An open path to Lake Kinneret
Haaretz, Friday, December 8, 2006
By Haaretz Editorial
It does not happen often that clerks in the Interior Ministry and in the country's planning bodies respond positively to an initiative with mass appeal. It happened Tuesday, at a meeting of the National Council for Planning and Construction - the country's supreme planning body. The council approved an amendment to the National Master Plan for Beaches for the construction of an open, contiguous walking path along the shores of Lake Kinneret, without fences or gates. Its decision marked the completion of an initiative launched by youth under the aegis of the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, which began forging such a path about two years ago.
This is an important achievement for the country's environmental organizations that proves that concerted action with an educational character can effect change even within national institutions. It complements the recent success by "green" organizations to suspend construction projects in West Jerusalem, in which the public also played a large role.
The sad state of Lake Kinneret is known to all, and the environmental organizations have done much to change it. Its shore has become a string of beaches to which entry fees are charged. Fences have been erected in defiance of the law and the collection of fees was carried out without the supervision of the Interior Ministry, and frequently in violation of legal guidelines regarding the collection of fees.
In effect, the state ceded its responsibility over the beaches of the Kinneret, despite the fact that there is no argument over its significance as a national resource. In addition to failing to enforce the Planning and Construction Law, the state suspended its financial aid to the local authorities for cleaning the beaches. The local authorities exploited this situation to charge entrance fees on the grounds that it was necessary to keep the beaches clean.
The attitude of the state began changing over the past two years in response to the public battle waged by environmental organizations and harsh criticism of its actions in the State Comptroller's Report. Nevertheless, the change appears to be slow and incomplete. A few fences have been removed and legal steps have begun against those who built them and charged fees illegally. These measures, however, have not yet changed the situation around the lake. Open and free access is still nearly impossible to find.
The national council's decision to adopt the Round the Kinneret initiative proves that at least the country's planning bodies realize the importance of free access to the beaches and that this path is a convenient way to open up many of them.
However, it must be remembered that creating the path is the real test. To do so, the state will have to provide financial resources. In addition, the enforcement authorities will have to be active in every place where the construction work is challenged by those who seek to preserve the fences and obstructions.
The law enforcement agencies must step up their prosecution of construction scofflaws even in places where the path does not pass, and resume giving money to the local authorities to keep the beaches clean. This will lessen the economic burden on the local authorities and take away their excuse to charge people to enter the beach.
Friday, December 08, 2006
The Cab Ride - making the world a little kinder
Twenty years ago, I drove a cab for a living. When I arrived at 2:30 a.m., the building was dark except for a single light in a ground floor window. Under these circumstances, many drivers would just honk once or twice, wait a minute, and then drive away.
But I had seen too many impoverished people who depended on taxis as their only means of transportation. Unless a situation smelled of danger, I always went to the door. This passenger might be someone who needs my assistance, I reasoned to myself.
So I walked to the door and knocked. "Just a minute", answered a frail, elderly voice. I could hear something being dragged across the floor.
After a long pause, the door opened. A small woman in her 80's stood before me. She was wearing a print dress and a pillbox hat with a veil pinned on it, like somebody out of a 1940s movie.
By her side was a small nylon suitcase. The apartment looked as if no one had lived in it for years. All the furniture was covered with sheets.
There were no clocks on the walls, no knickknacks or utensils on the counters. In the corner was a cardboard box filled with photos and glassware.
"Would you carry my bag out to the car?" she said. I took the suitcase to the cab, then returned to assist the woman.
She took my arm and we walked slowly toward the curb.
She kept thanking me for my kindness. "It's nothing", I told her. "I just try to treat my passengers the way I would want my mother treated".
"Oh, you're such a good boy", she said. When we got in the cab, she gave me an address, and then asked, "Could you drive through downtown?"
"It's not the shortest way," I answered quickly.
"Oh, I don't mind," she said. "I'm in no hurry. I'm on my way to a hospice".
I looked in the rear-view mirror. Her eyes were glistening. "I don't have any family left," she continued. "The doctor says I don't have very long." I quietly reached over and shut off the meter.
