I had seen the newscast last night, right after a long spiel about fund monies being divied up among the survivors of WTC victims. They were hi-liting one family who will get a substantially larger settlement than others based on the deceased's earnings potential (as I understood the bit I saw). I have no problem with them getting a settlement, or the sincerity of their grief and suffering - but Bear's story following made me pauuse and wonder who makes these calls and how can you place one above the other? I realize these were different issues, one being a fund, the other being insurance. However, life deals many great equalizing events, no matter how hard it is to accept. No dog should go untreated, and after settling people's outstanding debts (perhaps?) no one person or family should be deemed to deserve a better financial jump start than another.
Sorry if I got a little off topic, but I felt it related.