AntiRust

More Baltimore: Essential Reading on Eminent Domain and Redevelopment

Wow. This is great journalism from the Baltimore Sun. It's a critical look at the upside and downside of eminent domain. A few weeks old. But beautifully reported and clearly written. My favorite part:

Jim Gillin, owner of the J.M. Gillin factory on West Saratoga Street, says he wants to stake his company's future on a once-crime-ridden swath of West Baltimore as it appears headed for brighter days. He says he hopes to double the size of his plant and hire more neighborhood residents to cut and shape aluminum for electric enclosure cabinets.

But Gillin, who moved his business to Poppleton 20 years ago, is stuck because of a looming, unanswered question: Might a planned renewal project to raze 14 acres of the neighborhood for new housing force J.M Gillin to leave?

Three years after the city housing department notified Gillin that his site could be acquired to make way for redevelopment, the fate of his property is still being negotiated.

"I understood the city wanted to improve" the neighborhood, said Gillin, who had moved to the current site after the city seized his former plant in South Baltimore for a school athletic field. "But I was actually a pioneer in this neighborhood to help turn it around. Now ... they want to kick me out."

Once again, the city is taking stuff to redevelop, despite the fact that current owners already have plans to redevelop it.

You might like other parts better, as the article offers a few cases in which eminent domain seems less troubling.

Read the whole thing. Please.

Shocking Redevelopments: Baltimore Situation Serves as a Model, and a Warning

This situation in Baltimore continues to threaten/promise to change the direction of urban renewal.

Short story: Local leaders want to develop a section of the city's decrepit west side. But instead of going after a bunch of crack addicts and haberdashers, it is facing a different sort of property owner: an EXTREMELY wealthy private foundation. And it's not that the foundation doesn't want to redevelop the property. To the contrary. That's exactly why the foundation acquired the property. To redevelop it. They just didn't do it on a timeline the city liked. So the city went ahead and signed a New York developer--and threatened to seize the property.

Legal battle? Oh yeah. And one in which both sides can afford lawyers.

But check out the link for some interesting language from the city. See, the foundation finally put together some plans. But the city doesn't seem to care:

In presenting a vision for a dense mix of housing, shops and offices yesterday to the board of the Downtown Partnership, the Weinberg Foundation and its partner, the Cordish Co., hoped to persuade the city to rethink its choice of a New York developer to oversee the project. It also wanted to avert the city's threatened seizure of its properties.

"My goal in going to the Downtown Partnership was to explain our vision for the entire west-side area," said Shale Stiller, president and chief executive of the Weinberg Foundation.

Yesterday, city officials left the door open to the possibility of Weinberg's participation, though they said the New York developer chosen last year would lead the project.

"There may yet be a role, a partnering role, for the foundation and the Cordish Co. to play, and we would be having conversations about it," said M.J. "Jay" Brodie, president of the Baltimore Development Corp. and a member of the Downtown Partnership's board. Brodie saw the detailed plan for the first time yesterday. "I thought that what they showed us today was a valuable contribution to the ongoing thinking about the west side. There were some useful ideas, and serious thought was given to it."

This is how city officials view private property now? They will "leave the door open" to the idea that owners can use it as they see fit? They grant owners a "partnering role"?

It's not like the city wants to use the land for condos and the owner wants to use it for the world's biggest Arby's or a two-million-square-foot wig shop. They are both talking about the now familiar mixed-use development that would include residential, retail and office space. Moreover, the owner--the foundation--has the money to do it. And a plan.

But rather than getting out of the way and letting it happen, the city is still threatening to condemn it.

Here's my point: I rail against redevelopment subsidies all the time. In part because I don't think they have worked. In part because of my libertarian leanings.

But a critical third reason is because I think this process corrupts both city leaders and developers. If not individually, at least institutionally. It seems that at  this stage, even when there is private money and private will, the city won't let it happen. This, I think, destroys the idea that leaders in cities like Pittsburgh are intervening because they HAVE TO. You know the argument: Without public assistance, these projects couldn't happen.

I am sure that is part of the reasoning. But it's important to remember that these are the kinds of people who want to be in control. It's in their nature. And the situation in Baltimore shows that public officials are NOT always intervening out of necessity. It's clear that such reasoning is, at least in part, and at least in this case, political cover.

One might argue that this time, the threat of condemnation was only meant to hurry the foundation along. To force them to get a plan in action. But this "Downtown Partnership" still isn't backing down. It wants to control the project, regardless of what the owner wants. Even though the owner wants the same thing the city wants.

