AntiRust

What's Hip About Pittsburgh?

Gosh, when is this city ever going to get over steel mills and start focusing on what's cool and hip about the city? I am hardly qualified, as even on my best day I am about as far from being "GQ" as you can get. So I defer instead to... GQ.

The July issue (the one with Jessica Simpson on the cover) has an article titled  "62 Reasons to Love Your Country." (Sorry, no link for the article.) A quick perusal only reveals one of those 62 to be focused on the Pittsburgh area. What is it, you ask? The Andy Warhol Museum? Walnut Street? The Golden Triangle? The Strip? Nope.

Steel Mills. More specifically, "The Abandoned Steel Mills of Western Pennsylvania." Jeanne Marie Laskas, who writes for the Washington Post and teaches at Pitt, wrote the excellent entry, detailing what a powerful force the mills can be in reminding us of our industrial heritage.

You know, the steel mills? The ones so successfully knocked down to make way for redevelopment? Redevelopment that will look dated and worn by the time Big Ben can be considered a true veteran?  The "brownfields" our fearless leaders have so thoroughly erased in the name of progress? Yep that's what is--or at least was--cool about western PA.

While not a steel romantic, I am not at all sure that our entire industrial heritage has to be replaced. Perhaps we can build on that heritage. But for now, let us focus on the strange fact that for some reason, industry is suddenly cool. And is mostly cool among the left-leaning artsy types.

Yes, we all know about the "creative class" moving into industrial lofts, purportedly saving poor neighborhoods from themselves. But I am talking about something more fundamental. The Frick Art and Historical Center is currently featuring the work of Margaret Bourke-White, a pioneering Fortune photographer in the heyday of American industry. She is rumored to have been something of a commie herself.

And then there is Granta, the excellent--and exceedingly left-wing--British literary quarterly. The nonfiction in the current issue, called "The Factory," explores industry around the world. From their own description of the issue:  "The business of making things is becoming a memory for much of the western world—the very business that once gave mastery over the east and the south. Factories don't just make objects. They created (and elsewhere go on creating) a way of life."

This is all very strange. Especially the Granta pieces. I got viscerally angry when reading some of them. Smug and self-satisfied, they tossed out tired cliches of industry as a dirty, dehumanizing force in which no man, no community, can emerge unscathed.

Yeah, factory work is tough, smart guy. And sure it's dirty. Sometimes terribly so. But it can also be something that makes people and communities proud. It is not shameful. And it is not always something forced on poor, helpless wretches under the thumb of some mococled, moustachioed moneybags.

Not all of the Granta pieces are like that, but enough are that it gives the impression that many elements in the "creative class" are beginning to view factory culture as something to be poked, prodded and expounded upon like some kind of hideous freak show. Such people are the reverse of the stereotypical, wide-eyed rubes who flee back to the countryside after a hopeless encounter in the city: "Ma! Pa! Them flatlanders, they drive suh fast! And the ladies! They sure is pretty, but they hardly wear no clothes! And I hear some of 'em ain't even make it tuh church on Sundeh!"

I am sure that there is plenty for urban sophisticates to learn by exploring blue-collar culture, but a lot of it comes across as so much elitism. "Oooh, look at the pictures. Can you believe it, Jordan? It's a steel mill. Last semester I took a class in 'Sexual Aggression and the Post-Colonial Politics of American Industrial Anthropology' and we talked about the dialectical epilogues embedded in the social and environmental degradation involved. Now get me the classifieds. I hear there's a bunch of new lofts going in by the food co-op. Can you believe it? It's going to be so edgy. I hope they keep the dive bar on the corner. Me and Darcy went in one day and the old men in there were so cute. It's like a real neighborhood."

More on this later.

Tom Murphy Spins History

The Post Gazette yesterday published a column by Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy, in which he attacked NYT columnist John Tierney for bashing the city's redevelopment efforts. The good mayor is, well, let's address a few of his points:

The most glaring misrepresentation by Mr. Tierney comes as he states that Pittsburgh "razed 80 buildings in the 1950s near the riverfront park Downtown." The fact of the matter is that what civic leaders did in the 1950s was transform a blighted warehouse district into a beautiful Downtown park and office space. The park did not exist prior to the development of the office complex and the buildings that were razed were certainly not a "bustling business district."

