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.

Unintended Consequences

In spite of what I hear frequently from Conservatives, and often from Liberals, it is extremely rare for anyone in government to set out to do bad things. Neither the "opposition" nor the President is out to "destroy the country." Tweeting it in all CAPS doesn't make it true.

In fact most politicians genuinely want to make things better, at least for the folks who elected them.

So why do we keep hearing the name calling and, often, outright hatred of the so-called "opposition?" To put it simply the philosophical differences between Liberals and Conservatives are sometimes so vast they prohibit common understanding.

Most disputes arise from Liberals belief that business, especially corporations, cannot be trusted, must be regulated, and must be prevented from exploiting both the consumer and the laborer.

Conservatives believe, on the other hand, that Government, especially the Federal Government, cannot be trusted, must be minimized, and must be prevented from exploiting both the consumer and the laborer.

In short Liberals trust the government, conservatives trust the free market.

One of the most obvious laws that has arisen from Liberal's fear of corporations is the demand for competitive bidding on most government projects. These are good laws and good practice. Conservatives agree because corporations themselves engage in competitive bidding. This is exactly as it should be as it saves the taxpayers money and insures fair and open competition.

But here's where Conservatives and Liberals part. While Liberals DEMAND competitive bidding for contracts, the Liberal fear of corporate exploitation actually creates another unbreakable monopoly, fixes prices, stifles competition and insures gross overpayment in another area of commerce: Labor or workers wages. Today thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have "prevailing wage" laws, backed by the depression era Federal Law known as the Davis-Bacon Act. Curiously these laws do not insure workers are paid the actual prevailing wage, but that they are paid significantly more. Instead of looking to the private sector, "prevailing wage "rates are dictated by unelected government boards of bureaucrats, often stacked with union members. These laws only affect wages paid for government contracts and government projects.

Davis-Bacon is a sacred cow among Liberals and especially unions. Every election every effort is made to protect "prevailing wage" laws and Davis-Bacon itself. How else can we Liberals protect the lowly laborers from the evil corporations?

A little history of Davis-Bacon is in order here. Although the law is a child of The Great Depression, it wasn't written or enacted by President Roosevelt and The New Deal Democrats. Instead it was authored by Republican Senator James Bacon of Pennsylvania and Republican Representative Robert Davis of New York and it was signed into law by Republican President Herbert Hoover. Worse yet it was one of the most blatantly racist laws passed by Congress since the end of the Civil War. It's primary purpose was to prevent blacks from working on government projects and to insure skilled trade unions would remain mostly white. Bacon, Davis and others feared an influx of black laborers from the south would stream into the north, willing to work for much less than the white natives. [Does any of this sound vaguely familiar to the current illegal immigration fears being debated in Congress today?]

The law was so distasteful that Congress defeated it for fourteen straight years. But Davis and Bacon reintroduced it in each new session of Congress. The Depression gave Davis-Bacon new life. Hoover believed that the depression might end if we could just raise workers wages. He agreed to lend his support the bill. As The Great Depression deepened, Congress was willing to try anything and finally passed the bill. It certainly didn't save Hoover's job as he was defeated later that year.

As often is the case, the law now has the exact reverse effect from what was originally intended. This morning on National Public Radio's Morning Edition we had this stunning example of the law's failure in Washington State:

A state law that's been on the books for more than a half-century requires Washington companies to pay their workers a prevailing wage — or an hourly rate set by the government — on state-funded projects.

But as Precision's Leighton explains, companies in states like Idaho and Utah, which don't have prevailing wage laws, can pay their workers less.

"It puts us at such a disadvantage," he says. "There could be a project right out on our backdoor out here that I can't get because a company in Utah gets such a competitive advantage by not having to pay these rates."

Prevailing wage rules were put in place so workers would get a living wage, but on a job like this one, Leighton says the difference could be $10 an hour per worker.

State Sen. Steve Conway, a Democrat, agrees that the rules can make it difficult to compete against out-of-state firms.

"It does have unintended consequences," he says. "We need to figure out a solution to this."

For now, at least, Precision is likely to bid on fewer state-funded projects, and that means fewer choices and chances to win large contracts close to home. The company is now looking for projects in places like Alaska and Guam.

A law originally intended to protect local workers instead costs local workers their jobs. And the law also causes the government to overpay for their projects, when compared with similar projects completed in the private sector.

Why is The Drudge Report the Single Most Important News Site?

