first_imgHowever, without the talismanic presence of Virgil van Dijk through suspension and the injured Joe Gomez and Dejan Lovren, Liverpool at least did not concede an away goal despite fielding a make-shift central defensive pairing of Brazilian midfielder Fabinho and Joel Matip.“It’s not the result or the game we dreamed of,” said Klopp. “It is not a game we will remember in 30 years. It’s the result we have and we will work with that.“It was a clean sheet without the big man (Van Dijk). A lot of people wouldn’t have expected that. The defending was good. A lot of things were really good, I’m not over the moon but I’m completely OK with the game.”That unfamiliarity in Liverpool’s defence showed in the early stages as the hosts started nervously at the back.Matip breathed a sigh of relief when he turned Serge Gnabry’s driven cross towards his own goal only for the ball to bounce to safety off Alisson Becker’s chest.However, the Brazilian goalkeeper played his side into trouble moments later to put pressure on Matip and when he was dispossessed by Robert Lewandowski, Kingsley Coman fired into the side-netting.Liverpool were also posing plenty of problems at the other end, although their final ball often lacked precision.“We made life more difficult with the last pass today about 10 or 12 times,” added Klopp. “We can play better and we should play better.”Mohamed Salah headed wide at the back post from Trent Alexander-Arnold’s perfectly measured cross.– Mane wastes big chance –Mane then passed up the best chance for either side as he shot wide on the turn after Naby Keita’s initial effort was blocked by the arm of Niklas Suele.Bayern may not have hit the heights of previous years in the Bundesliga this season as they trail Borussia Dortmund by three points in their quest to land a seventh straight league title.However, the German champions have made the last eight of the Champions League for each of the past seven seasons and had the experience to hold out for what they clearly saw as a valuable draw as they wound the clock down in the final stages.“I can’t remember that many clubs that have not conceded at Anfield. They way Liverpool play, they are a sensationally good team. My team as a whole kept everything tight at the back,” said Bayern boss Niko Kovac.“We didn’t score but we didn’t let one in. Home games are an advantage, we play in front of 75,000, but we know if we concede we have to win.”Liverpool had 10 days off to prepare for Bayern’s visit due to their early exit in the FA Cup and looked the fresher side as they pressed for a winner.Mane forced Manuel Neuer to produce his best save of the night to turn a low header behind five minutes from time.Klopp’s men have lost all of their last five Champions League games away from Anfield, including last season’s final.The return of Van Dijk will aid their chances, but that rot will need to stop in Munich in three weeks’ time if they are to reach the last eight.0Shares0000(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today) 0Shares0000A frustrating night for Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp ended in a 0-0 draw against Bayern Munich in the Champions League © AFP / Oli SCARFFLIVERPOOL, United Kingdom, Feb 20 – Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp admitted an underwhelming 0-0 draw against old foes Bayern Munich on Tuesday was not what he “dreamed of”, but remained confident of progressing to the quarter-finals of the Champions League.Sadio Mane wasted the best chance when the Senegalese forward fired wide during an open first 45 minutes, but a cagey second half left it all to be decided when the sides meet again in Munich on March 13.last_img read more

first_imgDr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at several colleges and universities including for over 40 years at Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,300 publications in 12 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored, are in over 1,500 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 40 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.(Visited 493 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Another Case of Censorship in ScienceStudy that disparaged conservatives was falsified, but journal would not retract it.by Jerry Bergman, PhDStudies have consistently found that Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to believe humans were created as-is 10,000 years ago.[1] It is also true that conservatives are also much more likely to believe in creationism than liberals.