Most Ecocidal University

I co-wrote the following essay roughly 18 months ago, as a draft of a chapter in a forthcoming book on the role of modern research universities in developing the technical intellectual resources that enable global capitalist imperialism.

The book focuses particularly on the University of California and its relationship with the nuclear weapons development labs at Los Alamos, NM, and Livermore, CA. Our intention in publishing it at Indybay is to generate a greater level of critical reflection and discussion concerning the dominant role of the politics of “greening” and communitarian “collaboration-with-decision-makers” approaches that characterize campus-based environmental organizations as well as an increasing number of those in the greater American body politic. We hope that many activists read this essay.

Big ups to my writing partner, intellectual co-conspirator, and dearest friend Will Parrish - Boom!, there he is.

Adam Nossiter's parting shot

The New York Times recently announced that their one man bureau based here in N.O. will be leaving. South Louisiana is simply no longer a compelling story. The Times' man is taking up an assignment heading their west Africa bureau instead.

So Adam Nossiter, the reporter in question is skipping out on us. Mostly I'm indifferent to this news. Nossiter's record has been pretty mixed insofar as his reports on the state of post-Katrina New Orleans go. The good thing about his presence was the national attention his articles continued to garner for this troubled region, years after Katrina. The downside to his reporting... well.... was oftentimes the national attention his articles garnered. Quite a few of his missives were pretty poorly researched, thought out, and reported.

Here's some examples in what could be his last article. In today's issue of the Times, Nossiter has penned an unusually editorializing piece on Gov. Bobby Jindal's efforts to reject federal stimulus funds.

While I agree somewhat with the main premise in this article (Jindal is politicking, not governing), there's actually much to Nossiter's story that is partially wrong and downright omitted.

For instance, for the sake of word count or otherwise, Nossiter lumps all federal spending together, implying that it has had a mostly beneficent impact on New Orleans, helping the city to rebound since 2005.

Nothing could be further from the truth when analyzing political-economy. Who gets what, when, and why is not something we should reduce so bluntly. Not all federal dollars are created equal, nor are the spent equally. The benefits accrue to some and harm is done to others. Some, probably a fraction of federal aid, has helped to rebuild affordable housing, created decent jobs, reopened good schools, and built back other city services desperately needed. Many federal dollars, however, have either gone to projects that have had a dubious impact on our community's welfare, or else they haven't even been spent yet.

One of the biggest failures of the so-called "stimulus" of the past four years that Nossiter is so proud of has been the form it arrived in - tax credits. Tax credits are only good for building housing and other necessities when matched with private capital that is willing and able to invest. Since the national and local economy hasn't been too hot, there's been billions unspent, billions delayed. (And people wonder why N.O. has an affordable housing crisis?) Furthermore, tax credit subsidized projects are only as profitable as the developer can make them, usually by cramming in as many luxury and market-rate housing and amenities as possible. So for all these dollars allocated down here we really haven't seen anything like a "stimulus" of the low-income housing market - easily one of the most needed developments in N.O.

Should I even address the issue of wages? Nossiter throws out the unemployment rate (LA's is lower than the national average) but doesn't address wage parity issues and how much of one's wages is spent on housing and other necessities. More people in N.O. might have jobs than in Cleveland, for example, but that don't mean we can afford to live.

That's just one example of the problem with throwing out dollar figures and other economic statistics, and vaguely stating that they are improving the condition of this city. Just because federal dollars are landing here through FEMA and the LRA doesn't mean most Louisianans are better off for it. Just ask the city's still enormous homeless population or the tens of thousands of renters who barely scrape by with housing vouchers (landlord subsidies via "stimulus").

It'd be nice if Nossiter did a little more research and added some complexity to his reporting. But that's clearly not this point of this parting-shot article. The point seems to be to blast Jindal and lobby for the Obama administration's plans. That brings me to the biggest mistake in Nossiter's reporting.

Charity Hospital.

According to Nossiter:

"even as Mr. Jindal has criticized the stimulus bill, his own subordinates have continued to request money from Washington, notably in replacing Charity Hospital, which for generations served the poor in downtown New Orleans. State health officials, disregarding restoration work at Charity done in the months immediately after Hurricane Katrina, say they need a brand-new hospital and an additional $500 million; the Federal Emergency Management Agency has balked and is offering only $150 million."

In his haste to blast the Republican Gov. for playing politics, Nossiter has tacitly endorssed the single most disastrous real estate power-play in post-Katrina New Orleans, save perhaps the demolition of public housing. What's dangerous here is that Nossiter has linked the Charity issue now to the federal stimulus funds, a link that doesn't necessarily exist. State officials and LSU Health Science Center big shots have been wrangling with the feds for over a year to get more funds from FEMA to build their "Taj-Mahospital" in Mid-City.

By linking this to the federal stimulus Nossiter is actually aiding Jindal (and everyone from LSU to Mayor Nagin and his nemsis City Council who are all united behind this project). Those reading Nossiter's article from their desks in D.C. are now increasingly likely to see the replacement of Charity as an uncontroversial project that will benefit New Orleans "in spite of that conservative Gov. in Baton Rouge."

