Saturday, September 08, 2007

I'm with Leona on this one...

...as far as her leaving 12 million scoots to her dog, that is.

I mean, I never liked the woman. I thought she was simultaneously low-class and arrogant, a perfect example of how wealth can poison one's character. I never found her amusing.

But to those who whine about how her money could have gone to Ending World Hunger, or Curing Diseases, or financing Do-Gooders or spoiling her grandchildren, or any such things, I say: why should it?

I tell you that if I had her money and any of my animals survived me, I would do exactly the same. They would spend the rest of their lives getting the best care millions of dollars could buy.

My Maltese "puppy," Maggie, would occasionally lay teeth on people she didn't like, just like the Helmsley pooch supposedly does. As she was fairly old and didn't have all that many teeth, she never really hurt anyone.

Mainly, she spent her time being my shadow, always ready to play and be entertaining right up until the last day of her 17 years. She was more loving and lovable than a fairly lengthy list of humans who have been in and out of my life.

Would I have given $12 million to ensure her pampered survival? You betcha.

Ditto for Hobbes. But you know that.

Ol' Leona made a lot of enemies. From all I've read, more than a few were in her own family. I'm willing to bet the dog wasn't one of them.

It is said that those who didn't get any bequests are hiring lawyers to snatch the dog's money. I say to hell with 'em. Let them go out and get jobs, like ordinary humans without multimillionaire grandmothers have to do.

I might -- might -- go so far as to say the grand-brats could have what's left after the dog is gone.

No, I take that back. Any leftovers should go to the ASPCA. Screw the bloodsuckers in the family and all the organizations that are salivating over the Helmsley fortune.

May Leona's dog live a long, happy and wealthy life.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dogs rule. Period. That is all I have to say.

Gill

Justfly said...

Good Post. I agree with all of it.

Anonymous said...

Not me. She sounds like a horrid controlling witch. I can't believe she made a sensible decision in her life. I hate to think what hell she put her children through. She is the one who went to jail after claiming taxes were only for "little" people. Any mother who thinks her pet, who I read was regularly allowed to bite the little people, is more important than her own children should not have been allowed to have them.
Joan

Anonymous said...

I agree. Was telling my wife yesterday that we need to get something set up for our "two kids" in the event that something happened to us if we were traveling. I hope that whoever is in charge of Trouble treats him as his/her own child.....loving him unconditionally. A dog will return the same love! mafanlaile

MrScribbler said...

Joan -- My dog chose only to bite the "big people." When she was around kids, she was very easy-going.

I just have this thing for Maltese pooches....

lowandslow said...

To remember special people/children in your will is of course normal. But too much inherited money is evil, and only corrupts. Dogs can't be corrupted. They are pure, true friends. I'd rather leave money to a faithful 4-legged friend than a greedy, lazy relative.

John said...

It was hewr money to leave as she chooses.
Other than that, maybe providing for some care makes sense, but I stick by guns, I value humans above animals, even the animals I have a close bond with.

Obviously not all humans, but I would not go so far as to leave it all to a rabbit or dog or cat. Just enough to make sure they were OK.
Other people always wanted my pets anyway, so they'd have been thrilled to have the animal with or without the cash.