Love it, or leave it (and leave us alone).

Once again I've found occasion to become infuriated by the peanut-gallery ravings from the suburbs. I know... I do it to myself by continuing to listen to the Marty Griffin show. Why can't we have even a single progressive voice on KDKA AM 1020? Allegheny County is overwhelmingly Democratic, yet there is not one single corresponding radio voice. Is it really true that only conservatives listen to talk radio? I've often thought about writing a letter to the managements of the few local 'news radio' stations, and demanding that they provide just the merest hint of diversity. If we had a 24-7 NPR affiliate, then it wouldn't be that desperate of a situation. At least their coverage is vaguely moderate. But no... public radio has to share its space on the dial with 'smoove jazz'.

Not a single one of the talking heads I hear on KDKA lives in the city, but they advertise themselves as "The Voice of Pittsburgh". Their deception should be legally actionable. Marty Griffin lives in Mt.Lebanon. Kevin Miller is a recent PA transplant living in Cranberry. Fred Honsberger resides (I think) in Peters Township. Still, all of of these guys spout off as if they were some breed of authority on Pittsburgh. They know absolutely nothing about urban living, and never have. Their presence is indicative of the provincial attitudes associated with this town. I can't stand people that flee the city's taxes and problems, and then expect to have their ill-informed opinions heard.

Today Griffin was talking to "his army" (which consists of vacuous hordes of homogenized suburban/exurbanites) about Downtown Pittsburgh. Somehow they have convinced themselves that they have some worthwhile input on how to make it a better place. They are whining that the atmosphere isn't 'family-oriented' enough for their precious sensibilities. So they are basically calling for the 'suburbanization' of the inner city, as if their familiar stomping grounds (like Walmart and the mall) provide a decent template for the renewal of Downtown. I constantly hear these 'sheeple' bitching about the parking taxes they have to pay when they drive their SUV's to work. They moan about being intimidated by the poor people who live in the city. They simply don't know how to handle themselves in an environment that hasn't been neutered and denuded of character. I actually heard a female listener today whining that she can't find a TGIF or Applebee's downtown.

I've never been a big fan of the whole "love-it-or-leave-it-posture" of the jingoistic camp of Americana. It rests on the unexamined belief of the speaker that his particular 'way of life' should be considered the one-and-only true representation of our nation's values. What it ignores is the reality that the United States is a composite of many diverse groups, all of which are engaged in the valid pursuit of manifesting their own individual ways of constructing community. It communicates a deep ignorance of the fact that not everyone feels the same about the place they inhabit. However, on a local level this attitude conveys something different. If you don't have the balls to live in the city, then go ahead and leave. There are plenty of other places for you to go. Go out to "any-town" and enjoy your strip malls and bland housing developments. But realize that in doing so you have ceded your right to determine the future of the city. No one cares about your opinion.

As I've said time and time again, wearing your Steeler jersey on casual Fridays at work does not make you part of Pittsburgh. You CHOSE to disassociate yourself from the problems of city-living, so it's time for you to shut up. You have no role to play in the development of downtown or any of the city's neighborhoods, other than that of a tourist. Unless you are offering your money or your volunteer efforts, then you have no stake in the prospects of Pittsburgh. The city isn't simply an 'amenity' to be used during the holidays and forgotten about in the off-season. People actually live there, and many of them are offended by the very sight of weekend warriors. They certainly don't want to transform their living spaces to meet your aesthetics. So turn your attention inwards and confront the growing problems in your own communities. The government subsidies of both the oil and the roads that enable your lifestyle won't last forever.

California Wildfires.

The most current tragedy to hit the American media is the collection of wildfires burning out of control in Southern California. Reportedly 2300 structures have already been destroyed. In addition, the disaster has claimed 11 lives. I have heard estimates of amounts exceeding $1 billion in damages. If you do the math, it's not difficult to figure out that these were some very expensive houses burning down. Perhaps that's why so much media attention seems to be focused on the event.