How did we come to this? And what does it mean for Pittsburgh and other Rust Belt cities trying to refurb their downtowns?

And an interesting question; Let's say a super-wealthy hockey fan swooped into town with a plan to buy the Pens and build his own arena. (Far fetched, I know. But stick with the thought experiment/dream.) His only request being that the city get out of his way--and perhaps sell any URA properties necessary for the project.

Would the city let it happen?

I'm not so sure.

Weekend: Time for the Zippo Swap Meet!

Ready for something different? Try heading to Bradford for the bi-annual Zippo Swap Meet, in which thousands of collectors from all over the world meet up in the home of the world's most famous lighter.

And its best lighter. Made right here in Western PA.

Here's the swap meet in national news.

Here it is in local news.

Afterwards, you might head to the local McDonalds. If only to see the working oil well pumping at the drive-thu.

Bradford is struggling, but hanging in there. It's an interesting place. Want dichotomy? A place with an oil well at the McDonalds is also home to this place.

Kudos the Post-Gazette: Questioning the Impact of All-Star Mania

As much as I am beginning to dislike the Post-Gazette's editorial board, the paper continues to do some excellent reporting.

While much of the local media (understandably, I suppose) have been falling all over themselves to blow about the All Star game and the impact it has had on the city, the Post-Gazette has this far more sober analysis, from Teresa F. Lindeman.

It's not slamming the game. Or even saying it has not done what boosters claimed it would. Rather, it simply takes the time to point out that while downtown was humming, that activity drained business from other districts, or simply convinced some people to stay home.

What struck me was that in building things like the convention center and the new stadium -- and landing the "midsummer classic" -- the good taxpayers of Pittsburgh seem, in fact, to have at least helped two entities:

The convention center and the stadium. Here's the Post-Gazette:

People certainly turned out for the show. MLB yesterday officially announced that the FanFest booths and exhibits at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center drew more than 106,000 over five days, an attendance number that ranks among the top five in the event's 16-year history.

Concessionaire Aramark sold a lot of food at the ballpark. Over the entire All-Star celebration, fans bought almost 24,000 hot dogs, more than the 19,000 that officials had projected.

The article indicates that the impact on at least one restaurant in the Strip District was less than messianic. In fact, the event seemed to decrease business.

Who knows. Maybe it will turn out to have been a real bonanza. But if that bonanza accrued primarily to stadium vendors and huge venues like the convention center, did building these amenities really do us all that much good? I mean, if that's the case, wouldn't it have been BETTER to have a crappy stadium? With crappy food? You know, so people would have hit some local places? (I know. The game would not have been here if we hadn't built the stadium. Understood. But that still leaves questions. Like whether the game did a lot of people a lot of good. And not just a few people.)

We shall soon see. It seems like a real hit for the hotels. But everyone else?

I'll be interested either way.

And please, nothing more about "image." Yes, shots of Pittsburgh on ESPN are "priceless," I suppose. But schools and roads are not priceless. They come at a price. One that cannot be paid with image. I am asking--and the Post-Gazette seems to be asking--if the event actually delivered the FINANCIAL windfall that boosters promised. And whether that windfall was real, or simply shifted some money around.

Direct Challenge to the the Post-Gazette: Here's a Six-Step Plan to Prove That You Are "One of America's Great Newspapers"

I wonder if the editors of the Post-Gazette read their own paper. Because if they do, they will quickly realize that they owe their readers--and several hundred state legislators--an apology. But even more important is an immediate, open and fair assessment of how the editors use their perch at "One of America's Great Newspapers."

I don't think they will ever even consider doing any of those things. But they should. And they know it.

Background: This all goes back to the issue of secondhand smoke (SHS), of course. The editors recently used the surgeon general's report on SHS to demand an immediate ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. Unfortunately, the editors also took that opportunity to tar the reputation of any legislators opposed to the ban:

The legislators need to stop kissing the feet of these businessmen and tobacco lobbyists and focus on two points made by the surgeon general.

See, in the editor's eyes, the report was a "smoking gun." (Get it? Get it?) A report so devastating in its methodology and conclusions that anyone opposed to the newspaper's reaction had to base their opposition on allegiance to deep-pocketed lobbyists. See? In this construction, opposing the Post-Gazette equals corruption. Period.

