From The Washington Post:

What's Lost in the Hue and Cry Over Haditha
By Frank Schaeffer
Saturday, June 3, 2006

Even in "good wars" things go horribly wrong. The following quotations from "Naples '44," by the late Norman Lewis (perhaps the greatest English travel writer of the past century), are instructive. Lewis was stationed in Naples following Italy's liberation from the Nazis, and he kept a diary:

"What we saw was ineptitude and cowardice spreading down from the command, and this resulted in chaos . . .

"I saw an ugly sight: a British officer interrogating a civilian, and repeatedly hitting him about the head with the chair; treatment which the [civilian], his face a mask of blood, suffered with stoicism. At the end of the interrogation, which had not been considered successful, the officer called on a private and asked him in a pleasant, conversational sort of manner, 'Would you like to take this man away, and shoot him?' The private's reply was to spit on his hands, and say, 'I don't mind if I do, sir.'

"I received confirmation . . . that American combat units were ordered by their officers to beat to death [those] who attempted to surrender to them. These men seem very naive and childlike, but some of them are beginning to question the ethics of this order.

"We liberated them from the Fascist Monster. And what is the prize? The rebirth of democracy. The glorious prospect of being able one day to choose their rulers from a list of powerful men, most of whose corruptions are generally known and accepted with weary resignation. The days of Mussolini must seem like a lost paradise compared to us."

If Lewis's account were the only surviving document from World War II, we might assume that allied nation-building ended in catastrophe. We would wonder why a morally outraged peace movement didn't stop our troops from carrying out their failed and brutal campaigns.

Sixty years later and caught up in another war, we are confronted by the massacre in Haditha. And we are also caught up in the anguish of another generation of young men and women asked to kill but to keep killing within "civilized" bounds, to take insults, be fired upon by men hiding behind women and children, yet not respond in kind.

To most readers this is an academic question of morality, or I-told-you-so politics. To those of us with loved ones in the military, the allegations of an atrocity committed by U.S. Marines in Haditha are personal.

All our troops confront the tortured "morality" of war. My son wrote this from his first combat tour in Afghanistan as a Marine intelligence noncom: "Date: 9/25/03 8:27:01 PM Dear Mom and Dad: I have learned that the right thing and the necessary thing are not synonymous, rarely are they even in the same ballpark. It's very depressing to see the results of some necessary actions, it's never pure, and there is no purity here . . .

"People ignore what they cannot see. They just don't want to know. The truth is too ugly and vicious to comprehend . . .

"In a natural state a human will kill, and kill not always for necessity, but for convenience as well. The only way that I know I am still me is that I hate that fact; I hate it more than anything I have ever known."

I think Lewis would have understood my son's distress. Perhaps he would have also understood my tears when confronting a son's loss of innocence. Yet I am proud my son volunteered, and of his two tours in Afghanistan and his mission in Iraq. And he is glad he served his country. I wish all Americans had a gut connection to the troops so they would know that people like my son don't kill civilians and that they anguish over the vicissitudes of war. And I also wish more people read books like "Naples '44" to give them some sense of perspective when terrible things do happen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Judging by Lewis's diary -- and many other accounts -- the so-called Greatest Generation of World War II was often badly led and worse-behaved, and was certainly less merciful than our present-day soldiers and their leaders. We haven't carpet-bombed Baghdad or nuked Fallujah to spare the lives of our troops. Yet most Americans are glad we forced Italy, Germany and Japan to become democracies, however brutal our means.

The flag-waving boosters of our current war and their critics all seem to forget that war really is hell. Proponents sweep the inconvenient dreadfulness under the carpet (no photographs of coffins, please) while opponents are shocked, just shocked, at the nastiness. All sides seem to forget that there are no good wars, only morally ambiguous conflicts that lead to better or worse outcomes.

In this war, we do not have enough political leaders and opinion-makers receiving soul-searing letters from their children. Their sons and daughters are notably absent from our military. That's too bad.

A personal connection to our wars might discourage the sort of glib hubris that leads the media to trumpet events such as the Haditha killings without putting them in the context of the everyday heroism that is the norm, or in the context of history. And a personal connection to our military by our political leaders would give them a stake in our troops' welfare and what we are asking them to do.

It's time for the critics of our military to also earn a little moral authority by volunteering themselves or encouraging their children to do so. Anything less is nothing more than arm's-length moralizing.

