CBC prepares to defend its finances

When Jim Flaherty's ministry released the federal budget in Ottawa last week, the Finance Minister was resolute in his belief that about $4-billion in savings from program spending should be easily found.

It was, Mr. Flaherty told reporters packed into a steamy room in Centre Block, kind of odd that something as massive as the federal government -"the largest enterprise in Canada," he called it -had not undergone a thorough spending review in several years. Private-sector companies have all done it, he said. Now Ottawa will do its part. The savings "shall be found," he said, in a tone that sounded a lot like a decree.

No one from the CBC gulped or gasped audibly. But they might have. If Reaper Jim is sharpening his scythe, could the public broadcaster possibly avoid a swipe?

It is in this environment that the CBC on Wednesday released a study on the economic impacts of the CBC (and its French-language counterpart, Radio-Canada). In what will not come as a shock to anyone, the study the CBC commissioned found that the CBC has a significant positive impact on the Canadian economy.

Deloitte & Touche, the study's authors, estimate that the CBC contributed $3.7-billion in "gross value added" to the Canadian economy in 2010, based on expenses of $1.7-billion, of which $1.1-billion was direct government funding. The good news goes even further: the study estimates that the CBC contributes an additional "net value added" of $1.3-billion, a figure at which it arrives by estimating the economic benefits of spending the CBC's $1.1-billion on alternative government measures. Ten per cent on health, 30% on social services, 0.2% on gazebos in Muskoka, that kind of thing.

The general conclusions are fairly obvious -not only does every dollar invested in the CBC generate significant positive dollars worth of economic activity, but spending it elsewhere would have less of an impact.

As Hubert T. Lacroix, the president and CEO of the CBC, said in a conference call with reporters yesterday, he's often asked about that $1.1-billion figure wherever he goes.

These takeaways, though, come with a couple of boulders of salt. First is the very nature of a study like this. The economic impacts are essentially an elaborate piece of guesswork that measures both the direct impact of investment and the indirect impact "across CBC's supply chain and more widely as money continues to flow through the economy." So, the authors take a dollar spent in one area, add something called a Type II output multiplier, and end up with a larger number. A dollar spent on television programming in British Columbia, for example, has a multiplier of 2.3. (The authors use Statistics Canada multipliers; they aren't plucked from the air.)

The projected impacts are just that, in other words: projections. It's not unexpected that they would be rather rosy, especially when it is the CBC that paid for the study. (Mr. Lacroix said the cost of the study is confidential.) When Quebec City commissioned a study last year into the economic impact of a government-funded arena, the report (also from Deloitte) found that such a stadium would be profitable even in the absence of an NHL franchise. It also assumed, rather optimistically, that the "surrounding region" of Quebec City, from which it would draw attendees to Disney on Ice and the like, includes Charlottetown and Moncton.

The rather large assumption in the CBC study is the two scenarios it assesses: one with the current funding model, and one in which the CBC is solely financed by commerical revenues. This anti-CBC, the study suggests, "makes commercially motivated decisions regarding its content, target audience, regional presence," and other factors. In that world, it would abandon businesses that are not commericially viable, and it would compete with private broadcasters in areas where it does not currently do so. If it, say, dumped the CBC-produced Republic of Doyle, filmed in St. John's, and replaced it with NCIS: Los Angeles, it's easy to see how the latter scenario wouldn't be as good for the Canadian economy.

But the "counterfactual" CBC that the study presents is simply a straw man. The CBC may not be beloved within the Harper government, and a chunk of the Conservative base will rail against it at the first opportunity, but only those few Canadians who believe the "state broadcaster" is run by Maoists truly want to see its subsidy eliminated. What the CBC might have to confront is not a world without public funding, but with less of it. Is it possible that a Tory spending review will determine an easy way to trim $100-million is to drop the CBC's direct funding to $1-billion? Does Don Cherry look like he's wearing drapes?

The public broadcaster conducts a perpetually tricky dance. When it announces a new show aimed at a broad audience and commercial advertisers, critics sniff that it's drifting from its public-service mandate. Give us interpretive dance, not hockey players! But if it directs too much programming into the nether regions of public interest, it will make less money and require more from Ottawa.

