Tim Howard still saves

European soccer returned to Goodison Park this week after an absence of more than four years. Everton celebrated with a 4-1 victory over the German side Wolfsburg in a Europa League match.

The score flattered Everton. It was achieved on the strength of Tim Howard, the U.S. goalkeeper whose performance in the World Cup had some liberals lobbying to rename Ronald Reagan Airport after him.

In his signature match against Belgium, Howard saved 16 shots (if memory serves) in 120 minutes. Against Wolfsburg, he was credited with 12 saves in 90 minutes, at least four of which were from the top drawer.

Several of Howard’s saves on Thursday came at the expense of Kevin De Bruyne. Howard also victimized De Bruyne in the Belgium match, though the blond winger scored in extra time.

Two other attackers who played for Belgium against the U.S. — Romulu Lukaku (who scored Belgium’s other goal) and Kevin Mirallas — were on Howard’s side in the Wolfsburg match. Mirallas scored one and was involved in creating another. Other than Howard, he was arguably our best player on the night. Lukaku was less impressive, but had his moments.

Everton is playing dynamic, attacking soccer under Roberto Martinez. But we need to tighten up the defense. Tim Howard can’t bail us out of every match, as we saw when Chelsea put six past him a few weeks ago.

Chuck Hagel piles on the NFL

CNN reports that Chuck Hagel has asked his staff for detailed information about the U.S. military’s relationships with the National Football League in the wake of the controversy over how the league is handling domestic-abuse allegations against players. With the U.S. supposedly ramping for a war against ISIS, you would think that Hagel has better things to worry about. But politically correct posturing is always a priority for Team Obama.

Hagel presides over a military in which sexual harassment reportedly is rampant. As the employer, the Defense Department is legally responsible for providing its personnel with a harassment-free work place. The NFL has no legal responsibility for domestic abuse committed by players outside of work.

You might think, then, that the Defense Department would not throw the first stone, but things don’t work that way nowadays. Piling on the NFL is a cheap way for Hagel to show his bona fides as a friend of women while diverting attention from allegations that the military mistreats women.

As for the military’s relationship with the NFL, it is well worth preserving. The military advertises on NFL broadcasts. Given the NFL’s enormous viewership among young American males, this is an excellent recruiting method for our all-volunteer military. Should the military abandon this method because Ray Rice initially received only a two game suspension? That would be biting its nose to spite its face.

The military also broadcasts NFL games to troops stationed overseas. Should it deprive troops of this pleasure over after-the-fact displeasure with a League disciplinary policy that has been changed? Of course not.

According to CNN, the Army and the NFL share information and resources to better understand traumatic brain injury, which is a major medical issue both for wounded troops and football players. Even Chuck Hagel isn’t dense enough to end this relationship.

NFL players visit military bases to encourage children to be active for at least 60 minutes a day to help prevent childhood obesity. I doubt that Hagel will want to cancel this program. What would Michelle Obama say?

The NFL can’t tell Chuck Hagel to pound sand, but that would be the appropriate response. That, plus a 15-yard penalty for piling on.

Harry Reid on Immigration: Busted

Yes, I know, we really don’t need more evidence that Harry Reid gives a bad name to unprincipled opportunistic guttersnipes everywhere, but this one-minute video of Reid on immigration from the early 1990s, and more recently, gilds the point nicely: (more…)

Why Would Anyone Send His Daughter to College?

President Obama has announced another of his useless initiatives, the only purpose of which is to distract attention from the comprehensive failures of his administration. This one is intended to reduce sexual assault on college campuses. It is claimed that one in five women on college campuses is sexually assaulted–an absurd statistic if by “sexually assaulted” you mean sexually assaulted. Nevertheless, interested persons (politicians who want to talk about something other than the economy, immigration and foreign policy, and grievance hustlers who want money and power) repeat it endlessly.

In this parody video, Glenn Reynolds takes the one-in-five claim seriously. With that sort of risk, you would be crazy to send your daughter to college. What’s the alternative? Why, Reynolds Online University, of course! It’s the only responsible choice:

“Climate Science Is Not Settled”

It is not often that you see someone of Steven Koonin’s prominence publicly immolate his future in Democratic Party politics and perhaps in the senior reaches of academia at the same time. But that’s what Koonin does today with his Wall Street Journal feature “Climate Science Is Not Settled.” Koonin served in the first term of the Obama administration as the undersecretary of science in the Department of Energy; he was previously provost at CalTech, and was head scientist for BP’s research on renewable and low-carbon energy.

Koonin is no climate skeptic, but after today’s article that departs from the “97 percent” party line, it is impossible that environmental groups will allow him to be nominated by a Democratic president for any position, unless it was a minor consular post in Micronesia to stash him away somewhere out of sight. (Just look back on how the greens opposed Cass Sunstein’s nomination to OMB, because—gasp!—Sunstein has nice things to say about cost-benefit analysis.)

