John Czarnecki knows his football.

Phil Savage: Smart. Patient. Disciplined. The Rove of the draft?

But what will Pluto, America's finest sports writer, say?

Please help teacher Chris Miller support the Kiefer family:

Ride To Reach The Day...

A good friend of mine needs your help. This June, 17 cyclists will travel from San Francisco, CA to Norfolk, VA in ten days. I will be joining them, but for those of you who know me you will not be surprised to hear that I have opted to drive a van as opposed to riding a bike.

The ride is to raise money for and awareness of childhood cancer. I have sent the following letter to my friends, and I also wanted to share it with my readers, whom I also consider friends.

Dear Friend:

I am writing to tell you about my good friend William Kiefer. In March of 2004, just after his first birthday, William was diagnosed with Rhabdoid Tumor of the Kidney, which is an extremely aggressive form of cancer. On August 1st of that year, William lost his battle to cancer and went home to be with the Lord. Each year more than 12,500 children under the age of 20 are diagnosed with some form of cancer. Although much advancement has been made in treating childhood cancer, nearly 20% of all children diagnosed with cancer have their lives cut short.

A group of friends have joined together in support of the Kiefer family and other families by forming Team-Will. Team Will is designed to raise awareness of and money for children’s charities through cycling activities. On June 16, 2006 seventeen riders will be leaving San Francisco, California, traveling through 11 states and arriving in Norfolk, Virginia on June 25, 2006. Team-Will plans to make up to nine stops at hospitals during the trip to help raise awareness in cities throughout the nation.

Along with raising awareness, each rider of Team Will has pledged to raise $2,250. Team-Will has joined up with CureSearch, which:

…unites the world's largest childhood cancer research organization, the Children's Oncology Group, and the National Childhood Cancer Foundation through our shared mission to cure childhood cancer.

CureSearch is a nationally recognized, IRS approved 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization (Federal Tax ID 95-4132414). One of the benefits of working with CureSearch is that only 6% of all donations go towards fundraising and administration, while 94% goes towards the goal for finding new and better cures for childhood cancer.

To help make this goal a reality I am asking for your help. As a volunteer driver, I have personally committed to raise $700 towards the trip. Any amount you can give will be greatly appreciated, and will help to ensure that this becomes an annual event until the day that there is no longer a need to fight childhood cancer.

Another way you can help is by spreading the word about the event. Aside from the ride itself, there will also be a live auction in Sacramento on May 20, 2006. If you are interested in attending or would like to purchase raffle tickets for the auction please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Thank you in advance,

Chris Miller

If you would like to make a donation there is a PayPal button on my Team-Will bio page.

I won't be posting this weekend, but hope you will return and read this message again and send your friends as well, and contribute, perhaps even a couple of times.

What transparent garbage. Here's how Reuters describes Rush:

Under the deal the 55-year-old Limbaugh, best known as a brash and often moralistic talk show host, will see the case against him dropped in 18 months, his attorney said.

Rush Limbaugh actually is known now, and will be 100 years from now, as the most innovative and successful radio talk show host in history, the most powerful brand on air from 1990 forward, and, as the story proves again, the new media voice most hated by the old media monopoly he --almost single-handedly-- broke.

A century from now, the accounts of these years will not record any of today's anchors. But they will, almost certainly, note Cronkite and Limbaugh as the two broadcasters who defined a medium and changed the politics of their age.

This clearly triggered the DOS attacks today.

And in fact may be a perfect defense in the unlikely event the FBI finds some authorities in Saudi Arabia interested in pursuing the matter.

From the paper's website:

The Times is discontinuing Michael Hiltzik's Golden State column, which ran in the Business section, because the columnist violated the newspaper's ethics guidelines. This follows the suspension last week of his blog on latimes.com, which also has been discontinued. Hiltzik has acknowledged using pseudonyms to post a single comment on his blog on latimes.com and multiple comments elsewhere on the Web that dealt with his column and other issues involving the newspaper.