But $1.1-billion is a lot of money to protect. The CBC will have to erect some battlements. This study reads like a first shovel in the ground.

sstinson@nationalpost.com twitter.com/scott_stinson

Source http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/prepares+defend+finances/4953990/story.html

Tortoises can win the race as often as the hares

TIGER WOODS had been a professional golfer for just 10 months when he reached the top of the world rankings in June 1997.

It took Luke Donald 10 years to complete the same journey. And people still ask why his fellow players call him ‘Plod’.

Woods cut a swathe through golf with his stratospheric ascent, and had already won twice by the time he announced himself to the wider sporting world with his astonishing victory at the 1997 Masters by a record margin of 12 strokes.

Donald rose without trace, securing his first PGA Tour win, against a journeyman field, at the low-key and rain-shortened Southern Farm Bureau Classic in November 2002.

Yet while comparisons with the phenomenon that was the young Woods seem to do Donald few favours, there are few doubts in the minds of his fellow professionals that the 33-year-old Englishman is worthy of being regarded as the best player on earth right now.

Part of the fascination of golf is that there are so many different ways to win, so many routes to the top. The tortoises can win the race just as often as the hares.

It was ever thus with Donald. The world of golf sat up and took note when he won the NCAA Individual championship, the highest accolade in US college golf, in 1999, beating Woods’ scoring record in the process, but in almost every other regard his career has been a slow-burning fuse.

Peter McEvoy, Donald’s captain in two Walker Cups, once recalled that he had to battle to persuade officials in charge of selecting the England amateur team that the player was worthy of a cap, so little impact had he made until then.

“There were a lot of votes against him and I had to push for his inclusion,” said McEvoy. “After two years he proved to be the best of his generation. The same thing happened when he went to college in America; after two years, he was again the best.”

In a world of brash wannabes, Donald has always been distinguished by his calm, a sense of serene self-containment. Many top players lurch between anguish and exultation as they make their way round a course, but Donald has an imperturbability that is almost other-worldly. He is no automaton, but neither is he the victim of his emotions.

We will never know whether the pressure of the occasion led to Lee Westwood dumping his ball in the water by the 18th green in his play-off against Donald on Sunday evening. But we can say with some confidence that Donald’s cool-headedness in the most ferociously demanding circumstances helped him place his ball five feet from the flag from an almost identical position.

It was a shot deserving of all the bounty that came his way. It won him a cheque for just over £650,000 and it leap-frogged him ahead of Westwood in the world rankings. It also confirmed beyond all doubt that the axis of world golf has tilted towards England.

When Donald turned professional in August 2001, there was just one English player – Westwood – in the world’s top 100; this morning, there are four in the top 12.

As Martin Laird, ranked 25th, is the highest-placed Scot, it is tempting to make much of the fact that Donald once claimed to be “half-Scottish” on the basis that his father was born in Stranraer.

Tempting, too, to forget the fact he has played down the connection on other occasions. In truth, he now occupies a realm where nationality becomes almost meaningless, save for its glorious expression at the Ryder Cup every two years.

With a stack of long-term sponsors’ contracts – it has been said that his Mizuno visor alone nets him £1m per year – the amiable Donald is almost a caricature of the golfer as the perfect commercial vehicle. In other regards, however, he is very different to his peers.

On the US Tour, the vast majority of players base themselves in the sunbelt states of the south, his main home is in Chicago, a city that suits his cosmopolitan tastes. He studied fine art at Chicago’s Northwestern University, is a gifted painter and avid collector of art.

Yet until now, he has been a less than avid collector of tournament wins. His stealthy rise to the top of the global game has been based on consistency, and his last strokeplay victory prior to Sunday’s win at Wentworth had been almost a year ago. Nor has he set the heather alight at major championships, finishing better than 10th just four times in 31 events.

But if self-doubt has played a part in that then it should have been obliterated by what happened at Wentworth. If taking the slow road to the top has been one consistent feature of Donald’s career, being the dominant figure once he got there has been another. On Sunday evening, he was asked whether he had set any goals for the year. “Yeah,” he said quickly, “to contend in all four majors.

“I have a lot more to accomplish,” he continued. “And hopefully many more victories in me. Hopefully, I can be a worthy No.1 for a few weeks.”

Source http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/golf/tortoises-can-win-the-race-as-often-as-the-hares-1.1104355

Westwood Wins Again

Lee Westwood came through Sunday with a final-round, 5-under 67 to win the Ballantine's Championship. The 38-year-old Brit ended up at 12-under 276. The event, co-sponsored by the Asian and European tours, was held at Blackstone Golf Club near Seoul, South Korea.

