function externalLinks() { if (!document.getElementsByTagName) return; var anchors = document.getElementsByTagName("a"); for (var i=anchors.length-1; i>=0; i--) { var anchor = anchors[i]; if (anchor.href && anchor.href.substr(0,7) == "http://") anchor.target = "_blank"; } } window.onload = externalLinks;


Click to read and review comments.

This story reminds me that while I often feel quite secure in wandering the streets of my native Manhattan, the same would not hold true if I were whisked off to Beijing for the Olympics (even if the official position supports no-dog dining).

BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing has asked hotels and restaurants in the city to take dog meat off the menu for the duration of next month’s Olympics and September’s Paralympics.

Dog is eaten not only by the large Korean community in China’s capital but is also popular in Yunnan and Guizhou restaurants.

A directive from the Beijing Food Safety Office issued last month ordered Olympic contractor hotels not to provide any dishes made with dog meat and said any canine material used in traditional medicated diets must be clearly labeled.

Concerned that canine dishes might offend animal rights groups and Western visitors, Beijing said restaurants expected to be popular among foreign visitors must stop serving dog meat “to respect the dining customs of different countries”.

The directive “advocated” that all restaurants serving dog suspend it during the Olympics but made no mention of the many popular establishments with donkey on the menu.

Criticism from Westerners caused the dog meat-loving South Koreans to ban canine dishes for a period of time during the 1988 Seoul Olympics.

(Reporting by Liu Zhen; Editing by Nick Mulvenney and Jeremy Laurence)

(For more stories visit our multimedia website “Road to Beijing” here; and see our blog at blogs.reuters.com/china)



Click to read and review comments.

This story from The New York Times makes me think we need to update Marcus Aurelius’ observation that we shouldn’t judge someone until after they are dead. Mrs. Helmsley shows that we need to hold off on that judgment until after someone’s estate becomes clear.  Helmsley it seems is a great champion of our kind.

HELMSELY, DOGS’ BEST FRIEND, LEFT THEM BILLIONS
July 2, 2008

By Stephanie Strom

Sure, the hotelier and real estate magnate Leona Helmsley left $12 million in her will to her dog, Trouble. But that, it turns out, is nothing much compared with what other dogs may receive from the charitable trust of Mrs. Helmsley, who died last August.

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.

“The statement is an expression of her wishes that is not necessarily legally binding,” said William Josephson, a lawyer who was the chief of the Charities Bureau in the New York State attorney general’s office from 1999 to 2004.

Still, longstanding laws favor adherence to a donor’s intent, and the mission statement is the only clear expression of Mrs. Helmsley’s charitable intentions. That will make the document difficult for her trustees, as well as the probate court and state charity regulators, to ignore.

The two people who described the statement said Mrs. Helmsley signed it in 2003 to establish goals for the multibillion-dollar trust that would disburse assets after her death.

The first goal was to help indigent people, the second to provide for the care and welfare of dogs. A year later, they said, she deleted the first goal.

Howard J. Rubenstein, a spokesman for the executors of Mrs. Helmsley’s estate, said they did not want to comment on the statement because they were still working to determine the trust’s direction.

Mrs. Helmsley, the widow of Harry B. Helmsley, who built a real estate empire in Manhattan, was best known for her sharp tongue and impatience with humanity. She became a household name when she was featured in glossy advertisements for the Helmsley hotels. “It’s the only palace in the world where the queen stands guard,” advertisements for the Helmsley Palace proclaimed.

But for many Americans, she later became a symbol of unbridled arrogance and belief in entitlement, particularly after she was convicted in 1989 of $1.2 million in federal income tax evasion, for which she was sent to prison. She was the subject of a 1990 television film, “Leona Helmsley: The Queen of Mean,” with Suzanne Pleshette in the title role, and at least three books.

When she died last year at 87, she left all but a few million dollars of her vast estate to what will become one of the nation’s dozen largest foundations when the probate process is finished. She had $2.3 billion in liquid assets when she died, according to the probate petition, and the disposal of her real estate holdings is expected to produce an additional $3 billion to $6 billion.

Even if the resulting total is at the low end of the estimate — $5 billion or so — the trust will be worth almost 10 times the combined assets of all 7,381 animal-related nonprofit groups reporting to the Internal Revenue Service in 2005.

The five executors of her will — Mrs. Helmsley’s brother, Alvin Rosenthal; two of her grandsons, Walter and David Panzirer; her lawyer, Sandor Frankel; and her longtime friend John Codey — have been preoccupied with disposing of the real estate.

They are also the trustees of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and, according to the two people who discussed the mission statement, have fretted about the public outcry that disclosure of its terms might incite.

They have reason for concern: News last year that the biggest named beneficiary in Mrs. Helmsley’s will was Trouble, her Maltese, led to death threats against the dog, which now requires security costing $100,000 a year. But they also cannot sit on the liquid assets much longer without raising questions from the attorney general’s office, which oversees the use of charitable assets in New York State.

