NEW YORK, NY: Dog: Part 2: Picking a Pup (2/9/10)

Today, I continue with Part 2 of the Dog series. I am writing in an effort to absorb what I am reading, and share some Darcy experiences. I did a lot of things wrong, and some things right. I'm not a dog expert, and if you're a dog's human, i recommend reading your books, going to obedience class, etc. Get better at being you. As I continue on my journey of Doggydom with the dog gurus of our age (Cesar Millan, Monks of New Skeete), I continue to learn, and to become a better human for my dog.

Perhaps the most important first step of Doggydom is choosing the right dog. When I was considering getting a dog, I was immediately drawn to the German Shepherd breed for its intelligence, loyalty, protection, and ability to adapt to my particular lifestyle of daily running, walking, and rest. I had no preferences for male or female, though I did consider that a female might be easier for my current dog, Sandy (male), to avoid dominance issues.

I decided to adopt, rather than buy, almost immediately. Sandy was adopted and he is the most perfect (boy) dog on the planet. I was happy to continue this with my new addition. I stumbled upon Darcy on PetFinder.com. I searched for dogs within 100 miles of where I lived, and found one with a cute little face and a description that says "rough and tumble outside, but a perfect lady in the house." Felicia said this sounded like my soul-mate so I inquired, and mere weeks later took her home.

Due to the restrictions of the rescue network (Lab and All Breed Rescue Network) I was not able to meet her prior to taking her home. The handover was a disaster. It's lucky Darcy is such a wonderful dog, or this would not have worked out. I will never adopt sight-unseen again- it was irresponsible and, more importantly, it did not give me enough to work with vis a vis choosing the right dog. I depended too much on luck and description from people I did not know. Everything from her age to her breed was misrepresented (she is not a German Shepherd, but rather, a French Beauceron mix).

What I will do in the future, and what I recommend for prospective dog adopters, is to meet your dog. Do not touch, talk to, or make eye contact with, the animals. Wait until they come to you calmly and are comfortable around you. Assert calm- assertive energy. Do not adopt the first dog that runs up to you- this just means the dog is assertive- not in love with you. Talk to your breeder, or the people at the shelter about the dog you like. Explain your needs, and your situation honestly and openly. Anyone who cares about dogs will not place one in a home where he or she will not be a good fit. Nobody benefits when a dog returns to a shelter. A dog that ends up in, and especially one that returns to, a shelter has a lower likelihood of finding a good home. Take the dog for a spin around the block. This will ascertain a) if the dog is leash trained (Darcy was decidedly not), and b) your chemistry together.

Remember, a dog is part of the family. Treat it as such. Nobody adopts a kid without seeing how it will interact with the family. Do the same for your doggy.

Stay tuned tomorrow for part 3!

NEW YORK, NY: Dog: Part 1 (2/8/10)

I'm currently reading "How to Be Your Dog's Best Friend" by the Monks of New Skeete. The book (second edition) shares a lovely quote I'd like to share with you.

I love inseeing. Can you imagine with me how glorious it is to insee, for example, a dog as one passes by. Insee (I don't mean in-spect, which is only a kind of human gymnastic, by means of which one immediately comes out again on the other side of the dog, regarding it merely, so to speak, as a window upon the humanity lying behind it, not that,) - but to let oneself precisely into the dog's very center, the point from which it becomes a dog, the place in it where God, as it were, would have sat down for a moment when the dog was finished, in order to watch it under the influence of its first embarrassments and inspirations and to know that it was good, that nothing was lacking, that it could not have been better made... Laugh though you may, dear confidant, if I am to tell you where my all-greatest feeling, my world-feeling, my earthly bliss was to be found, I must confess to you: it was to be found time and again, here and there, in such timeless moments of this divine inseeing.

- Rainer Maria Rilke, New Poems,

Translated by J.B. Leishman

For everyone out there training a dog... or being trained by one.

NEW YORK, NY: In Defense of The Fountainhead, and Other Pleas to the Tea Party Movement (01/27/10)

The current issue of the New Yorker has an article on the Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party's views on politics don't interest me- I think they're reactionary and not proactive. But they dragged art into the debate, and now I'm a little miffed.

My favorite book is The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. It's absolutely everything a book should be. If you haven't read it, buckle down for the 800 pages and just do it. (It is preferable if you know nothing about it beforehand). The hero is Howard Roark. He has bright orange hair and is wonderful. He is an architect, who only creates to satisfy his own inner need. The theory of the book is selfish objectivism. A human's first duty is to him/herself. Why? Because we can not create things of any use if we are not first self-satisfied. For this reason, the fountainhead (hence, the title of the book) of the best things in our civilization (helicopters, penicillin, etc) is the ego, vision, and execution of one talented, selfish person.

It should be said that Rand was anti-political. She hated liberals and conservatives equally.

So why is the Tea Party Movement claiming The Fountainhead as the book symbolizing their struggle? From what I know of the Tea Parties, they organize in frequent protests of masses upon masses of people. They attract people who brandish petitions, and people who take pride in being "Ordinary Americans." (I will leave this alone- as anyone who relishes being merely ordinary is probably deserving of the title.)

But... The Fountainhead claims that nothing productive may be accomplished with masses of people- it's all down to one person. Also, if you need other people to back up your opinions, or if you want to influence someone who needs to see you can influence others, this is tyranny. And, finally, anyone who is "ordinary" has sold his/her soul.

The Fountainhead is not about ordinary people. Rand continually wrote against the flock-centric vulgarity of these "ordinary" masses. In fact, The Fountainhead explicitly states that masses of people, especially these collective "ordinary people" corrupt everything that is wholly good.

