… It’s time to discuss what I believe would be the preferred four-step formula for the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments. Note that this is for the current format; I wrote up my suggestions for the 96-team format that is still “always on the list of topics” in “Merit-Based March Madness” last year.

In that year-ago column, I wrote that last year’s run to the finals by Butler “makes a powerful argument for keeping March Madness as it is.” It turns out that it’s not powerful enough. This year’s whining by a bunch of mediocre teams who should be ashamed that they’re complaining, while major conferences have been allowed way too many pathetic entries, calls for an immediate move to a more merit-based approach.

That four-step approach would work like this:
(more…)

I’ll let the Wall Street Journal’s editorialists explain (tyranny and lawlessness indicators in bold):

The new federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s website proclaims that no financial company “should be able to build, or feel pressure to build, a business model around unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices.” How ironic, then, that the bureau itself is trying to extend its reach by extorting billions of dollars from private mortgage servicers, regulating their business by fiat, and stalling a U.S. housing market recovery.

This brouhaha started last year when mortgage servicers—J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and other banks—were accused of mishandling foreclosure documentation. The feds have been investigating, and it turns out that most of the infractions were technical while very few borrowers lost their homes without cause. But state Attorneys General and White House special assistant Elizabeth Warren have spotted a political opening to smack the banks one more time and dole out $20 billion to potential voters in 2012.

They’ve sent a proposed 27-page “settlement” to the banks that would, among other things, force mortgage servicers to submit to the bureau’s permanent regulatory oversight; impose vast new reporting and administrative burdens; mandate the reduction of borrowers’ mortgage principal amounts in certain circumstances; and force servicers to perform “duties to communities,” such as preventing urban blight. We warned during the Dodd-Frank debate that the new consumer bureau would become a political tool for credit allocation, and here we already are.
(more…)

The inevitable question came within the first minute of my first class of this quarter: What did you do over break? Well, I took part in one of the most transformative debates in recent memory.

Being a resident of suburban Columbus, I am only a short drive away from the Ohio Statehouse. Also being the political junkie I am, I decided to take a venture to the center of Downtown to see our government in action. When I got there, the place was packed with 2,000 protesters. They were there protesting Senate Bill 5.

For those of you who are not regular consumers of news, Senate Bill 5 was a bill in the Ohio Senate that would strip most collective-bargaining power from public-sector unions. The 2,000 people at the statehouse protesting were mostly teachers, firefighters, police officers, prison guards, and other public employees trying to dissuade the legislature from passing the bill. At the end of the day, however, the Ohio Senate did what was right and passed the bill.

Before I explain why SB 5 will be beneficial to all Ohioans, let me be clear: I respect the right of employees in the private sector to form unions, to collectively bargain, and to strike, if necessary.

We cannot, however, compare the rights of private-sector unions to the rights of public-sector unions. In the private sector, the union negotiators meet directly with management to try and work out a deal. In the public sector, the taxpayers are management. The taxpayers elect the Governor, Senators and Representatives to serve as their emissaries in union negotiations. The problem is that, more often than not, the taxpayer’s emissary has a conflict of interest. Unions are heavily involved in the political process. Every election cycle, unions give millions of dollars to politicians to help get them elected. For example, since 1989, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a public sector union, has given over $43.3 million to political campaigns. This campaign cash causes politicians of both parties to agree to labor contracts that are not in the best interest of the taxpayers. The politicians know that if they vote against a generous contract for government employees, then not only will they cease to receive campaign cash from the unions, the unions will spend copious amounts of money to defeat them in their next re-election bid. The unions’ prodigious ability to dole out campaign cash is what creates a conflict of interest.

Another difference between private-sector and public-sector collective bargaining is that private companies can go bankrupt; governments cannot. Unions in the private sector know that they must be reasonable in their demands and must negotiate in good faith. If the private-sector unions get too sweet of a deal, then the company may go under, leaving the unions members without a job. That situation is a lose-lose for everyone. Because governments cannot go bankrupt, public sector unions have no real incentive to negotiate in good faith. What ends up happening is that the politicians must agree to a generous contract or face a politically suicidal government work stoppage, giving the public sector union a win at the expense of the taxpayer.

Not only does Senate Bill 5 rein in collective bargaining for public-sector unions, it has the chance to completely change the way government works. Included in SB 5 is a provision that all public workers, from teachers to paper-pushers, will be paid based on a merit-pay system. In short, the better you are at you job, the more you will be paid, which it just the way it should be. No longer will government employees get a raise by just subsisting another year on this earth, they must now earn their raises based on how good they are at their job. It is easy to see the benefits to this system. Workers in the Department of Taxation will now have an incentive to process your return in 5 days instead of 7. Teachers will now have incentive to make sure students understand concepts, not just memorize them. Politicians like to talk about running government more effectively, I can think of no better way of making this happen than by instituting merit pay, which is what Senate Bill 5 does.

