July 4, 2009
The Yankee Doodle Boy
The late Michael Jackson was inarguably one of the most talented entertainers of our time and certainly one of the most innovative dancers. But well before Jackson, there was James Cagney, who was every bit as talented an entertainer and dancer as Jackson. In fact, I seem to recall reading an interview of Jackson years ago in which he admitted that he patterned many of his dance techniques on those of Cagney.
Although better known for his gangster movie roles, Cagney was actually Hollywood's best dancer for much of his long and storied career. Check out three of Cagney's signature dance scenes below from the 1942 film, Yankee Doodle Dandy, in which Cagney plays the early-20th century composer, George M. Cohan.
The first video below is probably Cagney's most famous dance sequence, the "Yankee Doodle Boy" scene from Cohan's first big-hit musical in the movie. The end of that video includes a short clip of a later salute to Cagney by Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland, which serves primarily to prove just how far Cagney's glorious talent exceeded that of a couple of pedestrian Hollywood hoofers. The third video below is the final dance scene of the movie in which Cagney as an ebullient Cohan descends the White House staircase after receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor from President Roosevelt. Note that the scene is shot in one take (the camera never strays from Cagney) and Cagney never once looks down at his feet. Heck, I cannot even walk down a staircase of that size without watching my feet. Enjoy!
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
July 3, 2009
Albert Collins
I saw Albert Collins perform at a Houston jazz club back in the late 1970's when he opened for a well-known local jazz musician. Suffice it to say that Albert stole the show. The headliner decided to have Collins and his band come out and play with him during his part of the show. It was a very smart move.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
July 2, 2009
The Chronicle's continuing Enron hypocrisy
Being generally an optimistic sort, I keep thinking that the financial crisis of the past year or so will eventually prompt the Houston Chronicle to reconsider its generally biased coverage of the demise of Enron over the past seven years. After all, it's not every day that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concludes that a newspaper's coverage of a particular event was a major factor in the creation of a presumption of community prejudice.
Nevertheless, the local paper's recent coverage of disgraced financiers R. Allen Stanford and Bernard Madoff reflects that no such soul-searching is likely to emerge anytime soon down on Texas Avenue.
Take this recent Loren Steffy column in which he asks the following: "Why, then, does Madoff get a sentence six times that of [former WorldCom CEO Bernie] Ebbers or Enron’s Jeff Skilling?"
I mean, really. Is the answer to that question all that difficult?
Madoff turns himself in and admits from the outset that he was stealing money from investors for years by running a Ponzi scheme. Any wonder why he was hammered by the sentencing judge?
Ebbers was essentially convicted of covering up accounting fraud at WorldCom, but he at least put up a colorable defense that he was not responsible for such matters and had no knowledge of the fraud.
Moreover, Skilling wasn't even accused of accounting fraud. He was convicted essentially of making too many rose-colored statements about Enron, notwithstanding that his belief in the truth of those statements was never seriously challenged.
Finally, neither Ebbers nor Skilling stole a dime from the investors of their respective companies. Yet, Steffy insists upon comparing them with the larcenous Madoff. who essentially stole tens of millions. The Greed Narrative prevails again.
But here's my main point. Now that what happened to Enron has happened to numerous other trust-based Wall Street firms, shouldn't the Chronicle be advocating that similarly aggressive criminal prosecutions be mounted against numerous executives of the Wall Street firms who made the same type of rosy statements about their wobbling companies as Skilling made about Enron?
Now, I don't believe that there was widespread criminal fraud at Enron. The only true criminal fraud there was relatively small and isolated in Andrew Fastow's Global Finance unit. Similarly, I don't believe that there was widespread criminal fraud at the Wall Street firms that endured the same downward spiral that engulfed Enron.
But inasmuch as the Chronicle fanned the flames of criminal prosecutions against dozens of Enron executives and others involved in transactions with them, shouldn't the Chronicle be taking the same position with regard to executives at the similarly-situated Wall Street firms? Or at least shouldn't the Chronicle be explaining why it threw dozens of Enron executives under the bus even though it now fails to advocate similar treatment for executives of the failed Wall Street firms?
It seems like the least that the local newspaper can do.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
July 1, 2009
The tough choices of health care finance reform
Following on a point made in this recent post, this Avery Johnson/WSJ article addresses one of the tough issues that must be addressed if there is going to be any meaningful reform of the U.S. health care finance system:
The widespread use of expensive cancer drugs to prolong patients’ lives by just weeks or months was called into question by an article published Monday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Crunching data from published studies, the authors found that treating a lung-cancer patient with Erbitux, a drug that costs $80,000 for an 18-week regimen, prolongs survival by only 1.2 months.
Based on that estimate, extending the lives of the 550,000 Americans who die of cancer annually by one year would then cost $440 billion, they extrapolated.
How to control escalating spending on end-of-life care is one of the thorniest questions facing lawmakers working on the overhaul of the U.S. health-care system. [. . .]
