Juxtapositions: $11 Million Christmas Tree and a Global Perspective on Children

If you're not concerned about keeping your holiday spending under control, hop onto your private jet and go check out a self-proclaimed "seven star" hotel, the Emerites Palace in the United Arab Emirate. They tipped the scales of extravagance almost beyond imagining when they installed this year's Christmas tree a few days ago:

It is the "most expensive Christmas tree ever," with a "value of over 11 million dollars," said Hans Olbertz, general manager of Emirates Palace hotel, at its inauguration. The 13-metre (40-foot) faux evergreen, located in the gold leaf-bedecked rotunda of the hotel, is decorated with silver and gold bows, ball-shaped ornaments and small white lights.

But the necklaces, earrings and other jewellery draped around the tree's branches are what give it a record value. It holds a total of 181 diamonds, pearls, emeralds, sapphires and other precious stones, said Khalifa Khouri, owner of Style Gallery, which provided the jewellery.

"The tree itself is about 10,000 dollars," Olbertz said. "The jewellery has a value of over 11 million dollars -- I think 11.4, 11.5."

But, upon reflection, the hotel decided that this tower of luxury gone wild might not have been such a great idea after all:

. . . the hotel now regrets "attempts to overload the tradition followed by most hotels in the country with meanings and connotations that do not fall in line with the professional standards" of the hotel.

"Putting the Christmas tree is not a novelty, rather it is a tradition meant to share in celebrating occasions guests hold while they are away from their home countries and families," the Gulf News daily quoted a hotel statement as saying.

This tradition "is within the framework of the UAE's policy which is based on the values of openness and tolerance," the hotel added.

I'm not sure what the "professional standards of the hotel" have to do with it, but I think somebody realized that a tree with decorations worth $11 million could be perceived as a bit gauche, especially when viewed in the context of a world full of major economic crises. Fortunately, after the holidays the hotel can go back to its lower key existence as the only place outside of Germany (who knew?) with a "gold to go" vending machine.

* * * * * * * * *

Those of you who would like a global view of how the rest of humanity lives might be interested to take a look at Where Children Sleep, a recently published fabulous book by photographer James Mollison. He travelled extensively to gather his material and quickly realized that not every child has what most of us probably would consider a traditional bedroom:

Where Children Sleep presents English-born photographer James Mollison's large-format photographs of children's bedrooms around the world--from the U.S.A., Mexico, Brazil, England, Italy, Israel and the West Bank, Kenya, Senegal, Lesotho, Nepal, China and India--alongside portraits of the children themselves. Each pair of photographs is accompanied by an extended caption that tells the story of each child: Kaya in Tokyo, whose proud mother spends $1,000 a month on her dresses; Bilal the Bedouin shepherd boy, who sleeps outdoors with his father's herd of goats; the Nepali girl Indira, who has worked in a granite quarry since she was three; and Ankhohxet, the Kraho boy who sleeps on the floor of a hut deep in the Amazon jungle. Photographed over two years with the support of Save the Children (Italy), Where Children Sleep is both a serious photo-essay for an adult audience, and also an educational book that engages children themselves in the lives of other children around the world.

Sample photos are here; be sure to scroll down to read the captions. This is the kind of book that can provide perspective, a particularly valuable and often scarce commodity at this time of year for most of us -- even folks who can afford an $11 million Christmas tree.

© 2010  Cynthia Friedlob

Image credit: Bogdan Munteanu at stock.xchng

Juxtapositions: Executive Compensation and Poverty Guidelines

Let's start with a simple, reasonable premise: everybody wants to be comfortable and happy.

Now let's figure out what that means. How much money do you need to live comfortably? How much stuff? And how do money and stuff affect your happiness?

I've discussed these topics on numerous occasions, including in an interview by Alex Fayle on his helpful Someday Syndrome website as well as in my book. Everyone has different answers to the questions, but I was prompted to think about them again by a Los Angeles Times article today about the pay scale of media moguls that demonstrates just how huge the disparity of wealth is in the U.S right now. At one extreme:

Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Igor collected a package worth nearly $24 million for 2009. Philippe Bauman, who manages Viacom Inc., which includes the MTV networks, Comedy Central and Paramount Pictures, got an almost 22% raise to $34 million. CBS Corp. chief Leslie Moonless' pay more than doubled to $43.2 million. [The article consistently spells Les Moonves' name incorrectly.] News Corp.'s Rupert Murdoch topped $22 million, and Time Warner Inc.'s Jeffrey Beaks received nearly $20 million.

