Melissa Erin | March 31, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | March 31, 2004
Like Mr. Feinberg, I'm sympathetic to Mrs. Pearl's unique situation, but a line has been drawn concerning the distribution of these funds, and she is on the other side of it. What, she's not getting rich enough from the bestselling book she released about her ordeal and her media appearances to promote it? Frankly, I do not believe that she is struggling to support herself and her toddler son on the life insurance and other compensation her husband's murder would have bought her. As there is a finite (albeit large) amount of money in the fund, it disappoints me that she is trying to gain access to money that was appropriated specifically for someone else in need.

Anna Gregoline | March 31, 2004
Yeah, it's very sad, but I don't think she should be considered for it. First of all, the statute. Second of all, her husband accepted the risks of going where he went. People on 9-11 didn't accept they were possibly going to die in a terrorist attack when they woke up that morning.

Melissa Erin | March 31, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | March 31, 2004
I don't think the Oklahoma City bombing people got money, but I can't be sure. I agree though - where does it end? I'm not even sure that 9-11 victims' families should receive money.

Steve Dunn | March 31, 2004
There are two levels of obscenity here:

1) That the families of waiters and cleaning ladies who died in the World Trade Center become instant millionaires while the families of waiters and cleaning ladies who got hit by trucks that day get jack diddly squat; and

2) That Daniel Pearl's wife is trying to cash in on a program which, while obscene, is clearly not intended for her.

Melissa Erin | March 31, 2004
[hidden by request]

John E Gunter | March 31, 2004
If I remember correctly, the fund was set up to help members of those who died in said attacks. Therefore, Mrs. Pearl's situation, although tragic, isn't part of that fund, so she really shouldn't expect to get any money.

I feel what they should do is take a look at the annual, claimed salary of the individual who died. Then take into account average life span, and cost of living increases for the time that individual will work. Once you have that figure, then you pay that dollar amount out to the family.

Because the fund was set up to help people who's loved ones died in the incident, there is nothing wrong with paying those family members, but why pay a family $5 million if the husband/wife who died would have only made $500,000 during the rest of their working lives. Oh, forgot to say, reduce the amount paid to the family by whatever insurance settlement they got for the death.

To me, that would be fair compensation for the loss. Now, what do you do with the people who got hit by trucks that day, since there is no fund for them, they don't get diddly squat. I know that sounds harsh, but the fund was set up to compensate those who died in the attacks. There's no fund set up for me if I get smashed while going to work, but that's what insurance is for if you properly planned for it.

If I haven't then it's my fault and I haven't provided for my family correctly.

Melissa Erin | March 31, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | March 31, 2004
I think they do look at salary earned during their lifetime, etc. I read an article about the comission a long time ago, and that's why it's taking so long to do, because they are looking at each individual case in this manner.


Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.


Other Discussions Started by Melissa Erin

Mandatory Contraception

[hidden by request] Go »

It's a Boy!

[hidden by request] Go »

Politics at Its Finest...

[hidden by request] Go »

Survivor

[hidden by request] Go »

Bookworm

[hidden by request] Go »