text:
Blog>Trends>Survey: How Is Your Job Affecting Your Mental Health?
Survey: How Is Your Job Affecting Your Mental Health?
How Workplace Factors Affect Mental Health
Protecting Mental Health at Work
Shaping the Future of Work
What to Look for in a Job
Methodology and Limitations
Trends— Surveys
More than 7 in 10 small-company employees rated their mental health as good, compared to fewer than 6 in 10 employees at large companies.
Of those who worked in finance and insurance, 74.1% reported good mental health, ranking the highest of any industry.
Of those who worked in the medical and health care field, 14.5% reported poor mental health – the most of any industry.
Almost half of those rating their mental health as poor said they're likely to look for a new job in the next six months (49.2%).
In order to improve their mental health at work, employees prioritized their personal time (46.4%), asked for flexible schedules (39.1%), and set clear boundaries with their employer (37.1%).
Considering how much time most people spend working, it's important to ensure a work environment is as beneficial as possible to mental health. But what does that look like today? Which industries and jobs have the happiest employees? We asked 1,011 U.S. employees to rate their mental health, give insight about their work environments, and what their employers are doing to accommodate good mental health in the workplace.
Overall, 65.8% of the employees surveyed reported having good mental health. Let's take a look at who they are, what kind of work they do, and what their work environments are like.
The size and type of company that our survey respondents worked for proved to have a significant effect on their reported mental health. Employees of small companies (10 to 49 employees) seemed happiest with 72.5% rating their mental health as good. Meanwhile, only 59.8% of employees from large companies (250+ employees) said the same. When it came to the industries they worked in, the industry with the highest percentage of employees reporting good mental health was finance and insurance. Manufacturing came in at a close second.
Here's how all the industries ranked among people reporting good mental health:
Finance and Insurance: 74.1%
Manufacturing: 70.6%
Education: 67.2%
Technology: 65.4%
Information Services and Data Processing: 60.5%
Medical and Health Care: 55.4%
While some people may be able to choose their company or industry, some factors are out of our control, including age. Significantly more Gen Z respondents (83.3%) reported good mental health, compared to 68.1% of millennials, 60.2% of Gen Xers, and only 54.1% of baby boomers. Different personality traits played a clear role as well, as 8 out of 10 extroverts rated their mental health as good, compared to only half of introverts.
No matter your generation or social tendencies, there are some things you may want to consider when looking for a job that will benefit your mental health. Environmental factors and work setting are important. Not surprisingly, people who worked mainly outdoors were much more likely to claim good mental health (82%) compared to those who worked mainly or partly indoors (56.3% and 61.9%, respectively). If working outdoors is not an option, exposure to more sunlight through an office window can help, or even suggesting some meetings be walk-and-talks. Those who worked exclusively from home were also 17% more likely than those working both remotely and on-site to say their mental health was good.
It's helpful to be aware of factors in a work environment that might negatively impact your mental health. We asked participants about the things that cause the most issues for them at work and how they handle them.
According to our respondents, the greatest challenge to mental health in the workplace is trying to maintain a good work-life balance (34.6%). Emotionally draining work was a close second, according to 33.8% of people.
Existing mental health issues also appeared to be a problem for many. Over 63% felt there was a social stigma attached to mental health in their workplace; this can dangerously reduce the likelihood of employees seeking treatment when they need it. However, mental health treatments can be essential in preventing burn-out, employee turnover, and also boost performances at work. Most people who reported mental health stigmatization worked for small companies (71.2%) versus large companies (47%). The majority were also millennials — 68.6% compared to only 44.3% of baby boomers. It is thus important to ensure that younger generations are encouraged to discuss their mental health at work, and for smaller companies to remove the stigma present around it.
While you can't always control the environment you work in, there are things you can do to protect your mental health at work. We found that prioritizing personal time was the No. 1 tool for improving mental health, as advocated by 46.4% of respondents. Other top strategies included asking for schedule flexibility (39.1%), setting boundaries (37.1%), and asking for things when you need them (34.9%).
While it's important for an employee to advocate for themselves at work, there are also things employers can do to help foster a positive mental health environment.