At the other extreme: the Health and Human Services Department 2009/10 federal poverty guidelines state that a family of four is at the poverty level if their income is at or below $22,050 per year (about $1838 per month). The guideline amount is the same no matter where you live.

We know that those highly compensated executives are doing just fine, but let's see how a family of four living at the poverty level would fare here in Los Angeles. According to rent.com:

If you want to live in the City of Angels, you have to pay a premium. The overall cost of living here is 33% above the national average, with housing costs tending to be among the most expensive in the nation.

In the city of Los Angeles, the median cost for apartment rentals was $1699 for Q1 2008. Prices are lower in the valleys, higher in Santa Monica and other areas near the beach. That's the rent for a one-bedroom apartment, clearly not a comfortable arrangement for a family of four. We'd have to up the price by at least $100 to get another bedroom.
 
The most recent statistics I could find about the cost of feeding a family of four are from the USDA in 2003/2004:
 

Average yearly expenditures on food in U.S. urban households increased between 2003 and 2004. Over the period, annual per capita spending on food rose from $2,035 to $2,207. The 2004 average comprises $1,347 spent on food consumed at home and $860 spent on food consumed away from home. These amounts reflect a year-to-year increase of 7.9 percent in food-at-home expenditures and 9.3 percent in food-away-from-home expenditures.

 
We can safely assume that costs have increased, along with everything else, in the last five years, but we'll work with these figures. (Here's a related article from the USDA about "food insecurity," i.e., households with the inability to provide nutritious meals on a regular basis. This situation affected about 11% of U.S. households in 2007; it seems likely that more are affected now.)
 
So, that's rent at an average of $1799 per month (for two bedrooms) and food costs at ($184 per month per person x four people) $736. We're up to $2,535 per month for food and shelter, leaving nothing for everything else: utilities, telephone, clothing, transportation, child care and medical expenses.
 
Minimum wage in California is currently $8.00 per hour. A forty hour work week would gross $320 or approximately $1386 per month, not even enough for food and shelter. Clearly there needs to be income from more than one job.
 
Well, we might as well forget the rest of the math and the scraping together of pennies so eloquently explained by Barbara Ehrenreich in her book, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. For poor families, just staying afloat is an almost impossible challenge.
 
But what do the ultra-rich folks do with the huge amount of "disposable income" that they have? They may start charitable foundations, endow universities or otherwise share their money generously, but they all definitely acquire the trappings of wealth: stuff -- houses, wardrobes, cars, airplanes, jewelry, the latest technological toys, maybe even a private island.
 
While I doubt that any of us would want to live on poverty's edge, in constant fear for our very survival, I also doubt that we'd assume that being ultra-rich would guarantee happiness (witness the divorces, custody battles, intra-family power struggles, alcoholism, drug addictions and suicides among the rich for proof that's not the case). It would be disingenuous to claim that life wouldn't be easier or more pleasant with tons of money, but how much money is enough? How much stuff is enough?
 
I'd like to hear what you think. How much do you need to be comfortable? What are the qualities of life that affect your happiness?
 
© 2010 Cynthia Friedlob 
Photo credit: foxumon at stock.xchng.hu

Juxtapositions: Inflation and Profits

On page one of the business section of the LA Times today, a story noted that the 5.6% July inflation rate is the highest since 1991. This bad news was accompanied by a documented drop in real wages and a rise in unemployment claims.

Another story in the same business section, page two, reported that Wal-Mart profits were up 17% in the second quarter, a greater increase than was expected. This is due to "tight inventory controls and a renewed focus on low prices that is attracting financially squeezed shoppers."

(Those low prices are primarily the result of cheap labor and production costs in other countries, but that's another story.)

