text:
Trend Sports Home Run 12' Batting Cage
|Members of The League get 5% back when you spend $100! (see promotion details)
Product Details
Take hit after hit without the hassle of chasing down every ball, and watch your batting average soar with the Trend Sports® HomeRun 12-ft batting cage. The cage delivers innovation and quality right to your own backyard. Built for ease of use and durability, the cage sets up in minutes. The unique fiberglass pole design, strong ¾-in poly netting, and steel ground stakes provide strength and support.
- Flexible 3/8-in fiberglass frame assembles quickly while adding strength and stability
- �-in poly netting is durable and strong
- Steel ground stakes and nylon ropes provide rugged support
- Built-in 12-in x 12-in pitching machine opening for Lite-Ball or Mini-Ball machines (sold separately)
- For ages 6 to adult
- 30-day manufacturer's money-back guarantee - one year manufacturer's warranty
- Use for baseball or golf
- Dimensions: L 12 ft; W 12 ft; H 10 ft
Product Recommendations
Product Reviews
REVIEW SNAPSHOT®by PowerReviews
Best Uses
- Baseball (3)
- Practice (3)
Reviewed by 5 customers
Comments about Trend Sports Home Run 12' Batting Cage:
I bought this for my son who is 8 years Old and plays baseball. Nice size for his age and very easy to set up.
- Was this a gift?:
- No
- Easy to put together
- Improves Performance
- Protective
- Easy To Install
Best Uses
- Baseball
- Practice
Comments about Trend Sports Home Run 12' Batting Cage:
took a few minutes to put together, but when done was easy to take down and then put back up. Saves a lot of leg work, by keeping the balls inside the cage. Some of the balls went through the net, but not many. Grandsons said there was no need to go to a commercial batting cage, when they had their own.
Grandsons batting average has improved tremendously this year. Best gift we've bought for them.
- Was this a gift?:
- Yes
Best Uses
- Baseball
- Practice
- Softball
Comments about Trend Sports Home Run 12' Batting Cage:
This cage does what it's designed to do. Our 10 year old son uses it with his lite ball machine and he absolutely loves it. I was hesitant because it was so cheap, but it's perfect for what we need.
We thought about getting a real ball machine with it but were told it's a lite and mini ball cage only because of the square hole opening. A lite ball or mini ball wouldn't hurt anything if it was hit outside the cage. They said this cage wasn't meant for real balls because of the size and material. So we decided to purchase a lite ball machine and it's worked great.
Our son has improved his hitting and everyone in the neighborhood loves it. I wanted to get in there as well but was a little too tall, so I called the manufacturer and they sent me a few extra poles at no charge. It was awesome!
I would definitely recommend this to anyone who needs a cheap cage.
- Was this a gift?:
- Yes
- Comfortable
- Flimsy
Best Uses
- Baseball
- Practice
- Recreational
Comments about Trend Sports Home Run 12' Batting Cage:
it gets the job done, only thing is you need to cover the opening when done using, because quite a few times i had birds end up flying into the cage and getting traped inside. but for the price its good deal just have to pin up somethin to cover opening wen finished with use
- Bad Construction
- Falls apart
- Flimsy
- Square Hole
Best Uses
- Gets you angry
Comments about Trend Sports Home Run 12' Batting Cage:
This is a terrible batting cage. It is horribly designed and the poles are awful. It says its 10" high but im 5"7' and its about 6" above my head. You can mess and adjust with this constantly and it will still be unusable. DO NOT BUY. Also whatever genius decided to add a square hole in a batting cage has lost his mind. I have hit about 20 hits through the square and it leaves welts and bruises on the machine operator. Simply Terrible Cage.


text:
Could This Radical College Change the World Economy?
At EARTH University, students don't produce papers. They produce produce -- organically grown crops they harvest and sell -- along with other entrepreneurial agricultural products. Is this hands-on education in working the soil and changing the world a model for a better future.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Helsinki Process and Civil Society Activities with the DPRK
Prepared Statement by
Karin J. Lee
Executive Director
The National Committee on North Korea
Before the U.S. Helsinki Commission
Hearing on Resolving Crises in East Asia through a New System of Collective Security: the Helsinki Process as a Model
December 11, 2013
Chairman Cardin, Co-Chairman Smith, and distinguished members of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, it is an honor for me to appear today to discuss Resolving Crises in East Asia through a New System of Collective Security: the Helsinki Process as a Model. I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and applaud the Commission for exploring this approach to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Northeast Asian region.
I have been the executive director of the National Committee on North Korea (NCNK) since February 2006. The NCNK creates opportunities for informed dialogue about North Korea among experts from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences in an effort to foster greater understanding in the United States about the DPRK. We address all aspects of U.S. policy toward the DPRK, including security and human security issues.
I appreciate the opportunity to reflect today on the conditions in the United States and Europe that generated the Helsinki Final Act, and the differences and similarities with conditions in Northeast Asia today, which will inform the first part of my testimony. In the second part of my testimony, I will discuss U.S. and international private sector, nongovernment or civil society activities in the DPRK. My first opportunity to visit the DPRK was in 1998, and my most recent visit was this past October. During this period, I have been able to witness the creative programming non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society organizations have been able to implement in the DPRK.
I will be making three key points. First, the history of the two regions and the historical moments are very different, and to implement a Helsinki-like process in Northeast Asia would take considerable U.S. and regional government investment and a policy consistency that is currently lacking today. Second, despite limited government support, admirable and productive work inside the DPRK and with North Koreans is taking place in humanitarian, education, and medical fields, and the United States can contribute to these efforts by delinking security policy from what the Helsinki process called Basket III, or humanitarian exchanges. Finally, exchanges on topics of genuine regional interest may contribute to a foundation for regional problem-solving and should be encouraged both for the immediate practical benefits they can bring and in order to begin laying a pattern of cooperative regional behavior for the future.
1970s Europe and Northeast Asia Today: Similarities and Differences
As the Commissioners know, the Helsinki Process did not represent a single moment in history and the outcomes of the Final Act were not fully anticipated in 1975. The Helsinki Process was not designed to undermine the Soviet bloc. To the contrary, the Act underscores that signatory states "will respect each other's sovereign equality and individuality as well as all the rights inherent in and encompassed by its sovereignty" and "respect each other's right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems as well as its right to determine its laws and regulations."[1] Nevertheless, the Helsinki Process is sometimes credited with contributing to the changes that swept through the region a decade and a half later, and the OSCE is perhaps best known today for its ongoing work on human rights and democratization. For these reasons, the DPRK would likely look at a Helsinki Process designed for the Northeast Asian region as a Trojan Horse, synonymous with a covert strategy for regime change.
Yet the Helsinki Final Act as it was originally conceived -- a regional process with the primary goal of increasing regional stability by addressing the most salient interests of the opposing forces – may have merit. Therefore, in exploring whether or not it is possible to apply its lessons to the problems Northeast Asia currently faces, we should consider the Final Act's initial goals and the basis on which they were reached, not the impact it has come to represent. From this perspective, it is useful to examine the similarities and differences between Europe in the mid-1970s and Northeast Asia today.
Territorial Disputes and Arms Races as Possible Triggers of War
Cold War Europe, like East Asia today, contained several territorial hotspots that threatened to trigger a broad conflagration. The U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race and the posture of conventional forces on the Continent added to this tension. At several points in the early years of the Cold War, the contested status of Berlin nearly led to conflict between the two blocs. However, by the time the Helsinki process got underway, the security situation in Europe had become more stable, with détente leading both sides to a greater acceptance of the status quo and arms control agreements stabilizing the dynamics of mutually assured destruction.
In contemporary East Asia, in contrast, longstanding points of regional tension have only gotten more heated in recent years, raising the fear that small incidents could spiral out of control and lead to military confrontations. Disputes over history and conflicting territorial claims to small outlying islands have raised nationalist fervors in the region. While tension between Japan and China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands has been very high over the past year, it is the inter-Korean maritime dispute over the Northern Limit Line in the West Sea that has actually led to military clashes on several occasions. North Korea's continuing progress in developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles deeply threatens the security of the region, while South Korea's recent vow to retaliate against a new North Korean provocation by striking "not only the origin of provocation and its supporting forces but also its command leadership"[2] further increases instability and the risk of war by misadventure.
Prioritization of Foreign Policy Issues
Throughout the Cold War, the top foreign policy priority of the United States was unambiguous: mitigating the geopolitical threat of the Soviet Union. In this bipolar power system, the Helsinki Process was just one of the tools by which the U.S. used diplomatic engagement to manage and reduce the risks posed by the USSR. For example, in addition to the Helsinki Process, the U.S. pursued rapprochement with China, engaged in arms control negotiations, and authorized commercial activities such as grain exports to the USSR.
Today, the U.S. does not have such an overriding policy priority, and Northeast Asia is just one of several regions of strategic importance to the United States. While U.S. troops have withdrawn from Iraq and will soon withdraw from Afghanistan, events in the Middle East continue to receive the most high-level attention from policymakers. The U.S. rebalance to Asia is focused more on Southeast Asia than on Japan or Korea, and as instability has increased on the Korean Peninsula, the State Department has eliminated a high-level staff position working on North Korea.