Unfortunately, that's a big fat load of nonsense. As I pointed out here. See, there is a very good possibility the surgeon general spun the results of his own report. Or at least that's what some people think. And not just people who are bought and paid for by big tobacco. Turns out that some people--doctors who support smoking bans, even--are questioning the report.

That does not mean those people are correct. But it does mean that reasonable people can disagree. A possibility the Post-Gazette denied. I pointed that out. And I still have not seen a correction or clarification. And I still have not seen the paper offer the name of the editor who actually read the report--the actual report--as opposed to the controversial press release.

Because I don't l think anyone read it. I think they questioned the integrity of hundreds of elected officials based on a report they didn't read. Because they are on a political mission. They would get fired from the Pitt News for doing that. Yeah. It's a really, really long report. But if you are going to question the integrity of hundreds of elected officials, you might want to check out the primary sources first.

I guess their defense could be that they didn't know. That they don't read this blog. And that they don't get out much. It certainly seems plausible that they don't expose themselves to a lot of dissenting views. Unfortunate, I suppose, but fair enough. Not a lot of people do read this blog.

But do the editors read their own paper? Because if they do, they ought to be working on apologies right now.

Go here to see what I mean. The link will take you to two letters published in Sunday's paper. Letters that make it impossible for the Post-Gazette to claim that reasonable people can take issue with the surgeon general's report. One is from a doctor from Moon. A doctor who points out that despite the fact that he fully understands the dangers of tobacco, he does not think the surgeon general's report holds water.

As a citizen, I expect our government to base legislation on firm foundations. The best major studies fail to prove a causal relationship of secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer. That evidence is clear to me or any student of the secondhand tobacco smoke field. I would've hoped that our surgeon general was more informed.

So is this doctor "kissing the feet of the businessmen and tobacco lobbyists?" Has he abandoned his patients? Is he conspiring to force people to "flirt with death"? Does he operate with "tobacco stained hands"?

Why do these questions matter? Why not just chalk it up to political rhetoric? Why can't the Post-Gazette engage in a bit of hyperbole in pursuit of public health?

I'll tell you why. Go back to the link to the doctor's letter. Now look at the letter right beneath it. It's from a citizen who supports the smoking ban. Which is her right, of course. But the problem comes when you realize that she is basing her support, at least in part, on reporting and editorials she has read in the Post-Gazette. A newspaper which, instead of putting a reporter on the case and investigating the surgeon general's report, had ceded all responsibility and become a cheerleader for it.

Worse, it has become the official media organ for sullying the reputation of anyone who questions that report.

Look, there is a lot of room for debate here. Debate that should be going on in the pages of the Post-Gazette. And that's a debate we are not seeing because the paper is so busy pushing a controversial agenda instead of fulfilling it's most serious duty--informing readers.

As it stands, the paper is actually misinforming readers. If not on the accuracy of the report, which could go either way, then certainly in its depiction of people opposed to the report as sleazy politicians whose votes can be bought.

One of America's greatest newspapers? Prove it. By:

1. Revealing the name of the editor who read the actual report.

2. If no one read the actual report, apologizing to readers for doing such shoddy work.

3. Responding to the DOCTORS who question the report.

4. Explaining whether these doctors are bought and sold by Big Tobacco.

5. If not, explaining why any legislator opposed to the smoking ban has been bought and sold.

6. If upon further reporting it seems possible that some doctors can legitimately question the surgeon general's report, the paper should issue an apology for publishing an editorial that accused skeptical legislators of being corrupt.

I am not holding my breath.

Proof: Some Smoking Ban Advocates are Arrogant and Elitist (And Hip!)

I didn't think it was possible for anyone to outdo the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette when it comes to hyperventilating about second-hand smoke. But I was wrong.

Check out this disgusting series from the Baltimore Sun. And I don't say "disgusting" lightly. It is so egregiously arrogant and elitist that I cannot come up with a different way to describe it. So here goes:

On July 2, the Sun ran an editorial childishly headlined, "Hurry Up, Please." Predictably, it regurgitates more nonsense about the surgeon general's recent report about secondhand smoke and calls for an immediate ban on smoking in bars:

Last week, the U.S. surgeon general issued a very heavy report with a very simple theme: Secondhand smoke makes you ill, no matter what level you're talking about. It's bad for the people who go to bars where smoking is allowed, and it's especially bad for the people who work in those bars.

I might point out that the report never said anything even close to "secondhand smoke makes you ill, no matter what level you're talking about." But it is clear that editors at the Sun and the Post-Gazette don't have time for qualms about accuracy.