So, if you're a financially squeezed shopper, you can go to sleep tonight knowing that the discomfort that forces you to shop at Wal-Mart is making money for the stockholders who probably shop elsewhere.

However, if you're fortunate enough to be a saver, you can rest better knowing that, thanks to the inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation, interest rates will probably go up and you'll earn more on your savings.

Unfortunately, as a result of those same high interest rates, you probably won't be able to afford to buy a home. But prices are low on housing right now, thanks to the loud pop of the housing bubble, so maybe you can pull it off.

Unless you lose your job, of course, which is likely because businesses are under pressure to make more profits for their investors, so they'll be cutting costs wherever they can and one of those costs could be you.

And even if you keep your job, the money you're making isn't worth what it used to be because of inflation.

Simple, huh?

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Juxtapositions: Foreclosures and Candy Spelling's New Penthouse

The Los Angeles Times very kindly handed me a blog post on a platter this past week.

Roger Vincent reported in the July 22nd edition that Candy Spelling, widow of Aaron Spelling, has purchased a new condo for $47 million. That translates into a whopping $2,848 per square foot for the two-storey, 16,500 square foot residence at the top of a Century City tower that's still under construction. This is how down-sizing works at the top of the food chain.

Twenty years ago, the Spellings built LA county's largest home (56,500 square feet with 123 rooms) and took a lot of flak for it at the time. "The Manor," as it was called, was deemed offensively extravagant by many. I found this to be rather amusing criticism from a community in which the term "over the top" must have been coined -- and in the 80s, yet, a decade in which greed was "good" and advertisers proclaimed that we all needed to wear gold because we're "worth it." Ah, show biz.

On the other hand, while Mrs. Spelling was formulating her plan to change residences, "more than 1% of US households were in some stage of foreclosure in 2007," according to Seeking Alpha's February Housing Market Tracker post. HousingWire.com reported that nationwide foreclosure activity jumped 97% in December of 07, and here in California the picture was particularly bleak:

"With a total of 481,392 foreclosure filings on 249,513 properties during the year, California documented the highest number of foreclosure filings and the most properties in some stage of foreclosure in 2007. The state’s total foreclosure filings more than tripled from 2006, and the state’s 2007 foreclosure rate — 1.9 percent of its households entering some stage of foreclosure during the year — ranked fourth highest among U.S. states." (Nevada was highest at 3.4%.)

The situation has not improved in 2008; witness the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout.

LA Times writer, Tim Rutten, mused on the meaning of this "new low in the high life" in his July 23rd column:

"As Candy Spelling's condo deal illustrates, so much wealth in the U.S. is concentrated in so few hands . . . Recent data suggest that the richest 1% of U.S. households -- those with annual incomes of $348,000 or better -- now control 34.3% of the nation's net worth, while the bottom 40% of households dispose of just 0.2% of America's wealth."

Rutten calls this a new "Gilded Age." Harvard Magazine reinforces this comparison with an article in July's issue entitled, "Unequal America:"

"Income inequality has been rising since the late 1970s, and now rests at a level not seen since the Gilded Age—roughly 1870 to 1900, a period in U.S. history defined by the contrast between the excesses of the super-rich and the squalor of the poor."

The article is long but fascinating reading, covering everything from speculation regarding the effects of the disparity on the democratic process to the fact that life expectancy actually has decreased recently in some U.S. counties.

There seems little doubt that the fabric of our country's economic distribution system is shredding. The situation requires massive change unless we're content to descend into a society resembling that of feudal lords and starving peasants.

Of course, it's unlikely that the lady of "The Manor," Candy Spelling, will ever be feeling any economic pain. True, she'll be leaving behind the family manse with its 11 bedrooms, 16 bathrooms, the gift-wrapping room, the doll museum, the screening room, etc. That means that she'll certainly have to unload quite a few possessions to squeeze into a condo with less than a third of the space of the former homestead.

Wonder if there's going to be a garage sale . . .

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Juxtapositions: L.A. Heat Wave, Asian Disasters and Mukesh Ambani's House

It's hot in Los Angeles today. In the high 90s, I'd guess, which can be pretty miserable if you're out and about, especially when you get into a car that's been sitting in the sun for a couple of hours, as I did earlier today. I turned on the air conditioner and was uncomfortably cruising home on the freeway for about ten minutes before the car cooled down enough to be tolerable. Oh, poor me.

