Posted on February 14 at 4:06 p.m.

university_researcher,

Wow, your last comment is really scattered and incoherent. I'm sorry that you feel the way you do. I hope that you muster the courage someday to face reality.

But enough about you, bravo to the students!

On Military Conference Sparks UCSB Protest

Posted on February 14 at 2:11 p.m.

to University_Researcher:

I challenge you to find the word "weapon" anywhere in military science and technology doctrine literature. It's always couched in euphemistic terminology.

But if you really want a clear picture painted for you, I did some digging on the web. Check out Chief Army scientist Dr. Killion's remarks about ICB before the House Armed Services Committee:

" Last month we opened the Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies (ICB) at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The ICB integrates biosciences with the physical and engineering sciences to provide an understanding of the biological construction of novel materials such as biologically-derived, functional electronic, magnetic and optical materials; integrated multi-modality sensing; biologically-derived network concepts; and, sense and respond actuation capabilities. This will influence the development of technology that improves military capabilities in the areas of precision strike, signature management, network design and implementation and “identification of friend or foe.” (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/l...)

So you're going to tell me "precision strike" means cancer research? You're going to tell me "identification of friend or foe" is so that soldiers know who to give hugs to? Give me a break.

Those of you interested in justifying military funded weapons research on college campuses need to really get your facts straight.

Finally, I think it's interesting that you're first instinct is to deny that this is weapons research. Might that mean that you too recognize the moral bankruptcy of making weapons systems for the US military?

On Military Conference Sparks UCSB Protest

Posted on February 14 at 2:07 a.m.

Sure, some military funded research can and has resulted in useful civilian technologies, but to justify a $50 Army-Industry institute on UCSB's campus on these grounds makes no sense.

Look at how the Army describes ICB:
"With the Army Research Laboratory's Army Research Office playing a key role in oversight, the center will provide the interdisciplinary fundamental knowledge and technical capabilities to manipulate biological systems and components, and to exploit biologically derived products and processes for both the soldier and engineered systems and platforms." (http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story...)

Or check this out: http://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/2007/4...
_magazine_Full_Issue_200710.pdf
[open and search for ICB]

The ICB is set up so that the Army makes a "task order" and UCSB provides some research for that order. Orders are directly connected to basic research questions involved with the production of new weapons systems.

I think the students clearly know what they're talking about.

On Military Conference Sparks UCSB Protest

Posted on February 13 at 5:53 p.m.

Good for the students!

UCSB's collaboration with the military is reprehensible. It is not the role of universities to be "chop shops" for weapons research. The ICB is basically an institute that creates weapons systems for the military. A lot of people try to justify military funded research, but it's science for war.

The students are brave to have shut this down. I appreciate their message because they move beyond "this war" and are criticizing more systematic problems with US society. The militarization of our economy and schools has to be opposed.

On Military Conference Sparks UCSB Protest

Posted on November 2 at 12:17 p.m.

What is the problem with the SBPD? The police used arbitrary authority and force to break up what was otherwise a totally peaceful party!

And then for all of these ignorant politicians, business owners and news anchors to blabber on and on about "how at least things didn't get violent." People, the cops came out in force against a young party-goers with guns, mace and tazers strapped to their riot gear clad bodies. They brought attack dogs out against those 10 teen agers they caught up near Alameda Park!

All for what? For dancing in the streets? What's wrong with Santa Barbara? What's wrong with the police department? How foolish is Das Williams (quoted in the News Press as saying something about it not getting violent)? It got violent because the cops used force to shut down the revelry and chase people through the streets.

I totally sympathize with the folks that threw this street party. They were attacked by the cops for no good reason. Furthermore, I can see much validity to their points about State Street being unwelcoming to many, in need of a real re-making. If you don't like shopping or don't have money to spend then State Street can be really boring, barren and inhospitable. It's clearly not the kind of "public space" I want in my hometown. Why can't we just let our friends and neighbors make life a little more fun and interesting in Santa Barbara every now and then?

Shame on the downtown merchants!

I'm coming out to the next RTS!

Peace,
An elder

On Protestors Raise Ruckus to Reclaim Streets