Bush may fall afoul of the law of unintended consequences

Not that anyone has noticed, but we are in a humdinger of a constitutional crisis. For those of you who did not spend part of your college years glued to a television in the Student Union watching the Irvin Committee hearings, and reading the Washington Post, a constitutional crisis is when the President of the United States decides to forget about the Constitution he has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend.”

Constitutional contretemps pepper the pages of our history. They only become crises when the president acts without popular support. And President Bush’s contentions that he can direct the National Security Agency to spy on whomever it pleases, that secret prisons, torture, and suspension of habeas corpus for American citizens are all acceptable weapons in the war on terrorism have very little support, in Congress or in the general population. Hence, the crisis.

John Dean’s assertion that the President admitted to an impeachable offense when he said he had approved unwarranted eavesdropping on communication in which at least one of the communicants was outside the country has not gained a lot of traction, but now that it has been revealed that no such niceties have been observed and the NSA has listened in on thousands of Americans talking within the country, we have the more lethal error, an attempted cover-up.

That, combined with the lame justification for unwarranted intrusions upon our privacy offered by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and the President stands more exposed than anyone since Richard Nixon. Gonzales’s justification is that the Justice Department’s case was too weak to justify a warrant. This is justice by witchcraft, not by law. What’s next? Smelling out malefactors, or submitting them to the water test in which the innocent float while the guilty sink?

There are some short-sighted people about who say, “so what? I have nothing to hide. Why should I care if the government listens in on my conversations?” If that is as far as it goes, I would be tempted to agree. But, consider this to be a slippery slope. If the president and NSA are allowed to listen in on anybody, how long will it be before law enforcement agencies from the FBI to the local constable feel justified in doing the same thing? And, if they can listen, a form of search, without warrants, how long before they seize without warrants?

Ill-conceived anti-drug laws have already led to the destruction of a number of houses based on faulty information and judges who are too much in favor of law and order to adequately safeguard the constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The Rico Statutes have been suborned to be little more than money-raising opportunities for police forces. What is to prevent a sheriff’s deputy or cop from kicking in your door in the middle of the night out of animus or revenge for some slight?

As with all ill-considered, not to say bonehead plays, President Bush is likely to accomplish precisely the opposite of what he set out to. We are not talking making the country safe from terrorists. That is pap for the rubes. What Bush and Cheney set out to do was to recapture powers Cheney thinks were wrongly stripped from the presidency in the aftermath of Watergate. What is likely to occur is that the presidency will be more constrained than ever before, just as it was after Nixon. Since Republican Congressional leaders are just as angry as their Democratic colleagues, Mr. Bush is going to have a hard time fending off attacks. The wolf cry of attacks on America is already wearing thin. The only thing worse for the administration would be a real attack. That would spell the end of the Bush administration.