The win was the second straight for the No. 1-ranked player in the world following his victory in the Indonesia Masters last week. Westwood needed to finish in the top-five in Korea to prevent Martin Kaymer from overtaking him in the World Golf Rankings.

"It feels great," Westwood told Sky Sports. "I must admit it was fairly nerve-wracking sitting in there watching people play. I know how my parents, wife and family feel now at home when I'm playing.

"Obviously you never wish ill on anyone but I'm delighted to have won the tournament because it was [a] good, solid round this afternoon and put pressure on everyone else," he added.

"The world rankings are a reflection of how you play. I've been playing well this year but not producing the results until the last two weeks. The last two weeks I've started making some putts and stayed calm under pressure, doing the things I needed to do at the right time.

"I've won two in a row before but it's still very special," he added. "It is tough to come down from a win and get yourself refocused. But the more experienced you get and the more you put yourself in those positions, the easier it is to do."

Finishing a shot behind was Spain's Miguel Angel Jimenez (71), who had a chance to force a sudden-death playoff but missed his 15-foot birdie try. Another stroke back was Korean Sang-Hyun Park. American Dustin Johnson (69) ended up in solo fourth.

Source http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/westwood_wins_again

Golf World: Avoiding three-putts

With yet another Masters now history, it again becomes apparent how important putting is to become a prolific scorer. The greens at Augusta were very fast and very undulating.

Most of us average 32 to 36 putts a round. If you averaged 28 putts a round like the PGA Tour players do, you would immediately cut six strokes from your score. The amateur's problem is those pesky three-putt greens. So, the question is, how do you become a better long putter?

First of all, becoming a good long putter is a combination of good feel and good mechanics. To be a good long putter, you must have good pace and rhythm to your stroke. There should be no "hit" in your stroke. The backswing and the follow-through should be the same distance.

For example, if you go back 20 inches, then you should come through 20 inches. This ensures a pendulum stroke. Equal distance back and through gives you a very symmetrical stoke. In addition to this, the pace of the stroke should be the same speed in both directions.

Count to yourself when practicing long putts. Say "One and two" for good tempo. Some of the things I see in poor long putters is off-center hits. For example, if you hit the ball toward the toe of the putter, you will lose compression of the face to the ball, and you will most likely come up short of the hole.

Most long putts come up short. I think a good rule of thumb is to try to keep the ball on the high side of the hole, and try to hit the putt a foot past the hole. Most three-putt greens take place because you come up short of the hole and the ball finishes on the low side of the hole.

Another problem when we come up short of the hole is an "open" clubface at impact. This problem will cause a left-to-right spin on the ball, plus additional loft at impact. Try getting more weight on your front leg at address to offset this problem.

Most amateurs move their head and body too much on the long putts. Keep your head and body as still as you can on these long ones, and you are more likely to hit the ball in the center of the face with good speed. After all, speed is the most important element in becoming a good long putter.

To be a good long putter, light grip pressure is a must along with keeping that pressure constant throughout the stroke. Poor putters are always tightening their hands on the club as they go through the stroking process. Of course, this causes the dreaded "yips.''

Two drills that would be beneficial:

-- The right hand and arm only drill. To do this drill, just putt several balls with your right hand and arm only. This will give you the feel of the distance.

-- Putting at different distances with clubs on the ground. Do these drills and then practice trying to put that 40-footer inside an imaginary, two-foot circle.

Work on the pace and tempo of your putting stroke, and you will soon start becoming a good "lag" putter. You wouldn't mind taking six strokes off your next round? Just ask Charl Schwartzel, the new Masters champion.

Source http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/glf-golfworld041811/glf-golfworld041811/

Europe poised for another run at green jacket

A green jacket defined the golden era of European golf.

For the better part of two decades, Europeans seemed to have part-ownership of Augusta National by winning the Masters six times in a seven-year stretch, and 11 times in the 1980s and 1990s. Seve Ballesteros was the first European in a green jacket. Nick Faldo won three times. Ballesteros, Bernhard Langer and Olazabal each won twice.

Perhaps it was only fitting that when the world ranking made its debut in 1986 at the Masters, the top three were Europeans.

