Smear Campaign

UPA Award for the VP

Get Real
‘Most Dazzling Award’

By: Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer

2:49 am | Saturday, June 25th, 2011

How does someone like Vice President Jejomar Binay get the 2011 “Most Distinguished Alumnus” award from the UP Alumni Association (UPAA)? Therein lies a sorry tale involving a law dean’s purported wish to mark the 100th anniversary of the UP College of Law by ensuring that a law alumnus gets the prestigious award, an undiscerning law alumni association, a UPAA board conveniently headed by a law alumna who was willing and able to throw the board’s own rules out of the window, a generous (P2 million) contribution to the UPAA, and, like a constant refrain, the irresistible lure of the possible benefits that come with pandering (brown-nosing?) to the politically powerful – the goodwill and the patronage.

Want to get the details? Read on and weep.

Start with reading the “General Information and Guidelines for the UPAA Alumni Awards 2011” as posted in the UPAA website (as of Feb. 15, 2011). And it will not escape your attention that the “Most Distinguished Alumnus/Alumna” Award (MDA) is not among the award categories. What are listed are the “UP Distinguished Alumni” awards for various “thematic” categories (e.g., public service and good governance, poverty alleviation and human development, culture and the arts), the “UP Distinguished Service” awards, and UP Alumni Family awards (to families with alumni spanning at least three successive generations). No MDA.

Could the non-inclusion of the latter category have been an oversight? After all, such a distinction has been awarded over the years, up to at least 2008 (the last recipient being Chief Justice Renato Puno during the UP Centennial celebrations). The answer is “No.” It turns out that the current UPAA Board, which took office on July 2009, and was headed by Alfredo Pascual until he ran for UP president (whereupon Gladys Tiongco replaced him), apparently decided to do away with the MDAs altogether. The reason, again apparently, being that it is very hard to choose the primus inter pares, particularly if the pares are involved in very diverse activities in the first place. Just as it is very hard to choose what is the best fruit among langka, chico , guava, banana, santol, atis, etc. So it was decided that the choices would be limited to the best among the langka, the best among the chicos, the best among the guavas, etc. At least that was the metaphor that was used when the rationale for giving up the MDAs was explained to me.
Whether we agree or disagree with that reasoning is actually beside the point. The point is that the UPAA Board did not intend to give an MDA, and it did not call for nominations for that award in its posted announcement.

Which gives rise, naturally, to the question: If the UPAA did not intend to give the MDA award, how did it come to be that on June 10, or thereabouts, the announcement that Vice President Binay had won the award was made? Other questions also come to the fore: If there was no call for nominees to the award, and nominations still came, how many such nominations were submitted, i.e., how large was the pool of nominees from which Binay was chosen? And if the UPAA decided, in the middle of the selection process, to re-create the category that it had withdrawn, when did it send out a call or an announcement to that effect, so that the alumni and alumni chapters could submit their own nominees?

Answering the last question first, there apparently was no subsequent call for nominees for the now-included MDA award – the UPAA website shows no announcements to that effect. The answer to the second-to-the last question, which was provided by a member of the UPAA Board to me only yesterday, was that there were no other nominees. Vice President Binay constituted a nominee pool of one.

The answer to the first question (i.e., how come the award was made?) comes from what I consider to be an unimpeachable source, and I quote the text verbatim: “Law alumni wanted a law grad for their 100 years celebration. Law dean leonin (sic) nominated him together with the law alumni assn. Choice could have been worst (sic) Johnny Enrile.”

I shared this and all the rest of the above information with my fellow UPAA Alumni Council members at yesterday’s annual meeting. It is significant to note that UPAA president Gladys Tiongco, presiding, did not deny the veracity of the text message. What she did was to accept full responsibility for the decision.

I also noted the four criteria – Service Orientation, Leadership, Impact and Integrity—for evaluating nominees. The leadership criterion requires that the nominee “has demonstrated effective and inspiring personal leadership …. i.e., achievements can be attributed more to the person than to the official position/job/title she/he has held.” The integrity criterion states: “there is no serious concern about, or challenge to, the nominee’s personal integrity.” Obviously the question is: were these criteria applied at all to the sole MDA nominee? The answer has to be equally obvious.