Yet Northeast Asia now faces three major points of tension – on the Korean peninsula, in Sino-Japanese relations, and to a lesser extent in South Korean-Japanese relations – that could potentially interact with each other in ways that could cause spikes in tensions and make it harder to ensure that crisis situations do not spin out of control. Furthermore, as the center of the global economy shifts toward Asia, the geo-economic considerations of regional instability are profound. A Helsinki-like process could shift the emphasis from regional bilateral relationships to regional multilateral solutions, but getting to this point will require the sustained attention and effort of the United States.
Multiple Agreements Prior to the Helsinki Final Act Created Momentum
During the Cold War, several gradual steps between the two Germanys (German rapprochement was an essential component of greater regional initiatives) and between the two blocs created the conditions that allowed for the CSCE dialogue to begin in 1973 and conclude with the Final Act in 1975. These steps included early cultural and educational exchanges, and gained pace in 1963 with the Limited Test Ban Treaty and the Christmas border pass agreement in Berlin. Beginning in the early 1970s, the two sides reached a series of diplomatic breakthroughs, including the abandonment of the Hallstein Doctrine blocking third countries from establishing diplomatic relations with both East and West Germany,[3] the Four Party Agreement on Berlin in 1971, the 1972 Salt I agreements, and the Basic Treaty between the two Germanys, ratified in 1973. By defusing specific points of tension and quieting the arms race, these agreements set the stage for broader engagement on security, trade, and humanitarian issues between East and West.
Northeast Asia does not have a strong historical tradition of multilateralism, although the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Asia-Europe Meeting, ASEAN Plus Three, the Shangri-La Dialogue and the East Asia Summit could serve as a foundation for future regional organizations with broader capacities. In addition, the annual China–Japan–South Korea trilateral summit holds hope for improving trilateral coordination among the three countries and increasing cooperation and peace in the region.[4]
However, many of the security agreements underpinning diplomatic relations in Northeast Asia face significant challenges. The treaty establishing diplomatic relations between South Korea and Japan in 1965 did not address the issue of comfort women during World War II, or the status of the Dokdo/Takeshima islets – two disputes that haunt ROK-Japan relations today. Similarly, Japan's treaty establishing relations with the PRC ignored the Senkakus/Diaoyu dispute.
Security arrangements on the Korean Peninsula are particularly problematic. The Korean War never officially ended: each half of the Korean Peninsula claims sovereignty over its entirety, and the U.S. has not established diplomatic relations with the DPRK. Earlier this year, North Korea declared the Armistice Agreement that ended fighting in the Korean War "completely nullified."[5]
Several of the major agreements on the Korean Peninsula, such as the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement on Denuclearization or the joint statements from the two inter-Korean summits, demonstrated initial successes. For example, the Northeast Asia Peace and Security Working Group established as part of the Six Party Talks created a set of guiding principles, agreed to by all six parties, that included parameters for developing peace-building and confidence-building mechanisms which were based to a large extent on the Helsinki Final Act, the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[6] However, none of the major agreements on the Korean Peninsula have been fully implemented and they have therefore lost momentum; in many cases both sides have failed to live up to their obligations. The critical question is why and how these agreements have lost momentum, and how to change that calculus moving forward.
Foreign Policy Consistency
The development of a consistent, nonpartisan West German policy toward East Germany was a necessary element of rapprochement between them. Ostpolitik, a policy to improve West Germany's relations with East Germany, Poland, and the Soviet Union, was developed under the leadership of Social Democrats, including Chancellor Willy Brandt. It initially faced many challenges from opposition parties, particularly the Christian Democratic Union. However, Brandt was re-elected in 1972 and the Berlin Treaty was ratified in 1973. Helmut Schmidt, also a Social Democrat, became Chancellor in 1974 and signed the Final Act the following year. After the West German opposition regained power in 1982, Chancellor Helmut Kohl pursued a similar policy line toward the GDR, maintaining continuity in inter-German relations. U.S. policy in support of German rapprochement also remained consistent in spite of increasing tension with the Soviet Union over security and human rights issues.
In contrast, South Korea's North Korea policy has been partisan and inconsistent. South Korean policy changed drastically between the conciliatory "Sunshine Policy" of President Kim Dae-Jung and the succeeding "Peace and Prosperity Policy" of Roh Moo-Hyun (1998-2008) and the more confrontational approach of President Lee Myung-Bak (2008-2013). President Park Geun-Hye has vowed to seek a balanced approach,[7] and some hope that she will ultimately be able to forge a policy that garners greater support throughout the Korean Peninsula and that can be sustained through future administrations.
U.S. policy toward North Korea has also seen dramatic shifts, particularly when new administrations have taken office. Skeptical of the Clinton administration's diplomacy with North Korea, the Bush administration announced a North Korea policy review early in its tenure, and took an anti-engagement approach for several years before adjusting its policy during Bush's second term. And as the Obama administration's former NSC staffer Jeff Bader recounts in his book, he rejected in early 2009 a proposed message from Secretary Clinton to North Korea that "focused mainly on the policy pursued by the Bush administration in its final weeks, so as to provide the North Koreans with a sense of continuity in policy." Bader argued that "the new president and the new national security team… deserved a chance to consider the direction we were going in before the bureaucracy attempted to tie us to existing processes and policies."[8] No regional process has a hope of succeeding until U.S. and South Korean policy have a chance to last beyond a presidential administration.
Regional Commitment to Economic Integration
The momentum created in Europe by the Helsinki Process persisted and had a profound impact on how the region viewed itself, even after Cold War tensions began to flare up again in the early 1980s. The process of gradual economic integration between Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc created a set of overlapping interests that rusted holes into the iron curtain. Western European governments, for example, stood firm in their support for an energy pipeline linking Europe and the Soviet Union despite criticism of the project, calculating correctly that the USSR's economic motivations would outweigh the possibility that it would begin using the pipeline for political leverage.
Growing economic ties between the countries of Northeast Asia, however, have not dampened political tensions in the region – a problem that President Park Geun-Hye has called the "Asia Paradox."[9] North Korea is the outlier in the region's economic success story, although China's economic ties to the DPRK are deepening and inter-Korean trade is also rebounding after the restoration of the Kaesong Industrial Complex (though not yet to pre-suspensions levels). Given the U.S. emphasis on sanctions, there has been some friction between the U.S. and its partners in the region over economic engagement with the DPRK, and if the Park government succeeds in its goal of expanding inter-Korean economic relations, more of this tension can be anticipated in the future. Nonetheless, a multilateral process that pursues regional economic cooperation could be a stabilizing force. Rail or pipeline infrastructure connecting the two Koreas to their neighbors would be in the economic interest of all parties in the region; although current levels of mistrust on the Peninsula run too deep for this sort of large-scale project to be feasible today, it stands as an example of what could be accomplished if some security concerns were alleviated.
Willingness to Compromise
The Helsinki Process began with a proposal from the USSR to finalize post-WWII boundaries and guarantee territorial integrity, a proposal which was initially viewed with suspicion by the West. Neither the U.S. nor its allies were eager to set boundaries, but because the dialogue included topics that were primarily in their interest, such as human rights and economic engagement, the West was willing to negotiate. All participants in the Helsinki Process were there not to engage in dialogue for its own sake, not to appease the other side, but to further their own goals.
In order to apply a Helsinki-like process to East Asia, the mechanism will need to bring everybody's concerns to the table. Doing this will require compromises, and will not always be easy politically. First, the U.S. and China will need to find more common ground in their stances toward North Korea – currently, there is an overlap in many fundamental interests, but not in priorities or tactics. Second, the U.S. and its partners in the region need to re-examine the incentives that have been offered to the DPRK in exchange for denuclearization, and be willing to find creative ways to break out of the current stalemate on the issue.
Political Will
Although the Helsinki Process is today seen as a successful initiative, it is worth recalling that the Final Act was controversial in its time, and the Cold War tensions that re-emerged in the years afterwards cast doubt on its relevance. In signing the Helsinki Accords, President Ford withstood criticism from Congress and the public on human rights and border issues, and this gambit paid off in the long run. Similarly, the development of a multilateral security framework in Northeast Asia will be a long-term process, and there will undoubtedly be bumps along the road. It will entail taking political risks to get a meaningful agreement and implementation of that agreement, but merely continuing to go along with the status quo in Northeast Asia would ultimately be the far greater risk.
It is also important to recall that U.S. allies in Western Europe played a more central role in moving the Helsinki Process forward than did the United States. This didn't make the U.S. security commitment to Europe any less credible or its political influence less relevant, but rather reflected a strong partnership and trust among allies as well as the European experience prior to World War II. As Northeast Asia is less integrated as a cohesive region than Europe, the U.S. may play a larger role in shaping a multilateral security dialogue. However, the impetus for such a process needs to come from within the region as well. President Park's call for a "Northeast Asian Peace and Cooperation Initiative" that would initially focus on regional confidence-building measures is a good start, and the U.S. should strongly signal its support for such a mechanism.
Asia Today
The Helsinki Process spurred an uptick in private society initiatives and exchanges, and this may be the most important lesson we can look at today: what civil society initiatives are already taking place in the DPRK, and how can we support their expansion. The U.S. should support private sector and civil society initiatives by regularizing its visa process, remaining open to perspectives gained through Track II dialogue, lending support to humanitarian initiatives and person-to-person exchanges, and supporting regional initiatives.