[2] For this reason, the following example of censorship is of much interest. A study originally published 2008 in Science, by John Hibbing et al., titled “Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits” has now been replicated with opposite results. What happened next reveals a lot about censorship in science.An attempt to replicate a claim, particularly a controversial claim, should be the normal procedure in science. Repeatability, indeed, is supposed to be a hallmark of the scientific method. In this case, though, the original study, called the Oxley study, was convincingly falsified. Assuming the second study holds, it means the 2008 study has been shown to be false. The replication paper was then submitted to the journal that published the original study, namely Science. The new paper was flat out rejected without bothering to have the paper peer reviewed!The authors and others are concerned that the reason it was rejected was due to bias against conservatives and creationists. The original study showed conservatives [and creationists] in a very poor light, and liberals [and evolutionists] in a far better light. At the least, the new study should have been peer reviewed and, if valid concerns were determined to exist, the study could have been rejected for valid reasons. This did not happen.Censorship a Major ProblemI am very familiar with the problem of censorship and along this line have authored a 500-page study carefully documenting the problem (see book cover below).[3] I also have experienced the problem, as have many others. When I was employed at Ohio Medical College doing cancer research using the rat model, one study our lab completed openly contradicted several other published studies, so we replicated the study and obtained the exact same results. At this point, I urged publication, but the lead researcher refused, reasoning that the risk of being wrong was too great. I have often wondered if the study was replicated after this event and showed that our results were correct.Do Genes Make Fearful People Conservatives?The original Science article concluded that political views have a biological foundation:  “Although political views have been thought to arise largely from individuals’ experiences, recent research suggests that they may have a biological basis.”[4] The study indicated that political attitude variations correlate with various physiological traits. The sample, a group of only 46 adult participants were, for example, shown a series of images and galvanic skin response was used to measure the participants’ palm sweat level in response to the pictures. The values for each picture and subject were then recorded. The images included pictures of a large spider on a person’s face.Participants with strong liberal “political beliefs were measurably lower in physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images.”[5] The liberals were “more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control.”[6]  In contrast, individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to these stimuli [the conservatives] were “more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War.”[7]Etsy.comThe researchers concluded that the degree to which individuals respond physiologically to perceived threats indicates the level which they advocate policies that protect the existing social structure from both external (outgroup) and internal (norm-violator) threats, i.e. conservatives.[8]When this study was replicated in 2019 by Arceneaux et al., the trends found in the original study were not supported.[9] Their paper was submitted and rejected. This is no small concern because the results of the original study was repeated in many leading journal and mass media venues.Some Examples That Used the [falsified] Oxley Study ResultsA broadcast on the NPR program titled the Hidden Brain made the following irresponsible claim, which is a fundamental argument (i.e., genetic determinism) that eugenicists made decades ago that caused enormous harm to society, especially in the United States, Sweden, and Nazi Germany:John Hibbing is a political scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Over the years, he’s studied how our political views may also be influenced by our biology. “We would look at brain scan results and we could be incredibly accurate knowing whether they’re liberal or conservative”…. Hibbing says, environment and upbringing play a large role as well. But … on average, about 30 or 40 percent of our political attitudes come from genetics. [10]Another report went even further. The short write up by the government-owned British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) put conservatives, which included most creationists, in a very negative light, and liberals, which included many evolutionists, in a very positive light:Americans are as divided as ever between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. … Researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln are studying liberals’ and conservatives’ reactions to happy or pleasant photographs and scary or sad ones in an effort to learn more about the cognitive underpinnings of political preference. The findings? Conservatives tend to concentrate more on images considered to be negative, while liberals’ eyes tend to linger on positive images.