Phillip Seymour Hoffman's legacy has some merit
IT SEEMS the late actor Philip Seymour Hoffman was conscious of the pitfalls of spoiling his children.
It emerged that of his estimated $37 million fortune, Hoffman decided not to pass any of it directly onto his three children, instead leaving it to his long-time partner and the mother of the children, Mimi O'Donnell.
Nobody likes a brat who inherited millions from mum and dad - just look at Paris Hilton - and I guess Hoffman was determined to see that his offspring didn't receive a poisoned chalice.
It was reported this week that Hoffman stressed that he didn't want to set up funds for the kids, telling his accountant he "did not want his children to be considered trust fund kids".
It seems Hoffman was adamant that his offspring not grow into the lazy, talentless subjects of some depressing reality television show, lest they find a way to make a name for themselves first.
I have to agree with this school of thought.
My mind turns to what I would have done at age 18 had I been given, say, one 10th of Hoffman's fortune as a high school graduation present.
I can easily imagine myself turning into some kind of terminally unemployable, alcohol and drug-crazed psychotic within about three weeks.
Half my money would have been spent on luxury vehicles and boats, firearms and exotic fauna within six months, and the remainder would be required for my ongoing, in-house treatment at one of those swanky clinics for the substance-abusing children of famous people.
ALSO ONLINE TODAY ...
Buzzwords can lead to strife
CORPORATE types are great at coming up with buzzwords that have, at best, only a tenuous link to the English language.
In the past decade you may have noticed that every service has become a "solution" to a problem you've never experienced, while "action" has become a verb instead of a noun - "Yes chief, I will action that coffee solution for you".
Marketing people like to see themselves as pioneers, which is why they feel the need to try to invent new words, like a severely brain-damaged version of Shakespeare.
While this type of jargon can be annoying, it can also amount to a form of deception.
Woolworths got into strife this week for referring to a "banking" service on its website - even though it doesn't have a banking licence and was actually referring to the credit card business.
"Yes sir, feel free to go nuts with your credit card. Your debt to us is as safe as a bank."