The trustees recently hired a philanthropic advisory service to help them figure out a way to remain true to Mrs. Helmsley’s intentions while at the same time pursuing broader charitable goals with her foundation.

Judge Renee R. Roth of Surrogate’s Court in Manhattan will also play a role. She has already demonstrated a willingness to be flexible, cutting the size of Trouble’s trust fund to $2 million, from the $12 million prescribed in Mrs. Helmsley’s will, and ordering that the difference be added to the pending charitable trust.

Judge Roth also agreed to a settlement between the trustees and two of Mrs. Helmsley’s grandchildren who were explicitly left out of her will. The agreement gave those grandchildren $6 million each.

There are many ways the trustees could spend the Helmsley money on dogs. National groups like the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have programs dedicated to dogs, and many smaller local groups rescue abandoned and abused dogs.

Or the trustees could use the trust’s money to finance veterinary schools or research on canine diseases.

Her goal of helping dogs was not Mrs. Helmsley’s only posthumous quirk. In her will, she ordered that her tomb, in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery in Sleepy Hollow, N.Y., be “acid-washed or steam-cleaned” once a year.

She also made two grandchildren’s combined $10 million inheritance contingent on their visiting their father’s grave, requiring that a registration book be placed in the mausoleum to prove that they had shown up.



Click to read and review comments.

Here is an article from a writer in Minneapolis on the consumer excess of the dog industry (40plus billion spent last year).

StarTribune.com

Commentary: Pet excess

June 30, 2008

For about a year now, I’ve been O.D.’ing on dog culture. Not the real kind, the bond between people and pets, but the mushrooming industry that capitalizes on that bond. The one that urges dog owners to dress their pets in tutus and hire canine event planners to advise on beagle birthday parties and Weimaraner “weddings.”

I’ve resisted writing about it because the dog crazies, en masse, can inflict a heck of a biteback. But yet another new pet product has come to my attention and I can no longer be silent.

Bottled water for dogs.

Collars by Coach and coats by Chanel are apparently not enough. Now — just as we humans are being implored to give up water bottled in plastic for the sake of the environment — we are offered Hero Dog Water, which “uses a unique triple-filtered, reverse-osmosis purification process” and is “fortified with a variety of nutrients.” And to go along with that beverage, how about some freshly baked goodies from “The Organic Dog Biscuit Cookbook,” featuring more than 100 recipes (including one for “walnut-crusted salmon”) for dog owners with a whole lot of time on their hands?

According to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, Americans spent $41.2 billion on pets in 2007, and that number is expected to reach $43.4 billion in 2008. No wonder entrepreneurs and copycats nationwide are flocking to the one marketing arena that seems immune to recession.

Let me be clear, I love dogs. I’ve had one for most of my life so far and can’t imagine my home complete without one. I feed my dog, Ice, an 11-year-old Aussie mix, a premium dog food, and have spent thousands of dollars on vet visits over the years when his health was at stake. And one person’s silly, unnecessary pet product or service might be another’s lifesaver.

Take the portable “pup tent” I just bought for Ice. He’ll stand up to stomach-level in the water when we go to a beach, but won’t go swimming. He hates the sun on his back, but won’t leave the side of my chair. Instead, he digs in search of cooler sand under the surface, right under my chair, until it collapses. Over and over.

In generations past, and certainly even now in many corners of the world, this purchase would be seen as a frivolous indulgence. I see it as a problem solved: The SPF 50 shade-providing tent makes us both more relaxed and happy.

But I draw the line at hiring an “expert” to help me throw a fete for the four-legged set. If I can’t figure that out on my own, I should be living in a group home. Besides, I’d like to have a little money left for something way more important to his well-being, like that next trip to the vet.

An article published last month in the Journal of Business Research cited studies that found a “tendency to buy excessively for self relates to spending on one’s pet” and that excessive buyers consider their pets “extensions of themselves” (in some cases, literally — Nicole Richie had hair extensions put into her dog’s coat that matched her own).

Dogs are loyal, beloved companions, not status symbols. They should be thought of and treated as a member of the family, but they are not children — or child substitutes. They do not relish donning costumes (but will tolerate it, if you insist, because they love you). They could not care less whether you throw a party for them; they just want the treats, the attention and the socializing with other dogs. Dogs are a different species, with much simpler motivations than those of humans. Their idea of heaven is a never-ending cycle of eating, belly rubs, going for walks (on which they can drop at least one large pile, then benignly distance themselves as you pick it up) and sleeping.

Every dog should have his day, often. But instead of buying your pooch a designer collar or making all his little friends put on party hats, just take him for a walk in the woods or a park where he can check every tree for nose mail, followed by a bowl of good ol’ tap water, a rawhide bone, a scratch between the ears and a nap.

That’s all he really wants. Really. Money still burning a hole in your pocket? Write a check to the nearest Humane Society.

Kristin Tillotson • 612-673-7046



Click to read and review comments.

This one is just off the police blotter:

Nice Alibi, But No Dog

June 28, 2008

NEW BRITAIN —