R002342
Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:14 AM
thinking equitably
No one asked me if I were gay when I sent in my contribution to the fund.
Somehow, we were all Americans then, equally attacked, responding in kind.
Why did you not more simply think through the central question from the very
beginning: "Who will now be in financial difficulty due to the attacks on
the WTC?" and set up various categories to cover spouses, dependents,
roommates, business partners, etc. all just in order to minimize the effects
of these attacks on all of us, and thereby help defeat those who would bring
us down? Each category could then carry different parameters of proving
need. Why is a federal/ national program necessarily subject to various
state laws? Are there not rather well-to-do persons receiving substantial
payments for broadly termed loss and grief? Too much of the response to
this attack on us seems to mirror the kind of thoughtless lack of useful
intelligence that made us such an easy target to begin with. One might even
go so far as to say that by making yourselves hostages to certain states'
laws, you are aligned with the same kind of hatefully moralistic,
anti-modern thinking that typifies the terrorists. Perhaps I should
discontinue sending any more money to the various charities that go to human
beings, and only fund those that help animals. Animals, at least, treat me
kindly.
Individual Comment
Chicago, IL