Uh, so how is that a misrepresentation? Did the city raze 80 buildings or not? Even if you support the end product, you can't deny that the buildings are gone. Why so defensive about basic facts? The city razed 80 buildings. End of story.

Today, Pittsburgh is a model for successful, high-quality brownfield development, the environmental turnaround story of the country, a leader in sustainable neighborhood developments and new urban infill housing, and now claims nearly 25 miles of new riverfront trails and parks.

Yes. And half as many people. They left because they couldn't find work. Take a look around, sir. If Pittsbugh is a "model for successful, high-quality brownfield development," I think I could do with a lot less success. And all this stuff about the environmental turnaround: The vast majority of that success comes from the failure of the steel industry. For instance, let's say the city never undertook a single redevelopment project. Pittsburgh's air and water would still be far cleaner today than they were 50 years ago. Because the steel mills are gone. Not because Tom Murphy passed a law.

Eminent domain was never used in any of the major recent projects described in Mr. Tierney's column. The site assembly for our new convention center, PNC Park, Heinz Field and the Lazarus development was done amicably. In the case of Lazarus, the public subsidy was not $50 million, as Mr. Tierney states.

So there was no pressure on the people to sell? There was no threat of eminent domain? If someone approaches me on the street with a gun and says, "Give me 20 dollars or I'll shoot," and I hand him the $20 without a shot being fired, is that a voluntary transaction? Should I thank him for letting me keep my credit cards? Remember, the government's ultimate power rests in its monopoly on violence. Those people knew their property was in the government's sites and got the best deal they could. In the case of Lazarus, Mr. Murphy says that the subsidy was not $50 million. Then what was it? $48 million? $40 million?

The Lazarus department store project also yielded a badly needed 500-car underground parking structure and the renovation of the vacant Horne's Department store for Blue Cross, attracting and anchoring thousands of jobs.

The Lazarus deal was not pitched as a way to yield a 500-car parking structure. It was pitched as a way to save downtown retail. It failed. It failed. It failed. Oh, and on a related note, IT FAILED.

Regarding the Heinz Co., Mr. Tierney glosses over the facts, as if it wasn't necessary to burden your readers with such things.

The truth is that in the case of the H.J. Heinz Co., which is Pittsburgh's largest manufacturing employer with more than 1,300 jobs in the city, Pittsburgh faced a difficult situation. We could not allow Heinz to leave Pittsburgh after 130 years and therefore sought to relocate the neighboring business to afford Heinz the opportunity to expand its Pittsburgh operations. We were ultimately able to settle this issue and purchase the adjacent land amicably, again without the use of eminent domain.

Again, would they have resorted to eminent domain? And was that threat always on the table, either spoken or otherwise? Of course it was. Look at Pittsburgh's history. And if it was so amicable, why did the city have to get involved at all? Why didn't Heinz just broker the deal?

In fact, the owners of the neighboring small businesses stood by my side as we announced the purchase of their property and praised the city for helping the Heinz stay in Pittsburgh. When Del Monte Foods purchased several Heinz product lines, Del Monte made the decision to locate a significant portion of their company in Pittsburgh as a result of the upgrades made to the Heinz facility.

Pittsburgh is proud to continue to be the world headquarters of the H.J. Heinz Co., and we are thrilled to have Del Monte Foods building a brand-new office building on the North Shore, anchoring hundreds of new jobs in Pittsburgh.

Is this really the measure of success? Can he really be serious? The Mayor of Pittsburgh is saying that the city's redevelopment efforts are a success because they have created jobs? God, man, wake up! There are half as many people in the city. Redevelopment efforts have failed to deliver what they promised. Jobs. They always promise jobs. Let's grant Murphy the very arguable point that the Heinz deal was a success. So on the plus side, we have "on the North Shore, hundreds of new jobs." And on the minus side we have several hundred thousand people who have packed up and left. This is due to a host of factors, but the fact remains: Each and every one of these projects has promised economic salvation. That's the only way they can gather enough support. And they never live up to the hype. Ever. 

