Search Episodes (Take me camping )

Norway Shooting Spree Survivors See Breivik in Court

Added 02/07/12
0 Views

Demi Lovato Shoots Down Rehab Rumors

Added 01/31/12
1 Views

Demi Lovato Shoots Down Rehab Rumors

Added 01/31/12
0 Views

Episode 136: A Rare Opportunity

Added 01/15/12
0 Views

Episode 136: A Rare Opportunity

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 13:26:59 01/15/12
I Was Just In The Neighborhood. I stayed at BC a few hours longer than the rest of our group not to take in the scenery, but to catch up with my old friend Dawa. Jeff was the first to head down and Steve and John followed a bit later leaving just me, Karma and Passang from our workshop group. While technically I?m still a client here in BC, I?ve finally managed to get the staff to understand that I?m ?one of them? and don?t need to be catered to in the same way as one of the participants. They?ve been doing an outstanding job ensuring the success of the group but when it?s just me up here they can turn off and just hang out. In fact, I encourage that kind of behavior! With Karma and Passang kicking back and enjoying the fine weather, the rest of the camp staff relaxed as well and I couldn?t have been happier. I know I?ve always got the best staff in the world to help me out but the reason I come back year after year is because these guys become lifelong friends of mine. Camp cook Dawa is a perfect example of that. Dawa and I became close during the 2003 expedition I was on with Ben Clark. Now, my job on that expedition was to document as much of it as possible but I was not a climber. So, Ben would disappear for weeks at a time further up on the mountain leaving me in Dawa?s care. That was my first experience in the Himalayas and I was extremely uncomfortable with being waited on hand and foot by the staff every day. Dawa was the one who listened to my incessant complaints about wanting to wash my own dishes and explained to me why it was important to just be OK with it. The staff has an incredible amount of pride in what they do and always strive to do the best job they can. I need to let them do what they do and if I am uncomfortable, just let them know how much I value the work they are doing for my by telling them how much I appreciate it. I took his advice and we became friends. That friendship was a crucial component of that 2003 experience for me and I?m not sure if I would have enjoyed the expedition if I hadn?t had Dawa. Let me ad to that sentiment: The Rest of Everest may not have existed if it weren?t for Dawa making that first trip such an amazing experience. I owe a lot to him and his generosity, kindness, patience and hard work. I thought I would be able to tell him all of that in person in 2007 when I returned to Everest with my friend Scott Jacobs but, alas, it was not to be. Mountain Tribes was scheduled to have a team on the North Side and Dawa was going to be the cook but 2 weeks before the climbing season began the permit was switched to the South Side. When Scott and I walked into BC, Dawa was already encamped on the other side of the mountain. I was crushed because I had come so far from home and was so looking forward to spending some time with Dawa. This year everything worked out perfectly and I was finally able to tell Dawa ?thanks? and to reminisce about that 2003 expedition now 6 years in the past. My, how time flies! I was also able to finally show him my favorite portions of the film myself and that was great fun. Another case of art imitating life imitating art. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined how that 2003 expedition was going to change my life. Thanks Dawa. Total Running Time: 34:04

Thin Ice Preparation with Glen Hooper - HD

Added 01/10/12
5 Views

Episode 085: Good Morning Everest

Added 01/10/12
0 Views

Episode 085: Good Morning Everest

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 12:19:38 01/10/12
What A View To Wake Up To. We met up with the LUNGevity team and I decided to to do some impromptu interviews with them. I knew right away where I wanted to film them. The Base Camp swimming pools. OK, lets be clear about this. These are natural pools of water, glacial tarns, that have formed in the Rongbuk Glacier as it has been melting. No, there aren?t any man-made swimming pools here. At least not yet. In 2003 I joked around with the Royal Navy/Royal as we were setting up the makeshift ?movie theater? that in the not to distant future someone would build and IMAX movie theater up here so that tourists could watch the film ?Everest? on a gigantic screen so it would appear as big as life. ?Watching the film on the huge IMAX screen was so lifelike it was almost like being there? the happy tourists would say. Ah, that dry British humor. Anyway, back to 2007. I interviewed Brian and Justin overlooking one of the few glacial tarns and it was incredibly beautiful, The water is almost perfectly clear and an intense shade of turquoise. Really majestic. Not everyone knows these pools exist but I spent a lot of time up here last time around. I felt really cool that I knew about them and was able to take Scott and the guys up there. While I was doing the interview I switched on to work mode and blasted through a number of (hopefully) meaningful questions. As everyone knows, I?m a talker, and I love filming interviews with interesting people. Once the interviews were over and we were packing up all of my gear I realized that I felt terrible. I was really hurting from the altitude and felt nauseous and had a splitting headache. Didn?t feel a thing while I was filming! Not to worry. After a couple of quarts of water and some milk tea I felt fully recuperated. Good thing too. Feeling sick makes me depressed and I?ve cried enough on this trip already! Scott and I are having the time of our lives. Jon Miller Total Running Time: 16:33

