Tears in Tragedy: Remembering Sue Kim Hanson

Several years ago a diverse and eclectic group of bloggers created the 2,996 Project. In this project, one blogger was assigned to prepare a remembrance for each of the victims who died during the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001

It's hard to believe ten years has passed since this horrific tragedy. As I watch television today we seem to remember the event, but the individuals, the quiet lives of the victims are fading into the mist of time. That is the greatest tragedy of all.

Please take time to remember just how frail and how fleeting life really is. Read and remember Sue Kim Hanson.

Sue Kim Hanson
September 11, 2006

A short note appears on the Boston University Medical Campus Calendar Website noting that Jonathan W. Yewdell, M.D., Ph.D., Chief, Cellular Biology Section of the Laboratory of Viral Diseases will be speaking tomorrow, September 11, 2006, on the topic of "Gained in Translation: Generating Viral and Cellular Peptide Antigens from DRiPs."

He is speaking at 4:00 pm in Keefer Auditorium and a Reception in the Wilkins Board Room will follow.

What might be missed by a casual observer is perhaps the most important fact of all. Dr. Yewdell is the guest speaker for the 5th Annual Sue Kim Hanson Lecture In Immunology.

If you noticed this, you might simply assume that Sue Kim Hanson is (or was) some generous benefactor to the University. A lecture named for her to repay her gift.

Or perhaps you would guess that she is (or was) a notable scientist who, at one time or another, taught or studied at Boston University. Someone who should be honored for the advancements she made in Immunology.

And, indeed, all of the above is true. Just not in the way you might expect.

Susan Kim Hanson was one of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack that took the lives of 2,996 souls in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the fields of Pennsylvania.

Sue, her husband Peter, and her two year old daughter Christine were on United Airlines Flight 175 that crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Her daughter Christine was the youngest victim of the September 11th attack.

But the Boston University Lecture Series is not named after Sue Kim Hanson because of the way she died, but because of the way she lived.

Sue was a great scientist in the making. She was a doctoral candidate in micro-biology immunology at Boston University and working on her final thesis. Her work promised to reveal the workings of a chemical believed to regulate immune responses. She had isolated in lab mice a gene suspected of being involved in asthma sufferers and AIDS patients. Her work had the potential to help millions of people.

Susan Kim was one of those wonderful American success stories. A Korean-American, Sue had lived with her grandmother in Korea until she was 6. Her mother died when she was 15 and she was raised by her strict Korean father. Through hard work and discipline, sacrifice, dedication and sheer will power she neared the goal her mother and father and grandmother had hoped she would achieve, her doctorate degree.

Dr. Hardy Kornfeld, Hanson's thesis adviser, said "She was sort of fearless. Sue just took on tasks that were incredibly challenging, and more often than not she was able to make a go at them."

That she would be attracted to the wild and undisciplined Peter Hanson was a great surprise. Three years younger than Sue Kim, Peter gained his education by following The Grateful Dead. Peter believed that the group and its music would become classics, up there with Beethoven, Bach and company, and he tried to sway the opinion of anyone who would listen. Many of our listeners to Wizard Radio would certainly agree with Peter.

But even if Sue wasn't quite convinced about the Dead, she believed in Peter. And her faith was well placed. Peter was, by all accounts, a brilliant software engineer, a great salesman and a wonderful person.

He was passionate about Sue and Sue fell head over heals in love with Peter. She obviously had a great effect on him. Legacy.com has a reprint of a New York Times article about Sue that tells the story:

"The relationship spurred Peter Hanson to clip his tangle of brownish-red dreadlocks, trade in tie-dyed T- shirts for suits, go to business school and become one of the best software salesmen his friends and family had ever met. He was vice president of marketing at TimeTrade in Waltham, Mass."

"Her bond with the Hansons was so strong that they accompanied her to California when she went to inform her father about her engagement. She worried that her father would protest because Peter Hanson was not Korean. But her family embraced the Hansons."

Sue and Peter were married and had a beautiful daughter. Sue continued to pursue her doctoral degree. She was scheduled to defend her thesis in November, 2001.

Taking a last break before finalizing her research and thesis, Sue, Peter and Christine were on their way to visit the Sue's father and grandmother in California, and take Christine to Disneyland, when they boarded United Airlines Flight 175. Peter was one of those who made a final cell phone call to his parents moments before the plane crashed into the south tower.