Tom Gordon

tsg0008@sbcGlobal.net

One Giant Step Backwards for Mankind

“Congress could approve this week legislation that would permit indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay based on evidence obtained through torture.” Financial Times, Dec. 19
Will Senator John McCain ever tire of being played for fool by the Administration? Just last week he went to the White House with his anti-torture amendment in hand to get the President’s concurrence. Surely, McCain must have known that the House had already passed two bills that would allow military judges at Guantánamo to accept evidence obtained by torture when deciding if a prisoner should be classified as an “enemy combatant” (whatever that is). His amendment, which is supposed to ban torture, is part of one of those bills, something, that, if it becomes law, ought to keep lawyers busy for generations.
The two defense bills passed by the House also makes it much harder for a prisoner to appeal his detention to U.S. Courts. This latter little gem is to guard against the very probable case that John C. Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer, was wrong when he opined, in 2001, that people held at Guantánamo could not obtain relief under habeas corpus for the simple reason that no U.S. Court had jurisdiction over Guantánamo.
Under the proposed bill a prisoner could appeal to US courts only if he had been declared an enemy combatant, or had been sentenced to death or to more than 10 years imprisonment. He could not get a Court hearing merely because he was tortured, abused or held without charges.
The Administration has reason to worry about Yoo’s analysis. His argument relied on Johnson v Eisentrager, a 1950 case involving German nationals apprehended in China after Germany had surrendered, but before Japan had. The Court held that, because the prisoners had never come within jurisdiction of a U.S. court, no court had standing to hear their appeal. If you accept the implicit argument that it doesn’t matter that the people doing the imprisoning are under the jurisdiction of the federal courts, Justice Jackson’s reasoning can at least be followed.
Yoo realized that Cuba is not in China, nor is it an army prison in Occupied Germany. He had to come up with a theory that put Guantánamo, and anything that happened on it, out of the Court’s reach. He started out with the 1903 lease of Guantánamo, which holds that Cuba exercises sovereignty over the land. It is an odd sort of sovereignty since Cuban law and Cuban law enforcement are nowhere in evidence on the base.
Yoo seems to have realized his problem and moved to a 1929 Attorney General’s decision that said the base was “a mere government outpost..a place subject to the use, occupation and control of the United States.” Oops. If it is under the control of the United States, then, surely a court of the United States must have jurisdiction.
Finally, Yoo is reduced to the fine legal principal of deus ex machina and writes, “Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, a federal district court ought to be reluctant to extend habeas jurisdiction to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, when not clearly called for in the statute, if doing so would interfere with matters solely with the discretion of the political branches of government.” Where was this guy when Nixon needed him?
“Detention and trial of al Qaeda and Taliban members is undertaken pursuant to the President’s Commander-in-Chief and foreign affairs powers.”
No wonder the Administration has decided to change the laws. Even if it means accepting evidence gained from torture for the first time in our history. In fact, it seems to me that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, Morris, et al risked everything that they had to oppose Star Chamber proceedings and torture. It also seems to me that they didn’t do it merely for themselves, but because all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. For 229 years, that has been our shining message to all people in all lands. It is who we were and what we stood for.
Now, the Bush administration wants to replace the words men have died for with “Some are more equal than others.”

Tom Gordon
tsg0008@sbcglobal.com

Some Empty Pockets Are Due to Empty Heads

Having been online discussing the Katrina victims plight with various readers, following local news of the extension of budget for hotel rooms and meals for the refugees in Dallas, the continued finger pointing of politicizing predators, the average individual's angst over what is enough and where to draw the line, I now weigh in with my own thoughts. This opinion is not based on any factual data or social anthropological musings, neither a government-sponsored study. But from what has come into my mailbox, I think what will be on the page today is a composite of actual readership opinion. Keep the wheat and blow away the chaff.

Now when, exactly, do people cease to be victims and just normal people like the rest of us folks? I have become rather desensitized to this whole victimology thing because darn it,just about everyone today wants to claim the title. Whether it is a true tragedy such as Katrina, a job lay off or an ingrown toenail, the word is just in overusage. (Just like the word "outrage".)

I believe seasons of hardship to be part and parcel of the human experience. But the thing that distinguishes "victims" from "winners" is in the distinctive character traits of fortitude, perseverence and patience found in the fiber of the human. Many people have to start all over again after a devastating fire, catastrophic injury or some sort of a calamity. There are many, who just gut it out and move on, taking months or years recouping their loss. But in America, at least it is possible. But some people retain the title of victim, for life.

Now there is something about a few of these victims that just grates on my nerves. The total lack of gratitude of some bothers me. Yep. Having worked since age seventeen, I really prefer to give my money to only a couple of categories of people. I don't mind giving money to the grateful and also to people who have already shown themselves to be good stewards of whatever amount the good Lord allows them. Some people cannot manage the change jingling in their pockets much less a lump
sum from the government. We saw that in Dallas with a few of those folks at our malls buying eight hundred dollar purses with their FEMA money. Boy, I needed a couple of burr holes in my head to vent the steam out on that bit of news!

Reminds me of the time I went to get gas and the woman in front of me put three dollars of gas in her vehicle. After paying for her gas, she bought five scratch off lottery tickets and I watched as she threw them into the trash one by one as they added up to a grand total of zero. I should have just passed her a match before she slid that five dollar bill across the counter. See what I mean?

And what about personal responsibility on the homefront also? Anyone else know single women who have lived with the equivilent of the twelve apostles in half as many years? And they now have three different children by different sperm donors? I do not fault the children. Children are blessings. But because they are such a treasure, should men and women not behave responsibly and settle down and give the kids a stable home? My husband and I have done it for many years and the children have benefited from a strong "state of the union".

I guess what I am trying to express is the following thread of thought. Some people are poor because of insurmountable tragedy and very sad upbringings and need a bit of help. It can take them awhile to regain their bearings or establish a good root system. The kindness of our American heritage should reach out to these. But there are those who are poor because of their own hand, the pitfalls of their thinking and continuous poor choices which they make. Am I obligated to help them? Only if I so choose.