One way to prevent stigmatization of mental health in the workplace is to create a culture that values open communication — a key aspect of any healthy workplace. One way to specifically do this is to make mental health literacy training mandatory for all employees and to ensure that managers and supervisors are trained to recognize signs of distress and encourage their employees to seek help. More than 33% of respondents who reported good mental health also said they felt comfortable discussing personal needs with their supervisor or manager. Millennials were the most likely to have discussed their mental health with their employer (74.5%), followed by Gen Zers (70%), baby boomers (63.9%), and Gen Xers (59%). Fewer women (66.7%) had done so compared to men (72.4%).
It's in the hands of employers to make the workplace feel like a safe space to discuss mental health, and our survey suggests a few ways they can do that. One of the most obvious is simply for employers to show they have compassion for their employees, a measure currently in place for 32.5% of respondents with good mental health. Other perks deemed effective included offering flexible schedules (35.8%), regular communication with employees (31.7%), and allowing employees to choose their work location (30.1%). It's also important to model good boundaries and mental health practices by implementing policies such as no emails after hours and days free of meetings. By ensuring that employees feel comfortable in separating their work from their private life, companies can prevent burned-out and stressed employees, and prevent employee turnover.
If employers don't pay attention to mental health issues in their workplace, there could be consequences. We asked participants how important mental health support at work is and what they'd sacrifice for it.
It seems that mental health support at work is valued highly, and many are willing to take a pay cut to get it. Overall, 51.5% of respondents said they were at least somewhat likely to do so. When answers were broken down by generation, 28.5% Gen Xers said they were somewhat likely to accept a job with lower pay in exchange for better mental health benefits, while 19.7% were somewhat unlikely to do so. Only 1 out of 4 baby boomers said they were somewhat unlikely to do the same, while 35.3% of them were somewhat likely to take the lower pay in exchange for better mental health benefits.
Nearly half of those rating their mental health as poor said they were likely to look for a new job in the next six months. According to respondents, 1 out of 5 millennials said they were extremely likely to change jobs due to the lack of mental health support offered by their current employer. On the other hand, only 1 out of 5 Gen Zers said they were somewhat unlikely to do the same, while 1 out of 7 were extremely likely to do so.
Whether or not organizations are ready for it, employees are becoming increasingly more concerned with how their work impacts their mental health. Younger generations are more likely to advocate for their mental health at work than previous generations, and they expect their employers to follow suit. After all, there is only so much an employee can do on their own to support themselves. It's up to employers to foster a healthy culture that supports employees' needs.
Allowing flexible schedules, showing compassion for their employees, or ensuring that employees are comfortable discussing their needs are only a few ways in which employers can support their teams, in addition to making employees feel valued, comfortable, and ensuring that their mental health is supported. For these reasons, it is also important to make sure that mental health is not stigmatized in the workplace, and that employees are given the resources and support they need to work in an ever-changing world.
As you search for your next job, remember one thing: if organizations want to keep their employees and attract new ones, they need to focus on the well-being of their workforce. Seek out organizations with a culture of open communication that promotes a healthy work-life balance and actively implements policies to support those values. Is the schedule flexible? Could you work from home some or all of the time? If not, does the workplace have windows and plenty of natural light? Don't be afraid to ask questions!
NCBI: Impact of Windows and Daylight Exposure on Overall Health and Sleep Quality of Office Workers: A Case-Control Pilot Study
Cambridge: What Is the Impact of Mental Health-Related Stigma on Help-Seeking? A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies
McKinsey & Company: Overcoming Stigma: Three Strategies toward Better Mental Health in the Workplace
Harvard Business Review: It's a New Era for Mental Health at Work
This study uses data from a survey of 1,011 U.S. employees. Respondents were gathered through the Amazon Mechanical Turk survey platform where they were presented with a series of questions, including attention-check and disqualification questions. 56.2% of employees identified as men, while 43.7% identified as women, and less than 1% identified as nonbinary. Employees ranged in age from 19 to 74 with an average age of 37. 14% of employees were Gen Zers, 45.4% were millennials, 24.6% were Gen Xers, and 16% were baby boomers. Participants incorrectly answering any attention-check question had their answers disqualified.