Read carefully, you will see that Koonin reflects pretty much the Power Line position, namely that the current state of climate science is nowhere near good enough to tell us what the state of the climate is going to be several decades from now, and that, as I’ve argued myself in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, you can see this in the IPCC reports if you take the time to read them with any care at all. (He even endorses an idea I first proposed ten years ago—that a “Team B” ought to be set up to produce rival assessments of the data and scientific findings. The infamous “Climategate” emails contained some reference to my idea, and that it caused consternation amongst the climatistas.)

You owe it to yourself to read the whole thing (especially his very good summary of the serious limitations of the computer climate models), but here are a couple of key highlights:

The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future. . .

We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue. . .

• The models differ in their descriptions of the past century’s global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere’s energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate’s inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right. . .

These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not “minor” issues to be “cleaned up” by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research. . .

Despite Koonin’s moderate tone and outlook, I predict you will see the climatistas attack him savagely in the coming days—just as soon as Joe Romm clears the coffee from his computer keyboard this morning in fact. Because 97 percent!! We’ll watch and bring updates.

The Week in Pictures: Harmonic Convergence Edition

Every once and a while when the planets come into alignment, comet watchers and other New Age gnostics will declare that it means something.  Right now the panic over the NFL, panic over the Democratic Party’s prospects at the polls in November, panic over the Clintons gearing up for an uninspiring 2016 campaign, and panic over Obama’s obvious incapability to measure up to his job, have come into perfect alignment.  This kind of convergence must be hell on New York Times editorial writers.  Things were so much simpler when all you had to worry about was the lack of women members at Augusta National Country Club.

Reid Obama copy

Firing the Base copy Pelosi Civilization copy Pelosi Waterboarding copy Inevitabillary copy Clintons in Iowa copy Clinton Gothic copy Ebola Care copy

NFL copy NFL Trops copy

Ray Rice Jersey copy

Condi Rice copy

Romo Choking Hazard copy

Scotland copy

Thus guy mush have been jonesing for a donut real bad.

Thus guy must have been jonesing for a donut real bad.

It's All Cool copy People Don't Land copy Missing Wine copy Lincoln One Cent copy Plotting in Background copy Starbucks Ultrasound copy Aplle Watch copy Medication copy Beer Value copy Chuck Roast copy Fcebook Confession copy

Jayne 6 copy

And finally, yeah, I can’t wait for the new season. . .

Hot Lana copy

Incapable in Kansas

The race for the Kansas Senate seat held by Republican incumbent Pat Roberts has been essentially a three-way affair among Roberts, Democrat Chad Taylor and Independent (Democrat) Greg Orman. When Taylor purported to withdraw as the Democratic nominee earlier this month, he did so in a terse letter to Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach:

I, Chadwick J. Taylor, Democratic nominee for the United States Senate race, do hereby withdraw my nomination for election effective immediately and request my name be withdrawn from the ballot, pursuant to K.S.A. 25-306b(b).

The cited statute provides:

Any person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office who declares that they [sic] are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected may cause such person’s name to be withdrawn from nomination by a request in writing, signed by the person and acknowledged before an officer qualified to take acknowledgments of deeds.

Taylor having made no acknowledgment of incapability to serve, Kobach ruled that Taylor would stay on the ballot as the Democratic nominee this November. This point of the whole Democratic charade being to get Taylor off the ballot and get Democrats behind Orman, Taylor followed up with an appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court. Having made his withdrawal “pursuant to” the statute, Taylor argued that he incorporated the statutory requirement of incapability by reference. This week the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously agreed:

We conclude the plain meaning of “pursuant to K.S.A. 25-306b(b)” contained in Taylor’s letter effectively declares he is incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected. Simply put, the phrase operates as an incorporation by reference of this particular requirement.

The Kansas Supreme Court opinion is posted online here. It therefore ordered Kobach to remove Taylor’s name from the ballot this November. My reaction is of the you’ve got to be kidding me variety. Why didn’t Taylor say directly that he was incapable of serving? I think the answer is obvious: because he is capable of serving.

Chad Taylor in the Kansas  Supreme Court: He is "capable" of following orders.

Chad Taylor in the Kansas
Supreme Court: He is “capable” of following orders.

The photo at the left depicts Taylor as he stares meaningfully into space, listening to the argument of his case in the Kansas Supreme Court. He looks capable. Indeed, he continues to serve as the Shawnee County District Attorney.

The Wichita Eagle covers the story here. Byron York follows up in the Washington Examiner here. Byron asks a series of questions reflecting the view that Taylor’s argument is not to be taken at face value.

Taylor’s withdrawal was obviously orchestrated by Democrats to maximize their chances of knocking off Roberts. Taylor is equally obviously capable of serving. He is lying for the greater good. The whole thing is a charade.

Taylor having succeeded in making the case that he has declared himself incapable of serving “pursuant to” the Kansas withdrawal statute, will anybody who covers Kansas politics bother to ask Taylor why he is incapable of serving and when he became incapable? It would take Kansas voters somewhat nearer to the heart of the story than they are now.

UPDATE: I meant to note that Legal Insurrection’s William Jacobson takes a look at the current state of the race here.