My guess is that a percentage of the Katrina victims will still be victims thirty years from now. Feel free to take them into your homes and help them out until they get on their feet. But don't be surprised if they may put you into a nursing home and continue to live in your residence, before that event ever happens.

Tammy Swofford
tammyswofford@yahoo.com

From Thug-o-crats to Diplomats

If there is anything I cannot stand, it is hypocrites. Wolves in sheeps clothing pick up pretty well on my "stench-o-meter". So with the continued bid of Hamas to pass themselves off as nouveau diplomats, it remains for the sane to remind the world that Hamas is a terror organization trying to reinvent its image. Let's not be taken in by the sham!

Hamas was formed in late 1987 as an offshoot of the Palestinian branch of Muslim Brotherhood. It is a Sunni Islamic organization which has been involved in terror activities since its inception. The leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin met a rather unsavory end when he was targeted by an Israeli gunship in March of 2004 and three missiles were fired upon his wheelchair. Old, blind and quadriplegic he must somewhat be respected in that he was still considered a threat. Don't make the Jews mad. They love to serve revenge up cold!

But back to Hamas, forget about a litany of all their activities. You can check that out on any search engine. I love to go back to primary source documents to see the textured picture and not merely a glimpse in the mirror. Having read the Hamas Covenant several times, I would now like to pull out just a few key thoughts and dissect it for the blog. The document reads beautifully, was obviously written by a somewhat scholarly crowd and takes about thirty minutes to read in English translation. There are several out there. Some read better than others. So here goes!

Naturally, it begins with Qur'anic invocation, as do many Islamic documents. It then proceeds to acknowledge Allah in the affairs of men. This is also fairly common. I believe the employment of these literary devices is common to man and the stroke of his pen. A higher power or authority is invoked to invest a document with a universal and moral authority.

The articles then move into discussion of structure and organizational aspects of Hamas, giving forth a rallying cry to Muslims worldwide to engage the struggle. Article 8 gives the motto: "Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Qur'an its institution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes." This is just one of several transliterations available, but you get the drift.

Now there are two main components with which I really took issue, and these have been discussed with Islamic scholars. Articles 17 and 18 allude to the role of women. They are instructed to rear their children in preparation for the religious duty of jihad. As such, the mother is to maintain a war footing in the home. Now while men are hard-wired for war, women are not. We are at the core of our beings nurturing to our children and protective of them. And we see our home as a place of safe pasture and peace for our children. The framers of the document speak of the evils of Western affiliation to which their women succumb and somehow they managed to pull the Rotary Club and Lion's Club out of the hat, as two such organizations. Figure that one out! But anyway, I am digressing. The instruction of sons in the art of war belongs in the domain of the father, not the mother. They missed the mark on that line of thought. We have enough to do wiping snotty noses, doing laundry and cooking without having to worry about raising our sons, to merely see them used up as human fuel for a nationalistic resistance movement.

The other very troubling aspect of this guiding document is the common thread of violence as a means to solution as opposed to negotiation and diplomacy. And from that fountain of thought, has sprung the course of action of Hamas over the years.

To conclude, Article 4 has a strong command to its members that they must keep its secrets. I believe Hamas has many secrets to keep. And although they seek a place at the diplomatic table, they have not earned the right. Their pen was dipped in blood from the beginning. Let better men attain to the task at hand.


Tammy Swofford
tammyswofford@yahoo.com

Condi Confused

If anyone wanted proof of the adage that those who can’t do, teach, all that is necessary was to watch U. S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice as she was driven from one untenable position to another, and finally retreated to “Any policy will sometimes result in errors," she said. "And when it happens, we will do everything we can to rectify it."

Roger Cohen of the New York Times wrote, “What she did not say, however, is that while it is true no policy has a built-in guarantee against mistakes, bad policies will lead to more blunders than good ones. In effect, the Bush policy toward terror suspects has involved the removal of customary safeguards designed to offset the inexhaustible human capacity for error.”

Ms. Rice’s not so Excellent European Adventure was marginally better than a previous outing. At least no members of her European entourage were roughed up by government goons as they had been when she visited the Sudan. And, her audiences didn’t actually laugh in her face as they did to Karen Hughes in Saudi Arabia.

Still, the Rice Charm Offensive to Europe was less than successful. European commentators have likened Ms. Rice’s position to that of her predecessor, Colin Powell, at the UN.