[11]This research fit right into anti-creationist Chris Mooney’s theory, which is reflected in the title of his book namely The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science–and Reality.” This title makes it obvious that the creation-evolution issue is at center stage in this debate. By science and reality, Mooney is referring to evolution and global warming. Mooney addedGenes make proteins, not Republicans. …  [And in] a recent study … Hibbing and his colleagues tried to trace the route by which genes may ultimately shape political behavior. Hibbing, for one …  likens the issue to the debate over the origins of homosexuality. “The closest we’ve come to a widespread debate over this kind of issue is sexual orientation,” he says, “and it’s noteworthy those who are the most tolerant are the ones that do think it is partly biological.” Indeed, religious conservatives who think it is possible to “convert” gays and lesbians to heterosexuality, and claim homosexuality is a “choice” tend to ignore the science on this issue.[12]The science, however, is incontrovertible. No clear evidence exists for a genetic cause of homosexuality; nor does evidence of a gene that causes heterosexuality. The ones ignoring that biological reality are the liberals—not the conservatives.Last, TV host and astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson, on his show Star Talk, interviewed Professor Hibbing. He recounted his research that, when shown a set of pictures to his subjects, he claimed his research found liberals mostly remembered the positive pictures and conservatives the negative pictures.[13] Thus, he claimed, Liberals focus on the positive, they claim, and Conservatives focus on the negative. Tyson did not dispute this questionable claim.Is All This Research Science?To function properly, science must be self-correcting. The 19th-century biologist Thomas Huxley famously stated the truism that one “ugly fact can kill a beautiful theory.” But, as one set of researchers learned recently, the leftist policies of the top scientific journals do not appear to agree with Huxley. They chose to suppress an ugly fact so as to allow their beautiful theory to survive another day.Was the Replication Study Done Properly?The authors of the replication study described the original 2008 study as both path-breaking and provocative.[14] They recognized that political scientists and psychologists have attempted to understand the psychological source of ideological differences even before Emile Durkheim’s important work done in the 1800s. The Science article presented some “clues as to why liberals and conservatives differ in their worldviews. Perhaps it has to do with how the brain is wired…. …  perhaps the reason is because conservatives’ brains are more attuned to threats than liberals’.[15]  In addition, they said that the 2008 finding helped to usher in a new set of psychophysiological works on the study of politics, which generated extensive coverage in the popular media.In 2014, all four of the authors of the now rejected replication study were researching the physiological basis of political attitudes. Two were working in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Bakker and Schumacher were both at the University of Amsterdam), and two were at Temple University in Philadelphia (Arceneaux and Gothreau). They first raised the funds to construct labs equipped with state of the art equipment for measuring physiological reactions.They then conducted two replications, one in the Netherlands and one in the U.S. to help deal with local perceptions in the images presented to measure “threat” responses. An example of a threat response is a picture of a gun pointing at the viewer. The preliminary studies were used to calibrate the equipment. Nonetheless, both teams independently failed to support the thesis that people’s physiological reactions to the images correlated with their political attitudes.To explore the possibility that the images used distorted their results, they obtained the original images, to which a few more were added. In Philadelphia, the researchers recruited 202 participants, four times the original sample size of 46. Again, no correlation between physiological reactions to threatening images and political conservatism was found. Nonetheless the researchers still feel that value exists in exploring how physiological reactions and conscious experience shape political attitudes and behavior. Nonetheless, they have concluded that any such relationships are far more complicated than previously presumed. The authors thendrafted a paper that reported the failed replication studies along with a more nuanced discussion about the ways in which physiology might matter for politics and sent it to Science. We did not expect Science to immediately publish the paper, but because our findings cast doubt on an influential study published in its pages, we thought the editorial team would at least send it out for peer review. It did not. About a week later, we received a summary rejection with the explanation that the Science advisory board of academics and editorial team felt that since the publication of this article the field has moved on and that, while they concluded that we had offered a conclusive replication of the original study, it would be better suited for a less visible sub field journal.