I invited my fellow alumni and fellow UP faculty members present to ponder on the blatant, unrepentant, what-are-we-in-power-for, we-are-exempt-from-our-own rules attitude of the alumni governing body. Doesn’t it smack too much of a typical politician’s attitude?

That kind of decision-making has no place whatsoever in UP, where honor and excellence (honor first) are our raisons d’etre. The lesson is clear: we should not talk the talk (tell government what it is doing wrong) unless we ourselves can walk the walk (practice what we preach).

www.cenpeg.org

Subject: CenPEG Issue Analysis No.3 SPRATLYS Row June 24 2011

Issue Analysis No. 03
>Series of 2011
>LIVING IN THE PAST: Mishandling the Spratlys territorial row
>Government must abandon the 20th century politics of colonialism and neo-colonialism and begin to act more responsibly with a mature and independent foreign policy.

>By the Policy Study, Publication, and Advocacy (PSPA)
>Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG)
>June 24, 2011

>The Philippine government should use a different tack in pursuing its claim on the Spratly Islands and other small territories in the South China Sea (SCS). The government posturing is beginning to sound like a broken record again by tying its response on external affairs to U.S. support even if the Philippines, a former
American colony, remains far remote from Washington DC's international
radar.

>In the past few months, tension over the Spratlys built up with reports of incursions by China into islets in the SCS claimed by the Philippines. The incidents triggered diplomatic protests by the Philippines; the Beijing government denied the accusations. There is "freedom of navigation" in the SCS, China said,
but it also called for a stop to oil exploration by other countries in
the Spratlys.

>Aquino officials were quick to warn that the Philippines can use its 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) with the U.S. to defend its territorial claim in the Spratlys. Modern military equipment was also to be purchased in the U.S., it was also announced. More to the point, Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin asked for U.S. navy ships' deployment in the SCS to check Chinese aggression. "When the cat (U.S.) is away, the mice (China) will play," he said.

>The U.S. embassy in Manila, however, stopped short of promising direct military support amid assurances that the Philippines remained a "strategic ally" and that both countries will continue "to consult and work with each other on all issues including the South China Sea and Spratlys Islands." Instead of committing
specific military support to defend the Philippines' claim, the American envoy called for "restraint" in the territorial row.

>Centerpiece policy
>Underneath the knee-jerk and uninformed reactions by the Aquino government are illusions about a special U.S.-Philippine relationship - the prize centerpiece of past administrations' foreign policy. The price of this misperception has
been the failure to discern the kernel of truth about foreign policy:
That it is pursued by a sovereign state chiefly for its own interests.

>A cold war-vintage pact, the 1951 U.S.-Philippine MDP provided for mutual support against foreign aggression. But it was invoked by the U.S. only a few times for no other reason than to coerce Philippine participation in the U.S. wars in the
Korea Peninsula and in Indochina. It was also used to legitimize the onerous Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA, 1999) which allows the entry of U.S. forces in any part of the Philippine archipelago in the guise of joint war exercises. U.S. trainings under the VFA have been used by the U.S. to devise new counter-insurgency doctrines in Afghanistan, Iraq and other war-torn countries while maintaining permanent facilities in the Philippines as forward-deployed forces for military projection in the region.

>The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1994) cited by the Philippines in support of its territorial claim in the Spratlys has not even been ratified by the U.S. In particular, the U.S. is opposed to the provision pertaining to the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) for being unfavorable "to American economic and security interests."

>'Mother of territorial disputes'
>South China Sea is known as the "mother of all territorial disputes" – a flashpoint of future wars. Covering 3.5 million sq. km. and one of the richest fishing grounds in the world, the SCS is also claimed as the "second Persian Gulf" for being rich in oil, gas, and sea-based minerals. It is the world's second international sea-lane where more than 25 percent of the world's trade traverses – as well as Japan's energy needs (70 percent) and China's (65 percent). Being the world's top energy consumer and second biggest oil importer today, China holds strategic interest in the SCS to ensure continuing supply of oil and gas products from the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, as well as Asia where it has active energy exploration and production projects.

