This should be fun: Feddie is back to blogging at Southern Appeal. Even though I disagree with him a lot of the time -- a lot -- I always enjoyed reading SA and am happy to be able to do so again. Welcome back, Feddie!

(post title inspiration)

I wrote a bit here and here last year about the Golden Gate Bridge and its popularity as a suicide destination. I think it's ridiculous, callous, and irresponsible for the bridge authority to have refused for so long to erect a suicide-prevention barrier. I guess San Francisco has more pressing matters, like banning plastic shopping bags. (It does not appear that preventing human suffocation was one of the motives for the ban.)

Well, the Washington Post had an article recently noting that new studies confirm that one theory against a suicide barrier -- that if people decide to kill themselves, they'll simply choose another method, and a barrier won't lower the suicide rate -- is bunk. Most suicides are somewhat impulsive, and preventing a jump off the bridge can lower the overall suicide rate: a large study of people who were prevented from jumping showed that 94 percent had not later committed suicide by some other means.

The article suggests that this evidence may finally prod the bridge authority to take some action. Let's hope so.

UPDATE: I wanted to reply to good comments from Reallytall and Lulu, but it started to get a little long for the comment box, so I'll just add it here. Start with their comments, though.

Lulu, the Post article mentions that the bridge authority recently added a median to prevent head-on collisions. It spent $25 million for that, despite the facts that (a) since 1997, there have been only five head-on collisions, (b) in that time, those collisions have produced only one fatality, and (c) in that time, over 200 people have jumped to their deaths from the bridge. To me, that represents seriously skewed priorities, not a lack of money. (Plus, how much money do they spend now on car and boat patrols for prevention and recovery efforts?)

As for effectiveness, no barrier would ever be 100% effective, but why let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Enough other bridges and monuments have installed barriers that the Golden Gate would have some good examples to draw from and could choose the best out there.

As for structural integrity, I'm not an engineer, so I can't say for sure one way or the other. But the bridge isn't as old as the Eiffel Tower, which added a barrier. And if stringing a net alongside it would cause it to collapse, I don't know if I'd want to drive on it.

But that brings to mind a recent post of mine about plans to repair or replace the Tomb of the Unknowns. Eventually, they're going to have to build a new Golden Gate Bridge, and a new Brooklyn Bridge, and all those others. Steel crumbles; bridges fall down. (Do we have any doubt that a new bridge would have a suicide barrier?) Why people act as if these manmade creations will last forever is beyond me. If the Golden Gate Bridge really is in such precarious danger, the answer isn't "More paint!", it's "Build a new one!"

Hell, for that matter, they could erect a suicide net under and beside the bridge, but not actually touching it. That wouldn't affect the structural integrity, would it? Of course not, but it would look ugly.

And I think that's the biggest objection, and it baffles me. Maybe those people aren't "insensitive about human life." But I think they value the lives of jumpers less than they value having a pretty bridge.

Also, I think part of the opposition is the macabre allure of having a dangerous bridge in town. In a city that loves to push boundaries, it's part of their image, and they like having that dark side. It's like having a really hot boyfriend who does a little crystal meth from time to time.

A parody song in to commemorate today being the day that the crack amendments are officially retroactive. (For more on that, see Prof. Berman's blog.) To the tune of Billy Joel's Movin' Out.

Anthony held up a grocery store,
Savin' his pennies for cocaine.
Down on the street with the junkies and whores
He couldn't afford cocaine powder.
He's servin' twenty-seven years for buying crack-ack-ack-ack-ack,
He could be home by now...
Today is the day, those bags he'll pack,
It's high time for him to get outta.

Well, the rules were too harsh for crack,
So the new rules will retroact,
Go tell the warden that I'm movin' out!

AG Mukasey is walkin' the beat
Tellin' a Senate committee,
He says releasin' a bunch of those violent ex-cons
Sure isn't gonna be pretty.
He's dead-set against rolling sentences back-ack-ack-ack-ack,
He should give up by now...
But he's too busy sayin' crackhead gangs
Will be flooding the streets of your city.

It seems such a waste of time
If all he can do is pout.
Good luck movin' on 'cause I'm movin' out!

I won't even argue over how you do the math-ath-ath-ath-ath,
I oughta know by now,
Uncle Sam won't pay for my overtime,
I still wish that I had bought powder.

'Cause the rules were too harsh for crack,
So the new rules will retroact,
Go tell the warden that I'm movin' out!

The Follower by Jason Starr. (Amazon, B&N, Powell's) This one had some promise, but didn't live up to it. It's about a young woman dating in New York City, and this guy who gets obsessed with her. Ideally, it would have been Bret Easton Ellis crossed with Patricia Highsmith. With Ellis, all those pop culture references tell us something about the characters; with Highsmith, the obsessions are understandable because even the bad guys are genuine. Here, it's hard to care about anyone in the novel. The protagonist is vapid and spineless, her paramours are interchangeable, the seen-it-all cop we've seen before, and we get no motive for the stalker. In fact, his picture is so empty it's as if Starr is saving the details for a prequel.

There is some amusing satire of post-college singlehood in the big city, so maybe I'm a little beyond the target audience. I guess if you think Looking for Mr. Goodbar is too dated and you're not old enough for In the Cut, The Follower might be your style. Overall, though, I'd say it's skippable.

(Previous 50 Book Challenge reviews)