With regard to the failed urban renewal projects of the 1960s in East Liberty and the Hill District, Mr. Tierney fails to recognize the tremendous strides Pittsburgh has made in restoring the vitality of these neighborhoods. Today the Hill District is a thriving, vibrant mixed-income neighborhood with new houses and a revitalized business corridor.

I disagree with what Murphy says throughout, but this is downright shameful. Redevelopment officials screwed the Hill District because they could. And man, the Hill District got screwed good. And for what? The Civic Arena. Aren't we trying to replace that now? If anything, the city owes the Hill District an apology, as if that would do any good.   

In East Liberty, we are now tearing down the last remnants of the failed 1960s urban revitalization. We now have a Home Depot, Whole Foods, new housing and a restored traffic grid returning East Liberty to one of our premier neighborhoods.

Yes. Failed urban revitalization. Say it again. Failed. As for the Home Depot and Whole Foods: These projects and the ones before them did not promise high-end retail for upscale urbanites. They promised to be good for the people who lived there. Those people are leaving to make way for others who can afford organic peanut butter that costs $27 a jar to go along with their Valrhona chocolate. Let's be clear: From the 1950s on, redevelopers have promised jobs for regular folks. Those regular folks have left in drove and continue to leave. THEY FAILED. As for whether East Liberty is a "premier neighborhood," I'll let city residents decide. But if it is, why does it need "renewal"? Greenwich, Connecticut, is a premier neighborhood. I don't see anyone tearing down houses to "renew" that.

As for Mr. Tierney's assertion that Pittsburgh's economic development strategy caused a financial crisis in Pittsburgh, nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Tierney doesn't know what he is talking about. Like every city in America, Pittsburgh faces the growing pressure of too much land being taken off the tax rolls by tax-exempt non-profits -- in Pittsburgh, nearly 40 percent. Additionally, Pittsburgh had a state-mandated, loophole-ridden tax structure based on the city we were 50 years ago, not the city we are today.

This goes even further beyond the pale. The city is a financial disaster, at least in part because officials spent $50 million dollars on a failed retail project that is now being presented as a successful parking garage initiative.

I am proud to say that we have succeeded in securing meaningful tax reform from Harrisburg and in rightsizing the cost of city government. Pittsburgh's financial situation is quickly turning the corner. All three New York independent bond rating agencies have recently upgraded Pittsburgh's financial outlook, and we will end 2005 with an $11 million surplus.

Imagine. It will take almost five years of similar "successes" to pay for the wildly successful parking garage initiative. Was it worth it? And by the way, did you cut any services to achieve that surplus?

Mr. Tierney has done his hometown a great disservice by ignoring the facts and writing a column based upon a complete misunderstanding of the remarkable renaissance under way in the city of Pittsburgh.

Under way? Criminy, it's been "under way" for 50 years and half the people are gone. Because it failed. Can we please try something else?

For that, Mr. Tierney owes Pittsburgh, both past and present, an apology.

No, Mr. Murphy. For that, the developers who have bilked taxpayers out of millions of dollars owe an apology. As pretty as the downtown park might be, it never delivered on the real promise: economic vitality.

Sprawl: It's ugly, but...

So the hottest, most dynamic economies are those that cater to urban sophisticates, right? Maybe not.

CNN and Money magazine just came out with a list of "best places to live." One measure was job growth. I am not at all familiar with most of the winners in that category, but I do know about a few of them: Ashburn, Sterling and Leesburg, Virginia. They rank 5, 6 and 7, respectively.

These are not urban hotspots. They are suburbs. And the kind of suburbs that make snooty people naseous. Located within a stones throw of Dulles International Airport, the highlights include: McMansions, TGI Fridays, and gridlocked roads.