Episode 026: Trouble By The Foot

Added 01/07/12
0 Views

Episode 026: Trouble By The Foot

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 04:48:53 01/07/12
My Meat Foot. Ok, Ok, Ok, so maybe I shouldn?t have gone all the way to ABC at 21,000 feet. The funny thing is that the altitude wasn?t a problem. Only in the morning. I?d wake up and would have my vision be somewhat spotty, strobing and tracing. After I?d stumble down the path to the ?bathroom? and nearly careen down the slope into the Romanian tents (ABC has no ground, it?s all a glacial moraine which means it?s all loose rock like a scree slope) my vision would clear up. Usually just as I was pulling down my pants to do my business in the open air toilet I?d look over and see a member of the British Royal Navy Team squatting on his open air toilet and we?d wave to each other. Friendship in misery. After a time at ABC, I realized it was beautiful but it sucked up there. You just can?t rest. The entire time you can feel your body deteriorating. So, it was time to climb down. I made the 22km in one very long day but it was very painful. In fact I totally messed up my left foot. I?ve never had a problem with my boots, but leave it to Everest to change that. The trail is only loose rock and every step I took pounded my toenail into the front of the boot. By the time I made it back to BC, I knew it was a bad situation. I had a terrible pain in that Big Toe, but I was just too tired to deal with it that evening. I slept and the next morning inspected the damage. My toe didn?t look like a toe anymore. In fact, one of my French friends, Bertrand, described it as a sausage floating in water. It was really surreal to look at my toe and think it was an alien. Luckily, my Russian friends have a doctor here at Base Camp. I?m really good friends with him, Dmitri. I hobbled over to the camp and went into their Comm tent. He wasn?t there but some other friends were. Vova said he thought I looked in pain. I took off my sock and they all yelped in Russian. Vova jumped up, slapped me on the shoulder and ran out to find Dr. Dima. Minutes later my foot was in this huge surgeon?s fleeced lap. He said it would take a small operation and that I would be fine. He said something in Russian to Vova who immediately jumped up and disappeared from the tent. Seconds later he returned with a bottle of whiskey. Dima handed the bottle and suggested I drink up.?For pain.? I grabbed the bottle and thought of every Old West movie I?d ever seen, looking around for a wooden spoon or something to put between my teeth and bite down on. I raised the bottle to my lips and was about to drink when Dima grabbed the bottle. The joke was on me. The whiskey was actually rubbing alcohol and he was only kidding about me needing to drink up. Apparently Russian airlines do not allow the passengers to transport running alcohol in their luggage, yet they DO allow unbelievably high proof liquor. Dima simply fills an empty whiskey bottle with rubbing alcohol and can easily sneak it through security! I washed my foot, then Dima shot my toe up with novocain and sterilized his tools with the alcohol and cut here and there releasing pressure, then cut away the nail. It was gross, but I was fascinated! Afterwards, he put a ton of Russian antibiotic cream on it and wrapped it in sterile gauze his wife had carefully prepared in St Petersburg (she?s apparently an anesthesiologist). In 30 minutes it was all taken care of and only hurt a lot for a minute. That was 3 days ago and every morning Dima comes over and gently changes my dressing. These people are so great. I offered to pay since I have some cash on me but Dima just raised his finger to his head and twirled his finger to say I was crazy. I almost cried. I would be totally in trouble of infection without him. But he really cares about my well being and I?m being taken care of with immaculate care. He said I was his first American patient and I said he was my first Russian doctor. All in broken English, of course. I?ll never forget the generosity I?ve experienced here. I?m sitting in their Comm tent right now using their generator since mine is busted again. Everyone is glad I?m here and it?s wonderful. Everest North Side would be a totally dead landscape if it weren?t for all of the great people. They?re what I?m going to remember, not the Mountain. Jon Miller Total Running Time: 23:28