Those who are opposed to SB 5 say that unions are necessary to “protect the workers from being exploited” and any effort to reign in collective bargaining is “an assault on the middle class.” The thing is that unions are not needed to protect workers from exploitation; the miraculous free market can do that. Let us take teachers for example. If a teacher thinks that she is underpaid and his or her working conditions are terrible, she is free to leave that school district and teach somewhere else. On the other side of the equation, school districts are always competing against each other for good teachers and will therefore increase teacher salaries and improve working conditions in order to attract the best teachers. It is this competition that protects workers from exploitation. Ohio has over 600 public school districts, so competition for teachers is alive and well. The same goes for firefighters, policemen and any other public employee.

As for the claim that any effort to rein in collective bargaining rights is “an assault on the middle class”, the true assault on the middle class comes from the ever-increasing taxes that are required to pay for the lucrative contracts public-employee unions get for their members.

____________________________________________

Robert Roll is a freshman majoring in Finance at Ohio Northern University, and the blog owner’s nephew.

It’s here.

My submitted column title and headline and subhead were briefer than what you’ll see at the link:

Unemployed Need Not Apply
Thanks to Obamanomics

I suspect, based on discussions I’ve had with others on the topic, that it will generate more than a little discussion and perhaps a bit of good old-fashioned rancor.

It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Thursday (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.

______________________________________________

Key graphic: I decided not to link to the following in the column, so I’ll show it here –

The two paragraphs from the column supported by the graphic are as follows (bolds are mine, and didn’t appear as such in the column):

In the 1980s, in the wake of a recession and economic conditions that were in many ways more severe than the 2008-2009 “Great Recession,” President Ronald Reagan chose the path of tax cuts and regulatory restraint. As a result, seasonally adjusted unemployment, which peaked at 10.8% in November 1982, the last month of that recession, fell almost continually during the following two years to 7.2%, and kept falling. Meanwhile, economic growth exploded. Employers hired the unemployed because there was no other way to meet the burgeoning demand for their companies’ goods and services.

By contrast, during the first 20 months after June 2009, the end of the most recent recession, unemployment rose from 9.5% to 10.1% several months later, and stayed virtually stuck at that level for a full year. In recent months, the unemployment rate has finally come down to 8.9%. But that’s largely because there are hordes of potential workers who are so discouraged that they’ve stopped even looking; thus, they aren’t included in the official unemployment statistics. As for economic growth, it’s been anemic compared to other post-recessionary periods, and through six quarters is less than half of that seen under Reagan.

The employer instinct favoring the currently employed over the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, has always been present. It’s when an economy is in a long-term funk that it becomes especially problematic. We’re in such an economy — thanks to Obamanomics.

Go to PJM for the whole column.

From CNN on March 11:

A doctor treating Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords described her condition as “quite remarkable and better than we expected” during a news conference Friday in Houston, Texas.

Giffords has shown “better movement and better speaking,” while enduring three hour daily rehabilitation sessions, according to Dr. Gerard Francisco.

“She is already speaking in full sentences,” said Dr. Dong Kim, who indicated Giffords is walking and has demonstrated “a good memory span.”

Her spokesman said Thursday that her progress has been significant enough that Giffords plans to attend next month’s launch of space shuttle Endeavor which will be commanded by her husband.

But her doctors would not confirm Giffords’ planned attendance.

“If the goal is for her to witness the launch in April, then our number one concern is that it will be safe and appropriate to do that,” said Francisco.

He added that “it’s still too early” to know.

After spending the days after the shooting at his wife’s hospital bedside, Capt. Mark Kelly decided in February that he would continue his assignment as the mission commander.

At the time, Giffords’ spokesman C.J. Karamargin said the Arizona Democrat “fully understands” that her husband is flying the shuttle and supports his decision.

“I have every intention for her to be at the launch,” Kelly said then.

On Thursday, Karamargin said that Giffords is well enough to make the trip from Texas to Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Endeavor is set to lift off April 19 from Kennedy Space Center, according to NASA’s website. It will be the final mission for the Endeavour, and the second-to-last one for the entire space shuttle fleet.

Giffords has been at a Houston hospital — not far from where Kelly does most of his training at Johnson Space Center — since January, when she was moved there from University Medical Center in Tucson.

Go here for the rest of the story.

