ShareThis Page
Some final thoughts for 2002 |

Some final thoughts for 2002

| Sunday, December 29, 2002 12:00 a.m

Ah, the end of another year. And with it, the need to clear my desks and tables and bookshelves and windowsills and file-cabinet tops of the flotilla of flotsam that hasn’t quite made the cut for full columns but that which deserve at least some mention before 2003 bows:

  • Karl Marx seems to be enjoying something of a comeback among the “intellectual elite.” And though uttering Mr. Marx’s name in the same breath as that phrase should trigger most people’s Automatic Oxymoron Alarm, many are eagerly re-studying the Marxist morass that manifested itself in so many “wonderful” ways, communism and socialism being two.

    The real eye-popper is the current edition of The Economist magazine and the article on “Marx after communism.”

    “Although dictatorships throughout the 20th century have distorted (Marx’s) original ideas,” the magazine quotes an October 1999 documentary from the state-financed BBC, “his work as a philosopher, social scientist, historian and a revolutionary is respected by academics today.”

    Well, that certainly explains a lot, now doesn’t it?

    The Economist certainly doesn’t praise Marx — after all Marxism and all its ugly offshoots have been proven failures, time and time again. “Where it mattered most (private property, liberal political rights and the market) Marx could not have been more wrong,” the magazine reminds.

    Nonetheless, the concluding sentence of the article is quite chilling: “(Karl Marx’s) religion is a broad church, and lives on.”

    You’ll find no “Amens” from this quarter.

  • The upstart New York Sun, which I admire greatly for its attempt to give New Yorkers yet another voice, this month began offering an eight-part series on “A Realistic Approach to Urban Planning.” So why did it rely so much on the fantasy of revisionist history?

    Pittsburgh and Portland were among the major American cities cited by Alexander Garvin, the vice president for planning, design and development at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, as reasons that the current “disillusionment with planning is far from justified.”

    “Pittsburgh would not rank sixth in the nation as a major corporate headquarters center if it had not virtually rebuilt its downtown during the 1940s and 1950s,” Mr. Garvin writes.

    Gee, where do I start?

    Well, Pittsburgh used to be third in the nation for corporate headquarters. And if Renaissance I (and II and the pseudo-III now supposedly under way) was as great as central planners hold it up to be, why has Pittsburgh’s population steadily declined • And why is Pittsburgh is such a financial pickle today?

    “Portland, Ore., would not be a lively retail and employment center if during the 1970s and 1980s it had not enriched its pedestrian environment, built a light-rail system, and reclaimed its riverfront,” Garvin also notes.

    Portland, of course, is the central planners’ utopia. That means it’s a nightmare for just about everybody else. Planning has left Portland with more congestion, more pollution and astronomical housing prices that are outrageous enough to warrant a house gastroenterologist.

    Not all of what Garvin writes is buncombe. “(M)y definition of planning refers to public (rather than to government) action.” Wonderful. But that’s certainly not been the Pittsburgh experience. Renaissance is not a top-down phenomenon; true renaissance starts at the bottom.

  • The Menckenian “buncombe” and its origin-unknown cousin “balderdash” are , however, quite apropos words to describe the $200,000 effort of that blue-ribbon group of guys and gals working to develop a new “brand” for Pittsburgh.

    Here’s the rough draft:

    “Just as the steel from which it draws its roots, Pittsburgh has an authenticity and durability that provides a strong foundation, yielding new opportunities to grow and succeed. The amalgamation of our resources draws people together to a place where ideas are invented and transformed.”

    Huh• This is pure gibberish. It’s elitist mumbo-jumbo. Call the EPA, there’s been a foul discharge! “Hey kids, let’s brainstorm !” I can only guess was the impetus for the above “prose.” Sorry, but it reeks of brain flatulence to me and most people I know.

    But it’s also instructive — Pittsburgh’s supposedly “best and brightest” show an astounding lack of focus with this draft mission statement. And even if they had any focus, they certainly appear to have neither the niche nor the knack for enunciating it.

    “Whatever the brand essence ends up being, it should end up being something we are comfortable with for a long, long time,” Laura Gongos of the Burson-Marsteller ad/flack agency, and leader of the effort, told a reporter. “A brand essence should be able to live forever.”

    But this sucker’s dead on arrival. And it’s an embarrassment.

    Pittsburgh, the city, and Pittsburgh, the region, is an incredibly cosmopolitan place. It could have a great future. But first, government needs to learn how to facilitate instead of direct . And, second, well-meaning groups such as Gongos’s need to do two things — get their eyes checked and brush up on their basic communications skills.

    Happy New Year, everybody.

    Categories: News
  • TribLIVE commenting policy

    You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

    We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

    While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

    We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

    We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

    We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

    We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

    We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.