Father Poises to Throw the Grenades to the Enemies

By Mortz C. Ortigoza

The first time I saw my military father ready to die for the motherland or probably for my mother, I was in Grade 5 in M’lang, Cotabato Province.

He was then on a soldier’s pass when he brought me and my kindergarten brother Gabriel to a rickety worn out wood walled barbershop which, I still remember, was owned by the father of my playmates Stephen and Toto Felipe.The latter, a rugged boy, had fisticuffs with me, but that’s another story.

My father Retired Air Force Lieutenant Marcelo Cruz Ortigoza, Sr. Papa was probably the most pro- United States’ soldier. When we lived at the Philippine Military Academy, Baguio City in the early 1970s I saw him bought and crowed his U.S made fatigue uniform, duffel bag, charol black shoes, and boots from stores in Quiapo selling Yanks made soldiers’ paraphernalia.

When we were seating at the worn-out barber couch elevated by small wood boxes to raise our heads, some peasant women running and shouting with their lungs out that the Black Shirts (precursor of the Moro National Liberation Front) were already at the periphery of the Peñaranda Hospital.

The hospital was more than a kilometer away from us.

Immediately my father told the frail looking barber Mr.Felipe to forego our military white style wall haircut (that I detested because I envied the mop haired Beatles) because he had to secure us and promised to return with his weapon and later with us whose side of the heads were already shaved just like those plebes at the Philippine Military Academy where my siblings and I were born.

Is Our Country Going to the Dogs?

By Mortz C. Ortigoza

Reports say foreign direct investment (FDI) inflow declined middle of this year.

So with a diminishing FDI, is this rambunctious country where people especially the dirt poor, breed like rabbit, going to the dogs?

Arf, arf, arf, no!

                                                             Overseas Foreign Workers

As long as we have overseas foreign workers (OFW) that grow by three to five percent a year and sent tens of billions of U.S dollars yearly (U.S $28 Billion or P1.4 Trillion last year) because of the incompetency of the political leadership to create employment atmosphere, we will have laborers and electricians that would be building these OFW houses and condominiums, we will have teachers and restaurant owners to serve the college children of these workmen, and we will have salesladies to serve big malls like SM and Robinsons where the OFWs and their family buy their fancy branded clothes and relished themselves with foods at those franchised restaurants there.

Espino Urges: Challenge the De Venecias, Arenases

By Mortz C. Ortigoza

Last Holiday, one of the political kibitzers and my regular blog reader in the province visited me at home and reacted to my previous column I'm Retired in Politics in 2019

HEAVYWEIGHT - Former Five-Time House Speaker Joe de Venecia (left) and Movie and Television Review and Classification Board Chairman Rachel Arenas. Photo Credit: Alchetron

where I opined that former Fifth District Representative Kimi Cojuangco would not seek reelection but her husband Former Congressman Mark challenges again Pangasinan Governor Amado I. Espino III in a very expensive 2019 election.

“My source told me Danding feeling bad about what happened to his son would bankroll his candidacy,” I quipped as I extended to him the plate full of Kinilaw na Tuna (Raw  Yellow Fin Tuna) marinated in vinegar and kalamansi with raw strips of radish, cucumber, onions, ginger, bell and native peppers, whatchamacallit I made, Davao City style, after he quaffed his negative 8 Celsius or  zero cold bottle of Red Horse.

I told him that even Cojuangco can still be defeated by the young Espino, it would be Pyrrhic victory.

“You know what Pyrrhic is?

---

“It’s a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is equivalent to defeat. One could be victorious but the heavy toll negates a true sense of achievement,“ he retorted.

“Ya, it was about  King Pyrrhus of Epirus  whose army was tragically damaged in defeating the Romans at the Battles of Heraclea and the Asculum hundreds of years ago,” according to the pambalot ng tinapa I accidentally read,” I said.

QUINTESSENTIAL POLITICIAN - Pangasinan

 Fifth District Representative Amado T. Espino, Jr.

Susmariosep, who was that U.S president who quipped after he won his Pyrrhic reelection? "Another victory like this and our money's gone!"

It would be Pyrrhic because unlike the limited wherewithal of Mark in the 2016 “battle”, this coming election would be financially very heavy because the Espinos would be spending too as Danding poured his monies for his son.

