I know nothing about Candy Spelling, only what I read in the article announcing her purchase of a 16,000 square feet, $47-million condo in Century City, thereby setting a record for $2848 a square foot. She may be a very generous person, may have contributed to a number of worthwhile causes, may be quite philanthropic. My comments are not directed at her as a person, only using what she represents to me. She is currently living in Los Angeles’ county largest house, a 123 room, 56,000 square feet mansion on six acres–one might argue someone has to own the largest house. But 123 rooms etc. is reminiscent of those palaces and lifestyle that preceded–or is it caused–the French and Russian revolutions. That kind of wealth is not only a historical occurrence, but a global one as well, making one think of sultanates and sheikdoms where opulence is common. Still, historical and global references aside, there is something very telling about the symbol of such a large house in a city which has a growing homeless population, where the differences between rich and poor can ( as they are in many U.S. cities) be a matter of just a few blocks, and often not even that, for I deduce with such a mansion Ms Spelling must employ many. Some of her own employees no doubt have problems coping with rising rent, fuel, food and other costs.
What strikes me most about this, is not the proverbial difference between the haves and have nots, but what would I do were I to be in her shoes? Would I share my wealth, and if so how? How would I justify to myself my having so much when so many have not enough, or nothing at all? Would I entertain such thoughts, or would I be smug and assume that because I give to charities, I am entitled to the rest? Would I feel guilty for living in opulence knowing millions are homeless? Would I be willing to go and see for myself how those who have so little fare? How would I react? Would I have the wisdom and the love to share, to satisfy myself with a fraction of what I would have and try to make a difference with the rest?
Of course I’ll never know for I won’t ever be the recipient of that kind of wealth. I can only hope I would have the courage of my convictions and practice sharing, since sharing in this way has to be a deep form of love.

The world’s population is said to be about 6.5 billion. Of these a new report says, 2.5 billion lack access to what is called improved sanitation. The word improved denoting no real bathroom facilities, but something however primitive . Of these 2.5 billion, 1.2 billion have no access to any kind of bathrooms and are forced to “defecate without sanitary facilities.” It is not a subject one likes to talk about, and rather unsavory to imagine what the implications of “without sanitary facilities” actually refers to. But two consequences are certain, one is the health threat to the communities involved and the second is how that leads to a contaminated environment that researchers directly link to diarrhea, one of the biggest killer of children under five.
The report released by UNICEF (UN Children’s Fund) and WHO (World Health Organization) does cite progress. The percentage of the total population who are forced to practice what is called open defecation has gone down, from 24% of the total to 18%. As expected the problem is worse in rural areas. But contrary to expectations the continent that is worst hit is not Africa, but Asia. Seventy percent of the people living with broken down or nonexistent sewage system are in Asia, and 22% in sub-Saharan Africa.
Dr. Margaret Chan. WHO’s General Director, says, “We have today a full menu of low-cost technical options for the provision of sanitation in most settings. More and more governments are determined to improve health by bringing water and sanitation to their poorest populations. If we want to break the stranglehold of poverty, and reap the benefits for health, we must address water and sanitation.”
So the question arises, why then aren’t we doing it? Surely basic sanitation qualifies as a human right.

Sometimes we are removed from a decision, have nothing to do with it, and still it says something about us–the us that is part of that collective we call society. I had nothing to do with the decision to deny Susan Atkins a “compassionate release” from prison but it was obliquely at least done in my name, and so whether or not I like it, I am involved.
As part of the gang around Charles Manson, Susan Atkins murdered Sharon Tate in the 60’s. Now after 37 years in prison, 60 herself, she has brain cancer, had one leg amputated, is partially paralyzed, and was given 3 months to live. While the current Los Angeles County district Attorney wrote a letter to the parole board asking that the request be denied, the case prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, wrote on her behalf. He said the idea that “just because Susan Atkins showed no mercy to her victims, we therefore are duty-bound to follow her inhumanity and show no mercy to her” is wrong. He went on, “…what mercy are we giving her? It’s not like she has six months to live, and we’re letting her go home and she’s going to have fun with her family. My view is that anyone who opposes her request, other than relatives of the seven Tate-la-Bianca victims… is either being robotic or extremely callous. The mercy being requested now is almost too minuscule to speak of because she’s in bed and she’s going to die.”
The people who made the decision, and those who side with them and support it, no doubt think it speaks for justice, and feel entirely justified. But it seems to me that this decision says more about us than about justice. It says that we as a society are not able to exercise compassion, to know the difference between justice and harm, that we are blinded by notions of right that have nothing to do with mercy and love and those values that help us truly determine what is right. The social contract under which we all live may grant the parole board the right to have denied the request, but they did not speak for me, and I am glad they also did not speak for Mr. Bugliosi and others who agree with him.

You’ve probably heard, the 3 surviving children of Martin Luther King, Jr. are suing each other. Bernice and Martin Jr. are suing Dexter who lives in Malibu and who has apparently refused to give an accounting of money received from the sale of their father’s papers. Not long ago I read in the Financial Times about Anil and Mukesh Ambani suing each other. The reason was less clear, but they are both among India’s billionaires, giants of business, owners of Reliance Media and it looks also as future owners of Dreamworks in Hollywood. Their father is the one who made the fortune, and since his death, reports idicate they have been competing and fighting. I am sure that in each case each side believes how right they are, and possibly seeing suing their sibling as a last resort.
Anyone with siblings understands how easy it is to fight with one or another, to be put out, angry, disappointed, to have words, to shun the other, to even dis the one we believe offended us. It is harder to see how one gets to the point of a lawsuit. In both these instances the issues involved are larger than family squabbles, there are interests beyond the individuals. And perhaps that is what makes it all the sadder. Is there no underlying love to come to the rescue? Is here no sense of family togetherness that would inform a first step, an iota of forgiveness, the power to forget an offense?
Family feuds are as old as history, and certainly have biblical roots–Cain and Abel. Even the Baghavad Gita is the story of a family feud, the recounting of a war between two warring clans within the same family. It still does not make it something to be emulated. Maybe, some intermediary, legal or not, paid or not, will come forward and help these families heal their breech.
Short of that they may want to borrow a page from the Democratic party last week. Jesse Jackson although he long ago endorsed Obama, had to be egged on by his son, an Illinois Congressman and unabashed fan of the Illinois Senator. I can’t say that his overheard his rather rude comment about Obama last week when his mike was still on following a Fox News Network appearance, were a surprise. Neither was it a surprise that Jackson would automatically apologize, reaffirm his support for the nominee to be, and for the Obama campaign to glide over it and use it to advantage. What is noteworthy, if not really a surprise, was how the need for unity, in the name of the family represented by the Democratic Party trumped personal feelings. We don’t believe it, and yet we buy it. Their motives aren’t selfless–they do what it takes to win. Still unity is a value that can trump egos–and if it can trump political egos, it makes one wonder even more why it couldn’t trump family ones.