Sue's friend Mona Pengree writes, "Sue was awarded her PhD posthumously, as her professor finished her work on her behalf. This is a wonderful picture of her, and she shone every bit as brightly in person. Probably more. Her loss was a loss to all mankind."

Sue gave a great deal to Boston University and she gave a great deal to all of us. Her work in immunology inspired her fellow students, faculty and the University to continue her research and finish her thesis. They awarded her a doctorate degree. And they established the Annual Sue Kim Hanson Lecture In Immunology, not just to honor her memory, but to give full credit to her work and the inspiration, the strength and the courage Sue provides to us all.

God bless you Sue... and Peter and Christine and all those who died so tragically five years ago.

God bless.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADDENDUM: Inserted September 11, 2011:

Michelle Malkin wrote this in her syndincated column back in December, 2001, but I had never seen it until today. Christine Hanson SHOULD HAVE BEEN 13 years old this year. In her Christmas column in 2001 Malkin wrote:

"Eight children were murdered on hijacked airliners that crashed on Sept. 11. Christine Hanson, 3, was on United Airlines Flight 175 with her parents. She was on her first trip to Disneyland. Christine was brown-eyed and rosy-cheeked and button-nosed. At family meals, she made everyone stand and hold hands while singing the theme song from Barney. During Christine's funeral, mourners re-enacted the scene, singing:

"I love you, you love me . . ." "

------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned in an earlier entry, there is a wealth of information, tribute and love scattered throughout the Internet in remembrance of Sue Kim Hanson. I owe every contributor who came before me a deep debt of gratitude. Through each of you I have come to know Sue, Peter and Christine. You have touched my heart.

If my Tribute to Susan Kim Hanson here today fell short in any way, I deeply apologize and would love to hear from any of you.

I suggest these following resources from which I have borrowed freely in preparing this tribute:


Remember September 11, 2001

A mother to her son: How could I forget your curiosity and energy? By Eunice Hanson, for The Associated Press

Peter, Sue Kim, and Christine Hanson Memorial Web Site

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Back in 2006, the 2,996 Project asked bloggers to prepare tributes to all who died in the tragic events of September 11th. Many of those blog entries remain on line and many will be reprinted today.

The Littlest Victims of Obamacare

I had hoped, and lobbied hard, to defeat every member of Congress who had voted to pass The Federal Health Care Reform Act, now often referred to as ObamaCare. Sadly while many were defeated, many gained re-election in spite of their complete betrayal of the American public, our health care system and, especially, senior citizens. We can only hope that the revised Congress can repeal parts of this horrendous act and repair other parts.


As Nancy Pelosi had promised, once we passed the bill we are now actually finding out what is in it. And, we are discovering, everything Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama promised about the bill was a lie.

But Michelle Malkin has discovered the ultimate irony. The massive labor union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has lost the very benefit they touted as the major reason for passage, insurance coverage for children. The SEIU paid millions of dollars in hard earned union dues lobbying for this bill. Today, that very same union cancelled all health insurance benefits for children BECAUSE they can no longer afford the price of that insurance under the ObamaCare mandatory guidelines.

READ THE FULL and very tragic STORY AT MICHELLE MALKIN'S BLOG:

Here's a tiny excerpt:

Late last month, the Service Employees International Union informed dues-paying members of its behemoth 1199 affiliate in New York that it was dropping its health care coverage for children. That’s right. A radical leftist union, not an evil Republican corporation, is abandoning the young ‘uns to cut costs.

More than 30,000 low-wage families will be affected, according to The Wall Street Journal. Who’s to blame? SEIU 1199 benefits manager Mitra Behroozi singled out oppressive new state and federal regulations, including the much-ballyhooed Obamacare rule forcing insurers to cover dependents well into their 20s:

“…(N)ew federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” Behroozi explained in an Oct. 22 letter to members. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

"hung for a sheep as well as a lamb"

"I might as well be hanged for a sheep as well as a lamb."

It is simply amazing what you can learn (or re-learn if you are an older student) as you research something on the Internet. Let's take the very famous and often used quote above. A quick search of quotations attributed the quote to Edward Koch (1901-1995) the award winning American Screenwriter. However, Koch only borrowed the phrase.

The Oxford English Dictionary has a quotation from Richardson, "Clarissa" (1748): "In for the lamb, as the saying is, in for the sheep." But, in fact, this quote is probably much older than that.