Hiltzik did not commit any ethical violations in his newspaper column, and an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting in his postings in his blog or on the Web. But employing pseudonyms constitutes deception and violates a central tenet of The Times' ethics guidelines: Staff members must not misrepresent themselves and must not conceal their affiliation with The Times. This rule applies equally to the newspaper and the Web world.

Over the past few days, some analysts have used this episode to portray the Web as a new frontier for newspapers, saying that it raises fresh and compelling ethical questions. Times editors don't see it that way. The Web makes it easier to conceal one's identity, and the tone of exchanges is often harsh. But the Web doesn't change the rules for Times journalists.

After serving a suspension, Hiltzik will be reassigned.

Isn't it at least a little ironic that the Times releases this information on a Friday afternoon, traditional burial ground of bad news-- in an obvious effort to have the story pass with as little attention as possible? So much for transparency.

Michael Hiltzik is just one of hundreds of examples of ideologicially blinkered agenda journalists at the Times. He just got caught.

The Times concludes "an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting."

Yeah. Right. Very believable. Hiltzik may become an invisible presence at the paper, the Pulitzer Prize winner at the copy desk, or he may quit, but he'll no doubt haunt message boards.

But the culture at the Times that produced him quite obviously stays the same.

UPDATE: Credit where credit is due: The Times has given new arrival Matt Welch a blog, "Opinion LA," and Matt --not surprisingly, given his new media sensibilities-- is covering the Hiltzik disposition in detail. But even this stab at the appearance of transparency doesn't do much to stop the laughing. Hiltzik's paper is still Hiltzik's paper: Only the column/blog is gone. The ideology remains.

Perhaps Matt could query his new bosses just how the Hiltzik "inquiry" was conducted? The "editor's note" concluded that "an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting in his postings in his blog or on the Web." How, exactly, was that inquiry conducted, and by whom?

Given that I have been a target of many of Hiltzik's stories/jeremiads, it would seem logical that an inquest into the accuracy of Hiltzik's reporting might have, well, asked me if I found any inaccuracies. No such inquiry was received. I suspect no such inquiry was received by Patterico, Seipp or Liebau or any other Hiltzik target. Which of course makes the Times' assertion that an "inquiry" was conducted laughable.

If you really want to know if a disgraced reporter/writer has been accurate in his reporting, ask the subjects of that reporting. The Times didn't, because the Times wasn't. Not surprisingly, the paper doesn't really want a whole lot of attention paid to what Hiltzik has been writing under its banner. Then the question wouldn't be how he could be so dumb as to use pseudonyms. Then the question would be how could the paper's leadership not have notice how far over the left edge the guy had gone. The answer to the secnd question is that the editors didn't find anything particulary unusual about Hiltzik's many slanders. They agreed with him. They still do.

My guess is that the "inquiry" was handled by some mid-level editor with two decades of experience in the Times' news room, holding all of the same opinions that all of the reporters/editors/columnists have held, still hold, and will continue to hold. A report was written up for Dean Baquet --one that omitted any refernce to John Carroll's famous diatribe about new media-- which declared that the only impropriety Hiltzik had committed was the use of the pseudonyms. Hiltzik is summoned and exiled, his column ended, a "note" drawn up and published. End of "inquiry." No "Staples Center"-like investigation to follow that would probe how the Times newsroom became so monochromatic in belief that no one noticed the fellow who thought he was Napoleon now thought he was many Napoleons.

The next time the Times investigates any institution for wrongdoing, that organization should reply that a "Hiltzik inquiry" is underway, and the paper should be confident that it will be complete, and that nothing untoward occured except that which is already known.

I assume the paper will be content and accept such a declaration.

From Wikipedia:

"My Country, 'Tis of Thee," also known as "America," is an American patriotic song. The melody comes from the British national anthem, God Save the Queen and the German "Kaiserhymne". The same melody is the national anthem of Liechtenstein and has served as an anthem for Denmark, Germany, Russia, Sweden and Switzerland.

The lyrics to "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" were written in 1831 by Reverend Samuel Francis Smith of Boston's Park Street Church while at the Andover Theological Seminary in Andover, Massachusetts. The song served as a de facto national anthem for much of the 19th century.

