July 2010

Suppose there was a way to reduce carbon emissions from a crematorium? And further suppose that way would mean that your loved one instead of being burned would be dissolved in a caustic potash solution that would turn the body into liquid and ash? Such a process now exists. It is called chemical hydrolysis and is becoming the subject of discussion in Belgium where the Flemish Association of Undertakers is seeking permission to use it. There is resistance to the change of course. The residue, ashes, can be disposed of in the same way as crematoria ashes, and there is a benefit to the environment. Still, our beliefs, superstitions, fears and customs about how to handle the bodies of those who are no longer with us, persist and influence what we should do.

Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor in California spent $90 million of her own money during the primary in order to beat out her opponent Steve Poizner. Steve Poizner himself spent $24 million of his own money to give running a shot. We’ll have to wait until November for the final tally of how much of her own fortune, billionaire Whitman will have spent. Still, $90 million is a sizable sum. It is more than millions of Americans will earn in a lifetime, more than many wealthy people will pay in taxes over the course of their lives, and, if building a school in Africa costs $25,000 the sum would build 36,000 schools, enough to educate quite a lot of young people. The issue is not someone using their own money to run. It is theirs to do with what they please. In fact, it reflects a strength of the United States where individuals are free to spend their wealth however they see fit. The issue is our complacency. We allow people to furrow their way into elective office. Meg Whitman is not the first, nor will she be the last. She is only a symptom of the problem we abet and indirectly nurture. Our acceptance, oblique as it may be, is changing the U.S. where equal opportunity is meant to be a cornerstone, into a country where wealth is becoming a requirement to open the door to being a political candidate.

The U.S. Justice Department as well as the L.A. County District Attorney are angry with Switzerland for refusing to proceed with Roman Polanski’s extradition. The European press paints a different picture, of course. It’s an interesting case because Polanski’s guilt is not the issue. The main issue is time served and time remaining for having drugged and raped a 13-year old over 30 years ago. Given that Polanski himself was a victim of Charles Manson and his gang who murdered his pregnant wife, I am willing to err on the side of forgiveness or at least caution. What stands out, though, is the role of the victim in this case. The 13- year old, now a grown woman, wants the case dropped, has said so publicly and does not believe Polanski to be a threat. In most cases the victims have a say so. They convey their wishes to the District Attorney and have views and feelings that often decide how a case goes forward. They testify at sentencing hearings and share what punishment they believe ought to be imposed. In this instance, however, the wishes of the victim have been ignored. And it raises some questions, for example, had Polanski not been a celebrity, would the victim’s wishes have been handled differently?