top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Santa Cruz Community Supports Tree-sitters
by lrdpresistance.org
Thursday Nov 15th, 2007 12:01 AM
Community Members tour site, bring supplies to activists.
Santa Cruz, CA--The people of Santa Cruz continued to show their support over the weekend for activists who have taken to the trees in opposition of UCSC Long Range Development Plan. Santa Cruz community members have come to observe, to bring supplies and to thank the tree-sitters for taking a stand against UCSC's plan to add 4,500 new students and destroy 120 acres of forest.

Among the visitors over the holiday weekend were Mayor Emily Reilly and her husband, Robert Nahas. After touring the liberated space under the trees, the mayor called the site "inspirational" and said that she would donate food from her bakery to the activists.

Many of UCSC's in-town neighbors have visited the site, bringing extra blankets and food, showing their children the platforms high in the redwoods or just thanking the activists for their show of opposition. UCSC shuttle drivers consistently honk their horns when they drive by the site and are greeted by cheers and waves from the activists.

Monday night, local DIY film collective Guerilla Drive-In hosted a showing of "Sir, No Sir," a movie about GI resistance during the Vietnam War. The film was shown on a sheet at the base of one of the redwood clusters.

On Tuesday, as school resumed, faculty members came by to show their support. An art class convened at the base of the trees for a drawing assignment. Faculty members also assured the activists that they did not support the UC police departments use of force at last Wednesday's protest.

Tuesday night, local pop band James Rabbit entertained the crowd. The show was followed by a poetry reading that included a tree-sitter shouting a Rimbaud poem from their redwood perch.

Chancellor Blumenthal stated at a meeting of the Academic Senate on Friday that the administration "will take whatever actions necessary to move forward" with the construction of the proposed Biomedical Sciences facility at the student-occupied site. But protesters have vowed to remain at the space until UCSC drops its plans to add 4,500 more students and destroy 120 acres of forest. When asked about the possibility of the administration using riot cops to evict the protesters, tree-sit media spokesperson Jennifer Charles said "we have so much community support on our side; it would be a public relations nightmare for the university if they were to use violence against us again."


Upcoming Events:

Friday, Nov. 16th, 7:30pm--Guerilla Drive-In Film Screening featuring Pan's Labyrinth at Science Hill Tree-Sit

Saturday, Nov. 17th, noon--UCSC Forest Walk, meets at Kresge Co-op

Sat-Sun, Nov. 17-18, all day-- UC Demilitarization Coalition Convergence. For more info, see
http://www.ucnuclearfree.org/articles/2007/11/07_fall_convergence.htm

Thursday, Nov. 22nd, all day--Anti-colonial Thanks-Vegan Holiday Sit-in and potluck, at Science Hill Tree-Sit

Wednesday, Nov. 28th, -- Teach-in about the LRDP, UC privitazation and grassroots radical movements, at Science Hill Tree-Sit
§photo
by Ground Support Saturday Nov 24th, 2007 10:44 PM
640_63.jpg
§photo
by Ground Support Saturday Nov 24th, 2007 10:46 PM
640_38.jpg

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by via mahtin
Thursday Nov 15th, 2007 12:08 AM
At the UC Berkeley tree-sit

Police at the Oak Grove Right Now!
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/14/18461279.php
by nicole calasich
Saturday Nov 17th, 2007 12:52 AM
heyyyy... i feel so weak for not spending a lot of time visiting you guys, but i broke my ankle and have a shitty time getting around campus as it is, much less maneuvering around your lovely site :)

BUT when my momma visits for the thanksgiving holiday, she's going to have a car which will make things prettyyyyy nice and we were hoping we could cook a pre-Thanksgiving feast for all of you and have a meal together. unfortunately she'll have to leave for the ACTUAL thanksgiving day so she can spend time with my siblings... but we definitely want to show support and have a chat and some good food with you beforehand.

so my question is.... any requests? any allergies? all tofurkey necessary or are there some more carnivorous appetites in there? also, we're helllllllllllllla bolivian and like things spicy, but if you are not down with that, let us know!!!

you can reach me at bolivitornot [at] gmail.com

much love and in solidarity,
nicole
by Danny Kelley
Saturday Nov 17th, 2007 10:16 AM
you've got to look closely within and ask yourself what you're doing.