>In the SCS' southern part is the Spratly Islands which is comprised of some 750 barren islets, rock formations, and sandbanks of varying size, spread over 425,000 sq. km. – with a total land area of only less than 5 sq. km. Both China and Vietnam have territorial claims over the Spratlys in whole, while the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei have stakes on parts of the archipelago. China asserts historical claims over actually the whole SCS dating back to 2 BC but it issued its first direct claim in 1951. In 1956, Tomas Cloma, a Filipino adventurer and fishing magnate, staked his claim over the Spratlys calling it the "Free Territory of Freedomland" with a separate government.

>Of all the littoral claimant-states, China is most assertive of its irredentist claims over the Spratlys and the whole of South China Sea. But it is with Vietnam that Beijing has engaged in actual military skirmishes and, with the Philippines, in recurrent tension. Just the same, China declares that it adheres to "freedom of
navigation" in the SCS and consents to multilateral or multi-polar talks on issues involving the sea. But it prefers bilateral negotiations in settling territorial feuds.

>China's 'soft power'
>China is trying to balance its "hard power" approach with "soft power" by offering joint exploration and development of oil and marine resources in the SCS with other claimant-countries. Thus in 2005 it entered into a Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JSMU) with the Philippines and Vietnam which, however, raised constitutional
issues in Manila. The JMSU ended in June 2008 with its extension compromised by allegations of corruption linking Chinese ODA loans to the Philippines.

>Signed in 2002 by China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the SCS is a conflict management forum providing for the peaceful resolution of the overlapping claims. The non-binding code of conduct, however, has been constrained by China's refusal to use it for
multilateral arbitration as well as by ASEAN member-states' differing and vaguely-defined claims in the Spratlys.

>As a rising maritime power, China is expected to secure its territorial waters and sealanes. But it is bound by a foreign policy in ensuring a peaceful environment conducive for steering an economy now considered as the second largest in the world with a global projection that will require a modern maritime and defense
system. Even as it says it will use military means only as a last resort to defend its territorial claims China cannot afford a war in the South China Sea at this time. War will not favor China's growing trade and investments in Southeast Asia. To this end, it has engaged in or is negotiating joint oil and gas exploration and development in Brunei and with Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin.

>As it appears, negotiation is the only mechanism available for the Philippines to settle its territorial claims with China – as well as with the rest of the claimants. Joint and cooperative development of potential oil, gas, and marine resources available in the Spratlys can be pursued – accompanied by a "freeze" of sovereignty issues, as proposed by some conflict management advisers. They agree
that – like most international treaties in other conflict situations – UNCLOS cannot be effectively applied in territorial disputes. As a fallback, they point to one of its provisions that in the end "countries with overlapping claims must resolve their claims by good faith negotiation."

>In principle, both the Philippines and China agree that the conflict should be settled diplomatically. Hostilities with China will impact more on the remittance-dependent Philippines which has 150,000 OFWs in Hong Kong plus another 8,000 in mainland China. The Aquino administration is also actively seeking Chinese
investments in about 80 long-term projects including finance, energy, transport, and infrastructures.

>Policy assessment
>Officially, the Philippine government's dealings with other countries are supposed to promote economic development and protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers. Internally, however, its foreign relations are torn between meeting this objective and an intractable belief that the country's national interests are best
enhanced by its special ties with the U.S. With respect particularly to the Spratlys, government policy makers are ill-informed in presuming that the country's territorial claims even if guided by economic objectives must be pursued under the protection of the U.S. The spontaneous choice of invoking the MDP and the purchase of modern arms vis-à-vis allegations of Chinese aggression reveals unseen hands – both within the Aquino cabinet and the military institutions – are exerting
yet again a strong influence in determining the country's foreign policy track when negotiation should be the priority. The only winners in a war scenario are arms suppliers – and these are aplenty in the U.S. They are not just lurking – they have the capability to provoke profit-oriented wars.