Vienna, Virginia, similarly afflicted, made number 4 on the overall list.

People are not moving there for the sushi and then using their creative powers to open hip start-ups. They move for the jobs (very often at, gasp, enormous corporations like AOL) then try to build a community around them.

I do not prefer this kind of environment. That is one of the reasons I decided to leave my job in Northern Virginia. But any discussion of urban planning and economic development has to take into account that enormous numbers of people really like living this way. They just do. They like big houses in cul de sac neighborhoods. They like driving themselves to work in the biggest SUV they can afford. And they very often--almost always in fact--prefer the accessibility and consistency of Ruby Tuesdays to the precious "authenticity" of the hidden urban eatery. They might say they don't. But that's where they keep eating.

I don't think these people are bad or wrong. So many people do, however. In fact, they seem intent on insisting that this set of preferences does not--simply cannot--even exist.

So you REALLY want to attract people? If so, there is one sure answer, it seems. Jobs and sprawl. Sexy? Nope.

Paul Krugman Wants Your Twinkie

Why should I, a non-smoker, be so vehemently opposed to Pittsburgh's proposed smoking ban? It ultimately comes down to a firm belief that the government should not intervene in such personal decisions, and fears that it will not--in fact cannot--stop there.

This usually brings guffaws: "Jeez, there goes the paranoid libertarian again. Ha ha. What a gas! Like the government is ever going to manaeuver for that much power."

Well, let's see what Paul Krugman has to say in today's New York Times [emphasis added].

The obvious model for those hoping to reverse the fattening of America is the campaign against smoking. Before the surgeon general officially condemned smoking in 1964, rising cigarette consumption seemed an unstoppable trend; since then, consumption per capita has fallen more than 50 percent. ...

How can medical experts who see obesity as a critical problem deal with an ideological landscape tilted in the direction of doing nothing?

One answer is to focus on the financial costs of obesity, and the fact that many of these costs fall on taxpayers and on the general insurance-buying public, rather than on the obese individuals themselves. (To their credit, the authors of the Amber Waves article do mention this issue, although they play it down.)

It is more important, however, to emphasize that there are situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong - and that this is one of them.

For one thing, the most rapid rise in obesity isn't taking place among adults, who, we hope, can understand the consequences of their decisions. It's taking place among children and adolescents.

And even if children weren't a big part of the problem, only a blind ideologue or an economist could argue with a straight face that Americans were rationally deciding to become obese. In fact, even many economists know better: the most widely cited recent economic analysis of obesity, a 2003 paper by David Cutler, Edward Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro of Harvard University, declares that "at least some food consumption is almost certainly not rational." It goes on to present evidence that even adults have clear problems with self-control.

Above all, we need to put aside our anti-government prejudices and realize that the history of government interventions on behalf of public health, from the construction of sewer systems to the campaign against smoking, is one of consistent, life-enhancing success. Obesity is America's fastest-growing health problem; let's do something about it.

Perhaps the libertarians look a little less paranoid now. What, exactly, is he proposing? I'm sure it's no good. And I am just as certain he will win. It is a sad state of affairs.

And it is directly related to the proposed smoking ban. Allow me to reiterate: The ban is not about protecting bartenders from smokers. It's about protecting you from yourself. If ban supporters would only admit that, I would respect them a whole lot more. (Or disrespect them a whole lot less, I suppose.)

Either way, no thanks Mr. Krugman, you ridiculous turd.

And to those who support the smoking ban for purely selfish reasons (Come on. Admit it. There are a lot of you out there.) I only ask that you consider SOME kind of compromise. Keep in mind that the way the ban is playing out, supporters will not accept tax incentives to bars that go smoke free or other creative measures. They are insisting on a ban in all public places (although I object to the notion that a bar is a "public" place).

So are you prepared to divert police resources away from violence-plagued neighborhoods so detectives can look into who's smoking and eating the right thing in the right place--all so your smug self doesn't have to dry clean your cashmere and khakis after a night on the town? That's not a paranoid rant. That's the future.