Private Sector Activities: People-To-People Exchanges
President Ford's comments before leaving for Europe to attend the OSCE Conference where he would sign the Final Act in 1975 reflected a confidence in the positive impact and power of people-to-people exchanges:
The fact that these very different governments can agree, even on paper, to such principles as greater human contacts and exchanges, improved conditions for journalists, reunification for families and international marriages, a freer flow of information and publications, and increased tourism and travel, seems to me a development worthy of positive and public encouragement by the United States.[10]
By that time the U.S. and the Soviet Union had been participating in academic and cultural exchanges for two decades, while science and technology exchanges began in the 1972-74 period. The Final Act aimed to facilitate an expansion of such activities.
The Final Act has confirmed, on a high political level, the legitimacy of these programs which we have been conducting for the past 20 years. Since the signing of the Final Act, we have sought to expand these activities for the most part under bilateral arrangements with these countries… We have assisted private American institutions in establishing exchanges, working closely with them, providing advice when it has been sought, and in some cases, partial funding through grants-in-aid… The most promising development is direct contacts between universities in the United States, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.[11]
While the U.S. had a gradually growing array of private contacts and exchanges with the Soviet Union throughout most of the Cold War, there was only a minor presence of NGOs or UN agencies in North Korea until 1995 and 1996, after North Korea issued its first appeal for international assistance.[12] Humanitarian aid efforts expanded rapidly in the 1990s in response to the North Korean famine, and in following years a handful of U.S. and other NGOs remained in the DPRK developing agricultural, medical and capacity-building programs.
Ongoing Civil Society Initiatives in North Korea
The Engage DPRK mapping initiative is a tool that demonstrates the range of private sector activities that have taken place in North Korea. It was recently developed by Jiehae Blackman to "help those who want work inside the country by illustrating the different foreign engagement activities that have taken place inside the DPRK." According to the www.EngageDPRK.org website, "By identifying the various foreign activities throughout the country, ranging from noodle factories and retail stores to goat farms and vaccination programs, we endeavor to gain deeper insight into the living conditions of local communities, the kinds of projects that are possible, and the types of working relationships between foreigners and the DPRK government and citizens that make for successful, sustainable projects."
The initiative draws mainly from publically available information and therefore cannot be considered comprehensive; there are a number of activities that take place with little or no public profile. Even so, the results may be surprising to most Americans: for the 18 years covered by this project (1995-2012) the initiative was able to identify 4,4000 activities implemented as part of approximately 1,100 discreet projects carried out by 480 organizations coming from 29 different countries as well as the UN and other international agencies. These projects include humanitarian relief (assistance meeting immediate needs in health, nutrition, and emergency relief/rehabilitation), development assistance (meeting long-term needs), educational assistance (addressing educational needs for the general public), professional training (standalone introductions to new thoughts and principles, separate from capacity building), and business activities. Sports and cultural exchanges were not included in this project.
The initiative provides a public interactive map on its website identifying the locations where these projects are being implemented throughout the country. Each project has been broken down into "activities," which are what users are able to see on the interactive map. Information was only uploaded when complete data was available; if data was missing (for example, the starting and ending dates), information about the activity was not included on the map. Because of this, information is less readily available in the early years covered by the initiative. Furthermore, only a fraction of Chinese businesses were included because information on their activities was incomplete.
As can be seen in the screen shots in the appendix of all non-business activities shown on the map, there has been a high concentration of activities in areas such as Pyongyang, South Pyongan, North Pyongan, North Hwanghae, South Hamgyong, and Kangwon Provinces. Such areas typically have high concentrations of population, are particularly vulnerable to flooding, or experience greater food insecurity because of lack of access to farms or markets. Many of the concentrations of activities also represent sites where an NGO, INGO or UN agency has worked long term with a particular community, farm, orphanage, hospital or clinic on projects to enhance food security (such as through an agricultural project or a food production facility) or on a medical project.
As noted, this map captures some of the private sector activities from 29 countries, including the United States. Here are a few examples.
World Vision: Access to Clean Water
World Vision's community development project in Dochi-Ri, a community of 12,000, increases access to clean water through building water systems and providing solar energy to provide electricity for the school and clinic as well local residents. World Vision also works to reduce malnutrition by providing school children with daily lunches. World Vision began its work in the DPRK in 1995 in response to a DPRK request for aid. Since then, they have provided noodle factories with equipment and supplies to produce meals for thousands of people, helped agriculture and health systems recover following the 1998 floods, and built greenhouses to improve vegetable production.[13]
American Friends Service Committee: Improving Farming Techniques
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) works with the Academy of Agricultural Science and four farms on programs tailored to the specific conditions of each farm, with an emphasis on experimenting with different farming methods to increase food production and to protect soil fertility. Most recently, AFSC has been training farmers in a new cultivation method that requires 25% of the seed and fertilizer normally used for seed-bed preparation and that also decreased the labor input needed for transplanting. The new method increases yields by 0.5 to 1 ton per hectare. Like other U.S. NGOs, AFSC has built unheated greenhouses, which can grow crops even in winter, bringing variety to the diet; the extra vegetable harvests also generate income for the farm, which is used to purchase necessary inputs such as tires and fuel. AFSC also brings farmers to China for study tours to introduce new farming methods. A farm manager notes that the cooperative farms with which AFSC works are the "model farms" in their counties: "The government does field trips to our farms, we have visits by other farmers – so our country has ways of disseminating new ideas and ways of sharing knowledge."[14]
Pyongyang University of Science and Technology
Founded by Korean-American Chin-Kyung "James" Kim, the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST) is the first private university in the DPRK. Originally conceived in 2001, its construction took nearly a decade. According to its Facebook page, President Kim started the school "with a group of evangelical Christians who have a heart and prayer to make an eternal impact in North Korea by educating its future leaders";[15] it is funded by churches and received a one-time donation from the South Korean government of one million U.S. dollars.
The 230-acre campus, with 17 buildings, held its first classes in October 2010. PUST currently has three schools: Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Industry and Management (IM), and Agriculture, Food and Life Sciences (AFL).[16] Plans for a new School of Public Healthcare were discussed at the second international conference at PUST this past October, which featured researchers from the UK, Australia and the United States, as well as PUST graduate students presenting "their interdisciplinary research integrating medical science, public health, and their own discipline in science and technology." All academic offerings have been designed to apply to purely civilian applications.
PUST currently has about 400 undergraduates and 110 graduate students and plans to eventually expand enrollment to 2,000 students. A handful of PUST graduates have studied abroad or are currently studying at Sweden's Uppsala University and Britain's University of Westminster and Cambridge University.
University of British Columbia Knowledge Partnership Program
The University of British Columbia (UBC) established the Canada-DPRK Knowledge Partnership Program (KPP) in 2010, the first and only academic exchange program with North Korea in North America of its type. Each year the KPP brings North Korean university professors to UBC for a six-month study program at UBC on topics such as modern economic theory, finance, trade, and business practices. The North Korean professors also study English and attend culture classes. The North Korean scholars have come from Kim Il Sung University, Wonsan Economic University, the University of National Economy and the Pyongyang University of Foreign Studies. UBC Professor Kyung-Ae Park, who founded the KPP program, noted in an interview with the Korea Times that "It is too early to measure the overall impact of the KPP as it is only in its third year. The KPP provides a non-political forum for open dialogue with North Koreans on a variety of issues to build North Korea's confidence in engagement with educational institutions and allow the formation of meaningful personal and institutional relationships."[17]
Track II Dialogue
Because official dialogue with the DPRK is sometimes strained or impossible, the nongovernment sector also engages with North Koreans on security matters in Track II or Track 1.5 dialogue.[18] A handful of these dialogues have been taking place for over a decade, with several organizations hosting them at regular intervals. Some programs are primarily bilateral or focused on the DPRK, such as several dialogues held this fall which sought to test the possibility of the resumption of negotiations over the DPRK's nuclear and missile programs. Others are multilateral, such as the Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue (NEACD), which brings together academics and officials from each of the Six Party Talks countries to informally discuss regional issues and cooperation, including issues related to the DPRK. The Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP), another multilateral forum that includes the DPRK, similarly addresses regional security, but involves participants from a wider range of countries and covers a broader scope of issues.
Some Track II dialogues have turned out to be valuable adjuncts to official diplomacy: for example both DPRK and US diplomats credited the June 30-July 1, 2005 National Committee on American Foreign Policy meeting with helping to restart Six Party Talks. U.S. Special Envoy Joseph DeTrani thanked organizers for playing a critical role in "getting this process back in motion," and North Korea's Ambassador Han Song Ryol said the meetings "provided [the] decisive breakthrough for the resumption of the nuclear six-party talks."[19] On some occasions, Track II activities have also been used for sending important messages, such as North Korea's revelation in 2010 of its surprisingly advanced uranium enrichment program.
While most Track II dialogues do not lead to such major developments, regular meetings with DPRK officials can allow for much more direct insight into North Korean thinking on foreign policy than one can get by reading statements published by the DPRK's state-run news media. For example, a Track II event held in the summer of 2012 accurately indicated North Korea's stance over the following year. Much of the benefit of Track II also comes from two sides establishing relationships and familiarity with one another over time. Short-term results in any Track II format (not only those involving North Korea) are rare, according to Dr. Ronald Fisher from American University; he says that "Most of the successful interventions in this field involve a continuing series of interactions or workshops over time – sometimes ten years or more."[20]
Government Support
One interesting point of comparison between the Eastern Bloc and Northeast Asia is the amount of U.S. government involvement in Basket III (humanitarian) activities. As noted above, government-sponsored programming with the Soviet bloc actually preceded the private-sector engagement proposed in the Final Act. Once the Final Act was signed, U.S. government and private sector officials could turn to the U.S. Helsinki Commission both for help overcoming obstacles and funding.[21]
In Northeast Asia, many governments, including the United States, have forged and continue to participate in exchanges – after all, the U.S.-China Ping Pong Diplomacy preceded the Helsinki Final Act by half a decade. The programs throughout the region are too numerous to review.