Frank Schaeffer is co-author of "AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from the Military and How it Hurts Our Country."

From www.washingtontimes.com:

Swiftboating as hate term
By R. Emmett Tyrrell

As we watch the left of the Democratic Party press its case to return to the top of the heap in American politics, or at least evade the fate of the Dodo, we have ever more evidence validating an insight on which I stake my reputation as a political seer. To wit: partisan politics more often falls under the professional expertise of the psychiatrist than that of the political scientist. A learned shrink can often tell us more about a political issue than any other professional, not excluding a swami or a voodoo priest.

Consider the ongoing controversy over Sen. Jean-Francois Kerry's military service in the faraway Vietnam War. You doubt the controversy is ongoing? Just last Sunday a Page One story in the New York Times reported that some of Mr. Kerry's supporters during his ill-fated 2004 presidential campaign are endeavoring to prove him a war hero with an unblemished record of heroism. Their targets are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. These Swifties, as they are called, are the Vietnam vets who claimed that when they served with Mr. Kerry they found him to be a self-aggrandizing, self-indulgent showoff. All insist he exaggerated his feats of heroism, and some testify he lied about his wounds and heroics. Many American voters were persuaded.

Why is this debate being launched? Any innocent observer who watched the showboating senator from Massachusetts bungle his 2004 presidential campaign must know he is today a self-aggrandizing, self-indulgent showoff. Why would he not have been one as a youth, back in the late 1960s when he brought camera equipment into the jungles to film himself at war? After an early exit from military service, he proceeded to follow the fashion of the times and oppose the war, appearing before a Senate committee in 1971 to accuse the U.S. military of systematic war crimes. Then just more than three decades later this strange man chose to make his Vietnam experience a major theme of his presidential candidacy. This is a matter for a seasoned psychiatrist to explain. To the rest of us it appears as egotism at the outer reaches of sanity.

Yet this attack on the Swift Boat Veterans is not contained to Mr. Kerry's supporters. The senator himself has been obsessive about the Swifties since their ads against him did his campaign so much damage. As David Holman reported in the May issue of the American Spectator, "A year and a half after he lost the 2004 presidential election, John Kerry can't get enough of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. No matter the occasion, he [Kerry] doesn't miss an opportunity to parade his campaign wounds however incoherently and obsessively."

Mr. Kerry has complained of the "Swift Boat-style Republican attack ads" in fund-raising appeals on behalf of other candidates. He invoked the Swifties in opposing the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. Asked if he had received contributions from the disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Mr. Kerry snapped, "That's another of their Swift Boat-style tactics where they throw up the mud and stick it."

Mr. Holman reports Mr. Kerry has resorted to these slurs on the Swifties in eight other fund-raising appeals. Moreover, in the asylum that is the Democratic Party's Angry Left, "Swift Boat" has become a verb and an adjective. The left-wing magazine Mother Jones writes of the Bush administration "Swiftboating their enemies." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton admonishes against the dread Republicans' employment of "swift boat tactics." In the Kultursmog's parlance of hate terms "Swiftboat" is about to join such terms as McCarthyism and McCarthyite.

Now we read that the campaign against the Swifties will gain momentum. The sorehead Kerry supporters have joined in a group called the Patriot Project. It will seek out the Swifties and scrutinize their complaints against Mr. Kerry. It will also support opponents of the war in Iraq and visit editorial offices to make the case for such veterans as the Hon. John P. Murtha, a Vietnam War vet who now opposes the Iraq war.

All this sounds like political harassment to me, but as the shrinks are wont to say, "If it is true for you, it is true for you." For a certitude, left wing Democrats believe whatever they believe is true. Mr. Kerry believes he would be president today if he had not been swiftboated. He has hired a researcher to prove from naval archives he was in Cambodia three decades ago for a few hours when the Nixon administration said he was not supposed to be there. What does this prove? I think it proves, beyond being a self-aggrandizing, self-indulgent showoff, this guy is a nut. Yet I leave all this to the professionals.

R. Emmett Tyrrell is the founder and editor in chief of the American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His latest book is "Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House

A toast to the captain
Luke DeCock, Staff Writer

RALEIGH - Peter Laviolette brought a bottle of wine with him to the news conference podium, but it had nothing to do with Thursday's celebration.

It was a gift to the Carolina Hurricanes coach from a neighbor, bearing the label "relentless."