I can't help but compare this to the federal response in the Katrina disaster. Bush seems to be falling all over himself to reassure the uber-rich denizens of the red counties of Southern Cal. In fact I have no doubt that the president will promptly deliver the relief he has promised to his political constituents. I also expect the insurance companies to make every effort to protect the interests of their wealthiest clients, and in turn pass the cost on to the masses. What I'm not holding my breath for is calls from the wing-nuts of AM radio to question the wisdom of building elaborate mansions in such a historically disastrous area. Just five years ago the predictable area wildfires were responsible for $2 billion in damages and 18 deaths. No one blamed the victims. Three years later, legions of kool-aid drinkers excused FEMA, Bush and his cronies when they failed to help the poor folks of New Orleans. They pointed out that the unfortunates deserved what they got for not having the wherewithal to evacuate. They criticized the intention to rebuild a city that is notorious for its liberal culture. Perhaps we should let them off the hook for the hypocrisy they are displaying now. After all, can we really expect consistency and rationality from that camp?

No one in the mainstream media is likely to bring up the fact that over-development and uncontrolled construction keeps Southern California in an annual cycle of peril. This is one of the few remaining strengths in the American manufacturing sector- new housing starts. How dare anyone stand in the way of the vicissitudes of the "free market"? Shame on anybody that blames human economic initiative for the destruction brought about by "acts of God". It's un-American not to have sympathy for the highest financial classes of our nation. If we hold them to account for anything, it is surely the result of petty "class envy". So let's all agree that if anyone deserves help from the federal government- it's the super-rich minority. And let's obfuscate the true causes of the wildfires, in the hope that they can be used to some obscure political advantage.

Speculation on right wing radio revolves around the sources of the fires. Firefighters and law enforcement investigators believe that some of the blazes were started by arsonists. What reasons people could have for provoking these conflagrations remains unclear. But the most nutty of conservatives have identified the usual suspects- "terrorists". This article is typical. Reportedly (in 2003) some Arab detainee spoke of plans to set off a series of forest fires in the area. Statements by certain fire-fighting personnel have "fueled the fire" (so to speak). It's been said that whoever started the blazes "knew what they were doing", as the initial flames traveled three miles in less than twenty minutes. No doubt it's the insidious Islamic fundamentalists who alone would have such knowledge of arson strategy. After all, they have a wealth of experience setting fires in the vast forestlands of the Middle East.

What better use could this tragedy present than an opportunity for ratcheting up the suspicions and paranoia of the heartland? Obviously the shadowy enemies have their hands in all sorts of mayhem. After all- wasn't it those sophisticated Islamicists that spread terror throughout the nation by sending anthrax to the mainstream media and Democratic lawmakers in the wake of 9-11? (No, my mistake... it actually turned out to be radical right wing Americans). Yet these "conservatives" have seemed to take a page out of the play-book of the conspiracy nuts- a group that they have never shrunk away from accusing of rampant idiocy when they didn't like the selection of targets. Of course they will be empowered to further their crusade with irresponsible accusations. Other suspects considered include environmentalists and Mexican "illegals" (notice any pattern here?). No matter who turns up to accept the blame, pundits like Boortz and Savage will claim that the American government would never reveal plots that could endanger "homeland security". And so the circle is completed, and the truth obscured.

What to do about a mortgage crisis?

When it comes to my ideas about the role of the federal government, nobody is ever going to accuse me of being a libertarian. Sure, when it comes to personal choice, I think we should have as much as possible without hurting others. But on the other hand, I'm for government regulation of corporations, expanded healthcare, and a strong public educational system. So it's surprising perhaps that I would embrace libertarian thinking when it comes to the housing mortgage "crisis" we are now entering. Apparently there are millions of home buyers that are not going to be able to meet the increases of their variable mortgage rates. Others were never really in any position to take out the loans they were offered. Now they face foreclosure when they can't pay their monthly payments.