Trying to maintain that the U.S. does not torture and does not send people to countries in which they will be tortured is, of course, an impossible position to begin with. Mr. Maher Arar is out there and he is not being quiet. As you will remember, Maher Arar, a 34-year-old graduate of McGill University, was arrested on September 26, 2002 at JFK as he was changing planes on his way back to Canada from Tunisia. He was taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where he says U.S. authorities questioned him for 10 days. He was then taken to Washington. After being held incommunicado for 13 days in the U.S., he was flown to Amman Jordan aboard a Gulfstream V Under U.S. government ordered “extraordinary rendition.” He was then driven to Syria. According to Arar, the Syrians repeatedly beat his hands with two-inch thick electrical cables.

The Syrians beat Arar for more than a year, until the Canadian government secured his release in October, 2003. The Syrian Ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, said his country had failed to find any link between Arar and terrorism.

Arar is suing the U.S. (Arar vs Ashcroft, Jan. 22, 2004) and Canadian governments. His case against the U.S. is based in part upon a 1998 law which says it is “the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite , or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.”

And there is the mute testimony of the prisoners who have died from beatings in U.S. custody at Bagram base in Afghanistan. One of them, a cab driver named Dilawar, the other was named Habibullah. Both were beaten to death by Americans. Even before their final beatings interrogators were convinced they had merely been in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the photographic evidence from Abu Ghraib. Eventually, even the most friendly advocates have to conclude that Mr. Rumsfeld’s “few bad apples” are, in fact, the whole barrel, as in instructions given from the top.

Although several European leaders said Ms. Rice had cleared the air, Sweden and Italy have not halted their investigations of extraordinary renditions from their soil. Nor were the press and opposition leaders convinced. Those European leaders who did accept Ms. Rice’s assurances are being hammered as naive simpletons.

As they say in Iraq, “it is tough to win when the bad guys are shooting us in the head and we are shooting ourselves in the foot.”

Tom Gordon
tsg008@sbcglobal.net

Time for a Rhetorical Coup

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind require that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

-The Declaration of Independence. July 4, 1776

It is time, again. At the birth of a great nation one finds history's breadcrumb. The Declaration of Independence eloquently enumerates abuse of power, neglect, oppression and aggression lending legal cause for the separation of one people from their ruler. There exists such a power today. It threatens our freedom, limits speech, pits us against one another, and shifts defensively to keep our citizenry's position at bay. It has become our de-facto ruler, but we have only ourselves to blame. To identify this evil, one need only define "Conservative".

The American Heritage Dictionary's primary definition of "conservatism" reads, "The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order." What better way is there to describe either the Republican or Democratic primary? Though political parties are never mentioned in the Constitution, they have become the primary organizing force behind all governance. The two major parties and the established "mainstream" media have partnered to make American politics a persistent and predictable marathon. Simplistic labels are marketed to appeal to specific sets, but the values themselves are either held in contempt or taken for granted. Political Science has become all calculation and no heart. We should, therefore, be prepared to reclaim what was written and planned with such wisdom. It is necessary for one of these parties to end.

Today it is a common practice to "co-opt" positions for the purpose of defeating (or avoiding)an opponent. Candidates "move right" or "move left" tactically. Within each major party are a number of factions vying for control. Some work across party lines to thwart efforts of their own leadership. Our system was designed to move slowly, to limit the power of the majority, to be confrontational, and to control the impact brought on by faction. In Federalist #9, Alexander Hamilton answered critics, who claimed his writings predicted the union would fail, by asserting that the proposed confederated structure would withstand the damage brought on by faction far better than a centralized government. I ask you, which way are we headed?

At issue is balance. Is it better achieved by properly distributing equal-and-diverse weight or by stacking it in the center? One would do well to choose a catamaran over a canoe, and until the ideological left and right agree to disagree respectfully, the calculating middle will continue to consolidate power at the expense of liberty. Which of us is willing and ready to sacrifice our candidate and party of today for tomorrow's advance of freedom? Lest this be dismissed as the ranting expected from one of over 50 "third" parties, consider that the "dynamic center" advanced by Bill Clinton has taken all of its followers from within the power party structure. If "conservative" means what "conservative" means, then today's standards cry out for progressive action on many fronts. Words mean things.

It is time to measure leadership and virtue on a new, and simultaneously very old, scale.