Laviolette adopted that motto on wristbands he is selling during the playoffs to raise money for leukemia research in honor of Julia Rowe, a neighbor of his who has been stricken with leukemia. The wine came from her father, and it went to Carolina captain Rod Brind'Amour for his play in Carolina's 4-2 win over the Buffalo Sabres in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference finals on Thursday, sending the Canes to the Stanley Cup finals.

"When I first moved here to Raleigh 2 1/2 years ago, I became very friendly with her family," Laviolette said. "She made it through all of her chemo and went into remission and about three months ago she went back and she found out she had leukemia again. Her dad came over and gave me a bottle of wine. ...

"The wristband I have been wearing through the entire playoffs says 'relentless' and the bottle of wine that he brought up says 'relentless' and it went to the player tonight who best exemplified a relentless attitude and what makes it special is a little girl signed it.

"So anyway, Rod Brind'Amour will get this award tonight."

From Christianity Today:

Bruce Springsteen
We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions (Columbia)

by Mark Moring

"What through the tempest loudly roars / I hear the truth, it liveth / What through the darkness round me close / Songs in the night it giveth / No storm can shake my inmost calm / While to that rock I'm clinging / Since love is lord of heaven and earth / How can I keep from singing?"—from "How Can I Keep from Singing?"

A year ago, Bruce Springsteen released what I called his most spiritual album ever—the widely acclaimed Devils & Dust, with eight of its 12 tracks including religious references. I still think it's Springsteen's most sacred work yet, but his latest effort, We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions, gives D&D a spiritual run for its money.

What distinguishes The Seeger Sessions from D&D—indeed, from all of his 20 previous albums—is that the lyrics are not Springsteen's. This is a joyful hayride through 15 folk songs representing the best of Americana, all of them recorded by the legendary Pete Seeger at one time or another.

Springsteen fell in love with Seeger's music when he recorded "We Shall Overcome" for 1997's Where Have All the Flowers Gone: The Songs of Pete Seeger. At the time, Springsteen noticed what he now calls "the wealth" of Seeger songs, saying "their richness and power changed what I thought I knew about 'folk music.'"

And to the delight of many—and not just Springsteen fans, because this album is appealing to scores who aren't into his music—that newfound "wealth" now manifests itself in The Seeger Sessions, recorded in the living room of Springsteen's farmhouse. The sessions were a giddy romp for Bruce and a band of musicians he'd never met—they were recommended by E Street Band violinist Soozie Tyrell—before their first day in the "studio."

"Accordion, fiddle, banjo, upright bass, washboard—this was the sound I was looking for," says Springsteen. "I wanted the sound of a bunch of people just sitting around playing. We set up next to one another in our living room, and till that moment, we'd never played a note together. I counted off the opening chords to 'Jesse James,' and away we went. It was a carnival ride, the sound of surprise and the pure joy of playing. Street corner music, parlor music, tavern music, wilderness music, circus music, church music, gutter music, it was all there waiting in those songs."

Springsteen's own spiritual roots may have also been waiting. Raised in a Catholic home, his records have always included religious imagery, especially in recent years, starting with 2002's The Rising, through Devils & Dust, and now this. Perhaps his rediscovered spirituality is merely a product of contemplating his own mortality (he'll be 60 in three years)—or the fact that he's now father to two teenagers (with a 12-year-old not far behind). Whatever the reason, it's good to see this outlook showing up on his albums.

Springsteen may not have written these songs, but he certainly chose them (or did they choose him?) out of hundreds of possibilities. It's clear the Boss wanted some sacred stuff on this project.

The most spiritually overt is "How Can I Keep from Singing?" (cited at the top of this article), included as a bonus track. The hymn is attributed to Robert Lowry in 1869, but variations may have been sung in the days of slavery by abolitionist Quakers. A century later, it became one of Seeger's favorites.

The album's other clearly spiritual tunes include:

* "Oh Mary Don't You Weep," a rousing Negro spiritual predating the Civil War. Its chorus ("O Mary don't you weep, don't you mourn, Pharaoh's army got drownded, O Mary don't you weep") refers to Mary of Bethany who, with her sister Martha, begged Jesus to raise their brother Lazarus from the dead.

* "Jacob's Ladder," another Negro spiritual, this one based on Genesis 28:11-19, where Jacob dreams of a ladder to heaven. Slaves embraced the story because it ends with a promise of freedom.