"It would be nice to recreate some of that magic," Justin Rose said Monday under the large oak tree next to the Augusta National clubhouse. "And I think this is as good a time as any."

On paper, European golf has never been stronger.

They have won two of the last three majors — Martin Kaymer in a playoff at the PGA Championship, Graeme McDowell at Pebble Beach in the U.S. Open. Padraig Harrington was the last player to win successive majors, at the end of 2008.

And then there's the world ranking.

Europe would have had the top five spots except for Phil Mickelson winning the Houston Open to go to No. 3. As it is, Kaymer and Westwood are Nos. 1 and 2, with Luke Donald, McDowell and Paul Casey at Nos. 4-5-6. Tiger Woods is at No. 7.

About the only thing missing from this new era of European dominance is a green jacket.

"It's been too long," said Ian Poulter, among those determined to change this trend. "There's more guys with more chances."

Olazabal was the last European to win the Masters, holding off Greg Norman in the final round in 1999. A year later, no Europeans were among the top 10 at the Masters, and none came particularly close to winning except for Westwood last year when he was runner-up by three shots to Mickelson.

Europe now seems more poised than ever.

In the middle of that great European run from two decades ago, they had four of the top 10 in the world. Now there are six Europeans in the top 10, and nine of the top 20.

"If you look at the guys who compete week in and week out, we've got more now than what we had 15 years ago," Poulter said. "There's definitely more of a chance now. But you've got a lot of good players to go up again. Tiger and Phil have won quite a few of these jackets over the last few years."

Woods and Mickelson have combined to win six of the last 10 times at the Masters, although it's Mickelson who comes into the first major as the biggest favorite. Not only is he the defining champion, Mickelson made 18 birdies on the weekend to win in Houston.

For a tournament that had lacked a clear favorite, it has one now.

"It seems that everyone has pretty much got Mickelson in the green jacket Sunday evening and there's not much use in turning up at this point," McDowell said with a grin. "He's a great player around Augusta, and if you finish ahead of him, you've got a decent chance."

All McDowell wants is a shot on the back nine Sunday.

That would be a good starting point for Europe to win the only major that has eluded him over the last 12 years.

Westwood was just starting to get good as a junior when Faldo won the Masters in back-to-back years. Then came Woosnam in 1991, winning with a par on the 18th hole in a year in which Olazabal and Tom Watson were tied for the lead going to the last hole.

Francesco Molinari remembers Olazabal coming back from a career-threatening injury to win in 1999.

"For every European, it was inspiring," Molinari said. "It's been awhile, but I think we're ready for another run."

Poulter was folding shirts and selling candy bars in a golf shop in England toward the end of the European run. He remembers Woosnam winning, and Langer and Olazabal in back-to-back years. And no one could forget Faldo winning his last green jacket in 1996 when he rallied from a six-shot deficit against Greg Norman.

"They were just so strong," Poulter said. "They were on the board every year. They were the best in the game around that era. I guess it's been a while since you've had those guys back in that position. But if you look at Europe in the world ranking now, we've filled that back with guys who are definitely going to have a chance."

Poulter and Westwood shared the 36-hole lead a year ago. Westwood fought to the end, while Poulter faltered.

It would be surprising if Europe didn't show itself when the Masters begins on Thursday. Donald, Casey and Rose each have flirted with contention over the years, and Harrington appeared to take a step forward last week with his play in Houston.

The best proof is not the names, but the numbers.

Beyond the ranking, Europeans keep showing up at the top of World Golf Championships — Donald, Molinari and Poulter have won three of the last five. And then there was that little exhibition at Celtic Manor last October, with Europe winning the Ryder Cup again.

Now comes the first major of the year. What once were hopes for Europe now are expectations.

"There's no shortage of great players, especially in Britain and Ireland," said McDowell, who played a full practice round Monday with Poulter and Rose. This current crop of European players has been compared with Woosie, Ollie, Ballesteros, Lyle, Faldo and Langer. I think if you compared them with this crop, yeah, you've got to start suggesting that it's time to start winning the Masters.

"There's no doubt we've got the talent. We've got the players," he said. "But it's tough to win."

Source http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGtSCZ1NpT8HOGIag8lEc1dtFUXw?docId=ee1720644b994a808c2cbad4f8a311b8

Click here to find out more! Obama administration calls on United Nations to support gay rights

The Obama administration Tuesday called on the U.N. Human Rights Council to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians around the world.

