Proving that "celebrities" are out of touch with reality- Britney Spears gets married a few months after a 55 hour marriage to some new guy she's been with, what 4, 5, 6 months at the most? Jennifer Lopez who is with a different guy everyday, engaged to ten million people, married to 20 million, married has-been singer, Marc Anthony, and Anthony just dumped his wife after she had their kid...Then again, Britney's "husband" just dumped his ex who just had another one of their kids. You have to constantly ask yourself- what is wrong with these people?
That new series LOST on ABC is odd so far...I don't even get what it's supposed to be about- a regular lost on an island show, or a weird sci-fi show with weird creatures attacking people? They should have advertised the show better...since, it's impossible to tell what type of show it is so far. According to the internet movie database, the pilot is the most expensive ever made, costing $5 million. That is just insane...how 45 mins of tv can cost $5 is just mind boggling.
----------------------------------
Now, call me crazy, but I think it's shameful for a family of someone who died in the Sept 11 terrorist attacks to take federal money- and it's REALLY shameful to take an average of $2.7 million per family...especially after the billions given to charities that were doled out to the families of those who died or were injured. Shameful, because- tragedy shouldn't just automatically make you eligible for money, especially not money funded by the taxpayers who are already looted of much of their pay as it is.
I didn't know much about this, but this is just disgusting. I mean, the attacks were awful, it's sad that people died, but that shouldn't give you the right to suddenly become money-hungry (if you took federal aid and millions in charity- that is the very definition of money-hungry)...and as Jacoby points out- what makes these victims so special? Are the victims in the WTC special for some reason? No. Just as we don't give government handouts of millions to victims of tornadoes or hurriances, we shouldn't have given billions to families who lost loved ones in the attacks. Not only is it NOT the government's job to be doing such a thing, but it's also not fair to other Americans who have died in whatever other situation.
If I lost a family member in the attacks, I surely wouldn't think it my right to accept a dime of the federal money. I think some people are confusing the attacks with a weekly game called the lottery.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHY THE 9/11 FUND WAS A MISTAKE
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 26, 2004
The fund established by Congress to compensate the families of those who died on Sept. 11 closed its books earlier this year. According to Kenneth Feinberg, the special master appointed to administer the fund, all but a handful of the families eligible to apply for an award did so. All told, 2,878 families received tax-free payments averaging nearly $2.1 million apiece. Payments were also made to another 2,675 people, mostly rescue workers, who were injured that day at Ground Zero or the Pentagon.
All told, the government disbursed nearly $7 billion - roughly $1 billion for those who were injured and $6 billion for the families of those who died.
Feinberg, an experienced arbitrator and former chief of staff to Senator Ted Kennedy, has been widely praised for the skill and efficiency with which he administered the fund, and for the sensitivity he brought to the wrenching job of meeting with grieving families and putting a dollar amount to the lives of their loved ones. Those who know him describe him as a man of sincerity, intelligence, and goodwill. So when he says that the federal payout was a "good idea" - as he did during a recent forum at the John F. Kennedy presidential library in Boston - it might seem reasonable to take his word for it.
But the government fund was *not* a good idea. And Feinberg is too honest not to acknowledge its gaping problems.
To begin with, there was the injustice of having the feds bestow multimillion-dollar jackpots on the Sept. 11 families when countless other families struck by tragedy get nothing. Asked at the Boston forum why the death of an employee in the World Trade Center is more deserving of compensation than the death of a hurricane victim in Florida, Feinberg acknowledged that "from the perspective of the victims," it isn't. There was no satisfactory way, he confessed, to answer the letters that came from other shattered families:
"Dear Mr. Feinberg, my son died at Oklahoma City. Where's my check?"
"Dear Mr. Feinberg, my daughter died in the African embassy bombings in 1997 in Kenya. How come I'm not eligible?"
"Dear Mr. Feinberg, my wife died in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, committed by *the very same people.* How come I'm not getting a check?"
"I even got a letter," he recalled, "from somebody who said, 'Mr. Feinberg, my husband last year saved three little girls from drowning in the Mississippi River, and then he went under and drowned: a hero. Where's my check?'"
But the sheer unfairness of the federal fund wasn't the only thing wrong with it. With so much money at stake, the program predictably caused feuds and bad blood.
"You would get situations like this," Feinberg said. " 'Mr. Feinberg, I'm the brother of the victim. Don't let my sister get a nickel. The victim hated his sister, trust me.' Then the sister comes in. 'Is my brother spreading rumors. . .? My [deceased] brother and I loved each other.'
"Or: 'Mr. Feinberg, I'm the biological parent of my son who was killed. Don't you dare give the fiancee any money. That marriage was never going to take place.' Then the fiancee comes in. `We were going to be married on October 11th.' And you go back to the biological parent. 'They were going to be married October 11th. You threw a shower for them. You said you were gaining a daughter, not losing a son.' 'Yeah, but on Sept. 10, my son told me it was off.'"
Then there was the issue of private charity.
Awards from the federal compensation fund were reduced by the amount of any insurance proceeds the families received (in effect punishing the relatives of victims who had been responsible enough to plan ahead). Yet they were not reduced to offset any charity the survivors collected. Which meant, in many cases, that the government ended up paying a fortune to people who had already collected a fortune from private donors. USA Today reported in 2002 that relatives of New York police officers received an average of $929,000 in charitable funds. The families of firefighters and ambulance crews got $1,037,000. Those gifts, too, were tax-free.
An estimated $2.8 billion was donated by millions of Americans following the 9/11 attacks. Billions more came pouring in as in-kind goods and services - everything from food and air travel to financial planning and slots at children's camps. Well before Congress created the federal compensation fund, individual donors and private charities were stepping up to the plate, demonstrating their compassion with the extraordinary generosity that is so often the hallmark of ordinary Americans. There was no reason for the government to get involved.
"When you really look at all the problems you confront with a program like this," Feinberg said in Boston, it's "a fair question whether any of this is a good idea. . . . I don't think people should . . . assume that this is a precedent that we're going to repeat."
Let us hope he's right.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
----------------------------------------------------
I'm reading the book, A MATTER OF CHARACTER: Inside the White House of George W. Bush, and in it, the author talks about how a few celebrities called President Bush stupid because he has a C average for part of his time at Yale. The author, Ronald Kessler, mentions the following:
Cher called Bush "stupid" and "lazy." Martin Sheen said Bush was
a "moron." Actor Larry Hagman called Bush a "sad figure" who was "not too
well educated." Yet if Bush was not an outstanding student, he was in
good company. Bush's record was identical to Franklin Roosevelt's at
Harvard. In fact, nine presidents, including George Washington, Abraham
Lincoln, and Harry S. Truman, never earned a college degree. Moreover,
Cher dropped out of high school; Sheen flunked out of high school,
finally finishing with summer courses; and Hagman dropped out of Bard
College after a year.
Thomad Edison did so poorly in school he was told by his headmaster he
would "never make a success of anything." Albert Einstien could not read
until he was seven. He hated school and dropped out at the age of
fifteen. "You will never amount to anything," one of his teachers told
him...Peter Jennings dropped out of high school at the age of seventeen.
Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, left Harvard after two years...Henry
Ford dropped out of high school at the age of sixteen."
A nice laugh at the Bush-haters thanks to some simple facts. Then again, who in their right mind listens to the opinion of a high school dropout who has made a career of horrible singing in flaky concert tours? Or a radical liberal actor who barely has a career outside of the god-awful West Wing. Or, Hagman- well, I can't name a thing he's done in the past 20 years.
I found this information funny.