Bob Miller

SWOFFORD UNLEASHED

America is under assault! The readership senses the threat, but is unable to define the enemy or the strategy. Having been handcuffed by apathy for too long, the malaise of the many allows the dictates of the few to bring far-reaching changes in American culture.

I am not big on "rights" as played out judicially in the American court system as of late. There has been a move toward "rights" to the oppression of others. But I do believe strongly in liberty. We are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As such, liberty of expression for Christian values are becoming enslaved to the PC culture of the few. This, my fellow Americans, is travesty.

Take for instance the all out assault on the concept of "God". We believe in a God of benevolence, whose name when called brings hope to the weary, sustaining grace to the weak and cheer to the faint of heart. We do not call on a God requiring the sacrifice of our firstborn by fire, or one who requires tributary payment or earthly retribution for our misdeeds. We celebrate a God of Mercy. Why do people get their underwear stuck in their crack on this one?

So history is conveniently changed on the World War II monument due to the discomfort of the few. Prayer in school is forbidden so as not to offend. "In God We Trust" is assailed as our currency passes through American hands millions of times a day. Christmas trees are holiday trees, and "Happy Holidays" is the scripted response of the media and salespeople.

There are those offended by such things. They wish to erase from the American culture any remembrance of God. And in the irony of it all, Tammy Swofford smiles. I remember the words of the book of Job. There is passage speaking of a God who retains us in His thoughts. Should He not have remembrance of us, we cease to exist! Yet we easily discard "Him".

So get some backbone America! Work to see the words "So help us God" added to the World War II monument. Tell those clowns who are offended by the word "God" on our money to begin to buy their homes, cars and clothing with clams, eggs or garden produce if they feel such strong conviction. They do not have to touch the stuff. As far as prayer in school, no angst there for me. That one, does not bother me. Pray with your children at home. Send them to school with a prayer and tuck them in at night with the same. Pray! And let their teachers know you pray for them. They need it! Do wish your local merchants a Merry Christmas and remind them that it is YOUR money, for YOUR holiday, that is paying THEIR employees, and sigh, giving THEM a Christmas bonus to boot. Shout Christmas tree, Christmas eggnog, Christmas gift and Christmas party at the top of your lungs every chance you get. It is our party! Hurrah!

The bottom line is this: Liberty in America should allow each community of believers to celebrate their seasonal traditions with gusto and joy or reverence and sobriety, as the occasion demands. I do not mind the Jew lighting the Hannakuh candles. I do not ask a Muslim to lunch during Ramadan. The loveliness of their season(s) should not anger us. But somehow, and not so subtly, it is the Christian community which is getting hammered in the most unkindly manner. Our prayers, our currency, our holidays and traditions are taking hit after hit. The discomfort of the few should not trample on the faith of the many. Rise up my friends. Support Liberty! And as we go into this season of Joy, enjoy!

"Historians in free countries have a moral and professional obligation not to shirk the difficult issues and subjects that some people would place under a sort of taboo; not to submit to voluntary censorship, but to deal with these matters fairly, honestly, without apologetics, without polemic, and, of course, competently."

Bernard Lewis
"Other People's History,"
in Islam and the West
(New York:Oxford University Press,
1993, page 130)

Tammy Swofford
tammyswofford@yahoo.com

Preface to Friday Blog

This blog is for you! Yes, it really belongs in the public domain. So when readers begin to line up with the same theme, requesting opinion on issues of concern, we listen. As such, the next blog will address some of the questions of readers:

*What do you think of the push to remove "In God We Trust" from our money and the public venue?

*What about prayer in school?

*Is it O.K. to be upset because the World War II Memorial in D.C. purposefully deleted the words "So help us God" from the quote by President Roosevelt?

*Why do merchants and salespeople insist on saying "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas?

*Why has my child's school put up a Christmas tree for display and then informed the student body they must call it a "Holiday Tree"?

Back by popular demand, "Swofford Unleashed" will respond to the enquiry of the people. Kick it into high gear and high speed. Here we go!

Tammy

Nothing to Bank on

Monday’s Financial Times led with the startling news that JP Morgan Chase is going to hire 4,500 Indian college graduates in the next two years. Two years ago, the American investment banking firm had an offshore staff in India totaling 200. In two years, it plans to have a total of 9,000.

The fact that Indian salaries are between 20 cents and 30 cents for every dollar paid to Americans doing the same job has nothing to do with the decision, Morgan’s Veronique Weill told the Financial Times. “The quality of the people we hire is extraordinary and their level of loyalty to the company unbeatable,” Weill said.