Please note that survey responses are self-reported and are subject to issues, such as exaggeration, recency bias, and telescoping.
We hope this study offers some useful tips for keeping your work life as healthy as possible. If you'd like to share these findings for any noncommercial purpose, please do and link back to this article to give credit to its contributors.
Midlife Career Crisis
What Motivates People to Find a New Job and the Timeline to Do So
Feedback on the Job
Exploring Workplace Hygiene: the Shocking Truth
Our Study on the Elusive Work-Life Balance


Given the monumental influence graffiti art has had on our popular culture, from music, film, and television to fine art, toys, and clothing, it's easy to forget the form's humble roots and remarkable evolution -- how what started as a way for bored kids to pass the time grew into a movement larger than anyone could possibly have imagined.
Indeed, long before the giant murals, fashion runways, larger-than-life art shows and unlikely street art millionaires, modern graffiti art got its start in the belly of a Philadelphia juvenile corrections facility, with a single word scrawled in small caps across a cell wall: CORNBREAD.
In 1965, Darryl "Cornbread" McCray, now widely considered the world's first modern graffiti artist, was a 12-year-old troublemaker housed at Philadelphia's Youth Development Center (YDC).
As you may have guessed, McCray loved cornbread. He loved it so much, in fact, that the YDC's cooks nicknamed him "Cornbread" when he would not stop pestering them to make him the cornmeal quick bread he'd grown up eating with his grandmother.
Instantly taken with his new name, Cornbread felt compelled to share it with the other boys. Rather than take part in the drug use and violence that ran rampant at the YDC, Cornbread passed the time by adding his unique signature to the facility's walls, which, until then, had been covered exclusively in gang names and symbols.
Cornbread spent day and night hunting for fresh spots, scrawling his newly-acquired moniker on nearly every surface in the YDC. He tagged the visitor hall, chow hall, church, and bathrooms, writing "Cornbread" so obsessively that social workers thought he might be suffering from a mental disorder.
Upon his release, Cornbread doubled-down on the work he'd started in juvie. He took to the streets of Philadelphia, joining forces with friends (and future graffiti legends) like Cool Earl and Kool Klepto Kid to tag walls across the city.
He even used the blank brick canvases of North Philadelphia to win over his junior high crush, writing "Cornbread Loves Cynthia" all over the girl's neighborhood and along the bus route she took to school.
The plan worked, and Cornbread's enigmatic tag soon inspired others, the city's walls growing dense with various names and numbers, each writer trying to snag their share of the glory.
When a local paper mistakenly reported that Cornbread had been killed in a gang shooting, the prideful young writer was determined to prove the legend was still alive. "I knew it was up to me to bring my name back to life," he told Philadelphia Weekly.
In a bold display that would forever cement his status as an icon of 1960's graffiti, Cornbread snuck into the Philadelphia Zoo, hopped a fence, and painted "Cornbread Lives" on both sides of an elephant.
Around the same time that Cornbread and the Philadelphia crews were busy spraying elephants and trying to out-tag one another, a parallel 1960's graffiti movement was developing in New York City.
One of those kids was Taki 183, a self-described bored teenager from Washington Heights, a Greek neighborhood just north of Harlem, who created his now-iconic tag in 1969 by combining "Taki," a diminutive form of his Greek name, Demetrius, and "183," his street number.
Armed with magic markers and spray cans, having cut a hole in his jacket that allowed him to hide his hand as he worked, Taki tagged walls, lampposts, hydrants, and subway cars across New York City, carefully choosing the spots he thought were most likely to be noticed.
Taki's quest to conquer the city caught the attention of a reporter at the New York Times, and a 1971 profile instantly catapulted Taki to legendary status among his peers in the early 1970's graffiti scene.
The first New Yorker to become famous by writing graffiti, Taki would inspire a generation of writers from across the city, just as Cornbread had in Philadelphia. It's appropriate, then, that the two men came together at MOCA Los Angeles some 40 years later to sign their installations at Roger Gastman's Art in the Streets exhibit and celebrate how far the movement they started had come.