Meanwhile, the government of Myanmar is still balking at opening the borders of its country to allow access to foreigners who want to offer aid to victims of the cyclone that killed an estimated 78,000 people. The U.N. ambassador from Myanmar has even accused the French of sending a "war ship" to anchor just off their shores. It isn't a war ship, of course, but a ship laden with food and medical supplies, along with medical personnel. Over two million people were affected by the cyclone and are desperately in need of this aid.

Over in China, it's estimated that ultimately the Sichuan earthquake will have claimed 50,000 lives; many more will have suffered injuries and losses. Fortunately, aid is being accepted there. Three days of mourning have been declared by the Chinese government. On Monday, in a unique and moving gesture, "China will ask its 1.2 billion people to observe three minutes of silence before sounding their car, truck, train, ship and air-raid horns in a collective cry of grief."

And in Mumbai, India, Forbes Magazine reports that Mukesh Ambani and his wife are building their dream home, a skyscraper palace costing almost two billion dollars. "When the Ambani residence is finished in January, completing a four-year process, it will be 550 feet high with 400,000 square feet of interior space. . . [N]o two floors are alike in either plans or materials used. At the request of Nita Ambani, say the designers, if a metal, wood or crystal is part of the ninth-floor design, it shouldn't be used on the eleventh floor, for example. The idea is to blend styles and architectural elements so spaces give the feel of consistency, but without repetition. . . Atop six stories of parking lots, [the] living quarters begin at a lobby with nine elevators, as well as several storage rooms and lounges." (Thanks to pro organizer Jeri Dansky for the link to the San Francisco Chronicle's online column by Mark Morford about this. Jeri must have been amused to read that, in spite of the enormous amount of space they'll have, the Ambanis still require several storage rooms!)

Now, obviously, on the global scale of things, my little complaint about hot weather hardly rates a blink of the eye when compared to the tragic natural disasters that have occurred half-way around the world. And I suppose that my modest townhouse would rate hardly the blink of an eye from the Ambanis as far as their definition of "suitable" housing goes, even though I find living here quite comfortable. But I'm hard pressed to think of a greater juxtaposition than that between the people, many already incredibly impoverished, who suffered through those disasters and a guy who's worth around $63 billion and is in the middle of constructing a home the size of a world-class hotel.

To get a little perspective, we can note that Mr. Ambani's net worth is over two-thirds the GDP of the entire country of Myanmar. But, let's stay closer to home: Mr. Ambani's hometown, Mumbai (formerly Bombay), is a huge, sophisticated metropolis in a country that is chronically beset by crushing poverty. According to IndiaOneStop, "India still has the world’s largest number of poor people in a single country. Of its nearly 1 billion inhabitants, an estimated 350-400 million are below the poverty line, 75 per cent of them in the rural areas." The nominal per capita income in India is $1,089.

I know that there will never be exact parity of wealth throughout the world, nor do I even think that's a particularly necessary or worthy goal. I have no problem with exceptional people reaping exceptional rewards (Mr. Ambani inherited his wealth, but that's another issue). However, to paraphrase Stan Lee, I do think that with great wealth comes great responsibility. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, two incredibly wealthy individuals, have given away huge amounts of money through their own charitable foundations (yes, Mr. Gates lives lavishly, but even he didn't spend nearly as much on his house as Mr. Ambani is spending!). Perhaps Mr. Ambani has been generous with his wealth, too, although if he has, it may have been handled privately; a brief review on Google provided no indication of charitable giving.

So, I've been pondering the quirks of fate that lead some of us to be born in favorable or unfavorable circumstances. I've been wondering about the randomness of natural disasters and our vulnerabilities when they strike. But of all these juxtapositions, there's one that I find the most mystifying:

When so many people are so needy, how can anyone build a $2 billion house?

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Juxtapositions: Green Roofs and Water Haulers

Someday in the future, the phrase "green building" will be obsolete. Eventually, the ecologically sound design and construction practices we now label as green will be incorporated into those processes in the same way that running water is automatically expected in today's American homes.

