TC1

TC2

TC3

TC4

HOME

MY 2 CENTS

01/29/02

There have been MANY issues that compelled me to write since the last entry, but I just have not had the time to do it. I have received numerous emails from liberal terrorist sympathizers, which are almost funny they are so stupid; that I have been planning to put here, with comments, to show what kind of 'Americans' sympathize with the terrorist (just what you would expect!). Then there's Jihad Johnny (just execute the traitor, and use the money saved from the trials, appeals, security, and ultimate prison costs, for airport security). And now we have the bleeding hearts complaining about the conditions of the terrorist detainees. This while American children wake up cold (they are not spending this winter in the Carribean) and hungry (they do not get bagels and cream cheese for breakfast).

But, the reason I am writing today, deals with the greedy family's of the WTC victims. I am not saying they all are, because I'm sure they are not. The ones that are, especially the ones that are the most greedy, however, are the ones making all the noise - so we can't help but hear from them.

Most of the news media just plays right along with them, too. The tales they spin are so weak, yet these 'intelligent' journalists don't pick apart the most obvious flaws in their story, and expose their greed (at the expense of the American taxpayer).

While I don't agree with the scheme to give out the money per se; I simply don't agree with giving them my tax dollars at all. I understand the donations and help they received (I donated myself), and the gesture of making their proceeds tax free (by the president). But, why should these people get a million and a half dollars (or anything) from the US government?

Their first argument is 'we are not really getting that much' (from the US govt). I added the part in the parenthesis, because they ALWAYS leave that part out. What they are saying, is that if they had a well off family, with pensions, social security, LARGE life insurance (and various death and disability) policies, they are getting more than 1.6 million already, and therefore the fund has deducted all that out, so gives them nothing. Why should our tax dollars give them anything anyway? I can understand helping their families survive, but those cases are already surviving pretty well anyway (certainly much better than most Americans). You can also bet that out of the families getting 'nothing', that many of them are receiving MUCH more than 1.6 million from their 'other' sources. 

Additionally, these people like to slip simple math by us (they seem to easily slip it by most journalists interviewing them). The fund is 4 BILLION dollars, and there are less than 3,000 deaths. Get out a calculator. Then, they are quoting all those people who are getting 'nothing' from the US govt. Now how many people are splitting up that 4 BILLION dollars? 2500? 2000? That is one HELL of a lot of money to give out for NO reason. Yet they keep insisting they are not getting all that much. The spin the greedy families try to apply is so weak I don't understand how anyone could fall for it.

Next, they keep insisting this keeps them from suing. IT DOES NOT! They have the choice to sue, or take the FREE money (from us taxpayers). I watched one young guy on TV (who lost his brother - I feel terrible for him, but gee, that usually doesn't make a big impact on your personal finances! I can understand a little more of a non-working wife with small children..) who said "this makes it so we can't sue, and we could get a LOT more money if we sue". The commentator said, 'well, can't you sue instead of taking the money'? He said, well, yeah, but that would take a long time, get dragged out in the courts, we'd have to win, then we'd have to survive the appeals, the totals could get cut down, and we'd have to give a lot to the lawyers. We could possibly get much less, or nothing at all'. So the commentator asked again, 'So isn't getting the free 1.6 million a better deal?'. To which he replied (just seconds after stating he could get less or nothing and have to wait forever) "No, the 1.6 is not a better deal, because if we were allowed to sue, we would get a lot more". The commentator didn't have to push any further, it was obvious what was on this person's mind.

