the same as a "tolerant" person wishing to impose "tolerance" on the "intolerant". It sounds completely contradictory, and yet has its heart in the right place. And as for Fifi's idea, it has a nice ring of summary justice about it, doesn't it?
On a slightly less serious note, I don't know if it was intended, but your phrasing made me laugh - and I'm going to endeavour to remember it: "a smack upon the face". I was expecting "head" (...). I'm now waiting for the moment when I can utter, "Now listen hear you, if you don't stop it you're going to get a smack upon the face!" I'll file it alongside "Act fact!"
oh heck - obviously that should've been "here"...
I know John H, I know, I'm not comfortable with its contradictions and your "imposing tolerance upon the intolerant" summary is the simplest - and most amusing - take on it I've heard. But if there's a better coping strategy for the contradictions of contemporary political and socio-economic life then I really want to hear it. It probably would begin "First, do no harm" but where would it go from there? (And there's a mighty contentious point with which to start, I know).
At some point, in a society where all differ, one has to make compromises between ones ideology and practicalities (this is an uncomfortable though too) - I may not want to start from where we are, but if I want to start at all, then that is my only option.
What's wrong with a "smack upon the face" then (in phraseological terms rather than physical ones, of course)?
You were expecting head? Funny, I'd presumed that, you getting quite talkative on the blog again lately, Mrs H. must be away...
I replied to your 28 (and 29) TWO DAYS AGO John H. I think I may have been moderated on the grounds of smuttiness. This is only right and proper.
Ah, no, it was the old "comment stuck in the pipe - needs another to push it through" thing again. Clearly it wasn't as naughty as I thought.
Drinks, I don't know whether to express mock shock at your self-confessed smuttiness (which is a funny word) or bemusement because, surely, I know not of what you speak...
Interesting that your comment took 2 days to appear. Do you think that the little moderating pixies had to have a meeting to discuss its merits? If so, I think I need to reinvent myself again as a moderating pixie.
Been thinking about your comments. Sadly, I'm not a philosopher and so lack the intellectual tools to carry on this discussion in a suitably rigorous manner. But I can't help thinking that there is some legitimacy in not tolerating intolerance. I think that as a society we do believe that people of hugely differing opinions and beliefs can and should live side by side. Thus the characteristic of tolerance is in some way an expression of the values of our society. Having opinions and beliefs that effectively demean other members of society are unsavoury and distasteful (hm, interesting, both apparently "food" metaphors) but surely this must be "allowable"? It is only if it leads to discrimination or incitement to hate that it becomes "unacceptable"? The role of education and public debate is to attempt to influence all members of society so that they adopt "desirable" opinions and beliefs. And by "desirable", I mean the range of beliefs that deemed to be be "acceptable" within society.
Clearly, I am beyond by ability to reason this in purely abstract terms, so let's take the topical subject of immigration as an example. There presumably exists a continuum of views from something like a complete open border policy to enforced eviction of all of non-British decent to some specified nth generation. At the extremes, some of these views are not "desirable". In the middle, there is a range of views that vary greatly but are somehow "legitimate". At the extremes of these "legitimate" views are some that are distasteful - especially to the people holding the most widely differing ones. This variation should be acceptable unless it leads to the discrimination or abuse of others. I don't think this is really contributing anything, is it?
Incidentally, Mrs H is present and correct - tho' admittedly quite busy. I think my frog activity is due to two things: (1) the work I've been doing this week is more ideas and narrative based - rather than the more technical stuff I was trying to do previously - must get back to that soon; (2) the uncomfortable bloated feeling I've had from being overly full of unexpressed opinions!
BTW Forgot to say, don't you think that "smack upon the head" runs slightly more naturally than "smack upon the face"? As far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the latter - it just felt mildly "funny"!
I often find little bits of language intrinsically funny - usually when nobody else does (and, yes, before you ask, this does worry me slightly). Another of mine is the name of the footballer, Frank Leboeuf. "Frank The Beef" - it just makes me laugh. It set me off in search of a name that was an article and word in English - not a very intense search, to be honest. But I eventually came up with "Alexis" - which, oddly, doesn't strike me as amusing at all.
Oh dear me - I must come back to this later, as both posts score the hatrick (sp?) requested by Martin Callingham on Wonky Headphones, but I am very hungry (overslept, missed breakfast...) so I need to go and buy a sandwich before my next meeting.
I will say quickly, re At the extremes, some of these views are not "desirable". In the middle, there is a range of views that vary greatly but are somehow "legitimate". At the extremes of these "legitimate" views are some that are distasteful - especially to the people holding the most widely differing ones. This variation should be acceptable unless it leads to the discrimination or abuse of others. - of course, 'acceptable', 'unacceptable', 'desirable' are human constructs, all determined by our own nuturing and the influence of inter alia our culture(s). Most human cultures seem to promote a range of the 'mid parts' of the continuums of these that you describe, so perhaps there is some "nature" in there too but, as advocate to the devil:
Q. What makes any of the views you imply fit into these categories?
A. Only subjectivity.
Objectively - what is "desirable?" (I'm definitely off in a mo).