* "Eyes on the Prize," an old Holiness hymn whose lyrics are practically straight from Scripture: "I got my hand on the gospel plow / Won't take nothing for my journey now / Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on" and "Ain't been to heaven but I been told / Streets up there are paved with gold."

And while the title track is known as a political protest song, it is also a variation on Charles Tindley's hymn, "I'll Overcome Someday" (based on Galatians 6:9). Springsteen, whose opposition to President Bush and the war in Iraq is well known, could have fully "politicized" this song—and indeed, the whole album. He could have chosen songs with more of a political bent. But to his credit, he opted for a more eclectic—and much happier—variety.

Did we mention that this album is brimming with joy?

Even the "non-religious" songs explore themes consistent with a biblical worldview, sometimes seeming to "set up" the more spiritually-inclined numbers. For example, "Jesse James," a ballad about the famous outlaw, and "Mrs. McGrath," an 1800s Irish ditty about a mother grieving her son's war injuries. But as she begins to deal with her grief, the album segues into the boisterously uplifting "O Mary Don't You Weep."

The hardships of the American working man, covered back-to-back in "John Henry" and "Erie Canal," are followed by the hope of "Jacob's Ladder." The sad story of "My Oklahoma Home," about a man who lost everything in a twister, precedes the encouraging "Eyes on the Prize." And so on.

Mixed amid the songs of joy, sorrow, and downright silliness ("Old Dan Tucker," "Froggie Went a-Courtin'") are just enough nods to the sacred to qualify this as Springsteen's second most spiritual effort. Devils & Dust still tops that list, but this exuberant collection of folk favorites ain't too far behind.

A year old column, and one from this year, in honor of Roger (you can't spell "team" without "me") Clemens signing with the Astros:

Smizik: Baseball might not like findings in Bonds probe

Sunday, April 02, 2006

By Bob Smizik, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In an attempt to clear its name, Major League Baseball has hired George Mitchell, a former senator from Maine, to investigate steroid use in the sport. Mitchell is a man of unquestioned integrity, but he comes to the job with baggage that should have disqualified him. He is chairman of the board of Disney, which owns ESPN. ESPN is in a business relationship with Barry Bonds, who will be a main focus of the investigation. Mitchell also is on the board of directors of the Boston Red Sox.

In view of those liabilities, Mitchell is not the wisest choice. The belief here, though, is he can do an honest job.

Toward that end, he should not focus his investigation on Bonds or Gary Sheffield or Jason Giambi -- the three active players most linked with steroid use. Mitchell should start with commisioner Bud Selig and Don Fehr, the head of the baseball players' union.

The first question he should ask these two men is this: Where were you when steroid use became rampant in the game?

They were, of course, on the job and carefully looking the other way. Neither had the courage to do the right thing. They were caught up in the popularity of the game brought on by the avalanche of the home runs that larger and stronger bodies produced. Then stood and watched and did nothing as Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa mesmerized the country with their fabled home run competition in 1998.

It was this home run derby that is given much of the credit for bringing back the game from near destruction after the 1994 strike.

The book that has prompted this investigation -- "Game of Shadows" -- chronicles how it was the adulation heaped on McGwire and Sosa that drew Bonds to steroids. If the bulked-up McGwire and the bloated Sosa, who like Bonds was more greyhound than mastiff when he came to the majors, didn't cause Selig and Fehr to be suspicious many, many other events should have.

Why not, for example, launch an investigation in 2002 when Ken Caminiti, the National League MVP in 1996 by a unanimous vote, admitted to steroid use?

Why not in 2003, when, at long last, testing was mandated and reportedly dozens of players tested positive?

Why not in 2005 when Hall-of-Fame bound slugger Rafael Palmeiro tested positive?

Instead, Selig waited for a book that focuses on Bonds' use of steroids. Although the book is meticulously reported and has a great air of authenticity about it, it has been termed by Victor Conte, a man in the middle of this scandal, as "full of lies."

The investigation appears to be nothing more than an attempt to remove Bonds from the game before he surpasses Hank Aaron's all-time home run record. There are plenty of people who would agree with that. But if Mitchell and his committee do their job the right way, many others, including other icons of the game, will fall in its path.

On May 15 last year, we wondered aloud in this space why the extraordinary past-40 achievements of Bonds were viewed with such suspicion while the equally impressive achievements of Roger Clemens, who was almost two years older than Bonds, were accepted. Although their accomplishments were roughly the same, Bonds was considered a cheat and Clemens a warrior.