>Hence, isn't it likely that the territorial dispute is being used once more to justify huge budgets for the AFP modernization, the purchase of military supplies, and uphold the 1999 Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the U.S. the termination of which is being sought in Congress? Is this not therefore playing into the
hands of war hawks in the U.S. Pentagon to use America's numerous defense treaties with the Philippines and other countries in East Asia in increasing and realigning its security forces toward the strategic encirclement of China? Can't this actually be the bigger source of tension and conflict in the South China Sea?

>The Spratlys territorial dispute is a long-term problem that warrants a long-term solution. Imperative at this point, however, is an assessment of government's handling of the issue, its relations with China, and a comprehensive review of Philippine-U.S. ties. This is the 21st century and surely the country's external
relations should already mature. The first thing to do is to leave the 20th century politics of colonialism and neo-colonialism and begin to act more responsibly with a mature and independent foreign policy.

Filipino Jokes

> *A Chemistry teacher asked a sexy student, "What are NITRATES?
> The student replied shyly, "Ma'am, sa motel po.
> NITRATES are higher than day rates!"**
>
> *
> *Usapan ng dalawang mayabang...
> Tomas: Ang galing ng aso ko! Tuwing umaga, dala
> niya ang dyaryo sa akin.
> Diego: Alam ko.
> Tomas: Ha? Paano mo nalaman?
> Diego: Ikinukuwento sa akin ng aso ko.**
>
> *
> *WHO'S GUILTY?
> Wife dreaming in the middle of the night
> suddenly shouts, "Quick, my husband is back!"
> Man gets up, jumps out the window and realizes, "Damn! I am the husband!"
> **
> *
>
> *Josh: Kumusta ang assignment?
> Ricardo: Masama. Wala akong nasagutan. Blank paper ang ipinasa ko.
> Josh: Naku, ako rin! Paano 'yan? Baka isipin
> nila, nagkopyahan tayo?!**
> *
> *Toto: Pangarap ko, kumita ng P250,000 monthly gaya ni daddy!
> Juvy: Wow! Ganyan kalaki ang kinikita ng daddy mo?
> Toto: Hindi! 'Yan din ang pangarap niya**!
> *
>
> *Dok: May taning na ang buhay mo.
> Juan: Wala na bang pag-asa? Ano po ba ang dapat kong gawin?
> Dok: Mag-asawa ka na lang ng pangit at bungangera.
> Juan: Bakit, gagaling po ba ako ru'n?
> Dok: Hindi, pero mas gugustuhin mo pang mamatay kesa mabuhay!** *
>
> *Lito: Pare, ano ba ang kaibahan ng H2O sa CO2?
> Joseph: Diyos ko naman! Di mo ba alam 'yun?!
> Ang H2O ay water! At
> ang CO2... cold water.**
> *
>
> *Gustong malaman ng magkaibigan kung may basketbolan sa langit.
> Nagkasundo sila na kung sino ang unang mamatay ay babalik upang
> sabihin kung may basketbol sa langit.
> Naunang namatay si Dado.
> Isang gabi, may narinig na boses si Rodel na parang kay Dado.
> "Ikaw ba 'yan, Dado?" usisa ni Rodel.
> "Oo naman!" tugon ni Dado.
> "Parang hindi totoo!" bulalas ni Rodel."O,ano, meron bang basketbol sa
> langit?"
> Sagot ni Dado, "May maganda at masama akong
> balita sa 'yo. Ang maganda, may basketbol doon. Ang masama...
> kasali ka sa makakalaban namin bukas!" (ngek!)**
>
> *
> *Usapan ng dalawang bata...
> Junjun: Magaling ang tatay ko! Alam mo, 'yang
> Pacific Ocean , siyaang humukay nun!
> Pedrito: Wala 'yan sa tatay ko! Alam mo ' yungDead Sea ?
> Junjun: Oo...
> Pedrito: Siya ang pumatay nun!**
