Posts tagged right
WBB: Swan and A-Wil weren’t enough to beat Huskies
Feb 15th
Husky’s backcourt unstoppable, but Buffs were in the game til the very end
BOULDER – Colorado’s Jamee Swan and Ashley Wilson hit career highpoints on Friday night, but a business-as-usual performance by Washington’s backcourt trumped them and the Buffaloes.
While Swan (25 points) and Wilson (15) were scoring career highs and Wilson was collecting her first career double-double with 10 rebounds, UW guards Kelsey Plum and Jazmine Davis were combining for 49 points to push the Huskies past the Buffs 87-80 at the Coors Events Center.
It wasn’t anything the Buffs hadn’t seen before – and they didn’t have many answers then either. In UW’s 81-71 Pac-12 Conference win last month in Seattle, they combined for 55 points, with Plum getting 35 and Davis 20.
On Friday night, Plum scored 25, Davis 24. They entered the game as the nation’s No. 2 top scoring backcourt, averaging 38.9 points.
“Washington’s two guards were outstanding . . . they torched us,” said CU coach Linda Lappe. “They pretty much did whatever they wanted to do . . . Davis carried them in first half (with 14 points), Plum came alive in the second (with 18). They were tough for us to guard.”
Still, even with Plum-Davis running mostly unchecked, the Buffs (14-10, 4-9) stayed in contention, cutting a 10-point Huskies lead to three twice in the final 1:16 but failing take the rally any further.
After tying the score at 60-60 on a Swan put-back with 8:57 remaining, a 10-0 run pushed UW ahead by 10 (70-60). CU first closed to within three (81-78) on Jen Reese’s first four points of the night, then got to within three again (83-80) on a basket by Arielle Roberson, who finished with 14 points and nine rebounds.
But three points back was as close as the Buffs would get, and Wilson said the game was lost by CU’s inability to “get those crucial stops, whether it was keeping them from scoring or getting a defensive rebound . . . It all comes down to the same thing: we make a push and tie the game and then we have a mental lapse where we don’t get that stop or defensive rebound. It’s been like that all conference season long.”
Lappe said scoring that many points – CU was averaging 70.2 – should have rewarded her team with a win: “Anytime we score 80, that has to be a game where we find a way to win. But it just didn’t go the right way tonight . . . you can’t give up 87 points; there are very few games that we will win that way. We just didn’t do what it took on the defensive side.”
Swann, whose previous career high was 20 against Stanford, said the Buffs lost focus late: “I think it comes down to who wants it more and it just happens that they want it a little more than us and we lose focus.”
UW coach Mike Neighbors didn’t seem surprised by Swan’s productivity. “She was on the scouting report because we recruited the heck out of that kid,” he said. “We wanted her very badly . . . she got it really going and we didn’t have a lot to answer – 25 points in 18 minutes . . . I’m just glad she had five fouls (No. 5 came with 1:30 left) or otherwise she could have had 50 (points).”
UW (14-10, 7-6) outscored CU 34-26 in the paint, outrebounded the Buffs 45-38 and converted 13 CU turnovers into 18 points. CU’s bench outscored UW’s 36-19 – mainly on Swan’s contribution before she fouled out with 1:30 to play. The Buffs hurt themselves at the free throw line, converting only 21 of 33 attempts. The Huskies shot 46.7 percent from the field (28-for-60), the Buffs 40.9 percent (27-for-66).
CU jumped to a 9-2 lead but UW recovered quickly with an 11-2 run and took its first lead on a Plum 3-pointer with 15:01 left before intermission. Davis followed with trey on the Huskies’ next possession, giving them their largest advantage (16-11) of the first half.
The first half’s last 13 minutes produced six ties and 11 lead changes before Ashley Wilson hit one of two free throws with 22.1 seconds left to put CU up 40-39 at the break.
The Huskies took a 49-43 to open the second half, getting back-to-back treys by Davis and Talia Walton, the latter hitting her triple with 16:38 left in the game. The Buffs fought back, closing to 51-50 on a 3-pointer by Lexy Kresl with just over 13 minutes remaining.