"Self-righteous and misguided protestations...whittle away at the legitimacy of the activists whose means are more peaceful and more effective. "
by Danny
Saturday Nov 17th, 2007 10:17 AM
No more violence.
by dude
Saturday Nov 17th, 2007 10:21 AM
actually a tree sitter didn't read rimbaud, because he didn't have the book up there! we talked about doing that, but it never happened. weird.
by To quote Amelia Timbers
Saturday Nov 17th, 2007 12:33 PM
"The tree sitters are wrong to be up in the trees."

"I can’t express enough disappointment in the disorganized, disunified, immature political tantrums UC Santa Cruz students substitute for pragmatic, results-oriented activism. Santa"

"Getting mad after the fact and climbing some tree when you didn’t participate in established venues for protest is ridiculous. No one takes it seriously. It’s like whining about the president when you didn’t vote."

http://cityonahillpress.com/article.php?id=860


I couldn't agree more with her. Slashing tires on cars, vandalizing cars and bridges and bathrooms with graffiti? Lame. I think that the protesters, many of whom aren't UCSC community members, are an embarrassment.
by Solidarity with protesters a priority!
Sunday Nov 18th, 2007 11:20 AM
It saddens me to hear comments that overly critique the treesitting strategy of the protesters, as if standing aropund the street with signs is the only way to effect change? Remind ourselves of the 20,000 + people who attended protests against the initial U.S. invasion of Iraq in SF only, plus hundreds of thousands around the U.S. & world if you want to know how our government leaders respond to public protest??

The poorly planned decision making from GW bush regime on down to the UCSC admin needs to be protested using a diversity of tactics. For those who are brave enough to be there on the front lines and use their physical bodies to prevent the destruction of the old growth oak trees, we need to support them and stand with them in solidarity, not offer endless critiques on how they should "follow protesting rules" (by whom? for whom?) and stand by watching in a "legit protest" while the oak groves become destroyed??

This oak grove in question is indeed a living biomedicine lab, and shows the microcosm view of the battle between people who choose to rely on naturopathic medicinal plants, berries, root,s etc.. and those who depend on pharmaceutical corporations for every last ache and pain, including suppressing of warning symptoms (headaches, nausea, fatigue, etc..) that our body is becoming run down and in need of rest, recovery and healing. While certain illness like diabetes may require some already existing pharmaceutically derived insulin, many newer pharma research programs focus on cosmetic, diet and sex drug products, not essential medicines for serious human illnesses. Those essential medicines already in existance do not require another biotech research facility, though an excess of cosmetic for profit products may be the source..

Our medicine needs to return to focus on prevention by eliminating known carcinogens from our environment and diet, thus reducing human exposure to toxins and encouraging healthy food consumption to avoid diet related conditions (heart disease, diabetes, etc..). Here it is important to learn more about potential wild food sources, many of which contain greater amounts of vitamins and minerals than conventionally raised agriculture and definitely more than refined wheat flour and refined sugar. Getting to know more about acorns as a living biomedicine is one way to accomplish this goal..

Acorns are known for having flavinoids and other healthy compounds, in addition to essential fatty acids, carbs and proteins. Truly a food for all ages, and for all species (humans, deer, squirrel, woodpeckers, etc..). Not to mention the added benefit of the oaks supplying the ecosystem with this resource without needing any toxic petrochemical fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide input to sutrvive in their habitat of coastal CA..

Here's an example of what students in UCSC will be missing out on if this oak grove is destroyed by poor planning from school officials..

To sum this study up, students in Serbia tested acorns for their antioxident content with and without heating. If you remember, native american indians in CA (Pomo, Wintu, etc..) heated rocks to cook their acorns. The recent study shows that by adding heat to the acorns (ie., cooking), the reduction of tannins results in an increase of antioxidant availability. Antioxidants in diet are shown to be the leading cause of cancer prevention, even following a diagnosis..