The truly egregious moment came on July 3 when the ostensibly anti-smoking zealots at the Sun ran this article, titled, "Feeling the Pull of the Pipe: At the Mirage Cafe and Grill, gathering around the hookah lends an exotic flavor to evenings out in Frederick."

The story goes on and on and on, talking about how hip and cool it is to suck on tobacco smoke from a hookah. The language drips (smolders?) with a sense of approval that borders on endorsing the pastime:

"... With the sound system thumping Middle Eastern rhythms, you have to lean in to hear the subtle voice of the hookah water bowl bubbling the cadence of human breathing."

"...Josh Heath says that after his week working at Best Buy, these surroundings are often just what he needs. 'It's definitely a different atmosphere," says Heath. "It definitely relaxes you.'"

"...The scene suggests an update of those 19th-century paintings showing bearded men in turbans lounging with their teacups and hookahs amid the arches and carpets of some Ottoman Empire cafe.

The key word is 'lounging.' Centuries after tobacco became a rage in the Middle East, the shisha, codger that it is, sticks to its slow ways. Forget stepping out to the parking garage for a quick hookah break. That would hardly leave time for the ceremony: packing the tobacco bowl, gently setting the glowing disk of charcoal on the screen that sits atop the tobacco, the first puff, the gurgling bowl."

It goes on and on. Sure, there is sentence or two about health hazards. But not until hookah enthusiasts get to push their claim that water-filtering renders the smoke less harmful.

All in all, I think this is par for the course for ban proponents. Some people really are focused on the health hazards. And good for them. But for many others this is all about culture and control. Namely, it is about forcing all the world's fat, disgusting slobs to make the world more acceptable for newspaper editors.

Unless you're talking about hookah smoke. Hell, we'll put a snappy write-up in the paper for those people! See? They're what the kids call "hip." Oh yes, to be hip is a glorious thing that you stinky Marlboro smokers will never understand.

Well, guess what? Take a look at all those cultural markers in the Sun story about hookahs. Change a few words around. Turn "thumping Middle Eastern rhythms" into "the twang of American Southern Rock."   

Turn "men in turban lounging with their teacups and hookahs" to "men in work boots and flannels with their beer bottles and cigarettes."

Turn "the key word is 'lounging'" into "the keyword is 'bullshitting.'"

Then consider: By banning hookahs, you are robbing a certain group of people of their culture.

And dammit, you are doing the same thing when you ban cigarettes.

Not every place needs to be a hookah bar. Just like not every place needs to be a saloon. But in what asshole's world should it be illegal for there to be ANY of these places?

I don't think the hookah people have as much to worry about, because elitist, arrogant gatekeepers like the people who run the Baltimore Sun still seem quite enamored of the oh-so-exotic hookah.

Too bad for working-class folks who smoke cigarettes that their "vice" doesn't get the same respect.

Oh, and I am not the only one taking the Sun to task for publishing these two stories so close together. Check out these letters. (Scroll down.) My favorite part:

Shame on The Sun for adding yet another element of glamour to tobacco smoking in your very attractive, beautifully illustrated article about the Mirage Cafe & Grill and the use of the hookah ("Feeling the pull of the pipe," July 3).

Hidden deep within the text of the article were a few words about the dangers of smoking and nicotine. But the story's message was quite clear - that communal smoking is a relaxing, almost sensual group activity.

However, this is still about smoking, which is a habit-forming, potentially health-destroying habit, no matter how it is done.

At least this line of thinking is consistent. And it takes the smoking ban to its next logical step. That is:

1. I don't like smoking. So I won't smoke.

2. Wait. I don't like it when other people smoke, either. They obviously make bad choices. They need my help. (Poor, fatso underclass!) So I will ban smoking.

3. Oh my God! What if people continue to talk about the pleasures of smoking? I will berate them when they do.

4. (Next) I don't like people talking about the pleasure of smoking. And what do I do when I don't like something? Yes. I help those people. I ban it.

Please report to the political reeducation center.

Anti-Gay Group to Protest at the Funeral of Another Fallen Pennsylvania Soldier

This time the Rev. Fred Phelps brigade will be in Bradford, up around my old stomping grounds.

Words fail.

Let's hope the local constabulary manages to keep a lid on things. Because when words fail, there is a temptation to use other means of expression.

Sincere condolences to the family of Sgt. Thomas D. Maholic. They--and he--deserve better.