This morning The Drudge Report is trumpeting a study that has determined that the Drudge website DRIVES MORE TRAFFIC than Twitter and Facebook combined!!

The same study by The Outbrain Publisher Network also confirms that Drudge drives more traffic than CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times or The Huffington Post. In fact only the three major search engines, Google, Yahoo and Bing! drive more traffic.

And Drudge is getting more powerful. The report indicates that both his traffic and his referrals are growing. Because of that Drudge, with just two employees aiding the eccentric Matt Drudge, is also increasingly influential. By his simple choice of stories and his paraphrasing of headlines, he becomes an opinion maker!

Because I work in the Internet Industry I am surrounded by "experts," including some of my own employees, who dismiss, criticize and even ridicule the outdated, simplistic, format of the website. To listen to these "experts" it's even a mortal sin to actually use Time New Roman as a font.

"Where's the flash? Where's the javascript? Where's the big pictures, maps, head shots, video, or audio? Where is the comment's section to "engage the loyal readers?" Where is the sacred "Like" button for Facebook? Or even a little "ReTweet" link? The site is circa 1990. It's an embarrassment to the profession of Web Design!!"

So why IS Drudge the premier News site? Actually it's because of all the reasons listed in the two paragraphs of criticism listed above. By eliminating all the add-ons and busy distractions, Drudge presents, in a quick glance, every single important news story of the day.

To be certain, Drudge has a keen instinct for the news that matters. And his super-quick updates often mean he has the important news first (at least before the other aggregation sires).

Most importantly you never need to dig to find a story. It's all on one page. By concentrating on political news, world news and business news, he covers the core of the news. Everyone is content to move on over to Entertainment Weekly or The Sporting News to get the non-essential stories of the day.

Finally, Drudge has enough tabloid flair to amuse the reader and keep the site compelling. If I'm honest the MSNBC, FOX and CNN websites are just as boring as hell. The news isn't there, it's on page whatever. And the home page puts you to sleep, even on a big news day.

So, even as a liberal, I turn to Drudge first, at least 6 or 7 times every day. It literally takes one minute to get up to date on important events.

The Drudge Report ain't broke. Thank god he hasn't tried to fix it.

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

Here's another short analysis from several months ago that draws the same conclusions: The Incredible Drudge Report You'll note I borrowed their artwork for my blog entry today.

Not One Ounce of Moral Courage

The bashing of the Tea Party by angry and frustrated Democrats continued this afternoon as the House prepared to vote on raising the nation’s debt limit combined with a smidgen of possible future spending cutbacks. It's all theater for a gullible audience. And it's all pure bullshit.

I am an unabashed liberal and Democrat, but I have no sympathy for the Congresspersons or Vice President Biden who remain incapable of telling the truth. As I stated in my last entry, any 2nd grader who has learned to add and subtract can quickly figure out that 375 is greater than 60.

Today's classroom Dunce Award must be shared by Representative Mike Doyle and Vice President Joe Biden who can't figure out this simple math. Both are screaming at the top of their lungs to any passing television or radio reporter that "The Tea Partiers are Terrorists".

If there even are 60 of the so-called Tea Party Terrorists, it would only take about 40 Democrats with a single ounce of moral courage to walk across the aisle and negate their power. The small, yet courageous, Tea Party Caucus has only the power to provide cover for the very large, yet very cowardly, Democrat Party.

You see the Democrats blame the Tea Party for being unwilling to do EXACTLY what the entire Democrat Party was unwilling to do: bend their principles to negotiate in good faith an end to this crisis. What Vice President Biden and Mike Doyle wanted was for the Republicans to pass a balanced and moderate bill, all by themselves, without a single Democrat vote. The bill was always there, within Democrats grasp, if they came to the table and compromised. Dems could have frozen the tea party out. But they didn't.

Now, to be certain, the Tea Party did win emerge victorious. At least a little. But it was always a David versus Goliath battle. The Dems were Goliath, afraid to ever use their size and strength. The Tea Party never even had to unholster their slingshot. Goliath was hiding under the table and never entered the field of battle.

Maybe next year, in the few districts we still control, we Democrats can vote with people with the same level of courage as the Tea Partiers.

The Myth of the Tea Party

I like and I admire Thomas Friedman. And I certainly like and greatly admire former President George H.W. Bush. But Friedman's Op-Ed in today's New York Times, "Bring Back Poppy," may be the most stunningly stupid article I've ever read.

