A Talk with Owl at UCSC Treesit

uncle dennis, thanks for helping us hear owl's call!

Owl said there are 20,000 students already on campus. There are not, there are 15,500.
The current version of LRDP calls for a total growth to 19,500; a number smaller than Owl thinks there are currently.

Owl says they are going to pave everything from North Remote Parking to Cave Gulch. Not even close to true.

Owl says the LRDP dates back to 2005. There are LRDP's dating back to 1988.


It's amazing that he has so few correct facts, considering he's dedicted the past 4 months of his life to this issue. Or maybe disinformation is a more effective methodology?

Educate the Owl you forgot to mention that the entire BioMed building is being built with state funds. No corporate funding.

Dragon Lover---

I'm interested in your last comment, and whether or not it is true, because I have heard so many different opinions. I even talked with a chem. professor on campus who stated that there was a significant amt. of private funding involved.

Do you have proof of this, if not where did you get that information? Could you provide a link to any legal documents or a website that will help people learn about where $$ is coming from?

If I (or you or anyone) wanted to donate money to UCSC and earmark it for biomedical research how is that wrong? Indeed, if I donated enough the building could be called Kelly Biomedical Science Building.

It's easy to be indignant but tough to be ignorant. It seems like this whole movement is predicated on falsehoods. I admire the energy but protesting a medical science building being put up on a parking lot is the wrong direction.

There's a lot of corporate money here... UCSC is the Pharmaceutical, Military, Surveillance, Bio-Nano-Info-Tech Industrial-Complex.
http://foundation.ucsc.edu/reports.html

"Annual Reports", I don't consider 13.5% to be a lot of corporate funding. Not only that, but the money is listed as "business". That could be the SC Roasting Company; Book Shop Santa Cruz; Pacific Cookie Co; or it could be Shell, Pfizer, or other big bad corporations. But the total amount is $3.5 million. Yeah, that's a lot of money, but that's about the same as parents and alumni combined. Do parents and alumni have an agenda that you're suspicious of?

Also, here's another interesting note (thanks by the way for posting that, so that it's even easier to refute your arguments): the Foundation spends money for scholastic support for students. Wanna know how much (without having to read the report)? $3.5 million! Wow, almost the exact same amount as "businesses" donate to the foundation! Obviously, it's not like those dollars flow straight to scholarships, but isn't it interesting to note where at least some of the money goes...

For those of you who don't know how universities operate (and if you're like "Owl" then no, you don't know how they operate): buildings are built with capital funds. These funds come from setting money aside every year, bonding money upfront, and donations, for the most part. Bigger donations usually come with naming rights associated with them- donate X dollars and name a conference room; donate XX dollars and name the building itself! Ongoing research collaborations with private companies and the university are a different matter altogether. It should be noted, though, to those who think this is unusual, that relationships with business and academia are incredibly common. It's not like the university's entire research agenda gets taken over by corporations; specific companies team with researchers to study specific problems/issues/theories. Does this lead to marketable products? Of course. It also leads to a lot of general knowledge gained for other purposes.

Think, for instance, of the radar that keeps you safe when you fly. That was developed by MIT in partnership with the Department of War (as it was called at the time) in WWII. That specific research program has led to vast benefits to the general public (and yes, I'll admit, increased warfare capabilities). Cancer drugs? Satellite TV? etc etc

So now that we've had a short lesson in why it's important to separate out the buildings themselves and the research that goes on in them, let me pose a question: if UCSC is rapidly "becoming" corporate, how do you explain Kresge and Merrill colleges, both named by scions of major corporations and, undoubtedly not new entities? Have any of you thought for a moment that Wall Street and a major retailer (K-Mart, for those who are unaware of the Kresge name) helped endow those two colleges decades ago? Does Merrill's core course have a requirement to write about how financing shaped the 20th century in only positive ways? Does Kresge require its students to write a paper on the virtues of a consumer society? No. Of course not.

I want to be clear- I do not work for UCSC (anymore, at least- I was a student employee), the UC system, or anything else that would taint me in your eyes. I also do not wholeheartedly support the LRDP, mostly as it relates to resource issues and town/gown relations. However, I really, really disagree with the tactics of the tree sitters and their supporters, acting as if the LRDP was a recent thing that was rammed through the process. As I noted in another thread, this process has been going since my time there, back in the last century (to make it sound old!). Just because these folks are realizing what's going late in the game doesn't mean that there's not been discussion or debate. And while I tended to stay out of it, actually listening and watching this guy and realizing that the reasoning behind the protests are incredibly flawed, I had to weigh in.