As these stories demonstrate, the early graffiti writers of New York and Philadelphia had a lot in common. They were bold, creative, and dedicated, yes, but also young and mostly poor, with limited choices of how and where to spend their free time.
It makes sense, then, that graffiti took on a special meaning for these early writers. As sociologist Gregory Snyder notes in his book, Graffiti Lives: Beyond the Tag in New York's Urban Underground, tagging allowed these young men and women the opportunity "to get fame and respect for their deeds," rewards which, in any other part of their lives, were totally elusive.
Driven by the "competitive nature of urban life," these writers used whatever they could find -- from shoe polish to industrial markers -- to spread their tags across the city, eventually painting subway trains at night to ensure their work made its way (very efficiently) across New York's 5 boroughs, taking their name "all-city" in the process.
In the mid-1970's, with tags going up on walls across New York City and subway cars surfacing each morning covered in elaborate new pieces, graffiti art became a political target.
The writers soon fought back with waves of protest graffiti. Using subway system maps and shared intelligence, they warned each other about which spots were safe and which were too hot, beginning what MICO called, in a New York Magazine history of graffiti, a "guerrilla war" that eventually drained the city's resources.
As a result, Snyder writes, 1970's graffiti soon "progressed from scribbled signatures done with magic markers to elaborate masterpieces done with multiple aerosol colors in the dark of night," legibility taking a backseat to style and artistic originality.
Among the iconic writers of this period were Superkool 223, who discovered that a larger spray nozzle allowed him to fill in letters more quickly and who is credited with graffiti art's first masterpiece; Tracy 168, whose work appears in the opening credits of John Travolta's classic sitcom Welcome Back, Kotter; and Phase 2, who is aptly named given his major role in ushering in a new era in the history of graffiti art.
A native of the Bronx, Phase 2 (born Lonny Wood) created the now-iconic bubble style of aerosol writing -- thick, marshmallow-like letters, also called "softies," that would feature in so many of the period's pieces. A relentless innovator, Phase 2 also pioneered many other techniques seen in graffiti before 1980, including interlocking type, arrow-tipped letters, and the use of icons like spikes, eyes, and stars.
Given his legendary status in the development of graffiti before 1980, it's no surprise that Phase 2 would also go on to play a significant role in the following decades, as graffiti art became increasingly connected with the emerging hip-hop scene.
These developments in 1970's graffiti set the stage for such new forms as the intricate "Wildstyle" brand of writing, one unique style which helped transition graffiti from simple words scribbled on lamposts to epic artworks admired around the world.
Do you have any favorite writers from back in the day? What era of street art should we cover next? Let us know in the comments!


We are currently booking our winter 2017-2018 trophy bison hunts. This year we will have four animals between three and six years of age. Two trophy bulls in their prime and weighing between 1,800 and 2,200 pounds. One young bull weighing 1,000 lbs and an open female weighing 1,200 lbs. Our bison hunts are conducted between November 1 and March 31 while the animal's coats are in their best condition.
We charge the current USDA market price for hanging carcass weight. The hanging weight is established at the processor when the hide, head and internals have been removed. Hanging weight is usually close to 50% of live weight, which we know for each animal. This allows us to give a close estimation of the end cost of the animal. For example, a live animal weighing 2,000 lbs will have a hanging weight of about 1,000 lbs. At the time of this update the USDA market price for a mature bull was $4.22/lb hanging weight, making the animal price $4,220. Processing fees and shipping arrangements are an additional cost that you will negotiate directly with the meat locker and will vary depending on what cuts and products you request. We will field dress your animal and transport your animal to the processor. We can also arrange for taxidermy services if you should require them.
Mounts and skulls are subject to availability and may require a lead time of 6-12 months on new orders. We do have two hides and one mount on hand. More will be produced as animals are harvested.
Bison steaks, ground, sausage and jerky are also now available. Please call Joe Gould for pricing and ordering info. (620)384-7868.