You don't think this is really contributing anything? Nothing practical, I agree - and I've surely pushed it even further into the abstract - but that's not to say it ought to be ignored. I like to be made to think!
You're right: 'Alexis' is not nearly as funny as 'Frank the Beef'. But "A smack upon the face" is so much more forthright than similar to the head. Smacks are for the face and bottom; slaps for the rest of the body. Vice versa just seems wrong.
Lunch!
Ah, an almost instant response - I shan't expect another if you're off to meetings. Did you note that your 31 and 32 are timed at 12.46 and 11.34 respectively? Odd.
I also don't have time to continue properly just now because I have to nip out on an errand. But just wanted to say that I do appreciate that all the words I used ('acceptable', 'unacceptable', 'desirable', etc) are human and social constructs and as such cannot be defined objectively. However, that's partly what I was getting at when I talked of tolerance being an expression of the values of the wider society. Clearly the values of a society can change - hopefully for the better - but I do not think that you can make that one stick when you consider the course of human history.
I'll try to revisit this later because I'm beginning to have thoughts that I can't properly express. Fun though. (Oh god! I just reread that - I meant about mid-points in a continuum and distributions and commonalities and stuff...)
The issue isn't with "smack" - as you say, face and bum only. It's the "upon" that makes it a little bit comical.
Upon reflection, when I spotted the potential of that little comment to be misread, I should perhaps have reworded. However, the very idea made me laugh - in a sort of flustered, embarrassed sort of way.
OK, errand done. Gave me a moment to think about what it was that I was glimpsing whilst writing. It boils down to this, I think - if you take the opinions of all the people in a group (clearly, quite difficult with a population of 60 million), the set of responses will likely vary quite a lot. If you can sensibly construct a "continuum" of opinions, is it likely that they will form a normal-like distribution (common opinions in the middle, less common ones at the extremes)? Given such a set, I can at least imagine the possibility of being able to add to the extremes on the basis of logical argument (ie construct possible positions that nobody actually holds) - and this augmented set of positions (or opinions) would be the "logical or abstract continuum". Anyway, if there were a normal-like distribution, would the mode represent the most "desirable" opinion in the particular society being examined? The set of opinions/positions around the mode would presumably represent the more "prototypical" (in a Rosch sort of way) opinions within the society - but would they represent the most "desirable"? Or the most "acceptable"?
Thinking about this some more, the distribution could be shifted around by enlightenment (!), social reformers, political activists, the media, etc. I guess this is linked to my comment the other day about the relationship between paradigm shifts and the dying off of the people holding the legacy view. For example, in an age of slavery, there will be a range of opinions from complete agreement to being completely opposed. If a law is introduced at this point to ban slavery, most people will maintain the current opinion - possibly moderating it slightly in favour of believing it to be "less right" than previously. A new generation will grow up believing it to be wrong and ultimately the older generation will die out. The result is that we have a new group of people who wonder how it could ever be allowed on average. There will still be some people who hold outlying views, but the whole curve of opinions will now have shifted noticeably.
I can't decide if this is plain obvious, stoopid or interesting. I won't bother previewing this - who know what sorts of mistakes it contains! (Have to just say that this new Firefox 2.0 spell checker helps though.)
Hi,
It's definitely interesting imo. I've not got enough time to respond properly so, as before, I'll endeavour to return.
I wouldn't have noticed the unintended twist on inexpressible thoughts if you hadn't mentioned it, but I rather enjoyed reading you embarrasing yourself. Keep it up (pun intended).
What about "Theo" as an amusing name? Less amusing than "The Beef" I grant you, but a tad higher on the giggle-scale than "Alexis" I venture.
The graphical and technological conventions of a frog do not easily allow for certain things to be represented - thus, my potentially ambiguous comment would either have gone unnoticed in conversation, or else would have immediately resulted in "oo-er" type comments. When you review something yourself and spot something, you're left with a number of choices to rectify or comment on the ambiguity. Sometimes, rectification is best, sometimes, the innocence is best left exposed, but mitigated. That really gave me an "Oh!" moment - I thought it right to share! No doubt somebody else will join in at some point...
I want to be pleased at "Theo" because you are SO right! But am a bit annoyed that you have come up with such a good example in - what? - a couple of hours? As far as I am concerned, "Alexis" is hereby dropped to the "oh, there's also ..." case. You have to put yourself in the non-English speaker's position - "ha, ha, 'The O'.." That is funny! I've mentioned before that years ago I used to have a French speaking Belgian girl-friend. When trying to learn some basic French, I noticed that monsieur and madame appeared to be contractions of "mon sieur" and "ma dame" (others follow similarly) - ie sieur and dame are French words - when I asked about this, it was completely new to her. Language, hey? I know why I wanted to study it!