I assume those who are upset with the British music producer ripping off the Star Spangled banner are alaso calling for an end to the singing of "My Country Tis of Thee?"

So Adam Kidron (web site Urban Box Office) puts out a Spanish language version of the Star Spangled Banner, and changes the words. The President gets a question, and answers that he thinks the National Anthem should be sung in English. Pundits swoon. Nutter radio hosts have material for today's show. A British record producer mau maus Monday's Million Illegals March.

The organizers of Monday's big march in Los Angeles must be pleased. The entrepeneur who thought up the Spanish-version of the Star Spangled Banner, Adam Kidron, must be very pleased. Saul Alinsky is beaming down...wait, Alinsky was an aethiest, right?

I can't get very excited about this, largely because I know the lefties want me too. The screamers who want to deport everyone also love this story. And Kidron wants to cell CDs.

I can't find the text of all of Alinsky's "Rules for radicals," but here are a few, as mofdified by recent technology. Compare the rules with the actions of the march organizers and the anthem snatchers.

Power is not only what you have, but what the target thinks you have.

Never go outside the expertise of your people. Feeling secure stiffens the backbone.

Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the target. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety, and uncertainty.

Make the target live up to its own book of rules. If the rule is that every letter or E-mail gets a reply, send thousands.

Ridicule, especially against organizational leaders, is a potent weapon. There's no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force concessions.

A good tactic is one your people enjoy. They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They'll even suggest better ones.

Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new tactics to keep the opposition off balance. As the target masters one approach, hit them with something new.

Pick the target. Target an individual, personalize the attack, polarize and demoralize his/her supporters. Go after people, not institutions. Hurting, harassing, and humiliating individuals, especially leaders, causes more rapid organizational change.

The bad news is that these tactics entertain the MSM. The good news is that Alinsky came up with this stuff decades ago, and the left has been using the rules for decades, and the GOP controls all the branches of government.

The really bad news is that we are debating Anthem propriety as Iran is moving as fast as it can towards nukes.

More from The Belmont Club

UPDATE: The lyrics:

Lyrics to 'Nuestro Himno' ('Our Anthem') Amanece, lo veis?, a la luz de la aurora?

lo que tanto aclamamos la noche caer?

sus estrellas sus franjas

flotaban ayer

en el fiero combate

en señal de victoria,

fulgor de lucha, al paso de la libertada.

Por la noche decían:

"Se va defendiendo!"

Oh decid! Despliega aún

Voz a su hermosura estrellada,

sobre tierra de libres,

la bandera sagrada?

Sus estrellas, sus franjas,

la libertad, somos iguales.

Somos hermanos, en nuestro himno.

En el fiero combate en señal de victoria,

Fulgor de lucha, al paso de la libertada.

Mi gente sigue luchando.

Ya es tiempo de romper las cadenas.

Por la noche decían: "!Se va defendiendo!"

Oh decid! Despliega aún su hermosura estrellada

sobre tierra de libres,

la bandera sagrada?

English translation:

By the light of the dawn, do you see arising,

what we proudly hailed at twilight's last fall?

Its stars, its stripes

yesterday streamed

above fierce combat

a gleaming emblem of victory

and the struggle toward liberty.

Throughout the night, they proclaimed:

"We will defend it!"

Tell me! Does its starry beauty still wave

above the land of the free,

the sacred flag?

Its stars, its stripes,

liberty, we are the same.

We are brothers in our anthem.

In fierce combat, a gleaming emblem of victory

and the struggle toward liberty.

My people fight on.

The time has come to break the chains.

Throughout the night they proclaimed, "We will defend it!"

Tell me! Does its starry beauty still wave

above the land of the free,

the sacred flag?

Think it took 20 or 30 minutes to write these?

From the New York Times:

The F.B.I. has notified three nonprofit organizations created by Representative Alan B. Mollohan and financed primarily through special federal appropriations he steered their way that they should expect subpoenas soon for financial and other records.

