Month: June 2006







  • UC Davis Magazine Online
    Volume 22
    Number 3
    Spring 2005
    Current IssuePast IssuesMagazine HomeSearch Class NotesSend a Letter







    Features: Take Your Veggies | Stolen Shores | Chilean Fresh | Q&A








    CHILEAN FRESH


    Chilean landscape photoChile is one of the world’s leading fresh-fruit exporters, thanks to a group of UC Davis alumni.


    By Kathleen Holder


    Nearly all the table grapes you eat during the winter come from Chile, but you could also say they are the fruit of UC Davis. The same goes for the Chilean-grown apples, peaches, nectarines, pears and avocados that you find out of season in your grocery store.


    More than 50 Chileans who studied agricultural sciences at UC Davis in the 1960s and 1970s—the “Davis boys”—are widely credited with helping to transform their country into one of the world’s leading fresh-fruit exporters.


    Now, there is a new wave of Chilean scholars—protégés of the first Davis boys—who are pursuing graduate studies at UC Davis with hopes of helping their country tackle a new array of challenges, from improving fruit and wine quality to expanding fish farming and cleaning up pollution.


    And campus officials are working with a nonprofit business incubator in Chile to develop UC Davis innovations in food processing, fish farming, agricultural biotechnology and other fields as Chile seeks to diversify its economy beyond copper and fruit exports. Chile last summer became the first South American country with a free-trade agreement with the United States.


    A Fruitful Exchange






     
    Among the many UC Davis alumni in Chilean agriculture are fruit producer José Domingo Godoy (from left); Anthony Wylie, dean of agronomy at Santo Tomás University; Carlos Fernández, a researcher at the nonprofit business incubator Fundación Chile; and Edmundo Bordeu, enology professor at Catholic University of Chile. Photo by José Luis Risetti, El Mercurio.

    Anthony Wylie, dean of agronomy at Chile’s University of Santo Tomás, said he saw great potential to expand Chile’s fruit production before coming to UC Davis in 1965. He earned a master’s degree here in 1966 and a doctorate in 1969.


    He was one of the first Chileans to take advantage of “convenio Chile-California,” a 1965–73 exchange agreement that sent UC professors to Chile and Chilean graduate students to UC campuses. Most of the Chilean students came to the Davis campus to study agriculture.


    The convenio was established with funding from the Ford Foundation at a time when the United States sought new alliances in Latin America to counter communism.


    Wylie said he chose UC Davis over other agricultural programs around the world because California’s climate is so similar to Chile’s and because, for fruit science, “Davis was the best.”


    At UC Davis, Wylie focused his research on peaches, studying varieties and production techniques that could be adapted for Chile. Moreover, he said, he learned a scientific approach to problem solving, which he and other alumni taught—and still teach—to their students back home. “It has a multiplying effect.”


    What followed, beginning in the mid-1970s, was a fruit boom that transformed the Chilean countryside and contributed to the nation’s rising standard of living, according to Chilean and UC Davis experts on Chile’s agricultural development.


    The phrase “Davis boys” derives from the “Chicago boys”—Chileans who studied the neoliberal economics of Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger at the University of Chicago and launched economic policies that made Chile a model for free-trade advocates. Those policies were started under dictator Augusto Pinochet and extended by succeeding democratic governments.


    The Davis boys provided technical expertise on what crops to introduce to Chile and how to grow them. “These scientists, then mainly professors in Chilean universities, took the lead in explaining to the farmers how to make these changes,” said Lovell “Tu” Jarvis, UC Davis professor of agricultural and resource economics and an associate dean for the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.


    “They identified California varieties that could be grown in Chile and exported to world markets, and then helped farmers adapt production practices to produce high-quality fruit,” Jarvis said. “They knew how to do basic research and taught farmers how new technology and better management could improve profits. Their contributions were crucial to the fruit sector’s tremendous progress between 1974 and 1991.”


    Fruit exports from Chile rose from $50 million to $1 billion during that period and have continued to grow since, Jarvis said. Chile now produces about 95 percent of the table grapes imported by the United States in the winter.


    With the growing season in the Southern Hemisphere from January through March, table grape imports helped rather than hurt California growers, Jarvis said. “People got used to eating grapes year-round,” he said. Consumption rose, as did California growers’ sales and prices.


