People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

A Flick Worth Watching

It's been a rare moment when I've sat down to watch a movie that was themed around the subject of sports and didn't come away disappointed. Any Given Sunday ranks up there with the Worst Of All Time, despite the fact that some find it watchable and, coupled with The Legend Of Bagger Vance, easily took ten years off my life in the viewing.

Rudy may be the last Hollywood offering that mustered even three stars on my four-star critique-o-meter. And that one dates back to 1993.

Before that, we have to go back to 1989 with Field of Dreams and then to 1984 with The Natural. (Can it be possible that it's a quarter century old?).

Unlike most snooty movie critics, I didn't care for either The Hustler (1961) or Raging Bull (1980), both of which said critics drooled over and I nearly committed suicide over.

But Paula and I sat down to watch a movie (via DVD) last night that may be the best "sports movie" I've ever seen. A very pleasant surprise it was:

We Are Marshall. (2006)

A short IMBD synopsis:
In November, 1970, virtually the entire football team and coaches of Marshall University (Huntington, W.V.) die in a plane crash [a true story]. That spring, led by Nate Ruffin, a player who was ill and missed the fatal flight, students rally to convince the board of governors to play the 1971 season. The college president, Don Dedman, must find a coach, who then must find players. They petition the NCAA to allow freshmen to play, and coach Jack Lengyel motivates and leads young players at the same time that he reexamines the Lombardi creed that winning is the only thing. The father and the fiancée of a player who died find strength to move on. Can Marshall win even one game in 1971?
* A warning: It'll tug at your heartstrings. It's that kind of movie.

And a good one it is. Well worth renting.

On Global Warming Theory ...

... and those who hype it, George Will reminds us (in "Dark Green Doomsayers") that they are part of a cottage industry that's been around for a long, long time. "Eco-pessimists," as Will terms them.

This story is known by most already, but it's still illustrative of the problems we face with wild-eyed "scientists" - Al Gore being preeminent - who predict our doom, and get an interview with Katie Couric by doing it:

Speaking of experts, in 1980 Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford scientist and environmental Cassandra who predicted calamitous food shortages by 1990, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon. When Ehrlich predicted the imminent exhaustion of many nonrenewable natural resources, Simon challenged him: Pick a "basket" of any five such commodities, and I will wager that in a decade the price of the basket will decline, indicating decreased scarcity. Ehrlich picked five metals -- chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten -- that he predicted would become more expensive. Not only did the price of the basket decline, the price of all five declined.

An expert Ehrlich consulted in picking the five was John Holdren, who today is President Obama's science adviser. Credentialed intellectuals, too -- actually, especially -- illustrate Montaigne's axiom: "Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."

This Holdren character and others of his ilk now hold that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that is contributing to global warming. And must be banned. This despite any evidence that the globe is warming. This despite the fact that scientists throughout history have recognized the benefit that carbon dioxide renders for the survival of species on Planet Earth.

What was good is now bad. It is doing grievous harm but isn't.

Scientists. Guantanamo. A match made in heaven.

Osama bin Who?

Guess what the biggest threat to America's security is, now that the Democrats have taken charge again. Global terrorism? The rise of Islamism? The threat of dirty bombs nuking Baltimore?


It's the economy.


DNI Annual Threat Assessment
Washington Times editorial

In a statement that dovetails nicely with the Obama administration's hurry-up offense on the stimulus bill, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair highlighted the global economic crisis as leading national security challenge in introducing the Intelligence Community Annual Threat Assessment to the Senate's intelligence committee. "The longer it takes for the recovery to begin, the greater the likelihood of serious damage to U.S. strategic interests," Director Blair said. [link]
Forget terrorism. We need to worry about Wall Street bankers.

For the love of God. Would someone wake me from this nightmare?


Obama the Beneficent. That's what we should call him. Now, after his massive Destroy America "stimulus" bill - created and negotiated behind closed doors, with even most Democrats not being included in its formulation - has passed the House and Senate, he has decided that we should be allowed to see what our grandchildren will be paying for.

What a guy:
Obama wants public to track stimulus
By Stephan Dinan, Washington Times

As he prepared to sign the massive economic stimulus bill, President Obama called Saturday for the public to become watchdogs on where the $787 billion in the bill goes.

"Ultimately, this is your money, and you deserve to know where it's going and how it's spent," Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio address, promising to help with the most ambitious spending-scrutiny project the government has ever undertaken.

Mr. Obama called on "every American" to use www. recovery.gov - a Web site that will be up and running once the money begins to be spent - to track where the money is being spent and to "weigh in with comments and questions." [link] [my emphasis]
That's amusing. Now that we have no say in its formulation or its passage, this president feels gracious enough to let us comment on his work. Oh, the magnanimity.

In any case, we'll surely be letting you know how it goes, Junior. Every day. Every year. For the rest of your life.

The American people will remember you for what you've done. Be certain of that.

Can We Quote You On That?

New York Times columnist - and loony leftist fulminator - Frank Rick got one thing right in this morning's editorial offering (see "They Sure Showed That Obama"):

"[As President Obama] said in Fort Myers last week, he will ultimately be judged by his results. If the economy isn’t turned around, he told the crowd, then “you’ll have a new president.”

We fully expect Mr. Rich to renounce his (blind) support for our novice president when (not if) that eventuality becomes fact and Obama's economy doesn't turn around.

He won't, of course. He'll blame Obama's failures on Republican "obstructionism" - just as he does throughout the article - and for America's dismal situation. It can never be the fault of those who are actually in charge.

But we'll be here to set you straight, Frankie Boy. Make no mistake about that.