"What route would you like me to take?" I asked.
For the next two hours, we drove through the city. She showed me the building where she had once worked as an elevator operator.
We drove through the neighborhood where she and her husband had lived when they were newlyweds. She had me pull up in front of a furniture warehouse that had once been a ballroom where she had gone dancing as a girl.
Sometimes she'd ask me to slow in front of a particular building or corner and would sit staring into the darkness, saying nothing.
As the first hint of sun was creasing the horizon, she suddenly said, "I'm tired. Let's go now"
We drove in silence to the address she had given me.It was a low building, like a small convalescent home, with a driveway that passed under a portico.
Two orderlies came out to the cab as soon as we pulled up. They were solicitous and intent, watching her every move. They must have been expecting her.
I opened the trunk and took the small suitcase to the door. The woman was already seated in a wheelchair.
"How much do I owe you?" she asked, reaching into her purse.
"Nothing," I said.
"You have to make a living," she answered. "There are other passengers," I responded. Almost without thinking, I bent and gave her a hug. She held onto me tightly.
"You gave an old woman a little moment of joy," she said.
"Thank you."
I squeezed her hand, and then walked into the dim morning light. Behind me, a door shut. It was the sound of the closing of a life
I didn't pick up any more passengers that shift. I drove aimlessly lost in thought. For the rest of that day, I could hardly talk. What if that woman had gotten an angry driver, or one who was impatient to end his shift?
What if I had refused to take the run, or had honked once, then driven away?
On a quick review, I don't think that I have done anything more important in my life.
We're conditioned to think that our lives revolve around great moments.
But great moments often catch us unaware-beautifully wrapped in what others may consider a small one.
PEOPLE MAY NOT REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT 'YOU DID, OR WHAT YOU SAID, ~BUT~THEY WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER HOW YOU MADE THEM FEEL.
You won't get any big surprise in 10 days if you send this to ten people.
But, you might help make the world a little kinder and more compassionate by sending it on.
Thank you, my friend...
Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we are here we might as well dance.
Kind Words is a free weekly e-mail distributed by Partners In Kindness. Although the content of these e-mails contains copyrighted material, Partners in Kindness allows users who register at our website to reprint them in print, on a website, or on an e-mail distribution list at no cost.
If you have permission to reprint this e-mail, please ensure that you reprint the entire e-mail (including this notice).
Kindness is like music, art, sports or any other discipline -- it can only be mastered with practice, training, and lots and lots of encouragement.
That is what PartnersInKindness.org is trying to promote.
The archive for Kind Words e-mails is located at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PartnersInKindness
For further information, please visit our Website http://www.PartnersInKindness.org
e-mail: info@PartnersInKindness.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To un-subscribe send a blank e-mail to: Kindness-unsubscribe@PartnersInKindness.org To subscribe send a blank e-mail to: Kindness-subscribe@PartnersInKindness.org
But I had seen too many impoverished people who depended on taxis as their only means of transportation. Unless a situation smelled of danger, I always went to the door. This passenger might be someone who needs my assistance, I reasoned to myself.
So I walked to the door and knocked. "Just a minute", answered a frail, elderly voice. I could hear something being dragged across the floor.
After a long pause, the door opened. A small woman in her 80's stood before me. She was wearing a print dress and a pillbox hat with a veil pinned on it, like somebody out of a 1940s movie.
By her side was a small nylon suitcase. The apartment looked as if no one had lived in it for years. All the furniture was covered with sheets.
There were no clocks on the walls, no knickknacks or utensils on the counters. In the corner was a cardboard box filled with photos and glassware.
"Would you carry my bag out to the car?" she said. I took the suitcase to the cab, then returned to assist the woman.
She took my arm and we walked slowly toward the curb.
She kept thanking me for my kindness. "It's nothing", I told her. "I just try to treat my passengers the way I would want my mother treated".
"Oh, you're such a good boy", she said. When we got in the cab, she gave me an address, and then asked, "Could you drive through downtown?"