    UC Davis history professor Arnold Bauer, an authority on Latin American history who wrote a well-known book on Chilean rural society, said that changes in Chile’s central valley over the past few decades have been dramatic.


    “I first came to Chile in the later 1960s when the central valley countryside was still devoted to the traditional activities of cereal, wheat mainly, and livestock, with a few nice wineries, large haciendas or fundos, and lots of raggedy campesinos,” Bauer said via e-mail from Chile where he has directed an Education Abroad program the past three years.


    “Now, driving south from Santiago to Talca and even beyond, one sees hardly anything but stretches of vineyard, rows of apple, peach, pear and apricot trees and, every now and then, huge packing houses, mainly the result of foreign investment by Del Monte, Dole, Uni Frutti and so on. The fields of fruit trees and vineyards are, by and large, owned by Chileans; the commercialization of the product is largely in foreign hands.


    “What Pinochet and the Chicago boys did was carry out, in their terms, a ‘capitalist revolution’ in the countryside with the expected up and down sides. The Davis boys were important in providing the technical expertise in the fruit and grape sectors. I think that the convenio with the University of California and the University of Chile was, in the terms expressed, very successful, even ‘fruitful’ if you don’t mind the pun.”


    Generational Impact


    The Chile–UC Davis links have had long- lasting effects. UC Davis alumni, with advice from UC Davis professors, also helped transform Chilean higher education by establishing agricultural-sciences curricula.


    When Carlos Crisosto was an undergraduate student at the University of Chile, most of his major professors were UC Davis alumni. Even though the convenio had expired and there were fewer scholarships for Chileans to study here, Crisosto came to UC Davis to get his horticulture master’s degree in 1982. “UC Davis was the most distinctive university in agriculture,” he said.


    He now works as a Cooperative Extension specialist at the UC Kearney Research and Extension Center near Fresno, where he researches ways to improve handling, packing and shipping of table grapes, nectarines, fresh market peaches, plums, apricots, kiwifruit, figs, olives and Asian pears.


    Reinaldo Campos, who earned his doctorate in plant biology at UC Davis in 2001, said UC Davis was his first choice for graduate school.


    “The possibility to get many ideas of great scientists is remarkable at Davis,” said Campos, who now conducts research on fruit and vegetable physiology and post-harvest techniques for Chile’s National Institute for Agriculture Research.


    About 25 Chilean students were enrolled this fall at UC Davis, most of them in graduate programs, according to Wes Young, director of Services for International Students and Scholars. That is far fewer than the hundreds of students from China, Korea or Japan. However, Chile, a relatively small country with about 15 million people, still ranks 13th among foreign countries for numbers of students attending UC Davis.


    “A lot of people come here because of the professors we had,” said Cristóbal Uuay, a doctoral student here researching wheat genetics. “We always heard about the quality of education at Davis, and also of the shared interests.”


    Uuay, co-founder of the Chilean Cultural Association of Davis, said many other Chilean graduate students are junior faculty members who continue to receive salaries from their universities on the condition that they go back and work two years for every year they spend here. “The idea is not to have the brain drain from Chile,” Uuay said.


    UC Davis fellowships cover his fees here, so he is not obligated to return immediately after finishing his Ph.D. in 1½ years, leaving open opportunities for postdoctoral research. However, he said he wants ultimately to go back, as do most Chilean students. “There’s a national pride in how we’re doing compared with the rest of Latin America. We want to be part of that. We want to help our country.”


    However, he says that rising fees and visa restrictions are discouraging other Chileans from applying here. Few new students arrived this year to replace the 10 who finished their studies and returned home, he said. “It’s getting harder to get money. It’s getting harder to get visas.”


    More than half the Chilean students study agricultural sciences, Uuay said. But a few study atmospheric sciences under meteorology professor Robert Flocchini, an expert on how agriculture contributes to air pollution. Three others study history.


    Even one of the history students said the long-standing UC Davis–Chile ties influenced his decision to come here. Pablo Whipple, whose history dissertation focuses on 19th century Peru’s ruling class, said colleagues at the Catholic University of Chile and friends studying here recommended UC Davis to him.


