Co-worker was a friend of Ryan Jackson I belive.
Yepper you are an old timmer.
I take back that welcome I extended.
lurker wrote:Rockdad, you're reading the word 'drove' wrong, I think.
I don't recall anyone saying that the passengers wrested control from the terrorists, and then drove the plane into the ground.
And on September 17, 2002, at a school in Nashville, Bush expanded his parable to include the love of freedom: "It’s a lesson of people loving freedom so much and loving their country so much, that they’re willing to drive a plane into the ground to save other people’s lives."
Yet, at the least, there was never any evidence that Flight 93 passengers chose to commit suicide (as opposed to fighting to capture control of the plane from the hijackers).
joel the ornery wrote:Former Illinois Governor George Ryan found guilty.
a little justice for you, DVD.
joel the ornery wrote:Former Illinois Governor George Ryan found guilty.
a little justice for you, DVD.
George Ryan, sterling guy... yeah, right.Mark Brown Chicago Sun-Times wrote:
Willis lawyer: 'It was always about the children'
April 18, 2006
I can't say whether George Ryan will ever feel any personal responsibility for the day the six Willis children died in that horrific 1994 traffic accident, but I'm sure the former governor and secretary of state will always rue the day that the children's parents, Scott and Janet Willis, hired trial lawyer Joseph A. Power Jr. to bring their lawsuit.
In the same way that jurors in the Ryan trial couldn't pick out one witness or piece of evidence Monday that swung their deliberations toward a guilty verdict against the former governor, it would be foolish to try to pick out one person most responsible for bringing about Ryan's downfall.
There are the obvious candidates, such as Patrick Collins, the assistant U.S. attorney who doggedly led the Ryan investigation, and his boss, Patrick Fitzgerald, who backed his play unflinchingly.
Then there are the more obscure choices, such as Tony Berlin, Tammy Sue Raynor and Russell Sonneveld, the secretary of state employees who originally blew the whistle on the licenses-for-bribes scandal.
But I'll bet that Ryan believes, as I do, that if it weren't for Power's determined pursuit of the Willis case, which included finding the whistleblowers and bringing them to the attention of both the public and prosecutors, it's highly unlikely Ryan would have been sitting in federal court Monday to hear Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer announce the jury had found him guilty on all counts.
'It was about accountability'
Despite his key role, Power wasn't in court himself for that dramatic moment. He was on an airplane on his way back from a family weekend getaway. But he returned my call from the baggage claim area at the airport when he arrived Monday evening.
"To my mind, it was always about the children," Power said. "My role was to deal with the six children and get to the bottom of it and find out why they died. It was about accountability."
I have to admit that I've always resisted looking at the Ryan investigation through the prism of the children's deaths. By the time Ryan was indicted, the case against him had grown far beyond that issue, and in the trial, prosecutors were even prohibited from mentioning them by name.
But the fact is that the Ryan case may never have gone as far as it did if the Willis children hadn't been the starting point -- their unwarranted deaths a beacon of moral certainty from which investigators could chart their path in the sometimes murky business of determining right from wrong in Illinois politics.
Wouldn't back down
It was his own moral certainty that caused Power to give me this quote in August 1998, a quote that frankly seemed outrageous at the time: "If George Ryan is a crook, I'd like to find out. ... When I see a guy who is as crooked as he is, I start trying to turn over rocks."
Most of the rest of us didn't know then where the Ryan investigation was headed, and with Power a major donor to Democratic politicians, there was reason to be skeptical of his aggressive approach. Ryan was running for governor at the time, and Ryan's campaign aides tried to cast doubt on Power's motives, even questioning his ethics.
But Power wouldn't back down, even when Democratic politicians friendly with Ryan tried to dissuade him from his tactics, suggesting that a personal injury lawyer would be wiser to leave the investigation of politicians to the feds.
"I'm not the kind of guy who would stick my neck out and say the things that I did if I didn't think they were true," Power said Monday.
I'm not telling you Power was a hero. He would tell you himself that he was just doing his job, a job for which he was undoubtedly well-compensated as his share of the Willises' $100 million court settlement. Power says that if there was a hero of the investigation it was Collins.
Power deserves credit, though, for sticking his neck out far beyond the comfort zone and in the process making himself a political target.
"If I got emotional at times, who wouldn't? There's nothing worse than the way they died," Power said, returning again to the fiery deaths of the six children, who perished when the gas tank of their family van was punctured by a piece of metal that fell from the undercarriage of a truck -- a truck operated by a driver who had bribed his way to an Illinois commercial driver's license.