Danding Cojuangco is the Chairman of the largest food and beverage corporation in the Philippines San Miguel Corporation.

            WIN-WIN SOLUTION

My friend told me he got not only a formula but a “Solomonic” Solution to avoid this “Down-in-the Trenches” War where both families reconciled and relished just like the old days when they regularly broke breads.

“They talk with each other. Espino would tell Mark, he can run unopposed in the Fifth District and becomes a congressman again with a turf to boot in that Eastern Part while Pogi (the present governor) retains the governorship,” he cited.

He added that both families saved their billions of pesos that they would be spending for the election hungry, vulnerable, and susceptible to you-know-what electorates of the land of Andres Malong and Juan dela Cruz Palaris.

 “Where would (5^th District) Congressman (Amado, Jr) Espino run for office? Urdaneta City, Bayambang, or even Alaminos City is too small for his stature comes the day of reckoning in 2019?,” I posed.

He said the solon can make a rampage just like what he did to Kimi Cojuangco by “bludgeoning” her in that mind numbing 133,381 votes  versus Kimi’s 92,943 in the last election in the “vaunted” turf of the Cojuangcos in Eastern Pangasinan.

“He can either run in the Third (Congressional) District or Fourth District”.

I told him that it is an easy win if he runs in the Third versus former Congresswoman Rachel Arenas or her Mother Rosemarie “Baby” Arenas because the Arenases, according to TV Host Jesse Perez, are not real Pangasinenses but Makati City residents.

“And Espine (the endearment for the solon) is dyed-in-wool Pangasinense who naturally speak the vernacular,” I said.

“No, Espino can easily beat any of the de Venecias like former Speaker Joe, former Congresswoman Manay Gina, or incumbent Congressman Toff,” he disagreed.

I told him that San Fabian Mayor Danny Agbayani was egged by Congressman Espino to challenge the perennial hegemony of the De Venecias in the four towns one city’s Central Pangasinan District but Danny declined profusely.

“I could not fight the De Venecias because they are, like you, my parents,” the undisputed two terms Mayor of the coastal town told his other patron Espino.

When I asked my guest last holiday if aside from Espino, who are the viable candidates to make a decent fight with the de Venecias, he told me it is either Celia Lim (wife of Dagupan City Mayor Benjie Lim) or her son Brian – the latter the present vice mayor of Dagupan City.

“But it would be Espino that would be a shoo-in in case he runs for the 4^th District,” he cited.

“It would not be an easy task, the de Venecias have hundreds of millions of pesos to spend in a “take-no-prisoner” war and the district that has been their citadel for decades,” I argued.

“Their fortress is only Dagupan City, almost all the mayors in the four towns and the voters there are pro-Espinos and you can just look at the 2016 election. What more now that the Espinos are perceived as politically invincible and everything they touch, just like the Phrygian King Midas, turned into gold,” he cited how opponents in the gubernatorial races of the almost 3 million populated province like spouses Victor and Jamie Agbayani, Hernani Braganza, and Marcos Cojuangco crumbled like deck of cards against the Espinos’ political juggernaut.

He then concluded by citing how astute was Congressman Espino in flushing out the Cojuangcos by even pirating some of the pro-Cojuangco mayors there in that 2016 congressional race.

“Kung may tataas pa sa Doctorate Degree sa political adroitness, ano si Amado Espino, Jr” he posed to me.

“Quintessential Politician,” I replied.

“Petmalu Lodi (slang of Idol Malupit)! Pero ano iyong Quintessential, sir?” Galman, my unlettered errand boy who was silently imbibing his beer, posed.

“P*nyeta, wag ka maki alam sa usapan ng matatalino. Ito pera galing sa mga Americano bumili ka pa ng Red Horse sa 7-11 at Quintessential - sabihin mo iyong pampulutan na nilalagay sa Kilaw na Tuna ng Davao City," I barked at him.

PHOTO BELOW IS MY ERRAND BOY GALMAN WHO WAS CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT IS A "QUINTESSENTIAL POLITICIAN".