Bottom line: the "facts" that are stated are false or blown out of proportion (such as the previous post re: tons of corporate money flowing into the system). The goals seem incoherent, other than no growth. the opinions are based on ideology and fear, not information. That needs to be called out.

Was that report supposed to convince me that big business corporations are running the system? It proved just the opposite, as the poster above points out in a clear manner. But let's look at the app. 40% that did come from Foundations, and see how bad they really are. They donated $10 million.

The Bernard Osher Foundation donated $1 million to fund re-entry student scholarships. Clearly, a neferious plot.

The Levy Foundation donated $600K to help build a computerized control for a telescope designed to find new planets. Corporate pigs!

Stephen & Mona Bruce donated $500K to educate new teachers. God, they might as well be building tanks.

And the biggest donation was the most dangerous. $8million donated to fund a New Teacher Center, which will support the training of the next generation of teachers.


Yes, I see it now: the evil Foundations are destroying the public university system. You guys would be making me laugh, with the amount of propaganda and incorrect information your spewing out about corporations and foundations...but it's more pitiful than funny.

I was going to reply citing Kresge but Craig (thanks Craig) saved me the work.

In 2006, after Chancellor Denton took her own life, my hope was that it would act as a wake-up call to UCSC. To act with more kindness and civility. Between the clash at the UC Regents meeting that October, the tree sit clash and the subsequent attack of Professor X's home I see this is going to be rough. That said, I'm still hoping for a peaceful resolution.

FYI - the claim there's no direct link and denials from the sitters association with the activists are simply false. (http://lrdpresistance.org/media/animal-ex-view.jpg)

It's a loose connection but connect the dots for yourself, and while you're at it think for yourself.

Just because there is a flyer educating students about the animal testing, to accuse tree sitters of what happened on that Sunday in February. It is not okay to assume that.

Just because there is a flyer educating/informing students about the animal testing, we cannot accuse tree sitters of what happened on that Sunday in February.

If the tree sitters let the animal folks ride on their bandwagon then they should at least come out against the incident, quickly and decisively if the TRULY find it wrong. If they do not then normal people will assume the condone it. And as I said before Ms. Charles did cite animal research in the basement of the new building as one of the things they were marching about during her press conference on the first day of the tree sit. I was there I heard it.

blah blah blah quit trying to start shit dragon lover

you might be assuming that everyone believes in a universal moral law. (that there are some things that are just right and some that are just wrong, absolutely for everyone) however, tarnish that idea because i don't believe that, i would be willing to bet that deep down inside a majority of people don't believe that, and having talked with some of those folks earlier in the year at the tree-sit, i doubt any of them believe that.

so, knowing that there is no universal moral law (for me and probably all the tree-sitters at least) everyone has the right to personally agree or disagree with the animal liberation demonstration, to call it out as "right" or "wrong" for them, in their eyes. however, this doesn't make it "right" or "wrong" for those individuals that were so impassioned to take action, to do something, ANYTHING. (whether it was the most effective?...that's another discussion)

furthermore, you might also be under the impression the tree-sitters are some type of formal organization, that they can pass some resolution condemning the actions that happened wherever, specifically if folks are trying to link the two together. From my understanding, because they aren't a formal organization and because probably all of them don't believe in a universal moral code, some possibly agree and maybe some disagree about the tactics used, and it may make it wrong or right in their book, but the last thing they want to do is act as some type of formal "entity" that denounces others for their manner of protest. Especially if each tree-sitter has a different opinion on the tactics used and applaud the fact that folks are impassioned to do SOMETHING.
I know I applaud just the very notion that people care about something and are passionate enough to try and do something. Whether I agree with their tactics is another story.
(Certainly, this is a learning experience for those folks that did the home demonstration. If anything, what they need right now is not to feel ashamed by their willingness to confront what they feel is unjust, but support so that perhaps instead of acting out of frustration and anger, next time there might be dialogue and mutual understanding before any extreme frustrated acions)

as a side note, there was (and i believe still is) confusion about the events that happened that day at the home demonstration. i don't trust the sentinel report as they have a history of misinforming folks (maybe consciously maybe unconsciously, who knows?). i'm not going to get on a high horse claiming i know what happened. only the professor's husband and the protesters know what really happened.