There is a lot of noise in Washington about doing something to help these people. Bush is suggesting thet those with a good credit history should be allowed to refinance their loans with the Federal Housing Administration. He's also advocating that Congress pass legislation which allows the FHA more flexibility in helping with subprime mortgages. He says he's going to adjust the tax code to help borrowers rework their loans. And he wants more strenuous enforcement of laws regarding predatory lending practices. There are an estimated 2 million debtors who took advantage of adjustable rate mortgages that face increased rates next year. Many of them are going to be facing extreme financial strain. Economists predict that this could have a negative effect on the national economy.

Both home-buyers and creditors have proven to be remarkably irresponsible. Lending institutions issued loans to many individuals with lousy credit ratings (these are also referred to as "subprime borrowers"). A lot of those folks are now simply defaulting on their loans. They were a bad risk from the beginning. Of course the idea that anybody could now buy a home, regardless of their financial resources or history, had a huge effect on the housing industry in general. Home prices soared as everyone tried to get in on the action. Real estate was considered a "no brainer" investment. Evidently many people truly believed that their new homes would only increase in value, forever and ever. And then the bottom dropped out.

Too many new homes were built. Real estate agents began to encourage sellers to charge exorbitant prices. Eventually the housing demand was simply exhausted. Those who had bought homes as 5-year investments soon realized that they were in over their heads. If they tried to get out of their mortgages they would take a loss on the resale. They hadn't expected that because they didn't realize that the housing market was a typical bubble that would inevitably pop. People had committed to monthly mortgage payments that were simply unwise. Perhaps they had been encouraged by unscrupulous loan officers. Or maybe they were just retards in the realm of simple mathematics. Otherwise they were completely unrealistic in their optimism. Did they think lending rates were going to stay at historically low levels forever?

When it comes right down to it, I don't really care why these people ended up in the situations they are in. They are adults and they made what should have been informed purchases. Buying a home is the single biggest financial decision most are ever going to make. Obviously there are many Americans that didn't think it through. Now they want the government to grab them by the hands and guide them out of their nightmares. But you know what? I don't think they deserve any assistance from the taxpayers of America. They gambled and lost. I think they need to stop whining, step up to the plate, and accept the consequences of their actions. Perhaps they can even learn from their mistakes. They wanted the those five-bedroom, free-standing, development tract, suburban houses... and they got them. If they are now unbearable burdens, why should we be expected to help them carry the load?

Chicago: Postscript.

I'm now safely back in the 'Burgh, after spending the bulk of the day driving through Ohio and Indiana. I would have made extraordinary time had a tractor trailer not flipped over a guard rail on the Indiana turnpike. I spent an hour creeping along at a snail's pace. My reaction to reaching the rolling hills of Eastern Ohio was notably strong. I felt relieved, and I felt at home. It's easy to overlook the effect topography has on one's psyche. If I've learned nothing else during the trips I've taken this summer, at least I've figured out that a flat terrain simply unsettles me. This characteristic is something that New York City and Chicago share- they are unending cityscapes with a continuous progression of neighborhoods that blend into one another. I don't care if they are on a grid. I find it difficult to process. And with the consumer homogenization rampant in our society now seemingly affecting our large cities, this phenomena is exaggerated. I could be anywhere in the city... in any city. It's the same brand of urban gentrification bleeding into formerly struggling neighborhoods. The areas have no obvious integrity or authentic character. They are virtually identical to an untrained eye.

When I start to get anxious about a similar thing happening in Pittsburgh, I take heart in the many topographic obstacles that break up the landscape of hometown. Neighborhoods retain their specific flavor, if only because they are bordered by mountains or rivers. In each little place, there are a host of unique factors developers have to consider. It's going to be difficult for them to apply the cookie-cutter approach that plagues this nation. Maybe I am merely deluding myself, but I find it heartening. Pittsburgh has been the best-kept "secret" of the Eastern United States for over twenty years. Despite the annual "optimistic" predictions of urban planners, it looks like it's going to remain this way for a bit. Some might bemoan the fact that huge influxes of yuppified suburbanites have not been forthcoming. I think we should be grateful for what we have. If you can find an even half-decent job in this city, then you have it made.

