Posts tagged right
Climate Protection: The New Insurgency
Dec 31st
Faced with the failure of conventional lobbying, the climate protection movement is now turning to mass civil disobedience—but we can take it further still.
By Jeremy Brecher, December 10, 2013.
This article is a joint publication of Foreign Policy In Focus and TruthOut. For a longer presentation, see the Foreign Policy In Focus report, “A Nonviolent Insurgency for Climate Protection?“
When 30 climate protestors from 18 countries protested drilling at an Arctic oil platform operated by Gazprom, they represented the people of the world taking a symbolic stand against climate destruction, the corporate climate destroyers, and the governments that back them. But the action of the Arctic 30 may be prophetic of something more: The emergence of a global insurgency that challenges the very legitimacy of those who are destroying our planet.
The 2013 Fifth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed that humans are destroying the earth’s climate. But it also revealed something even more alarming: Twenty-five years of human effort to protect the climate have failed even to slow the forces that are destroying it. On the contrary, the rate of increase in carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels tripled between the release of the first IPCC report in 1988 and today.
Scientists and climate protection advocates once expected that rational leaders and institutions would respond appropriately to the common threat of climate change. As Bill McKibben said of Jim Hansen and himself, “I think he thought, as did I, if we get this set of facts out in front of everybody, they’re so powerful — overwhelming — that people will do what needs to be done.”
It didn’t work. Those who are fighting to save the climate need a new strategy. One such strategy to consider is a global nonviolent law-enforcing insurgency.
A nonviolent insurgency
Insurgencies are social movements, but movements of a special type: They reject current rulers’ claims to legitimate authority. Insurgencies often develop from movements that initially make no direct challenge to established authority but eventually conclude that one is necessary to realize their objectives. To effectively protect the earth’s climate and our species’ future, the climate protection movement may have to become such an insurgency.
The term “insurgency” is generally associated with an armed rebellion against an established government. Its aim may be to overthrow the existing government, but it may also aim to change it or simply to protect people against it. Whatever its means and ends, the hallmark of such an insurgency is to deny the legitimacy of established state authority and to assert the legitimacy of its own actions.
A nonviolent insurgency pursues similar objectives by different means. Like an armed insurgency, it does not accept the limits on its action imposed by the powers-that-be. But unlike an armed insurgency, it eschews violence and instead expresses power by mobilizing people for various forms of nonviolent mass action.
After closely following the massive strikes, general strikes, street battles, peasant revolts, and military mutinies of the Russian Revolution of 1905 that forced the czar to grant a constitution, Mohandas (not yet dubbed “Mahatma”) Gandhi concluded, “Even the most powerful cannot rule without the cooperation of the ruled.” Shortly thereafter he launched his first civil disobedience campaign, proclaiming “We too can resort to the Russian remedy against tyranny.”
The powers responsible for climate change could not rule for a day without the acquiescence of those whose lives and future they are destroying. They are only able to continue their destructive course because others enable or acquiesce in it. It is the ordinary activity of people — going to work, paying taxes, buying products, obeying government officials, staying off private property — that continually re-creates the power of the powerful. A nonviolent climate insurgency can be powerful if it withdraws that cooperation from the powers-that-be.
Why a law-enforcing insurgency?
Faced with the failure of conventional lobbying and political “pressure group” activity, much of the climate protection movement is now turning to mass civil disobedience, as witnessed by the campaigns against the Keystone XL pipeline, mountaintop removal coal mining, coal-fired power plants, and Arctic oil drilling. Such civil disobedience, while generally recognizing the legitimacy of the law, refuses to obey it in specific instances.
Civil disobedience represents moral protest, but it does not in itself challenge the legal validity of the government or other institutions against which it is directed. Rather, it claims that the obligation to oppose their immoral actions — whether discriminating against a class of people or conducting an immoral war or destroying the climate — is more binding on individuals than the normal duty to obey the law.
A law-enforcing insurgency goes a step further. It declares a set of laws and policies themselves illegal and sets out to establish law through nonviolent self-help. Such insurgents view those who they are disobeying as merely persons claiming to represent legitimate authority — but who are themselves violating the law under what’s known as “color of law,” or the false pretense of authority. So “civil disobedience” is actually obedience to law and a form of law enforcement.
Social movements that engage in civil disobedience often draw strength from the claim that their actions are not only moral, but that they represent an effort to enforce fundamental legal and constitutional principles flouted by the authorities they are disobeying. And they strengthen a movement’s appeal to the public by presenting its action not as wanton law breaking but as an effort to rectify governments and institutions that are themselves in violation of the law.
