'The Bridge' and the Ecology of Fear

"The Bridge" ('The Bridge', Jan. 11) is not a snuff film? What else are you doing watching 24 people a half second before they die? Feeling their pain? Studying mental illness?

There are plenty of ways to explore the tragedies of the handicapped without analyzing their final seconds on Earth. No, wait, the film's a call to have "proper" barriers put up on the finest structure in North America? Cheap argument. Is that why the filmmakers didn't tell the Bridge Authority what they were doing?

They fetishize the deaths of 24 people to critique urban design? Smells a little like Larry Flynt calling for freedom of speech, for "everybody." Feels a little like the videos you used to be able to buy showing the bad end of a NASCAR crash. Which, guess what, are now on national TV. "Cops," "Speed Vision" "Disaster: The Final 20 Seconds." These shows are huge. HUGE. What have we become?

Somehow it's become justified to be a voyeur to someone else's pain. The excuse? It's my pain, too. "I'm a witness and I'm helping." So we flock to the screen to see Lady Di's crumpled Benz. We stand riveted at the gym when the figures start dropping again from the Twin Towers.

It's repulsive and it's become common fare. "We learn from these calamities." Garbage. We learn to be afraid of anything and everything even if it happens to one in a million. We become addicted to prevention for its own sake. As Mike Davis called it, we create and foster "The Ecology of Fear."

What's next? Fence the Grand Canyon? Barriers on every cliff in Maine? Safety cushions on every street corner where your kids might be playing (that is when a playdate's been scheduled outside)? What are we, insurance nation? Nobody on roofs nationwide because somebody jumped once, nobody dives in a pool because one kid out of 250,000 broke his nose. Where does it end? How much do you take from everyone in the country, from their lives, from their civil freedoms to ensure -- hmm, there's that word again -- that the 25th person won't jump off a bridge?

It's a pointless quest goaded on by the insurance industry that has to pay the premiums of the manner of death that slipped through their small print. You CAN'T stop everyone from being hurt or hurting themselves. It's going to happen. And if you wanted to stop accidents there are far more dangerous, everyday threats right in your suburban yard. To spend time, print, film, and money besmirching that perfect piece of steel across the Golden Gate is a pathetic campaign when we continue to turn our backs on our kids' diets, on teen smoking, on emissions controls in our neighboring West Virginia, on water quality and auto safety.

You wanna save a life, get rid of every SUV in Allegheny County or make them crash-ready on a level above the Ford pickup. But hell, that'd be a boring film, wouldn't it?

The most terrifying aspect of "The Bridge" was pointed out by one of our own, fireman Rich Waters. When he stopped the 25th suicide from jumping and wrestled her to the ground out in the middle of that eternal bridge, he mentioned that no one stopped to help him as he called 911. No one even asked what he was doing. Not a single person.

Why? Fear. Fear of being sued, fear of being hurt, fear of any kind of risk whatsoever, even in the cause of something decent. I hope they recognize themselves for what they are, later when they sit in the TV room watching.

David Conrad
Strip District

The writer is an actor and Pittsburgh native.

---

Let's stop saying 'Rust Belt'

Why do folks like Mackenzie Carpenter keep promoting our fine Great Lakes Region as the "Rust Belt"? ("Cities find lucrative tourist market in gay travel", Jan. 14).

This is a term that was coined in the 1970s to describe the collapse of the steel and auto industries from Detroit to Gary, Ind., to Cleveland to Pittsburgh. An era where productivity and good workmanship was temporarily forgotten and imported from Asia.

That was 30 years ago. The term "Rust Belt" is now only a cheap label that no longer fits. Think of the Great Lakes Region technology and innovation that has spun out necessity, out of universities, and out of valuable human resources within.

Like many regional firms and employees, I'm proud to nationally represent products and services developed locally and only the occasional cheap "Rust Belt" remark makes a prospective customer give pause.

Maybe think of it this way. We've all done something we've regretted in our lives and don't like to reminded of it 40 years later.

Rust Belt no more, please.

Michael Brown
Mt. Lebanon

---

Why the special treatment?

For crying out loud, as if Pittsburgh doesn't already have enough problems. Now, it has to put on a gay-friendly face?

Sure, gay people of professional backgrounds with dual incomes and no kids bring lots of cash wherever they go. Let's call a spade a spade. Pittsburgh's tourist board and so-called city leadership see dollars through grouping and categorizing the populace: gays, blacks and other ... and patronizing them. Even some of the private businesses would welcome the dollars. But making a special effort to single out gay people? Should we expect gay-friendly "Tourist Guides"? Get a tour of the South Side and a couple of snuggles.

I find it ironic that for all written about equality and rights, what's with a special effort to attract gays? Isn't this just more special consideration and groupism?

I've lived in Pittsburgh most of my life and have never seen overt anti-gay treatment by any establishment. But, then again, I've also not seen extreme flaming behavior either, such as leather-clad men groping one another. This may be commonplace in San Francisco, but I think in most places it's frowned upon.

I say live and let live, but don't go out of the way to favor someone over another. It sets a bad precedent that calls out differences in people rather than the commonalities. After all, being gay is just about how to have sex. It shouldn't be so all-encompassing as to define a person ... or involve a campaign to attract them.

Scott W. Smith
Boulder, Colo.

The writer recently moved from Sewickley.

---

City is not gay friendly

Thank you for your article on the possibility of Pittsburgh as a gay/lesbian/bisexual/transexual destination.

I have been a Pittsburgh resident for nearly six years now, and my partner has lived here for 25. When I mentioned to him that I had read the article, we had a chuckle at the thought of Pittsburgh as a GLBT tourist destination. Why? Because many of our gay and lesbian friends don't even want to live in the city. Many gays and lesbians we know have fled for the relative anonymity of the suburbs to live out their lives in relative peace and privacy. If we can't get residents of the city to be here, what makes anyone think GLBT tourist will want to come? Perhaps we should ask the people.

It is no secret that Pittsburghers are thought of by many outsiders as backward and intolerant. Of course, there are many exceptions. I believe change must come from the inside to show on the outside. I can guarantee you that there is not a single neighborhood in this city where my partner and I could walk hand in hand or share a peck on the cheek without stares and possible harassment (or worse).

Your article does not address what Pittsburghers would think of our city becoming more gay-friendly. Has anyone asked them? Would they be comfortable with seeing two men holding hands walking down the street? Would our citizens be at ease with gays and lesbians being seen and heard? Would they welcome not only the GLBT dollars to help build the city's infrastructure, but also the love and pride that many members of the GLBT community have to share?

Only when gays and lesbians are seen as equals (am I hoping for too much here?) can we prove to the world outside of Pittsburgh that we are ready to embrace GLBT tourists themselves ... not just their dollars.

Christopher L. Miller
Shadyside

---

A step back for radio

What is K-Rock thinking? Hiring Scott Paulsen and moving Kid Chris back to tape delay is frustrating.

How many stations do we need to play The Doors or The Stones? Scott Paulsen was good when he was on the 'DVE morning show with Jim Krenn but since has fallen flat with stints on Sports Talk and his evening gig on 'DVE. He is well past his prime and lost his edge.

Pittsburgh radio needs to move further into the mainstream and moving a good show like Kid Chris to a tape delay is bad marketing. The morning drive was fun when Alan Cox was on The X and we lost him, and now the drive home will be even more boring with Paulsen.

Looks to be time to invest in Sirius or XM radio for good quality programming.

Todd Kelly
Brentwood