Suicides Mounting, Golden Gate Looks to Add a Safety Net { non-fiction critical analysis }

       The article "Suicides Mounting, Golden Gate Looks to Add a Safety Net" by Carol Pogash was published one month ago in the New York Times. It described the recent progressions in the debate about adding a safety net onto one of the most famous bridges in the world. The Golden Gate Bridge is famous for its architectural beauty, but also because it is the most popular suicide location in the nation, and one of the top in the entire world. These factors have spurred the controversy about putting a up a safety net that has been going on for sixty years, while more and more people jump to their deaths.              
       I view the debate about putting up a safety net as ethics versus aesthetics. State assemblyman Mark Ammiano is appalled that a net hasn't been put up yet, describing the bridge as "a public health hazard." A record of 46 people committed suicide by jumping off the bridge just last year, and 118 more attempts failed as they were stopped by bridge workers. Putting up a safety net that would save so many lives seems like a very good thing to do, but the directors of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, have disagreed for 60 years, "reflecting the live-and-let-live ethos that animates this city," Pogash writes. Another point against the net is that it may mar the majestic bridge's beauty, which is where aesthetics come into play. The last point against a safety net is simple logic: if you really want to end your life, you're going to go find another place to do it. The counterargument is that the suicide impulse is transient, and the bridge provides such an easy way out that people don't have time to think it over as they should. 
       Carol Pogash definitely supports installing the net, and wants the reader to feel the same too. I can tell because she provides a lot of convincing support about why it is needed, using both statistics and stories that tug at your heart strings to her advantage. Pogash uses astounding facts to engage the reader and prove her point further, like when she states that there was a suicide or suicide attempt nearly every other day in 2013 on the Golden Gate alone. I was blown away by this tiny piece of information that highlighted the need for a safety net. Another fact was that the largest group of jumpers went down from 35-45 years to only 20-30 years, showing how "young people think the bridge is the perfect place to go." Pogash also includes the story of Manuel Gamboa and his son, Kyle, who committed suicide last year on September 20th at 18 years old. Manuel has attended every board meeting since, advocating for a solution with a photo of his son's smiling face framed next to him. Pogash also adds medical information that describes what happens when your body hits the water, disproving the myth that the jump is painless. "Those who jump plummet 220 feet and typically suffer rib collapse on impact, lacerating lungs and other internal organs...they die of internal bleeding or drowning," she writes, making the reader feel almost squeamish. I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone, which is probably the exact feeling Pogash was aiming to see in her readers.      
       I agree that a safety net should be put up, as it would prevent many deaths. While it is true some people might just find another way to end their lives, eliminating one of the easiest and most popular ways will make people rethink their decisions when finding it difficult to do it some other way. I am normally a stickler when it comes to how something looks, this is a matter of human life and I see no other solution. Many people will be pleased for the safety net to be installed, although 60 years was too long to wait and they can never get their loved ones back. Pogash's convincing and strategical writing influenced my opinion and taught me a lot, but I still want to know how exactly the net would work and if after the fact, other bridges or forms of suicide would become more popular.

Link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/us/suicides-mounting-golden-gate-looks-to-add-a-safety-net.html?_r=0

The Zookeeper's Wife: A War Story

       The novel The Zookeeper's Wife: A War Story by Diane Ackerman recounts one Polish couple's brave attempts and successes of turning their zoo into a part of the Underground for Jews during the Holocaust. All of the animals from the zoo are killed or escape quite early in the story, but there are times when humans act like animals and times when you can see the connections between them. Antonina, the zookeeper's wife, "felt convinced that people needed to connect more with their animal nature" (34). The ideas and themes that Ackerman presents go along with Antonina's philosophy.
      
       Throughout the novel, humans are associated with animal-like phrases and perform behaviors that are common in animals. One of the first examples of this is early in the story when Ackerman writes that "the Żabińskis invited artists of all stripes to come and uncage their imaginations"(35). Obviously Ackerman literally means that the Żabińskis welcomed a diverse population into their zoo to help them use their imaginations, but by comparing people to animals she supports Antonina's theory that all humans have an animal nature. Another instance of this is when Ackerman writes, "like other animal mothers, [Antonina] grew desperate to find a safe hiding place for her young" (55) in the midst of the war. This show how people embrace their animal instincts in times of need. An ironic example of when humans showed animal characteristics was when The Żabińskis hid Jews in their zoo, so the people almost took on the roles of the murdered animals. Ackerman writes, "[the zoos] inhabitants mastered the martial arts of stealth: tiptoe, freeze, camouflage, distract, pantomime. Some villa Guests hid while others hovered, emerging only after dark to roam the house at liberty" (120). These actions of stealth, like camouflaging, seems like something an animal would do. People that emerged "only after dark" took on the persona of nocturnal organisms. These are just a few examples of the ongoing comparison of people and animals.
     
       The actions of people against both humans and animals are remarkably or horrifyingly similar. Early in the book, Lutz Heck, a fellow zoo director who happened to be German, called on the Żabińskis with the promise to rebuild their zoo as the falling bombs destroyed it piece by piece. But Heck betrayed them and invited his German comrades over to the zoo for a little New Year's gathering that involved shooting each and every animal left at the crumbling zoo. The description of the innocent animals being brutally murdered in their own home for sport is very disturbing, but not unlike what happens later in the book to people. The perfect and famous example is the Holocaust in general, but The Zookeeper's Wife actually focuses more on the situations in the Ghetto. The wall separating the Ghetto and the Aryan side often had small holes in the masonry that allowed the smallest of children to pass in and out as smugglers and traders, "who risked death daily as their families' breadwinners" (137). A German major that patrolled the walls was given the nickname Frankenstein. One Ghetto child and renowned smuggler recalled, "he loved to hunt, but I suppose he must have become bored with animals and decided that shooting Jewish children was a more enjoyable pastime" (138). He then goes on to say that when there were no smugglers to kill, Frankenstein would summon random children who happened to be around, pull out his gun, and shoot them in the back of the head. This information takes a while to process because it is so brutally raw--one can't imagine how a person could end another's life for mere pleasure, much less an innocent child with their lives ahead of them. This is how the murders of the animals and children are linked: they're both so innocent.

       Antonina and Ackerman both believe that animals and humans are more alike than most people think. The zookeeper's wife shows it through her words and thoughts, while the author shows it through her writing.