This doesn't mean that all American homes have running water, just that it's expected. But I digress. Read this story or watch this film about Navajo "water haulers" if you'd like to digress with me. After digressing, it's interesting to take a moment to think about how different your life is from these Native Americans who live with minimal possessions and no running water. Provides a little perspective, doesn't it?

But back to the original topic: let's consider one tiny aspect of green building currently available and being well applied in old and new construction: green roofs, i.e., using living plants that cool the building below while also providing beautiful natural environments.

Here are just a few interesting links featuring lovely green roofs:

Take a look at the spectacular green roof in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park at the California Academy of Sciences. The structure uses two million native plants.

Check out Chicago's Green Roofs project. Over two hundred green roofs are scattered across the city, more than any other city in the United States.

Here's a truly fabulous photo gallery of green roofs across the world.

If the green roofs idea excites you, you can find out much more at EcoGeek (good photos, including one of goats grazing on a roof!), the International Green Roof Association and GreenRoofs.

If you know of examples of green roofs in your area, please share them in a comment. Or, if you digressed and now would like to express your thoughts about the value of having running water in your life, please feel free to do that, too.

Then, if you really want to test your thoughtful consumer skills, ponder awhile the odd contradiction of using water to grow plants on the tops of buildings (a worthy idea, I believe) with the simultaneous failure to provide the most basic of needs (an accessible clean water supply) to many thousands of citizens.

No one said being a thoughtful consumer was going to be easy.

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Juxtapositions: Simple Living and Cell Phones

I'm pleased that so many interesting blogs and well-researched books have been devoted to the concepts that living with fewer possessions can be comfortable and rewarding, that not using shopping as a recreational activity saves money and resources, and that the choices we make as consumers have an impact not only on us but on others and our remarkably bounteous planet.

It's also great that there are entertaining and informative films and videos on the general topic of "stuff" that are readily available to view online. For example, take a look at The Story of Stuff, a popular film that's captured the attention of the personal organizing blogger community.

And if Oprah is talking about clutter and devoting show time to the serious problem of hoarding, it surely seems like we must have hit critical mass when it comes to stuff awareness.

Yes, I feel hopeful that we're building a stronger movement in the direction away from the often quoted 1980s pronouncement that "greed is good" (Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko in the film Wall Street, written by Stanley Weiser and Oliver Stone -- must credit the writers!).

However, just when it seems that a corner has been turned and that people are finally getting a little perspective on the difference between want and need, I can count on the LA Times to slap me with a dose of reality. Of course, that's "reality," LA style.

In today's business section (the business section!) there was an article by Kimi Yoshino called, "It's How, Not Whom, You Call," explaining that in Los Angeles, "the cellphone is the ultimate status symbol." Turns out you can make your multi-picture deal (well, not until after the writers' strike is settled) while negotiating on a $1,200 Bang & Olufsen Serene or you can power your way to the top of movie moguldom on a diamond-laden, 18-karat gold GoldVish Illusion for anywhere from $28,000 to $171,550. (In many parts of the country, couldn't $171,550 still buy a condo?)

But in this same business section of the Times, there are reports that Washington Mutual Bank was "hurt by mortgage write-downs," weak holiday sales forced the closure of several retailers, "rising fuel costs and a slumping economy will create conditions ripe for consolidation" among airline companies, the Dow dropped 306 points, and (referring to an article that hit page one of the newspaper) a $100 billion "stimulus package" is being suggested to boost the country's economy, "provided the money was funneled to people who would spend it quickly, according to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke."

Well, if Mr. Bernanke wants to slip me a large enough chunk of that package, I know where I can get a fast deal on a really fine looking cell phone. I just wonder if it will still drop my calls.


© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Juxtapositions: Fashion and Reality

I have fashion on my mind, probably because my new downloadable Amazon Short article entitled, "How to Get Dressed Without Driving Yourself Crazy," is now available on Amazon.com. Please take a look if you do battle with your wardrobe on a regular basis and would like a solution to the problem.

But the larger problems we face as a fashion-crazed society are plaguing me today.