But the Huskies answered with a 6-0 run on consecutive conventional three-point plays by Plum and Chantel Osahor to open a seven-point advantage – 57-50 – with 12:19 to play.
If CU was to make a move, it would have to be soon. Ashley Wilson and Swan made two free throws each to pull the Buffs to within 57-54. After Swan scored consecutive baskets to tie the score at 60-60, the Huskies got 3-pointers from Osahor – only her second in five games – and Mercedes Wetmore and two free throws each from Katie Collier and Plum to pull ahead 70-60.
It was UW’s largest lead of the night, but a runner by Plum in the lane put CU behind 11 (75-64) just over a minute later. The Buffs pulled to within five (76-71) on a trey by Ashley Wilson, then seven (81-74) on a triple by Kresl with 1:16 left.
Reese got her first points of the night on a jumper to bring CU to 81-76 with 1:06 remaining, then hit a pair of free throws 3 seconds later to cut the deficit to 81-78. A layup by Roberson made it 83-80 but the Huskies closed it out with four free throws by Aminah Williams in the final 22 seconds.
“It took some warriors to win and I was so proud of our kids up and down the bench,” Neighbors said. “We get 19 (points) and 12 (rebounds) off of our bench tonight. There’s been games where we’ve gotten zero and zero.”
CU returns to the CEC on Sunday afternoon (1:30 p.m., Pac-12 Networks) to play Washington State.
Contact: BG.Brooks@Colorado.EDU
Time to End the Cheney/Halliburton Loophole
Feb 14th
By The Daily Take, The Thom Hartmann Program | Op-Ed
Reprinted by Truthout.org
We live in a fracked up country, but thanks to Dick Cheney, there’s pretty much nothing we can do about it.
Over the past decade, the extraction of natural gas through a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has emerged as one of the fossil fuel industry’s biggest money makers.
In fact, according to Bloomberg, fracking was the biggest reason American oil output hit a 25-year high in 2013.
The boom in fracking is, quite literally, hitting close to home.
A recent Wall Street Journal report looked at 11 of the country’s biggest energy-producing states and found that – “At least 15.3 million Americans lived within a mile of a well that has been drilled since 2000. That is more people than live in Michigan or New York City.”
That report also found that in Johnson County, Texas alone “…more than 3,900 wells dot the county and some 99.5% of its 150,000 residents live within a mile of a well.”
Like many places across the U.S., Johnson County is now basically one big drill site.
Not surprisingly, the fossil fuel industry is pushing fracking hard. Big oil has even found a friend in President Obama, who touted natural gas as a “bridge fuel” in his most recent State of the Union address.
All due respect to the president, but fracking is not safe. Numerous studies have shown that it contaminates drinking water, threatens public health, and, in some cases, even causes earthquakes.
If any industry in the country needs regulation it’s the fracking industry, but thanks in large part to Dick Cheney, it’s exempt from having to follow most important environmental laws on the books.
Let me explain: Back in 2005. President – excuse me Vice President – Cheney was hard at work doing what he did best: using his power as the second most powerful man in the country to protect his cronies in the oil business.
His former employer, Halliburton, wanted to get more involved in the emerging American fracking industry, but it faced a potential major roadblock in the form of a 1974 law called the Safe Water Drinking Act.
That act, signed into law by Republican President Gerald Ford, requires the Environmental Protection Agency to keep toxic chemicals from getting into Americans’ drinking water.
Cheney didn’t care about public safety but he did care about Halliburton’s bottom-line – after all, he was a big Halliburton stockholder when he became vice president – and so he joined the lobbying efforts to get Congress to carve out an exemption for fracking in the Safe Water Drinking Act.
Thanks to that carve-out – let’s call it the “Halliburton loophole” – the EPA can’t regulate fracking poisons even when they get into our water supply.
But Cheney and his oil industry buddies didn’t stop there. In 2005, Congress also gave the natural gas industry an exemption from having to write up reports on its activities under the National Environmental Policy Act and expanded its exemption from having to follow Clean Water Act regulations on what kind of chemicals it can dump in storm water runoff.
