starshadow_rivaulx (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
starshadow_rivaulx) wrote2007-07-03 05:16 pm
starshadow_rivaulx) wrote2007-07-03 05:16 pm
Speaking as a relatively clueless political watcher
Ok. Not so long ago, our President decided to commute the sentence of someone who was jailed for statutory rape.
Loud was the hue and cry when this announcement was made, and expressions of outrage were the order of the day - until the next nine-day wonder came along (I think this is the "he's under arrest...no, he's not...yes, he is..." Bedol contretemps).
Now comes a headliner story from the States.
Loud is the hue and cry upon this announcement, and expressions of "Yo!" and outrage are heard from all sides. What bends my mind is Bush's notion of a 2.5 year prison term as "excessive." Sound quite a la Paris Hilton, actually. The man lied and obstructed investigation efforts, let everyone know who a CIA operative was...2.5 years in jail for all the bother seems about right to me. Or even a light term, even if you include the fines, big as they are.
At least when our President announced the commutation of Jalosjos, it was a sentence that was worth the effort, if you can see what I mean...from two life sentences to a mere 16 years (13 of which have been served), that's heavy. From 2.5 years to relative freedom? Um.
Should be interesting to see how this plays out in the media. It's a very young story.
* * * * *
Here's another one that got me scratching my head after I heard Jon Stewart flog this on his show.
More hue and cry - and lots of laughter on The Daily Show as Stewart picked this apart. I mentioned this at the table to my parents, who were educated in the days when the American colonial authorities ruled the education system, and Dad snorted in a very expressive way. ::grin:: Ma went, "Again, please?"
Goodness me, the shenanigans of government.
Malacañang has said that the commutation of Jalosjos’ sentence had nothing to do with politics but was based on the former congressman’s good behavior.
Jalosjos, 66, was convicted in 1997 for two counts of statutory rape and six counts of acts of lasciviousness. His victim was an 11-year-old girl.
He was initially sentenced to two life terms and was ordered to pay P400,000 in civil indemnity and P400,000 in moral damages.
As of May 30, Jalosjos has already served, with allowance for good behavior, a total of 13 years, 5 months and 15 days, prison sources said.
Loud was the hue and cry when this announcement was made, and expressions of outrage were the order of the day - until the next nine-day wonder came along (I think this is the "he's under arrest...no, he's not...yes, he is..." Bedol contretemps).
Now comes a headliner story from the States.
U.S. President George W. Bush commuted the jail sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby yesterday, sparing him from a two-and-a-half-year prison term that Bush said was excessive...
Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.
Loud is the hue and cry upon this announcement, and expressions of "Yo!" and outrage are heard from all sides. What bends my mind is Bush's notion of a 2.5 year prison term as "excessive." Sound quite a la Paris Hilton, actually. The man lied and obstructed investigation efforts, let everyone know who a CIA operative was...2.5 years in jail for all the bother seems about right to me. Or even a light term, even if you include the fines, big as they are.
At least when our President announced the commutation of Jalosjos, it was a sentence that was worth the effort, if you can see what I mean...from two life sentences to a mere 16 years (13 of which have been served), that's heavy. From 2.5 years to relative freedom? Um.
Should be interesting to see how this plays out in the media. It's a very young story.
* * * * *
Here's another one that got me scratching my head after I heard Jon Stewart flog this on his show.
Dick Cheney, who has wielded extraordinary executive power as he transformed the image of the vice presidency, is asserting that his office is not actually part of the executive branch.
In a simmering dispute with the National Archives that heated up Thursday, Cheney has long maintained that he does not have to comply with an executive order on safeguarding classified information because, in fact, his office is part of the legislature.
Further, Cheney's office tried to abolish the oversight agency involved, according to a Democratic congressman.
Cheney, whose single constitutional duty is to serve as president of the Senate, holds that the vice president's office is not an "entity within the executive branch" and therefore not subject to annual reporting or periodic on-site inspections under the 1995 executive order, which was updated four years ago by President Bush.
The vice president has been refusing to cooperate with the National Archives office assigned to oversee the handling of classified data since 2003.
More hue and cry - and lots of laughter on The Daily Show as Stewart picked this apart. I mentioned this at the table to my parents, who were educated in the days when the American colonial authorities ruled the education system, and Dad snorted in a very expressive way. ::grin:: Ma went, "Again, please?"
Goodness me, the shenanigans of government.
no subject
i wonder if GMA will play the "it is godly to forgive" card when confronted about the jalosjos issue. knowing her, she'll just ignore the uproar and hope it goes away. it almost always does, anyway.
...i miss the daily show. i wish i watched more tv T_T
no subject