[16]Arceneaux et al. wrote back to Science after the rejections asking the editors to consider at least sending their paper out for peer review, as is normal. If the reviewers found fatal flaws in the studies replicated, the paper would have been rejected for valid reasons. Arceneaux et al. argued that the original paper was often featured in popular science pieces in the lay media, where the research was translated into the incorrect claim that physiology alone allows people to accurately predict liberal and conservative bias.Rebuffed Without a ReasonArceneaux et al., also stressed that Science magazine, as the leader in science publishing, has a responsibility to set the record straight just as newspapers do when publishing inaccuracies. They were rebuffed without a reason, except a vague suggestion that the journal’s policy on handling research replications might change in the future. Not publishing articles that document a previously published study as erroneous gives the false impression about the quality of science. Or it could be that, as the website retraction-watch documents, false and/or misleading research is epidemic in peer-reviewed science journals.[17] And Science magazine is very aware of this epidemic, even writing several excellent articles on the problem.[18] Arceneaux et al., added that they believeit is bad policy for journals like Science to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all. Subfield journals are less visible, meaning the message often fails to reach the broader public. They are also less authoritative, meaning the failed replication will have less of an impact on the field if it is not published by Science.[19]The researchers involved in the replication study concluded that “open and transparent science can only happen when journals are willing to publish results that contradict previous findings.…  We should continue to have frank discussions about what we’ve learned over the course of the replication crisis and what we could be doing about it. … If only journals like Science were willing to lead the way.”[20]ReferencesBergman describes the many tactics of censorship by the media, libraries, courts and schools.[1] Frank Newport. 2008. “Republicans, Democrats Differ on Creationism.” Gallup  News. https://news.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democrats-differ-creationism.aspx.[2] Pew Research Center. 2015. Chapter 4: “Evolution and Perceptions of Scientific Consensus.” https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-4-evolution-and-perceptions-of-scientific-consensus/[3] Jerry Bergman and Kevin Wirth. 2018. Censoring the Darwin Skeptics. How Belief in Evolution is Enforced by Eliminating Dissidents. Southworth, WA: Leafcutter Press.[4] Oxley, Douglas R., et al. 2008. “Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits.” Science 321:5896: 1667–1670. September 19, p. 371.[5] Oxley, Douglas R., et al. 2008, p. 371[6] Oxley, Douglas R., et al. 2008, p. 371.[7] Oxley, Douglas R., et al. 2008, p. 371.[8] Oxley, Douglas R., et al. 2008, p. 371[9] Oxley, et al. 2008, Science. Open Science Frameworkhttps://osf.io/7yt8u/[10] CAMILA vargas-RESTREPO 2018. Nature, Nurture And Your Politic https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654127241/nature-nurture-and-your-politics?t=1560770467306&t=1561027892440. Emphases added.[11] Matt Danzico. 2012. “Fear Factor: The Science Behind America’s Red/Blue Divide https://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-16770593/fear-factor-the-science-behind-america-s-red-blue-divide.[12]  Chris Mooney. 2012. “Politics May be Partly Genetic, Now What?” http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/politics-may-be-partly-genetic-now-what/[13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAc8MKTjC5E.[14] Oxley, Douglas R., et al. 2008[15] Oxley, Douglas R., et al. 2008.[16] Kevin Arceneaux, Bert N. Bakker, Claire Gothreau, and Gus Schumacher. 2019. We Tried to Publish a Replication of a Science Paper in Science. The Journal Refused. Our research suggests that the theory that conservatives and liberals respond differently to threats isn’t actually true. JUNE 20. https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/science-replication-conservatives-liberals-reacting-to-threats.html.[17] http://retractionwatch.com.[18] What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty.’ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty.[19] Kevin Arceneaux, et al., 2019.[20]  Kevin Arceneaux, et al., 2019.last_img read more