You knew, based on his track record of biased and inaccurate reporting during the Badger state standoff that Scott Bauer’s Thursday attempt to explain the state’s situation and events occurring up to that point (“Key questions surrounding Wisconsin union fight”) wouldn’t exactly be fair and balanced.

But it’s Bauer’s answer to one of his own crafted questions that revealed as much as anything I’ve seen in the past few weeks about where he’s really been coming from.

The question is:

So when the Democrats come back to the Capitol, what’s to stop the Republicans from passing almost anything they want?”

What do you think Bauer’s answer was? The answer, and a link to the AP item, are after the jump. No fair Googling or search for an answer.

(more…)

Demonstrating the ability to go unhinged without provocation, movie critic Roger Ebert looked at this Hollywood Reporter item discussing CNN’s audience increase on Friday as an excuse to tweet the following at about midnight Eastern time last night:

As poster “Hollywoodland” at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood pointed out, Ebert’s link doesn’t even support his claim.

Looking at more comprehensive numbers, let’s compare Media Bistro’s cable news scoreboards for Friday, March 11 to Friday, March 4. One sees that while CNN’s viewership went up astronomically, Fox’s viewership also increased quite substantially (all figures presented are March 11 vs. March 4):

• Total Day, All viewers, CNN — 2.532 million vs. 495,000, up 412%
• Total Day, 25-54 Demo, CNN — 1.100 million vs. 169,000, up 551%
• Total Day, All viewers, Fox — 2.273 million vs. 1.381 million, up 97%
• Total Day, 25-54 Demo, Fox — 724,000 vs. 368,000, up 97%
• Prime Time, All viewers, CNN — 2.645 million vs. 582,000, up 354%
• Prime Time, 25-54 Demo, CNN — 1.163 million vs. 242,000, up 381%
• Prime Time, All viewers, Fox — 2.719 million vs. 2.069 million, up 31%
• Prime Time, 25-54 Demo, Fox — 754,000 vs. 488,000, up 55%

Further contradicting Ebert’s claim, MSNBC’s numbers compared to the other two cable networks barely budged. Each of MSNBC’s four March 4-11 audience metrics grew by less than 25%.

If Ebert has a point, it’s escaping anyone who looks at the numbers. Ebert also seems to think that the mere act of turning the TV on is some kind of proof that you care, i.e., that you’re not indifferent. Zheesh.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

I’ll be waiting a long time.

At the Charlotte Observer:

Duke guaranteeing $10 million line of credit for DNC

Duke Energy Corp., whose CEO is leading the fundraising for the Democratic National Convention, is guaranteeing a $10 million line of credit for the event.

The credit line from Fifth Third Bank is apparently the first time such an arrangement has been used by any Democratic convention organizers.

A Duke spokesman said stockholders, not rate-payers, would be on the line if the convention’s host committee defaults. But the head of the committee said it may never have to draw on the money.

“It is just security in the event of a cash shortfall,” Will Miller, acting executive director of the Charlotte organizing committee, said Friday. “The host committee is obligated to pay it back, and the host committee will pay it back.”

Some suggest the arrangement is tantamount to a large corporate contribution at a time when the party is touting new rules that bar corporate cash and individual contributions over $100,000. Democrats have pledged “a people’s convention” and say the line of credit doesn’t violate the new rules.

Sorry, it quacks like a corporate contribution (consideration provided) because it is a corporate contribution.

Substitute “Koch Corporation” and “Republican” for “Duke Energy” and “Democratic” and tell me the media treatment would be the same. You can’t.

Important point about a very impressive culture:

The landscape of parts of Japan looks like the aftermath of World War Two; no industrialised country since then has suffered such a death toll. The one tiny, tiny consolation is the extent to which it shows how humanity can rally round in times of adversity, with heroic British rescue teams joining colleagues from the US and elsewhere to fly out.

And solidarity seems especially strong in Japan itself. Perhaps even more impressive than Japan’s technological power is its social strength, with supermarkets cutting prices and vending machine owners giving out free drinks as people work together to survive. Most noticeably of all, there has been no looting, and I’m not the only one curious about this.

This is quite unusual among human cultures, and it’s unlikely it would be the case in Britain.

Or the U.S.

From Massachusetts:

If you’re a smartphone naysayer, here’s some news that might make you drink the Kool-Aid along with nearly half of Americans: of the 652 app applications submitted just to Apple every day, an increasing number of healthcare-related apps are starting to trickle in that could actually help save lives. An exciting example comes from the scientists at the Center for Systems Biology at Massachusetts General Hospital that have knocked it out of the park by integrating a microNMR device that accurately detects cancer cells to a smartphone. Though just a prototype, this device enables a clinician to extract small amounts of cells from a mass inside of a patient, analyze the sample on the spot, acquire the results in an hour, and pass the results to other clinicians and into medical records rapidly. How much does the device cost to make? $200. Seriously, smartphones just got their own Samuel L. Jackson-esque wallet.