As Mr. Krugman says, "There are situations in which 'free to choose' is all wrong."

So is an economics professor in a better position than you are to decide what you choose to eat and smoke? Paul Krugman thinks so. And so do ban supporters.

Shame on them.  

Huzzah, David Conrad

This, from today's Tribune-Review, says a lot about the state of Pittsburgh's economy. But to hell with politics and development and industry for the moment: It strikes me as a nice gesture. (I especially like the self-effacing reference to the "crappy TV show"):

A U.S. Steel sign that previously graced the exterior of Chiodo's Tavern in Homestead was welcomed home Thursday. The 10-foot-by-10-foot, 1,500-pound, stainless-steel sign now hangs at the historic Pump House at The Waterfront complex, which sits on the former Homestead Works site. Actor David Conrad, an Edgewood native, purchased the massive marker for $4,000 at an auction April 24 and donated it to the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area.

Officials from Steel Industry Heritage Corp., a nonprofit group that oversees Rivers of Steel, held a dedication ceremony yesterday for the sign -- emblazoned with the words "In Honor of the Employees" and a U.S. Steel logo in the center.

"We're glad to have had the opportunity to be part of an effort to save it and keep it from going to collectors in some other region or another part of the country," said Augie Carlino, president and CEO of Steel Industry Heritage Corp. "This sign being right across the street from U.S. Steel is symbolic and, hopefully, it will memorialize and become a monument for steelworkers."

... "I just wanted to make sure it (the sign) stayed here," Conrad said. "It says 'In Honor Of' -- and I don't think there's enough in this part of the world that gives the apt tribute to the people who built it. If there's any small, little way I can leave in memory the people who made it happen, the money from a crappy TV show is worth it."

Conrad was a regular in the NBC television series "Miss Match" and had a recurring role in the TV drama "Boston Public." He also appeared in the movie "Men of Honor," starring Robert DeNiro and Cuba Gooding Jr.

A Tip of the Hat

Baxter at The New Polluter has given Anti-Rust its first real mention on the web. Thanks to him for that--and for reading my ramblings.

So by all means, stop by over there and see what The New Polluter is all about. And once you get familiar, why not submit a story or two...

Boondoggle: Olympic Style

So New York City avoided the Olympic plague. Good for them. Here's an interesting take from William C. Rhoden on the NYT web site:

Why did these cities climb over one another to get these Games? There is little evidence to suggest that the Games solve long-term unemployment problems. Post-Olympic reports often show that host cities lose money and often wind up with herds of concrete white elephants.

"Each city is different," DeFrantz said. "Sydney wanted to prove that they could do it. For Athens, I think it was a little bit of the fact that this was their event and they hadn't been able to host it since 1896."

The truth is, everyone wants the Games because everyone wants a piece of Olympic booty. If you're Woody Johnson, the Jets' owner, you use the Games as a Trojan Horse to hide your real goal: a new football stadium. If you're Fred Wilpon, the Mets' principal owner, you want the Games to get you out of a dump called Shea Stadium and into a new baseball palace. If you're a developer, you're salivating at the chance to get an Olympic contract.

The British journalist Andrew Jennings has written three scathing critiques of the Olympic movement and the I.O.C. He co-wrote "The Lords of the Rings" and wrote "The New Lords of the Rings" and "The Great American Swindle" about the Salt Lake City scandal.

"One of the frequently uniting factors of all these bids, for all these cities is a small group of people who wish to get richer than they already are or have jobs for even longer," Jennings said yesterday by telephone from England.

"Whichever city wins tomorrow - there's seven years' work for that lot. The unifying factor is self-interest by property speculators."

In the wake of stricter guidelines, the new lobbying strategy was to wow the committee members with glamour and power.

I think we've stumbled on a new Olympic motto:

If you can't bribe 'em, seduce 'em.

I think you can substitute just about any other BS development scheme in here and it would be just as valid. Maglev? Stadiums?

Yep.