Episode 023: Climbing The North Col

Added 01/07/12
0 Views

Episode 023: Climbing The North Col

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 04:19:58 01/07/12
Seeing Spots. I might not be a mountaineer, but it?s time for me to climb Everest. Well, up to ABC anyway. The altitude up high is making my vision and balance a little funny. We left BC a couple of days ago and headed up the well worn path leading up to Interim Camp. Man, not my favorite place in the world but only had to spend a few hours of sleep there. Today, Andre (the 68-year-old Belgian climber sharing our camp) and I trudged up to ABC. This was one of the most difficult days I?ve ever had. I found the altitude very difficult to hike through. It wasn?t so much that I was tired, I JUST COULD NOT MOVE MY LEGS WELL. It?s bizarre and I felt like I was walking through quicksand. Every step made it more difficult to move forward. Andre was doing very well and was gracious to stay by my side the entire couple of days we?ve spent walking. Our mantra was, ?Slowly, slowly?? and it worked. I?m here. For the last few kilometers I don?t think I was able to take more than a step every 3 or 4 seconds. I could see ABC, but I just couldn?t get there! Boca Lama cruised down once Dawa arrived ahead of me at camp and found me sitting on a boulder a km or so away from camp. He brought tea and cookies with him. These guys are amazing, and I love them dearly. He grabbed by pack and allowed me to walk unburdened for the final stretch. So generous. When I finally stumbled into the mess tent, I sat down at the table and felt this great rush of awareness that I did not have to walk any further. I began to sob. I had made it to 21,000? on my own two feet. Standing outside my tent you can see the summit which looks amazingly close. You also get an amazing view of the North Col?where Ben is right now. He and Lhawang and Lhakpa set out to climb up there yesterday. I can?t imagine what it must be like. I look forward to seeing my friends when they return to ABC in a few days. Jon Miller Total Running Time: 17:08

Episode 021: ABC FYI

Added 01/07/12
0 Views

Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice

Added 01/06/12
2 Views

Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice

[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:40 01/06/12
For months, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has made Barack Obama's supposed "failure of leadership" a centerpiece of his campaign. But like his ill-advised comparison of President Obama to Marie Antoinette , Romney's sound bite could well boomerang. After all, when Multiple Choice Mitt isn't comically reversing his stands, he's too afraid to take any at all . That cowardice starts with his tax returns . While John Kerry and John McCain at least presented a summary of their (and their well-to-do wives') payments to Uncle Sam, the $250 million Mitt has so far refused to do so. Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: > "I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity." Or as he put it to CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week (at around the 6:40 mark): > "I don't put out which tooth paste I use either. It's not that I have something to hide." That's one interpretation. Another is that Mitt Romney is desperate to avoid the horrible political optics his tax returns would inevitably produce. After all, because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital (a company the Los Angeles Times recently explained "often maximized profits in part by firing workers") are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families . Romney's pusillanimity extends to his own tax proposals as well. Unlike virtually all of his GOP rivals , Romney has held back on endorsing either a flat-tax or the complete elimination of the capital gains tax. As he seemed to suggest to the Wall Street Journal , discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to telling voters about the massive windfall the Romneys would reap under the tax policies that dare not speak their name: > What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... > Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election." Mitt Romney's fear of getting hit was also on display during the debt ceiling debate this summer. As the GOP's brinksmanship over defaulting on the U.S. debt reached its climax in late July, Romney turned his tail and fled. As MSNBC reported at the time: > NBC's Garrett Haake reported that Mitt Romney told reporters in Ohio yesterday that he would not comment on the debt negotiations in Washington. And so far, he has refused to either endorse Boehner's legislation (as Huntsman has done) or oppose it (as Pawlenty and Bachman have done). Our question: How does someone who wants to be the leader of the Republican Party not have a