Coupled with existing exemptions to a variety of pollution laws like the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Superfund Act, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, the 2005 carve-outs gave the fracking industry seven total exemptions from important environmental regulations.
Nine years later, it’s clear that Dick Cheney and Halliburton got what they wanted. Free from having to follow even the most basic environmental regulations, the fracking industry is bigger than ever and will likely continue to grow well into the future.
While other countries like France and Bulgaria with rich reserves of natural gas have banned fracking altogether, we here in the United States have done the exact opposite.
Thanks to Dick Cheney’s Halliburton loophole, anyone who lives near a fracking site is one of the oil industry’s guinea pigs in a giant multi-decade fracking experiment.
But we don’t have to sit back and take it while big gas pollutes our water, our bodies, and our environment.
We need to take action now to close the Halliburton loophole and all the rest of the fracking industry’s exemptions before more people’s water supplies and lives are ruined.
Call your local member of Congress right now and tell them that it’s time to say goodbye to the Bush years once and for all and close the Halliburton loopholes.
This article was first published on Truthout and any reprint or reproduction on any other website must acknowledge Truthout as the original site of publication.
CU study: We’re not so different than the Ancients
Feb 12th
rules of development, says CU-Boulder researcher
Recently derived equations that describe development patterns in modern urban areas appear to work equally well to describe ancient cities settled thousands of years ago, according to a new study led by a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder.
“This study suggests that there is a level at which every human society is actually very similar,” said Scott Ortman, assistant professor of anthropology at CU-Boulder and lead author of the study published in the journal PLOS ONE. “This awareness helps break down the barriers between the past and present and allows us to view contemporary cities as lying on a continuum of all human settlements in time and place.”
Over the last several years, Ortman’s colleagues at the Santa Fe Institute (SFI), including Professor Luis Bettencourt, a co-author of the study, have developed mathematical models that describe how modern cities change as their populations grow. For example, scientists know that as a population increases, its settlement area becomes denser, while infrastructure needs per capita decrease and economic production per capita rises.
Ortman noticed that the variables used in these equations, such as cost of moving around, the size of the settled area, the population, and the benefits of people interacting, did not depend on any particular modern technology.
“I realized that if these models are adequate for explaining what’s going on in contemporary cities, they should apply to any settlements in any society,” he said. “So if these models are on the right track, they should apply to ancient societies too.”
To test his idea, Ortman used data that had been collected in the 1960s about 1,500 settlements in central Mexico that spanned from 1,150 years B.C. through the Aztec period, which ended about 500 years ago. The data included the number of dwellings the archaeologists were able to identify, the total settled area and the density of pottery fragments scattered on the surface. Taken together, these artifacts give an indication of the total population numbers and settlement density of the ancient sites.
“We started analyzing the data in the ways we were thinking about with modern cities, and it showed that the models worked,” Ortman said.
The discovery that ancient and modern settlements may develop in similar and predictable ways has implications both for archaeologists and people studying today’s urban areas. For example, it’s common for archaeologists to assume that population density is constant, no matter how large the settlement area, when estimating the population of ancient cities. The new equations could offer a way for archaeologists to get a more accurate head count, by incorporating the idea that population density tends to grow as total area increases.
In the future, the equations may also guide archaeologists in getting an idea of what they’re likely to find within a given settlement based on its size, such as the miles of roads and pathways. The equations could also guide expectations about the number of different activities that took place in a settlement and the division of labor.
“There should be a relationship between the population of settlements and the productivity of labor,” Ortman said. “So, for example, we would expect larger social networks to be able to produce more public monuments per capita than smaller settlements.”
The findings of the new study may also be useful to studies of modern societies. Because ancient settlements were typically less complex than today’s cities, they offer a simple “model system” for testing the equations devised to explain modern cities.
“The archaeological record actually provides surprisingly clear tests of these models, and in some cases it’s actually much harder to collect comparable data from contemporary cities,” Ortman said.
Other co-authors of the study include Andrew Cabaniss of Santa Fe Institute and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and Jennie Sturm of the University of New Mexico.
The study is available at http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087902.
-CU-