    Future Directions


    Alan Bennett, an internationally known UC Davis plant sciences professor and associate vice chancellor for research, said the university is seeking new funds from the U.S. and Chilean governments to bring Chilean graduate students here and to provide opportunities for California students and faculty to carry out research in Chile.


    Bennett has been working with Chilean colleagues to develop technology transfer programs. Last year, he worked with the nonprofit Fundación Chile in developing a national plan for getting Chilean research innovations to market. Created in 1976 by the Chilean government and ITT Corp., Fundación Chile seeks to diversify the Chilean economy by creating new companies based on sustainable natural resources.


    Bennett also developed an agreement between Fundación Chile and UC to identify technologies developed at UC campuses that could be commercialized in Chile. “The university would like to see its technology further developed,” Bennett said. “In some cases, a technology is not being developed in the United States because it doesn’t fit into existing industries here that are typically further advanced but may make sense in the still-developing Chilean industry sector.”


    Bennett said educational exchange programs like the one that trained Chile’s Davis boys are critical to future innovations in both countries. “It’s really through the students that these technologies can be developed.”


    Chile is a good partner because, in addition to UC Davis’ many alumni there, the country shares a similar climate, strong research in agricultural biotechnology and many of the same natural resources as California.


    Chile’s main export is copper, but it is increasing its exports in crops, fish and forestry products. As its economy moves from non-renewable resources to renewable resources, Bennett said, Chile faces a great need to clean up the copper mines.


    At Fundación Chile, Bennett has been working with alumnus Carlos Fernández, who earned a doctorate in plant physiology from UC Davis in 1978 as one of the last Chileans to come under the convenio. He worked 20 years for Monsanto in Brazil, Europe and Davis before returning to Chile five years ago.


    Fernandez said UC Davis’ help in developing technology transfer programs is welcomed in Chile. “In our country, this process is very weak,” he said.


    “Our country is a good producer and exporter of raw materials—fruit, minerals, something you take from the environment. We want to add value to all those natural resources. To add value, we need to produce new technology.


    “Certainly the valuable technology is at UC Davis,” he said. “The general consensus is that the University of California, and UC Davis especially, is a center of knowledge and innovation that is first-line in the world.”


    ----------



    Kathleen Holder is associate editor of UC Davis Magazine. Top photo courtesy of Chilean Fresh Fruit Association.


     


     


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------


     


     


  • What the Republicans tell us: The "death tax" (estate tax) takes half or more of a family's hard-earned savings (and at a most difficult time for the family), requiring land holdings to be broken up and bankrupting family farms and small businesses.


    What the Republicans don't tell us: The estate tax applies only to estates of over $650,000 (for single person, double that for a couple), a threshold that will rise to $1 million by 2006. The top marginal estate tax rate is 39 percent, not "over half." In a typical year fewer than two percent of estates pay any tax at all, and only one in twenty farm estates. The estate tax brings in $27 billion a year, more than double the federal income tax paid by the bottom half of all taxpayers.


     


    June 05, 2006


    Paul Krugman: Shameless in the Senate


    Paul Krugman asks how congress can justify eliminating or substantially reducing the estate tax after arguing it had to cut essential social services such as health insurance for children to trim the deficit in a bill signed in February:



    Shameless in the Senate, by Paul Krugman, Estate Tax Commentary, NY Times: The Senate almost voted to repeal the estate tax last fall, but Republican leaders postponed the vote after Hurricane Katrina. It's easy to see why: the public might have made the connection between scenes of Americans abandoned in the Superdome and scenes of well-heeled senators voting huge tax breaks for their even wealthier campaign contributors.


    But memories of Katrina have faded, and they're about to try again. ... So it's important to realize that there's still a clear connection between tax breaks for the rich and failure to help Americans in need. ... To understand this point, ... look at what Congress has been doing lately in the name of deficit reduction. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which was signed in February, consists mainly of cuts to spending on Medicare, Medicaid and education. The Medicaid cuts will ... cause 65,000 people, mainly children, to lose health insurance, and lead many people who retain insurance to skip needed medical care because they can't afford increased co-payments.


    Congressional leaders justified these harsh measures by saying that we have to reduce the budget deficit, and there's no way to do that without inflicting pain. But those same leaders now propose making the deficit worse by repealing the estate tax. Apparently deficits aren't such a big problem after all, as long as we're running up debts to provide bigger inheritances to wealthy heirs rather than to provide medical care to children. ...


