The Recession has hit everybody when

The Recession has hit everybody.....

I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.

Wives are having sex with their husbands because they can't afford batteries.

CEO's are now playing miniature golf.

Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.

A stripper was killed when her audience showered her with rolls of pennies while she danced.

I saw a Mormon polygamist with only one wife.

If the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," you call them and ask if they meant you or them.

McDonald's is selling the 1/4 ounce.

Angelina Jolie adopted a child from America .

Parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children names.

My cousin had an exorcism but couldn't afford to pay for it, and they re-po

Position Paper on the Reproductive Health Bill

Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:31 PM
Subject: UP's Position Paper on the RH Bill

As faculty members, students and alumni of the University of the Philippines, we state here the bases of our objection to the consolidated Reproductive Health bill that is pending in Congress.

Given the secular background of UP education, we put forward arguments from reason, to wit:

1. Population is not an obstacle to development. The bills assume that a nation’s population hinders its development that is why they push for the promotion of a two-child policy, massive distribution of contraceptives, sex education (to acquaint young people with contraception) , and sterilization, all of which make use of taxpayers’ money. However, as early as 1966, Nobel Prize winner Simon Kuznets’ research has shown that there is insignificant empirical association between population growth rates and output per capita (economic growth). Rather, it is the rate at which technology grows and the ability of the population to employ these new technologies efficiently and widely that permit economic progress. Kuznets saw that the basic obstacles to economic growth arise from the limited capabilities of the institutions (political, social, legal, cultural, economic) to adjust. He argued instead that a more rapid population growth, if properly managed, will promote economic development through a positive impact on the society's state of knowledge. His findings have been confirmed by similar studies by the US National Research Council (1986), the UN Population Fund Consultative Meeting of Economists (1992), Eric Hanushek and Ludger Wößmann (2007), among others.

2. The government has to channel limited funds to job creation and education. The latest report of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) entitled Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010 notes that the “middle class has increased rapidly in size and purchasing power as strong economic growth in the past two decades has helped reduce poverty significantly and lift previously poor households into the middle class.” Two factors were reported to drive the creation and sustenance of a middle class: a) stable, secure, well-paid jobs with good benefits, and b) higher education. And so, why not create more bills that will strengthen these two factors instead of channeling our limited funds to contraception and sex education.

3. Fertility rates in the Philippines are progressively decreasing. Our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has declined by more than 50% in less than 50 years: from an average rate of 7 in 1960 to an average rate of 3.1 in 2008. Our TFR is expected to reach the replacement level of 2.1 in 2025 without massive government intervention like the passing of a population control or RH bill. The passing of an RH bill will only accelerate this. The latest November issue of The Economist entitled “Japan’s burden” spells out the effects of an aging population and it would be foolhardy for us as a nation to push ourselves deliberately towards that direction. In 2004, Joseph Chamie, Director of the UN Population Division, reported that 60 countries have TFRs below 2.1 which means that they will eventually experience decline and aging. He asserted that the efforts of these countries to raise fertility rates will not be enough to bring them back to replacement levels. Many of these countries are now asking their people to have more children. Why then are our legislators thinking of cutting down our best asset, our people? Should this push through, future generations of Filipinos will be forced to pay for the mistake of government’s intervention to manipulate a decrease in our population and suffer its ill effects as already experienced by other countries.

4. The government has to channel limited resources to address the leading causes of death. In the latest available Mortality Country Fact Sheet (2006) of the World Health Organization on the Philippines, the following were listed as the main causes of death: lower respiratory tract infections, ischaemic heart disease, tuberculosis, hypertensive heart disease, perinatal conditions, cerebrovascular disease, violence, diarrheal diseases, diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Can we not channel our limited resources towards curbing these diseases—and violence—instead of using them for contraception and sterilization?

5. Condoms are not a wise investment. We have the lowest incidence of HIV cases after Bangladesh in the ADB report mentioned above, whereas Thailand, which has been regarded as the model in condom promotion, has the highest. European epidemiologist Dr. Jokin de Irala refers to “risk-compensation” as the reason for higher HIV-AIDS incidences when condoms are promoted. Moreover, human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, by far the most common STD and a risk factor for cervical cancer among other diseases, is not prevented by condoms. HPV spreads through skin-to-skin contact, unlike AIDS, and condoms cannot cover all possible infected skin—a fact that is not commonly known. Why spend millions to buy condoms when they are shown to increase incidences of STDs? A government-sponsored nationwide condom distribution will only fatten the pockets of condom manufacturers.