>
> *
> *Stewardess: Do you want a drink, sir?
> Sir: What are my choices?
> Stewardess: Yes or No.**
>
> *
> *Misis: Hindi ko na kaya 'to! Araw-araw nalang tayong nag-aaway
> Mabuti pa, umalis na ako sa bahay na 'to!
> Mister: Ako rin, sawang-sawa na! Away rito,away roon! Mabuti pa
> siguro, sumama na ako sa 'yo!**
>
> *
> *Misis: Delayed ako nang one month pero huwag mo munang
> ipagsabi.Nahihiya ako...
> Mister: Okey.
> Kinabukasan, dumating ang taga-Meralco. ..
> Taga-Meralco: Misis, delayed po kayo ng onemonth.
> Misis: Ha? Bakit mo alam?
> Taga-Meralco: Nasa record po.
> Mister: Bakit Naka-record diyan na delayed ang misis ko?
> Taga-Meralco: Kung gusto ninyong mawala sarecord, magbayad kayo!
> Mister: Eh kung ayokong magbayad?
> Taga-Meralco: Puputulan kayo!
> Mister: Eh anong gagamitin ni misis?
> Tag-Meralco: Pwede naman siyang gumamit ng kandila.**
>
> *
> *Advantage at disadvantage ng may-asawa...
> ADVANTAGE: 'Pag kailangan mo, nandiyan agad.
> DISADVANTAGE: 'Pag ayaw mo na, andiyan parin!**
> *
> *What is the difference between a girlfriend,a call girl and a wife?
> Sagot: Post paid, pre paid, unlimited.** *
>
> *Sa isang classroom...
> Titser: Class, what is ETHICS?
> Pilo: Etiks are smaller than ducks.
> Titser: Okey, that duck will lay an egg in your card.**
>
> *
> *Juan: Pare, noong mayaman pa kami, nagkakamay
> kaming kumain. Ngayong
> mahirap na kami, nakakutsara na.
> Pedro: Baligtad yata?
> Juan: Mahirap kamayin ang lugaw, pare!**
>
> *
> *Anak: Itay, nagpapatanong si ma'am kung ano
> raw ang propesyon mo.
> Itay: Sabihin mo, cardiologist.
> Anak: Ano po ba ang cardiologist, Itay?
> Itay: 'Yung tagaayos ng radio sa car!**
>
> *
> *Umuwi si mister nang 4:00 AM at nakita niya
> ang kanyang misis na may
> katalik na lalaki sakama...
> Misis: (sumigaw) SAAN KA GALING?!
> Mister: Sino 'yang katabi mo?
> Misis: GRABE KA! HUWAG MONG IBAHIN ANGUSAPAN!**
>
> *
> *Rodrigo: Bakit bad trip ka?
> Harry: Nagtampo sa 'kin ang utol ko.
> Rodrigo: Bakit naman?
> Harry: Nakalimutan ko kasi ang birthday niya.
> Rodrigo: 'Yun lang? Anong masama ru'n?
> Harry: Ang masama ru'n... twins kami! Twins! *
>

Happy Father's Day

Why are wives more dangerous than the Mafia? The mafia wants either your money or life... The wives want both!

Marriage is like a public toilet - Those waiting outside are desperate to get in & Those inside are desperate to come out.

No Man Can Ever Be Satisfied
with 4 things in life.
(1) Mobile
(2) Automobile
(3) TV
(4) Wife
Because there is always a better model in the neighborhood.

**Searching these keywords on Google `How to tackle wife?`
Google search result, `Good day sir, Even we are searching`.

**Compromising does not mean you are wrong and your wife is right. It only means that the safety of your head is much more important than your ego!

**Imagine living with 3 wives in one compound and never leaving the house for 5 years.Osama Bin Laden must have called the US Navy Seals himself

**Whisky is a brilliant invention. One double and you start feeling single again.

**A friend recently explained why he refuses to get to married.
He says the wedding rings look like miniature handcuffs.

**It is said that when a woman closes her eyes, she sees the person she is in love the most; and when a man does that... the slide show begins.