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest World Dairy Expo is right around the corner and the deadline for dairy cattle entries is fast approaching. All entries must be submitted by midnight (CDT) on Monday, Aug. 31, 2015 to avoid late fees. Paper entries must be postmarked by that date as well. Late entries will be accepted until the day of the show at an increased rate (online late entries close Sept. 13, 2015).Entry forms are available online through the Dairy Cattle Entry System or for print on the Expo website. Additional entry information, schedule of events, rules and changes/additions can be found in the Premium book, available on the Expo website.Display booth space, end-cap display, stalling requests, discounted exhibitor passes, 2018 Futurity entries, 2016 judge nominations and Dairy Cattle Exhibitor Committee representative nomination forms can all be found on the online entry system as well. Youth fitting and showmanship contest entries may also be submitted.World Dairy Expo will be held Sept. 29 – Oct. 3, 2015 at the Alliant Energy Center, Madison, Wis. with this year’s theme of “Dairy in our DNA.” WDE, recognized as the meeting place for the global dairy industry, attracts more than 70,000 attendees from more than 90 countries each year. Visit worlddairyexpo.com or follow us on Facebook and Twitter (@WDExpo or #WDE15) for more information.last_img read more

first_img Facebook VANCOUVER—Award-winning novelist Nancy Richler has died in Vancouver at the age of 60 following a long battle with cancer.HarperCollins Canada said in a news release that Richler died Thursday in hospital.The Montreal-born author spent most of her adult life in British Columbia, where she wrote short fiction and novels. Advertisement Advertisement Richler’s short stories were published in several American and Canadian literary journals.She also wrote three novels, the most recent being The Imposter Bride, which was a finalist for the Scotiabank Giller Prize in 2012.HarperCollins said the jury described the book as a “wonderfully nuanced work of fiction by a master of the craft.”Richler’s agent, Dean Cooke, said he will never forget the moment he called her to tell her she’d been shortlisted for the prize.“She was washing her floor and acknowledged the call but told me she really had to get back to the cleaning. It was only later that she fully understood the import of that moment,” he said in a statement.“Nancy’s work was crucial to the development and success of my agency in the early years, but more importantly, I valued her friendship beyond measure. She was a beautiful writer and a more beautiful person.”Richler won the 2003 Canadian Jewish Book Award for Fiction for her book Your Mouth Is Lovely, and the 1997 Arthur Ellis Award for the crime novel Throwaway Angels.She is survived by her partner Vicki Trerise, her sister, and a brother. Iris Tupholme, senior vice-president and executive publisher at HarperCollins, said Richler was an elegant writer whose work resonated with readers in Canada and abroad.“She had an extraordinary ability to see into the human heart to create complex characters who survived war, displacement and loss but who also cherished beauty and kindness and searched for happiness,” Tupholme said in a statement. Login/Register With: Advertisement LEAVE A REPLY Cancel replyLog in to leave a comment Nancy Richler has died at the age of 60 following a long battle with cancer. (FRANK GUNN / THE CANADIAN PRESS) Twitterlast_img read more

The Ohio state baseball team celebrates the team’s Big Ten championship victory. Credit: Courtesy of OSU AthleticsAfter clinching an automatic bid into the NCAA College Baseball tournament, the Ohio State Buckeyes have been placed as the No. 2 seed in the Louisville regional, hosted by No. 2 national seed Louisville Cardinals. For the Buckeyes, this has been a truly spectacular season, fueled by steady contributions from both sides of the plate as they finished with a Big Ten-best record of 43-18-1. On the year, OSU ranked second in the Big Ten in runs scored with 362. The team’s offense was driven largely by their strong power numbers, where they ranked first in the Big Ten and tied for 28th in the country with 56 home runs. Another strength was the speed on the basepaths, where they ranked second in the Big Ten and tied for 18th in the country in stolen bases with 98 successful swipes.But it wasn’t just the bats that worked for the Buckeyes. The pitching staff for the Scarlet and Gray also contributed in a major way to the success of the team. OSU pitchers posted a 3.02 ERA on the season, good for second best in the Big Ten and 11th in the nation; a 1.20 WHIP, best in the Big Ten and 12th in the nation; and a miniscule 2.40 BB/9 rate, second best in the Big Ten and fifth best among all NCAA teams.In the first matchup of their regional, the Buckeyes will take on Wright State University, champions of the Horizon League. The Raiders have put together a strong season, posting a 44-15 record overall. They currently sit 36th overall with a 3.47 ERA and tenth overall with a 1.20 WHIP. Though WSU ranks 22nd overall in runs scored (424 on the season), they have few explosive aspects to their offense. The Raiders currently rank 95th in batting average (.283) and tied for 55th in home runs (46). Their offense has largely been sparked by a NCAA 20th best-91 stolen bases.That game begins on Friday, June 3 at 6 p.m. E.T.The winner of the Louisville regional will play the winner of the Vanderbilt regional in the Super Regional round. read more