Considering that more than 1,500 Americans a day will die of cancer according to the American Cancer Society, which translates into almost 1 in 4 deaths, oncologists have needed a rapid, minimally intrusive, and accurate method for cancer screening for a long time. The beauty of the microNMR device is that it solves a handful of problems that plague current cancer screening methods starting with the risks involved in biopsying tissue. If a suspicious lump is found through a mammogram or a colonoscopy, there is no way to be certain if it’s malignant or benign without testing the tissue directly. In some cases, the patient has to undergo surgery just to have a sufficient amount of tissue removed for testing. But in other cases, a needle biopsy can be performed, which involves inserting a needle into the mass and extracting a small amount of cells. Some doctors and patients are wary of biopsies because of the risks versus the benefits, especially if a biopsy is being repeated due to an inconclusive result. But one of the main reasons cancer rates in the US have been dropping for years is early detection. In fact, early detection is known to lower mortality rates in breast, colon, rectal, and cervical cancer. Ideally, screening of a suspicious lump should involve the least invasive method possible that would produce accurate results, which would ultimately lower hesitations by doctors or patients to test.

The microNMR device uses very minimal amounts of tissue, approximately 4,000 cells, which is acquired using fine needles that are minimally invasive. Small amounts of cells can be tested because of the various technologies within the microNMR. Back in 2000, the group reported the development of magnetic nanoparticles connected to ligands. When small amounts of the ligands bind to proteins inside of cells, the nanoparticles assemble together and become visible using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Building on this work, by 2008, they had developed a miniaturized system the size of a coffee mug that allowed for rapid and accurate measurements. This system utilizes a small magnet and microcoil array to create a miniaturized nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) device, a technique that has literally transformed chemistry and molecular biology. Samples for testing are delivered to this microNMR chip via another success story in modern science, low-cost easily fabricated microfluidic systems.

By integrating these components together, the microNMR is an awesome device in its own right, but it also solves another screening dilemma: rapid and accurate analysis. Unfortunately, modern biopsy analysis has an 84 percent accuracy rate and can take three to four days to produce results. Furthermore, tissue can degrade during transport to an external testing site and current immunohistochemistry methods can produce false positives. In their latest report, the researchers describe how they addressed these issues by connecting the microNMR to a smartphone for data analysis. This allows a clinician to extract cells from the patient and analyze them immediately rather than sending them away for testing. Through trial and error, the researchers identified four cancer marker proteins that would serve as a screening panel. The result? The system detects cancerous cells from freshly acquired patient samples in an hour with an accuracy of 96 percent in one trial and 100 percent in another across a range of cancer types.

Bridging the microNMR with a smartphone allows the researchers to address the problems of convenient visualization and communication of the results by wisely capitalizing on a technology that many doctors and nurses are already comfortable with. Many medical devices that have their own displays and data handling require training for that particular device. The data output may also be awkward or indecipherable and record keeping may not be convenient. However, as smartphones are intuitive devices and their platforms allow for an easy way to visualize data, training is significantly reduced and data is more accessible. This means that instead of doctors just telling patients, “You have cancer,” they can actually review the data with them on the handheld device. The results can also be immediately transmitted to other doctors or into patient records without worrying about compatibility issues.

Together, this device holds an enormous potential for changing the experience of finding out that you have cancer. Imagine your doctor finds a suspicious lump in your body and schedules you for a biopsy. First, you have to undergo surgery to have a sample removed. Then you face anxiety-filled days as the result looms in your mind. Finally, you get the phone call: if it’s negative, you have a huge sigh of relief though you may feel exhausted over the worrisome ordeal. If it’s positive, you now have to schedule an appointment to see your doctor to discuss plans moving forward. Those can be excruciating days of uncertainty as the result hangs like a death sentence for you, family and friends. Now contrast this scenario with one that the microNMR device may someday make possible: a suspicious lump is found, a clinician inserts a small needle into the site on your body, and you sit in the waiting room for about an hour. You’re called in and your doctor uses a smartphone to show you all the results of the test. If it’s negative, you walk out of the office and put cancer out of your mind. If it’s positive, you can immediately discuss a game plan and treatment options with your doctor. Emotionally, that is a world of difference.