6. Oral Contraceptive Pills (OCPs) have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as Group 1 carcinogens. OCP use has been associated with an increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer in general (an increment of 19%) and across various patterns of OCP use, with the highest risk observed among those who use OCPs for 4 or more years before their first pregnancy (an increment of 52%), according to a 2006 meta-analysis of over 34 studies dating back to the 1980s. Corroborating these data was the landmark 2002 randomized controlled trial by the Women Health’s Initiative which pointed to a 26% higher risk of breast cancer for post-menopausal women who had received hormone treatment in addition to 41% more risk of cerebrovascular disease, 29% more risk of myocardial infarction, and 112% more risk of pulmonary embolism. Another study by Moreno et al. in the Lancet also points to an increased risk of cervical cancer with OCP use. And lastly, OCPs have also been shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases, especially venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke. Will our government legislate a bill that will use taxpayers’ money to further expose women to all these risks?

Our main argument boils down to this: that it is the State’s duty to order society by promoting the well-being of its citizens. Thus, it is a disservice to legislate what constitutes harm to its people. We pointed but a few of the studies showing the harmful effects of contraception to society, the family, the youth and women’s health. While it is true that the State cannot stop people from using contraception, since they may personally choose to expose themselves to its risks, it is not the State’s job to facilitate access to what is harmful.

What the government should do is craft laws that prevent people from harming themselves or more positively phrased, help them develop themselves and society. We urge the legislators to dump the contentious and flawed Reproductive Health bill and to pass more bills strengthening the Filipino family, protecting its citizens against the risks of contraception, defending the scientific fact that conception begins at fertilization, providing essential medicines for the main causes of death, making quality education more accessible to Filipinos, and providing more jobs.

For the love of our country,

If you wish you can sign this position paper at:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/

Heads should roll says former President

Per former President Ramos, heads should roll if the 3 Filipinos are executed in China.

See: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110219-321057/Heads-should-roll-if-3-Filipinos-die-says-former-President-Ramos

By J Paredes

In the Flor contemplacion case, foreign service officials resigned. In the case of the 3 Filipinos convicted for being drug "mules," the situation is different. In the Contemplacion case, the issue was the inadequate legal representation of Contemplacion.

In the current case, the issue is the security at NAIA. How were these 3 Filipinos able to leave the Philippines with contraband in their luggage? Thus, it is at NAIA where the search for the heads to roll must be done. Could it be that the drug syndicates had people inside the airport who were co-opted to look the other way while drugs were being smuggled out? Or is it just incompetence by screeners? Either way, NAIA security operations will have to be scrutinized.

Story of the 45 Caliber Pistol

A bit of history on 45 caliber below... invented for Pinoys during the Fil-Am War and the "pacification" program in the early 1900s ... ang na mention below e sa Mindanao lang na issue that prompted its invention. Sa Visayas e may mga Pulahanes groups, etc. Sa Luzon e marami rin groups that could not be easily cut down by the usual ammunition...

http://sportales.com/shooting/the-venerable-colt-caliber-45-m1911a1-automatic-pistol/


...Prior to WW1 the standard handgun issue of the US Army is the caliber .38 revolvers. When the US army under General John “Black Jack” Pershing was stationed in the Southern Philippines at the beginning of the 20th century to pacify the Moros, it was subjected to suicide attacks by “juramentados” who fought because of religious motive. The army noticed that the caliber .38 lacked the power to stop attackers right in their track. Despite seriously wounded by hail of bullets, a suicide attacker could still advance to a soldier and hack him to death with a kris. To deal with that kind of situation, the US army had to use higher caliber ammunition to replace the less effective caliber .38. Later the caliber .38 revolvers were replaced with the higher caliber .45 ...

Wyatt Earp Needs to Returns to Dodge City Kansas

Kansas law change may allow even blind to carry concealed weapon

By Chad Lawhorn
Lawrence Journal-World

February 12, 2011
LJWorld.com

In the state of Kansas, to carry a concealed firearm you need a gun preferably something that fits nice under your jacket, in your pocket or perhaps in your purse.

You also need a license, the state's seal of approval that you can hide a firearm on your person.

What's less clear is whether you need eyesight. It certainly is suggested, unquestionably helpful. But following a change in state law, it is no longer clear whether it is required.

Kansas legislators during the last session approved a number of changes to the state's concealed carry law. One of them was that people who are renewing their license no longer have to take any sort of test to prove they're still proficient with a firearm.