So really- my plea is this. Tea Party, I don't care what you do, but please read books before you tout them.

PARQUE LAS TERRENAS, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: "El Zorro" is Spanish for "The Zorro"

Delicious. Isabel Allende's "Zorro" is not a re-telling of the old stories, the comics, the movies- none of that. Rather, it is the story of the beginning, of how Diego de la Vega became Zorro. Of course, this begins with the devastatingly romantic meeting of his parents, who were rival warriors until they realized they were hot for each other. Typical.

Diego spends his formative years in California causing trouble with his best friend and, for all intents and purposes, brother, Bernardo. They venture to Barcelona where they learn fencing, join the circus, become pilgrims, dupe the military, and eventually find their way back to California, via a pirate island near New Orleans. Eventually Zorro takes over and becomes the dominant existence of this man, with Diego taking a backseat. The book is all too wonderful- go ahead and read it.

It begs the question, however, of why Zorro is still so important a story as ever? I have a couple of ideas.

NEW YORK, NY: Atonement: Friend or Foible? (12/2/09)

Atonement is the story of two lovers separated by a felony. Although this sounds like just another story about jailbait, it is actually the story of how awful your relatives can really be when they disapprove of your significant other and testify against them in court.

The film adaptation of Atonement is very sad. I was so thoroughly dissatisfied with it because it’s too moody for me. ("Boo Hoo, I loved and lost because I have an obnoxious younger sibling. Boo Hoo.") I think there’s immense sadness but no variation. All good stories that move us must be equal parts of emotions. We connect on several levels of emotion and mentality, and stories that grip us on each level are the most powerful. Films and stories that get caught in moods are doomed (as I am often reminded- "mood" spelled backwards is "doom"). Atonement was not without bright spots, however. There were standout performances by Romola Garai (Briony at 18), Gina McKee (Nurse Drummond), and the ever Ms. Redgrave (Briony at 77). The book, however, is different.

I bought the book whilst I was going through a bourbon + The Notebook/Love Actually = catharsis stage. The book was so much better than that. McEwan is such a profoundly psychological writer- not for one moment did I misunderstand Briony or her motives as she gave her witness testimony. All the characters are afforded a point of view, which McEwan masterfully uses to tell the story, paralleling Briony's own journey as a writer. It is a must read. Part 3 is, I think, lacking in this essential depth of character understanding. However, parts 1, 2, and 4 are gorgeous. I won't say anymore. Must read.

The book gives an interesting lesson. For all my fourteen years in a Catholic school, I don't think I ever really meditated on the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." It seemed like the least damaging commandment to a child. "Honor thy Mother and Father" was much more a Damnation Deal-breaker (inevitably the cause of my current lack of religion). In Atonement, however, bearing witness is the one commandment to which a child fails, to disastrous outcome.

Atonement is so powerful because the whole thing is based on a simple, adolescent screw-up. It's almost a parable, with the simplicity of the error, and the severity of the consequences. It made me stop mid-page and remember myself at age thirteen, and how unbearable I was as a human being, as all thirteen year olds are. Did anything I do alter the course of someone's life? Is puberty, the agonizing transition, really a growth at all, or a period for which we spend the rest of our lives apologizing? Do we become more careful as we become adults? How often do we fall short? How much of the thirteen year old we were, remains? What a frightening thought...

NEW YORK, NY: "Throw Out 50 Things" (12/01/09)

Life, we know, is a series of transitions. Cells divide. People meet. Socks disappear in the dryer. As we move through the little beginnings and endings in life, it is important we take a moment to meaningfully decide what we will keep, and what we will let go. Relationships- to people, to objects- are grown this way. Who do we take with us as we move through life? What do we pack away and send to the Salvation Army?

The hardest part is taking stock in such a way that we aren't bringing people or objects with us merely because we've brought them along in the past. We hold on to people longer than we should. We become hoarders of novelty cookie jars and romantic turmoil. Even though this turns relationships toxic, it's hard to let go of some things.

I have two big moves coming up in the space of two months. My mother is moving everything from our childhood home into her new husband's home, and I am moving from one NYC apartment to a location as yet to be determined. In an effort to help minimize any potential packing / clutter / life drama, my mother suggested I read "Throw Out 50 Things" by Gail Blanke. To be perfectly honest, I'm not going to read this book. Self-help books bore me. However, I did read the title and I thought a lot about it, and as a fan of feng shui, I understand the importance of a clutter free life.

Off I went. I started with de-cluttering my Manhattan apartment. I made a pile of things I knew I would not miss for the next two months. I was shocked when the pile was so huge. Do I really live with that amount of unnecessary stuff every day? And that's just objects. How big is my pile of personal clutter? Who am I keeping around who is just as un-missable? Even more shocking and entertaining were the decisions I made in terms of what I needed to keep in order to be happy. Some examples from my lists are below.

What I won't miss:

Several pairs of shoes

Shirts

Kitchen utensils

Jackets

7 bags of varying sizes and degrees of formality

What I need:

An Alligator hat and Jerry-curl wig

A record player

A mirror in a mermaid frame

Towels

Bed.

What I learned from my apartment purge was not what I had always thought I would learn. I assumed I would end up with an ascetic inventory of objects that would keep me in such a state of non-clutter that my lifestyle would resemble the draconian. In fact, by focusing on the things that really get the most use, and really contribute to my quality of life, I am able to best live freely.

An interesting experiment- try for yourself.