(Send comments to totomortz@yahoo.com)

Ranger Capt Uses Men as Bait to Locate Muslims' Snipers

By Mortz C. Ortigoza

“Son of a gun, so the PC had the likes of  Colonel Amado Espino while the other branches of service had their heroes. Were you familiar with Army’s hero Julius Javier (PMA '70) and legendary artillery man Army General Rodolfo Canieso (PMA '56)?" I posed to Congressman Leopoldo "Pol" Bataoil.
 Si Julius Javier may movie pa titled the Scout Ranger!” I enthused.

Bataoil, a former police two-star general, emphatically told me the feats of Javier, an Ilonggo like me.

Filipino elite soldiers Scout Ranger

“Even as company commander he joined patrol and engaged the Muslim rebels in Mindanao in a fire fight. There was an incident where Moro snipers were hiding on the trees in the forest and they were pinning down his troop”

Bataoil recalled how Javier ordered one of his men to run as bait for the sniper.

“Ninerbiyos ang sundalo but he had to comply while running as the sniper tried to pin him down. Javier watched where the shot came from then Javier fired at the location of the sniper”.

Sometimes the sniper, the solon explained, could not be hit and he had to order another soldier to run as bait.

“One of the soldiers dreaded that he would die would not comply with the order. An angry Javier then asked him to watch and fire where the shot came from as he would use himself as the running target.

After he ran, he shouted at the nervous soldier if he hit the shooter from the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF).

“Hinde po sir,!” the soldier shouted back.

READ MY OTHER ARTICLE: 

Army Captain Honors for Exceptional Gallantry, Chivalry

Story Behind the Beatles Abbey Road Album Cover

(Transcribed by Mortz C. Ortigoza)

Wow, I was listening to Paul McCartney being interviewed by Howard Stern and radio co-anchor Robin Quivers what’s the story behind the iconic poster of the Album Abbey Road.

STERN: I heard Abbey Road was not supposed to be called Abbey Road.  You would to call it something like Mt. Everest or something.  Is this true?

A framed poster of the Abbey Road Album inside the house of a Beatle's fan in the Philippines.

MCCARTNEY: That ‘s true. Y’ know you’re makin’ an album and towards the end of the album you’re thinkin’ oh we need a title on this. An Engineer  Jim Emerick was smokin’ cigarette called Everest it kind  like of menthol cigarette at that time and kind of look at that “Everest,  y’know it’s big. That could be good for the album. So that’s the workin’ title but the more we thought it “No, this is not great”.  And one day we were just coming in Abbey Road working and I was lookin’ why not Abbey Road? We did that, we can just run outside there is a crossing and we can just stand there and we got photograph and come back to work and take two seconds and it’s not about title. You know Abbey road to us it was kind of just the name of the studio. But for us you take a couple of context it can be Monastery Lane, Abbey Road.

STERN: Is it not word a simple though like that can be a legend and iconic now?

MCCARTNEY: Yah, it was a cheap approach.

Meanwhile, don't you know that the first, popular, and timeless "Come Together" song at the A-Side of Abbey Road was composed by John Lennon as a political jingle in 1970 for a gubernatorial candidate in California?
Lennon composed it for Democrats candidate Timothy Leary's California governorship stint against actor Ronald Reagan.
The first draft was written at Lennon and Yoko Ono's second bed-in in Montreal, Canada.

Lennon said on the song: "The thing was created in the studio. It's gobbledygook; "Come Together" was an expression that Leary had come up with for his attempt at being president or whatever he wanted to be, and he asked me to write a campaign song. I tried and tried, but I couldn't come up with one. But I came up with this, "Come Together," which would've been no good to him—you couldn't have a campaign song like that, right?"

"Come Together", according to author Adam Clark Estes, fared much better than Leary throughout all this, though. The song topped the charts in the United States and became an anthem of sorts for the anti-war movement. It's also served as an excellent addition to many movie soundtracks, including the blockbuster Michael Bay filmArmageddon. How different the album version was from the campaign song remains a mystery, but Leary would later speak about the first time he heard it. He said:

Although the new version was certainly a musical and lyrical improvement on my campaign song, I was a bit miffed that Lennon had passed me over this way… When I sent a mild protest to John, he replied with typical Lennon charm and wit that he was a tailor and I was a customer who had ordered a suit and never returned. So he sold it to someone else.