However, government-initiated exchanges with North Korea are much less robust, although EU countries have supported some development and training activities.[22] Not all of these programs have endured. After providing humanitarian relief in 1995 in response to the famine, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation opened an office in Pyongyang in 1997, and began to implement a range of development projects, including running the Pyongyang Business School. But beginning in 2012, the SDC ended its development work and now implements "a purely humanitarian programme" in the DPRK, which aims to "to improve food and income security, water supplies, waste water management and protection of the environment."[23]
The U.S. government was the major donor of humanitarian assistance to the DPRK during the famine years, and also provided some funding for exchange programs in the years immediately following the Agreed Framework. However, beyond that, U.S. support for Basket III-type exchanges has been inconsistent.
The most fundamental area where the U.S. government could support private exchanges is the issuance of visas for North Koreans to visit the United States. Whereas one of the key tenets of the Helsinki Final Act was that progress in one area would be delinked from progress in other areas, for most of the last two decades the U.S. policy has been to approve visas as an incentive or reward to the DPRK, while denying them to signal U.S. displeasure or to mete out symbolic "punishment."
This practice of using visa approvals as part of the carrot-and-stick approach has been employed by both Republican and Democratic administrations, and has not been across the board; during some periods, for example, visas have been generally been routinely approved for humanitarian and academic programs. However, visas are considerably less routinely approved for political and cultural events, and approval of visits to Washington, DC has been rare.
Cultural exchanges provide a good example of the sharp contrast between U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union in the '60s and '70s and current U.S. policy toward the DPRK. The visit of the New York Philharmonic to Pyongyang in 2008 was the most-widely reported visit of a U.S. music group to the DPRK, although it was just one of many U.S. musical groups non-governmental organizations have brought to perform in the DPRK.[24] At the time of the New York Philharmonic's performance, musicians and organizers in both countries hoped to arrange a reciprocal visit by a North Korean orchestra to the United States. However, although DPRK orchestras have performed in several European countries,[25] they have not performed in the United States because U.S. visas have not been granted.
U.S. government officials have explained that issuing visas is "one of the few points of leverage" the U.S. government has over the DPRK.[26] Yet the practice has had no effect on core DPRK policies. It has, however, undermined serious efforts to bring the fullest possible number of North Koreans to this country and introduce them to the realities of American society and culture.
The uncertainty of obtaining visas for North Koreans means that many civil society organizations will not invite North Korean groups to the U.S. unless they feel some confidence that visas will be issued; this dynamic has closed doors for exchanges in which North Koreans could have visited the United States and gained exposure to the breadth and diversity of the American experience.
Without a doubt, U.S. safety and security interests must be of primary concern. No North Korean should be allowed to enter the U.S. without thorough vetting. And there are specific, limited instances – such as requests to visit by DPRK officials at a particularly delicate time – when denial of visas may have symbolic and tactical utility. However, depoliticizing this issue would quietly remove a serious obstacle to broader and more regular exchanges at the interpersonal, cultural, educational, and professional levels.
Next Steps: Regional Networks
As the private sector considers next steps, one area for growth may be regional programming on a range of humanitarian and environmental issues. As noted above, one of the sharpest contrasts between Europe in the 1970s and Northeast Asia today is the negative trajectory of regional disputes. While governments in Northeast Asia obviously have the key responsibility for overcoming these divisions and resolving or at the least diminishing the intensity of territorial disputes, regional bodies working on apolitical topics of mutual interest may prove a way to build a foundation for regional collaboration at a higher level.
In this regard, some practitioners believe that scientific exchanges and "science diplomacy" may be of particular value in building bridges.[27] One key reason is that the value to every country is indisputable; participation takes place out of pure self-interest. Positive outcomes in improving cooperation and communication beyond the topic of the exchange or cooperation program would be a welcome ancillary benefit but is not necessary for the program to succeed. Thus, although activities such as these may start out as civil society efforts, they could evolve into initiatives involving support and participation from the U.S. government in the future.
Mt. Paektu/Changbaishan: Volcano Research
Environmental issues provide a rich area for exchanges, especially when linked to disasters that have the potential to cause cross-border destruction like typhoons, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Mt. Paektu, (also known has Changbaishan, Mt. Baekdu and Baitoushan), an active volcano which straddles the Chinese/North Korean border, provides a useful example of the kind of collaboration that is possible when all sides have an inherent interest in an issue.
As became obvious with the April 2010 volcanic eruption in Iceland, volcanic ash recognizes no borders. Mt. Paektu is "considered to be the most dangerous volcano in China due to its history of large explosive eruptions."[28] Recent Chinese research has detected "anomalous activity," resulting in a call for "further research on monitoring this active volcano to reduce hazards and risks of future eruptions."[29] China would face the greatest threat from flood damage or "lahars" (a mixture of water and volcanic ash --the lake holds 2 billion tons of water and the outlet is on the Chinese side of the border), and both sides are at risk from pyroclastic flows. Furthermore, depending on the season and the weather, volcanic ash could engulf North Korea and fall on Japan or Vladivostok.[30] A Chinese research paper from 2003 noted that Changbaishan, along with two other active volcanos in China, "pose a significant threat to hundreds of thousands of people and [would be] likely to cause substantial economic losses."[31]
Mt. Paektu's location straddling an international border makes it particularly appropriate for international scientific collaboration. Projects designed to characterize the volcano, monitoring efforts, and planning of future eruption scenarios require gathering and sharing data across political borders; comprehensive information sharing increases the chances of a robust response to any volcanic activity.
According to Dr. James Hammond, NERC Research Fellow, Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, "Because of the lack of politics involved in understanding a potentially hazardous volcano, this topic has already generated significant international cooperation, including North Korean participation in some bilateral and regional meetings." For example, in 2011, under the Lee Myung Bak administration, the two Koreas held two "expert meetings" to discuss the volcano, although the proposed plans to hold a joint seminar and conduct a joint field trip to Mt. Paektu were never realized. That same year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science began a scientific collaboration project with the DPRK on Mt. Paektu's seismic activity. The UK's Royal Society joined the project in 2013, with participation by the Imperial College London and University of Cambridge.[32]
Yet North Korea is not a regular participant in regional bodies focused on environmental disaster preparedness. For example, the Asia-Pacific Region Global Earthquake and Volcano Eruption Risk Management Hub, established following the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, includes strong representation from most Asian nations, including both China and Taiwan, as well as representative institutions from France and the United Kingdom. However, the DPRK is not on the membership list.[33] A field trip of volcano experts to the Chinese side of Changbaishan/Mt. Paektu this past July did not include North Korean participants.
Dr. Un Young Gun, the Vice Director of the DPRK Earthquake Bureau, was the lead author of a paper presented at International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior (IAVCEI), the world's biggest and most high profile volcanology conference. The paper had four other Korean authors along with authors from the United Kingdom and the United States.[34] However no North Koreans attended the actual conference, which took place this past July in Kagoshima, Japan.
Institutionalizing North Korea participation in regional and bilateral research would increase exchange of critical information and improve disaster preparedness, providing an immediate benefit to all countries concerned. Doing so could also provide an ancillary benefit of strengthening regional collaboration.
Medical Consortiums
Another particularly beneficial area for scientific exchange could be medical consortiums, as demonstrated by the Middle East Consortium on Infectious Disease Surveillance (MECIDS). This consortium, which was established by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) in 2003, is composed of public health experts and Ministry of Health officials from Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority. The initiative has been quite successful, and members have overcome political divides in order to address the common threat of infectious disease emerging in the region.[35] In 2006, the MECIDS network mitigated an avian influenza outbreak in just 10 days, and during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian health officials held an emergency teleconference to discuss a joint action plan two days before the World Health Organization (WHO) call for collaborative efforts to address the emergency.
Medical cooperation in Northeast Asia is weak, and the DPRK is not included in relevant existing medical networks. For example, the DPRK is considered to be a part of the WHO Southeast Asia Region along with India and Thailand, whereas China, Japan, Mongolia, and the Republic of Korea are all members of the WHO Western Pacific Region.[36] In addition to founding MECIDS, NTI founded two other regional networks, one in Southern Africa and one in Southeast Asia, which they have brought together under the Connecting Organizations for Regional Disease Surveillance (CORDS). However, no similar network has been formed in Northeast Asia.[37] And APEC economies participate in the Asia Pacific Emerging Infections Network (AP-EINet) convened to foster transparency, communication, and collaboration in emerging infections in the Asia-Pacific, but since the DPRK is a not an APEC economy, it does not participate in the network.[38]
Yet regional collaboration on infectious disease benefits citizens of all countries. Tuberculosis may be of considerable interest to Northeast Asia, especially given trends in the DPRK. WHO records showed fewer than 50 reported cases of TB per 100,000 people in the DPRK in 1994; by 2011 that number had risen to 380 cases per 100,000.[39] Only sub-Saharan Africa has higher reported TB rates. Up to 15% of those patients may have multiple drug-resistant (MDR) TB.
