Lattice
Angelique A. Andriano
2012-40646
2012-40646
Reaction Paper 1: People’s Forum on US Militarism and its Impacts on the Philippine Environment (reposted)
After several years
of debates, the US military base in Subic was finally closed in 1992. Now, as
if history is repeating itself, US troops are back as the Enhanced Defense
Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) was passed last Monday, 28 April 2014.
I
admit that EDCA has its strong points and will benefit our military if the
goals are met. However, compared to US we are at the losing end. A reason would
be the risk it poses to our environment which was the main concern at the
forum. Dr. Giovanni Tapang, a professor in the University and the chairperson
of the organization Agham at Teknolohiya Para sa Sambayanan, stressed that the
US military used the Subic waters as a toxic waste dump during their occupation
before and at the same time harming the health of the residents near the base.
He is concerned of what would happened if another ‘’accident’’ happened in our
seas like when the USS Guardian destroyed at least 1000 square meters of coral
reefs at the World Heritage Site Tubbataha reef. Should the Philippines just
ask for compensation again? But the US Navy has not paid—not even a cent after
more than a year!
Despite only making it to Dr.
Tapang’s talk, I understood why environmental advocates are strongly against US
occupation again because, although there is an environmental provision under
the EDCA, there is no guarantee that it will be strictly carried out like the
situation at Tubbataha. US troops can get away from harming our environment again.
After hearing the
forum and doing some research, I know that I’m against the agreement as well. First
is because of the issue on the environment that was discussed. Having the US
military exercises in the country will increase our toxic waste. Second, it
violates the constitution. From the news, I learned that the Senate was not
given the chance to let their voices out on this matter where in fact their
approval is needed for any treaty to be passed. Third, this agreement mimics
the situation before. They say that the important feature of the agreement is
that the US military will not be allowed to construct new bases in the country
because they can only use existing AFP bases. However, they can still construct
infrastructures inside the bases! Another is the upgrade and construction of
two naval bases in Palawan which started late last year. Concerned officials
said it is part of AFP’s modernization program but I think this is for the US
military. A similar situation is happening in South Korea where their
government is constructing a military base in Jeju Island for the US military
which Dr. Tapang also mentioned in his talk. This “important feature” is just
going around the law that the US military can never build a base in the
Philippines again.
I’m all for our
country’s advancement but not through this agreement where there are many
loopholes. I still believe that things will work out for US and the Philippines
if only a true compromise is reached that’s favourable for both countries.
References:
Ayee, M. (2014, April 28).
Miriam: PH-US deal unfair surprise on Senate. Rappler.
Depasupil,
W. (2014, March 6). DND to develop second naval facility in Palawan. The Manila
Times.
Dulce, L. (2014, April 24). Obama's
visit and the 'toxic' legacy of US bases. Rappler.
Sabillo, K. (2012, April 30). 5
things you need to know about EDCA. Inquirer.
Reaction
Paper 2: Future of Media
Media has indeed come a long way—from radio,
pagers and television to smartphones, tablets, laptops and so on. Every day it
changes, every day new technology and inventions are added to several forms of
media like mass media, print media and broadcast media among others. Actually
there is a new form of media which is called new media, “a generic term for the many different forms of
electronic communication made possible through digital or computer technology”
(Heywood, 2013) like the internet, social networking sites and blogs.
On
the forum Future of Media, specifically the lifestyle track, speakers Jim
Paredes, RJ Ledesma and Erwan Heusaff talked about how media became a bridge of
communication and opportunity for their respective careers, how media is being
used by the people now, how it should be used and how media will continually
transform in the future. For Mr. Paredes, although he has stepped out from the
music scene for quite a while now, uses his Twitter account not only to retweet
current news but also to voice out his own views about it. For Mr. Ledesma, he
believes that what one share on social networking sites is the brand that
he/she is creating for himself/herself. He/she can either be an interest
driver, an originator or an accumulator. And lastly for Mr. Heusaff, he shared
how he was able to use his blog to promote healthy living and eating as well as
introduce Filipino food to his readers. In summary, all of them have an
advocacy. They do not only use their Twitter, Facebook, blog and so on for
personal space but for a cause.
New
media has its perks. It connects us to our loved ones and friends. Like the
story of Pia Hontiveros, her sister’s son was found through Facebook.
Unfortunately, Ms. Hontiveros’ sister had to leave Tommy behind because of
personal reasons. And now despite a decade of separation, their family is in
the process of getting-to-know by using Skype and Facebook. However, new media
has its drawbacks too. Using the internet can get really ugly especially in
dealing with privacy. Because it is free for all, people can post anything they
want even if it is distasteful. In the future, we will continue to deal with
this kind of problem and more. I guess the thing we could do is to be
responsible media users. And like what the lifestyle track speakers said, use
media to promote to make a difference.
Reference:
Heywood, A. (2013). Politics.
(4th ed.). England : Palgrave Macmillan.
________________________________________________________________________
Reaction
Paper 3: The Life of Mammals
They say humans are
the smartest creatures in the world and our big brains can attest to that. But
through our similarities with apes do we deserve to be known as such?
It’s fascinating how apes
and humans are very much alike not only in body structure but also in
behaviour. For one, we both learn through imitating, mimicking. As a child, to
know how the world works we look closely at our parents and family—people
around us. When we uttered our first word, it did not came out from nowhere as
if it has already been implanted in the mind, but we look at our parents
lips—how it move—and try to copy it ourselves. To be one with the world, we try
to observe how they move, look and talk just like apes. In the documentary,
little monkeys learn clam-cracking by observing how their parents do it. Orangutans
grasp wood-cutting by looking and copying how humans use the saw. Second, both
are social creatures—we live in groups. As humans we have our family, group of
friends, classmates or workmates, fellow countrymen and so on. We group because
of our need to belong—we don’t want to be alone. Apes are also like that. Their
perks of being in a group are for protection, for food and for mating. Like a
pack of wolves, they stay and travel together. Third, apes also have a social
ladder. In their case, the superior are the elders and those who are born from
a higher class. For instance, superior males have the privilege to choose a
mating partner before anybody else. Similarly, humans live in a social ladder
as well. Our rank is measured by influence, status and economic class. The
higher you are the greater power you hold.
Watching the
documentary made me realize that we are not so different with apes after all.
Both of us know the basic things to survive and live. Although we have the edge
to explore the world and to create ourselves, that doesn’t make us totally
smarter than them. We have our flaws—we are not perfect after all. This could
be shown by what Dr. Attenborough said at the end of the Food for Thought
episode, that probably we humans are too much—we have altered the earth too
much, our population is too much, technology is too much. All our actions did
not only affect the environment but also harmed the existence of animals such
as apes. Their captivating world is shaken by us. Maybe, like what he said at
the end of the documentary, it’s time to, “control the population to allow the
survival of the environment.”
No comments:
Post a Comment