“Many Americans would not regard a 1.2-month survival advantage as ‘significant’ progress,” the authors wrote. “But would an individual patient disagree? Although we lack the answer to that question, we would suggest that the death of a mother of four at age 37 years would be no less painful were it to occur at age 37 years and 1 month, nor would the passing of a 67-year-old who planned to travel after retiring be any less difficult for the spouse were it to have occurred one month later.”
While some policy experts consider the rationing of health-care resources inevitable in the quest to control medical spending, many Americans have long resisted putting the collective fiscal good over their individual health. . . .
Read the entire article. I have many reservations about the direction of the Obama Administration's proposed reforms of the U.S. health care finance system. But that the proposed reforms are triggering discussion of key issues such as the one set forth above is not one of them.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2)
June 30, 2009
The Stoning of Soraya M.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 29, 2009
Levity to start the week
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 28, 2009
Classic Buddy Hackett
The video of Ed McMahon and Johnny Carson posted earlier this week reminded me of this classic joke that the late Buddy Hackett told and acted out on the Tonight Show years ago. Enjoy.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 27, 2009
The Hurt Locker
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 26, 2009
Old Jews telling jokes is back
After a short break, one of the best new websites of the year -- Old Jews Telling Jokes -- is back with a new round of jokes. Enjoy.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 25, 2009
Ed McMahon, R.I.P.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 24, 2009
The swing that won the U.S. Open
No wonder 2009 U.S. Open champion Lucas Glover is one of the leaders on the PGA Tour in the total driving statistic. At 6'2", he achieves amazing extension on his backswing and then delivers a powerful but controlled blow to the ball as he swings around his body on the downswing. This is the type of swing that holds up well under the pressure of tournament golf.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 23, 2009
Houston's connection to the new U.S. Open champion
Houston is synonymous with golf, so it's appropriate that new U.S. Open champion Lucas Glover's former teacher and mentor was the late Dick Harmon (see also here), who was one of Houston's most respected golf instructors for decades before his sudden death in 2006. Glover was one of Dick's pallbearers, delivered one of the eulogies at the funeral and had to fight back tears when he was asked about his relationship with Dick during his post-U.S. Open interview session. What a fitting tribute for a student to give to a wonderful teacher whose spirit still permeates Houston's golf community.
The 29 year-old Glover has long been considered a likely star by other professional golfers and appeared to be ready to fulfill that promise in the 2005-2006 seasons when he won his first tournament (the 2005 Walt Disney Classic), recorded 16 top-10 finishes and just missed earning a spot on the 2006 Ryder Cup team.
However, Glover struggled after Harmon's death in late 2006 and fell all the way to 178th in the World Golf Rankings after last season. Things got so bad that Glover put his clubs away for two months after last season to refresh himself from the grind of PGA Tour golf. Before the U.S. Open, he had already shown signs of regaining his form this season with a tie for 3rd at the Buick Invitational, a tie for 2nd at Quail Hollow and a jump to 71st in the World Golf Rankings. But Glover now appears ready to vault into the top echelons of golf with his U.S. Open championship at Bethpage. He has a superb all-around game.
Finally, as satisfying as Glover's victory was, it may not have been as gratifying as David Duval contending for the title and finishing in a tie for second. As noted here almost five years ago, it's been a long, strange trip back to the top tier of professional golf for Duval. Here's hoping that he stays this time.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 22, 2009
Jenkins @ the Open
With the 2009 U.S. Open that is finishing today, Clear Thinkers favorite Dan Jenkins is covering his 200th major golf tournament. In one of the more remarkable developments of the tournament, the 79 year-old Jenkins has been reporting on developments through Twitter, where he has proved to be a natural (one of his recent posts: "If David Duval wins this thing, it'll be the biggest comeback from a slump since Mickey Rourke got nominated for an Oscar"). Below is a recent HBO interview of Jenkins talking about his friend Ben Hogan, who was the master of the U.S. Open during the late 1940's and early 50's. Enjoy a true Texas original reminiscing about another one:
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 21, 2009
The Human Experience
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 20, 2009
The Defense of Freedom
There is no question that President Obama is confronted with a delicate diplomatic situation in regard to the ongoing political unrest in Iran. But it is ironic that the same issue that is bubbling over on the streets of Tehran is the same one that John Quincy Adams addressed in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of the illegally imported slaves that is wonderfully portrayed in the Stephen Spielberg movie, Amistad. In a magnificent performance, Anthony Hopkins plays the elderly Adams defending the slaves before the Supreme Court. Enjoy.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 19, 2009
How to make the U.S. Open telecast more exciting
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 18, 2009
Final Argument
The late Paul Newman in The Verdict playing a talented but alcoholic lawyer who gets a final opportunity to redeem a disappointing career in a difficult medical malpractice case. Enjoy.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 17, 2009
Italy is pretty good in Opera, too
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 16, 2009
A small Austin brokerage house schools the big banks
Tongues were wagging in financial circles around the world last week regarding this Wall Street Journal article about Austin-based Amherst Holdings' amazing play in which they sold credit default swaps on mortgage bonds to a number of Wall Street and London's biggest banks. Amherst then turned around and bought the mortgages underlying the bonds upon which the CDS were written to prevent a default that would have triggered Amherst's obligation to pay on the CDS.