The changes also removed language from the law that gave the attorney general the right to deny applicants a license if they suffer from a physical infirmity which prevents the safe handling of a weapon.

A spokesman for Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt " whose office oversees the concealed carry program " conceded this week that the office is uncertain whether it has the authority to deny a concealed carry license renewal for any physical reason, even if the applicant is blind.

[follow the link if you need to read the entire thing ]

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/feb/12/kansas-law-change-may-allow-even-blind-carry-conce/

A warrior comes clean in last battle for honor

The Final Words of Angelo T. Reyes

By Malou Mangahas
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

LATE evening last Feb. 4, Friday, a long-time source suddenly called. Would I be free for brunch the next day, he asked. He wanted to consult me on something important.

We met the next day and he bared his purpose: Angelo ‘Angie’ T. Reyes, the former Armed Forces chief of staff and Defense secretary, wanted to see me so he could tell his story to “an independent journalist” – would I want to interview him? The source happened to be a senior trusted associate of Angie for the last decade or so.

Now which reporter would pass up the chance to do a great interview? I was tempted to say yes at once. But I knew Angie Reyes to be a difficult source – smart, articulate, often given to intellectual musings, somewhat arrogant in manner and tone, and yes, a bit full of himself. I don’t know how he sized me up; perhaps it was just sheer luck that he had thought of PCIJ at a time he was vulnerable and under fire in the Senate for alleged corruption.

In 2001, for over two hours, I had interviewed Angie for a PCIJ story on the rushed, overpriced, and irregular purchase of four, 30-year-old C-130-K military transport and cargo planes and two sensor equipment for $41 million or P2.1 billion. The supplier was the world’s largest defense contractor, the U.S. firm Lockheed Martin.

The story had reached Angie’s doorstep because it was he, as Armed Forces chief of staff, who recommended the purchase, and approved the same weeks later, as Defense secretary, without public bidding. The purchase was enrolled for funding under the multi-billion-peso Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Modernization Program when it was not supposed to be there at all. The program did not include the purchase of C-130s but only aircraft with night-vision sensors.

To push it, the AFP crafted the contract with Lockheed Martin to cover the acquisition of C-130s retrofitted with night-vision sensors. As it turned out, Angie had merely signed on to a deal endorsed by two presidents, one of whom was said to be close to the lobbying contractor. The Department of Budget and Management did not approve the contract until months later. The Armed Forces had a bad habit then of awarding supply contracts that the service commands or headquarters would later suspend or rescind, then bid and award again, for reasons like product specs mismatched with unit requirements and the change of commanders.

I got to ask Angie hard questions only after a long, small-talk session. He regaled me with his views on books, the arts, and his life as a graduate student at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He didn’t get it that when some sources start pulling in vanity snippets, some reporters become more wary.

And so on Saturday, Feb. 5, when the source said Angie wanted to tell his story, I agreed — but only after laying down what I thought should be the best premises for a good interview: no-holds barred, he doesn’t waste time denying things, he deals with the critical questions, and he agrees that I bring a PCIJ colleague as associate. I told the source about my honest impressions of Angie, arrogance and all. I asked the source if he really thought Angie had it in him a hint of humility, and the courage to tell all about what I am certain he knew first-hand were details of corruption – the cases, the actors, the modus and the system – in the military and the government.

I told the source that it seems clear that apart from senior military officers, corruption festers with the knowledge or acquiescence of a string of chiefs of staff, defense secretaries, and presidents, as well as some of the members of Congress and contractors. If Angie would talk to secure self-redemption, I said, the interview could not guarantee that. I requested the source to tell Angie that the best reason for him to talk would be simply to tell the truth, and that maybe in doing so, over time, he could have self-redemption.

The source said he would relay all this to Angie and get back to me. We exchanged text messages – some of which he said he forwarded to Angie – while Angie engaged in muni-muni, reflected on his options, and consulted with his sons about the interview.

On Sunday, Feb. 6, past 8 p.m., the source called to say Angie was ready to talk and our meeting was a go. But minutes later, the source said Angie had changed his mind and it was a no-go. More minutes later, the source called again to say that Angie said it was a go once more. I was already halfway prepared to go out when the source relayed the message that Angie had again changed his mind. I told the source we should respect that Angie and Angie alone should make the call if and when he wants to talk.