"It's not the shortest way," I answered quickly.
"Oh, I don't mind," she said. "I'm in no hurry. I'm on my way to a hospice".
I looked in the rear-view mirror. Her eyes were glistening. "I don't have any family left," she continued. "The doctor says I don't have very long." I quietly reached over and shut off the meter.
"What route would you like me to take?" I asked.
For the next two hours, we drove through the city. She showed me the building where she had once worked as an elevator operator.
We drove through the neighborhood where she and her husband had lived when they were newlyweds. She had me pull up in front of a furniture warehouse that had once been a ballroom where she had gone dancing as a girl.
Sometimes she'd ask me to slow in front of a particular building or corner and would sit staring into the darkness, saying nothing.
As the first hint of sun was creasing the horizon, she suddenly said, "I'm tired. Let's go now"
We drove in silence to the address she had given me.It was a low building, like a small convalescent home, with a driveway that passed under a portico.
Two orderlies came out to the cab as soon as we pulled up. They were solicitous and intent, watching her every move. They must have been expecting her.
I opened the trunk and took the small suitcase to the door. The woman was already seated in a wheelchair.
"How much do I owe you?" she asked, reaching into her purse.
"Nothing," I said.
"You have to make a living," she answered. "There are other passengers," I responded. Almost without thinking, I bent and gave her a hug. She held onto me tightly.
"You gave an old woman a little moment of joy," she said.
"Thank you."
I squeezed her hand, and then walked into the dim morning light. Behind me, a door shut. It was the sound of the closing of a life
I didn't pick up any more passengers that shift. I drove aimlessly lost in thought. For the rest of that day, I could hardly talk. What if that woman had gotten an angry driver, or one who was impatient to end his shift?
What if I had refused to take the run, or had honked once, then driven away?
On a quick review, I don't think that I have done anything more important in my life.
We're conditioned to think that our lives revolve around great moments.
But great moments often catch us unaware-beautifully wrapped in what others may consider a small one.
PEOPLE MAY NOT REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT 'YOU DID, OR WHAT YOU SAID, ~BUT~THEY WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER HOW YOU MADE THEM FEEL.
You won't get any big surprise in 10 days if you send this to ten people.
But, you might help make the world a little kinder and more compassionate by sending it on.
Thank you, my friend...
Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we are here we might as well dance.
Kind Words is a free weekly e-mail distributed by Partners In Kindness. Although the content of these e-mails contains copyrighted material, Partners in Kindness allows users who register at our website to reprint them in print, on a website, or on an e-mail distribution list at no cost.
If you have permission to reprint this e-mail, please ensure that you reprint the entire e-mail (including this notice).
Kindness is like music, art, sports or any other discipline -- it can only be mastered with practice, training, and lots and lots of encouragement.
That is what PartnersInKindness.org is trying to promote.
The archive for Kind Words e-mails is located at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PartnersInKindness
For further information, please visit our Website http://www.PartnersInKindness.org
e-mail: info@PartnersInKindness.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To un-subscribe send a blank e-mail to: Kindness-unsubscribe@PartnersInKindness.org To subscribe send a blank e-mail to: Kindness-subscribe@PartnersInKindness.org
Thursday, December 07, 2006
"Gazelle Valley" in Jerusalem to remain!
Jerusalem urban park may protect free-roaming gazelles
Haaretz, December 7, 2006
By Zafrir Rinat
After defending the little valley next to their homes against development, the residents of the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Givat Mordechai and Katamonim will now become partners in the plan to turn the valley into an urban nature park, the first of its kind in Israel.
A few weeks ago, a group of environmental organizations, headed by the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI) and the residents' committee of the two neighborhoods presented the plans for the park to the planning and construction commissions.
A herd of gazelles has made the park its home. "The sight of these gazelles moves me every time," Michal Regev, a resident of Katamonim, says. "Sometimes you sit at the bus stop and watch them in their natural surroundings."
Some years ago, real estate developers sought to take over part of the area to build 1,200 housing units. They were staved off by a successful grassroots campaign following which the Jerusalem District Planning and Construction Commission withheld its approval for the plan.