The WHO and the Global Fund are already active in treatment of TB in the DPRK, along with two U.S. NGOs (Christian Friends of Korea (CFK) and the Eugene Bell Foundation) and Stanford University. Since it was founded 15 years ago, the Eugene Bell Foundation has supported 80 medical institutions to allow them to diagnose and treat tuberculosis and improve general health.[40] In all the towns, cities and districts where they work – they are responsible for over one-third of the population in the DPRK – Eugene Bell has separate facilities for treating MDR-TB. Since 2008, the Eugene Bell Foundation has sent sputum samples from patients it suspects of having MDR-TB to Seoul for testing, and then treats patients accordingly.[41]
In addition to providing general medicines and vitamins needed to cure TB and treat other ailments associated with TB and hepatitis, CFK provides hospital equipment, greenhouses and other agricultural inputs, as well as food. They also participate in hospital and rest home renovations and technical upgrades.[42] CFK has worked with the DPRK's Ministry of Public Health, CFK, and Stanford to establish a National Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory (NTRL) in Pyongyang capable of screening for MDR-TB; NTI was an early collaborator in this project. According to Science Magazine, "NTRL researchers can now diagnose TB cases that are resistant to first-line drug combinations, making it possible to spot patients who need more aggressive therapy. And the lab will soon add capacity to screen for extensively drug-resistant TB, known as XDR—the worst strains, some of which are close to impossible to treat."[43] Stanford University microbiologist Kathleen England is continuing to train the NTRL researchers, hoping to achieve international accreditation, as early as 2015. Regional coordination and collaboration in this work could aid in treating TB in the DPRK and analyzing the spread of MDR-TB.
Enhanced multilateral cooperation is sorely needed to address the many security and humanitarian issues facing Northeast Asia, particularly in regards to North Korea. The historical experience of the Helsinki Process in Cold War Europe clearly demonstrates the many benefits such an arrangement, but the governments of contemporary Northeast Asia and the United States must first take steps to build genuine and lasting trust, and to begin seeing each other as potential partners rather than as rivals or enemies.
Considering the current tensions in Northeast Asia, and especially on the Korean Peninsula, this is not an easy task. But given the risks of the status quo – with tension rising in the region, North Korea continuing its WMD development, and the prospect of an escalatory conflict breaking out on the Korean Peninsula – working toward this goal is strongly in the U.S. interest. Pursuing a regional process of dialogue and routinized cooperation would potentially be both stabilizing, and in the long run, even transformational.
Encouraging greater person-to-person contact and exchanges is a low-risk, low-cost way of starting to move this process forward. NGO activities in the DPRK are addressing unmet humanitarian needs and contributing to the exchange of values and ideas. Cultural and educational exchanges add to the effectiveness of these ongoing efforts. If the Commission agrees with such an approach, then support for such activities in OSCE member countries, including a more regularized visa process in the United States, could be critical. Furthermore, if the countries of the region hope to succeed in establishing a dialogue on the many issues that divide them, cooperation on issues of mutual concern such as disaster preparedness or public health may be a way to build trust and initiate long-term cooperation.
Again, I thank the distinguished members of the Helsinki Commission for inviting me to testify today, and I look forward to your questions.
These remarks reflect my own views and are not necessarily the views of the National Committee on North Korea.
Map 1: 1995-2012 non-business activity in the DPRK.
Map 2: 2012 non-business[44] activity in the DPRK.
*Source: Engage DPRK, http://www.engagedprk.org/
[1] Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe Final Act Helsinki 1 August 1975.
[2] Maj. Gen. Kim Yong-hyun, quoted in Choe Sang-hun, "South Korea Pushes Back on North's Threats," New York Times, March 6, 2013.
[3] The U.S. and the GDR established diplomatic relations in 1974.
[4] In 2011 a Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat was established in Seoul, making it the regional forum with the most well-established support structure.
[5] "US, S. Korea to be Held Accountable for Catastrophic Consequences: CPRK," Korea Central News Agency, March 11, 2013.
[6] Frances Mautner-Markhoff, personal communication, December 8, 2013.
[7] President Park's strategy towards the DPRK is known as trustpolitik. For further reading see, Park Geun-Hye, "A New Kind of Korea: Building Trust Between Seoul and Pyongyang," Foreign Affairs (September 2011).
[8] Jeffrey A. Bader, Obama and China's Rise: An Insider's Account of America's Asia Strategy (Brookings Institution Press, 2012), Google Play edition, 70. Bader sought a policy toward the DPRK that was more consultative with the other four parties in the Six Party talks.
[9] President Park Geun-Hye, "Speech to Joint Session of Congress," May 8, 2013. Accessed on December 6, 2013 at http://www.ncnk.org/resources/publications/President_Park_speech_at_US_Congress.pdf/
[10] Gerald R. Ford, "Text of Remarks at a Meeting with Representatives of European Background Concerning the Conference and Security and Cooperation in Europe," July 25, 1975, in Gerald R. Ford, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1975), Book Two, 1033. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ppotpus/4732052.1975.002/103?page=root;size=100;view=image;q1=Gerald+Ford.
[11] Joseph Duffey, Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Implementation of the Helsinki Accords: Volume III, Information Flow, and Cultural and Educational Exchanges, May 19, 24 and 25 1977, 95th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), 16-18
[12] For more information on humanitarian assistance to North Korea see, Karin J. Lee, "The United States Humanitarian Experience in the DPRK, 1996 to 2009 - U.S. NGOs, the U.S. Administration and Congress," November 2007. http://www.ncnk.org/resources/publications/Humanitarian-Conf-2009_Karin-Lee_US_Humanitarian_Experience.pdf
[13] World Vision Website, http://www.worldvision.org/our-impact/country-profiles/north-korea; Victor Hsu, "A DPRK-Shangri-la," January 2009. http://www.ncnk.org/resources/newsletter-content-items/ncnk-newsletter-vol-2-no-1-a-dprk-shangrila
[14] AFSC Website: https://afsc.org/story/strawberries-winter-afscs-program-north-korea; https://afsc.org/video/improving-rice-production-north-korea-dprk; https://afsc.org/story/bringing-sustainable-farming-farmers-together-china.
[15] PUST Facebook Page; https://www.facebook.com/pustkp.
[16] Michael Alison Chandler, "Private University in North Korea Offers Lessons in Science and World Peace," Washington Post, October 7, 2011.
[17]Chung Ah-young, "NK crucial for expanding Korean studies." The Korea Times, October 27, 2013.
[18] "Track I" refers to official meetings between or among official representatives from two or more governments. "Track II" is used to describe talks and meetings regarding policy issues at which there is no official government presence; Track 1.5 refers to unofficial dialogue with government officials participating in a non-official capacity. This section draws from Karin J. Lee, "NCNK Newsletter Vol. 1 No. 6: The DPRK and Track II Exchanges," November 6, 2008.
[19] "The U.S. and North Korea: A Track II Meeting Brings Results" The Carnegie Reporter, Vol. 3, No. 3, Fall 2005. http://carnegie.org/publications/carnegie-reporter/single/view/article/item/145/.
[20] M. J. Zuckerman. "Track II Diplomacy: Can Unofficial Talks Avert Disaster?" The Carnegie Reporter, Vol. 3, No. 3, Fall 2005. http://carnegie.org/publications/carnegie-reporter/single/view/article/item/136/.
[21] Allan H. Kassoff, director of International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX), commented that since IREX was founded in 1968 it had become a "major channel for advanced research between the US and the Soviet countries" but that obstacles still remained – primarily in regard to access to information for western scholars. Kassoff hoped that the Commission could help to resolve these issues. Hearings before the CSCE, op cit., p. 72.
[22] For example, Handicapped International's work in the DPRK is supported by the Dutch Embassy, the Belgian Direction Générale de la Coopération au Développement, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), and other sources. http://www.handicapinternational.be/en/dpr-korea; North Koreans have also attended SIDA's short-term training programs, etc…
[23] SDC website, http://www.swiss-cooperation.admin.ch/northkorea/
[24] Other U.S. musicians who have performed in Pyongyang include chamber music, blue grass, Christian rock (the twice-platinum Grammy-award band Casting Crowns won an award for their performance of Amazing Grace in Pyongyang), and a 150-man male chorus comprised primarily of ministers of music serving in Georgia Baptist Convention Churches, The Sons of Jubal. See Karin J. Lee, "The New York Philharmonic in North Korea. A New Page in US-DPRK Relations?" Japan Focus, March 11, 2008. http://www.japanfocus.org/-Karin_J_-Lee/2694#sthash.Hw4gpNdn.dpuf, also https://castingcrowns.com/node/626 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOh6Hd9c3Qk&noredirect=1.
[25] See for example David Ng, "Orchestras from North Korea, France perform concert in Paris." Los Angeles Times, March 15, 2012.
[26] Personal communication, multiple officials on different occasions.
[27] For useful discussions of science cooperation with the DPRK, see Stuart J. Thorson, Frederick F. Carriere, Jongwoo Han, and Thomas D. Harblin, "Notes on the SU-KCUT Research Collaboration and Exchange Program," and Linda Staheli, "U.S. Science Engagement Consortium," both in Gi-Wook Shin and Karin J. Lee, eds., U.S.-DPRK Educational Exchanges: Assessment and Future Strategy, (Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center Books, 2011). http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23213/US_DPRK_Educational_Exchanges.pdf.
[28] John Seach, Baitoushan Volcano. Volcano Live. http://www.volcanolive.com/baitoushan.html.
