New York Times fawns over Pittsburgh something fierce

The travel section of The New York Times just published a really odious article entitled “36 Hours in Pittsburgh” by Jeff Schlegel. The first line is laughable: “PITTSBURGH has undergone a striking renaissance from a down-and-out smokestack to a gleaming cultural oasis.” (Schlegel)

All right, stop right there, buddy. I know you’re a liar, because I would never trust any New Yorker who calls the ‘burgh a “gleaming cultural oasis” without scoffing and rolling their eyes. That is a lie, no matter how many times you drop proper nouns like The Andy Warhol Museum, Mexican War Streets, BrilloBox, or Mattress Factory. Pittsburgh does have a lot to offer and it is a sort of a cultural center for the region, but cultural oasis? No, ‘fraid not Mr. Schlegel, unless you’re using that term and “renaissance” in a very loose manner.

Downtown Pittsburgh as seen from the banks of the Allegheny on the city’s NorthSide.

Most livable city? Oh really?

So you’ve heard time and again that Pittsburgh is amazingly livable; the most livable for 2007, in fact, according to the Places Rated Almanac. (Majors) Crime rates that aren’t too bad, it’s a cheap city to live in, it has excellent hospital systems, several prestigious universities, etc. Well did you know that our city has 768 million dollars in debt? (Blazina) That the police have to use tanks – yes… TANKS – to patrol Homewood (a very urban, very ethnically black neighborhood) and a few other impoverished neighborhoods in the city? (Deitch) That our public transit system, once one of the best and most extensive in the nation (at number 15), is falling into shambles? (Grata) That the casino our citizens fought tooth and nail to oppose will still be built on the NorthSide? That the popular “Waterfront” shopping “district” has become nothing more than a glorified strip mall?

Pittsburgh is a great city to live in if you’ve money, if you’re white, and if you’re willing to wink at a whole boatload of problems (social, economic, and so on) that a city this size just shouldn’t have. I don’t think tourism or gentrification is going to solve these problems. There are reasons why Uptown is a ghost town, why the Urban Redevelopment Authority has a dozen main streets to revitalize. (Is your memory so short that you don’t remember East Carson Street as the boarded-up wasteland it once was?)

Don’t get me wrong, Pittsburgh is wonderful despite these and other problems. But it isn’t because of a handful of art galleries, restaurants, and tourist traps. It’s something a lot more substantial, less transient and ephemeral, than the cultural tourism Schlegel suggests. Although they are hokey and rather Romanticized, I would suggest watching Rick Sebak’s documentaries on Pittsburgh – and not reading something like Michael Chabon’s Mysteries of Pittsburgh – to begin to understand exactly what that is. (You can get these suckers for free on public access television or through interlibrary loan.)

:: Bibliography ::

• Blazina, Ed. “Ravenstahl endorses Pittsburgh-Allegheny County merger.” The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 3 April 2008. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08094/870250-100.stm (5 July 2008).

• Deitch, Charlie. “Military Police.” Pittsburgh City Paper, 27 March 2007. http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=24549 (5 July 2008).

• Grata, Joe. “Port Authority transit cutbacks are biggest in history.” The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 4 January 2007. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07004/751189-147.stm (5 July 2008).

• Majors, Dan. “Pittsburgh rated ‘most livable’ once again.” The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 26 April 2007. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07116/781162-53.stm (5 July 2008).

• Schlegel, Jeff. “36 Hours in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times, 6 July 2008. http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/travel/06hours.html (5 July 2008).

:: Further reading ::

• “How now brown town?” The Economist, 14 September 2006. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7914950 (5 July 2008). (Note: No author listed.)

Behold the Icelandic rage of gnomic Björk!

I’ve had to put an incisive, highly political post about Allegheny County taxes on the back burner because experimental pop siren Björk has attacked a newsperson… again! Hooray!

I love Björk. A lot. Like: ♥ ♥ ♥!!1! You may remember how her maternal instincts kicked in back in ‘96. (1996 if you happen to be reading this post in 2096, hahaha!) As the legend goes, Guðmundsdóttir went all WWF on a female reporter in the Don Muang Airport in Thailand when the woman was pestering her and her child. (Check out the video here for those of you who, like me, cannot resist the spectacle.)

This new event in the canon of Björklore also occurred in an airport: Auckland International. The ‘victim’ is Glenn Jeffrey, a photographer for The New Zealand Herald. He took a few pictures of Björk after her escort requested that he not. As Jeffrey walked away, “she came up behind me, grabbed the back of my black skivvy and tore it down the back.”

I’m sorry, but I would be ecstatic if Björk tore off my shirt in a fit of rage. (Check out The Herald’s article for an image of how much damage she did. Pretty good fillet of skivvy, that.) And I mean come on! She’s adorable. If her bodyguard asks you not to take her picture, tell him how you think it’s bizarre that “Who Is It” was left off Vespertine and that she owes you for the three year wait!

Having his shirt torn to ribbons by our favorite Icelander didn’t agree with Jeffrey. He’s vexed: “I don’t see being assaulted as I’m working as a press photographer as an acceptable thing. [...] If anybody assaults anybody you have the right to a legal recourse, whoever they are.”

What a whiner!

:: Bibliography ::

Vass, Beck. “Bjork assaults news photographer.” The New Zealand Herald, 14 January 2008. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10486682.

Counter-progressive Sarkozy cancels France 24!

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has canceled France 24! For those of you who don’t know, France 24 is a news channel funded by the French government that broadcasts in Arabic, English, and French. It is also one of my top five primary news sources. The reason for the cancellation is more horrifying than I could have ever imagined. According to Sarkozy: “With taxpayers’ money, I am not prepared to broadcast a channel that does not speak French”. (BBC)

This is insane. If the BBC can offer 32 languages other than English, Sarkozy can scrounge up some euro to support France 24. If anything, they should be expanding the number of languages as originally planned!

In the end, however, this is not a question of money. This is definitive proof that Sarkozy is turning his back on the Arabic-as-a-first-language population within France. These people need more than word-of-mouth news in their communities. Removing an official news source in their mother tongue will further isolate them in, what may seem like and very well may be, a sea of ethnocentrism and open xenophobia.

It also smacks of the effort to protect the French language from the imperialism of the English language. But I don’t really care if Sarkozy doesn’t want to help English-speakers understand “a French perspective on world events”. (France 24) There are more important things at stake.

Encore: What France needs is an official news source in Arabic to reach the mono and bilingual Arabic communities, both legal and illegal, within the country. Tell the French Ambassador so using this form, by sending him a letter via post (to Pierre Vimont 4101 Reservoir Road, NW Washington, DC 20007), by telephoning the embassy (202.944.6000), or faxing the embassy (202.944.6166)!

:: Bibliography ::

“About France 24.” France 24 9 Jan. 2008. 9 Jan. 2008 <http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/page-footer/about-france-24.html>.

“Sarkozy says ‘non’ to France 24.” BBC News 9 Jan. 2008. 9 Jan. 2008 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7178158.stm>.