Personally I couldn't give a rats ass whether you believe in a universal moral code Zuzu. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the public either figures folks like you should get a job and find out what real life is about or they do not even give you more than a passing thought when a confrontation is staged by someone. What I am talking about is credibility. If someone invites another group to be part of their protest and the other group gets out of hand then the organizer best condemn these action immediately and catagorically. If they do not and later try to say oh wait they weren't really part of our group then they lose all credibility with the people they are trying to win over. Folks like you are the choir Zuzu. You are already converted, you already believe in the message. There are way more people who don't believe or are on the fence than the believers. A loss of credibility means you lose the ability to convert the unbelievers and make unbelievers of the fence sitters. Basic human nature Zuzu. If your credibility is lost with one aspect of your protest the rest of you credibility is put in question. People start to wonder if you are playing fast and loose with the facts. Like I said the tree sit doesn't need the support of the true believers to succeed but the support of the rest of the world.

Well, then, Kaaaaa and Zuzu or whatever, why don't you try replying to the very substantive comments that some of us have put forward? That the statements made on this post are at best ill-informed and more likely disinformation?

Are you one of those who assumes the worst with the main stream media when the get things wrong? Why not take a look at yourselves?

Can you respond to the fact that there isn't much corporate money flowing around like you thought?

Yes, no one can make a strong argument based on some sort of absolute morality. However there are some plain hard facts that are ignored, lied about, or misunderstood by the tree-sitters, and I for one that the folks who brought that reality to us here at Indymedia.

I might even donate some money because of it... oh, wait, they still delete lots of comments for no reason whatsoever, so forget about that...

"only the professor's husband and the protesters know what really happened."

-plus, the professor's neighbors who saw the whole thing happen. It's not a "he said, she said" story.

"Can you respond to the fact that there isn't much corporate money flowing around like you thought?"

Well, I'm sinking to the level of "reasonable discussion" here, quibbling about facts and such. But may I offer for your consideration that British Petroleum (now greenwashed "beyond petroleum," but still just as capitalist) has invested 500 million dollars into the Helios Building/EBI (Energy Biosciences Institute) at UC Berkeley?

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/12/18/18467727.php
http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/

And who knows where the budgeted 80 million dollars for the Biomedical Sciences Facility is coming from? I don't know, that piece of information doesn't seem to be public. Can you hazard a guess at whom might be interested in funding biotechnology research? It ain't the urban poor dying of cancer caused by radioactive cancer research, let me tell you what.

George Blumenthal has publicly envisioned UCSC as "UC Silicon Valley." Perhaps you might think that's wonderful, but I don't. The "partnerships" between high-tech corporate industry and the UC are obvious. Genetic engineering corporations like Monsanto and Genentech not only donate money, their ex-employees become professors, they run both undergrad and graduate science programs, they patent the research done by students, the list goes on and on...

Just one link glorifying Genentech, General Electric, and Nikon's relationship to UCSF and other UC's: http://www.qb3.org/ucsf_inauguration.htm. You might note the sentence: "The agreement clarifies at the outset the types of issues that tend to slow and sometimes block productive collaborations between industry and university scientists." Issues, perhaps, like academic integrity? Or a respect for the fundamental aspects of life? Or a campus that is inherently unsustainable and destroying the landbase it is built upon?

What do you mean there isn't much corporate money flowing? Maybe not into the UC (that's what dumb taxpayers are for), but corporations are raking in huge profits off of the UC. And that isn't just corrupt parasitism. That's the UC functioning at it's best, as an incubator for capitalism's next generation of control and commodification.

Fuck that. Let's put an end to all this.

Of course the source of funds for the Biomedical Sciences building has been publicly disclosed. See for example http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/protest/biomedical/issues.shtml . The money is coming from the taxpayers of the state of California, through the higher education bond measure 1D passed by the voters two years ago. It was the same bond measure that paid for the Digital Arts Building and the McHenry Library project. The endorsement by the UCSC alumni can be found here: http://alumni.ucsc.edu/Prop1D_CouncilEndorsement.htm along with links to more information. There isn't any corporate money at all. None. But don't let that stop you from spinning fantasies.

i like how you don't address anything else
athena just said.