"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
aDepartment of Food Technology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Agriculture, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade, Zemun, Serbia and Montenegro
bInstitute of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Vojvode Stepe 450, 11221 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
cInstitute for Chemistry, Technology and Metallurgy, Njegoševa 12, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
dFaculty of Chemistry, University of Belgrade, Studentski trg 12-16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
eFaculty of Technology and Metallurgy, Karnegieva 4, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
Received 20 March 2006; revised 29 November 2006; accepted 8 January 2007. Available online 27 January 2007.



Abstract

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.

Keywords: Quercus robur; Quercus cerris; Acorn kernel; Antioxidant activity; FRAP; DPPH; Lipid peroxidation; Gallic acid "

visit acorn study @;
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0308814607000519

For ecology, medicine, science and health, let the oak groves of UCSC remain standing! You have a living biomedicine lab in your own backyard! Why on Earth would anyone want to destroy this potential for further understanding, growth and enlightenment??

extra info on flavonoids @;
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/chemid2.htm

From Trees for Health;

"The oak also hosts hundreds of insects and animals. Medicinally oak has been used for diarrhoea – it is not a tree likely to ‘let go’ easily! It is also useful for infections of the digestive tract, haemorrhoids, mouth inflammations, nasal polyps, sore throats and wounds. This is interesting when considering the ability of the oak to cope with the invasion of so many insect species and in particular the oak’s response to some insect invasion by forming oak galls. It was these galls with their powerfully astringent properties that were once used to treat diarrhoea, dysentery, infections and wounds. While the oak forms galls to protect itself from invasions, infections and damage, the medicinal properties for us are remarkably similar.

As a Bach Flower Remedy, oak’s characteristics are also apparent. It supports brave and strong people who never give up the fight but who do not know how to give in and have difficulty acknowledging their weaknesses. Oak teaches people to embrace the playful, tender and trusting moments of time."

read on @;
http://www.treesforhealth.org/Tree%20foods%20and%20remedies.htm

by TRy to keep up.
Sunday Nov 18th, 2007 11:43 AM
The trees in question at UCSC are redwood, not oak.

And I don't think it's the tree sitting strategy that I, and others, have been offended by. More power to them for their committment.

What I find offensive has been the tangential tactics of vandalizing cars, and spraypainting buildings and bathrooms.

"Fuck the LRDP" and other stuff such has been emblazoned all over the beautiful campus. To me, that's like crapping where you eat.
by Save the Oaks!
Sunday Nov 18th, 2007 3:35 PM
"The trees in question at UCSC are redwood, not oak."

There are lots of oaks at UCSC, Coast Live Oak and Tan Oak, threatened by the LRDP. Learn more about the vegetative communities at UCSC:
http://mnhc.ucsc.edu/vegetativecommunities.html

Oak (live and tan) (Quercus and Lithocarpus sp) All oaks produce acorns that can be ground into a flour only after soaking in hot water to remove the tannic acid. The acorn was an important food source for local Indians. Acorns were also used to culture a mold that was used as penicillin is today.

In the photos a the following link, it looks like there are a variety of trees that would be cut on Science Hill.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/09/18459641.php

"What I find offensive has been the tangential tactics of vandalizing cars...."

There does not seem to be anything to substantiate the accusation of vandalized cars, nor any indication of why it should be associated with people protesting the LRDP.

The message of "Fuck the LRDP" is powerful, and a variety of other messages to address a wide range of issues need to be put out in the public realm for discussion. One small, but not insignificant, example of how the administration regularly uses their power to try and control the way people think is by sending out emails to the "entire UCSC community."

Learn More
by Ben
Monday Nov 19th, 2007 3:13 PM
The title of this article or "posting" is a bit misleading. If you follow the coverage in The Sentinel you will find out that alot of residents of Santa Cruz are not behind the protesters.
Isn't it also a little strange that no one asks the protesters how they feel about the medical research that would be going on in the new building? Would they be so inclined to protest if a new performing arts center was being built? It looks like the majority of the protesters are not science majors at all.
by Guess what
Monday Nov 19th, 2007 4:51 PM
Guess where a lot of research was done to discover the effects of all those wonderful compounds found in nature? That's right...in science buildings at universities!

And what are the tree sitters trying to do? That's right...prevent those very same science buildings from being made!