The residents and the ecological groups have now initiated a plan that will seek statutory protection for the area in the future and open only part of it to visitors.
"We had meetings and handed out flyers to the residents with the plans," Regev says, "There were tough discussions between those who thought the area shouldn't be touched and those who thought it should be opened so people could enjoy it," she said.
Regev says the residents were given a number of options, and the one ultimately chosen conserves most of the area in its present state, but creates a city park in one section.
"The idea of an urban park is known elsewhere in the world, but it is new in Israel," SPNI Jerusalem landscape architect Yael Hammerman says.
The park will have paths and bike trails, as well as a periphery trail, with lookouts on the gazelles, which now number 22 and have managed to persevere despite the small area they inhabit. The park will also have a cafe with a view of the valley. Ancient agricultural terraces will be conserved and restored in part of the park.
Several obstacles still threaten the plan, among them desire by developers to build along edges of the valley. The city planning commissions have recognized the urban park in the new Jerusalem master plan, defining it as an area set aside for the protection of urban biodiversity.
According to the plan, five different sites in the capital have been pinpointed to protect the capital's flora and fauna and strengthen the concept that human beings are a part of a wider natural system; "gazelle valley" as it is known to the locals, is one of them.
If the park is approved, its founders will face a major task: ensuring that large numbers of visitors do not wreak chaos and make it impossible for the gazelles to continue living in the area in tranquillity.
In another location in Israel, gazelles that inhabited a small area in the Sharon Beach National Park were killed by dogs whose owners let them run loose in the park.
"The main threat to the herd of gazelles in the valley are the jackals that roam all over the city, " Amir Balaban, the SPNI expert on urban nature sites, says. "The city has tried to keep them from getting into the valley, so far with only partial success."
Balaban says the main advantage of the establishment of the park is the ability to manage the area. The park will contain buffer zones between the areas inhabited by the gazelles and those open to visitors. With regard to the risk to the herd from dogs, he says, "we will do what we do now. We will explain and ask people not to come near the herd with their dogs. We have been holding activities in the park for six years, and we only had to call the police once when somebody came into the park with a dog clearly for the purpose of hunting."
Haaretz, December 7, 2006
By Zafrir Rinat
After defending the little valley next to their homes against development, the residents of the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Givat Mordechai and Katamonim will now become partners in the plan to turn the valley into an urban nature park, the first of its kind in Israel.
A few weeks ago, a group of environmental organizations, headed by the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI) and the residents' committee of the two neighborhoods presented the plans for the park to the planning and construction commissions.
A herd of gazelles has made the park its home. "The sight of these gazelles moves me every time," Michal Regev, a resident of Katamonim, says. "Sometimes you sit at the bus stop and watch them in their natural surroundings."
Some years ago, real estate developers sought to take over part of the area to build 1,200 housing units. They were staved off by a successful grassroots campaign following which the Jerusalem District Planning and Construction Commission withheld its approval for the plan.
The residents and the ecological groups have now initiated a plan that will seek statutory protection for the area in the future and open only part of it to visitors.
"We had meetings and handed out flyers to the residents with the plans," Regev says, "There were tough discussions between those who thought the area shouldn't be touched and those who thought it should be opened so people could enjoy it," she said.
Regev says the residents were given a number of options, and the one ultimately chosen conserves most of the area in its present state, but creates a city park in one section.
"The idea of an urban park is known elsewhere in the world, but it is new in Israel," SPNI Jerusalem landscape architect Yael Hammerman says.
The park will have paths and bike trails, as well as a periphery trail, with lookouts on the gazelles, which now number 22 and have managed to persevere despite the small area they inhabit. The park will also have a cafe with a view of the valley. Ancient agricultural terraces will be conserved and restored in part of the park.
Several obstacles still threaten the plan, among them desire by developers to build along edges of the valley. The city planning commissions have recognized the urban park in the new Jerusalem master plan, defining it as an area set aside for the protection of urban biodiversity.