Notes on Smart Growth: We're Smart. You're Not.

Well here's an interesting editorial in the Baltimore Sun.

Seems that Maryland's largely rural and agricultural Eastern Shore is growing at a spectacular clip. People will do just about anything to get out of the absurd housing markets in Baltimore and DC. They'll even drive 75 miles to work. A commute which for many includes traversing the woefully congested Bay Bridge.

People are concerned. And rightly so. What will this do to the Eastern Shore's distinctive character? Something, I presume. So who should get to decide how to guide this explosive growth? The editors at the Sun offer some ideas in the editorial:

So much new development is under way or planned that the [Eastern Shore] region faces an extraordinary jump in population, from 425,000 to 585,000 in the next 25 years, according a story reported by Sun writers Rona Kobell and Chris Guy. As dramatic as a 38 percent general increase in the number of residents is by itself, it's more astonishing to learn that some towns are anticipating - even welcoming - growth that will more than double their size. Do they really know what they're getting into?

That is an interesting question. Because it presumes that perhaps the people on the Eastern Shore actually DON'T KNOW. Well, why wouldn't they? They can read, one presumes. And have access to all the studies. So what? Are they too unsophisticated to figure it out? Maybe:

With little guidance from state planners and during nearly four years under a governor whose philosophy of growth management is pronounced "laissez faire," small towns encountering growth questions have had to wing it on their own. Too often, part-time town councils have fallen for the developers' compelling but specious argument that growth, usually through annexation of county land, balances budgets.

Laissez faire? Oops. I mean, "laissez faire"? (Can't forget the scare quotes when discussing such an un-American policy.)Wing it on their own? Poor little guys.

The idea here is that these rural leaders have listened to developers and decided to offer them some land on which to build houses. Is that a good thing? Heck if I know. I am sure there are pluses and minuses. I am willing to trust the people there to decide on their own.

The Baltimore Sun is not. Because it prays the "Smart Growth" gospel. And according to them, anyone who disagrees just needs some backbone. Not my words. Check it out:

Historically, the Eastern Shore has been both proud and defensive of its physical separation from the rest of the state. A few times it has even debated whether it should secede from Maryland. People on the Shore have fought and won major development battles - against a Wal-Mart in Kent County and against a plan to convert Wye Island in Queen Anne's County into an exclusive village. If there was ever a time when it should show a little backbone, it is now.

Maybe the Sun is right. Maybe the locals ARE blinded by the develpers' promises. But as structured, the paper's argument displays the kind of hubris that drives rural people nuts. You know: "Poor hillbillies! They can't be expected to understand these big studies! Why can't the state offer them some help? But wait... They are still developing? My goodness. If only they would be courageous, you know,  develop a little backbone. Maybe then they could come to the right conclusion. Which of course means the one we came to. Good heavens! Where will we spend our long weekends? We hate driving past Walmarts. And we expect them to keep their region Walmart free in order to make our weekends more enjoyable."

Or at least that's how it comes across.

Maybe, just maybe, the local governments understand the developers just fine. And maybe, just maybe, they disagree with the Sun's editors about how to react to the pressure to build and grow. Maybe they don't want any help from the gurus from Annapolis. And maybe they will decide to grow and grow and grow. You know, like many of the towns in the Baltimore/DC corridor did.

Again, I am sympathetic to the Sun's concerns. Extremely sympathetic. But the urban ruling classes have to be extremely careful about crying foul in such cases. After all, all those people who want to move to the Eastern Shore are doing so in reaction to development policies enacted in the Baltimore/Washington corridor.

You know. Like restricting growth. Which limits the supply of housing. Which drives up the price of housing. Which sends people far afield in search of housing. Or, on the other hand, policies allowing lots of growth. Growth that uses up lots of space. Which sends people who want space in search of more. The last thing people in Easton want is for the people who enacted those policies to swoop in and save the day.

Look, unfettered growth has its costs. But it also has its benefits. Same with restricted growth. The people in Baltimore and DC go the mix their leaders wanted. For better or worse.

So sure, criticize the Eastern Shore's trajectory. Help its leaders learn from others' mistakes. Just don't act like they don't understand the issues or lack sufficient courage. Because they would be justified in hurling those accusations right back across the Bay Bridge.

A pretty standard case of city versus hinterland, I think. But it's always interesting to see how these conflicts play out.