When Thad Matta spoke into the microphone his voice crackled, often breaking off into a cough. His cheeks were flushed with a slight red hue and the lights from the postgame press conference glistened off of his saturated face. His team had just earned its first legitimizing win of the season – a 56-53 triumph over a Michigan team that was on the precipice of its first No. 1 ranking in 21 years. And Matta’s presence represented the stress that the rest of the sold-out Schottenstein Center felt as it witnessed the home team’s 21-point lead wilt away into a tie game with six minutes to play. Must-wins don’t exist for college basketball teams in mid-January, but the Buckeyes’ matchup against Michigan was as close as it gets. OSU had lost each of its last three games against ranked opponents – a blown lead down the stretch in the always-hostile Cameron Indoor against Duke, a Sahara Desert-esque shooting drought against Kansas and a dud of a performance against Illinois that turned into the worst program loss in more than three years. Three returning starters from a Final Four team the previous year merited OSU a lofty No. 4 preseason ranking, but ever since the Buckeyes had been methodically cascading down the rankings and giving rise to doubts in not just the psyche of the fans, but surely in their own minds as well that maybe this team wasn’t as good as its predecessors. So when Michigan rolled into town with a No. 2 overall ranking, a heralded freshman class and two returning stars in junior guard Tim Hardaway Jr. and sophomore guard Trey Burke, OSU all but needed a win to prove to itself that OSU can compete in the hypercompetetive Big Ten and the NCAA Tournament at year’s end. OSU played like a desperate team in the game’s opening minutes, pressuring Michigan into uncharacteristic mistakes and building a 29-8 lead. The Buckeyes blew that lead, regained a six-point advantage and almost saw that one disappear too when Columbus-native Burke’s three that would have given his team a one-point lead rattled out. “I don’t know how, but I’m not going to give it back, that’s for sure,” Matta said after the game. Michigan wanted the win too, obviously. But they didn’t need it. Burke had a little extra incentive, playing against the team that never offered him a scholarship despite growing up a nine iron away from campus. But he was the only one who had anything extra to play for. (And don’t kid yourself, the Michigan-OSU rivalry is nowhere near what it is in football.) For the rest of the Wolverines, this was the first major road test for a young team. Important yes, but a victory was not instrumental for the team’s long-term success. Michigan coach John Beilein, despite his team climbing a mountain of a 21-point deficit only to lose in the end, did not look or sound like a disappointed coach. On the contrary, he was calm and encouraged. “This is terrific for us,” he said. “Every coach will tell you that. When is the last team that didn’t lose? The teams that really prosper from it are the teams that get better from it. We did not play a top-20 team on the road. “We had five freshmen play almost double-digit minutes, they didn’t have a freshman see the floor.” It would have been great for Michigan to get the win, but the Wolverines – playing on the road – have vastly different goals than the Buckeyes, who have a single freshman on their roster, at this point in the season. So don’t catapult OSU back into the “elite teams” category just yet. This Buckeye team is good. They proved that if their backs are against the wall they can beat any team in the country. But what happens when the other team is desperate for victory just as much as OSU, like say in March? That remains to be seen. read more

Then-sophomore pitcher Ryan Riga throws a pitch during a game against Oregon May 11 at Bill Davis Stadium. OSU lost, 3-1.Courtesy of OSU Athletics Then-sophomore pitcher Greg Greve (32) fires a pitch during a game against Minnesota April 8, 2012, at Bill Davis Stadium. OSU won, 4-1.Courtesy of OSU AthleticsDespite an influx of youth on the Ohio State baseball team, leadership is a likely necessity if the Buckeyes have dreams to be considered among the nation’s best. Although the team is less than three weeks into its regular season, the leaders on the pitching staff have already begun to emerge.Senior captain Greg Greve, and junior Ryan Riga have established themselves as the starting 1-2 punch for the Buckeyes on the mound. They make up a small portion of the pitching staff with collegiate experience, though.“It puts expectations on our roles. We have to show the young guys the ropes,” Greve said.A corps of talented freshmen and sophomores outweigh the upperclassmen in numbers, but coach Greg Beals said he is confident going into weekend trips knowing he is sending Greve and Riga out to start games.