By faintly mocking with with a "Show her the money" headline, you do a disservice to Mrs. Pearl, and to her husband's memory.

It is unarguable that Danny was a victim of the 9-11 terrorists, individually targeted and executed up close in a most gruesome fashion.

It's fair to argue whether or not the 9-11 fund should be expanded to include the Pearls, since the congressional mandate for the fund is specific to the aircraft attacks on that day.

But why mock Marianne as a money-grubbing widow? Is she any less deserving of respect than the families of WTC victims? Is her anguish any less heartfelt?

Maybe we should mock the whole concept of the victim's fund to get this point accross: If you have children, you should do whatever you can to get life insurance. If your job is especially dangerous and you are well-paid, you have even less of an excuse. If Mr. Pearl had sufficient insurance, then going after $2M more is money-grubbing. The victim's fund should be for those who couldn't afford life insurance.

The victim's fund should be for those who couldn't afford life insurance.

That's not the purpose established for this fund.

The fund was created as part of a $15 billion airline bailout package passed by Congress soon after the attacks. Those who apply for an award from the fund must give up their right to sue the airlines and other entities.

That appears to be the point Mrs. Pearl and her attorney are trying to highlight -- this isn't an insurance fund at all. It's an airline bailout.

It's OK to say she doesn't qualify because he wasn't on the plane. But let's not get dewy-eyed about this fund being anything more than corporate welfare to protect the airlines from being bankrupted by lawsuits.

What about the soldiers who died hunting/fighting Al Qeada in Afghanistan? How about the Pakistani police who died at the hands of Al Qeada?

To keep stretching it, how about the Iraqi civilians who died during the invasion; surely they wouldn't have been killed by American bombs if 9/11 had never happened.

It does get ridiculous. But there must be more going on here then meets the eye.

Great point, Mark. People forget this isn't charity to the victims' survivors, but charity to the corporations.

Now, I am sympathetic to this woman's loss, but surely there's a difference between Daniel Pearl's death -- as a working reporter who chose to go and investigate some very dangerous people -- and the deaths in 9/11? Otherwise, should this fund also be used to pay other victims of Al Qaeda? Say, in Afghanistan, or Indonesia, or Spain? I don't see the connection as strongly as some will make it out to be.

--Kynn

I am also sympathetic to her loss, but I start to lose sympathy when I hear comments (in today's NYT article) that she needs the money to compensate for the loss of her husband's $100K/year salary.

As a single parent myself, I empathize with the desire to ensure her son is provided for, but I don't think that means you seek to maintain the standard of living you've grown accustomed to. Especially in today's economy...

I'll come right out and say that it's ridiculous for Pearl to expect the 9/11 fund to pay her. She's suffered a terrible loss, for sure, but Daniel is no more a victim of 9/11 than any other journalist who has died in the field in Afghanistan or Iraq. The victims of 9/11 are the people who died in those planes and buildings that day. Pearl took a calculated risk to go to Pakistan and interview some really dangerous people. Sadly, the gamble backfired.

If she should be chasing anyone for money it's the WSJ.

Sorry, but her claim is absurd.

Danny Pearl CHOSE to put himself in danger. He CHOSE to leave his pregnant wife behind while he went off to write a newspaper story.

No one in 9/11 terrorist attack chose to be there.

End of story.