position on one of the biggest issues facing Washington, especially after the dueling primetime speeches by Obama and Boehner? It's actually quite surprising; this isn't just another Washington fight. Is the lack of a position proof of how fragile Team Romney believes its front-runner status is right now? (Ultimately, Romney used Facebook to announce his support of the Boehner bill, but only after it passed the GOP House .) As it turns out, Ohio was the scene of another of Mitt Romney's moments in cowardice. After visiting a Republican phone bank calling voters about the state's controversial Issue 2 curbing public unions , Romney amazingly refused to take a position: > "I'm not saying anything one way or the other about the two ballot issues." Embarrassed by his obvious lack of backbone, Romney endorsed the measure the next day. Ohio voters, who handily defeated the Republican measure, won't soon forget Romney said goodbye to his spine in Columbus. Romney's vertebra similarly went missing on immigration and abortion , two issues near and dear to the Republican primary voter's heart. As Steve Benen recounted, Mitt's campaign simply would not answer Joe Klein question about what President Romney would do about the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country: > The evasion wasn't exactly graceful. Klein asked what Romney would do with the undocumented immigrants who are already here, and Fehrnstrom replied, "He would not grant them amnesty." Right, Klein said, but instead of amnesty, what would Romney do with these people? "He would not grant them amnesty," Fehrnstrom answered. Got it, Klein said, but what, specifically, would Romney do? "I just told you, he's not going to grant them amnesty," the campaign spokesperson said. When Klein then explained that this isn't actually an answer, Fehrnstrom, once again, said, "He would not grant them amnesty." The Romney camp built a similar stonewall after their man seemingly came out in support of the soon-to-be defeated "personhood" initiative in Mississippi . But the day after the ballot measure went down to crushing defeat, Team Romney insisted "he's being falsely characterized as supporting a proposed amendment to define a fertilized egg as a 'person.'" On matters small and large, duck and cover is Mitt Romney's posture. Afraid to admit that he has obviously been running for President without interruption since his failed campaign four years ago, Romney's wife claimed his 2012 run was all her idea. As Ann Romney told Wolf Blitzer last week (starting around the 2:30 mark in the video above): > BLITZER: Is it true that you had to talk to Mitt into running again? > ANN ROMNEY. ROMNEY: It is true...after the last campaign, it was kind of ironic that I was the one that said I'd never do this again, and now, this time around, I'm saying, you know what, Mitt, you've got to do this again. But in Mitt's telling, his latest White House bid is all due to Barack Obama. As he told the Wall Street Journal just days ago, Mitt was content to hang out in his $12 million, soon-to-be doubled-in-size California beach side home : > The Republican presidential candidate says he never intended to run for office again after 2008--"I went back and bought a home which was far too expensive and grandiose for the purposes of another campaign," he jokes. He was drawn back into public life amid Mr. Obama's bid to "fundamentally transform" the country, to use the president's own words, into "an entitlement society," to use Mr. Romney's. Given his Boston area townhouse and lakeside mansion with man-made beach in New Hampshire, a third palatial retreat would have seemed excessive for a candidate Romney. After all, Mitt Romney's running for office as a " man of the people "; he can't have mansions, for Pete's sake . "If it seems like this keeps coming up with the former governor," Benen concluded, "it's not your imagination." > Romney refused to take a stand on Paul Ryan's budget. Romney refused to take a stand when asked about voters booing a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq during a Republican debate. Romney refused to take a stand when Rick Perry dabbled in Birtherism. Romney initially refused to take a stand on Ohio's campaign to undermine collective-bargaining rights, and then sheepishly backpedaled when the right complained. > There's going to come a point next year when the Obama campaign is likely to say, "Mitt Romney lacks the courage and the character to be a leader." And the criticism will sting because it's based in fact. And so it goes for the man George Will rightly described as a "recidivist reviser of his principles." On the issues where he doesn't change his mind, Mitt Romney - the man who would be leader of the Free World - lacks "the courage of his absence of convictions." (This piece also appears at Perrspectives. )

Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice

Added 01/06/12
0 Views

Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:40 01/06/12
For months, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has made Barack Obama's supposed "failure of leadership" a centerpiece of his campaign. But like his ill-advised comparison of President Obama to Marie Antoinette , Romney's sound bite could well boomerang. After all, when Multiple Choice Mitt isn't comically reversing his stands, he's too afraid to take any at all . That cowardice starts with his tax returns . While John Kerry and John McCain at least presented a summary of their (and their well-to-do wives') payments to Uncle Sam, the $250 million Mitt has so far refused to do so. Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: > "I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity." Or as he put it to CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week (at around the 6:40 mark): > "I don't put out which tooth paste I use either. It's not that I have something to hide." That's one interpretation. Another is that Mitt Romney is desperate to avoid the horrible political optics his tax returns would inevitably produce. After all, because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital (a company the Los Angeles Times recently explained "often maximized profits in part by firing workers") are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families . Romney's pusillanimity extends to his own tax proposals as well. Unlike virtually all of his GOP rivals , Romney has held back on endorsing either a flat-tax or the complete elimination of the capital gains tax. As he seemed to suggest to the Wall Street Journal , discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to telling voters about the massive windfall the Romneys would reap under the tax policies that dare not speak their name: > What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... > Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election." Mitt Romney's fear of getting hit was also on display during the debt ceiling debate this summer. As the GOP's brinksmanship over defaulting on the U.S. debt reached its climax in late July, Romney turned his tail and fled. As MSNBC reported at the time: > NBC's Garrett Haake reported that Mitt Romney told reporters in Ohio yesterday that he would not comment on the debt negotiations in Washington. And so far, he has refused to either endorse Boehner's legislation (as Huntsman has done) or oppose it (as Pawlenty and Bachman have done). Our question: How does someone who wants to be the leader of the Republican Party not have a position on one of the biggest issues facing Washington, especially after the dueling primetime speeches by Obama and Boehner? It's actually quite surprising; this isn't just another Washington fight. Is the lack of a position proof of how fragile Team Romney believes its front-runner status is right now? (Ultimately, Romney used Facebook to announce his support of the Boehner bill, but only after it passed the GOP House .) As it turns out, Ohio was the scene of another of Mitt Romney's moments in cowardice. After visiting a Republican phone bank calling voters about the state's controversial Issue 2 curbing public unions , Romney amazingly refused to take a position: > "I'm not saying anything one way or the other about the two ballot issues." Embarrassed by his obvious lack of backbone, Romney endorsed the measure the next day. Ohio voters, who handily defeated the Republican measure, won't soon forget Romney said goodbye to his spine in Columbus. Romney's vertebra similarly went missing on immigration and abortion , two issues near and dear to the Republican primary voter's heart. As Steve Benen recounted, Mitt's campaign simply would not answer Joe Klein question about what President Romney would do about the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country: > The evasion wasn't exactly graceful. Klein asked what Romney would do with the undocumented immigrants who are already here, and Fehrnstrom replied, "He would not grant them amnesty." Right, Klein said, but instead of amnesty, what would Romney do with these people? "He would not grant them amnesty," Fehrnstrom answered. Got it, Klein said, but what, specifically, would Romney do? "I just told you, he's not going to grant them amnesty," the campaign spokesperson said. When Klein then explained that this isn't actually an answer, Fehrnstrom, once again, said, "He would not grant them amnesty." The Romney camp built a similar stonewall after their man seemingly came out in support of the soon-to-be defeated "personhood" initiative in Mississippi . But the day after the ballot measure went down to crushing defeat, Team Romney insisted "he's being falsely characterized as supporting a proposed amendment to define a fertilized egg as a 'person.'" On matters small and large, duck and cover is Mitt Romney's posture. Afraid to admit that he has obviously been running for President without interruption since his failed campaign four years ago, Romney's wife claimed his 2012 run was all her idea. As Ann Romney told Wolf Blitzer last week (starting around the 2:30 mark in the video above): > BLITZER: Is it true that you had to talk to Mitt into running again? > ANN ROMNEY. ROMNEY: It is true...after the last campaign, it was kind of ironic that I was the one that said I'd never do this again, and now, this time around, I'm saying, you know what, Mitt, you've got to do this again. But in Mitt's telling, his latest White House bid is all due to Barack Obama. As he told the Wall Street Journal just days ago, Mitt was content to hang out in his $12 million, soon-to-be doubled-in-size California beach side home : > The Republican presidential candidate says he never intended to run for office again after 2008--"I went back and bought a home which was far too expensive and grandiose for the purposes of another campaign," he jokes. He was drawn back into public life amid Mr. Obama's bid to "fundamentally transform" the country, to use the president's own words, into "an entitlement society," to use Mr. Romney's. Given his Boston area townhouse and lakeside mansion with man-made beach in New Hampshire, a third palatial retreat would have seemed excessive for a candidate Romney. After all, Mitt Romney's running for office as a " man of the people "; he can't have mansions, for Pete's sake . "If it seems like this keeps coming up with the former governor," Benen concluded, "it's not your imagination." > Romney refused to take a stand on Paul Ryan's budget. Romney refused to take a stand when asked about voters booing a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq during a Republican debate. Romney refused to take a stand when Rick Perry dabbled in Birtherism. Romney initially refused to take a stand on Ohio's campaign to undermine collective-bargaining rights, and then sheepishly backpedaled when the right complained. > There's going to come a point next year when the Obama campaign is likely to say, "Mitt Romney lacks the courage and the character to be a leader." And the criticism will sting because it's based in fact. And so it goes for the man George Will rightly described as a "recidivist reviser of his principles." On the issues where he doesn't change his mind, Mitt Romney - the man who would be leader of the Free World - lacks "the courage of his absence of convictions." (This piece also appears at Perrspectives. )

12 Year old Damon Harge Jr. Plays Varsity Basketball

Added 12/28/11
1 Views

12 Year old Damon Harge Jr. Plays Varsity Basketball

[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 12:12:57 12/28/11
I'm Lynn Lumpkin CRWENewswire Sports Commentator. This is the Sports Corner. Damon Harge Jr. is not the average 12 year old. No one is called average when you're one of the only sixth graders in history to suit up for a varsity squad, the understudy of a recent No. 1 NBA draft pick and already being courted by some of the country's most elite college programs. Up until now basketball has always been very black and white for Harge. If his team needs 40 points to beat this team? He scores them, need 15 assists to pick the defense apart? He's dropping dimes. They need someone locked up defensively? He's not letting him score anymore. But playing with older, more experienced players, things are more gray mentally for Harge. Harge's working on delivering consistent, tangible on-court evidence to back the fact that his mind still knows he can dominate the competition. He quit his middle school team last year because he averaged 35 points a game. He dominated the best players in his class at the Adidas Junior Phenom Camp and the class above him to the tune of 36 points a game and broke the camp's scoring record with 50 points. Harge is wildly intelligent and seems ready for the circus that's inevitably waiting for him in the future. The main reason he succeeds, is his focus and work ethic. He wakes up seven days a week at 4:30 a.m. and put in an hour workout with Damon Sr. before heading off to school and takes 6,500 shots a week. Now that's dedication. Thank you for joining me and stay with us for all your sports updates. I'm Lynn Lumpkin CRWENewswire Sports Commentator. ********************************* The Views and Opinions expressed by the author are his or her opinions only and do not necessarily reflect those of this Web-Site or its agents, affiliates, officers, directors, staff, or contractors. The author at the time of this article did not own any shares or receive any consideration financial or otherwise from any company or person mentioned or referred to in the article.