Having said that, Chicago does benefit from a certain "midwestern" attitude. The city has a more human vibe. The pace is notably slower than on the East Coast. People are MUCH more accessible. Ask a stranger for directions, and not only do they NOT ignore you... but they actually stop and offer useful information, and take the time to make sure they have helped you. Driving is also more laid back. I wasn't constantly besieged by honking horns, and hyper-aggressive action sequence maneuvers. I wasn't constantly afraid that an impatiently irate native would plow into the side of my car. Even pedestrians tend to respect the dangers cars can present, and vice versa. Even stranger- Chicago has actual bike lanes. Now that's impressive.

I was also impressed that the general vibe was one of safety and order. We didn't have to worry about where we parked our cars, nor did I feel the type of edgy energy that I always feel when walking down streets in East Coast metropolises. Perhaps this is the upside of the suburbanization of American inner cities. But I had very little anxiety during the time I spent in Chicago. Only on one occasion did I feel like we were in a place we shouldn't be. Right outside of downtown I spotted a neighborhood I wanted to photograph. It was a terribly depressed project complex that was actually fenced off from its surroundings. I had a palpable sense that the fencing was intended to contain the inhabitants. It looked like it could be a WWII-era ghetto of Eastern Europe. So we drove through the crowded streets on this hot summer day, and I stuck my none-too-discreet camera out of the window. Inexplicably we weren't even verbally threatened- although I have to note that we didn't linger there. Having said all of this, I also feel compelled to point out that we limited our meanderings to downtown and North Chicago. I'm certain that South Chicago would have presented a whole set of challenges. There is certainly a strong element of planned segregation in the Windy City.

In our many conversations about the time he's spent living in Chicago, L. continually returned to an emphasis on the people he chooses to be around. It doesn't matter to him that there are no obvious concentrations of like-minded folk living among each other in specific neighborhoods. His friends are scattered throughout the city. They meet up in the treasures hidden among the sprawling streets of gentrification. His people (many of whom are native midwesterners) are welcoming, generous and interesting. I suppose one can find folks like that in any place. But it's a credit to him and the city that such people are drawn together. I know one thing for sure- the next time someone brands Pittsburgh as a midwestern city (as happens on occasion), I'm going to be pleased rather than offended. That's actually a pretty nice compliment.

Chicago Trip: Arrival.

The drive to Chi-town was carefree, but monotonous. I took Route 80 across both Ohio and Indiana. In both states Rte. 80 is the turnpike, and there's not a whole lot to look at. The OH stretch at least has regular Starbucks joints- so you can get all hyped up on caffeine and watch the cornfields passing by. I played with the radio until it sickened me, and then resorted to the CDs I had brought along. Until I actually hit Chicago, the only "city" I caught a glimpse of was Gary, Indiana. That place looks like a rotten shithole (my apologies to its residents). Other than that it was mostly sky and crumbling farms. At least I moved through it quickly. I didn't hit much traffic until I could see the Chicago skyline, and then I sat for 45 minutes in the throes of rush hour. It was an overcast day, and the pallor of the clouds gave the city an especially industrial look.

My friend L. lives on a pleasantly tree-lined street in the neighborhood of Andersonville. I was surprised to find street parking almost immediately outside his apartment. The place is spacious, with hardwood floors and lots of windows. The rent is quite affordable, considering its proximity to a few vital business districts and the safety of its streets. I got a good impression of the North End of Chicago right away. From what I've seen, it's city living on a very human scale. many of the neighborhoods have retained an authenticity of character. Although it is clear that city planners are pushing for rapid gentrification or the inner city, they seem to be doin a half-assed job of it. Last night L's co-worker gave us the lowdown on Mayor Daley's corrupt approach to governance. With it's old-school Democrat approach to politics, it has a lot in common with Pittsburgh.