    Who would benefit from this largess? The estate tax is overwhelmingly a tax on the very, very wealthy; only about one estate in 200 pays any tax at all. The campaign for estate tax repeal has largely been financed by just 18 powerful business dynasties, including the family that owns Wal-Mart.


    You may have heard tales of family farms and small businesses broken up to pay taxes, but those stories are pure propaganda... Nonetheless, the estate tax is up for a vote this week. First, Republicans will try to repeal the estate tax altogether. If that fails, they'll offer a compromise ... like a plan suggested by Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, that would cost almost as much as full repeal, or a plan suggested by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, that is only slightly cheaper.


    In each case, the crucial vote will be procedural: if 60 senators vote to close off debate, estate tax repeal ... will surely pass. Any senator who votes for cloture but against estate tax repeal — which I'm told is what John McCain may do — is simply a hypocrite, trying to have it both ways.


    But will the Senate vote for cloture? The answer depends on two groups of senators: Democrats like Mr. Baucus who habitually stake out "centrist" positions that give Republicans almost everything they want, and moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee ... who consistently cave in to their party's right wing. Will these senators show more spine than they have in the past?


    In the interest of stiffening those spines, let me remind senators that this isn't just a fiscal issue, it's also a moral issue. Congress has already declared that the budget deficit is serious enough to warrant depriving children of health care; how can it now say that it's worth enlarging the deficit to give Paris Hilton a tax break?


     


    --------------------------------------------------------


    --------------------------------------------------------


     


     

  • From Robert Reich's blog . . .


     


    Friday, June 02, 2006



    The Super-Rich Estate Tax (Don't Call it a Death Tax)




    This coming week, Senate Republicans are putting up for a vote repeal of the estate tax (which Republicans have renamed the "death" tax in order to fool Americans into thinking most have to pay it when they die). Right now, the tax only hits families with more than $4 million to give to their heirs. That's the richest one-half of one percent of American families -- only about 1,200 families altogether. Families can leave their children up to $4 million without any tax at all. But because this small group of families has so large a fortune, repeal would cost the U.S. Treasury $1 trillion in its first ten years. That's about equivalent to what's needed to save Social Security over the next 75 years. Put another way, the yearly loss to the Treasury is almost exactly equal to the amount the U.S. spends each year on homeland security. If the super-wealthy won't pay, the middle class will have to pay more taxes to make up the difference. Or the national debt will expand, and we'll all be paying more interest on the resulting borrowing (mostly from wealthy Americans, along with China and Japan).

    So why aren't Americans making a bigger fuss? Because they've been sold a huge load of lard about this. The PR campaign for repeal has been financed by 18 super-rich families, with a combined total wealth of $185 billion. If they get the tax repealed, they'll save over $70 billion.

    Every Republican president who has waged war during his presidency, from Abe Lincoln on down, has supported the estate tax as a way to finance the war equitably by having the rich pay their fair share. George W. Bush is the first to want to repeal it. To make matters even more absurd, the richest American families, with personal fortunes of $2 million or more, already own a third of all the wealth in the nation. That's a record high, since records have been kept.

    Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) is about to offer an amendment to repeal up to $7 million. That's still a travesty.

     

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

     

     

  • I lifted this from Defiance_01's Xanga . . . .


     



     

    Hitler's Protégé:
    The Hatespeech of Ann Coulter

    Don't get me wrong. I am not a person who makes wild, abstract connections between republicans and Nazis; I am well aware that even though Bush and Hitler have committed horrible, intolerant atrocities, but excluding the fact that they both surrounded themselves with yes-men, Bush cannot be compared to Hitler, under any circumstances. Period. Virtually no one in modern American politics can be compared to Hitler.

    Except Ann Coulter, and I am not saying that out of partisan anger. I'm saying that because it's true. She has publicly stated that she idolizes Joseph McCarthy, a man who came to fame in 1949 for campaigning on behalf of Nazis who were convicted of war crimes. Of course, you won't read any of that in her books, because she sweeps that glaringly obvious fact under the rug.