Getting rid of Charity is a major goal of Jindal's, however. Building the new LSU hospital with the several hundred million in FEMA money the state doesn't have and shouldn't get is just what Jindal wants, and it won't be good for the people of New Orleans. What would have been good was the immediate reopening of Charity after the storm, and what would still be better would be the cheaper, smarter and much faster retrofitting of Big Charity.

Reporting like Nossiter's is politically expedient for folks in D.C. with their agenda. It's also politically helpful for the NY Times which has its own bone to pick, one closely linked to the Obama administration's. It's not politically helpful in any way for the people of New Orleans. Time and again Nossiter's work has shown these tendencies. In this respect he and his employer are just as guilty of the political machinations he's accusing Jindal of.

How about reporting on the real story?

Jindal and other Republican governors are not just refusing to accept stimulus money in a game of politics or to score points with their base. Rather, they're genuinely concerned about the strings that come attached with some of these funds. Jindal and others have made it clear on several occasions that they do not want to re-write state laws concerning unemployment benefits, health programs, and other welfare and worker compensation laws.

Why? Because they're the party of the bosses. Doing so would re-write the social contract in small ways that empower working class Americans. The Obama administration is trying to use the federal stimulus as a wedge to force these changes on many states. It's a good political strategy, but one that's replete with dangers. They could end up doing a lot of harm in the process, especially if they flatten and simplify local political issues in the name of expediency.

How about reporting on this story in-depth? Oh, cause the New York Times and others couldn't score easy immediate political points of their own. It's too complex a story, and the "bad guys" are not just Republican leaders, they include much of corporate America and many powerful economic lobbies. Is that why?

Or are the press just too lazy?

Private Cops

The Maple Street neighborhood is voting for a second time on whether to implement a district security tax. Here's some wider context:


Quite a big deal has been made in recent years about private security corporations - mercenaries. Thanks to Jeremy Scahill's reporting, Blackwater has received an enormous dose of publicity, so much so that they've had to re-brand themselves as Xe.

Blackwater, Triple Canopy, ISI and other for-profit companies that have privatized war-fighting functions are mostly a product of the Iraq and Afghan wars. Although many of them existed before 2001, the "war on terror" has booseted their fortunes and profiles immensely.

This is partly why in 2005, when Katrina struck, when N.O. was flooded and later evacuated, and when several Uptown elites ordered the services of some of these infamous companies (and FEMA even hired Blackwater for its own security) many journalists were quick to write this up as an ominous and new turn of events. Mercenaries brandishing assault rifles in an American city? Lots of people thought it was new. Scahill wrote about it at the time:

"As business leaders and government officials talk openly of changing the demographics of what was one of the most culturally vibrant of America's cities, mercenaries from companies like DynCorp, Intercon, American Security Group, Blackhawk, Wackenhut and an Israeli company called Instinctive Shooting International (ISI) are fanning out to guard private businesses and homes, as well as government projects and institutions. Within two weeks of the hurricane, the number of private security companies registered in Louisiana jumped from 185 to 235. Some, like Blackwater, are under federal contract. Others have been hired by the wealthy elite, like F. Patrick Quinn III, who brought in private security to guard his $3 million private estate and his luxury hotels, which are under consideration for a lucrative federal contract to house FEMA workers."

True enough, the firepower these global mercenaries brought to New Orleans was new, but the advent of privatized policing and security isn't new at all in Louisiana. New Orleans has had dozens of private security companies for many years. The state has been at the cutting edge of private security for several decades.

As someone who walks through the Garden District a lot - I don't own a car - I've noticed that one of the main functions of these security companies is to stop and harass "suspicious characters." Suspicious in these contexts usually means young black folks walking or riding bikes through these lily white and very wealthy enclaves. In general, suspicious is anyone walking in these areas after dark, excepting the yuppies jogging their dogs and other obvious residents. If you don't look like a millionaire you're going to get eyed. If you're not driving a Lexus, you're suspect.

If you cruise around the "sliver by the river" you'll notice in short time that most every house in the well-to-do Uptown has a little lawn sign, usually placed conspicuously on near the front steps or driveway. These advertise the home owner's private security firm. The strangest company name I've yet seen is "Nuko" security. There's literally dozens of these companies in the metro area.

Privatized policing functions exist in N.O. through special district taxes that wealthier neighborhoods levy upon themselves. Raising upwards of several hundred thousand to several million dollars, many of these neighborhoods then hire firms like NOPP and Garden District Security to cruise their streets day and night. Supporters of this say it adds "security" and "reduces crime." Perhaps it does for them. What's interesting here is that the city's wealthy and middle class majority white communities have looked to private security corporations to seal their neighborhoods off from "criminals," instead of trying to build up the police budget and increase patrols. This is partly due to the distrust that all New Orleanians have for the police. It's also due to the fact that this city's wealthy simply do not want to share their tax dollars. Just as is with schooling, health care and housing, New Orleans' affluent, mostly white minority has for many decades horded their wealth into privatized vessels such as this.

Someday I'll write a short history of privatized policing in N.O.

In the meantime I remain a "suspicious pedestrian."