Thus, in short, Amherst sold CDS on bonds and then bought the security for the bonds, thereby rendering the CDS worthless. Although the amount of profit is somewhat unclear, Amherst reportedly pocketed tens of millions of dollars on the deal.
The Financial Times' economist Willem Buiter does an entertaining job of explaining Amherst's transactional plan in the context of gambling and the difficulties involved in regulating such transactions. In so doing, he makes the following observation:
"The scheme is beautiful in its simplicity, absolutely outrageous, quite unethical, deeply deceptive and duplicitous, indeed quite immoral, but apparently legal."
Geez, maybe these Amherst sharpies could have saved AIG?
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (4)
June 15, 2009
Will Obama address this key health care finance issue?
Marginal Revolution's Tyler Cowen penned this insightful NY times op-ed over the weekend that addresses the problem of the elephant in the parlor in regard to Obama's proposed reform of America's dysfunctional health care finance system:
MEDICARE expenditures threaten to crush the federal budget, yet the Obama administration is proposing that we start by spending more now so we can spend less later.
This runs the risk of becoming the new voodoo economics. If we can’t realize significant savings in health care costs now, don’t expect savings in the future, either.
It’s not the profits of the drug companies or the overhead of the insurance companies that make American health care so expensive, but the financial incentives for doctors and medical institutions to recommend more procedures, whether or not they are effective. So far, the American people have been unwilling to say no.
Drawing upon the ideas of the Harvard economist David Cutler, the Obama administration talks of empowering an independent board of experts to judge the comparative effectiveness of health care expenditures; the goal is to limit or withdraw Medicare support for ineffective ones. This idea is long overdue, and the critics who contend that it amounts to “rationing” or “the government telling you which medical treatments you can have” are missing the point. The motivating idea is the old conservative chestnut that not every private-sector expenditure deserves a government subsidy.
Nonetheless, this principle is radical in its implications and has met with resistance. In particular, Congress has not been willing to give up its power over what is perhaps the government’s single most important program, nor should we expect such a surrender of power in the future. There is already a Medicare Advisory Payment Commission, but it isn’t allowed to actually cut costs. [. . .]
Those cuts alone will not solve the fiscal problem, but if we aren’t willing to take even limited steps to conserve resources, we shouldn’t be spending any more money elsewhere. [. . .]
The demand for universal coverage sounds like a moral imperative to “take care of everybody,” but in reality it would make only a marginal difference when it comes to the overall health of the American population. The sober reality is that universal coverage is another way to spend money, which may or may not be a good idea.
The most likely possibility is that the government will spend more on health care today, promise to realize savings tomorrow and never succeed in lowering costs. It is rare that governments successfully cut costs by first spending more money.
Mr. Obama has pledged to be a fiscally responsible president. This is the biggest chance so far to see whether he means it.
Read the entire op-ed. Any reform of the U.S. health care finance system will not be successful in controlling costs unless or until a consensus is reached on a fundamental issue that most Americans do not even want to discuss -- that is, what is the basic level of health care that every individual in the U.S. is entitled to receive regardless of cost? For example, what level of care is an insolvent, uninsured, illegal immigrant entitled to receive? How much care should we be willing to subsidize to extend the life of a seriously-ill 90 year-old? A terminally-ill 50 year-old? These are thorny issues, but they must be addressed if we are ever going to achieve a coherently-financed health care system.
As Arnold Kling has been saying for years, many of us live under the delusion that we cannot possibly afford health care if we pay for it individually, but of course we can afford it if we pay for it collectively. For those of you who think that the government can magically make health care more affordable, just remember what happened after the government directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more affordable.
Update:Charles Kenny makes a good point that better health care is not necessarily expensive.
Update II: Steve Chapman chimes in with a timely observation:
There are only three ways to pay for this expansion of health insurance coverage: increased taxes, reduced benefits, or shiny gold ingots falling out of the sky. Voters emphatically prefer the latter option, so that is the one most likely to be embraced by Congress and the administration.
Update III: Arnold Kling notes the problems with Obama's "dessert now, spinach later" approach.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (3)
June 14, 2009
Lucy and Ethel in Iowa City
While reminiscing about my late mother with family members and friends at her recent funeral, it occurred to me that her remarkable life would be a great subject for a Larry McMurtry novel.
Along those lines, Sarah Swisher, an old family friend and a columnist for the Iowa City Press-Citizen, penned this column regarding an hilarious caper from the early 1960's involving my mother and Sarah's mother, who were dear friends. What started out as an attempt to create a plot for an Alfred Hitchcock movie quickly transformed into an episode of I Love Lucy with a touch of The Honeymooners.
You really can't make this stuff up.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1)