    Don't believe me? Read a salon.com review of her book "Treason: Liberal Treachery from Cold War to the War on Terror"

    Wow, now there's an "honest" title. Right up there with her other books, "Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right" and "How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must)"

    Wait a second. "How to talk to a liberal if you must" ? How many groups could she get away with using a book like this for?

    "How to talk to a Jew (if you must)" by Ann Coulter
    "How to talk to a Negro (if you must)" by Ann Coulter
    "How to talk to a Queer (if you must)" by Ann Coulter

    Would colleges be inviting her to speak if she had written books like these? Of course not. But throw the word "Liberal" in there and you've got a best-selling book. More proof that we live in a climate where it's becoming increasingly acceptable to hate Liberals.

    "But wait," you may be thinking, "there are people like that on the left too!"

    Oh really?

    This an actual quote from Coulter:

    "When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

    Hmmm.....so liberals should be physically intimidated and killed for disagreeing with conservatives?

    I dare you to find a single well-known liberal who thinks the same thing about conservatives.

    Al Franken? Nope.
    Michael Moore? Not in any of his books or movies.
    Noam Chomsky? Guess again.
    Bill Maher? a) Not a liberal. b) Nope.
    Ted Kennedy? Not a word.
    Paul Begala? Wrong.

    Hmmm......

    A few more actual quotes by Coulter:


    "I'm fed up with hearing about civilian casualties in Iraq."

    "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."

    "All feminists are weak and pathetic."

    "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

    "Seriously, I think the rest of the countries in the Middle East, after Afghanistan and Iraq, they're pretty much George Bush's bitch,"

    "I will go to a black church and talk about gay marriage. The brothers aren't big on queer theory."

    "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity."

    "When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

    "There are no good Democrats."

    "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

    "Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy."

    "Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening."

    "A central component of liberal hate speech is to make paranoid accusations based on their own neurotic impulses, such as calling Republicans angry, hate-filled, and mean."

    "Liberals don't try to win arguments, they seek to destroy their opponents and silence dissident opinions."

    "Political debate with liberals is basically impossible in America because liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments...It's really all the same lie [that liberals tell]

    "The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "

    "Liberals hate America, they hate "flag-wavers," they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."

    [Ha ha! Wrong again. I hate all religions except Buddhism ]

    "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."

    "Even if corners were cut, (Iran-Contra) was a brilliant scheme.

    "Much of the left's hate speech bears greater similarity to a psychological disorder than to standard political discourse. The hatred is blinding, producing logical contradictions that would be impossible to sustain were it not for the central element faith plays in the left's new religion. The basic tenet of their faith is this: Maybe they were wrong on facts and policies, but they are good and conservatives are evil. You almost want to give it to them. It's all they have left."

    [mmm, hypocritically delicious......]

    "If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden motives?"

    [Boy, when she's right, she's right. I suggest "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Themand "The Truth (with Jokes)" by Al Franken.]

    "In the corporeal world, international law is whatever the United States and Great Britain say it is."

    [And then she has the audacity to say this....]
    "There is no serious dialogue or engagement of ideas between the left and the right in this country."

    Gee, I wonder why? Are we actually supposed to be surprised when an asinine extremist like this is booed?

    Ann Coulter hates liberals more than terrorists.

    But, somehow I think there is one piece of government treason that Ann won't write about.....


    ......namely, the fact that Bush was the one to leak Plame's name


    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/libby.ap/index.html


    Allow me a moment to blow my own horn. (....not like that, you sicko.)

    I accurately predicted the neocon response to the leak the very instant I hear the news break on the 6th. I turned to my girlfriend and said, "You know, I'd bet anything that the neocons will come out and say that since Bush is the one who did it, that makes it all okay."

    Sure enough, since the leak story broke we've heard a steady stream of Bush and the people around him saying, "Well, the president has the power to declassify......"

    Oh really? You know what it would be called if someone else were the one to leak Valerie Plame's name in order get revenge on an expert who disagreed with Bush?

    Treason.

    Literally - what has happened in the administration is an offense punishable by death. That's not me saying that, that's an actual law. Treason against America is a capital offense, and leaking a CIA agent's name is treason. But, like always with this administration, no one will really be punished. 

    But then ask yourself this - what message does that send to other CIA agents when a president "declassifies" info about a CIA agent just to get revenge on her husband for pointing out flaws in the president's actions?


     


     

Recent Posts

Categories