Kevin Pearce Gets Back on his Snowboard Again

Added 12/14/11
0 Views

Kevin Pearce Gets Back on his Snowboard Again

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 17:34:29 12/14/11
Burton Snowboards is proud to congratulate Burton team rider Kevin Pearce on his first day back on a snowboard since he suffered a traumatic brain injury while training for the Olympics in 2009. Kevin has been a part of the Burton family for years, receiving his first snowboard from Jake Burton himself back when he was just five years old. In 2004, Kevin earned his first official sponsorship with Burton Snowboards after a Burton team manager was impressed with his riding during summer camp at Mt. Hood. From that point on, Kevin started showing up on podiums everywhere, with career highlights like consecutive Arctic Challenge victories, a pair of Air %Style wins, multiple X Games medals and back-to-back European Open wins. Everything changed in an instant when Kevin suffered a traumatic brain injury while attempting a Cab double cork during a halfpipe training session on December 31, 2009. Since then, Kevin has spent nearly two years putting all his energy into rehab, re-learning things we all take for granted like eating, walking, talking, balancing and seeing. Until recently, Kevin didn't know if he would ever be able to snowboard again. So when he got the green light from his doctors it was a dream come true, and everything came together yesterday as he strapped on his board for the first time since the accident. Jake Burton was honored to join Kevin for his inaugural runs at Vail yesterday, before Kevin headed to Breckenridge to ride with friends and fans. "To get to this point in his recovery, Kevin has worked harder and has had more determination than anyone I know," said Jake Burton, Founder and CEO of Burton Snowboards. "His positive attitude and sense of humor through it all has inspired millions of people, including me personally in a big way. I couldn't be happier to be here with Kevin to get back on snow with him. It was a day I'll never forget." In a pretty historic moment yesterday, Jake switched out his 'I Ride for Kevin' snowboard sticker (the grassroots campaign Burton created back in 2009 to show support for Kevin) with a new Burton sticker that says 'Ride with Kevin'. The new message pretty much says it all. In honor of Kevin's amazing milestone, today on Wednesday, December 14th Burton will donate 10% of all proceeds from its sales on http://burton.com to traumatic brain injury research.