For the civil rights movement, the constitution’s guarantee of equal rights meant that sit-inners and freedom riders were not criminals but rather upholders of constitutional law. For the struggle against apartheid, racism was a violation of internationally guaranteed human rights. For war resisters from Vietnam to Iraq, the national and international laws forbidding war crimes defined civil disobedience not as interference with legal, democratic governments but rather as a legal obligation of citizens. For the activists of Solidarity, the nonviolent revolution that overthrew Communism in Poland was not criminal sedition but an effort to implement the international human and labor rights law ratified by their own government.
These examples seem paradoxical. On the one hand, the movement participants appear to be resisting the constituted law and the officials charged with implementing it. On the other, they are claiming to act on the basis of law — in fact to be implementing the law themselves against the opposition of lawless states.
Law professor and historian James Gray Pope has developed a concept of “constitutional insurgency” to understand such cases. A constitutional insurgency, or what might be called a “law-enforcing insurgency,” is a social movement that rejects current constitutional doctrine but that “rather than repudiating the Constitution altogether, draws on it for inspiration and justification.” Pope detailed how the American labor movement long insisted that the right to strike was protected by the 13th amendment to the constitution, which forbade any form of “involuntary servitude.” Injunctions to limit strikes were therefore unconstitutional. Although courts disregarded this claim, the radical Industrial Workers of the World told its members to “disobey and treat with contempt all judicial injunctions,” and the “normally staid” American Federation of Labor maintained that a worker confronted with an unconstitutional injunction had an imperative duty to “refuse obedience and to take whatever consequences may ensue.”
Why climate destruction is illegal
The Justinian Code, issued by the Roman Emperor in 535 A.D., defined the concept of res communes (common things): “By the law of nature these things are common to mankind — the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea.” The right of fishing in the sea from the shore “belongs to all men.”
Based on the Justinian Code’s protection of res communes, governments around the world have long served as trustees for rights held in common by the people. In U.S. law this role is defined by the public trust doctrine, under which the government serves as public trustee on behalf of present and future generations. Even if the state holds title, the public is the “beneficial owner.” As trustee, the state has a “fiduciary duty” to the owner — a legal duty to act solely in the owners’ interest with “the highest duty of care.” The principle is recognized today in both common law and civil law systems in countries ranging from South Africa to the Philippines and from the United States to India.
On Mother’s Day, 2011, the youth organization Kids vs. Global Warming organized the “iMatter March” of young people in 160 communities in 45 countries, including the United States, Russia, Brazil, New Zealand, and Great Britain. Concurrently, the Atmospheric Trust Litigation Project brought suits and petitions on behalf of young people in all 50 U.S. states to require the federal and state governments to fulfill their obligation to protect the atmosphere as a common property. Speaking to one of the rallies, 16-year-old Alec Loorz, founder of Kids v. Global Warming and lead plaintiff in the Federal lawsuit, said:
Today, I and other fellow young people are suing the government, for handing over our future to unjust fossil fuel industries, and ignoring the right of our children to inherit the planet that has sustained all of civilization. The government has a legal responsibility to protect the future for our children. So we are demanding that they recognize the atmosphere as a commons that needs to be preserved, and commit to a plan to reduce emissions to a safe level.
Loorz concluded: “The plaintiffs and petitioners on all the cases are young people. We are standing up for our future.”
A trustee has “an active duty of vigilance to ‘prevent decay or waste’ to the asset,” according to University of Oregon law professor Mary Christina Wood, whose new book Nature’s Trust: Environmental Law for a New Age lays out the legal basis for the suits. “Waste” means “permanently damage.” If the asset is wasted in the interest of one generation of beneficiaries over future generations, it is in effect an act of “generational theft.”
Although so far the courts have turned down most of these atmospheric public trust suits, the decisions are being appealed. On October 3, 2013, the Supreme Court of Alaska became the first state supreme court to hear such an appeal.
A global climate insurgency
Compelling as the logic of the atmospheric public trust argument may be, it is easy to imagine that many U.S. courts will refuse to force governments to meet such obligations. In a brief to dismiss the Kansas suit, lawyers called the claim “a child’s wish for a better world,” which is not something a court can do much about.
The sad fact is that virtually all the governments on earth — and their legal systems — are deeply corrupted by the very forces that gain from destroying the global commons. They exercise illegitimate power without regard to their obligations to those they claim to represent, let alone to the common rights beneficiaries of other lands and future generations to whom they also owe “the highest duty of care.”