Isn't that swell?
by Gwendolynn
Monday Nov 19th, 2007 6:39 PM
As an answer to an above post. There is some rather large construction going on just down the hill from the art studios and the theaters. I thnk it's part of the staging area for the library. It is kind of strange that no one protested all of that mess going on yet people are all up in arms about the Bio-Med building.
by oehlberg
Tuesday Nov 20th, 2007 12:04 AM
"The tree sitters are wrong to be up in the trees."

"I can’t express enough disappointment in the disorganized, disunified, immature political tantrums UC Santa Cruz students substitute for pragmatic, results-oriented activism. Santa"

"Getting mad after the fact and climbing some tree when you didn’t participate in established venues for protest is ridiculous. No one takes it seriously. It’s like whining about the president when you didn’t vote."

http://cityonahillpress.com/article.php?id=860

I couldn't agree more with her. Slashing tires on cars, vandalizing cars and bridges and bathrooms with graffiti? Lame. I think that the protesters, many of whom aren't UCSC community members, are an embarrassment.

The argument that the tree sitters are complaining too late is the dumbest argument against them. If you actually attended the "comment sessions" that she talks about in her article you would realize that they were only there to fulfill a requirement of the LRDP but it was not a vehichle to allow students to change the LRDP. Read more here:

http://oehlberg.com/blog/2007/11/19/ucsc-tree-sitters/

by klimber
Tuesday Nov 20th, 2007 12:26 AM
This is a headsup for the UCSC people's. The 1st raid in Berkeley happened about a month after the tree-sit began (STARTED: Dec 2, 1st RAID: Jan 12th). KNOW that there is/are some police officer(s) detective documenting as much as he/she can, planning some action to take against you all. Usually there's only one police detective who reports everything back to the Dept., who takes charge of the documentation. They also are likely surveilling or attempting to monitor you from a distance, with zooming camera's and such. Posting sentries and doing RECON is a good way to find out how you are being watched, but takes more person power.

In Berkeley, they struck our ground camp early in the morning, pre-dawn, ordered everyone behind a police line or else they'd be arrested (since UCSC campus is so big they probably won't force you all off campus), and took everything at the protest site. Things they thought were trash were trashed, and things like personal property were taken to the Police Station where they'd have to be reclaimed by the owner. Not sure if you can necessarily prevent a police raid from ever happening, but it helps if you have a heads up so that you don't have personal property taken.

Send a reply comment if you want to know anything else about the UCB tree-sit history.

by Digital Arts & New Media
Tuesday Nov 20th, 2007 9:44 AM
The construction (below Performing Arts, right above the Music Recital Hall) is the new building that will house the Digital Arts & New Media program.

Pretty cool stuff, and not Science, but Art!


http://danm.ucsc.edu/
by -
Tuesday Nov 20th, 2007 4:44 PM
I visited your blog; I found it well written and thoughtful. In your assessment of the LRDP process and your experience with it, you essentially say it was a sham and that nobody listened. In your blog, you say you spoke against the college 11/12 construction because it would take out the trailer parks, but nobody listened.

I'm thinking it's possible that you were heard, but that the argument didn't change the decision. Don't you think it possible that, despite some compelling testimonies from park residents, that the decision was that value/benefit of two new colleges outweighed the value of the trailer park?

Someone not agreeing with you doesn't mean they didn't listen; it just means they didn't agree.
by oehlberg
Tuesday Nov 20th, 2007 11:34 PM
The construction (below Performing Arts, right above the Music Recital Hall) is the new building that will house the Digital Arts & New Media program.

Pretty cool stuff, and not Science, but Art!

http://danm.ucsc.edu/

That is a terrible argument. The University should not expand because the community does not have the water, traffic, or housing for more students, faculty and staff. If the argument is that science is bad and art is good then you totally lost my support. With the construction of the new humanities building finished and more construction on the digital arts and media building it looks like the administration is expanding all departments and building new buildings. The fight should be against all expansion because it is unsustainable. If the building was a performing arts building instead of biomedical research would the tree sitters still be there?

by oehlberg
Tuesday Nov 20th, 2007 11:57 PM
Hey -,

I'm glad you had a chance to to take a look at my blog. The thing with the "comment sessions" is that there was no attempt made to address the concerns. A compromise might have been to relocate the trailer park. Moving of the trailer park has already happened once in UCSC's history. There was little effort at the comment sessions to translate comments into changes or compromises with the students. I really felt that the only reason that the comment sessions were held was procedural and not as a functional mechanism for student input.