**It takes thousand workers 2 build a castle, Million soldiers to protect a country, but just One woman to make a Happy Home --------- A Good Maid!

**Funny quote on a husband`s T-Shirt:
All girls are devils, but my wife is the queen of them.*

Second Opinion!

The doctor said, 'Joe, the good news is I can cure your headaches. The bad news is that it will require castration.

You have a very rare condition, which causes your testicles to press on your spine and the pressure creates one hell of a headache. The only way to relieve the pressure is to remove the testicles.'

Joe was shocked and depressed. He wondered if he had anything to live for.He had no choice but to go under the knife. When he left the hospital, he was without a headache for the first time in 20 years, but he felt like he was missing an important part of himself. As he walked down the street, he realized that he felt like a different person. He could make a new beginning and live a new life.

He saw a men's clothing store and thought, 'That's what I need... A new suit...'

He entered the shop and told the salesman, 'I'd like a new suit..'

The elderly tailor eye d him briefly and said, 'Let's see... Size 44 long.'

Joe laughed, 'That's right, how did you know?'

'Been in the business 60 years!' the tailor said.

Joe tried on the suitit fit perfectly.

As Joe admired himself in the mirror, the salesman asked, 'How about a new shirt?'

Joe thought for a moment and then said, 'Sure.'

The salesman eyed Joe and said, 'Let's see, 34 sleeves and 16-1/2 neck.'

Joe was surprised, 'That's right, how did you know?'

'Been in the business 60 years.'

Joe tried on the shirt and it fit perfectly.

Joe walked comfortably around the shop and the salesman asked, 'How about some new underwear?'

Joe thought for a moment and said, 'Sure.'

he salesman said, 'Let's see... Size 36.

Joe laughed, 'Ah ha! I got you!I've worn a size 34 since I was 18 years old.'

The salesman shook his head, 'You can't wear a size 34. A size 34 would press your testicles up against the base of your spine and give you one hell of a headache.'

New suit - £400
New shirt - £36
New underwear - £6
Second Opinion - PRICELESS

Interesting Secret Service Perspective

*Reading a book about the Secret Service where they reveal an awful lot
about the presidents and Vice Presidents...very interesting recap thus far.*
*JFK and LBJ** = Philanderers of the highest order. Both kept a lot of
women in White House for affairs. Both set up "early warning" systems for
if and when their wives were nearby. Total immoral men. In addition, LBJ was
as crude as the day is long.*

*Nixon **= Weird, moral man but very odd and weird. Paranoid etc. Horrible
relationship with his family, almost a recluse.**

** Agnew** = nice, decent man, everyone was surprised at his downfall.**

**Ford **= A true gentlemen who treated them with respect and dignity**
*
*Jimmy Carter** = A complete phony who would portray one picture of
himself to public and very different in private. I.E. Would be
shown carrying his own luggage, suit cases were always empty, he kept empty
ones just for photo op's. Wanted the people to see him as pious and a non
drinker, he and family drank alcohol a lot. Had disdain for the Secret
Service, and was very irresponsible with the "football" nuclear codes.
Didn't think it was a big deal and would keep military aides at a great
distance. Would never acknowledge military or Secret service they were there
to serve him.**

**Ronald Reagan** = the real deal. Moral, Honest, respectful and dignified.
Treated Secret Service and everyone else with respect and honor. Would
always thank everyone all the time. He took the time to know everyone on a
personal level. One story was early on in Presidency the President came out
of his room with a side arm attached to his hip. The Agent in charge said
"Why the pistol Mr. President." Ronald Reagan replied, "In case you boys
can't get the job done, I can help." It was common for him to carry a
pistol. People do not know that when he met with Gorbachev, he had a pistol
in his briefcase.**
Upon learning that Gary Hart was caught with Donna Rice during the election
Ronald Reagan said, "Boys will be boys, but boys will not be President"
*
*Nancy Reagan** = Very nice but very protective of the President...the
Secret Service was always caught in the middle. Nancy would try to control
what the President ate all the time (healthy) and he would say to the
Agent "come on you gotta help me out." The Reagan's rarely drank alcohol.
Secret Service said they could count on one hand the times the Reagan's were
served alcohol other than wine during dinner. They made the comment for all
the fake bluster of the Carters it was the Reagan's who lived life as
genuinely moral people.**