Two articles in the "Image" section of last Sunday's LA Times are worth noting; I also find it worth noting that an entire section of the Times is called "Image." How much more blatant can a newspaper get without simply calling it an advertising supplement?

The first article of note in the "Image" section is "The Mannerist" column in which confused consumers ask questions about their tragic problems with "a burning social woe or a beef about bad behavior in Hollywood." Excluding the common social woes and bad behavior in show biz, such as screaming, insane bosses who throw things at you or, in extreme cases, hold a gun to your head (e.g., Phil Spector); and the awkward lapses that executives and stars have when they are publicly smashed out of their minds on alcohol, loaded with illegal substances or perhaps just carelessly preoccupied while simultaneously driving an automobile, with unfortunate results (search Google or read your favorite gossip rag), there seem to be other questions that warrant taking up space in the dominant newspaper of our major metropolitan area.

The question of the day for The Mannerist: how do you handle a friend who insists on "outing" your fake designer handbag? Dubbed by columnist Monica Corcoran a problem of "counterfetiquette," the ultimate answer is, "I wouldn't admit to a mock croc bogus Birkin unless someone outright asked me whether my purse was born in Paris or China. What concerns me more than your appetite for imitation accessories, however is your taste in acquaintances. If that supposed pal can't keep the copycat in the bag, she's what I call a make-believe friend."

Well, that's Ms. Corcoran's opinion, but let's get back to addressing the faux Birkin. The woman asking the question had paid two thousand dollars for her fake bag, "ordered from Asia." So not only is this poor soul so desperate to own a designer accessory that she'll buy a counterfeit version, she also paid a fortune for it!

It is a bag. The design may be appealing, the leather and manufacturing processes may be of the highest quality (at least on an original), but its function is to carry one's belongings. And yet, this desperate poor soul lives in Hollywood and perceives her choice as simply falling into line as best she can with the "requirement" to be fashionable. How refreshing it would be to find the rare someone who would resist this temptation.

"Dream on," you say. Sad, but true. The next generation of designer product consumers is being groomed, as described in another article by Monica Corcoran in which she interviews photographer Lauren Greenfield. Ms. Greenfield has made a short film entitled "kids + money," which premiered this week at AFI Fest. Once again, Ms. Corcoran, clever word creator, has come up with "kidsumerism" to describe the phenomenon of kids' growing awareness, at an ever earlier age, of designer cachet. However, Ms. Greenfield had some interesting observations, in addition to the obvious disturbing ones we might call to mind:

"One of the things I noticed in East L.A. and South Central [extremely low income parts of town] was the over-the-top consumerism in those areas. The strange thing is that this consumerism is what brings kids together too. One of the kids in the film, Matthew, says that he thinks it's a good thing. It's not about race anymore, he says. It's about money."

Am I the only person who thinks that "it's" almost always still about race, and now it's also about money? Am I the only person who doesn't consider this progress?

As for the pressure on parents, Ms. Greenfield affirms that it is significant. "But we live in a country where our president told us that shopping was our contribution to the world. There are very few of us who are not part of this culture of consumerism and we do pass it along to our kids."

That appalling recommendation to "shop to fight the terrorists" is still one of the most bizarre messages ever to come from the current administration. Surely somewhere others are thinking that something like, oh, education might be more helpful when it comes to figuring out the rest of the world, both friends and foes. Surely somewhere others are concerned that the consumer values that are being passed along to children are flat out wrong.

There are days when I am at a loss for any logical explanation for our society's extreme fascination with defining our worth, as a culture and as individuals, by our ability to purchase what's considered "fashionable." Today, readers, is one of those days!

Now, on to reality. Here are just a few items arbitrarily culled from elsewhere in the news this week: Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is causing great concern, while President Musharaff has declared emergency rule as Benazir Bhutto's supporters become more demonstrative; 58,000 gallons of heavy fuel spilled in San Francisco Bay; the Pope met with the king of Saudi Arabia; apparently Venezuela has become a hub of major crime syndicates; and The Homicide Report by Jill Leovy documents the murders of three young people (ages 14, 19 and 22) here in L.A. County.