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

Added 11/08/11
6 Views

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

[LESS INFO] 6 VIEWS | ADDED 03:00:00 11/08/11
During Tuesday's Occupy Oakland General Strike, the so-called "Black Block" vandalized stores and buildings as peaceful Occupiers try desperately to stop them. [Caution: Strong Language-- NSFW] Guest Editorial by Sara Robinson , Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future I wish I could say that the problems that the Occupy movement is having with infiltrators and agitators are new. But they’re not. In fact, they’re problems that the Old Hippies who survived the 60s and 70s remember acutely, and with considerable pain. As a veteran of those days — with the scars to prove it — watching the OWS organizers struggle with drummers, druggies, sexual harassers, and racists brings me back to a few lessons we had to learn the hard way back in the day, always after putting up with way too much over-the-top behavior from people we didn’t think we were allowed to say no to. It’s heartening to watch the Occupiers begin to work out solutions to what I can only indelicately call the a**hole problem. In the hope of speeding that learning process along, here are a few glimmers from my own personal flashbacks — things that it’s high time somebody said right out loud. 1. Let’s be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms. Occupy may be a DIY movement — but it also stands for very specific ideas and principles. Central among these is: We are here to reassert the common good. And we have a LOT of work to do. Being open and accepting does not mean that we’re obligated to accept behavior that damages our ability to achieve our goals. It also means that we have a perfect right to insist that people sharing our spaces either act in ways that further those goals, or go somewhere else until they’re able to meet that standard. 2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not. Or, as an earlier generation of change agents put it: You’re either on the bus, or off the bus. Are you here to change the way this country operates, and willing to sacrifice some of your almighty personal freedom to do that? Great. You’re with us, and you’re welcome here. Are you here on your own trip and expecting the rest of us to put up with you? In that case, you are emphatically NOT on our side, and you are not welcome in our space. Anybody who feels the need to put their own personal crap ahead of the health and future of the movement is (at least for that moment) an a**hole, and does not belong in Occupied space. Period. This can be a very hard idea for people in an inclusive movement to accept — we really want to have all voices heard. But the principles Occupy stands for must always take precedence over any individual’s divine right to be an a**hole, or the a**holes will take over. Which brings me to…. 3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums. When some a drama king or queen starts holding the process hostage for their own reasons, congratulations! You’ve got a new a**hole! (See #2.) You must guard against this constantly, or consensus government becomes completely impossible. 4. Once you’ve accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people’s behavior, and exclude those who put their personal rights ahead of the group’s mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic a**holes? This is the problem Occupy’s leaders are very visibly struggling with now. I’ve been a part of a**hole-infested groups in the long-ago past that had very good luck with a whole-group restorative justice process. In this process, the full group (or some very large subset of it that’s been empowered to speak for the whole) confronts the troublemaker directly. The object is not to shame or blame. Instead, it’s like an intervention. You simply point out what you have seen and how it affects you. The person is given a clear choice: make some very specific changes in their behavior, or else leave. This requires some pre-organization. You need three to five spokespeople to moderate the session (usually as a tag team) and do most of the talking. Everybody else simply stands in a circle around the offender, watching silently, looking strong and determined. The spokespeople make factual we statements that reflect the observations of the group. We have seen you using drugs inside Occupied space. We are concerned that this hurts our movement. We are asking you to either stop, or leave. When the person tries to make excuses (and one of the most annoying attributes of chronic a**holes is they’re usually skilled excuse-makers as well), then other members of the group can speak up — always with I messages. I saw you smoking a joint with X and Y under tree Z this morning. We’re all worried about the cops here, and we think you’re putting our movement in danger. We are asking you to leave. Every statement needs to end with that demand — We are asking you to either stop, or else leave and not come back. No matter what the troublemaker says, the response must always be brought back to this bottom line. These interventions can go on for a LONG time. You have to be committed to stay in the process, possibly for a few hours until the offender needs a restroom break or gets hungry. But eventually, if everybody stays put, the person will have no option but to accept that a very large group of people do not want him or her there. Even truly committed a**holes will get the message that they’ve crossed the line into unacceptable behavior when they’re faced with several dozen determined people confronting them all at once. Given the time this takes, it’s tempting to cut corners by confronting several people all at once. Don’t do it. Confronting more than two people at a time creates a diffusion-of-responsibility effect: the troublemakers tell themselves that they just got caught up in a dragnet; the problem is those other people, not me. The one who talks the most will get most of the heat; the others will tend to slip by (though the experience may cause them to reconsider their behavior or leave as well). This process also leaves open the hope that the person will really, truly get that their behavior is Not okay, and agree to change it. When this happens, be sure to negotiate specific changes, boundaries, rules, and consequences (if we see you using drugs here again, we will call the police. There will be no second warning), and then reach a consensus agreement that allows them to stay. On the other hand: if the person turns violent and gets out of control, then the question is settled, and their choice is made. You now have a legitimate reason to call the cops to haul them away. And the cops will likely respect you more for maintaining law and order. Clearing out a huge number of these folks can be a massive time suck, at least for the few days it will take to weed out the worst ones and get good at it. It might make sense to create a large committee whose job it is to gather information, build cases against offenders, and conduct these meetings. And finally: 5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way. You will get sh-t for this. But…but…it looks a whole lot like a Maoist purge unit! No. There is nothing totalitarian about asking people who join your revolution to act in ways that support the goals of that revolution. And the Constitution guarantees your right of free association — which includes the right to exclude people who aren’t on the bus, and who are wasting the group’s limited time and energy rather than maximizing it. After all: you’re not sending these people to re-education camps, or doing anything else that damages them. You’re just getting them out of the park, and out of your hair. You’re eliminating distractions, which in turn effectively amplifies the voices and efforts of everyone else around you. And, in the process, you’re also modeling a new kind of justice that sanctions people’s behavior without sanctioning their being — while also carving out safe space in which the true potential of Occupy can flourish.