According to the plan, five different sites in the capital have been pinpointed to protect the capital's flora and fauna and strengthen the concept that human beings are a part of a wider natural system; "gazelle valley" as it is known to the locals, is one of them.
If the park is approved, its founders will face a major task: ensuring that large numbers of visitors do not wreak chaos and make it impossible for the gazelles to continue living in the area in tranquillity.
In another location in Israel, gazelles that inhabited a small area in the Sharon Beach National Park were killed by dogs whose owners let them run loose in the park.
"The main threat to the herd of gazelles in the valley are the jackals that roam all over the city, " Amir Balaban, the SPNI expert on urban nature sites, says. "The city has tried to keep them from getting into the valley, so far with only partial success."
Balaban says the main advantage of the establishment of the park is the ability to manage the area. The park will contain buffer zones between the areas inhabited by the gazelles and those open to visitors. With regard to the risk to the herd from dogs, he says, "we will do what we do now. We will explain and ask people not to come near the herd with their dogs. We have been holding activities in the park for six years, and we only had to call the police once when somebody came into the park with a dog clearly for the purpose of hunting."
"Perception of rot" - corruption in Israel"
Poll: Four percent of Israelis say they've paid bribes in last year
Haaretz, December 7, 2006
By Asaf Rothem
Four percent of Israelis claim that they themselves or a member of their households paid a bribe during the last 12 months. That's double the rate in the U.S. and Britain, according to a Transparency International survey of corruption.
The survey measures the perception of rot in various countries. It also seeks to elucidate how well citizens feel the authorities in their countries fight corruption.
The survey, now in its fourth year, covered 59,661 adults aged 15 and up in 62 countries.
Susanne Tam, general manager of Shvil - the Transparency International organization in Israel - defined corruption as "abuse of political or other power to advance personal interests".
The Israeli part of the survey questioned 500 adults. It found that 66 percent feel the government isn't doing enough to stamp out corruption, or that it isn't doing it effectively.
No less than 16 percent of the respondents feel the government actually encourages corruption, and 55 percent felt that corruption impacts their lives personally.
81 percent feel that corruption influences the business environment, and 86 percent say it influences politics.
Despite the problems in the last wear and the gargantuan defense budgets, most Israelis feel that the army is the least corrupt organization in Israel, despite the absence of transparency in use of its huge budget. One has to wonder how the people think the budget is used, and compare it with the reality.
This year too, the political parties were considered to be highly corrupt, with a mark of 4.2 out of 5 (that being rotten to the core). After it comes the Knesset with the disheartening score of 3.8.
Religious institutions are also not highly respected, with a score of 3.6. The police force got a score of 3.3.
Israel is one of 78 countries that refused to ratify the UN anti-corruption treaty, partly because of its section against corruption in international deals, which could hamper the Defense Ministry's arms business, which often involves bribes.
Haaretz, December 7, 2006
By Asaf Rothem
Four percent of Israelis claim that they themselves or a member of their households paid a bribe during the last 12 months. That's double the rate in the U.S. and Britain, according to a Transparency International survey of corruption.
The survey measures the perception of rot in various countries. It also seeks to elucidate how well citizens feel the authorities in their countries fight corruption.
The survey, now in its fourth year, covered 59,661 adults aged 15 and up in 62 countries.
Susanne Tam, general manager of Shvil - the Transparency International organization in Israel - defined corruption as "abuse of political or other power to advance personal interests".
The Israeli part of the survey questioned 500 adults. It found that 66 percent feel the government isn't doing enough to stamp out corruption, or that it isn't doing it effectively.
No less than 16 percent of the respondents feel the government actually encourages corruption, and 55 percent felt that corruption impacts their lives personally.
81 percent feel that corruption influences the business environment, and 86 percent say it influences politics.
Despite the problems in the last wear and the gargantuan defense budgets, most Israelis feel that the army is the least corrupt organization in Israel, despite the absence of transparency in use of its huge budget. One has to wonder how the people think the budget is used, and compare it with the reality.