Next, is this insistence that they deserve to go after the responsible parties for their loved ones deaths, which is why they should be able to sue the airlines. THE AIRLINES? If Mr. Bin Laden took a bus to your house, and killed your wife and kids; BUT, you know you can't sue Osama because you couldn't find him, do you now sue the bus lines, because they brought him there? What about U-Haul for 'transporting' the bomb to Oklahoma? Shouldn't they be screening people who rent their trucks a lot more carefully? How about suing Ford, for making the Bronco that OJ drove? (can't just go selling Bronco's to anybody!) Couldn't you just as easily make the case that the WTC itself had lax security, because it didn't provide manned anti-aircraft missiles on the roof? I know this country is sue happy, and it is ridiculous, but c'mon, folks, that is absurd. If an engine fell off due to lax maintenance, it would be the airlines fault, and you could justifiably sue. When a terrorist act, or actually an act of war happens, by people willing to give their lives, which could have come in any number of different forms, it is NOT the airlines fault. Can we always protect against ANY form of attack at any time? Of course not, even if we cut our personal freedoms by 90%. 

Furthermore, while I agree security is lax on the airlines, it is the way it is because that is the way we Americans want it. We don't want long lines, we don't want profiling, we don't want to lose any of our personal liberties or freedoms. The system is the way we made it. If a politician tried to tighten up certain aspects of our lives for security purposes, the damn ACLU would bring them to court immediately, and the liberals in this country would have him voted right out of office. Things may change somewhat now (to a small degree), but we are not ready to give up our liberties. And you can be sure that the ones we do give up now, will be challenged in court again and again.

No, I'm sorry, the airlines (and the US government) are doing what we have told them. You can be sure they would much rather have tight security and profiling (it sure costs a lot to lose a plane), but the American people (so far) have not, or would not stand for it. We are so quick to blame them, yet we are not willing to give up what it would take to prevent this.

We also like to blame money, and say that's why they do not increase security. No, its our love of personal freedom. Money, however, would help. These detection machines are very expensive, and most airports do not yet have them. If these greedy people really wanted what is best and most fair and positive for America's future (rather than their own personal stock funds), I'll bet that 4 BILLION dollars would go a long way towards making our airports safer!

Also, we are entering really dangerous territory with precedent here. What would happen if a 'dirty bomb' wiped out a 250,000 person city? If we do this now, would we be obligated to give the families of all 250,000 1.6 million dollars? Again, simple math says this would not, could not happen. Does this make the WTC victims SO much more valuable than a possible subsequent attack, if that happens to involve more people than we can afford?

Next is the fact that each life should be worth the same. They don't want deductions. Well, that is true. Each life IS worth the same. And my heartfelt sympathies go out to each and every family touched by this devastating tragedy. However, in the grand scheme of things, my own life (and each and every other taxpayer in the country) owes more to those who GAVE their lives to make this a safer world to live. We have young Americans putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan, some who have given their lives, to help rid the world of this kind of terror. What do they get when they lose their lives? Do we take into account their IQ and earning power? What about a 22 year old kid, who would possibly spend the rest of his life after completing his tour of duty, as a $500/hour lawyer? Do we give him more than the inner city kid next to him that may not seem too bright or show much potential, but is loyal enough to risk his life for his country's freedom? NO, of course not. So why would we give any of these people from the WTC ANY more than those giving their lives for our country and freedoms? The answer is easy, we SHOULDN'T. Technically, of course, we shouldn't even give them as much (if anything). Furthermore, most (all?) of these kids in the service don't have 2 million dollar life insurance policies, and layers and layers of benefits. Some do have kids, though.

We all could die at any moment, and if our family needs 6 figures yearly to live in its current standard, we have 2 choices. Either provide enough so they can continue living that way in our absence, or accept the fact that they will have to lower their standards of living. Don't try to sue and stick your hand out, taking OUR hard earned tax dollars, making us poorer, so you can live free and easy. I feel for your tragedy. I have experienced deaths in my family, also (as have most people on this earth). It is hard, it is terrible, it brings a lot of grief. No one gave me over a million dollars. As a matter of fact, no one gave me anything. I'm sure that the same holds for 99% of all Americans. Feel your grief, not your greed.

Comments can be sent to mike@operation-infinitejustice.org

BACK