The Ohio State women’s basketball team’s Big Ten slate hasn’t been kind to them this year. It was more of the same for the Buckeyes against Nebraska Thursday, as the Cornhuskers dropped OSU, 62-53. In the process, the Buckeyes lost their seventh conference game this season. They might be losing hope of a turnaround, too. “To be honest, it’s hard to come to practice and to try to be positive,” said OSU senior guard Amber Stokes. OSU, which sits 10th in the conference, struggled to match the Cornhuskers‘ (15-6, 5-3) marksmanship from behind the arc. En route to what is now a three-game winning streak for Nebraska, the Cornhuskers unloaded 25 3-point shots and connected on nine of them. That theme seemed apparent early in the contest. Less than two minutes into the game, the Cornhuskers scored two 3-pointers while the Buckeyes struggled to make a basket. OSU’s shots clanked off the iron time and time again, but for a while, it seemed Nebraska wasn’t faring much better. After the initial 10 minutes of the contest, though, when both teams only made 25 percent of their shots, the Cornhuskers improved to 38 percent of their shots and the Buckeyes to 33 percent. Nebraska, however, proved to be the more aggressive team in the first half, including a 5-of-13 outing from behind the arc. Conversely, OSU missed all seven of the 3-point attempts in the game’s first act. Despite OSU senior guard Tayler Hill’s 12 first-half points and junior center Ashley Adams’ eight points, the Cornhuskers continued to build a cushion between themselves and the Buckeyes and head into intermission leading, 34-24. It also didn’t help that OSU turned the ball over 10 times compared to Nebraska’s five miscues. The second half started off better for the Buckeyes, with a jumper by redshirt junior center Aleksandra Dobranic within the first ten seconds. On the subsequent possession, Nebraska turned the ball over, which translated into an easy layup for Hill, who finished the night with 22 points. But for every shot the Buckeyes made, the Cornhuskers had an answer. Their lead, which withstood a 41 percent outing from the floor from OSU, never fell below six points for the rest of the half. Part of that had to do with Nebraska junior forward Jordan Hooper’s season-high 28 points. “My teammates did a really good job of finding me and I just shot it,” Hooper said after the game. OSU head coach Jim Foster said that he thought OSU’s defense was weak on Hooper. “I don’t think we did a great job of identifying where Hooper was. And when you have a player like that, you don’t start your defense under the 3-point line, you start it one foot outside the 3-point line,” Foster said. “That just comes with experience and understanding and making decisions. And hopefully we learn something from them.” The Buckeyes (11-10, 1-7 Big Ten) are now 10-3 at home this season. OSU is set to next take on Indiana Sunday in Bloomington, Ind., at 2 p.m.
Kolkata: Many candidates who have successfully passed the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) this year and a city based doctor have written to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, drawing her attention to the filling up of domicile form, in which it was alleged that outside candidates are getting advantage.It was alleged that according to the pre-counselling and counselling notification organised by the state Health department, candidates from other states are being given advantage only because their parents have domicile here in the state. Whereas, the students appearing for NEET from Bengal have been deprived due to the ‘faulty domicile system’. Also Read – Heavy rain hits traffic, flightsThe students who have sought the Chief Minister’s intervention in this regard are Ahona Majhi, Laxmi Das and Nilanjan Adhikari, all of whom have cleared NEET 2018. It was alleged that many candidates from outside would be given opportunity to study MBBS and BDS courses in the state, as they enjoy domicile as any one of their family members have been staying in Bengal.Multi-domicile system existed during the days when the state government used to conduct the medical entrance examination, but following the introduction of the single level medical entrance examination (NEET) throughout the country, the implementation of the old multi-domicile theory is in question. Also Read – Speeding Jaguar crashes into Merc, 2 B’deshi bystanders killedIt may be mentioned here that the Supreme Court had earlier passed an order, cancelling all MBBS and BDS admissions of Madhya Pradesh, asking the state government to prepare a fresh list for admission as per single domicile rule for the state.The students have alleged that the Centre should have told the state government to admit candidates on the basis of the single domicile system, as otherwise the students from the state would be victimised, said Dr Amiya Kumar Maity, who also wrote to the Chief Minister along with the candidates, drawing her attention to the issue.The state Health department is trying to admit candidates on the basis of the old multi-domicile system. Many deserving candidates from Bengal would be denied medical admission, whereas candidates from out of the state would have an advantage only because any of their family members are living here in the state.
The directors of BSkyB have written to shareholders, urging them to back under-fire chairman James Murdoch. Shareholders will vote on whether Murdoch should continue in his BSkyB role at the pay TV operator’s AGM, which is scheduled for next Thursday. One institutional BSkyB investor, the Association of British Insurers, has publicly expressed its concerns, noting that some market watchers were worried about governance issues. However, BSkyB deputy chairman Nick Ferguson wrote in his letter to investors that Murdoch has the respect of senior management, is backed by the whole of the board and is doing a “first class job” in his role at the pay TV company.Ferguson added that the continuing scandal surrounding Murdoch, which concerns the role of News International in the newspaper phone-hacking scandal, has not impacted Sky’s operational performance or share price.