POLITICAL WRITER MORTZ ORTIGOZA SINGS THREE SONGS FROM ABBEY ROAD: 
GOLDEN SLUMBER, CARRY THAT WEIGHT, AND SHE CAME INTO THE BATHROOM WINDOW

FROM WIKIPIDEA:

Abbey Road is the eleventh studio album by English rock band the Beatles, released on 26 September 1969 by Apple Records. The recording sessions for the album were the last in which all four Beatles participated. Although Let It Be was the final album that the Beatles completed before the band's dissolution in April 1970, most of the album had been recorded before the Abbey Road sessions began.^[1] A double A-side single from the album, "Something"/"Come Together", released in October, topped the Billboard chart in the US.

Perez, Parayno, Espino for Urdaneta City Mayor?

MARQUEE - Pangasinan's 5th District Congressman
 Amado Espino, Jr (above photo) and former Ambassador
 Amadito Perez, Jr. 

BY MORTZ C. ORTIGOZA 

I recently rubbed elbows at the meeting of the Vice Mayors League of the Philippines –Pangasinan Chapter new Urdaneta City Vice Mayor Julio F. Parayno III and new Pozorrubio Vice Mayor Ernesto Salcedo.

The gathering was held at Jeck’s in Dagupan City.

I said the duo were “new” since Parayno became the second most powerful man in the Cattle City when he assumed office in June 30, 2016 while Salcedo, the highest vote getter alderman, was catapulted to the vice mayoralty after the town mayor Artemio Chan was sacked by the Ombudsman and replaced by Vice Mayor Ernesto Go, a bitter rival, for the mayorship.

Parayno answered my query if he will run for the top post of Urdaneta City after mayor Amadeo "Bobom" Gregorio Perez IV bowed out as his third term expired in the 2019 election.

 Parayno, a young law graduate of Saint Louis University in Baguio City, told me that in the next election it would be a tandem of Perezes versus the pair  of Paraynos clashing in the burgeoning city. 

“Paano maging Paraynos versus Perezes?” I posed in the vernacular.

He said the probable bets would be former Ambassador Amadito Perez, Jr. and daughter Councilor Tet Perez- Naguiat (wife of former PAGCOR Chair Cristino Naguiat) and him and his nephew Jimmy D. Parayno the present councilor of the city.

HAIRY FACED MORTZ AND PACQUIAO

When I "interviewed" Boxing Icon Manny Pacquiao ten years ago in Las Vegas, Bonuan.

ME: How's the Peace and Order situation in Mindanao, sir?

PACQUIAO: Pis, what kind of Pis, Pis na pandikit? Pis na kama-o, Pis na peste, Pis na mukha o Pis na Isda? Kasi kung fish, many Pis in Gen San sa Fish Market like Tuna pero business is bad, No Order? Kaya bad ang Pis and Order sa Mindanao.

HATE THIS HAIRY FACE. Boxing Commentator Mortz Ortigoza posed decade's ago with Hurt Business World Champ Jorge Luis Linares. 

Linares is a Venezuelan professional boxer who was a four-time world champion in three weight classes, having held the World Boxing Association and Ring magazine lightweight titles since 2016.

How times fly, boxing icon Manny Pacquiao was breaking heads in the ring a decade ago. Now, the son of a gun breaks the heads (without Pacquiao studying even his assignment) of those intellectual giants like Senator Franklin "Elephant' Drilon in the Halls of Senate - the effing highest law making body in the rambunctious country Philippines.

(NOTE: SOME OF THE STATEMENTS ABOVE ARE SATIRE. Gezz, author usually bear in his mind HUSTLER V. FALWELL)

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell as quoted from Wikipidea, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Firstand Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress(IIED), if the emotional distress was caused by a caricature, parody, or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would not have interpreted as factual.^[1]

In an 8–0 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Hustler magazine, holding that a parody ad published in the magazine depicting televangelist and political commentator Jerry Falwell as an incestuous drunk, was protected speech since Falwell was a public figure and the parody could not have been reasonably considered believable. Therefore, the Court held that the emotional distress inflicted on Falwell by the ad was not a sufficient reason to deny the First Amendment protection to speech that is critical of public officials and public figures.