On Tuesday, Feb. 8, the day Angie Reyes took his life, I learned from the source that Angie had actually prepared for our interview. For a few hours last Sunday morning, Angie had sat down with the source to organize his words and thoughts to prepare for his two considered options: the interview with the PCIJ, or a final statement he would issue, in his name, to the media. He asked his associate to document his thoughts and feelings.

“In retrospect, he must have meant it as a final testament, but he kept that card very close to his chest,” the source said. “The notes are incomplete, because our conversation was unfinished. I apologized that I had to leave for a lunch appointment.”

“He became anxious and suddenly revived the PCIJ interview option,” the source recalled. He quoted Angie as telling him, “‘Please lang. Importanteng-importante ito. Time is of the essence.”

“After I said goodbye, he thanked me and shook my hand much more tightly than usual,” the source said. “By then, he was vacillating anew on whether or not to grant the interview. Many considerations (must have) flitted through his mind: he clearly didn’t want to rat on anyone, certainly not his comrades in arms; he also didn’t want to be an instrument for inflicting irreparable damage on the AFP…and so on.”

Said the source: “He would have wanted to contribute to cleaning the system – but only in a just and rational manner. At the hearings, he strongly felt – quite justifiably, I think – that he was being set up by some people to be ‘the face of military corruption.’ While he felt that this was very, very unfair, he was powerless to defend himself in that forum.”

The start of their conversation was recorded on tape. A minute into it, Angie asked the source to just jot down notes of their discussion that took place at the Reyeses’ home in Taguig. The source gave the PCIJ his notes from his discussion, with Angie captured verbatim, saying these were the main points that Angie would have wanted to highlight in the interview. In it, Angie showed he was not one to fail the expectations of honor.

With appropriate courtesy and clearance from his widow and sons, the PCIJ has decided to let Angie tell his story, verbatim. The discussion notes are rough and still unpolished in some parts, and somewhat incomplete. But they are Angie Reyes’s words and thoughts, as of Sunday, Feb. 6, 2011, two days before he put a gun to his heart and shot himself.

Living life without honor is a tragedy

bigger than death itself – Angie Reyes

“Honor, truth, justice. Honor above all else. Pride goes with it, self-respect, sense of legacy. This is very, very important to me. Sometimes, I am accused of being arrogant. I like to have plenty – a healthy sense – of self-esteem. I react to affronts on this.

There are two options available: to stonewall/fight the legal battle, or to come clean and make my own contribution to cleanse the system.

Stonewalling, I am told, would result in a long, protracted legal battle. However, past cases are not being resolved either way, kept in state of limbo. People’s memories are short and all this will eventually fade into public disinterest, and eventually oblivion. So, not to worry.

Coming clean, on the other hand, cannot be done without giving up something. I have decided to come clean, bare my heart and speak the truth. The truth can cut two ways: 1. If you are guiltless, you can embrace the truth and hope that it will protect you; 2. If you are not guiltless, speak the truth and it shall set you free.


I speak the truth not to whistle-blow or to seek neither immunity nor protection nor to escape from any form of liability. As a matter of fact, I speak the truth to accept responsibility for whatever liability I may have.

Honor is above all else. More valuable than freedom or even life itself. Therefore, honor must be guarded/defended with your life.

Living life without honor is a tragedy bigger than death itself.

Stonewalling would mean I would have to go on every day of my life or at least a large part of it under a cloud of public suspicion, at least until the case is resolved. Every day as you continue to live with the lie, you lose a little of your self-respect. And every day, as people look at you, you can read from their minds that they find you dishonorable, and you die a little. So if you stonewall – and you have the connections, resources and power to sustain it, and perhaps the thick face to endure it – that would be the preferred option. I have none of these, and so I choose the path of honor.

My honor has been attacked and damaged. I still have a lot of pride and self-respect, and I’d like to come clean to preserve whatever honor is left.


We see plenty of people walking around who have been clearly disgraced in the eyes of the people, and I do not want to join their ranks.

I think if you want to cleanse the system and for there to be justice, it should be applied equally and well. Our experience has shown that those with position and power, support and connection invariably go scot-free. I don’t have any of these.

It is unfortunate that we have a huge canvas here of which, I admit, I have been a part; unfortunately, people are now inclined to make me the face of that problem for their own various reasons.

When I participated in EDSA II, even then I anticipated that something like this would happen when I made enemies both on a personal and official level. In my long years of service, I knew that I would have to come to terms with this enmity some day.


I might not be guiltless/faultless, but I am not as evil as some would like to portray.