No, of course we can't live our lives constantly focusing on the dramatic, even tragic events that unfold around us. An important part of life involves being joyful, grateful, and playful. Fashion can offer that to us. It can be fun (well, so I'm told), it can certainly be artistic, and reality dictates that it can immediately convey financial status to other people.

But does anyone really need to spend two grand to buy a knock-off handbag? I don't think so.

© 2007 Cynthia Friedlob

Juxtapositions: Hurricane Katrina and Leona Helmsley

This is the first in what I fear will be an on-going, occasional series prompted by news that demonstrates the gaping disparity in our country between the lives of the rich and the poor. Sometimes the reports are simply too surreal to withhold comment.

August 29, 2007, marked the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's deadly assault on the Gulf Coast. Some 1800 people in a five state area died as a result of the storm or its aftermath. I can't imagine that anyone who saw the devastation will ever forget it.

Since Katrina, New Orleans has always been the focus of most of the country's attention. It's a romantic city, mysterious, bawdy and spiritual at the same time. The French Quarter escaped destruction by virtue of its fortunate slight elevation so we, as a nation, were spared mourning the tragic loss that would have symbolized. And somehow, if there were still jazz musicians and beignets, we could hold on to our faith that the city would recover.

But much of it hasn't. Journalist Mary Foster observed in her Associated Press article, "The homeless population has almost doubled since the storm, and many of those squat in an estimated 80,000 vacant dwellings. Violent crime is also on the rise, and the National Guard and state troopers still supplement a diminished local police force."

At the groundbreaking for a memorial at a New Orleans cemetery, volunteer re-builder David Kopra from Olympia, Washington, remarked, "The saddest thing I've seen here is that there are thirty human beings who will be buried here one day that nobody ever called about. . . It says something to my heart."

And yet, Mayor A.J. Holloway of Biloxi, Mississippi, offered an optimistic point of view: "God has been good to Biloxi and its people of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. We have a new outlook on life and a new appreciation for what's really important in life. It's not your car or your clothes or your possessions. It's being alive and knowing the importance of family and friends and knowing that we all have a higher power."

While the mostly impoverished residents of the Gulf States struggle to recover their psychological bearings as well as find some way to rebuild the city, physically, and themselves, emotionally, the fate of the late Leona Helmsley's dog is more secure.

For those who don't recall the flamboyant, often vicious hotelier, another AP news report summarizes Ms. Helmsley's life as follows: "[Helmsley] became known as a symbol of 1980s greed and earned the nickname 'the Queen of Mean' after her 1988 indictment and subsequent conviction for tax evasion. One employee had quoted her as snarling, 'Only the little people pay taxes.'"

Ms. Helmsley passed away in early August and left her white Maltese, named Trouble, a $12 million trust fund. In her will, she directed, "When my dog, Trouble, dies, her remains shall be buried next to my remains in the Helmsley mausoleum," where her late husband was also laid to rest in 1997.

True, there were other bequests, including billions of dollars from the sale of personal properties that will fill the coffers of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, which recently donated $25 million to New York Presbyterian Hospital. But Trouble did better than two of Helmsley's grandchildren, who got $5 million each, and two other grandchildren who received nothing at all "for reasons known to them."

Besides being amazed that Ms. Helmsley ended up with such a vast fortune even after she finally paid her taxes, just like "the little people," and besides being stunned that a pooch, no matter how well-loved could end up with twelve million bucks, I have to wonder about how much joy this obscenely rich woman had in her life. I know, I know, it's easy to say, "If I had that much money, you can bet your life I'd be plenty joyful." You get no argument from me.

But I stayed for a few days at the Helmsley Palace during a brief trip to New York in the late 1980s, about a year before Ms. Helmsley faced her legal problems. I remember that the hotel was opulent, yet somehow soulless. I wonder if that was how Ms. Helmsley felt, rich but empty. I wonder if she might have benefited from a little of the spirit that led Mayor Hollaway to make his comments about what's really important in life: family and friends, not possessions.

We understand the larger tragedy that resulted from Hurricane Katrina, but isn't there also something rather tragic about a woman who appears to have cared more for her dog than her family?

© 2007 Cynthia Friedlob