[29] Lingyun Ji, Jiandong Xu, Qingliang Wang, and Yuan Wan, "Episodic Deformation at Changbaishan Tianchi Volcano, Northeast China During 2004 to 2010, Observed by Persistent Scatterer Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar," Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, Vol. 7, No. 1 (October 4, 2013).
[30] Richard Stone and James Hammond, personal communications, December 7-8, 2013. See also Jiandong Xu et al., "Recent Unrest of Changbaishan Volcano, Northeast China: A Precursor of a Future Eruption?" Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 39, No. 16 (August 28, 2012); and Haiquan Wei, Guoming Liu, James Gill, "Review of Eruptive Activity at Tianchi Volcano, Changbaishan, Northeast China: Implications for Possible Future Eruptions," Bulletin of Volcanology, Vol. 75, No. 4 (April 2013).
[31] H. Wei et al., "Three Active Volcanoes in China and Their Hazards," Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, Vol. 21, No. 5 (February 2003), pp. 515-526.
[32] Megan Phelan, "New Partners Keep Watch Over North Korean Volcano," American Association for the Advancement of Science website, September 5, 2013. http://www.aaas.org/news/new-partners-keep-watch-over-north-korean-volcano.
[33] http://g-ever.org/en/institute/index.html
[34] Un Young Gun, Ju Un Ok, Kim Myong Song, Ri Gyong Song, Ri Kyong Nam, James OS Hammond, Clive Oppenheimer, Kathy Whaler, Steve Park, Graham Dawes, and Kayla Iacovin, "The Mt. Paektu Geoscientific Experiment," IAVCEI 2013 Scientific Assembly, Kagoshima, Japan, July 20-24, 2013. http://www.iavcei2013.com/iavcei_hp/PDF/3W_3C-P23.pdf.
[35] NTI website, Middle East Consortium on Infectious Disease Surveillance, http://www.nti.org/about/projects/middle-east-consortium-infectious-disease-surveillance/. See also the MECIDS website, http://www.mecidsnetwork.org/.
[36] http://www.searo.who.int/countries/en/; http://www.wpro.who.int/countries/en/.
[37] NTI Website: http://www.nti.org/about/projects/CORDS/; http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/CORDS-strategic-plan_confirmed-final_DL_6-29.pdf
[38] AP-EINetwork website, http://blogs.uw.edu/apecein/#.UqZAbPRDvmY. See also Ann Marie Kimball, Melinda Moore, Howard Matthew French et. al., "Regional Infectious Disease Surveillance Networks and their Potential to Facilitate the Implementation of the International Health Regulations," Med Clin N Am Vol. 92 (2008), 1459–1471.
[39] As reported in Meagan Phelan, "Science Reporter in North Korea Investigates Efforts to Fight Tuberculosis." American Association for the Advancement of Science website, April 25, 2013. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2013/0425_korea_tb.shtml. The rise in cases reflects both increased susceptibility to TB during the famine years and improved reporting.
[40] http://www.eugenebell.org/english/main.asp?subPage=250. See also "MDR-TB in North Korea: A Q&A with PIH's Dr. JK Seung," Partners in Health website, July 19, 2013. http://www.pih.org/blog/mdr-tuberculosis-north-korea
[41] Richard Stone, "Public Enemy Number One," Science, Vol. 340, No. 6131 (April 26, 2013), pp. 422-425.
[42] Christian Friends of Korea website: http://cfk.org/about-cfk/our-work/
[43] Ibid.
[44] Non-business activity includes: development assistance, humanitarian relief, professional training, and educational assistance.


text:
Ask The Expert Answers: new construction windows
Window measurements seem confusing. Is a 3050 window 3 feet by 5 feet or 30 inches by 50 inches?
Our measurements for new construction windows are in feet. For example, the 3050 stock size would be 3 ft x 5 ft or 36"x60". The size guides can be found for some of our new construction products on our website.
Tags: replacement windows, how to measure a window, window measurement, new construction windows
- replacement windows
- energycore
- MI energycore
- energy efficient windows
- condensation
- double glazing
- double pane glass
- humidity
- window egress
- emergency
- building codes
- escape
- residential codes
- double hung window
- pocket sill
- sloped sill
- hybrid sill
- energy core
- design pressure
- DP rating
- performance class
- performance grade
- window testing
- tempered glass
- annealed glass
- u-value
- r-value
- heat transfer
- energycore windows
- structural test pressure
- how to measure a window
- window measurement
- new construction windows
- conduction
- convection
- air inflitration
- operating panels
- xoox
- air infiltration
- dust infiltration
- arid climates
- window care
Recent Posts
- I live in the dry south west and constantly battle dust and wind coming through my windows. Are my windows faulty? What can I do to prevent and control the dirt?
- I am having new windows installed in my home. How can I make sure we don't run into issues caused by installation errors?
- My windows have storm windows. I am looking at replacing these windows with new ENERGY STAR qualified windows, but they don't have a storm window. Does not having a storm window reduce their efficiency?
- As I look at your patio door configurations, what is the difference between the "OXXO" and the "XIIX"? We are wanting to have our patio doors open all the way to one side or the other.
- Window measurements seem confusing. Is a 3050 window 3 feet by 5 feet or 30 inches by 50 inches?
- What is the difference between Design Pressure, Performance Grade, and Structural Test Pressure


text:
Esri is supporting organizations that are responding to flooding disasters with software, data, imagery, project services, and technical support. If you are in need of software or support, complete the Request Assistance form. All requests should be justified in the message section of the form and are subject to approval. If you have other questions, contact the disaster help coordination team.
Request Assistance


text:
You limited your search to:
Partner: Boyce Ditto Public Library
Decade: 1900-1909
Year: 1903
A Mineral Wells Public Schools Certificate of Promotion
Date: May 8, 1903
Creator: unknown
Description: A certificate of Promotion from Mineral Wells Public Schools, certifying that Floy Stone has completed the 8th grade in May 1903 is shown here. It is signed by B. C. Osborn.
Contributing Partner: Boyce Ditto Public Library


text:
With breathtaking scenery of snow-clad mountains and lakes, the enchanting city of Zurich is now home to a Superdry store!
Don't be fooled by the exterior of our shop front – inside is bursting with the new collection's colours, contrasting the store's dark hammered steel columns and exposed brick walls. Accommodating for the Zurich cyclists, we have Superdry bicycle stands outside for you to park your wheels while you shop! Click below for more photos!


text:
Created in 1983 as one of the State of New York's 4 original Centers for Advanced Technology, CATT continues to fulfill its mission to stimulate economic development in information technology through research and education.
Companies that partner with CATT in joint research gain access to state-of-the-art facilities and a team of experts who understand how to turn technological breakthroughs into commercially-viable products and services. CATT's research program focuses on 3 key areas that are crucial to the needs of businesses today:
CRISSP combines security technology strengths with experts in psychology, law, public policy, and business from NYU. The goal of this center is to build new approaches to security and privacy that recognize that technology alone cannot provide the information security and privacy needed in today's interconnected world. The center is founded by Anindya Ghose (NYU Stern), Ramesh Karri (NYU Poly), Nasir Memon (NYU Poly), Helen Nissenbaum (NYU Steinhardt), and Rae Zimmerman (NYU Wagner).
Across New York State, climate change has increased the frequency of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, nor'easters and flash floods. New York State has engaged the expertise of local academic institutions to prioritize and rebuild New York with greater resiliency. The New York State Resiliency Institute for Storms and Emergencies (NYS RISE) was launched in November of 2013 as a consortium that addresses the vulnerabilities of the built and natural environments to extreme weather. Led by New York University and Stony Brook University, NYS RISE acts as a hub for in-depth research, analysis and education on disaster preparedness. Research conducted by NYS RISE members is supervised by co-directors Dr. Fletcher (Bud) Griffis of New York University and Dr. Minghua Zhang of Stony Brook University.
NYU and the School of Engineering have created several new faculty positions, have invested $3.5 Million in funding, and are providing an additional $4 Million in world-class research space upgrades to form a new center of excellence, NYU WIRELESS, the first academic center of its kind in the world. NYU WIRELESS is an interdisciplinary research center that is equipped to develop revolutionary circuits and systems for several business sectors, including the wireless industry, the distributed computing and data center industry, and the medical profession. NYU WIRELESS brings together faculty and students with expertise in millimeter wave wireless communications and circuits, distributed networking and computing, and many branches of medicine. Just launched this year, already there are 24 faculty and 100 graduate and undergraduate students participating in this new interdisciplinary center.
NYU WIRELESS conducts about $10 million/year in funded research, and allows its industrial affiliates to maximize the value of their investment by leveraging industrial affiliates funds with large NSF, NIH, and other competitive research programs. NYU WIRELESS affiliates enjoy close and frequent interaction with the center's faculty and students, who come from the School of Engineering's Electrical and Computer engineering department, NYU's Courant Computer Science department, and many different branches of NYU's Langone School of Medicine.


text:
WASHINGTON, D.C. (WUSA) -- It is ready, set, style and go time for the red carpet.
You have to look your best for the Inaugural balls. And salons in the area have been buzzing with activity.
Isabelle's Okyo Salon in Georgetown (pronounced like Tokyo but mostly everyone speaks French) has been in charge of 'shear' perfection for people like Marley Schneier heading to the official Presidential Inaugural Ball.
"I have a buddy that works in the White House so I'm going with them. I thought I'd go with the Kate Middleton look. It's not patriotic I know," she said.