Mr. Mollohan, Democrat of West Virginia, stepped down from the House ethics committee last week over accusations of financial impropriety that stem largely from a complaint the conservative National Legal and Policy Center has filed with the United States attorney in Washington.

Excerpt:

HH: Professor Hanson, before we talk a little bit about Libya and where we find ourselves this week with the war and other things, tell me a little bit about the quality of the health care. Even though drugs weren't available, were you confident in the surgeon's skills?

VDH: It's a very big divide there, Hugh. The surgeon himself had, was very good. And there's a group of surgeons that have either been trained in Europe before Qaddafi thirty years ago, who are still there, and have trained other surgeons. So he knew how to deal with a ruptured appendix pretty well, and he especially knew how to clean up the area around it, and he knew which drugs to give. But the backup, the anesthesiologist, the post-operative care, the hygeine, masks, gloves, all of that is something comparable to probably the 1920's in the United States, if that. That's why I sort of decided that while I had been given a second chance because of the skill of the surgeon, that even though I should probably be in the hospital a little longer in the States, by day four I thought I'd better chance it and see if I can get home any way I could.

HH: Did you get any pain killers along the way?

VDH: No.

HH: No???

VDH: No, I didn't. As the doctor told me when I left, he said you in the States take pain killers...and in sort of broken English, he told me you're not going to have any constipation or gas.

HH: (laughing)

VDH: If you can tough it out, you'll heal quicker.

HH: Did anyone have any aspirin?

VDH: No.

HH: No aspirin?

VDH: No aspirin. They don't have Advil.

HH: This is like the Civil War. You've been to Andersonville, Professor.

VDH: I have. But you know, I couldn't think of a worse thing, now sitting back and being in a Red Crescent clinic in Libya, getting a ruptured appendix, and being told I had about five hours before I was a goner. But now that I look back at it, just meeting the people who came, the doctors, the nurses, the U.S. Charge d'affaires, people from the Libyan government who thought that maybe I was a captive audience that would hear their spiel about Libya, it was all a very valuable experience.

HH: Did Col. Qaddafi drop by?

VDH: No, but his minister, one of his minsters of education did. And he wanted to insist that I understood that Col. Qaddafi was an experienced person in the Middle East, that there's a radical change in Libya, that...I guess if I could term, sum it up, that where they had been going didn't get what they wanted. And after...they don't really want to admit why the change is happening, that it has anything to do with Saddam's fate. But they do want to emphasize that all of the existing issues from Lockerbie to the Bulgarian nurse scandal, to the terrorists...they can all be resolved for the greater good of relations with the United States.

HH: So you're lying in a Red Crescent hospital, having had anesthesia-free abdominal surgery of a major sort without any post-surgery anesthetic, and Col. Qaddafi's education minister comes to talk to you about resolving Libya's many outstanding difficulties with the West?

VDH: (laughing) Well, I did have...I was knocked out with a type of gas. I don't know what type it was, but after that, I didn't have any pain. It was a strange experience.

HH: Yeah!!!

Patterico speculates on the missing Michael Hiltzik.

The difficulty the Times faces is that it has an adopted and published Code of Ethics, and has probably applied the Code in other circumstances. There is "case law" in other words --precedents for disciplining past transgressions against the Code.

Even though there are voices arguing for a pardon --Patterico and me, to name two with some standing as we were slagged by Hiltzik anonymously-- the lawyers are asking each other how do they look the other way when the Code says "all Times products alike."

Whatever happens, the Times needs to make a detailed, public report of its findings and its reasonings, as it did with the famous Staples case. Of course the Staples imbroglio was trumped up in the newsroom in order to damage management the old MSM guard distrusted. Hiltzik is one of the old guard, and the irony may be that the breast beaters then are cornered by their "off with their heads" rhetoric from that episode.

The best response is to give up the absurd pretensions to objectivity and fairness. The Times is neither. Michael Hiltzik is their poster child, not their bad boy.

RegimeChangeIran reports that Iranian Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi will appear on Oprah.