The origination of the quote stems from old English common law that demanded that thieves of livestock be either executed or deported from England. The law did not differentiate in the age, size or condition of the animal. This law remained in effect until 1800. Therefore, if you were going to be executed anyway, you might as well steal a meaty sheep, with ample wool, as a newborn lamb with little value.

Further and deeper investigation also corrected the grammar from the title phrase I've used today. It turns out it shouldn't by hung, but hanged. I need to thank the website Grammar Girl for this information. For those of us who prefer simple grammar rules to remember, curtains and hung, people are hanged. The link above will explain why this usage is more correct.

Hold on.... we're getting closer to the actual point of this essay.

Yesterday I was forcefully rebuked in the comments section of another blog. Neither the blog name nor the attacker's name matter, especially since I greatly respect them both. The point is that a reply I thought was a humorous jest offended someone who thought I was being a sanctimonious *%!+*/!^#. He was probably right. But I'm no stranger to being attacked or insulted in the blogosphere. I don't get angry and I certainly don't get upset.

Here's where it gets interesting. The fine gentleman who fired the hostile replies at me undoubtedly wanted to hurl the greatest possible insult he could muster. He did use the usual suspects of language and deviate sexual innuendo, but with an unexpected twist. His accusation was that I was unusually devoted to Michelle Malkin.

His insult was, in effect, that I like and respect and quote and recommend Michelle Malkin regularly. Now he didn't actually use any words so polite or kind as "like" or 'respect" or "quote" or "recommend" but you get the drift of his attack.

So, finally, we get to the point of this essay AND the title of this post! While I will object to his deviate sexual undertones, I freely admit that I am absolutely guilty of respecting Michelle Malkin! There, you have it! I'm out of the closet.

I do like and respect and recommend Michelle Malkin. I read her blog daily and have corresponded with her on a few rare occasions. She has always been helpful, honest, respectful and courteous. This, in spite of the fact we often disagree greatly on the most important issues of the day.

So, like the livestock thieves in old England, I'd rather be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. I congratulate Michelle on an absolutely amazing feat. Her brand new book, Culture of Corruption, is NUMBER ONE on the New York Times Bestseller List in its first week of publication. Considering that her book has not been reviewed (favorably of unfavorably) by a single national newspaper, this is simply an amazing grass roots success! Here is Michelle's own blog post about her success: Culture of Corruption hits #1: Thank you!

While I'm not quoting Michelle today, I will pick up a quote she reprinted on her blog. The quote is from Human Events:

Michelle Malkin’s brand new book, Culture of Corruption, will debut at #1 on the NYT Bestseller List on Sunday, August 16. Sources at Regnery Publishing (sister company of Human Events) confirm the book’s #1 ranking, and further confirm that the book, which just launched on July 29, is now in its 4th printing, with more than 300,000 copies.

"I might as well be hanged for a sheep as well as a lamb."

Intelligent Discussions

I've been ranting lately on several blog sites I visit about the distractions and irrelevant demagoguery directed at fringe personalities rather that the real issues than need discussion and civil debate.

Rush Limbaugh is simply never an issue. He has opinions and he has a style. You can disagree with one or the other or both, but he simply is never the issue, Not ever. Discussing Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann might be fun, but they are side players. Read them or watch them, agree or disagree with them and then move on.

There are real issues and thanks to Barack Obama's far reaching vision we will need to become educated and well versed on many issues over the next four years. President Obama will drag us forward, even if we are kicking and screaming, toward the goals he has set for America.

If we are open minded and if we are really willing to learn we can contribute to this future. Once we actually focus on Education, the Environment, Government Regulation, and Health Care we can build a better America and, hopefully, a better world.

I often get really furious at Keith Olbermann. I feel he is intellectually dishonest, at best. But he often has learned guests and he represents a point of view that is shared by millions. He is saying important things, even if he says them badly.

I was out a noon time today, a real rarity for me. Naturally, Rush Limbaugh was on the radio and I listened for an extended period. Rush's comments and points were excellent. He can be snide and sarcastic. He is an easy mark for those on the left who love to copy, edit and paste. But, if you actually listen to him, he is extraordinarily bright and has extremely valid points.

Rush and Keith are simply two of many sources of information. They are not the issues, they have opinions.