It's starting to sound like....oh no....they're actually USING good TAXPAYER money
to build these beautiful (gag) sustainable (uhh...) scientific monuments
only to PROFIT the corporations!!!!

i don't believe this nonsense!!!

Shady business...

URS Corporation homepage - the multinational development corporation and war profiteer who was hired to draft the LRDP's Environmental Impact Report
UCSC Silicon Valley Initiatives
Nasa Ames Research Park, University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) - home of UCSC's Silicon Valley Center
Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network - Chancellor Blumenthal is on the board of directors
Bio-Info-Nano Research and Development Institute (BIN-RDI) - Baskin Engineering (UCSC) is a "keynote partner"
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group - UCSC, UCB and UC are "member companies" of this mostly private-sector alliance.
UCSC Chancellor's Animal Research Committee
Genencor - industrial biotechnology company that UCSC has extensive connections with.

Bio-medicine and Science ethics...

Council for Responsible Genetics
Northwest Resistance Against Genetic Engineering
Articles on and by Ignacio Chapela - a UC Berkeley Professor denied tenure for tarnishing the image of a University affiliated biotech corporation (Novartis).
Union of Concerned Scientists - on Genetic Engineering


Hmmmmmm....

I have an idea. We don't like UC Berkeley and we don't like UC San Francisco and we don't like NASA and we don't like a bunch of companies in San Jose so why don't we all get together and climb some trees in Santa Cruz? That will sure show them. And Blumenthal is out raising money for scholarships from people who work in corporations. How can we make him stop? Maybe we should just all do what Athena says and put an end to all this, so that we can go and more effectively protest the war and feed some hungry and figure out how to avoid eight more years of right wing presidents. But it is sooooo much easier just to stay at home and gripe about the closest target than it is to go out and make real change.

Throughout the region (CA) and elsewhere in the U.S. the trend is in UCs and CSUs obtaining significant research funding from biotech corporations that specialize in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetic engineering (GE), NOT from organic farming, permaculture, naturopathy and other sustainable sources..

The loss of a biodiverse stand of oaks at UCSC adds insult to injury, as within the oak's acorns exists an entire complex of beneficial & natural "pharmaceuticals" in the form of antioxidants and other ingredients that prevent and/or delay the spreading of cancer cells in humans (& other animals!). Then UCSC in their infinite wisdom decides to destroy the beneficial oaks and replace the oak grove with the less than certain psuedo-science of biotechnology GMOs for the sole benefit of corporations..

This report shows that collectively the oak genus "Quercus" acorns have beneficial properties as antioxidants when treated with heat (ie., cooking and leaching of tannins). This modern science is supported by centuries of indigenous knowledge that relied on leached and cooked acorns as a staple food source throughout North America..

"Influence of thermal treatment on phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties of oak acorns from Serbia"

Sveto Rakića, Silvana Petrovićb, , , Jelena Kukićb, Milka Jadraninc, Vele Teševićd, Dragan Povrenoviće and Slavica Šiler-Marinkoviće

"The aim of the present work was to investigate and compare phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of methanol extracts of Quercus robur and Quercus cerris acorn kernels obtained before and after thermal treatment. Content of total phenolics, tannins, non-tannin phenolics and flavonoids was determined spectrophotometrically and content of gallic acid with HPLC. Antioxidant activity of the samples was assayed through FRAP (Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power), DPPH scavenging test and inhibition of Fe2+/ascorbate induced lipid peroxidation. Extracts of native and thermally treated kernels showed high antioxidant activity, with extracts of thermally treated kernels being more active than extracts of native ones. Hydrolysable tannins and gallic acid were identified in all samples. Non-tannin phenolics, including gallic acid, were present in significantly higher quantities in thermally treated samples, whilst tannin content decreased. This indicates that during thermal treatment hydrolysable tannins were degraded. As the result of this degradation and consequent increase of non-tannin phenolics content, and amongst them especially gallic acid, thermally treated samples possess higher antioxidant activity than do the native ones. The obtained results have provided further grounds for establishing Q. robur and Q. cerris acorn kernels as a source for functional food preparation."