Background

Hustler's parody, depicted above, includes the unauthorized use of a publicity photograph of Falwell and a near-exact duplicate of the typesetting used in a concurrent Campari advertising campaign.^[3]

Known for its explicit pictures of nude women, crude humor, and political satire, Hustler, a magazine published by Larry Flynt, printed a parody ad in its November 1983 issue^[4] that targeted Jerry Falwell, a prominent Christian fundamentalist televangelist and conservativepolitical commentator.^[5]

The parody was mimicking the popular advertising campaigns that Campari, an Italian liqueur, was running at the time that featured brief contrived interviews with various celebrities that always started with a question about their "first time", a double-entendre intended to give the impression that the celebrities were talking about their first sexual encounters before the reveal at the end that the discussion had actually concerned the celebrities' first time tasting Campari.^[4]

The Hustler parody, created by writer Terry Abrahamson and art director Mike Salisbury,^[6] included a headshot photo of Falwell and the transcript of a spoof interview, where, misunderstanding the interviewer's question about his first time, "Falwell" casually shares details about his first sexual encounter, an incestuous rendezvous with his mother in the family outhouse while they were both "drunk off our God-fearing asses on Campari." In the spoof interview, "Falwell" goes on to say that he was so intoxicated that "Mom looked better than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation," and that he decided to have sex with her because she had "showed all the other guys in town such a good time." When the interviewer asked if Falwell ever tried "it" again, once again mistaking the interviewer's intention, "Falwell" responded, "Sure... lots of times. But not in the outhouse. Between mom and the shit, the flies were too much to bear." Finally, the interviewer clarifies that he's asking if Falwell had tried Campari again, "Falwell" answered, "I always get sloshed before I go out to the pulpit. You don’t think I could lay down all that bullshit sober, do you?"^[7]

The ad carried a disclaimer in small print at the bottom of the page that said, "ad parody—not to be taken seriously", and the magazine's table of contents also listed the ad as: "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody."^[8]

Falwell sued Flynt, Hustler magazine, and Flynt's distribution company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.^[9] Before trial, the court granted Flynt's motion for summary judgment on the invasion of privacy claim, and the remaining two charges proceeded to trial. A jury found in favor of Flynt on the libel claim, stating that the parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [Falwell] or actual events in which [he] participated."^[10] On the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the jury ruled in favor of Falwell and awarded him $150,000 in damages.^[10]

Flynt appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Flynt's argument that the actual-malice standard of New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) applied in cases of intentional infliction of emotional distress where the plaintiff was a public figure, as Falwell concededly was. The New York Times standard focused too heavily on the truth of the statement at issue; for the Fourth Circuit, it was enough that Virginia law required the defendant to act intentionally. After the Fourth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Flynt's request to hear the case.

Opinion of the Court[edit]

"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions." The First Amendment envisions that the sort of robust political debate that takes place in a democracy will occasionally yield speech critical of public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large". In New York Times, the Court held that the First Amendment gives speakers immunity from sanction with respect to their speech concerning public figures unless their speech is both false and made with "actual malice", i.e., with knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement. Although false statements lack inherent value, the "breathing space" that freedom of expression requires in order to flourish must tolerate occasional false statements, lest there be an intolerable chilling effect on speech that does have constitutional value.

To be sure, in other areas of the law, the specific intent to inflict emotional harm enjoys no protection. But with respect to speech concerning public figures, penalizing the intent to inflict emotional harm, without also requiring that the speech that inflicts that harm to be false, would subject political cartoonists and other satirists to large damage awards. "The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events – an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal". This was certainly true of the cartoons of Thomas Nast, who skewered Boss Tweed in the pages of Harper's Weekly. From a historical perspective, political discourse would have been considerably poorer without such cartoons.

Even if Nast's cartoons were not particularly offensive, Falwell argued that the Hustler parody advertisement in this case was so "outrageous" as to take it outside the scope of First Amendment protection. But "outrageous" is an inherently subjective term, susceptible to the personal taste of the jury empaneled to decide a case. Such a standard "runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience". So long as the speech at issue is not "obscene" and thus not subject to First Amendment protection, it should be subject to the actual-malice standard when it concerns public figures.

Clearly, Falwell was a public figure for purposes of First Amendment law. Because the district court found in favor of Flynt on the libel charge, there was no dispute as to whether the parody could be understood as describing facts about Falwell or events in which he participated. Accordingly, because the parody did not make false statements that were implied to be true, it could not be the subject of damages under the New York Times actual-malice standard. The Court thus reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.^[11]