Alexandra Caines is heading to the George Washington University Ball tonight.
"I've been waiting for this for 4 years, ever since I moved here. I made sure I had my appointment, hair style picked out," Caines said.
Christophe Saluzzo, stylist, said, "She's going to look stunning."
The salon is busy with primping for the Inaugural balls but it's been a-buzz about Michell Obama's bangs.
Saluzzo said, "I think it's going to be the future look of 2013. I love bangs."


text:
Aug 29
ONTILITY Launches Solar Training in Los Angeles, CA
POSTED BY: Ruben Salinas POSTED ON
ONTILITY will offer its semi-annual NABCEP PV Installer Certification Exam Prep Course in Los Angeles for the first time on Sept. 15-16. The advanced solar training class for experienced Solar PV Installers will be held at the Wilshire Blvd offices of the Advanced Computing Institute.
The consistent solar industry growth in California is supported by the efforts of local utilities, which are constantly coming up with new and improved incentives. With solar incentives continuing to drive market growth at truly amazing rates, there is no better time for solar installers to get the solar training needed to get this prestigious NABCEP PV Installer Certification. In California, the incentives don't stop coming, recently LADWP announced they are re-launching their Solar Incentive Program on September 1, 2011.
ONTILITY's intensive two-day NABCEP Exam Preparation Course helps qualified professional solar installers through the difficult task of passing the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP) Solar PV Installer Certification Exam. Solar PV Installers who attend this class will review advanced PV design problems, electrical and safety topics, and discuss test-taking strategies. The enrolment fees for ONTILITY's two-day exam preparatory class is $595, and can be accomplished online. John Berry, ONTILITY's Director of Training Sales notes, "The ONTILITY Solar Training program is a truly comprehensive approach to professional solar training and career development. It's much more than workshops and seminars. ONTILITY Solar Training provides solar energy courses and career paths which are in tune with what the industry and market demand. Following the Los Angeles training program launch in September, ONTILITY will offer a full schedule of solar design, installation and PV technical sales training courses in the following months."
Expanding into California is a logical step for ONTILITY and is a direct response to the continued rapid growth of the solar energy industry nationwide. Tom Pash, President and CEO said, "We are very excited to be opening a customer support and sales office and offering solar training in California. We bring a unique combination of products and services that the West Coast market needs. The solar industry continues to grow very fast, more than 50% last year, and doesn't show any signs of slowing down. Along with that market growth, business and employment opportunities are growing as well. Job growth this year alone is at about 26%, adding 24,000 new jobs into the solar workforce."
So if you are a West Coast solar professional, you'll want to get to know Patrick Clifford, a solar energy industry veteran who will be heading up the ONTILITY sales and dealer support services in California. Before joining ONTLITY Patrick was President and CEO of SDE Solar Inc., where he gained experience in both the residential and commercial solar markets. Patrick said, "With ONTILITY's world class warehouse and tremendous purchasing power, we can meet the needs of the California market. Couple that with extensive solar project and support services and our comprehensive solar training program and you've got the perfect fit for this market."
And if you are working in the solar industry you've probably heard how rigorous the NABCEP Certified PV Installer exam is. Brian Cunningham, ONTILITY Solar Instructor, Design Engineer and NABCEP Certified PV Installer, puts it this way, "I took the Solar PV Installer test this past March. I have to say that it was probably one of the harder open-book tests that I've taken. Now I'm not trying to scare anyone, but you need to be very well prepared if you want to pass. NABCEP certification has become the de facto standard for installing solar (thermal and PV) in the US. If it's already not required to install solar in your area, it soon may be. You need to be certified." Brian continues, "When I walked out of the exam room, I realized that I was not as ready as I had thought. I had studied every resource and practice exam that I could find to prepare, but in the end the actual exam looked like none of what I had studied. Yet I managed to pass. Why? I think because I had spent so much time trying to solve the problem of passing the test that I practiced the very skill that is the key to passing the test – Problem Solving. And that seems to be the crux of what NABCEP is looking for.
When you look at the NABCEP Certified PV Installer Job Task Analysis, you'll see six major content domains covered and that everything involves finding the best solution to a problem. Whether it's identifying the correct way to deal with potential hazards, finding the best location for equipment or even selecting the best tools for a job, problem solving is required. That's why the itemization of tasks is so extensive and comprehensive, covering every aspect of PV system design, project management and installation, electrical components, commissioning, operation, maintenance and troubleshooting.
So how can you better prepare for the NABCEP Certified PV Installer Exam?
First, read everything on NABCEP's reading list. Second, spend some extra time with the NEC, 2008 edition. Even if you are an experienced electrician, review the sections which pertain to solar and memorize where things are. Other than a calculator, the code book is the only resource available to you during the 4-hour test. And you do not want to spend extra time trying to figure out what part of the code applies to the problems. Third, review the details of every PV project you've ever worked on, no matter how minor those details may seem. Think about issues you had to solve both during the design and on-site during the installation. The kinds of problems you've solved before may show up on a 60 question test in September.
Finally, Attend the ONTILITY NABCEP Exam Prep Class. If you are a licensed electrician or hold certification in any trade, you probably didn't take that exam without a test prep session. Don't try it with the NABCEP exam. And now in addition to Boston, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Houston, you can take this class in Los Angeles.
Improve your problem solving ability, as Brian said, "…this is the key." Being able to think through complex problems quickly, find the information you need efficiently and draw sound conclusions is extremely important. This is precisely the reason that ONTILITY designed its AS210 - NABCEP PV Installer Certification Exam Prep class the way they did. Two days of advanced design challenges, installation problems and code issues. Two days of intense problem solving, lively discussion and instruction from one of ONTILITY's Solar Instructors, all NABCEP Certified PV Installers, so they know what they're talking about, that's how you can prepare for the test.
NABCEP PV Installer Certification continues to gain ground as an industry standard as more utility companies and government agencies require that systems be installed by a NABCEP Certified Installer for those systems to qualify for incentives. ONTILITY, in keeping with its commitment to solar industry growth, wants to help as many qualified solar professionals as possible to become NABCEP certified. If you have the experience and knowledge to qualify for the NABCEP exam, we want to do whatever we can to help you pass it the first time. Our exam prep class is one way we can help.


text:
Very pretty and clean style you have there. I would make the cliffs on the one side darker to give a bit more sense of depth perhaps.
Also as this seems to be a modern type map, a simple legend like you'd see on a tourist map or modern atlas might work best.


text:
By ED LOOMAN
For The Intelligencer
STEUBENVILLE-The Steubenville Catholic Central boys were back in town Saturday and they found their intensity just in time to send the fans home happy.
Article Photos
Steubenville Catholic's Michael Barber guards Bridgeport's Dallas Fields during Saturday night's game in Steubenville.
Photo by Mike Mathison
Playing inside the Mickey Barber Gymnasium for the first time since Dec. 18, the Crusaders broke open a tight contest with a pair of 9-0 second half scoring runs to earn a 64-53 victory against Bridgeport.
The visiting Bulldogs scored the final seven points of the first quarter to pull even at 15. A 3-pointer by Bailey McGrath along with hoops from Parker Dyson and Jon Kreiter sparked the Bridgeport burst.
Central was able to grab a 24-22 halftime lead thanks to Ryan Fletcher's play in the second stanza. He connected from the line to tie things at 20, drained a three off a set inbounds play then knocked down another freebie.
Bridgeport was able to stay close based on its outstanding shooting performance. The 'Dogs were 10 of 19 during the first 16 minutes.
Things started to go downhill after Q.J. Williams got the first hoop of the third period. Michael Barber knocked one down from behind the arc. Fletcher scored off a steal then put back a Barber miss. Zack Herrington and Fletcher swished free throws and it was 33-24 Crusaders.
A 3 by Matt Martello made it 46-36 Steubenville Catholic after three. During the frame, the pressing Crusader defense forced eight Bridgeport turnovers.
"We did pick up our intensity in the second half," Sean Tucker said of his now 11-2 club. "One of our many leaders suggested we press full court. That's another great example of our players taking it upon themselves to make things happen. These kids are relentless, they claw, they're scrappy and it's a joy to be around them."
The second Central run came in the final quarter after McGrath pulled Donnie Cash's club to within nine (53-44) by sinking both ends of a one and one. Barber scored on one of his several drives to the hoop then off a nifty feed from Michael Carapellotti. Carapellotti recorded an "and one," the two-pointer coming off a Michael Manfresca assist. Herrington added a pair of free tosses to put the game out of reach at 62-44.
Herrington paced Central in scoring with 22 and finished off the double-double by pulling down 10 rebounds Barber added 16 (nine coming on a trio of triples) and Fletcher 14.
"Give our kids all the credit in the world," Tucker noted. "You're asking these kids to play two nights in a row and give it their all (the Crusaders knocked off Barnesville Friday) and that's tough. These kids have overcome a lot of adversity since we've had four sets of back-to-back nights.
"They knew we didn't play well offensively in the first half. We did play well defensively and that's our strength. We made some adjustments at halftime and these kids are able to answer their own questions. That tells us how mature they are becoming. These kids pressed both nights and did a good job. I'm very proud of them."
Kreiter and Williams led Bridgeport, now 2-9, with 12 points each. Dallas Fields and McGrath evenly divided 20. The Bulldogs also had a back-to-back weekend, having played Cameron on Friday. The visitors did win the rebounding battle 28-26, Dyson collecting eight. Unfortunately, they also were guilty of 26 turnovers, most coming in the second half.