I have a fear and a hope. I really fear that the tree sit will simply drive a wedge between science/engineering and art/humanities. I have a hope that the the tree sit can open its umbrella and increase its support by using the issue of University expansion to prevent the University from having unsustainable growth.

-oehlberg
http://oehlberg.com
by Gwendolynn
Wednesday Nov 21st, 2007 1:10 PM
So since it's a new arts facility it is ok? And since the other facility of for medical research it is not ok?
by -
Wednesday Nov 21st, 2007 3:27 PM
Gwendolyn: I draw no distinction in value between an art or a science facility. Personally, I think both are of value and support their being built. I made mention of it's being an art facility not only because it is but also because this website seems to portray the campus as growing only in and towards the sciences.

Oehlberg: Thanks for your response and further explanation of why you felt the process was disingenuous; your viewpoint makes more sense to me now than when I read only the blog. I agree with you that the idea of moving the trailerpark is intriguing and should be considered.

To both of you:

I don't know what the answer is, but at present I support the growth, albeit as a necessary evil. I feel that UC is placed in a vice. It's mandated to accept 12% of graduating seniors by the citizens of CA, but at the same time we don't want it to grow. I attended in the late 70's, when the campus was about 7,000 and the town 25,000. I've watched both grow during the next 30 years.

I don't want either to get any bigger, but I'm not sure how to stop them other than birth control and immigration control. And given a choice, I'd rather have more University than more condo's or businesses.

I do feel that the way to address the issues is through public votes and mandated changes in policy...not by a small number protesting and essentially trying to hold the rest of the group hostage with their demands.
by .........................................
Wednesday Nov 21st, 2007 9:59 PM
ucsc expansion and logging 120 acres of endangered redwood forest are two seperate ideas, the fact that the college has the capacity to expand in other ways and directions is a vital argument.
it has in the past, and could again.
the fact that the uc is growing and the particular direction it is growing in does make people angry, but would they be out there day and night protesting a new science biulding? maybe.
i can't really speak for them, but what i see is a threatened forest, a place for all the life, human and not, unlike a college classroom, to thrive.
the fact that people, college administrators, would want to cut that down in order to biuld something that claims to further human knowledge about life, in particular animal research facilities, is ironic and extremely fucked up.
but would people be out there protesting an arts facility being biult? yes, as long as it involved the compromise of the forest that used to be standing there.
this is about trees, and plants, and animals, including humans who are also dependent on the entire ecosystem to survive, as much as they pretend they are not.
the fact that ucsc would consider logging 120 acres of redwood forest, especially to biuld biomedical research facilities, is representational of the type of people it is catering to and the problem being, in my opinion, the direction that the uc has been creeping, crawling, slowly and strategically in for a while now, into the forest, just like the long range development plans display.
whether or not an institution such as its self can exist without eventually growing into a privatized corporate blood sucker of natural resources is another story, and anybody who wants to argue art or science can do so in the shelter of those beautiful and may i add, water retaining, oxygen producing, trees, but not if they are gone.
will we let science stomp out nature?which one is more vital to our existence?.....
by Parliament of Rooks (blasphemy [at] riseup.net)
Sunday Nov 25th, 2007 3:40 PM
That other development projects (i.e. the DANM center) have not (yet) been publicly opposed by anti-expansion activists DOES NOT BY ANY MEANS invalidate the tree-sit and autonomous zone opposing the Biomedical Sciences Facility. If those who brought this point up were not just pro-expansion adherents using a pathetic strawman argument to disimiss the tree-sit as being purely an arts vs. sciences issue, I'd challenge them to start the opposition to the DANM and other construction projects. The Biomedical Sciences Facility is the first project n the 2005-2020 LRDP: that is sufficient justification for the tree-sit.

Consensus is a lie. It does not exist in the City, the University, or the Autonomous Zone. Though large numbers of people are easily corralled into the confines of mass-manufactured opinions, all of us are coming from our own individual perspective.