But protecting the atmosphere is not just a matter for governments. Indeed, it is the failure of governments to protect the public trust that is currently prompting the climate-protection movement to turn to mass civil disobedience. Looked at from the perspective of the public trust doctrine, these actions are far from lawless. Indeed, they embody the effort of people around the world to assert their right and responsibility to protect the public trust. They represent people stepping in to provide law enforcement where corrupt and illegitimate governments have failed to meet their responsibility to do so.
When the climate protection movement uses nonviolent direct action to protect the public trust, it is often confronted by government officials acting under color of law to perpetuate climate destruction. The Arctic 30 were held at gunpoint, for example, and charged with piracy. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said, “Concern for the environment must not cover up unlawful actions.” A law-enforcing climate insurgency will answer: Concern for oil company profits must not cover up unlawful government complicity in destroying the atmospheric public trust.
Jeremy Brecher is co-founder and core team member of the Labor Network for Sustainability. He is the author of more than a dozen books on labor and social movements and has received five regional Emmy awards for his documentary film work. An updated edition of his labor history Strike! (PM Press 2014) will include a new chapter on the working class mini-revolts of the 21st century.
Buffs, Booker end #6 KU’s 19-game win streak
Dec 8th
BOULDER – No way for Colorado to beat towering, talented Kansas without 6-9 forward Wes Gordon?
Way.
No way (except maybe at gunpoint) that CU coach Tad Boyle strays from man-to-man defense and utilizes a 2-3 zone?
Way.
No way Coors Events Center matinee idol Ben Mills contributes meaningful first-half minutes against a team like the Jayhawks?
Way.
No way CU shoots nearly as frigid as the Boulder weather – 41.1 percent from the field and 59.5 percent from the foul line – and survives?
Way.
And no way the up, down, often kicked-around Askia Booker delivers the biggest shot of his life?
Way – and way, way past that.
It was CU 75, No. 6 KU 72 at the sold-out, geeked-out CEC on Saturday afternoon. The Buffs (9-1) won their ninth consecutive game for the first time since the 2005-06 season and slapped down a top 10 team for the first time since last Valentine’s Day when they beat No. 9 Arizona 71-58.
But that win won’t hold a holiday candle to this one. Christmas morning in the Rocky Mountains might not be able to match this – at least not for Boyle, his Buffs basketball program and an adoring CU fan base.
Booker hit three-pointers to close out each half, but it was his 30-footer at the final buzzer that he, his teammates and the crowd of 11,113 will remember for . . . maybe forever.
It had been a decade – or since the 2002-03 season – and 19 games, most of them in another conference, since CU defeated KU, and it was Boyle’s first win as a head coach in five tries against his alma mater. The Jayhawks still lead the series 123-40, but as for that 40th Buffs win . . .
“I’m not quite sure what to say after that one . . . it’s hard to put in historical perspective,” Boyle said about half an hour after CU students had cleared the CEC court and the building had stopped shuddering. “It was a hump game for our basketball program, considering what they did to us last year at Allen Field House and the amount of talent they have on their team.”
“Last year” was a 90-54 beat down in Lawrence, and if Booker and the Buffs said it didn’t motivate them, there will switches and ashes in their stockings in about three weeks.
CU’s list of Saturday heroes starts with the 6-1 junior guard from Los Angeles but goes upward to the 7-0 Mills, who means every bit as much to his teammates as the Buffs logo. Then add Spencer Dinwiddie (15 points, seven assists), Xavier Johnson (14 points, six rebounds, three steals), Josh Scott (14 points, four boards, two assists) and nearly every other CU player who suited up.
But it was Booker’s final trey that shot down the Jayhawks and shut down their fans. With 3 seconds to play and the score tied at 72-72 after KU had erased a nine-point CU lead, Booker got a pressurized inbounds pass from Johnson at the right sidecourt, went three dribbles past halfcourt and pulled up for more of a one-handed push shot than a jumper.
The ball found the net as time expired and Booker, who tied Dinwiddie with a team-best 15 points, found his place in CU hoops history. Was it the biggest shot of his career?
“Without a doubt . . . unless I win an NBA championship, that’s it,” he said. “I’m not sure I ever thought that would happen. At the same time, I think it’s a testament to Coach Boyle and how we go through our late clock plays in practice. The reason he does that is for nights like this.