For reasons I can only guess, some folks want to make them the center of the debate. People who do that have an agenda and it's not good. They want to limit debate. They want to distract. They want to inflame fears and build a mob mentality.

Despots have taken this approach throughout history. Blame the Jews. Blame the Blacks. Blame the Hispanics, the Irish, the Italians. Blame the Rich. Blame the immigrants. Blame the welfare mothers. Blame Rush Limbaugh.

Beware anyone who doesn't want to discuss the issues.

In the interest of learning and exploring the real issues, I want to CHALLENGE my readers to link over to Michelle Malkin's excellent discussion about Canadian health care, Did Canadacare kill Natasha Richardson? Michelle and other conservatives are already being demagogued to death by the powers that want to stifle debate for talking about Natalie Richardson's death.

By falsely claiming the Michelle and others are "exploiting" Natalie Richardson's death, these folks simply want to end the discussion about health care. That is so wrong on so many levels. Malkin's article is well written and excellent. It is thought provoking. It raises issues that simply MUST be discussed as we all work together toward the much need national health care system.

So don't listen to the people who want to somehow make Malkin the issue instead of Health Care. Malkin is not the issue. Read her article. And find others who actually discuss the real issues.

A Reality Check Courtesy of Michelle Malkin

O.K., can we all come back to earth now? I mean the escalation of abject stupidity is now stratospheric. If we fly any higher we will all singe our wings on the sun and crash in flames to the earth.

No one is soaring higher than Frank Rich, who has never had any ties to the mother earth. He really believes he is a certified genius and the world's most learned student of history and politics. This, of course, has never been true and his flights of fantasy are numerous and far flung.

Often we mere mortals realize he is simply shooting off gas and we ride along for amusement, laughing at him and not with him. But I do tire of his constant effort to explain matters simple beyond his meager comprehension through his use of tired analogies and historically incorrect references. I'll cite an example in a moment, but let me broaden the discussion to other liberal, progressive and left wing narrators of current events.

The (totally false) story today across the blogosphere and main stream media wasteland is that the McCain and Palin devotes are raging out of control and may well explode into full blown revolution. Murder and mayhem are in the offing, if we can believe what we read. Conservatives are, we are told, certifiably insane.

This is all because of a couple of questions poised at John McCain's virtually constant Town Hall Meetings and catcalls during Sarah Palin's mega-rallies. Trust me when I tell you the media had to film and them ignore countless hours of thoughtful questions and great speeches to locate and explode these occasional outbursts.

Then they still had to carefully edit the sloganeering to eliminate the intelligent and calming responses from Senator McCain himself (or "that one" as I prefer to call him).

Enter the Frank Rich's of the world (and his cohorts are legion). Let me actually begin with Paul Krugman writing today in the New York Times (I will get to Rich later, I promise). Krugman is simply terrified as he writes:

“Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage…What happens when Obama is elected? It will be even worse than it was in the Clinton years. For sure there will be crazy accusations, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see some violence.”

Not to be outdone (and to prove beyond a doubt he is an astute student of history and mankind) Franks Rich implies Sarah Palin and John McCain are engaging in behavior that will assure Barack Obama is assassinated. Rich's logic and his inferences are astonishing:

"Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries." ".......what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops." "By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today."

You've just got to love Rich's tossing in the phrase "Wiemar-like rage" to be certain that is brilliantly educated, elite readers understand the Palin and McCain are actually inciting their followers to assassinate someone or everyone of a different race, color or religion.

For those of you who haven't studied pre-World War II history lately, the phrase is used (very often by Rich and many progressive bloggers) to compare the actions of Republicans to the actions of Hitler in inciting mob violence in order to build the Third Reich. Often, in fear that readers might miss the not-so-subtle point , Rich and others simply call their opponents Reich-Wing Republicans. Isn't that clever?

Thank goodness there is someone writing this Sunday who has an ounce of intelligence and a simple sense of balance and perspective. There is someone who can actually look at both sides of the coin. There is someone to provide a "reality check."

Who knew the voice of reason and rational thought would be none other than Michelle Malkin? I hope what I have written above has peaked your interest, because I refuse to spoil one sentence of Malkin's brilliant blog entry by repeating it here. Please just link immediately over to Crush the Obamedia narrative: Look who’s “gripped by insane rage”
After reading Malkin the only word you'll be able to use to describe Frank Rich and his friends is "hypocrite."