Clearly, neither the University nor the Tree-sit can actually claim to have the total support of "the community" (whether on campus on in the city), for such an entity does not exist. But the reactionary ramblings of a few random privileged people does not mean that the tree-sit does not have broad support from both students on campus and people living nearby. Instead of squabbling about who has more vague and meaningless "support" from the nebulous masses, let's see what actually happens when people oppose the plans of the University. The tree-sit has on its side the self-willed autonomous activity of passionate and critically-thinking individuals coming together, the University: apathy, social conformity, the ideology of expansion, and the full armament of the State.

At the Autonomous Zone, there are people who are opposed to all expansion, people who despise the role science plays in this society, people disgusted by the hideous practices of vivesection and bioengineering, people who are science students or professors but are opposed to corporate control, and even some merely opposed to the current LRDP because of its preference of "sciences" over "humanities" and "arts." There are also many other individual perspectives. There is no uniformity of belief or motivation amongst those present at the Red Hill Autonomous Zone, but a instead myriad of reasons for resistance against the Long Range Development Plan.

Individuals' personal beliefs are not what needs to be debated. The University and its supporters are trying to marginalize the real conversation with these cheap speculations as to the motivations of anyone engaged in this struggle. I call you out, you ragged strawmen, you technicians of false dialogue.
by Ben
Tuesday Nov 27th, 2007 4:58 PM
Do the protesters know that the tree slanted to be cut down are not old growth forest trees, but rather trees that were planted on that piece of land to hide the parking lot? That part is not endangered forest at all. Do a little research and this fact will come up.
by Ben
Tuesday Nov 27th, 2007 5:04 PM
You say "I call you out, you ragged strawmen, you technicians of false dialogue."
What about saying that the trees slated to be cut down are endangered forest when they are trees that were planted there? The argument that they are endangered is a false dialogue.
What about the life saving research that is being done in the bio-med facilities? The mapping of the human genome? The cancer research? The AIDS research? Those studies are not about corporate greed but tools to help save human lives.
by Ben
Tuesday Nov 27th, 2007 5:10 PM
You say "the fact that the college has the capacity to expand in other ways and directions is a vital argument."
Are you suggesting that the University build on the meadow? It is open space....prime for building. If that heppened everyone would scream that it destroys the view of the hills and mountains from down below. As it is you are not able to tell that there is a school of that size up in those hills because it is so well hidden. The city of Santa Cruz knows that the University has every right to build in those open spaces and it is one of the last things they want to happen. It would change the way the city looks.
by oehlberg
Tuesday Nov 27th, 2007 6:05 PM
The protest needs a purpose or plan. Stopping the LRDP is a negative purpose/plan. It is a rejection of someone else's plan. The tree sitters should draft their vision of the University. Once drafted they should publicize it like crazy. Just rejecting the University plan without any specific proposals or demands won't accomplish much.

What will happen if UCSC agrees and decides to scrap the LRDP. Tree sitters win right? Well what if after that the University just expands with no plan at all...

http://oehlberg.com/blog/2007/11/26/32/
by Rooks
Thursday Nov 29th, 2007 9:42 PM
Ben,

I'll waste about two minutes responding to your misinformation.

Who has claimed that the trees in the parking lot (or even in Upper Campus) are "endangered" or "old growth"? No one, certainly not me. Despite the fact that coastal redwoods are an increasingly threatened bioregion, they are not officially classified as "endangered," and no one has claimed that they are. We are also aware that almost none of the trees are "old growth." That is not a valid reason to cut them down before they reach such a status. It also does not mean that they were "planted" by anyone--these redwoods stump-sprouted from the root system of the logged second growth, the stumps of which are plain to see if you visit the site. If you're referring to the Oak Grove at Berkeley, it is true that some of the oaks were planted, but what exists there is also a self-perpetuating ecosystem of locally endangered coast live oak trees.

I won't even bother responding to the other shit you spewed. Don't bother responding yourself.
by not ben
Friday Nov 30th, 2007 12:02 AM
Well, Rooks, I thought Ben made some good points: "What about the life saving research that is being done in the bio-med facilities? The mapping of the human genome? The cancer research? The AIDS research? Those studies are not about corporate greed but tools to help save human lives."