I understand booking Nobel laureates, but in a recent interview broadcast in Los Angeles Ebadi, through a translator, demurred on all difficult questions, and her colleagues explained that the regime in Iran monitored her every utterance.

I understand her caution and her fear. But if a Nobel laureate is unable to condemn Holocaust denial and the threats of her country's president against the existence of Israel, she ought not to be given air time in which those questions are avoided.

Imagine a German dignitary touring the United States in 1937 and not being asked about Hitler's actions and statements.

J. Ligon Duncan III, Mark E. Dever, C.J. Mahaney, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, and Jeremy S. Haywood are eight very serious, very widely admired Protestant theologians who have been spending some time together working through some important issues within their common faith.

The result is here.

UPDATE: Tim Challies has some valuable posts, including a summary of John McArthur's presentation.

The Washington Post reports on candidates for the United States Senate in Maryland and Virginia who are basing their campaigns on a demand for withdrawal from Iraq. As I have written many times, former Reagan Adminsitration Navy Secretary James Webb poses a unique challenge to Senator Geogre Allen in that Webb is a warrior who is arguing the decision to invade was wrong and the occupation bungled.

Webb's primary opponent, Harris Miller, is also running against the war.

Across the state line in Maryland, Kweise Mfume is campaigning that the Democrats must use the appropriations process to shut down the war in Iraq:

Kweisi Mfume has said Congress must force the president's hand through the appropriations process and establish a plan for withdrawal. "If we can set a date certain for an Iraqi constitution and a date certain for establishment of an Iraqi government, which we did, I think we ought to be able to set a date certain for withdrawal" in concert with increased international participation, he said.

Mfume's primary opponent, Congressman Ben Cardin, "was one of 133 House members who voted against the original resolution authorizing President Bush to take action."

As the Post puts it:

"[W]herever Democratic loyalists gather, there are five words sure to prompt applause for a Senate candidate:

End the war in Iraq."

This clarity among Democratic candidtaes is welcome news for the GOP and the country. If the GOP's candidates will rise to the defense of the war --its necessity and its success not only in driving out the threat that was the Saddam regime but also the very difficult process of helping to erect an Iraq that is both democratic and a counterweight to Iran-- the elections of November can go the Republicans' way.

But if they mistake the president's poll numbers for an endorsement of Democratic calls for retreat, Republicans will get crushed.

The GOP has to commikt to arguing hard but true things:

*That Saddam was a threat, and it is good that he is gone.

*That while a difficult and ongoing operation, Iraq, and Afghanistan, were not battles America chose to fought but battles it had to join and win.

*That both countries are much better off today than they were on 9/12, as is the United States.

*And that there is much, much more difficult fighting ahead, and not just in those two countries but around the globe and that Democratic isolationism is a guarantee of more and more devastating attacks on the United States.

The opposite of a resolute defense of the war and its effectiveness is the attempt by Ohio's Mike DeWine this week to demonstrate "independence" with an attack on Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. DeWine told Salon:

"Rumsfeld has made some very serious mistakes," DeWine declared, repeating his verdict for emphasis. "Very serious mistakes. I think history will judge him very harshly."

Senator DeWine writes fundraising letters that extoll his conservative credentials, and his votes to confirm Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito help mitigate his membership in the Gang of 14 (as will a solid performance in the collision over circuit court nominees that is brewing). These are important evidences as to why Republicans in the Buckeye State need to rally to DeWine.

But bashing Rumsfeld is a sure fire way to shatter the base that he needs.

Professor Hanson blew out his appendix in Libya last week, but managed to get back to the states and be interviewed today about his adventures in the desert kingdom.

The transcript will be at Radioblogger. And we are all very pleased his recovery is progressing well.

Robert Novak opens both guns on the "whispering campaign" against Mitt Romney on the basis of his faith. He makes a point in passing: Folks who are hesitant to say they oppose Romney because he is a Mormon have to ask what are they embarassed about?

Blogotional's John Schroeder and Hedgehog's Lowell Brown --the former and evangelical and the latter LDS-- joined me on today's show to discuss the column which is just the beginning of a long and important debate.