That column received an e-mail response from the late Steve Courson, a nationally known expert on steroid use. Here, in part, is what Courson wrote:

"I believe your observations were beyond reproach from a training perspective. Roger has been far and away my favorite baseball player for years, but I also live in the world of knowing training reality. I would speculate that Roger is probably using a cocktail of HGH [human growth hormone] and low doses of testosterone for primarily recuperation. This combination is commonly used in anti-aging therapy across the country and would be totally undetectable in modern drug testing. In a genetically gifted athlete who did adequate resistance training it would produce profound results."

Is this really what baseball wants? Does it want to take down Clemens along with Bonds? Does it want to take down dozens of others and further darken the sport.

In another soon-to-be published book, "Love Me, Hate Me: Barry Bonds and the Making of an Antihero," author Jeff Pearlman quotes a San Francisco player as saying as many as a dozen other Giants were taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs when Bonds started using.

Football went through an epidemic of illegal drug use in the 1970s and 1980s. The sport instituted drug testing and put the issue in its past. Baseball should do the same. Allow drug testing to clean up the sport as it did in the NFL.

To dig up the past, even if it can bring down Bonds, would be yet another mistake of the Selig era.

Smizik: In sharp contrast to Bonds, Clemens avoids scrutiny

Sunday, May 15, 2005

By Bob Smizik, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A strong body of evidence is slowly emerging that points to what so many have long believed: Barry Bonds is a steroid abuser.

Virtually no one is surprised because Bonds long has been under such suspicion. After all, he went from being a Hall-of-Fame caliber player to an all-time great, whose hitting prowess matched and often surpassed the likes of Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. Baseball fans and the media were skeptical of such accomplishments. It was believed such prodigious feats could not be achieved without chemical assistance.

No question, Bonds' deeds have been staggering.

In 2001, he hit 73 home runs to break Roger Maris' record, which had stood for 40 years. That same season, he had an .863 slugging percentage, which broke Ruth's record that had stood for 80 years.

In 2002, he had an on-base percentage of .582, which broke Williams' record that had stood for 60 years.

He had won three MVP awards, two with the Pirates, by the time he was 29. When he added what would be the first of four more when he was 37, doubts increased.

No one was that good.

Of course, it was more than the majesty of Bonds' achievements that raised suspicion. The size of his body also screamed steroids use.

Where he was once a sleek greyhound, he now bulged with muscles. He had gained at least 40 pounds.

Although there was not an iota of concrete evidence and was not against the rules of baseball at the time, Bonds was widely believed to be a cheater.

It all made sense, even to those -- including this column -- that had long defended Bonds.

So why aren't people saying the same thing about Roger Clemens? Why hasn't this bulked-up, overperforming baseball senior citizen received the same treatment as Bonds?

For sure, his accomplishments are equally astounding. In fact, the case could be made that the trajectory of Clemens' career should arouse more suspicion than Bonds'.

Unlike Bonds, whose career never faltered, Clemens had a four-year period, beginning when he was 30, when many people believed he was in decline. Included in that group were the Boston Red Sox, the team he played for during the first 13 years of his career. After the 1997 season, the Red Sox did not re-sign Clemens, who was eligible for free agency. It seemed like the right move.

After going 152-72 in his first nine seasons, Clemens was 40-39 from 1993-96. What's more, his winning percentage twice was below that of his team during that four-year stretch, something that had never happened in the previous nine seasons.

Also during the span, Clemens' earned run average twice was over 4.00, a level where it had never been before.

It was a clear picture of a player in decline. And why not? He was 34 when he finished the 1996 season with a 10-13 record on a team that was eight games over .500.

Except that he wasn't in decline. Not even close.

He signed with the Toronto Blue Jays in 1997 and, on a team that was 10 games under .500, he was 21-7. It was the first time he had won 20 games since 1990. His ERA of 2.05 was the second lowest of his career.

Once again, he was Superman. And, of course, it was all due to his incredible workout routine. There was never a word about chemical enhancement.

It's not like Clemens was some kind of media favorite. Like Bonds, he has a history of being a major jerk.

Clemens is 42 and pitching as well or better than ever.

Last year, he was 18-4 with the Houston Astros -- the third-best winning percentage of his career. He won his seventh Cy Young Award -- 18 seasons after he won his first.