The next decade may very well go down as the decade of the smartphone, but it’s comforting to know that it may be due to more than just texting, gaming, and watching YouTube. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

In July 2008, in recognizing the beginning of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy a short time earlier, I observed that the Democratic Party under Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and soon-to-be presidential nominee Barack Obama seemed bound and determined to starve the economy of the fossil-fuel resources it needs to function.

Almost three years later, even ARIFPOTUS (Accused Rapist and Impeached Former President Of The United States) Bill Clinton (HT Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin’s place), no long-term friend of a free market in energy, can’t handle the Obama administration’s current level of fossil fuel hostility (bolds are mine throughout this post):

Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that delays in offshore oil and gas drilling permits are “ridiculous” at a time when the economy is still rebuilding, according to attendees at the IHS CERAWeek conference.

Clinton spoke on a panel with former President George W. Bush that was closed to the media.

… But according to multiple people in the room, Clinton, surprisingly, agreed with Bush on many oil and gas issues, including criticism of delays in permitting offshore since last year’s Gulf of Mexico spill.

“Bush said all the things you’d expect him to say” on oil and gas issues, said Jim Noe, senior vice president at Hercules Offshore and executive director of the pro-drilling Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition. But Clinton added, “You’d be surprised to know that I agree with all that,” according to Noe and others in the room.

Clinton said there are “ridiculous delays in permitting when our economy doesn’t need it,” according to Noe and others.

“That was the most surprising thing they said,” Noe said.

The two former presidents both generally agreed on the need to get offshore drilling workers back on the job.

Clinton and Bush also agreed on the need for more domestic shale gas production, with Clinton noting that it has been done safely for years in his home state of Arkansas.

Meanwhile, Investors Business Daily’s editorialists were appropriately unimpressed with President Obama’s news conference comments on the topic:

President Obama’s news conference on oil prices turned out to be a melange of deceptive facts and useless proposals, all pointing to a lack of interest in serious solutions.

… Trying to assuage the public, he noted that U.S. energy production has increased on his watch. But industry sources say that’s mainly due to leases issued years ago.

Meanwhile, oil production on federal land and waters is 16% less than what was projected four years ago, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Of course, the president made no mention of production shutdowns in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. And don’t even ask about Alaska, where Obama revoked permits for offshore leases already issued.

As a result, Gulf of Mexico production will fall by 15% this year and 26% in 2012 from the peak in 2010, according to the Energy Information Agency.

Disparaging the “drill, baby, drill” mantra, Obama implied that new production efforts are futile by repeating the oft-heard canard that the U.S. has only 2%, or 19 billion barrels, of the world’s crude but consumes 25%.

Leaving aside the fact that the U.S. accounts for 26% of global economic output, the Congressional Research Service says it has 17%, or 164 billion barrels, of world petroleum reserves — not including another 1 trillion barrels that could come from shale.

What enables Obama to claim higher production is that higher prices have enabled producers to reopen old wells and drill in otherwise unprofitable locales.

… As for investigations into price speculation, we count at least 35 federal probes that have come up dry.

If the administration really wanted a sustained economic recovery, it wouldn’t be continually making decisions that place its bogus vision of environmental purity ahead of jobs and commerce. But it is doing just that, which gives legitimacy to the belief that Team Obama really doesn’t care.

From Wigan, Greater Manchester, UK and Christchurch, New Zealand:

A claustrophobic construction worker from Greater Manchester has been hailed a hero after rescuing six people in the New Zealand earthquake.

Carl Stockton, who is originally from Wigan, spent 10 hours smashing through rubble to drag four survivors to safety after Tuesday’s disaster. And he wriggled through a collapsed building to reach two more people trapped inside.

Now the 43-year-old builder, who emigrated five years ago, has now been invited to the wedding of one of the women he rescued.

Volunteer rescuer Carl was in the nearby town of Rangoria when the earthquake struck the neighbouring city of Christchurch.

Hearing people were trapped inside buildings, the dad-of-two jumped on a motorbike and raced to the city to offer his services.

Carl said: “The adrenaline kicked in and I went on to autopilot. I was swinging that hammer like a madman. As soon as I heard the voices I just wanted to dig and dig.

“And when I pulled them out it was the best feeling in the world.”

His efforts were captured on New Zealand television, and national station TV3 interviewed him live on air.

His proud mum Shirley, 70, back in Wigan, paid tribute to her hero son and revealed how he had conquered his own claustrophobia to save others.

She said: “That’s just what Carl is like. He goes straight at a problem and would help anyone in trouble.

“I was in tears when he told me he was under the rubble pulling out bodies. He suffers from claustrophobia and must have been terrified.

“All he said was that it was very scary but that it was a fantastic feeling to pull someone out alive. To pull out six is incredible.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.