Calls Ryan 'contributor' to deaths
Power wasn't looking Monday for any I-told-you-so's, although he made sure to point out that the Ryan administration coverup of the investigation into the accident had been an important part of the prosecution's case at trial, even though it could only be referred to as a fatal Wisconsin crash.
I asked Power if he believes Ryan bears responsibility for the deaths of the Willis children.
"He was a contributor to their deaths, absolutely," Power said. "His conduct contributed."
The day that Power first came to that belief was the beginning of the end for George Ryan.

DAVID BROOKS wrote: April 27, 2006
The Death of Multiculturalism
In 1994 multiculturalism was at its high-water mark, and Richard Bernstein wrote "Dictatorship of Virtue," describing its excesses: the campus speech codes, the forced sensitivity training, the purging of dead white males from curriculums, the people who had their careers ruined by dubious charges of racism, sexism and ethnocentrism.
Then two years later, the liberal writer Michael Tomasky published "Left for Dead," which argued that the progressive movement was being ruined by multicultural identity politics. Democrats have lost the ability to talk to Americans collectively, Tomasky wrote, and seem to be a collection of aggrieved out-groups: feminists, blacks, gays and so on.
At the time, Bernstein and Tomasky were lonely voices on the left, and the multiculturalists struck back. For example, Martin Duberman slammed Tomasky's book in The Nation, and defended multiculturalism:
"The radical redefinitions of gender and sexuality that are under discussion in feminist and queer circles contain a potentially transformative challenge to all 'regimes of the normal.' The work of theorists like Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Jeffrey Weeks, Marjorie Garber and Judith Butler represents a deliberate systemic affront to fixed modes of being and patterns of power. They offer brilliant (if not incontrovertible) postulates about such universal matters as the historicity and fluidity of sexual desire, the performative nature of gender, and the multiplicity of impulses, narratives and loyalties that lie within us all."
Duberman insisted that postmodern multicultural theorizing would transform politics, but today his gaseous review reads as if it came from a different era, like an embarrassing glimpse of leisure suits in an old home movie.
That's because over the past few years, multiculturalism has faded away. A different sort of liberalism is taking over the Democratic Party.
Multiculturalism is in decline for a number of reasons. First, the identity groups have ossified. The feminist organizations were hypocritical during the Clinton impeachment scandal, and both fevered and weak during the Roberts and Alito hearings. Meanwhile, the civil rights groups have become stale and uninteresting.
Second, the Democrats have come to understand that they need to pay less attention to minorities and more to the white working class if they ever want to become the majority party again. Third, the intellectual energy on the left is now with the economists. People who write about inequality are more vibrant than people who write about discrimination.
Fourth and most important, 9/11 happened. The attacks aroused feelings of national solidarity, or a longing for national solidarity, that discredited the multiculturalists' tribalism.
Tomasky is now back with an essay in The American Prospect in which he argues that it is time Democrats cohered around a big idea — not diversity, and not individual rights, but the idea of the common good. The Democrats' central themes, Tomasky advises, should be that we're all in this together; we are all part of a larger national project; we all need to make some shared sacrifices and look beyond our narrow self-interest. Tomasky is hoping for a candidate who will ignore the demands of the single-issue groups and argue that all Americans have a stake in reducing economic fragmentation and social division.
Coincidentally, two other liberal writers, John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira, have just finished a long study that comes out in exactly the same place. Surveying mountains of polling data, they conclude that the Democrats' chief problem is that people don't think they stand for anything. Halpin and Teixeira argue that the message voters respond to best is the notion of shared sacrifice for the common good. After years of individualism from right and left, they observe, people are ready for an appeal to citizenship.
Naturally, this approach has weaknesses. Unlike in 1964, most Americans no longer trust government to be the altruistic champion of the common good, even if they wish it could. And while writers and voters talk about the common good, politicians are wired to think about their team. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer will never ask their people to make sacrifices, but until they do, the higher talk of common good will sound like bilge.
Nonetheless, the decline of multiculturalism and the rebirth of liberal American nationalism is a significant event. Democrats are purging the last vestiges of the New Left and returning to the older civic liberalism of the 1950's and early 1960's.
Goodbye, Jesse Jackson. Goodbye, Gloria Steinem. Hello, Harry Truman.
Is there a problem with that? Considering the alternative at the time, Operation Olympic, I have no problem with it.cowboyangel wrote:Harry dropped the 'bomb'