“I consider them bookends,” Beals said. “You got Greve going out first (on the weekend), Riga going out second … so our young guys are bookended a little bit.”Beals said he does not have a problem with sending any of the freshmen out to throw big innings, but Greve’s and Riga’s performances thus far have yet to warrant that.Neither were regular starters last year, but both have starting experience. Greve, a right-hander, started 20 games combined during his freshman and sophomore campaigns before moving to the bullpen last year, where he lowered his ERA to a career-best 3.65. Riga, a left-hander, began his collegiate career at Wabash Valley College, where he went 9-3 as a freshman and posted a 2.77 ERA. He improved as a sophomore during his first season with the Buckeyes in 2013, getting his ERA down to 2.14 in 29 relief appearances.With none of the starting rotation returning this season, both pitchers knew it would be their time to step up.“Last year the (pitching) staff set the tone for the team,” Riga said. “We’re trying to do the same to accomplish our goals and make it to the national tournament.”Greve started on opening day for the Buckeyes against reigning Big East Tournament Champion Connecticut. In the weeks leading up to that first game, he had no idea he would be the day one starter for the team, but embraced the role.Things looked shaky to start, with the Huskies earning two runs off him to begin the first inning.“Opening day showed that I was excited and nervous,” Greve said. “After the first inning, I went into the dugout and took some deep breaths and talked to my teammates to just help me relax.”Getting calmed down by his teammates appeared to pay dividends, as he subsequently pitched five strong innings, allowing only two baserunners and retiring 11 batters in a row at one point. The Buckeye offense tallied eight runs to earn him the win.Riga started against Auburn in the second game of the season and pitched for six innings, giving up only four hits while not allowing any runs. His effort against the Tigers earned him the honor of being named a Big Ten Co-Pitcher of the week. He said the award wasn’t important, though.“It doesn’t mean much to me,” Riga said. “I’m just trying to leave games with a lead and help the team win as many games as I can.”The second weekend of play didn’t see Greve and Riga, but Greve said he was glad the team could generate enough offense to win even if the starters struggled.“It’s a great feeling knowing our offense can come back and get runs even if we have a bad day,” Greve said. “Our job is to go out and keep it close for them.”As the freshmen and sophomore relievers continue to develop, Beals said he knows Greve and Riga can provide them with someone to look up to and follow.“They have the right leadership to prepare the (young) guys to be successful,” Beals said.The Buckeyes (5-2) have set the tone early, just as they had hoped to do, Riga said.“We had a big emphasis on the beginning of the year,” Riga said. “We focused on getting a good start and are happy with how it’s been.”Riga and Greve know there is much more to be done, though, and that the team has to keep winning to achieve their main goal.“We want to represent Ohio State in the national tournament,” Greve said. “We have worked our butts off for this all winter. All I want to do is help the team win.”The Buckeyes are scheduled to play Pittsburgh Friday in the Keith LeClair Classic in Greenville, N.C. First pitch is set for 1:05 p.m. read more

first_img July 13, 2019 LA MESA (KUSI) – An electrical outage today in La Mesa left hundreds of San Diego Gas & Electric without power, according to the utility.According to SDG&E outage records, the blackout was reported at 7:56 p.m. Many customers had their power restored by 9 p.m. but there were approximately 590 customers still in the dark.Most of the people affected lived west of Grossmont near Lake Murray Boulevard and Marengo Avenue,  SDG&E said.Officials don’t yet know what caused the outage. All power was expected to be restored some time after midnight. KUSI Newsroom, Posted: July 13, 2019 KUSI Newsroom Power outage in La Mesa affects hundreds Categories: Local San Diego News FacebookTwitterlast_img

first_imgHowever, hours fished with set gillnets in the Kasilof Section within 600 feet of shore do no apply to the weekly hourly provisions in the Kenai River Late-Run King Salmon Management Plan. The passage estimates of sockeye salmon are increasing in the Kasilof River. Facebook0TwitterEmailPrintFriendly分享The Department of Fish and Game has announced the opening for set gillnetting in the Kasilof Section of the Upper Subdistrict within 600 feet of the mean high tide mark on the Kenai Peninsula shoreline from 5:00 p.m. until 11:59 p.m., today. According to the DF&G, more than 15,000 sockeye salmon are estimated to have passed the Kasilof River sockeye salmon sonar counter on July 17, and through 12:00 noon today.last_img