BCT Editorial – 9/23/09

This page was last updated on September 23, 2009.

Shaking off the rust; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 23, 2009.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“If events surrounding the G-20 economic summit being held in Pittsburgh Thursday and Friday play out as expected, many area residents are going to be asking if it was worth it.

“Sure, we’ll have had the honor of hosting the leaders of the world’s most powerful economic countries. But the downside will have been the two-day disruption this event brought.”

[RWC] It’s more than a “two-day disruption.” The editorial fails to take into account the private and public preparation efforts as well as the effort to clean up afterward.

“This is not to knock the demonstrators who follow G-20 summits like faithful fans of a jam band. They have as much right to protest as the leaders have to gather. With a little luck, the violence, which only a few elements will try to generate, will be kept to a minimum.

“But after all the cost of security and the inconvenience that comes with protecting the world’s leaders —security zones, closed highways, etc. — many residents will be wondering if it really mattered.

“The answer is yes, and not just because of the amount of money the conference will have pumped into the local economy. The G-20 conference gives our region a chance to showcase to the world the changes that have taken place here over the last 30 years.”

[RWC] Apparently the Times chooses to ignore the fact many businesses in the affected areas planned to board up their facilities and close for much of the week to avoid the destruction caused by protesters who tend to follow the G-20 meetings.

“In fact, Pittsburgh’s transformation from hell with the lid off to a leader in green technology was one reason President Barack Obama (although he didn’t use the Dickensian description of the old Pittsburgh) chose the city to host the summit.”

[RWC] Though I haven’t been able to confirm it independently, it’s been reported “President Barack Obama … chose the city to host the summit” only after cities higher on the list declined the “opportunity.”

“And he was right. More than 2,600 environmentally friendly companies have settled in the region. It doesn’t end there. With its colleges and universities, its research-based health-care facilities and its pro-green policies, our region has undergone a remarkable — albeit extremely painful — transformation since of collapse of the steel industry in the 1980s.”

[RWC] What is an “environmentally friendly company?” Doesn’t any business that doesn’t go out of its way to pollute fall into this category? What “remarkable transformations” took place as a result of “pro-green policies,” and what are those policies?

“Yet the perception that many people have of our region is of blast furnaces belching smoke and spewing sparks, and steelworkers drinking Iron City beer at the end of a hard day in the mill.”

[RWC] And if it were still true (kind of), what’s wrong with that?

“This conference could impact and change that perception. Diplomats, journalists and others from around the world will be seeing the new Pittsburgh.”

[RWC] Oh please. Is “the new Pittsburgh” the one that’s been losing population for decades and mismanaged/mismanages its finances so bad it’s been under at least partial state control since late-2003?

“But the perception of the region needs to change internally as well. We have to stop thinking old. A new Pittsburgh is shaking off the rust and moving forward. It’s a matter of taking advantage of our opportunities — and appreciating them.”

[RWC] In case you didn’t notice, the Times suddenly began wearing rose-colored glasses on this topic. To see what I mean, please read my critiques of “Policy shift,” “Serving youth,” and “Another aggravation.”