This year too, the political parties were considered to be highly corrupt, with a mark of 4.2 out of 5 (that being rotten to the core). After it comes the Knesset with the disheartening score of 3.8.
Religious institutions are also not highly respected, with a score of 3.6. The police force got a score of 3.3.
Israel is one of 78 countries that refused to ratify the UN anti-corruption treaty, partly because of its section against corruption in international deals, which could hamper the Defense Ministry's arms business, which often involves bribes.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Thoughts on dogginess and dog "owning" from New York
My Life as a Dog
By JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER
New York Times, November 27, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
FOR the last 20 years, New York City parks without designated dog runs have permitted dogs to be off-leash from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. Because of recent complaints from the Juniper Park Civic Association in Queens, the issue has been revisited. On Dec. 5, the Board of Health will vote on the future of off-leash hours.
Retrievers in elevators, Pomeranians on No. 6 trains, bull mastiffs crossing the Brooklyn Bridge ... it is easy to forget just how strange it is that dogs live in New York in the first place. It is about as unlikely a place for dogs as one could imagine, and yet 1.4 million of them are among us. Why do we keep them in our apartments and houses, always at some expense and inconvenience? Is it even possible, in a city, to provide a good life for a dog, and what is a “good life?” Does the health board’s vote matter in ways other than the most obvious?
I adopted George (a Great Dane/Lab/pit/greyhound/ridgeback/whatever mix — a k a Brooklyn shorthair) because I thought it would be fun. As it turns out, she is a major pain an awful lot of the time.
She mounts guests, eats my son’s toys (and occasionally tries to eat my son), is obsessed with squirrels, lunges at skateboarders and Hasids, has the savant-like ability to find her way between the camera lens and subject of every photo taken in her vicinity, backs her tush into the least interested person in the room, digs up the freshly planted, scratches the newly bought, licks the about-to-be served and occasionally relieves herself on the wrong side of the front door. Her head is resting on my foot as I type this. I love her.
Our various struggles — to communicate, to recognize and accommodate each other’s desires, simply to coexist — force me to interact with something, or rather someone, entirely “other.” George can respond to a handful of words, but our relationship takes place almost entirely outside of language. She seems to have thoughts and emotions, desires and fears. Sometimes I think I understand them; often I don’t. She is a mystery to me. And I must be one to her.
Of course our relationship is not always a struggle. My morning walk with George is very often the highlight of my day — when I have my best thoughts, when I most appreciate both nature and the city, and in a deeper sense, life itself. Our hour together is a bit of compensation for the burdens of civilization: business attire, e-mail, money, etiquette, walls and artificial lighting. It is even a kind of compensation for language. Why does watching a dog be a dog fill one with happiness? And why does it make one feel, in the best sense of the word, human?
It is children, very often, who want dogs. In a recent study, when asked to name the 10 most important “individuals” in their lives, 7- and 10-year-olds included two pets on average. In another study, 42 percent of 5-year-olds spontaneously mentioned their pets when asked, “Whom do you turn to when you are feeling, sad, angry, happy or wanting to share a secret?” Just about every children’s book in my local bookstore has an animal for its hero. But then, only a few feet away in the cookbook section, just about every cookbook includes recipes for cooking animals. Is there a more illuminating illustration of our paradoxical relationship with the nonhuman world?
In the course of our lives, we move from a warm and benevolent relationship with animals (learning responsibility through caring for our pets, stroking and confiding in them), to a cruel one (virtually all animals raised for meat in this country are factory farmed — they spend their lives in confinement, dosed with antibiotics and other drugs).
How do you explain this? Is our kindness replaced with cruelty? I don’t think so. I think in part it’s because the older we get, the less exposure we have to animals. And nothing facilitates indifference or forgetfulness so much as distance. In this sense, dogs and cats have been very lucky: they are the only animals we are intimately exposed to daily.
Folk parental wisdom and behavioral studies alike generally view the relationships children have with companion animals as beneficial. But one does not have to be a child to learn from a pet. It is precisely my frustrations with George, and the inconveniences she creates, that reinforce in me how much compromise is necessary to share space with other beings.