To my friends and those who have known me and believed in me, I honestly believe I did not let you down.

I want to assure the (PMA) cadet corps, current and future, that there are plenty of military professionals who have served and will continue to serve the country well. Do not be disheartened by this turn of events. Yours is a noble profession (of arms), and you should feel no shame. I have tried to live with integrity, loyalty, and courage.

In my 48 years of public service, I have tried to live up to the highest levels of professionalism and integrity. Whether it’s my assignment with the AFP-RSBS or with the Anti-Smuggling Task Force, I never received any offers of bribes; in fact, I returned them. In all my assignments, 39 years in the military and 9 years in four different Cabinet positions, I have never had any favorite supplier. Neither have I ever extorted money nor set any financial precondition for the approval of any contract. I can honestly say that I served honestly and well.

We are now in the situation where my honor and the family name are at stake. My family, my children, my grandchildren could say with a lot of truthfulness and pride that in the family, we value honor and integrity. Strength to live it and the courage to face up to the truth. This is the legacy I would like to leave with them.

Honor, truth, but there must be justice. And justice can be served if laws are applied evenly and well – not favoring the rich and powerful. I hope my case/situation will not be used as something that would bring closure to the issue of military corruption. The fight to reform the system and the entire country must continue; the sad part is that they are selectively targeting individuals and institutions.

I did not invent corruption. I walked into it. Perhaps my first fault was in having accepted aspects of it as a fact of life.

While I am familiar with finance, I must admit I had scant knowledge of military comptrollership. Personally, zero experience. Never been assigned as disbursement officer, etc., no stint. It’s a military field of specialization that I do not have.

No system is perfect. The AFP system needs a lot of systemic solutions…And the same might be true of some other institutions.

Tinyente pa ako, ganyan na ang sistema (i.e., “conversion” system, etc.)… I can perhaps be faulted for presuming regularity in a grossly imperfect system. As CS (chief of staff), a big landscape, presume regularity, convenient to ignore it, accept it as part of the system. It’s easy to say, institute reforms after the problems have erupted.

I joined EDSA II at great risk. Jumped into a void. Coming from a place that was high and comfortable. Without any regard for compensation or recognition or reward. I thought what I did – being loyal to the Flag and putting the national interest above all else – a right, but I was faulted for not being loyal to the commander-in-chief, that I should have stuck with him to the end, however that end might be. I stuck it out with the GMA administration for 9 years, not under the banner of loyalty; I could have deserted GMA, but I did not want to be branded as someone who abandoned his superiors…”

When we participated in many military campaigns, I would like to think that I showed courage…” – PCIJ, February 2011

CREATIVE LICENSE

CREATIVE LICENSE is the only Pinoy film and one of the finalists in the USA Film Racing Contest. It is the entry of Brooklyn in the National Competition. The film was produced by three Filipinos, Paolo Dy, Cathy Azanza and Topper Fabregas. With very minimal resources and using natural lighting, they were able to produce this short film in less than 24 hours.

Please forward to your contacts and cast your votes on or before February 15, 2011.

PLEASE VOTE! The 2010 Brooklyn Film Race winner 'CREATIVE LICENSE'(the only Filipino-language entry) is now a FINALIST in the National Film Race 2010 competition in the US! Please lend us a hand by voting for us at

http://tinyurl.com/6xtot2m. You can view the film at
http://filmracing.com/Films/2010/446.htm :)

Thank you so much!

Thanks for sharing the film.
What a wonderful film. The Tagalog soundtrack makes it sound like an authentic letter home. It's made to be a comedy. But looking deeper it's about the tragedy of folks leaving the safety of home to try to find their fortune in the wide, wild world. - Still struggling, but never losing hope, and sense of humor - which are two sides of the same coin. Typical of the Pinoy diaspora.

About Vietnamese sandwich - Banh Mi

Aside from Pho, Banh Mi is most peoples favorite Vietnamese dish as well as many others as you can read from that New York Times article.

http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/the-vietnamese-sandwich-banh-mi-in-america/?scp=1&sq=banh%20mi&st=cse

Saigon Deli in Seattle has great Banh Mi. Try the Banh Mi Dac Biet. The place has long lines.

Banh Mi can be found in places like St. Louis and Denver, but the one in Kansas City is not as good.

Gutierrez: You talk too much; De Lima: So unprofessional

By Niña Calleja, Marlon Ramos
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:43:00 02/03/2011

MANILA, Philippines—
Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez Wednesday assailed Justice Secretary Leila de Lima
for making “unprofessional” comments on the plea bargain forged by her office
with plunder suspect Carlos Garcia.