Morgan is not the only Wall Street stalwart to look to the Subcontinent. UBS and Goldman Sachs are moving operations to India, albeit more tentatively. Goldman has about 700 in India, and UBS plans to hire 500.

Bangalore, India, Dec. 7, 2025—Daniel Chattergee, CEO of JP Morgan Chase announced that the firm will hire 1,000 Inuktitut speakers in Nunavut.

“We have finally learned our lesson,” Chattergee explained. For more than 100 years the bank has sought English speakers to exploit. “First, we hired promising graduates of non-Ivy League schools, but they quickly learned to demand the salaries we were paying Ivy grads. Then, we hired Canadians, but, as soon as they got to New York, they demanded more money as well.

“We thought we had a winner when we started hiring Irish graduates, but they too demanded the same salaries as the Canadians were getting, which were the same we were paying the non-Ivies, which was, of course, the same as the Ivies were getting.

“Initially, Indian graduates were incredibly grateful to be paid the pittances we were offering, then, other banks moved operations in India and began hiring our people away from us. And, as you know, wages rose as if attached to rockets. Loyalty disappeared when we had to cut back on bonuses after China repudiated its debts on firm Marxist grounds.

“Now, I believe we have seen the error of our ways. Every current employee of the bank is learning Inuktitut. Those who succeed, and agree to salaries in line with the local economy, will be transferred to our new world headquarters at Point Alert. English will no longer be used at the bank. We are also closing all our branches worldwide and will conduct business entirely through the Internet.”

“Being well within the Arctic Circle gives us advantages unique to merchant and investment banking. We believe it will be some time before other banks attempt to hire away our staff. By the time they do, we will be prepared to move operations to the Peruvian selva, where we have already started a graduate school of business administration.”

Tom Gordon

Tsg0008@sbcglobal.net

Eugenics: Part II

The elusive search for physical perfection and to attain the status of mythical gods, is the goal of eugenics. But within the rational scientific thought patterns that would strive for such goals is a subset belonging in the realm of irrationality. All aspects of what it means to be human are not included in the scientific equation of eugenics and as such, both hypothesis and outcome will be flawed.

Humanity does include the ability to think on a higher level than all other creatures known to man. We possess language skills which propel us along to ever increasing knowledge sharing capabilites and hence, solutions to problems.

But humanity also encompasses that which cannot be harnessed within the sterile and amoral walls of any eugenics scientific endeavor. There are depths of emotion and unique expressions in man which are merely shown subtly or in muted form in the lower classifications of organic life. These things, which are commonly and generically termed "the spirit of man" are the intangibles of human experience. Science can neither quantify nor measure the impact of emotion on the human experience. We will look at two of the strongest of human emotions today: grief and love!

There was a touching story related to me by one of our translators when I was in Mongolia this past summer. In the days of Ghengis Khan if a might warrior died and returned to the earth, a newborn camel was slaughtered in front of the mother's eyes at the burial site. The grieving camel, would never forget where her offspring died and would return to the site. So the camel, served as a living grave marker for the deceased warrior!

Animals do show grief for their young. But camels, dogs and porpoises are far removed from the expressions of grief seen in mankind. I have an elderly friend who lost his wife to lung cancer. He orders flowers on Valentine's day and places them in front of her picture. There are other small rituals he maintains as a token of his grief and his loss. I have seen mothers shed tears for children deceased forty years previously. Aching and palpable, the pain of grief in women. Some rituals of grief I have seen as a nurse are too strange or too sacred a trust to betray on the page of a blog. But the depth of emotional grief is one of the benchmarks of what it means to be human.

What about love? Yes, love! The height of capacity for love can be breathtakingly beautiful or painfully immeasurable depending on the scenario played out on the stage of life. Reading Homer or Shakespeare, poetry by John Donne and others a glimpse of love can be caught. But love, is meant to be tasted! And most of us have tasted of that love between a man and a woman, parents toward children, love in all its forms and expressions! Love sparked in humans is far beyond that of the rest of the animal kingdom!

So when the eugenics crowd want to abort physical handicap or mental handicap by grasping into the womb of woman, they are blind guides. Blind, to the beauty that is life. Blind, to the quality of human potential. Blind, to that which is in the spirit of a man, the essence of which science can neither harness nor measure. Why would we buy into the philosophy of these societal engineers?


Love Life!

Tammy Swofford
tammyswofford@yahoo.com