“Thankfully, I came out and hit that shot. It felt great when it left my hand. I told the media after the game, I was actually in a straight line, which is great for a shooter. You don’t want to be fading away to the left or the right or backwards. I was going straight for the basket. My momentum held my form up and it went right in.”
Said Boyle: “When he let it go I knew it was in . . . it was money.”
Kansas (6-2) might have believed it would cash in inside with the absence of Gordon, who had missed practice since CU’s Tuesday night win at Colorado State due to illness/injury. The Jayhawks usually thrive inside with 7-0 Joel Embiid, 6-9 Tarik Black and 6-8 Perry Ellis, and they did outrebound the Buffs 33-32 and got 10 points each from Embiid and Ellis.
KU didn’t lose much of its power inside, outscoring CU 42-26 in the paint. The Jayhawks also got 22 bench points to the Buffs’ 14, but CU converted 14 KU turnovers into 24 points. The Buffs committed eight turnovers – a monstrous improvement from last season in Lawrence when CU had 12 by halftime and 18 by game’s end.
In the rematch, with Gordon watching from the bench in street clothes, Boyle knew a step up was needed from his frontcourt players such as the 6-7 Johnson, 6-10 Josh Scott and reserves such as Mills, who contributed eight of his 10 minutes and all of his four points in the first half. Mills also snatched three rebounds.
“It was so much fun,” Mills said. “This is something you dream of as a kid, a packed house at the Coors Events Center and the fans going nuts. To come in and play well in front of the fans and put on a show for them was great.”
Trailing by as many nine twice in the first 20 minutes, the Buffs finally caught the Jayhawks with a 14-4 run and took their first lead (26-25) on a layup from the left side by Mills with 4:21 left before intermission. It was Mills’ second straight basket, following a pump fake that got Embiid in the air and resulted in a soft, short jumper.
The CEC crowd roared with both of Mills’ baskets – and more of the blissful noise for the Buffs was coming.
Said Booker of Mills: “This guy comes to practice every day and works his butt off. Although he may not play as much as he wants or as much as he should, when his number was called, he was ready. Without him, we wouldn’t have won the game.”
And Boyle said the game wouldn’t have been won if he hadn’t “swallowed my pride,” pulled the Buffs out of his favored man-to-man and stationed them in a 2-3 zone. Given Gordon’s day-to-day status and KU’s inside power, Boyle said he had no choice: “If they would have made some shots against it in the first half early I probably would have gotten out of it, because I’m not committed to it. But, they didn’t, they struggled with it, and so we stayed with it. Second half we tried to flash it and keep them off balance a little bit. It’s hard sometimes man to man once they get in a rhythm to stop them, and I think the zone helped keep them off balance.”
Also, the Jayhawks came to Boulder shooting 30.7 percent from three-point range, and part of Boyle’s strategy was to make them jump shooters rather than layup and put-back artists. KU finished at 52.9 percent from the field (25 percent from beyond the arc) and Boyle conceded on first glance at the stat sheet, “I wonder how we won . . . but our guys’ resiliency and guts won out. I’m just glad we had the ball at the end; they were scoring pretty quick, pretty easily at the end.”
The Buffs endured their worst free-throw shooting of the season in the first half, hitting only 11 of 19 and finishing 22-for-37. In the final 1:49, Dinwiddie hit five of six and Booker one of two – his make coming with 12.8 seconds to play. KU called timeout with 11 seconds left to reset, and Ellis tied it at 72-72 with a layup.
The Jayhawks had rallied from nine down after the Buffs went up 53-44 on one of two free throws by Tre’Shaun Fletcher and a steal and stuff by the freshman on the next KU possession. But over the next 2 minutes, a 7-0 Jayhawks run cut their deficit to 53-51 and it was Boyle’s turn to call a timeout with just over 9 minutes to play. When the Buffs didn’t score, super KU freshman Andrew Wiggins (22 points) sent KU’s run to 9-0, tying the game at 53-53 with a layup at the 8:38 mark.
CU led by as many as six points twice in the final 3:36, the first six-point lead (63-57) coming on a Booker trey from the right corner. That shot, said Booker, “was great for me, but at the same time that play was initially for Spencer. I think they expected that so they left me open . . . it let me make the play.”
But the Jayhawks weren’t waving a white towel. They roared back behind a trey and two-pointer by Naadir Tharpe, a Wiggins layup and an Ellis tip to close to 70-68. With 12.8 seconds showing, Dinwiddie caught Wiggins’ elbow on a three-point attempt, and Wiggins hit two of three free throws to pull KU to within 71-70.