The practical arguments against off-leash hours are easily refuted. One doesn’t have to be an animal scientist to know that the more a dog is able to exercise its “dogness”— to run and play, to socialize with other dogs — the happier it will be. Happy dogs, like happy people, tend not to be aggressive. In the years that dogs have been allowed to run free in city parks, dog bites have decreased 90 percent. But there is another argument that is not so easy to respond to: some people just don’t want to be inconvenienced by dogs. Giving dogs space necessarily takes away space from humans.
We have been having this latter debate, in different forms, for ages. Again and again we are confronted with the reality — some might say the problem — of sharing our space with other living things, be they dogs, trees, fish or penguins. Dogs in the park are a present example of something that is often too abstracted or far away to gain our consideration.
The very existence of parks is a response to this debate: earlier New Yorkers had the foresight to recognize that if we did not carve out places for nature in our cities, there would be no nature. It was recently estimated that Central Park’s real estate would be worth more than $500 billion. Which is to say we are half a trillion dollars inconvenienced by trees and grass. But we do not think of it as an inconvenience. We think of it as balance.
Living on a planet of fixed size requires compromise, and while we are the only party capable of negotiating, we are not the only party at the table. We’ve never claimed more, and we’ve never had less. There has never been less clean air or water, fewer fish or mature trees. If we are not simply ignoring the situation, we keep hoping for (and expecting) a technological solution that will erase our destruction, while allowing us to continue to live without compromise. Maybe zoos will be an adequate replacement for wild animals in natural habitats. Maybe we will be able to recreate the Amazon somewhere else. Maybe one day we will be able to genetically engineer dogs that do not wish to run free. Maybe. But will those futures make us feel, in the best sense of the word, human?
I have been taking George to Prospect Park twice a day for more than three years, but her running is still a revelation to me. Effortlessly, joyfully, she runs quite a bit faster than the fastest human on the planet. And faster, I’ve come to realize, than the other dogs in the park. George might well be the fastest land animal in Brooklyn. Once or twice every morning, for no obvious reason, she’ll tear into a full sprint. Other dog owners can’t help but watch her. Every now and then someone will cheer her on. It is something to behold.
Jonathan Safran Foer is the author, most recently, of “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.”
By JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER
New York Times, November 27, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
FOR the last 20 years, New York City parks without designated dog runs have permitted dogs to be off-leash from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. Because of recent complaints from the Juniper Park Civic Association in Queens, the issue has been revisited. On Dec. 5, the Board of Health will vote on the future of off-leash hours.
Retrievers in elevators, Pomeranians on No. 6 trains, bull mastiffs crossing the Brooklyn Bridge ... it is easy to forget just how strange it is that dogs live in New York in the first place. It is about as unlikely a place for dogs as one could imagine, and yet 1.4 million of them are among us. Why do we keep them in our apartments and houses, always at some expense and inconvenience? Is it even possible, in a city, to provide a good life for a dog, and what is a “good life?” Does the health board’s vote matter in ways other than the most obvious?
I adopted George (a Great Dane/Lab/pit/greyhound/ridgeback/whatever mix — a k a Brooklyn shorthair) because I thought it would be fun. As it turns out, she is a major pain an awful lot of the time.
She mounts guests, eats my son’s toys (and occasionally tries to eat my son), is obsessed with squirrels, lunges at skateboarders and Hasids, has the savant-like ability to find her way between the camera lens and subject of every photo taken in her vicinity, backs her tush into the least interested person in the room, digs up the freshly planted, scratches the newly bought, licks the about-to-be served and occasionally relieves herself on the wrong side of the front door. Her head is resting on my foot as I type this. I love her.
Our various struggles — to communicate, to recognize and accommodate each other’s desires, simply to coexist — force me to interact with something, or rather someone, entirely “other.” George can respond to a handful of words, but our relationship takes place almost entirely outside of language. She seems to have thoughts and emotions, desires and fears. Sometimes I think I understand them; often I don’t. She is a mystery to me. And I must be one to her.