report found @;
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6R-4MXBFD0-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6cc7cb216b32419c466cdaa8ff588bcb

The distinction here is between thermally treated samples and non-thermally treated samples, the use of term "native" could be misleading. Simply put, cooking acorns degrades the tannins and increases availability of antioxidants for uptake and absorption by humans. Here is the potential for acorns as a nutritional food source that does not require any fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides for growth and development of acorn crop. Given the current fiasco with petroleum based fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, it is a foolish action to destroy a healthy oak grove in a place of higher learning, or anywhere else for that matter!!

Oak acorns were staple foods of ancients all around the Earth for many centuries. Human cycles exist in circular patterns, not linear. There is no such thing as "going backwards" unless we refuse to proceed on our circular path that leads to our origin. We only can go forwards to our point of origin on the circle path, our future is found in our past!!

Acorn background;

"Acorns have been used as food by Homo sapiens for thousands of years virtually everywhere oaks are found. The worldwide destruction of the acorn resource by mismanagement may well have led to the development of annual plant based agriculture and to civilization as we know it today (Bohrer, 1972; Bainbridge, 1985b). In Europe, Asia, North Africa, the Mid-East, and North America, acorns were once a staple food, (Hedrick, 1919; Loudon, 1844; Brandis, 1972; Lefvebre, 1900; and Bishop, 1891). The Ch'i Min Yao Shu, a Chinese agricultural text from the sixth century recommends Quercus mongolica as a nut tree (Shen Han, 1982). In Spain and Italy acorns provided 20 percent of the diet of many people just before the turn of the Century (Memmo, 1894).

Acorns were perhaps nowhere more important than in California. For many of the native Californians acorns made up half of the diet (Heizer and Elsasser, 1980) and the annual harvest probably exceeded the current California sweet corn harvest, of 60,000 tons. Acorn foods remain on the market not only in Korea, China, and North Africa, but in most major American cities, at Korean food stores (Wolfert, 1973; Bainbridge, 1985a).

A reevaluation of acorns and their uses is long overdue. The acorns of all 500 species should be tested. Although the acorns of some oaks are probably too small or too hard to open for widespread use many species that can and should be planted for use as food. They are also valuable feed for domestic animals and birds, and wildlife.

The factors that made acorns a major food source in California in the past make them attractive candidates for greater use in the future. They often ripen all at once and are easy to collect. They store well and were kept by the native Californians for several years in simple storage bins (Merriam, 1918). They are simple to prepare, even for the varieties that need to be leached. Although most species are bland, as are corn and wheat; some have good flavor and could be used in place of other nuts.

The yield of acorns per acre compares well with grains. When the long-lived, deep-rooted oaks can reach sufficient water; acorn production can be very high, with yields of more than 5,280 kg/ha (6,000 pounds/ acre) (Bainbridge, 1986). High acorn yields can be maintained on hilly lands where annual grain crops cause severe soil erosion (Bainbridge, 1987a)."

acorn uses found @;
http://www.ecocomposite.org/native/acorns.htm

Thanks again to ALL treesitters who sacrifice their time, freedom and comfort in attempts to save this oak grove from destruction!! There are many who support you!!

It doesn't take a botanist to realize that the tree sitters at UCSC are not sitting in an oak grove. It does, however, require paying a little bit of attention.

....a building like a biomedical building to help discover other wonderful things that these natural products can do.

i challenge you to prove it

These folks just keep getting Cal and UCSC confused. I can understand, they're such similar campuses with such similar issues facing them... One is one of the largest universities in the state, the other the smallest UC, one is in an urban setting, the other on a hill miles removed from town... Really, they are very similar.

How many of the treesitters think they're in oaks in Berkeley?

How many natural products do you want me to mention that are used in everyday medicine?

What do you want proved campus dissident?
Yes there are tons of natural stuff in medicine and products today. Ain't none of them coming from the Berkeley grove and it isn't likely they ever will.

Does someone scrub these forums? I can understand for violent or hate speech but what the hell?

Danny, I count 28 comments, including yours, but what the hell?

Big deal, my browser (open source Mozilla for the record) had a cache issue. That said, the tree sit is still stupid.