* *George and Barbara Bush** = extremely kind and considerate. Always
respectful. Took great care in making sure the agents comforts were taken
care of. They would bring them meals etc. One time Barbara Bush brought
warm clothes to agents standing outside a Kennebunkport . One agent who was
given a warm hat tried to nicely say no thanks when he was obviously
freezing and President Bush said "Son, don't argue with the first lady, put
the hat on. "Out of their way to take care of the Secret Service and made
sure they were well cared for with meals and other comforts. GW was the most
prompt of the Presidents. He ran like a well oiled mach*

* **Bill Clinton** = Presidency was one giant party. Not trustworthy, he was
nice because he wanted everyone to like him but life is just one big game
and party to him.**

**Hillary Clinton** = another phony. Personality would change the instant
cameras were near. She hated with open disdain the military and Secret
Service. Again another* *one who felt people are there to serve her. She was
always trying to keep tabs on Bill Clinton...*

*Al Gore** = An egotistical ass who was once overheard by his Secret Service
detail when he told his son he needed to do better in school or he "would
end up like these guys" and pointed to the agents.**

**G W Bush** = they loved him and Laura Bush. They said no one is a nicer
person than Laura Bush who never has a harsh word to say about anyone. He
was also the most in shape that had a very strict work out regimen. The
Bush's made sure their entire administration understood to respect and be
considerate of the Secret Service. Karl Rove was the one who was the most
caring of the Secret Service in the administration*.

Marcos' Burial

Early reports had it that VP Jejomar Binay had completed his recommendation to the Pres. Noynoy Aquino on the proper burial rites for Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos. The recommendation is burial in Ilocos Norte with full military honors, but not in Libingan ng mga Bayani here in Manila as was originally debated and endorsed by more than 200 congressmen. The proposed burial honors has been reportedly accepted by the Marcos family, and on TV Patrol last night the viewers, in majority, seem to favor the recommendation. This seems to be a "win-win" solution to a problem that has nagged the Filipino people for over two decades now. Military honors cannot be denied of a former soldier and, more importantly, a former commander-in-chief, while not burying Mr. Marcos' body in the hallowed Libingan ng mga Bayani did not allow for the unfair and absurd revision of history. Marcos, after all, is not a hero. This will finally put a closure to this case which
has hounded us for a very long time and made us a laughing stock in the world. Hope this time Imelda will not change her mind and finally allow her husband to rest in peace.

P-Noy has tossed this difficult problem to Binay, and the latter came out with what seems to be a "fair" recommendation. Now the ball is in his court. P-Noy needs to act, and act presidentially on this issue.

"Rambotito" Binay keeps scoring good points for all the challenges that had been hurled to him. He seems to be a pragmatic politician and a man of action - one who will not turn his back from a good fight. The Makati residents are one in chanting good praises for him.

WHY MEN ARE NEVER DEPRESSED

Men Are Just Happier People --
What do you expect from such simple creatures?
Your last name stays put.
The garage is all yours.
Wedding plans take care of themselves.
Chocolate is just another snack.
You can be President.
You can never be pregnant.
You can wear a white T-shirt to a water park.
You can wear NO shirt to a water park.
Car mechanics tell you the truth.
The world is your urinal.
You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky.