"Human rights are the inalienable right of every person, no matter who they are or who they love," Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, U.S. ambassador to the council in Geneva, said in a statement. "The U.S. government is firmly committed to supporting the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals to lead productive and dignified lives, free from fear and violence."

The council has condemned human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including rape, torture and murder.

"It is a really pressing issue globally that there continue to be killings on the basis of sexual orientation and persecution on that basis," said Suzanne Nossel, deputy assistant secretary of State for international organization affairs. "I think this will stimulate dialogue and increase recognition of the importance of the issue among governments."

The Obama administration's expression of support for U.N. action on the issue marks a change from George W. Bush's presidency. His administration generally sidestepped the issue in the United Nations.

The statement was the most recent in a series of moves by the Obama administration to show support for gay rights, including holding that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional and moving to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays in the military.

Last weekend, in a statement with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, President Obama announced the creation of a government position to monitor gay rights in the Western Hemisphere.

Fred Sainz, vice president of communications at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, said the U.S. was finally stepping into the role it should have held all along as a worldwide leader in promoting equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

"For those who have been denied their equality for decades, change will never come soon enough," Sainz said. "But there should also be no doubt that in the past two years more positive change for and on behalf of gay people has been made than ever before."

Source http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-gays-20110323,0,5104981.story

Rising Calls to Replace Top Man at Medicare

Members of Congress, including Democrats, have urged the Obama administration to search for another Medicare chief after concluding that the Senate is unlikely to confirm President Obama’s temporary appointee, Dr. Donald M. Berwick.

Dr. Berwick’s principal deputy, Marilyn B. Tavenner, has emerged as a candidate to succeed him. Lawmakers of both parties said Monday that Ms. Tavenner, a former Virginia secretary of health and human resources with extensive management experience, could probably be confirmed.

In a letter to the White House last week, 42 Republican senators urged Mr. Obama to withdraw the nomination of Dr. Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs insurance programs for more than 100 million people. If those senators stick together, they could block confirmation.

Mr. Obama bypassed Congress and appointed Dr. Berwick while the Senate was in recess last July. The appointment allows him to serve to the end of this year.

The president has nominated Dr. Berwick three times, most recently in January. No confirmation hearings have been held, and none are scheduled.

Reid Cherlin, a White House spokesman, said the president would not withdraw the nomination. “The president nominated Don Berwick because he’s far and away the best person for the job, and he’s already doing stellar work at C.M.S.,” Mr. Cherlin said.

It is not clear whether the White House will fight for the nomination or press the Finance Committee to hold a confirmation hearing, which could provide Republicans another opportunity to criticize the new health law.

Dr. Berwick, a pediatrician and a health policy expert, was hired to run Medicare and Medicaid. In recent weeks, the White House has expanded his portfolio to include federal regulation of private insurance.

As a co-founder of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a nonprofit organization in Cambridge, Mass., Dr. Berwick advised hospitals on how to save lives by upgrading care and reducing medical errors.

He became caught up in the partisan battle over the new health law. Republicans challenged him to explain comments in which he had discussed the rationing of health care, praised the British health care system and urged health care providers to reduce the use of ineffective procedures near the end of life.

At a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee last month, Dr. Berwick said, “I abhor rationing.” Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, told Dr. Berwick, “I love your testimony, not just like it but I loved it.”

Republicans were hostile.

“In your testimony, I see nothing but platitudes,” Representative Charles Boustany Jr., Republican of Louisiana, told Dr. Berwick.

Representative Geoff Davis, Republican of Kentucky, said Dr. Berwick’s answers bordered on equivocation. And Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia, told him: “You missed your calling. I think you would make a great lawyer.”

Several people who work with Dr. Berwick at the Medicare agency said they were disappointed that the White House had not done more to promote him. “Everybody here admires Don and the work he’s done, but he is not going to be confirmed,” a supporter said. “That’s inevitable. The Republicans will block him. There’s not a lot of optimism that the White House can do anything about it.”

Ms. Tavenner, a nurse, worked for more than two decades at the Hospital Corporation of America, first as a nursing supervisor, then as a hospital executive and eventually as president of the company’s outpatient services group.

Source http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/health/policy/08medicare.html?_r=1