World-Altering Shock #6: Are You Ready? Since 1979, there have been five truly world-shattering events. Incredibly… a small, private network of researchers from Baltimore has predicted every single one so far. Today, its founder is predicting a sixth major shock on track to hit right here in the heart of America. Are you, your family, and your money prepared? Find out here. — What you need to know about gold right now We recently put together a presentation on the single best opportunity you have to make 500%+ gains in gold over the coming years. Please note, this is one of those extremely rare chances to make outrageous returns with just a small investment. The opportunity only comes around briefly every 5 to 7 years. See more, here. Editor’s Note: Do you own a significant amount of gold? In today’s Weekend Edition, Agora founder Bill Bonner explains how the Fed is destroying the economy with cheap credit…and how owning gold is one of the only ways to protect your savings from the fallout… Bill originally wrote this essay on August 4, 2015 in Bill Bonner’s Diary. By Bill Bonner, editor, The Bill Bonner Letter Prices are being discovered again…by free declaration of buyers and sellers. Owners of Greek stocks are discovering that their equity stakes aren’t as valuable as they believed. But for every seller, there is a buyer… Sellers are losing money. Buyers believe they are getting a bargain. You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, and most of the people once in a while. You can obstruct price discovery and you can disguise and distort the real value of things. But Mr. Market will get even someday. He always does. Alan Greenspan betrayed Mr. Market… In 1987, after President Reagan appointed him Paul Volker’s successor as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Greenspan went over to the zombies…or more precisely, to their allies, the cronies. It must not have been easy for the former defender of the free market and member of Ayn Rand’s inner circle… The Largest Paper Money Racket Ever In the late 1980s and early 1990s, you could almost see Greenspan struggling with the contradictions. He had been loyal to free markets. But his job carried with it the biggest central planning authority of all time. He knew that currency not backed by gold was a scam, but his position as chief of the Fed put him in charge of the largest paper money racket ever. Greenspan believed in letting Mr. Market set prices. But as gatekeeper of U.S. credit, he corrupted more prices than any human being ever had before him. But what was he to do? In 1993, at her husband’s inaugural address to Congress, Mrs. Clinton—now the leading Democratic candidate for president—chose to stand next to Greenspan. It was one of those magic moments in history, when power and money came together to celebrate. (When we were in Vancouver, we went to an Anglican church. A banner hung down from the ceiling proudly proclaiming the trinity: “King, Country, God.” The parishioners like to imagine that all their leaders are united. It spares them the trouble of choosing just one.) Of all the bigwigs in Washington, it was Alan Greenspan who had the biggest wig of all. He was practically a god to the members of Congress, to whom the economy was as big a mystery as Heaven itself. Gold Stymies the “Welfare Statists” To the American people, Greenspan was a combination of Mr. Fixit and the Wizard of Oz. They didn’t understand a word of what he said. And why should they? Greenspan made no sense when he spoke as Fed chairman—intentionally. As he later explained: What I’ve learned at the Federal Reserve is a new language, which is called Fed-speak. You soon learn how to mumble with great incoherence. But the blither and blather worked. The politicians kneeled before him. The press took off their hats. And the masses, awestruck by the incomprehensible, thought he was a genius. What was he supposed to do? Turn his back on all that for the sake of the truth? “What was the truth?” asked the jesting Greenspan. And he did not wait for an answer. We wrote contemptuously about Mr. Greenspan from the end of the 1990s until he stepped down as Fed chairman in 2006. He did his thinking in the bathtub, the press reported. Alan “Bubbles” Greenspan, we renamed him. He had sold out—for glory, for money, and for power. But we had to admit: He got a good price! Had we been in his shoes, we probably would have been bought at half the price. But what a pleasure it was to rediscover the old Alan Greenspan, before he turned his coat and forked his tongue. Back in 1966, when he still believed in free markets and sound money, he expressed himself clearly… In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard. Credit Nation But now, who speaks the truth? No one. Because the elites—economists, businessmen, academics, policymakers—are paid not to see it. And if they do catch a glimpse of it by mistake, they keep their mouths shut. Like Alan Greenspan, it is all very well to understand how things really worked. But you wouldn’t want to give up money, power, or status for it. The Huffington Post explains how the cronies bought the economics profession. The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni, and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession… One critical way the Fed exerts control on academic economists is through its relationships with the field’s gatekeepers. For instance, at the Journal of Monetary Economics, a must-publish venue for rising economists, more than half of the editorial board members are currently on the Fed payroll—and the rest have been in the past… A Fed spokeswoman says that exact figures for the number of economists contracted with weren’t available. But, she says, the Federal Reserve spent $389.2 million in 2008 on “monetary and economic policy,” money spent on analysis, research, data gathering, and studies on market structure; $433 million is budgeted for 2009. That’s a lot of money for a relatively small number of economists. But The Huffington Post misses the really big story… The feds have bought off the entire intellectual, financial, business, and academic establishment. How? With easy money. As we explained in our speech at the Sprott-Stansberry Natural Resource Symposium in Vancouver, there is scarcely a single public figure with substantial wealth or reputation who doesn’t owe it to the great credit expansion. In 1999, for example, Fortune magazine named Jack Welch “Manager of the Century.” Was it because of Welch’s genius…or the fact that GE had moved into financial services during a credit boom? Warren Buffett is regarded as the greatest investor who ever lived. But it was Buffett’s great fortune to be investing during the greatest credit expansion there ever was. And how did Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen get to be heads of the Fed? They could not have done so without the wind of credit expansion behind them, which seemed to make sense of their preposterous theories. While the cheap credit embellished résumés and reputations, it also made people dependent. Academia reaped tax-free donations from people who had made their fortunes in debt-fueled finance…not to mention more than $1 trillion in tuition fees financed by the feds’ student loan program. Corporations sold their products on cheap credit…made their profits from cheap credit…and then depended on cheap credit to issue their bonds, buy back their own stock, and pay their bonuses. Meanwhile, Washington ran deficit after deficit—again, all made possible by cheap credit. And now, practically every sentient being in the nation (and some Democrats, too!) needs cheap credit to pay his mortgage, keep his job, boost his stocks, and hold down his finance costs. Who is left to speak the truth? Regards,