He isn't the one spewing "shit," as you so eloquently put it, either on this site or around the grounds of science hill where the groundskeepers have to clean it up.
by Grey Wool Knickers
Friday Nov 30th, 2007 4:55 AM
"What about the life saving research that is being done in the bio-med facilities? The mapping of the human genome? The cancer research? The AIDS research? Those studies are not about corporate greed but tools to help save human lives."

Not about corporare greed? You're kidding, right? Just because this research addresses on some level the lofty goal of improving the human condition does not mean that the entire system around and through which that research is conducted is not meant to bolster the profits of private corporations. On the contrary, when you look at the form and function of that system, corporate profit is clearly the primary goal and the "tools to help save human lives" perform a largely ancillary and justifying function. Take a look at the recent deal signed by UC Berkeley with BP and tell me that isn't clearly an enormous public subsidy for private industry. It may be less dramatic with the biosciences facility at UCSC, but the same dynamic is at work.

And I don't understand why this distinction is being drawn between the arts and the sciences, particularly when the "arts" in question consist of Digital Arts and New Media. This, too, functions as a public subsidy for private industry. The growth of arts training institutions such as these points not to the needs of students of the arts, clamoring for an upgrade to their antiquated tools. No, on the contrary, it points to the voracious appetite of the Culture Industry for more well-trained minions. Both the pharmeceutical and biosciences industries and the culture and media industries are at the cutting edge of a capitalist system struggling to commodify entire material and social spaces previously outside the reach of the market economy, and the UC system is happy to oblige in keeping them at the cutting edge, on the "public's" dime.
by not ben
Friday Nov 30th, 2007 6:56 AM
First this is a protest about trees. Now it is a protest about "the pharmeceutical and biosciences industries and the culture and media industries" and the "capitalist system" and the "market economy."

If you really want to change the whole world, do you really think pissing everyone off in one of the few places that started out on your side is a good strategy? Some revolutionaries, sending your friends up against the wall first so that you can make a point to people outside Santa Cruz who aren't paying any attention anyway.
by Ben
Friday Nov 30th, 2007 8:33 AM
It talks about "endangered redwood forest".
by Ben
Friday Nov 30th, 2007 8:35 AM
"the pharmeceutical and biosciences industries and the culture and media industries" and the "capitalist system" and the "market economy."

Name them. Name the companies that are benefiting from this research.
by Grey Wool Knickers
Friday Nov 30th, 2007 10:15 AM
not ben:

There is no, "first it was the trees and then it was capitalism". There is no one thing that this action is about, as people who are much closer to it than I can tell you. Different people have their own stakes and their own passions. I happen to consider this an important action for that very reason: because so many people are pissed off for so many different reasons. They don't all agree on what the reasons are, and you don't have to agree with them either. Who exactly are you talking about who is on my (or our, if you meant "you" in the plural) side and how are they being pissed off? I hardly think that anyone pushed these people up against the wall, other than an intransigent university administration. The action, I would guess (correct me if I'm wrong, those of you involved), was meant to give voice and urgency to a whole host of gripes, some of which the people in the trees many not even have considered or agree with. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but I don't think I'm making any points (to the extent that I'm succeeding in making them) at their expense.

Ben:
Novartis and Conde Nast. I'm guessing you were looking for more than that. Too bad. Do your own research and investigation. As mentioned elsewhere, I'm living in Egypt at the moment and have more pressing issues to attend to. Besides, if I'm going to engage in that kind of hand-holding, I'd prefer to do it with people who won't give me cooties.
by Ben
Saturday Dec 1st, 2007 9:18 AM
One company is researching a cure for cancer and is also a minimal research partner. Not exactly evil.
The other prints Vogue and Vanity Fair magazines. More evil, by far, as they pressure women to change their skirt lengths depending on designer whims.
by Ben
Saturday Dec 1st, 2007 9:22 AM
By the way......I'm not the one throwing accusations at people so I don't really think I need to be the one doing the fact checking.
Egypt, huh? Another example of someone that does not live in Santa Cruz telling the people here what to do with their lives.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

donate now

$ 192.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network