After getting settled in last night, L. and I went for grub. We landed at a small bar/eatery in the Bucktown section. "Handlebars" has that hipster-cum-anarchic-bike-culture vibe that would make the clientele of the Quiet Storm (back in the Burgh) quite happy. I was a bit dismayed to open the menu and realize L. had brought me to a vegetarian restaurant. I sat baffled and tried to figure out what I might order. I ended up with black bean tostadas and smoked gouda mac-and-cheese. And you know what? It really wasn't half bad. The rather feeble-looking patrons surrounding us looked happy and natural in their element. If you aren't much of a carnivore, then I can recommend the place without reservation. I do have one disclaimer- You have to dig a bit through the drink menu to find a "real" beer as the place caters to the wheat beer crowd. After we were done there, we went to L.'s workplace and told stories at the bar as the restaurant shut down for the night.

Today L. had to take care of some business downtown, so I walked around for a bit among the tall buildings. I was shocked at the relative absence of hustle-and-bustle. And I was saddened to see a Hard Rock Cafe and Disney-fied Rainforest Restaurant in the center of the city. i guess that sort of thing is inevitable now in the big cities- especially in the wake of the castration of Times Square, NYC. If they are going to offer a de-fanged hyper-commercialized version of nightlife for the whole family, then they might as well come up with something particular to the history of Chicago. I don't understand the people who want to travel to a new place merely to experience a homogenized cartoon of somewher altogether different. Why can't they keep crap like that out in the suburbs, and at least make a suitable mockery of whatever authenticity the specific city truly offers? Wait a second... was the first Hard Rock in Chcago? If so, I take it all back.

Before departing for this trip, I had made a list of museums that I was interested in checking out. So we set off for the Museum of Science and Industry. I had read that they had a display of cross-section cuts of actual human beings (predating the recent Body Works traveling sideshow). That sounded compelling. We should have known better as soon as we pulled into the attached parking garage, and were asked to pay $12 just to keep our car there. They rope people in by enticing kids to badger their parents to see the OMNIMAX movie on dinosaurs (or whatever), and each and every disgruntled father has to shell out this exorbitant parking fee before he even gets to pay the $27 adult admission. When we got inside we saw the huge banners for the CSI (the TV show) spectacle, and the mass of sheeple, and we decided to just at the $12 and get the hell out of there. I swear that every science center in every American city offers the exact same slick-modern-day-tourist-trap diversion. We drove to the National Vietnam Veterans Art Museum instead.

The NVVAM offers three floors of artwork by veterans. They have both permanent collections and temporary exhibits. I have always been drawn to "outsider art", and considering my long-held fascination with the Vietnam War, this was a natural destination. Today they had a "Works on Paper" show, which contained a variety of autobiographical visual pieces by artists across a range of skill levels. The curators give the creators a chance to write something to accompany each piece, and many of them included anecdotes about the terms they served incountry. As one might expect, the totality of the work contains a lot of emotional confusion, violence, pain and loss. But unlike what I'm used to seeing in canonical modern art exhibits, there is an extraordinarily personal depth of feeling that transcends technique.

I've always believed that the the American involvement in Vietnam taught many people lessons about the moral ambiguities and entrenched complexity of war. For awhile it was almost a cliche that the Vietnam War forever changed our nation's psyche. The recent conflict in the Middle East has made me question whether or not anybody still remembers the 1960's and 70's. I was pleased to see that the curators of NVVAM see very strong parallels between what is happening now in Iraq and what happened in Vietnam. They have included several sections in the museum dedicated to the work of Iraqi War veterans. I think it would be great for our current "leaders" to take a tour of the NVAAM. Perhaps our president and VP could gain a little insight into an essential part of our history- a place and time that they avoided because they had more "pressing concerns".


*Note: I apologize for the lack of links in these posts. I'm writing on a MAC laptop, and Blogger.com has a much more limited interface on this system, and thus a lot of the tools I rely on are unavailable.

Cars and Taxes.