“Magtrabaho ka at wag kang daldal nang daldal (Do your work and stop talking too much). Don’t criticize us ... You’re being unprofessional,” Gutierrez said of De Lima during the weekly Fernandina Forum at Club Filipino in San Juan City.

Gutierrez had been asked to comment on De Lima’s statements about her performance as Ombudsman and on the disputed plea bargain with Garcia.

“This is the problem with our justice secretary; she comments so fast without knowing what is really happening,” Gutierrez said in Filipino.

Speaking later with reporters, De Lima said Gutierrez apparently did not know that irregularities in the use of public funds were an integral part of the plunder case filed against Garcia.

“If we have an Ombudsman who doesn’t seem to realize that public funds are involved, then we have a problem,” De Lima said.

“I saw how the Ombudsman firmly justified the plea bargaining agreement [at a House
inquiry on Tuesday] ... There are portions that are disturbing,” she said.

As for Gutierrez’s remarks against her earlier Wednesday, De Lima said: “It’s part of my job. When I say those things, that’s in accordance with my work also. I don’t want to dignify comments like that. It’s so unprofessional.”

‘We also get hurt’
Gutierrez said she had felt the need to air her side because of the criticisms being hurled at her.

“Of course, we also get hurt. But even if we are affected by all these accusations, we have to perform our job and do what is legal,” she said.

Gutierrez said De Lima had no right to speak on the plea bargain because she was not the one handling the case.

“Does she know better than the prosecutors handling the case? If she does, then she must tell us and prosecute Garcia herself,” Gutierrez said.

“As a justice secretary, De Lima should respect the decisions of the court and the Ombudsman. We all deserve trust and respect,” she said.

She taunted former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo and former Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio to pursue the case in the way they wanted to.

“If [Marcelo] thinks we did not do it right, I’m willing to appoint him as prosecutor so that he will have the authority and responsibility to pursue this case,” she said.

The Ombudsman also said she had formed a panel of prosecutors to assess the latest evidence and the testimonies of former military budget officer George Rabusa and former state auditor Heidi Mendoza.

“The prosecutors will be asking Rabusa to submit his official statement. We will give weight to his claims,” she said.

Use letter of Garcia’s wife

De Lima questioned Gutierrez’s statement at the House hearing that it was difficult for the government to pursue the plunder case because the military contractors in the criminal information were identified only as John and Jane Does.

She said the prosecutors could have utilized the letter of Garcia’s wife Clarita when she tried to retrieve the $100,000 that US customs officials had seized from their sons at a San Francisco airport.

“Isn’t it in the statement of Mrs. Garcia, she was referring to kickbacks? Kickbacks presuppose public funds, and aren’t most cases before the Ombudsman about public funds?” De Lima said. “Did [the prosecutors] even know that they have to protect public funds?”

De Lima said Marcelo was right when he said that Clarita Garcia’s letter could be used as evidence against her husband because she was a co-conspirator.

Extradition withdrawn
She said the Ombudsman could have requested US authorities to extradite Garcia’s wife to force her to stand on trial.

“Why aren’t they working on the extradition proceedings? It’s really frustrating that according to the US legal attaché, the withdrawal of extradition proceedings was included in the plea bargain agreement,” De Lima lamented.

LAST TRIP TO COSTCO

Yesterday I was at my local COSTCO buying a large bag of Purina dog chow for my loyal pet, Jake, the Wonder Dog and was in the check-out line when a woman behind me asked if I had a dog.

What did she think I had, an elephant? So since I'm retired and have little to do, on impulse I told her that no, I didn't have a dog, I was starting the Purina Diet again. I added that I probably shouldn't, because I ended up in the hospital last time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IVs in both arms.

I told her that it was essentially a Perfect Diet and that the way that it works is, to load your pants pockets with Purina Nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The food is nutritionally complete so it works well and I was going to try it again. (I have to mention here that practically everyone in line was now enthralled with my story.)

Horrified, she asked if I ended up in intensive care, because the dog food poisoned me. I told her no, I stepped off a curb to sniff a poodle's ass and a car hit me.

I thought the guy behind her was going to have a heart attack he was laughing so hard.

Costco won't let me shop there anymore.

Better watch what you ask retired people. They have all the time in the world to think of crazy things to say. Forward this (especially) to all your retired friends...... it will be their laugh for the day!!!