Going into his scheduled start against the San Francisco Giants last night, he was averaging better than a strikeout an inning and his ERA was a ridiculous 1.10.

In his tell-all book, "Juiced; Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big," Jose Canseco wrote: "I've never seen Roger Clemens do steroids, and he never told me that he did. But we've talked about what steroids could do for you, in which combinations."

He also said Clemens showed "classic signs" of steroid use.

Clemens' agent, Randy Hendricks was furious. "He has passed all tests and will continue to do so in 2005."

The same tests Bonds passed.

There's never a word about Randy Johnson, who is 41, and steroids, but he might be the greatest overproducing baseball senior of them all. Bonds had offensive numbers that sometimes surpassed the great hitting masters. Johnson has strikeout totals that obliterate the performance of Nolan Ryan, the greatest strikeout pitcher of all time.

From ages 34 to 40 -- seven seasons -- Johnson had more than 300 strikeouts five times. He had 290 once.

When Ryan was between 34 and 40, he had no 300-strikeout seasons and only three 200-strikeout seasons.

Next to Johnson, Ryan is a junkballer.

But Johnson, too, is widely believed to be clean.

None of the above is to suggest I think Clemens and Johnson are steroid abusers.

Of course, I didn't think Bonds was either.

Rasheed, Lowe to keep in touch

Joanne C. Gerstner / The Detroit News

AUBURN HILLS -- Sidney Lowe's days as a Pistons assistant are numbered.

His days having to deal with Rasheed Wallace, however, will never end. Lowe recently was discussing his future job as coach of his alma mater -- North Carolina State.

Wallace, who played at rival North Carolina, overheard the talk and vociferously chimed in on Lowe's future.

"I told him that he's going to get buried by Carolina, killed by Carolina, he better get used to losing bad," Wallace said.

Lowe laughed, having already heard this Tar Heel diatribe a few times in Detroit.

"We're going to beat (them), and when we do, he can't duck me -- I don't care where he is," Wallace continued. "I am going to call his cell phone, fax him, write him, e-mail him, call his assistants, call his secretary at the basketball office, call his house phone, send him FedEx packages with a big NC logo and the final score on it. He's going to know he got whupped.

"So you go ahead and take that job. You're going from winning to losing. You'd be better off going to the University of Wyoming or something. But no, you're going right into the lion's den."

Despite Wallace's passionate warnings, Lowe, 46, indeed will take over as coach of the Wolfpack when the Pistons' season comes to an end.

"The ink is dry, I can't get out of it now, sorry 'Sheed," Lowe joked. "I'm going down there because that's the only job I would have taken to leave here. I would never have gone anywhere else."

But until the NBA season is over, which Lowe prays doesn't happen this week, he's 100 percent with the Pistons.

"All of me is here right now, with this team," Lowe said.

"I'm just trying to focus on this right now. The main thing right now is that my coaches down there are handling everything right now. They'll give me a call to let me know how things are.

"Those conversations are pretty short right now though. They know what I'm doing right now. I'm not concerned, though. They know what to do, the kids are very important.

"That's what I have been doing, talking to the kids when they call. As for the other stuff, I just don't have the time right now."

Going back to N.C. State is special for Lowe. He was the point guard for the Wolfpack's 1983 NCAA championship team.

But returning to his university meant going back to school.

Lowe didn't earn his degree at N.C. State, heading to the NBA to play for the Pistons, Hawks, Hornets and Timberwolves.

He later became coach for the Timberwolves and Grizzlies, and assistant for the Cavaliers and Timberwolves.

Lowe must now complete his degree to fulfill a university employment requirement.

He is finishing his bachelor's in business administration at St. Paul's College in Lawrenceville, Va. -- he's down to writing his last paper, a thesis analyzing the business practices of a company.

Lowe also must pass a test on NCAA rules before he can start recruiting in July.

IMUS NEWS QUOTE OF THE DAY

Imus: "We are reminded again, we ought to be reminded every time one of these kids get killed in Iraq but now we've got these people from CBS News and it seems like it gets more attention than I guess perhaps it does but man it sure brings it home doesn't it?"