Friedman's error certainly wasn't his praise for former President H.W. Bush. His comments about Bush were spot on correct. Instead his fatal lapse into stupefying moronic idiocy was to somehow give total credit to about 60 neophyte Congresspersons for blocking common sense Tax and Spending reform. Somehow, amazingly, Friedman forgot there are 200 Democrat Congresspersons, not to mention 150 or so mainstream Republican Congresspersons, that could have stopped this madness at any time.

It's convenient and maybe even fun to blame the 60ish Tea Party Republicans for events they had absolutely ZERO control over. But you have to pretend that the entire Democrat caucus and their leader, Nancy Pelosi, don't exist or have forgotten how to vote. In reality it is the Democrats and the huge majority of Republicans that Speaker John Boehner DOES CONTROL, that have forgotten how to compromise. One tiny drop of real bipartisanship by the supposedly reasonable 365 members of the House and this all ends.

If Boehner and Pelosi were actually willing to do their jobs the Tea Party would be the irrelevant minority caucus that they really are.

What's happening here is that the Democrats have cleverly used the Tea Party as cover for their own failure. And Thomas Friedman and most of the mainstream media have fallen for the ruse.

Cost of Livin'

The battling political armies in Washington D.C.seem to have no idea what is really going on all across America. To the Republicans and Democrats it's just who gets the political advantage..... who scores the most points with voters..... who can garner the higher poll numbers.

Washington is fiddling while America burns.

Ronnie Dunn's powerful new song, "Cost of Livin'" strikes a chord with many Americans.



Here's an interesting anecdote sent to me by "Evan" in response to a Tweet I'd written:

"I heard an interesting interview with Ronnie Dunn about that song."

"When Dunn bought that song in 2008, he really liked it and wanted to put it on his record, but the producers told him that by the time they could get it recorded and released, the recession would be over and the song wouldn't have much meaning."

"Here it is 2011 and it's as relevant as ever."

"The only difference... When the song was originally written, the line was "two dollars and change at the pump . . ."

"And he has also recorded a "four dollars and change at the pump . . ." version that he hopes won't be released."

A Cloud of Doom

No Deal: Debt Ceiling Talks Between Obama, Boehner Break Down

"Boehner sent a letter to his Republican colleagues explaining his decision to pull out of talks for a "grand bargain." Here are some highlights:

"It has become evident that the White House is not serious about ending the spending binge that is destroying jobs and endangering our children's future," he wrote, adding, "A deal was never reached, and was never really close."

"The president is emphatic that taxes have to be raised. ... The president is emphatic that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs," Boehner wrote."

"For these reasons, I have decided to end discussions with the White House and begin conversations with the leaders in the Senate in an effort to find a path forward.""

President Obama lacks the intellectual capacity to deal with this disaster. He has no vision, no plan, no ideas and a massive ego. Is ego an impeachable defect?

Peggy Noonan, long one of the President's biggest supporters and cheerleaders has had enough. She write for all America today when she says "Out of the Way, Please, Mr. President." You can read her entire essay here: The Wall Street Journal

A Glimmer of Hope

Perhaps I was wrong. Representative John Boehner might just turn out to be President Obama's Tip O'Neil. If so, we are fortunate, indeed. Compromise and strong leadership are needed right now from both President Obama and Speaker Boehner.

Here's the Glimmer: The New York Times: Obama and Boehner Close to Major Deal, Leaders Told

"The Obama administration has informed Democratic Congressional leaders that President Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner were starting to close in on a major budget deal that would enact substantial spending cuts and seek future revenues through a tax overhaul, Congressional officials said Thursday."

Read the entire article and say a little prayer of thanks that Nancy Pelosi is no longer Speaker.

Sloganeering While America Burns

"The Republicans and Democrats should get in a room until they fix it. Instead, they seem to be sloganeering at each other.... And it's not helpful. And it's really, I think, starting to wear on the American people. It's time for them to stand up, and go in, and be adults and fix the problem."

"[President Obama], you're elected executive to lead. And I think it's incumbent on the president to put the plan out there. You cannot wait for members of a legislative body to lead. The executive has an obligation to lead."

---- New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

Political Parties Are Our Biggest Enemy

I'll admit that Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) is an idiot, but that is quite beside the point. Still, by making one of the most absurd speeches on record, she illustrates just how totally dysfunctional our two party system has become.

Jackson Lee said: "I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president — only this one, only this one — has received the kind of attacks and disagreement and inability to work, only this one."

Then Jackson Lee decided to jump completely off the cliff: "Read between the lines. What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment?"