One of our primary requirements for you as a prospective bison hunter is that you be proficient with your weapon and be able to make a clean kill with the first shot. You will need at least a .30 caliber rifle using 180 grain bullets or larger. Rifle calibers that will work fine would be 30-06, .338, 300 Win Mag, 45-70, etc. Experienced bow hunters are also welcome. The schedule is up to you while you're here and we will conduct the hunt in any reasonable manner you wish. After the shot we will help you field dress the animal and transport it to our processing facility in Leoti, KS. You will make arrangements with Heritage Meats to have your animal processed and shipped according to your specifications. We can also deliver your head mount to Lori's Taxidermy in Lamar, CO if you should decide to use our recommended taxidermist. There is a $150 delivery fee to Lamar, CO.
People are rapidly discovering the deliciously healthy taste of bison / buffalo. Buffalo meat tastes similar to fine beef, with just a slightly sweeter and richer flavor. Bison is naturally flavorful and tender and can be prepared much the same as beef. Publications ranging from Bon Apetit to Sunset magazines are heralding bison as the meat of the future.
Bison are handled as little as possible. They spend their lives on grass, much as they always have, with no time in the feedlot. They are not subjected to questionable drugs, chemicals or hormones. The members of the NBA feel so strongly about this that they have a resolution opposing the use of these substances in the production of Bison for meat.


text:
Bellevue Breakfast Rotary Club
MEETING SITE ADDRESS
Glendale Country Club,
13440 Main St,
We meet every Friday
Doors open: 7:00 am
Program: 7:30 am to 8:30 am
About the BBRC
BBRC Club Calendar
BBRC Board Members
Global Health and Sanitation
All in For Autism 5K/10K
2016 BBRC Golf Classic
At Our Next Meeting
Speaker Program
< Friday Oct 18th, 2019
Friday Nov 01st, 2019 >
Friday Oct 25, 2019
Jasmine Donovan
President and CFO Dick's Drive-In Restaurants
"65 Years as a Seattle Icon – Dick's Drive-In Restaurants!"
Scribe: Bob Holert	Introduced by: John Martinka
Jasmine Donovan is the President and CFO of Dick's Drive-In Restaurants. Granddaughter of one of the founders and namesake, Dick Spady, she has worked at the business several times since she was 16 years old and started working full-time on the executive team in 2013. Jasmine stepped into the role of President when her father, Jim Spady, retired in late March 2019. Jasmine is on the board of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Mary's Place, and the Forum Foundation.
Jasmine graduated from Hillsdale College with a Bachelor's degree in Mathematics and Chemistry in 2006. She joined the Navy after college and was assigned as an instructor at the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Charleston, SC. During her service she was the Command Public Affairs Officer, earned her master training specialist certification, and was the Division Director of the enlisted physics teaching division. While in Charleston, Jasmine earned her Masters in Business with an emphasis in Finance at Charleston Southern University. Jasmine currently resides in North Seattle with her husband and two sons.
Jasmine Donovan, President and CFO of Dick's Drive-In Hamburgers, discussed the iconic local hamburger restaurants started by her grandfather and long-time Rotarian, Dick Spady. Dick's Drive In Restaurants has been serving Seattle customers since 1954. Prior to joining the family business, Jasmine was an officer in the Navy. Actually that is somewhat inaccurate as Jasmine worked for Dick's as a teenager and college student before enlisting in the Navy.
Dick Spady, with a partner, opened Dick's initial location on 45th Ave NE, just west of the University of Washington. Dick grew up in Portland and was drafted for World War II. He had a choice of the Army or Navy and chose the Navy. After the war, he attended Oregon State University thanks to the GI Bill. While at OSU, he joined Air Force ROTC and when the Korean War started, he was an officer and sent to Japan to run a commissary.
After the war, Dick was working for a commercial real estate company in Portland when he visited a diner that served hamburgers (a lot of them). That gave him the idea to start Dick's. He also visited McDonald's in California as they were the leader in the industry and as it turned out, his commissary experience was a great fit! Feeling Portland was not the right market, he moved to Seattle and with a partner started Dick's!