Prediction: The next conflict will be between wealthy newcomers who want to restrict growth (You know, the folks who build new houses on farmland and then, suddenly, want to pass laws against building houses on farmland), and locals who want to capitalize on growth by parcelling off land.

All the backbone in the world can't solve that riddle.

More on Scofflaw Pyrotechnicians: Do People in Mt. Lebanon Like Illegal Fireworks, Too?

In light of my recent tribute to people setting off illegal fireworks--a query:

Is passion for illegal fireworks a class issue?

That is, the skies above Rankin and Braddock and Homewood and Swissvale are thick with rockets. Is the same true in Shadyside? Mt. Lebanon? I have been privy to some pretty high-end neighborhoods over the years--at least as a visitor. And I cannot recall the same single-minded dedication to home pyrotechnics.

Does my experience hold true? Do working-class people have a disproportionate desire to set the sky afire? If so, why? Or is it perhaps that they are just more likely to disregard these kinds of statutes?

Even if that is the case, is that disregard due to some kind of predisposition, or different expectations about enforcement in high-end neighborhoods? Different concerns about offending high-end neighbors? A general distaste for racket and other forms of disorder? Different standards for safety?

Or do high-end people just not like fireworks as much?

Or am I wrong? Is Mt. Lebo just like Swissvale?

Just wondering.

Life In the Clouds: A Love Letter to Pittburgh's Scofflaw Pyrotechnicians

If you live in Pittsburgh, you have to deal with the hills. No two ways about it. At the same time, over the course of the past year my wife and I have questioned our decision to live at the very top of one of the biggest, steepest ones.

Our kids were two-weeks-old when we got here, and living on a cliff limited our ability to do simple things like take a walk. (You try pushing a double stroller up Columbia Avenue. Now try it two-weeks postpartum.) But we brought it on ourselves and learned to deal with it.

But now I am happy to report that living on top of one of the biggest hills in Pittsburgh can be a fabulous experience. Especially if you step out on your porch this time of year.

Kennywood has been going bonkers with fireworks. But from where we sit, that is only a tiny portion of the action. For the past few days the entire Mon Valley has been ablaze with pyrotechnics. Last night I felt a little embarrassed because I could not tell which town was doing the celebrating. Were the rockets coming from Rankin or Braddock? The east end of Swissvale? I felt much better when the guy next door stepped out on to his porch and had the same exact conversation with his wife.

But this brings me to my larger point: You know where the fireworks are REALLY coming from?

Everywhere. Everywhere. Everywhere.

It appears to me that laws banning the sale and use of fireworks must be the most ignored in all the land. Seriously. Because once the government-sanctioned shows at Kennywood and the various towns die down,  the sky really lights up around here. Boom! Crackle! Smash! It is the glorious sound of laws being broken.*

And I am not talking little bottle rockets or sparklers. The kids in this neighborhood are packing some serious firepower. Huge, cascading mushrooms in neon blue and green. Crrrrraaaaaacccckkkk!!!! Zip Boom! Zip Boom! Zip Boom!

It goes all night long. My wife enjoys the show, although she wishes it would end a little earlier. What with the babies and all. But really. We would never dream of calling the cops or anything. Let them have their fun. And if the babies wake up? Doesn't seem like all that high of a price to pay for living in a place that has some joy. (Too bad some people aren't so tolerant.)

Yes, I know. The price is higher for some people. Someone is going to lose an eye. Or a finger. Or God forbid, his life. (It's always a "he," somehow.) But it appears that the number of accidents is decreasing as the sale of fireworks, well, skyrockets. Let people decide for themselves, I say.

And for now, I live on a hill in Pittsburgh. So to all you scofflaws in Braddock and Rankin and Swissvale and East Pittsburgh and Edgewood:

Thanks for the show. 

And by the way, I am not the only one who looks at pointless danger with at least some degree of nostalgia. Check out this outstanding piece in the Washington Post. (Registration, and all that. But it's free and well worth it. It even has grandmothers complaining about restrictions on real fireworks.)

Maybe pointless danger isn't that pointless after all.

SSSSSSSSSSSS.....BOOM!

Happy Fourth of July.

*Update: Before I catch a lot of flack: When I speak of the "glorious sound of laws being broken," I am referring, of course, to certain laws. As an example, I also like these scofflaws. Yes. I know. We are a society of laws. And a law is a law. And respect for the law. Still. Sometimes a bit of rebellion is refreshing. Which times? That, I think, is the central question facing anyone seeking to define a truly civil society. Good luck!