Dinwiddie made one of two foul shots – he finished eight-for-10 from the line – to increase the Buffs’ lead to 72-70. But Ellis’ layup tied the score and set the stage for Booker’s buzzer beater and the CU students storming the court.
Boyle said Booker, who was just five of 24 from three-point range in the first nine games but three-for-six Saturday, “is important to us, he’s our emotional leader. He can’t let his play affect his leadership on the court and it’s hard, it’s hard when you’re a shooter and you’re not shooting it well . . . (but) the capability’s there. If I didn’t see it in practice and he’s shooting that percentage (20.8 percent on three’s through nine games), then I’m the dumbest coach in America to be playing him.”
Turns out Boyle isn’t close to dumb or dumber. “Ski” Booker chiseled out his place in Buffs history and KU fans left the CEC without chanting “Rock Chalk Jayhawk.”
Said Boyle: “’Ski’ made an unbelievable play and we’re going to take it and not look back. Our crowd was great; to me it was a great day for college basketball in the state of Colorado and I’m really proud of our guys.”
CU MBB: Dinwiddie lights up the Rams for a Buff victory
Dec 4th
By B.G. Brooks, CUBuffs.com Contributing Editor
FORT COLLINS – Spencer Dinwiddie has little difficulty believing in himself or his game. His lone hang-up – and it’s receding by the day, maybe by the hour – is knowing when to turn it up and take over.
Just past the halfway mark of Tuesday’s first half in frenetic Moby Arena, Dinwiddie sensed he should be doing both. So he did. Getting help in a second-half stretch run from freshman Jaron Hopkins, Dinwiddie pushed Colorado past rival Colorado State 67-62 for the Buffs eighth consecutive win.
“I’m proud of our guys and Spencer was the big difference,” CU coach Tad Boyle said. “He was the best player on the floor and it wasn’t even close.”
In passing 1,000 points for his career, Dinwiddie finished with a game-best 28 – one off a career-high set in last season’s win against CSU in Boulder. But Tuesday night’s production might have been more impressive; Dinwiddie scored 19 of his total in the second half as the Buffs were trying to overcome themselves, hit seven of seven second-half free throws (he was 11-of-11 for the night), and scored seven of CU’s final nine points.
The 6-6 junior also capably defended CSU’s Daniel Bejarano, who surpassed his 13.6 average with 15 points but hit only four of 15 from the field. Redshirt freshman Wes Gordon held CSU’s leading scorer, J.J. Avila (19.0), to 16 points, and like Bejarano, Avila didn’t do much that wasn’t contested by the 6-9 Gordon. Avila needed 19 attempts to make his four field goals.
Boyle called Gordon’s defense “terrific” and said the Buffs “battled . . . we made plays when we had to make plays and got stops when we had to get stops. It wasn’t a pretty game offensively when you go three for 19 from three (point range). I mean it’s tough – and there were some good looks.”
Two of CU’s three treys came from Hopkins, who scored eight straight points – a steal/stuff, two consecutive threes – in the second half when the Buffs were rallying from a five-point deficit. He finished with 10 points, and teammate Askia Booker added 12 – including a pair of free throws with three seconds to play that sealed CU’s first win at Moby Arena since Dec. 22, 2007.
Boyle called Hopkins’ steal and slam “the biggest play of the game.” And while Hopkins wouldn’t go that far, he did concur, “It was pretty big. I read the play; I’m pretty good at reading the plays.”
Tuesday night’s two-for-two trey performance followed a three-for-three three-point Saturday at Air Force. “Shooting is all about confidence,” Boyle said. “You’ve got to feel like you’re going to make it and he’s feeling it right now.”
The Buffs handed the Rams their first home loss this season and now have beaten all three Front Range schools – CSU, Air Force, Wyoming – in the same season. That hadn’t happened in six previous tries.
“We want and expect to be the most dominant team in the region,” Boyle said. “But you can’t do it by talking about it; you’ve got to go out and do it.”
The game’s first 10 minutes hardly qualified as an offensive clinic . . . maybe clinically dead was a better fit. At the 7:38 mark the Buffs and Rams had combined to make seven of their 31 field goal attempts, with 14 turnovers between them (seven each).
CU finally cracked the ugly code and took a two-point lead (14-12) on a pair of Dinwiddie free throws – that’s when he sensed he should be taking over – and proceeded on a 7-0 run to take its largest lead of the half (19-12) with 7 minutes before intermission. After his pair of foul shots, Dinwiddie added a three-pointer and Xavier Talton hit a jumper to get the Buffs to 19.