You don't have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.
Same work, more pay.
Wrinkles add character.
Wedding dress $5000. Tux rental-$100.
People never stare at your chest when you're talking to them.
New shoes don't cut, blister, or mangle your feet.
One mood all the time.
Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.
You know stuff about tanks.
A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.
You can open all your own jars.
You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.
If someone forgets to invite you,
He or she can still be your friend.
Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.
Three pairs of shoes are more than enough..
You almost never have strap problems in public.
You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes..
Everything on your face stays its original color.
The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.
You only have to shave your face and neck.
You can play with toys all your life.
One wallet and one pair of shoes -- one color for all seasons.
You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.
You can 'do' your nails with a pocket knife.
You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache.
You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives
On December 24 in 25 minutes.
No wonder men are happier.
Send this to the women who can handle it
And to the men who will enjoy reading it.
___




Men Are Just Happier People

NICKNAMES

If Laura, Kate and Sarah go out for lunch, they will call each other Laura, Kate and Sarah.
If Mike, Dave and John go out, they will affectionately refer to each other as Fat Boy, Bubba and Wildman .

EATING OUT
When the bill arrives, Mike, Dave and John will each throw in $20, even though it's only for $32.50. None of them will have anything smaller and none will actually admit they want change back.· When the girls get their bill, out come the pocket calculators.

MONEY
A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs.
A woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn't need but it's on sale.

BATHROOMS
A man has six items in his bathroom: toothbrush and toothpaste,shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel.
The average number of items in the typical woman's bathroom is 337.
A man would not be able to identify more than 20 of these items.

ARGUMENTS
A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.

FUTURE
A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.


MARRIAGE
A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't.
A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change, but she does.

DRESSING UP
A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the trash, answer the phone, read a book, and get the mail.
A man will dress up for weddings and funerals.

NATURAL
Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed.
Women somehow deteriorate during the night.

OFFSPRING
Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.

A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.


THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
A married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two people remembering the same thing!

SO, send this to the women who have a sense of humor and who can handle it and to the men who will enjoy reading it.

Woman Golfer

Only Golfers will have the patience to read through this one but it has a pretty good punch line...


A group of guys lived and died for their Saturday morning round of golf. One transferred to another city. It wasn't the same without him.

A new woman joined their Club. She overheard the guys talking about their golf round. She said, "You know, I used to play on my golf team in college and I was pretty good. Would you mind if I joined you next week?"

The three guys looked at each other. Not one of them wanted to say 'yes', but she had them on the spot. Finally, one man said it would be okay, but they would be starting early - at 6:30 a.m.

He figured the early tee-time would discourage her. The woman said this may be a problem, and asked if she could be up to 15 minutes late.

They rolled their eyes, but said okay. She smiled and said, "Good, I'll be there at 6:30 or 6:45."

She showed up at 6:30 sharp, and beat all three of them with an eye-opening 2-under par round. She was fun and a pleasant person, and the guys were impressed. Back at the clubhouse, they congratulated her and invited her back the next week. She smiled, and said, "I'll be there at 6:30 or 6:45."

The next week she again showed up at 6:30 sharp. Only this time, she played left-handed. The three guys were incredulous as she still beat them with an even par round, despite playing with her off-hand. They were totally amazed.

They couldn't figure her out. She was again very pleasant and didn't seem to be purposely showing them up. They invited her back again, but each man harbored a burning desire to beat her.

The third week, the guys had their game faces on. But this time, she was 15 minutes late, which made the guys irritable. This week the lady played right-handed, and narrowly beat all three of them.

The men mused that her late arrival was due to petty gamesmanship on her part. However, she was so gracious and so complimentary of their strong play, they couldn't hold a grudge.

Back in the clubhouse, all three guys were shaking their heads. This woman was a riddle no one could figure out. They had a couple of beers, and finally, one of the men asked her point blank, "How do you decide if you're going to golf right-handed or left-handed?"

The lady blushed, and grinned. "That's easy," she said.

"When my Dad taught me to play golf, I learned I was ambidextrous. I like to switch back and forth. When I got married after college, I discovered my husband always sleeps in the nude. From then on, I developed a silly habit. Right before I left in the morning for golf practice, I would pull the covers off him.

If his you-know-what was pointing to the right, I golfed right-handed; if it was pointed to the left, I golfed left-handed."

The guys on the team thought this was hysterical. Astonished at this bizarre information, one of the guys shot back, "But what if it's pointing straight up?"

She said, "Then, I'm fifteen minutes late."