Of course our relationship is not always a struggle. My morning walk with George is very often the highlight of my day — when I have my best thoughts, when I most appreciate both nature and the city, and in a deeper sense, life itself. Our hour together is a bit of compensation for the burdens of civilization: business attire, e-mail, money, etiquette, walls and artificial lighting. It is even a kind of compensation for language. Why does watching a dog be a dog fill one with happiness? And why does it make one feel, in the best sense of the word, human?
It is children, very often, who want dogs. In a recent study, when asked to name the 10 most important “individuals” in their lives, 7- and 10-year-olds included two pets on average. In another study, 42 percent of 5-year-olds spontaneously mentioned their pets when asked, “Whom do you turn to when you are feeling, sad, angry, happy or wanting to share a secret?” Just about every children’s book in my local bookstore has an animal for its hero. But then, only a few feet away in the cookbook section, just about every cookbook includes recipes for cooking animals. Is there a more illuminating illustration of our paradoxical relationship with the nonhuman world?
In the course of our lives, we move from a warm and benevolent relationship with animals (learning responsibility through caring for our pets, stroking and confiding in them), to a cruel one (virtually all animals raised for meat in this country are factory farmed — they spend their lives in confinement, dosed with antibiotics and other drugs).
How do you explain this? Is our kindness replaced with cruelty? I don’t think so. I think in part it’s because the older we get, the less exposure we have to animals. And nothing facilitates indifference or forgetfulness so much as distance. In this sense, dogs and cats have been very lucky: they are the only animals we are intimately exposed to daily.
Folk parental wisdom and behavioral studies alike generally view the relationships children have with companion animals as beneficial. But one does not have to be a child to learn from a pet. It is precisely my frustrations with George, and the inconveniences she creates, that reinforce in me how much compromise is necessary to share space with other beings.
The practical arguments against off-leash hours are easily refuted. One doesn’t have to be an animal scientist to know that the more a dog is able to exercise its “dogness”— to run and play, to socialize with other dogs — the happier it will be. Happy dogs, like happy people, tend not to be aggressive. In the years that dogs have been allowed to run free in city parks, dog bites have decreased 90 percent. But there is another argument that is not so easy to respond to: some people just don’t want to be inconvenienced by dogs. Giving dogs space necessarily takes away space from humans.
We have been having this latter debate, in different forms, for ages. Again and again we are confronted with the reality — some might say the problem — of sharing our space with other living things, be they dogs, trees, fish or penguins. Dogs in the park are a present example of something that is often too abstracted or far away to gain our consideration.
The very existence of parks is a response to this debate: earlier New Yorkers had the foresight to recognize that if we did not carve out places for nature in our cities, there would be no nature. It was recently estimated that Central Park’s real estate would be worth more than $500 billion. Which is to say we are half a trillion dollars inconvenienced by trees and grass. But we do not think of it as an inconvenience. We think of it as balance.
Living on a planet of fixed size requires compromise, and while we are the only party capable of negotiating, we are not the only party at the table. We’ve never claimed more, and we’ve never had less. There has never been less clean air or water, fewer fish or mature trees. If we are not simply ignoring the situation, we keep hoping for (and expecting) a technological solution that will erase our destruction, while allowing us to continue to live without compromise. Maybe zoos will be an adequate replacement for wild animals in natural habitats. Maybe we will be able to recreate the Amazon somewhere else. Maybe one day we will be able to genetically engineer dogs that do not wish to run free. Maybe. But will those futures make us feel, in the best sense of the word, human?
I have been taking George to Prospect Park twice a day for more than three years, but her running is still a revelation to me. Effortlessly, joyfully, she runs quite a bit faster than the fastest human on the planet. And faster, I’ve come to realize, than the other dogs in the park. George might well be the fastest land animal in Brooklyn. Once or twice every morning, for no obvious reason, she’ll tear into a full sprint. Other dog owners can’t help but watch her. Every now and then someone will cheer her on. It is something to behold.
Jonathan Safran Foer is the author, most recently, of “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)