Eastside Bait and Switch

Yesterday's Pittsburgh-Post Gazette offered an interesting cautionary tale. It comes with the headline, "Eastside project builds a bridge between Shadyside and East Liberty: Pedestrian overpass to link rich, poor neighborhoods."

Hmm. Why were these neighborhoods separated in the first place? Perhaps the people who built them were racists who designed them that way. Or maybe a big, nasty corporation did it. Or maybe... Well, let's let article answer:

For decades, Shadyside and East Liberty have lived like the Cold War's two Berlins. One thrived, one didn't. One had and one had less.

The side-by-side neighborhoods are divided by a sunken rail line that two bridges spanned until the early 1970s. When the forces of urban renewal removed the bridges, the neighborhood border was studded with dead-end streets and fences that blocked passage.

A traffic circle that discouraged trade increased East Liberty's isolation. One slim span, a truss on Highland Avenue, bridges the neighborhoods. Sided by chain-link fence and sloped enough to block sight lines, it is "a study on how to make people feel unwelcome," says Rob Stephany of East Liberty Development Inc.

The divide also served the condition of racial isolation with its physical barriers to movement between the two neighborhoods. Planners, merchants and most residents want to bridge the gap. A symbol of this will be a pedestrian bridge from Shadyside to the Eastside construction project along Centre Avenue east of the Whole Foods Market.

Yes. Access to outrageously expensive organic food is what East Liberty needs. Who knows. I am open to that. It's the source of the solution that gives pause. Pittsburgh is STILL relying on the "forces of urban renewal," as defined by a host of convoluted partnerships, despite the fact that these were the same forces that tore the bridges down in the first place. Weird.

Then there is this:

Part of the plan is to redesign housing stock. Liberty Park and Eastmall high rises are being replaced by traditional, mixed-income houses, for which ELDI is "working hard to preserve affordability. That's a promise that must be kept," Stephany said.

Anyone know what "working hard to preserve affordability" looks like? In Silver Spring, Maryland, where I lived until recently, a glittering new condo building recently opened. My wife and I were very interested because it was so new and the rent was so low--about $500 a month less than similarly outfitted places. We thought that meant they were simply cheaper. But they were not cheaper--at least for us. We called, only to discover that our income was about $5000 a year TOO HIGH for the place, despite the fact that she was a waitress/student at the time and I was a writer. That is, we could rent there, but we would have to pay more.

I can't tell you how much resentment that caused. People struggle for years to get a leg up. They take on enormous debt so they can get through college. (Not everyone is a trust fund baby.) They take night classes. They put their kids in daycare so both parents can work. All so they can make that extra $10,000 to $15,000 a year. Only to discover that the person who did not make those sacrifices pays $6,000 a year less in rent.

I am not saying that I have not had advantages. And I am not saying that a lot of people don't deserve some help. But it is important to note ahead of time that these schemes often CREATE the very kind of class tension they are designed to counteract. Notice that in the Silver Spring scheme, someone who paid the same amount of rent as we did, but made a little less money than we did, would enjoy a noticeably higher quality of life in the form of a MUCH nicer, larger and newer apartment in a much better location. Do you think people didn't notice? Maybe the Eastside project will find a magic bullet. Still, given the city's track record in this regard--every city's track record, in fact--perhaps it is time to take all these promises with a grain of salt.

Remember, the bridges were already there and we paid planners to come up with a scheme that tore them down. Now we are paying them for a plan to put them back up. Sounds like a high-dollar bait-and-switch to me.

Pittsburgh Planners Slammed in NYT

Local son John Tierney, now with a little newspaper called the New York Times, dismantles Pittsburgh's redevelopment history in today's column. A sample:

I recommend a trip to my hometown to see the long-term effects.

Pittsburgh has been the great pioneer in eminent domain ever since its leaders razed 80 buildings in the 1950's near the riverfront park downtown. They replaced a bustling business district with Gateway Center, an array of bland corporate towers surrounded by the sort of empty plazas that are now considered hopelessly retrograde by urban planners trying to create street life.