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

Added 11/08/11
2 Views

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 03:00:00 11/08/11
During Tuesday's Occupy Oakland General Strike, the so-called "Black Block" vandalized stores and buildings as peaceful Occupiers try desperately to stop them. [Caution: Strong Language-- NSFW] Guest Editorial by Sara Robinson , Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future I wish I could say that the problems that the Occupy movement is having with infiltrators and agitators are new. But they’re not. In fact, they’re problems that the Old Hippies who survived the 60s and 70s remember acutely, and with considerable pain. As a veteran of those days — with the scars to prove it — watching the OWS organizers struggle with drummers, druggies, sexual harassers, and racists brings me back to a few lessons we had to learn the hard way back in the day, always after putting up with way too much over-the-top behavior from people we didn’t think we were allowed to say no to. It’s heartening to watch the Occupiers begin to work out solutions to what I can only indelicately call the a**hole problem. In the hope of speeding that learning process along, here are a few glimmers from my own personal flashbacks — things that it’s high time somebody said right out loud. 1. Let’s be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms. Occupy may be a DIY movement — but it also stands for very specific ideas and principles. Central among these is: We are here to reassert the common good. And we have a LOT of work to do. Being open and accepting does not mean that we’re obligated to accept behavior that damages our ability to achieve our goals. It also means that we have a perfect right to insist that people sharing our spaces either act in ways that further those goals, or go somewhere else until they’re able to meet that standard. 2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not. Or, as an earlier generation of change agents put it: You’re either on the bus, or off the bus. Are you here to change the way this country operates, and willing to sacrifice some of your almighty personal freedom to do that? Great. You’re with us, and you’re welcome here. Are you here on your own trip and expecting the rest of us to put up with you? In that case, you are emphatically NOT on our side, and you are not welcome in our space. Anybody who feels the need to put their own personal crap ahead of the health and future of the movement is (at least for that moment) an a**hole, and does not belong in Occupied space. Period. This can be a very hard idea for people in an inclusive movement to accept — we really want to have all voices heard. But the principles Occupy stands for must always take precedence over any individual’s divine right to be an a**hole, or the a**holes will take over. Which brings me to…. 3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums. When some a drama king or queen starts holding the process hostage for their own reasons, congratulations! You’ve got a new a**hole! (See #2.) You must guard against this constantly, or consensus government becomes completely impossible. 4. Once you’ve accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people’s behavior, and exclude those who put their personal rights ahead of the group’s mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic a**holes? This is the problem Occupy’s leaders are very visibly struggling with now. I’ve been a part of a**hole-infested groups in the long-ago past that had very good luck with a whole-group restorative justice process. In this process, the full group (or some very large subset of it that’s been empowered to speak for the whole) confronts the troublemaker directly. The object is not to shame or blame. Instead, it’s like an intervention. You simply point out what you have seen and how it affects you. The person is given a clear choice: make some very specific changes in their behavior, or else leave. This requires some pre-organization. You need three to five spokespeople to moderate the session (usually as a tag team) and do most of the talking. Everybody else simply stands in a circle around the offender, watching silently, looking strong and determined. The spokespeople make factual we statements that reflect the observations of the group. We have seen you using drugs inside Occupied space. We are concerned that this hurts our movement. We are asking you to either stop, or leave. When the person tries to make excuses (and one of the most annoying attributes of chronic a**holes is they’re usually skilled excuse-makers as well), then other members of the group can speak up — always with I messages. I saw you smoking a joint with X and Y under tree Z this morning. We’re all worried about the cops here, and we think you’re putting our movement in danger. We are asking you to leave. Every statement needs to end with that demand — We are asking you to either stop, or else leave and not come back. No matter what the troublemaker says, the response must always be brought back to this bottom line. These interventions can go on for a LONG time. You have to be committed to stay in the process, possibly for a few hours until the offender needs a restroom break or gets hungry. But eventually, if everybody stays put, the person will have no option but to accept that a very large group of people do not want him or her there. Even truly committed a**holes will get the message that they’ve crossed the line into unacceptable behavior when they’re faced with several dozen determined people confronting them all at once. Given the time this takes, it’s tempting to cut corners by confronting several people all at once. Don’t do it. Confronting more than two people at a time creates a diffusion-of-responsibility effect: the troublemakers tell themselves that they just got caught up in a dragnet; the problem is those other people, not me. The one who talks the most will get most of the heat; the others will tend to slip by (though the experience may cause them to reconsider their behavior or leave as well). This process also leaves open the hope that the person will really, truly get that their behavior is Not okay, and agree to change it. When this happens, be sure to negotiate specific changes, boundaries, rules, and consequences (if we see you using drugs here again, we will call the police. There will be no second warning), and then reach a consensus agreement that allows them to stay. On the other hand: if the person turns violent and gets out of control, then the question is settled, and their choice is made. You now have a legitimate reason to call the cops to haul them away. And the cops will likely respect you more for maintaining law and order. Clearing out a huge number of these folks can be a massive time suck, at least for the few days it will take to weed out the worst ones and get good at it. It might make sense to create a large committee whose job it is to gather information, build cases against offenders, and conduct these meetings. And finally: 5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way. You will get sh-t for this. But…but…it looks a whole lot like a Maoist purge unit! No. There is nothing totalitarian about asking people who join your revolution to act in ways that support the goals of that revolution. And the Constitution guarantees your right of free association — which includes the right to exclude people who aren’t on the bus, and who are wasting the group’s limited time and energy rather than maximizing it. After all: you’re not sending these people to re-education camps, or doing anything else that damages them. You’re just getting them out of the park, and out of your hair. You’re eliminating distractions, which in turn effectively amplifies the voices and efforts of everyone else around you. And, in the process, you’re also modeling a new kind of justice that sanctions people’s behavior without sanctioning their being — while also carving out safe space in which the true potential of Occupy can flourish.