“We weren’t scoring very well,” Dinwiddie said. “We had 12 points with about eight minutes to go (in the first half). That’s when I decided to get more aggressive. If we had been up 20 and Josh (Scott) was working and ‘Ski’ was working, you might have seen another ten-point, five-assist type game. When that’s not happening it’s my job to get more aggressive . . . I still am trying to get guys open shots, but if they’re not falling then it’s my job to score.”
And that awareness is what Boyle says makes Dinwiddie special. He had told Dinwiddie on Monday that being more aggressive would be necessary in Moby, adding, “Keep your mouth shut before the game, let your play do the talking . . . he’s smart; he’s going to do whatever this team needs him to do to help win games. It’s awful nice to have a point guard like that.”
Dinwiddie still has flashes of guilt about not being aggressive early enough in the Buffs’ only loss – 72-60 against Baylor in the season opener. “I waited too late in the Baylor game,” he said. “That’s why that loss is still really hard for me and I feel like I let the team down.”
Although his take-over in Tuesday night’s first half got the Buffs (kind of) untracked offensively, the Rams led 34-30 at the break. CU’s nine first-half turnovers were a season-high, with CSU at the same number. The Buffs committed only five more in the second half, but the Rams matched their first-half total and had 18 for the game, leading to 18 Buffs points.
The pace – and the efficiency – smoothed out in the opening minutes of the second half. After CSU extended its lead to six on two occasions, CU rallied behind Dinwiddie and Booker, outscoring the Rams 10-4 to knot the score at 40-40 on a Dinwiddie layup with 16:50 to play. Maybe ugly was done: The Buffs opened the half by hitting five of their first seven field goal attempts.
When Dinwiddie converted two free throws, CU was back in front, 42-40. But ugly wasn’t done: Over the next 31/2 minutes, the Buffs missed six shots until Scott scored on a put-back for a 44-44 tie. The rivals stayed within two or four points of each other until Bejarano’s triple from the left wing pushed the Rams up 51-46 with 10:56 remaining.
The Buffs pulled to within 53-52 on Hopkins’ steal and stuff at the 7:12 mark. Just under 4 minutes later, Hopkins answered again, draining a trey from the right corner to tie the score at 55-55. It was only CU’s second make from behind the arc in 18 attempts, but Hopkins was feeling it.
He canned his second straight trey (and his eighth straight point) to put CU up 58-57, then fed Dinwiddie for a layup and a subsequent three-point play for a 61-58 Buffs lead with 2:54 showing. Dinwiddie drove the lane for another layup (63-58) and CU appeared to be in control.
But the Rams weren’t rolling. Carlton Hurst hit a put-back (63-60) and Joe DiCiman went to the free throw line after Xavier Johnson fouled out and hit one of two free throws (63-61). The Buffs couldn’t control DiCiman’s miss, and Avila was fouled by Scott with 24.8 seconds to play.
Avila hit one of two free throws (63-62) and CU again put the game in Dinwiddie’s hands. With 14.3 seconds left, he hit both ends of a one-and-one (65-62), leaving CSU desperate but not done.
Avila tried a straight away trey that flirted with the net, but Booker controlled the air ball, was fouled on his rush downcourt and hit two free throws to seal it. After Booker hit his first free throw, Dinwiddie walked toward one CSU student section talking to them more than himself.
“I was in a very, very, very polite manner going to the student section that was heckling me constantly during the game and telling them to please be quiet,” he said. “We just won the ball game and now they have nothing to say to me.”
The Rams had the Buffs’ full attention, and Hopkins said he and his fellow freshmen were well-prepped for the Moby madness: “Beau Gamble talked a lot about how it’s going to be crazy and it’s our first real away game. He was right on the money. It was a tough atmosphere to play in and I look forward to playing in more atmospheres like that.”
Although not as hostile, the atmosphere will be even more raucous at the Coors Events Center on Saturday when No. 6 Kansas visits (1:20 p.m., ESPN2). The game, Dinwiddie understated, “is big. It’s about us taking that next step. We believe inside the locker room we’re top 25 but we haven’t proved it. That game is kind of what can put a stamp on our season.”
“It’s really big for us,” added Hopkins. “That’s a game the coaches are looking forward to and we’re looking forward to it as players, too. It’s really big for us and our confidence is pretty high.”
[includeme src=”http://c1n.tv/boulder/media/bouldersponsors.html” frameborder=”0″ width=”670″ height=”300″]