Dick was an early entrepreneur and always believed "Tell people what you want and you may get it!" A contractor was willing to build the 45th Street restaurant on an IOU as Dick and his partner lacked the finances to build it themselves. A year later, they opened the Capital Hill location and later Holman Road and Lake City Way locations. At the time, they had a Bellevue location but a major competitor, Herfy's, built right across the street. Dick's sold the Bellevue location and moved to lower Queen Anne.
No additional growth occurred until 2011 when they opened their Edmonds location on Highway 99. On November 12, 2018 they opened their new Kent location to the delight of hamburger lovers in the south-end! Jasmine then showed a movie of that opening, which had a large, hungry and grateful crowd! She also hinted a Dick's location would be coming to the Eastside in the not too distant future (no specifics)!
Sadly Dick Spady passed away on January 10, 2016 at the age of 93 but Dick's Drive-In Hamburgers continues to please customers in the Greater Seattle area under the capable leadership of Jasmine Donovan and her team.
Please Log in to make an announcement
Community Svc: Preserve Planet Earth Committee
Preserve Planet Earth Tree Planting
By Jenny Andrews
Put on your "Service Above Self" hat as we work with the Mountain to Sound Greenway Trust to plant 1000 native trees and shrubs at Lake Sammamish State Park! This event is part of 20 years of salmon habitat restoration along Issaquah Creek and Lake Sammamish. Coffee, snacks and a light lunch will be served. School-age kids are welcome at this event.
Where: Lake Sammamish State Park – south entrance then follow the signs
When: Saturday, October 26 from 10:00 – 2:00 (no problem if you can't stay the whole time, join us as you can!)
Questions: Connect with Jenny Andrews at 425-890-0204 or jenny.m.andrews@comcast.net
Club Admin: Fellowship Committee
BBRC Annual Oktoberfest
By Ann Norman
Join us for Brats and Beer, Because Oktoberfest is Here!
Bring your spouse, adult family, friends and co-workers for fellowship, BBRC style. Beer, brats, pretzels, sauerkraut and other gastronomical treats await you at the home of John and Jan Martinka. So don't be square, be there! This event costs $20 per person UNLESS you bring a German style appetizer or dessert to share, in which case you pay only $15! School age kids probably should NOT come to this event.
Where: John and Jan Martinka's home, 10819 101st Avenue NE, Kirkland
When: Saturday, October 26 from 6:30 – 9:30 PM
Questions: Connect with Robin Callan at 425-922-4074 or rcallan@advrenaltech.com
Welcome to the BBRC
Chartered in 1985, the Bellevue Breakfast Rotary Club is home to more than 100 community-minded individuals dedicated to serving above self and participating in Rotary International's mission to promote understanding, goodwill, and world peace
To help disadvantaged children and their family lead happier, healthier, and more productive lives.
To cultivate a dynamic membership that enhances our club values to serve our local and world communities, providing systemic and enduring change.
Web Design: Carolina Torres Web Development: Merrill M. Mayer
© 2020 Bellevue Breakfast Rotary Club. All rights reserved.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Lebesgue measurable set contains interval I'm working through Halmos' "Measure Theory" and encountered some problems while trying to prove a theorem, namely I "proved" that every Lebesgue measurable set of positive measure contains an open interval. But I seem to be unable to spot the error in my "proof". Could someone explain to me where it is?
$$P := \{a, b \in \mathbb{R}, a \leq b \mid [a, b)\}, S := \{A_1, A_2, \ldots \in P, \forall i \neq j: A_i \cap A_j = \emptyset \mid \bigcup_{i=0}^\infty A_i \}, U := \{ A \subset \mathbb{R}; A, \text{open} \mid A \}, \mu : P \rightarrow \mathbb{R}, [a, b) \mapsto b - a$$
Furthermore, let $S(P)$ be the $\sigma$-ring generated by $P$. Now denote by $\overline{\mu}: \overline{S} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ the completion of $\mu$, by $\mu^*$, the induced outer measure, by $\mu_*$ the induced inner measure and let $\mu$ also denote its extensin to $S(P)$.