I know that one of the the things I have gone on about on this blog is the relationship between Americans and their cars. I can't think of any other accessory that makes people act more selfish than the automobile. Let some slight and weak individual get behind the wheel, and soon he/she is acting like they are the"alpha male" of his/her tribe. Somehow the 1000 lbs+ of metal and plastic armor surrounding them makes folks pretty bold. Things they would never consider doing when approaching a stranger on a back alley night-time street become standard operating procedure. I know you've seen examples of what I'm talking about. Soccer moms flip you the bird. Little men in suits tail your bumper. Wizened elders act like they own the road. Pull up next to one of these drivers and try to confront them through their open window, and you get a sense of their perceived invulnerability. It's a lot of big, big talk.

Considering the way advertising portrays car ownership, I guess it's easy to understand why so many are afflicted with preposterous ideas. Cars are one of the most obvious conveyances of status in this society. Americans revel in their ability to purchase the biggest, most expensive automobiles- regardless of the effects their decisions have on the environment, politics, the economy, or their fellow human beings. People justify their consumer choice with platitudes of their own self-importance. They will point out that they have worked to realize their dream of owning a Hummer. They believe that others will admire them for owning a Lexus SUV. They are keeping up with the Joneses. Their convertible sports car will get them laid in their middle age. Their Porsches and BMWs will help them "close the deal". Or otherwise they are merely enjoying their God-given "freedoms".

Take a look at how self-satisfied and smug your fellow drivers are, as they chat on their cellphones and blindly cut you off in traffic. Or just bring up the topic in conversation. It seems that a lot of folks don't even need to be in their cars to think and act completely irrationally when it comes to their vehicular "rights". Americans lose all sense of logic and fairness when it comes to their automobiles. A recently proposed bill in the PA state legislature and the resulting "discussion" on AM talk radio clearly illustrate the perceptions of many of our fellow citizens. Under a GOP plan, tolls would be places on PA interstates 78, 79, 80, 81, and 95. The rationale behind this legislation is that it is needed for bridge and road repair. It's an alternative to leasing the PA turnpike or increasing the state fuel tax. The tolls would be administered by the Turnpike Commission.

What are the responses to these tolls? They are predictably almost universally negative. Put aside for a moment the irony of Republican party politicians advocating that drivers pay for the services they use, while they bitch about high taxes on gasoline out of the other side of their mouths. These are the exact same guys that would like to see the entire interstate system privatized- as if that would increase the accountability of the people that maintain the roads... as if making it a for-profit venture is going to reduce the ultimate costs for drivers. Most people simply don't want to pay for a road system out of their own pockets. If they pay at the pump- then the government is gouging them, and the oil companies can blame our leaders for the high prices. When you bring up the prospect of tolls, you hear a lot of crying about how the politicians are corrupt and inefficiently spending what tax monies they do collect. They say that PennDot shouldn't require anymore money whatsoever. No matter what the government does to remedy the condition of our roads, they will always be charged with corruption and waste.

Simultaneously, the same people that bitch about the flaws in the government's operation and maintenance of the interstates will whine whenever there is talk of an increase in the funding of public transportation. Why should suburbanites and exurbanites have to pay for city folk to get around? Never mind that the lives of those outside the cities are subsidized by federal and state tax dollars that urbanites pay out of their wages. The factors that have allowed people to escape and ignore the social problems in the city are cheap oil and the public subsidization of interstate roads. People bitch about the (actually very small) percentage of their tax dollars that is earmarked for social programs to help the lower classes. Yet no one ever talks about the fact that our federal government artificially depresses the price of gasoline in this country with an aggressive and costly foreign policy. It's a vicious cycle that keeps our economy wholly dependent on the rapidly failing oil paradigm.

Somehow this reality never gets talked about on AM radio, or among "free market" conservatives. And while cities can be transformed to meet the changing variables of time, suburban/exurban development and its accompanying "car-culture" are not only unsustainable- but also so artificial and wasteful that they can't ever be transformed into something useful. The strip malls and the sprawl model of development are only possible with the state and federal government subsidization. The only source of such funding is taxes. Period. Now shut up and pay.