text:
Bang Cologne
By Marc Jacobs for Men
Bang Cologne by Marc Jacobs, Marc jacobs, who is best known for his exquisite fashions for louis vuitton and his eponymous line, has created his second fragrance for men with master perfumer, ann gottlieb . The dynamic and contemporary scent for men is comprised of top notes of black, white and pink pepper exploding into a heart of masculine woody notes. The base is as edgy as his fashion; notes includes elemi resin, aromatic benzoin, vetiver, white moss and patchouli. All products are original, authentic name brands. We do not sell knockoffs or imitations. ... Read More
- 007
- 007 Ocean Royale
- 007 Quantum
- 1 Million
- 1 Million Absolutely Gold
- 1 Million Cologne
- 1 Million Intense
- 100cc
- 12
- 1881
- 1881 Amber
- 1881 Black
- 1881 Edition Blanche White Edition
- 1881 Intense
- 1881 Summer
- 1902 Cardamom
- 1902 Green Tea
- 1902 Lavender
- 1902 Mandarine Leather
- 1902 Natural
- 1902 Vetiver
- 1916 Men
- 212
- 212 Glam
- 212 On Ice
- 212 Pop
- 212 Sexy
- 212 Splash
- 212 Summer
- 212 Surf
- 212 Vip
- 212 Vip Club Edition
- 212 White
- 24 Go Dark The Fragrance
- 24 Gold Elixir
- 24 Gold Oud Edition
- 24 Gold The Fragrance
- 24 Live Another Day
- 24 Live Another Night
- 24 Old Bond Street
- 24 Old Bond Street Triple Extract
- 24 Platinum Elixir
- 24 Platinum Oud Edition
- 24 Platinum The Fragrance
- 24 The Fragrance
- 273
- 273 Indigo
- 273 Red
- 3121
- 3am Sean John
- 4711
- 4711 Ice
- 4711 Nouveau
- 50 Cent
- 501
- 501 Cool Ice
- 505 His
- 90210 Beverly Hills
- 90210 Black Jeans
- 90210 Energy
- 90210 Extreme Sport
- 90210 Feel Sexy 2
- 90210 Hot
- 90210 Just Sexy
- 90210 Just Sexy 2
- 90210 Metal Jeans
- 90210 Silver Jeans
- 90210 Sport
- 90210 Touch Of Cool Play
- 90210 Touch Of Red
- 99 Regent Street
- 9ix Rocawear
- 9ix Rocawear Gold
Sorry, Bang is not in stock
Enter your email and click "Notify Me" and we will email you as soon as it comes back in stock.
This product has 8 Out of Stock items |
0.04 oz Vial (sample)
Item #483258
3.4 oz Eau De Toilette Spray
Item #465510
3.4 oz Eau De Toilette Spray (Tester)
Item #492727
1.7 oz Eau De Toilette Spray
Item #467352
1.7 oz Eau De Toilette Spray (unboxed)
Item #502804
1 oz Eau De Toilette Spray
Item #492260
0.17 oz Mini EDT
Item #483259
2.5 oz Deodorant Stick
Item #491931
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
About Marc Jacobs
History and background of Marc Jacobs. Marc Jacobs was born in New York City on April 9, 1963. After graduating from the High School of Art and Design in 1981 he entered Parson's School of Design. As a design student at Parson's, Jacobs was the recipient of some of the schools highest honors. He was awarded the Perry Ellis Gold Thimble Award, the Chester Weinberg Gold Thimble Award Read more about Marc Jacobs
More Marc Jacobs fragrancesfor Women: Daisy Eau So Fresh , Daisy , Daisy Dream , Marc Jacobs Decadence , Marc Jacobs Dot , more
for Men: Bang Bang , Marc Jacobs ,
See all Marc Jacobs products
Customer Comments
The prices were the best that I could find on any other fragrance sites. The service was fabulous. I was totally surprised to receive the merchandise so fast. I will definitely use FragranceX.com again for future fragrance purchases
A. Anderson (Huntington, NY)
REVIEW SNAPSHOT®by PowerReviews
- Great smell (17)
- Sexy (12)
- Draws compliments (10)
- Long-lasting (7)
- Great value (6)
- Too expensive (5)
- Pricey / poor value (4)
- Overpowering (3)
Best Uses
- Anytime (10)
- Signature fragrance (10)
- Special occasions (9)
- Evening (8)
- Daily use (6)
- Reviewer Profile:
- Adventurous style (12), Classic style (6), Natural style (3)
- Fragrance Type:
- Oriental/spicy (13), Woody/earthy (11), Fresh/aquatic (3)
Most Liked Positive Review
contemporary, spicy, charismatic sexy
The first time I smelled "Bang" by Marc Jacobs, I was taken in by a peppery smell that dried down to a masculine yet smooth resin-type wood with pepper/spice and the...Read complete review
The first time I smelled "Bang" by Marc Jacobs, I was taken in by a peppery smell that dried down to a masculine yet smooth resin-type wood with pepper/spice and the slightest hint of maybe smooth and sweet tobacco... good for giving off that contemporary, smooth, charismatic, and sophisticated-sexy type of vibe.
It is definitely a scent that will work well for younger men who like to give off that sophisticated, "young yet mature", and sexy vibe. It's not an overpowering, musky, and spicy cologne like some older men's cologne (I don't think there's really any true musk in it, just a masculine woodiness-- you think you smell a hint of musk, but it's not truly musk). So, to recap, there is a tiny bit of smoothness to the woody scent (instead of being an overpowering spicy musk) which makes this perfect for younger guys who want to give off that vibe of young-mature, charismatic, and sophisticated sexiness. To me, there's not many good peppery/spicy colognes out there to begin with and LESS that are appropriate for younger guys (in their 20s-30s).
It will be a great scent to try out for those late evening dinners and dates during the late summer to fall (when the temperature gets cooler and less humid).
Dry down was about 30 min-- during the dry down the stronger peppery/spice will lessen a bit. In the long run after the dry down, the pepper-spice will lessen to maybe about 80% within the first 3-4 hours leaving you with a masculine, smooth woodiness with a bit of pepper for 6-8 hours. 3 sprays should be enough. If you want the spicy-pepperiness to stay strong, you need to reapply every 4 hours or so.
Hope this helps! Good luck.
Most Liked Negative Review
Bang to a fishle...
It was best described by the full page reviewer. However this cologne just like so many other so called celebs is as well a "good" fashion sketcher. Like many others...Read complete review
It was best described by the full page reviewer. However this cologne just like so many other so called celebs is as well a "good" fashion sketcher. Like many others out there it is a who knows who and who "thinks" their better than they are. Just as his colonges his clothing for men is ummm just OK. It is way over priced and prices even on here have blown way up. In this economy the rich continue through their ways to keep getting rich but not by the help of my hard earned money. I enjoy Frag X and don't order as much because I can find some colognes at a lower cost. However Frang X is great on shipping and if you can reach them by phone prior to 3pm eastern you can get help, as to email I sent two in the last two weeks and neither were answered. Though I get their emails daily on pricing. Over all there are far better unkown colognes that are as nice and better for a lower cost that most can afford. Hope this helps. Blessings, to all Happy ThanksGiving.
Reviewed by 24 customers
Displaying reviews 1-5
Previous | Next »
- Doesn't Hold
- Overpowering
- Pricey / Poor Value
- Too Expensive
Best Uses
Comments about Marc Jacobs Bang Cologne:
quite bad. Not recommend
- Doesn't Hold
- Overpowering
- Pricey / Poor Value
- Too Expensive
- Too Weak
Best Uses
- Daily Use
Comments about Marc Jacobs Bang Cologne:
over spicy I don't like it at all maybe for old people upto 2 hours
- Fragrance Type:
- Oriental/Spicy
- Draws Compliments
- Great Smell
- Great Value
- Long-Lasting
- Sexy
Best Uses
- Anytime
- Daily Use
- Evening Use
- Signature Fragrance
- Special Occasions
Comments about Marc Jacobs Bang Cologne:
Excellent Smelling, the best of all
- Fragrance Type:
- Woody/Earthy
- Great Smell
- Sensual
- Sexy
Best Uses
- Daily Use
- Evening Use
- Signature Fragrance
- Special Occasions
Comments about Marc Jacobs Bang Cologne:
I don't want my hubby to smell like a citrus grove, the ocean or clean laundry. I want him to smell manly and sexy. Most men's fragrances now smell like body wash even worse they smell like my body wash. I want him to smell like a guy. This just does it for me. He wears it and I melt. I love love love it. It's just strong enough without being overpowering. If you want to smell like a metrosexual this isn't for you, your girlfriend is never going to borrow it. If you want to smell like a man and leave her wanting to wear your shirt because it smells like you.Buy this one.
- Great Smell
Best Uses
- Anytime
Comments about Marc Jacobs Bang Cologne:
Very masculin.
- Fragrance Type:
- Woody/Earthy
Displaying reviews 1-5
Previous | Next »


text:
key x_item BA4420
Mental Magick of Basil Horwitz volume 5
Item Number: BA4420
This slim hardback contains eight brilliant effects. They are sure to be used by professionals and semi-pros for years to come. I am proud to have known Basil and very sad to have lost such a good friend. His memory will live on forever in the Magick he created.
Pages 58 - Hardbound
Customer Reviews Write a review.
No reviews yet. Do you own this product? Write a review.