Leona Helmsley lets her money go to the dogs

People as diverse as Ann Althouse and Al Mohler are talking about Leona Helmsley. She has apparently let her billions of dollars go to the dogs.

Her instructions, specified in a two-page “mission statement,” are that the entire trust, valued at $5 billion to $8 billion and amounting to virtually all her estate, be used for the care and welfare of dogs, according to two people who have seen the document and who described it on condition of anonymity.

It is by no means clear, however, that all the money will go to dogs. Another provision of the mission statement says Mrs. Helmsley’s trustees may use their discretion in distributing the money, and some lawyers say the statement may not mean much anyway, given that its directions were not incorporated into Mrs. Helmsley’s will or the trust documents.

Helmsley had originally planned for some of the money to "help indigent people," but she changed her mind and decided to give them nothing. Only dogs - no other animals, no plant life, and certainly no human beings - were worthy of her money.

For the theists who visit this blog: Does this story in any way upset or bother you? Why or why not? Are human beings worth more than animals, are animals worth more than human beings, or are animals and human beings of equal value? What makes human beings so special?

For the atheists/agnostics who visit this blog: Does this story in any way upset or bother you? If you think the money should be given to help people, how did you determine that they are more worthy of the money than dogs?

a giving Wal*Mart?

For all the evils that we hear about Wal*Mart, it's nice to see them do some good things.

(red) troubles?

Back in November 2006, I first learned about the (RED) Campaign. This organization, in cooperation with several companies that include Gap, claims to send some of its profits to Africa so that those stricken with AIDS may obtain medicine. From their website:

(RED) is not a charity. It is simply a business model. You buy (RED) stuff. We get the money, buy the pills and distribute them. They take the pills, stay alive, and continue to take care of their families and contribute socially and economically in their communities.

If they don't get the pills, they die. We don't want them to die. We want to give them the pills. And we can. And you can. And it's easy.

All you have to do is upgrade your choice.

I wrote a post about this company, specifically its marketing strategies and the involvement of celebrities such as Bono and Oprah. I was concerned that people may be more focused on buying the products and being perceived as someone who cares about others, rather than being someone who cares about others and doesn't have a need to put on a display.

Advertising Age recently published an article about (RED), claiming that only $18 million has been raised (and upwards of $100 million may have been spent on marketing).

The disproportionate ratio between the marketing outlay and the money raised is drawing concern among nonprofit watchdogs, cause-marketing experts and even executives in the ad business. It threatens to spur a backlash, not just against the Red campaign -- which ambitiously set out to change the cause-marketing model by allowing partners to profit from charity -- but also for the brands involved.

As expected, parodies have sprung up.

The campaign's inherent appeal to conspicuous consumption has spurred a parody by a group of San Francisco designers and artists, who take issue with Bono's rallying cry. "Shopping is not a solution. Buy less. Give more," is the message at buylesscrap.org, which encourages people to give directly to the Global Fund.

"The Red campaign proposes consumption as the cure to the world's evils," said Ben Davis, creative director at Word Pictures Ideas, co-creator of the site. "Can't we just focus on the real solution -- giving money?"

Trent Stamp, president of Charity Navigator, which rates the spending practices of 5,000 nonprofits, said he's concerned about the campaign's impact on the next generation. "The Red campaign can be a good start or it can be a colossal waste of money, and it all depends on whether this edgy, innovative campaign inspires young people to be better citizens or just gives them an excuse to feel good about themselves while they buy an overpriced item they don't really need."

Bobby Shriver, the CEO of (RED), has written a response to the article.

Look at how good I am!

I'm all for doing a good deed, but should it turn into a photo op? Can you really call shopping - even if the proceeds benefit someone else - a good deed when you're getting something tangible - like a shiny red iPod - for yourself?

I'm suddenly thinking of the first four verses of Matthew 6, part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount:

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

I don't necessarily expect Oprah to be aware of this statement by Jesus, but Bono should be since he claims to be a Christian. Bono should know that Jesus isn't saying, "If you're a big rock star, feel free to use your influence,say my name a few times, and talk about how a 'real' follower of Me would take care of the poor. Do it on the red carpet whenever possible!"

Notice this paragraph from the article (underlining is mine):

Some of the media questioned the motives of the celebrities involved — was it more about drawing attention to themselves or the cause? Or is it “cause marketing” at its best, when companies align with charitable campaigns to boost their image? In the end, it’s doesn’t matter. And the brilliance of (RED) is the goods are cool.

Actually - in the end - it does matter. It matters what you do, and it matters what your motives are. Whatever reward Bono may have been seeking, he's already found it.