Here is EXACTLY WHY Jackson Lee is wrong. During the last (ultimately successful) attempt to raise the dept ceiling during the tenure of President George W. Bush, NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT SENATOR VOTED TO INCREASE THE DEBT CEILING. EVERY DEMOCRAT VOTED AGAINST THE BILL TO, as Sheila Jackson Lee so eloquently put it, "raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment."

So, in spite of Jackson Lee's faulty memory, Barack Obama is, in fact, being treated exactly the same way President Bush was treated. It could be argued Obama is being treated with more respect.

This entire Washington debate is just bullshit! If you are against raising the debt limit, you should hold fast to that position. If you believe it is necessary, you should support it. Period. False rhetoric,, race baiting (as Jackson Lee just engaged in), and political posturing should be stopped.

If the political parties would get out of the way we might actually get something done in this country.

- - - - - - - - - -

No doubt I'll get replies stating "Well, the Republicans did it, too." YES! THAT IS, OF COURSE, EXACTLY MY POINT!

Alas, All For Nothing

I'll make a safe prediction this evening (5:30 pm CDT, July 14, 2011). Republicans will emerge from the debt ceiling increase/budget cut debates with absolutely nothing. The nation's Debt Ceiling will be raised significantly and there will be no budget cuts of any importance made.

In other words, America loses.

The reality is that the Republicans always had a losing hand. And they played it horribly with arrogance and stupidity. Anyone hoping to save our nation had to sit back in absolute horror as Representative Eric Cantor displayed ignorance and arrogance simultaneously.

The Republican position was untenable. Tax increases, or as the Democrats misleadingly describe them, "Revenue Enhancements" are inevitable. Had the Republicans not overplayed their weak hand, they might have engineered a significant budget cut in exchange for modest "revenue enhancements."

Instead we Americans get placed on the bus, with no brakes and no driver, down a slippery slope and a deep cliff. Look out below.

In the end, the Debt Ceiling WILL BE RAISED. There was never any doubt. How Eric Cantor or any Republican thought they could hold the government and American People captive is beyond imagination.

I don't look for anything to improve. President Obama is unbeatable (at this time, at least). And, while he's gotten pretty good at his job at his day job, he lacks any vision of the future and lacks any political power to push needed changes through Congress.

All we've accomplished is insuring that true and full government default will happen around 2016. Kiss your nation goodbye.

Bill Maher versus Mark Halperin, Heroes versus Villains

There are times when the media's double standard concerning liberals (or, more correctly, progressives) versus conservatives is simply stunning. And there has perhaps never been a better example than yesterday's instantanious suspension of pundit Mark Halperin from the MSNBC lineup for his inartful act of calling President Obama a "dick."

Within a few hours of Halperin's remark on the Morning Joe program, Halperin was gone, suspended indefinitely. MSNBC quickly issued an apology to their audience and President Obama. Halperin quickly followed suiit, falling on his sword, even going so far as to say MSNBC did the right thing in suspending him.

My purpose in writing this isn't to defend Halperin. Nor is it to condemn MSNBC. MSNBC has made several moves recently to raise the level of discourse on their network including a recent one week suspension of Ed Schultz for calling Luara Ingram a "slut."

None-the-less a gigantic double standard exists in the treatment of conservatives, especially at MSNBC. It was only six weeks ago that HBO's political superstar Bill Maher created a small firestorm by calling conservative Vice Presidential candidate and former Governor Sarah Palin a "dumb twat." Maher went on to double down with his blatant misogyny by calling Palin a "cunt."

Far from being condemned, Maher was defended by virtually all mainstream and leftwing pundits, because he is "only a comedian, not a news commentator or journalist.". Only that's simply not true. The REAL REASON Maher was defended is the mainstream powers that they all actually agreed with him.

Far from condemning Maher for his vile and blatant misogyny, Maher was "rewarded" with a full 30 minute guest spot on Chris Matthew's Hardball just two days after his sick remarks. For a half hour Matthews fawned over Maher as they discussed and "analyzed" the political events of the week. Matthews certainly never asked a single "hardball" question and simply looked to Maher for support and agreement as he dismantled each Republican candidate for President. Neither the "T" nor "C" words were ever used or discussed.

Maher is a regular visitor and guest on all MSNBC programs because he is in lockstep agreement with their generally progressive views.

But here is the bottom line. Use a mildly profane term to define a liberal, get suspended indefinitely. Use two significantly worse (but similar) term to define a conservative, get a full and featured 30 minutes on a major MSNBC program.