At the time, though, the towers and plazas seemed wonderfully modern. Viewed from across the river, the new skyline was a panoramic advertisement for the Pittsburgh Renaissance, which became a national model and inspired Pittsburgh's leaders to go on finding better uses for private land, especially land occupied by blacks.

Bulldozers razed the Lower Hill District, the black neighborhood next to downtown that was famous for its jazz scene (and now famous mostly as a memory in August Wilson's plays). The city built a domed arena that was supposed to be part of a cultural "acropolis," but the rest of the project died. Today, having belatedly realized that downtown would benefit from people living nearby, the city is trying to entice them back to the Hill by building homes there.

In the 1960's, the bulldozers moved into East Liberty, until then the busiest shopping district outside downtown. Some of the leading businessmen there wanted to upgrade the neighborhood, so hundreds of small businesses and thousands of people were moved to make room for upscale apartment buildings, parking lots, housing projects, roads and a pedestrian mall.

Tierney is right. It is not that Pittburgh has been behind the times, or that planners have failed to incorporate new ideas. Remember that Renaissance I not only led to Renaissance II, it created a stampede for similar projects around the country.

Those projects do not work. They just don't. Unless you are one of the lucky few who gets to steer the public private partnership towards your own end. Tierney does a good job of pointing out who that group typically does not include. Namely minorities. Isn't it interesting, then, that these are the people these projects so often claim to be helping.

Rubbish, all of it.

People can complain all they want about the evils of the market and the Corporate Meanies who run it, but it is hard to imagine that even the most exploitive Robber Baron could have destroyed the Hill District and East Liberty as utterly as the Renaissance projects did--all with the full support of local elected officials. That support, in fact was the democratic imprimatur and political cover the exploiters needed.

Yes corporate power is dangerous. And yes, municipal authority can be dangerous. But bring the two together and you have a real problem.

Let's think twice before we develop another one of these monsters.   

Puzzling Post-Gazette Editorial

Anyone see this in todays PPG?

Americans will celebrate today across the country -- and anywhere else where there are Americans -- the 229th anniversary of the declaration of our country's independence.

Nothing should be allowed to spoil the joy of that anniversary. The Fourth of July is least of all a day for moping over what is wrong. All Americans and everyone else who lives in this country have the right to gaze on its beauty and watch the fireworks with the eyes of the young and the old, who have seen many such Fourths of July, in peace and at war.

At the same time, no one has the right to be free of the duty to reflect today -- briefly, because it is a holiday after all -- on points where America is not living up to its promise. At our worst we are smug. At our best we ask what we can do to make our country better, and then do it.

This town got an ugly glance at one thing wrong with America last week when a sick and homeless man, his poor wife and their dog met tragedy near a truck weigh station where they had been sleeping off Interstate 79 in Cranberry.

It goes on to lament about conditions in Iraq and other poblems with America.

Fair enough. But in my view, nothing should be allowed to spoil the joy of that anniversary. The Fourth of July is least of all a day for moping over what is wrong.

Wait. That's not my view. That's the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's view. See second paragraph, above. So, um, which is it?

Imagine of someone came to your birthday party and said,

"Congratulations, Joe. [Or Nancy.] I know you are still trying to get your life right, but today is a day to celebrate your greatest accomplishments. You are a swell fellow. [Or gal.] You have accomplished so much, and I hope we can spend a while reflecting on that success.

"For instance, you are twenty pounds overweight. And remember all those plans you had in college? You wanted to be rich and famous? But instead you have a semi-crappy 9 to 5 job. Sure, your kids are nice, but they have no greater claim to excellence than you do. Across the board, it seems to me that you have failed to live up to your potential. By the way, your signature chicked dish always struck me as a little dry. You sing off-key and you have bad breath. Happy birthday."

Kind of makes you think they weren't all that sincere about the success stuff, no? Again, fair enough. They just ought not kick it off with, "This is a day for celebration." I suspect they understand that starting with, "America kind of sucks" would not go over so well.

Seems kind of shabby. If you want to criticize, criticize. Don't dress it up with a bunch of faux-friendly rubbish.