Radio talk show host Jay Severin: "I can't imagine anything that deserves more attention and now we are on the very cusp of what is going to be a famous or infamous feeding frenzy about the Marine massacre. Already, there is the headline from across the country and around the world, 'The Marine Massacre' and it appears that there is so much that has come out so far that it is unlikely that nothing happened, it's just that as a former Marine said yesterday when you've got nineteen year old kids in the middle of a war zone with their buddies getting blown in half and they are making nine hundred dollars a month to put their lives on the line, it's a little difficult to judge what they do in the heat of the moment. But I would say this and I say it somewhat theoretically but the Commander in Chief here is an accomplice. Those Marines, whatever they did or didn't do, they shouldn't have been there. We will soon celebrate, that's the right word and it isn't, we will soon celebrate an Iraq war in which we have been engaged as long as we have been engaged in World War II. As of today not a single Iraqi unit is operational on it's own without American troops. Imagine that. As long as World War II and for what?"

Imus: "We keep being told of course that the Iraqi forces are up and running but that is just not true."

Severin: "That embarrassing photo op the other day between Prime Minister Blair and George Bush. I mean they were out there for almost an hour and you say to yourself for what? What were they going to say? Talking about food, it would have been more interesting and truer."

Amnesty Intranational
By Ben Johnson

FrontPageMagazine.com

May 26, 2006

The U.S. Senate should have focused less on forging “paths to citizenship” and more on blocking paths to the great American gravy train.

Its supporters describe the immigration bill the Senate passed last night as “sweeping” and “comprehensive” – which means its amnesty provisions remained intact. The bill passed by a 62-36 vote (see the vote tally here).

In addition to a “path to citizenship” – which, when applied to at least 11 million illegal immigrants, is less a path than a superhighway – the bill includes a Guest Worker Program for 200,000 people a year, who can then apply for a Green Card. As Sen. Jeff Sessions has said, “[T]here is nothing ‘temporary’ about the new guest worker program created by this bill.” Moreover, the Associated Press reported, “A new program for 1.5 million temporary agricultural workers also survived.” They can also apply for a Green Card. In theory, “only” 650,000 aliens a year will be granted permanent resident status, or 13 million in 20 years – more than the population of Illinois.

This bill doubles the amount of legal immigration, while reorienting our employment visas, for the first time, toward unskilled laborers. (The National Academy of Sciences found each “migrant” with less than a high school education costs the United States $90,000, and that immigrants only begin to “contribute to our economy” if they have a post-secondary education.)

But our economy will contribute to them. In addition to millions of dollars U.S. taxpayers spend for the welfare, education, health care, and incarceration of illegals, the Senate assures aliens will receive all the money they “contributed” to Social Security – even if they stole someone’s identity in the process. They’ll also be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit. In all, this “comprehensive” reform could cost $54 billion within a decade. Rep. Bill Shuster, R-PA, surmised, “[It] certainly is possible that it will bust the budget.”

The Terrorist Amnesty We Dodged

All that can be said of the Senate bill is that it could have been worse. Patrick Leahy wanted to add an amendment – SA 4117 – that would allow some of those deemed guilty of providing terrorists with aid and comfort to immigrate; 19 senators supported the measure, including Minority Leader Harry Reid, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Joe Lieberman, and three Republicans.

An amendment introduced by Dianne Feinstein would have granted blanket amnesty to all illegals. According to the roll call, more than one-third of the U.S. Senate – including Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee – believes in full amnesty.

A Steel Lining

To secure these massive changes to our body politic, the Senate included some measures to protect our border – the only part of their bill supported by large majorities of the American people. Employers caught hiring illegals could be fined up to $20,000 per illegal, with jail time as a possibility after numerous convicted offenses – which is an improvement from the current amnesty program employers seem to enjoy. The illegals granted amnesty will pay $3,250 in fines, plus back taxes. A subsequent amendment rendered a provision making English our national language – a measure that takes on some urgency in the face of an influx of 30-60 million Spanish-speaking immigrants over the next two decades – was rendered purely symbolic.

Most important in the bill is a 370 mile border fence – roughly half of what the House agreed to last December. The Washington Times revealed, “Immediately before the final vote yesterday, conservatives suffered what they viewed as one final insult. Buried in a 125-page last-minute amendment was a requirement that local, state and federal officials in the U.S. consult with their Mexican counterparts before they can start building the fence.”

The Senate adds 500 additional miles of vehicle barriers...which will assure illegals in those locations do not cross in vehicles. Ronny Dodson, sheriff of Brewster County, Texas, told Fox News illegals have developed ingenious methods of avoiding detection, like hiding. “Someone could hear me coming for miles if I was in a vehicle – he could just lie down and no one would see him,” Dodson said. The federales graciously granted Sheriff Dodson 40 Border Patrol agents to patrol a county six-times the size of Rhode Island.

The Senate amnesty bill pledges to hire 1,000 Border Patrol agents this year, with a goal of 14,000 new agents by 2011. And if the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act has taught me anything, it’s that the Senate never misses its projected goals.

Based on experience, even this is utopian fantasy. In the past, Bush has called for 2,000 new Border Patrol agents – only to authorize one-tenth that many. Border Patrol actually increased more under President Clinton than Bush-43. Yet this assurance, in addition to whatever National Guardsmen Bush stations at the border, is supposed to allay the nation’s concerns while the Senate sticks up for the Business Roundtable.

Elsewhere, the bill makes clear enforcement is not a Senate priority. Russ Feingold and Sen. Sam Brownback – who continues to undermine his already longshot presidential candidacy – successfully moved to allow activist judges to stay deportations essentially at will.

More politically savvy politicians voted another way. Ten of the 15 Republican senators up for re-election this year voted no, including those considered most vulnerable: Rick Santorum, Conrad Burns, and Jim Talent. (Ohio’s Mike DeWine continues to bait his state’s conservative base.) Three of the four Democrats who voted no also face re-election this fall, including vulnerable Maria Stabenow and Ben Nelson. Even House members are reacting. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-GA, wisely noted, “We don't want ‘Republican’ and ‘amnesty’ in the same sentence.”

It won’t be if the House has its way. The Conference Committee will have to iron out the differences between the Senate amnesty bill and the House’s all-enforcement bill, passed last December. The House, which by design is constitutionally and ideologically closer to the American people, has pledged to stand firmly against any amnesty in committee. Perhaps no bill whatever will result – which, contrary to Tony Snow, would not be received by Americans less favorably than amnesty. Or perhaps the two will coalesce along the lines of a bill introduced by conservative leader Rep. Mike Pence, R-IN. It includes a guest worker program – but unlike his Senate colleagues, Pence “gets it” on border enforcement. He recently noted, in 2005 alone, more than 200 illegals detained by Border Patrol came from the Middle East, “countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others.” His plan would require workers to leave the country before receiving a biometric worker ID card – and would provide no “path to citizenship” for those blazing the trail north for economic reasons. After a specified period, the illegals would be required to leave the country. Supporters hail this as “free market deportation.” If such a provision could be combined with genuine border security and an enforceable exit-date for guest workers, it would be a tremendous step forward. But enforcement, not amnesty, must be the order of the day.

This Senate bill will comprehensively change our country and alter the dynamics of our workforce. Perhaps the House will comprehensively overhaul the Senate bill. Otherwise, the Republican Congress will soon experience a “sweeping” of another kind.

From Amy Welborn's blog, Open Book:

Stand Firm

May 26, 2006

In his homily today in Warsaw, Benedict spoke of the truth of the Gospel - how the Church protects this truth, how it is faithfully handed down, and how the core of responding to that truth is in love:

Every Christian is bound to confront his own convictions continually with the teachings of the Gospel and of the Church’s Tradition in the effort to remain faithful to the word of Christ, even when it is demanding and, humanly speaking, hard to understand. We must not yield to the temptation of relativism or of a subjectivist and selective interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Only the whole truth can open us to adherence to Christ, dead and risen for our salvation.

Christ says: “If you love me ... ” Faith does not just mean accepting a certain number of abstract truths about the mysteries of God, of man, of life and death, of future realities. Faith consists in an intimate relationship with Christ, a relationship based on love of him who loved us first (cf. 1 Jn 4:11), even to the total offering of himself. “God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). What other response can we give to a love so great, if not that of a heart that is open and ready to love? But what does it mean to love Christ? It means trusting him even in times of trial, following him faithfully even on the Via Crucis, in the hope that soon the morning of the Resurrection will come. Entrusting ourselves to Christ, we lose nothing, we gain everything. In his hands our life acquires its true meaning. Love for Christ expresses itself in the will to harmonize our own life with the thoughts and sentiments of his Heart. This is achieved through interior union based on the grace of the Sacraments, strengthened by continuous prayer, praise, thanksgiving and penance. We have to listen attentively to the inspirations that he evokes through his Word, through the people we meet, through the situations of daily life. To love him is to remain in dialogue with him, in order to know his will and to put it into effect promptly.