For all $E \subset \mathbb{R}$, $\mu_*(E) = \sup \{A \in S(P), A \subset E \mid \mu(A)\}$.
$$S(P) \supset  U \implies \mu_*(E) \geq \sup \{A \in U, A \subset E \mid \mu(A)\}$$
On the other hand, it is easy to prove, that $S = S(P)$. This implies, that if $A \in S, A \subset E$, we can find $[a_1, b_1), \ldots \in P$, disjoint, such that $$\bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty} [a_i, b_i) = A.$$
On the other hand we have $\forall i : (a_i, b_i) \subset [a_i, b_i)$, and all the $(a_i, b_i)$ are therefore disjoint. This means $$\mu(A) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty b_i - a_i = \sum_{i=1}^\infty \mu((a_i, b_i)) = \mu(\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty (a_i, b_i))$$
Therefore, since $\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty (a_i, b_i) \in U$, $$\mu_*(E) = \sup \{A \in U, A \subset E \mid \mu(E) \}$$
If now $E \in \overline{S}, \overline{\mu}(E) > 0$, (since $\mu_*(E) = \overline{\mu}(E)$) there must be an $A \in U$, such that $A \subset E$ and $\mu(A) > 0$. But since an open set ($\neq \emptyset$) contains an open, non-empty interval, it follows that $$\exists(a,b): (a,b) \subset E, b > a$
Thanks for checking it out!
Morris

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
About Hun
History and Notable Alumni
Hun by the Numbers
Discover Hun
Open House and Events
Directions and Campus Map
Hun Experience
Scholars Tracks
NextTerm
NextTerm Courses
John Gale Hun Program for Civics
Skills-Based Curriculum
Centennial Speakers Series
RaiderNet
Middle School >
Your web browser does not support the <video> tag.
We've found students in The Hun Middle School benefit from the culture of participation and encouragement found in athletics, performing arts, and clubs.
In order to foster growth and development, we've built these co-curricular activities into the school day. Clubs meet once a week, usually during the period following lunch, and the last period of each school day is dedicated to sports.
Students can select a club to join on a trimester basis. The clubs may vary year-to-year based on the interests of students and faculty. Some of the clubs students can join are:
Year-Round Clubs
PoPP (Power of Positive People)
Trimester Only
Middle School Athletic Requirement
Additionally, all students are required to participate in three seasons of athletics or wellness activities. At the heart of the athletic program in the Middle School is skills development, but careful attention is also placed on the development of sportsmanship concepts, team cooperation, and self-confidence.
Athletics and wellness activities offered at the Middle School level are:
Conditioning/ physical education
Middle School Performing Arts Requirement
Enhancing our students' performance abilities is a fundamental curricular aim in The Hun Middle School. We've built the arts requirement into the curriculum, to encourage students to learn, refine, and present skills they've acquired while working with our art, music, and technology teachers.
Students can choose to study band, chorus, drama, music, or visual art. These classes meet during the school day for a full semester each. Depending on their interests, students can choose to take band or chorus for a full year, or they can split up their time between one music class and one arts class.
In the Hun Middle School, we know that building a positive school culture is the result of thoughtful, intentional programming. That's why we offer a menu of tech-free social events for our students throughout the year. These opportunities to come together as a community outside of the typical school day are an important part of our students' emotional development, with our enthusiastic teachers and mentors providing support and supervision. Here's a list of some typical Middle School Social Events, which generally take place on Friday nights during the school year:
Haunted Hayride
Raider House Party
Middle School Game Night
An Epic Gingerbread House Contest
Class Trips to NYC, Hersey Park, Philadelphia
Princeton University Night Out (basketball or ice hockey)
Trampoline Park / Laser Tag
The Hun School of Princeton
176 Edgerstoune Road Princeton, NJ 08540


This is a series of comments I recently made, that are put together for you. They show how the Anglo-American-Israeli Empire does business in the world. Do they have complete world control? No. Do they want complete world control. Yes. Are they building a new world order? If they can, they will.
Read Oded Yinon's globalist plan written almost 40 years ago. If you take the time to read it you will realize that both parties have promoted his plan. Right/left means nothing. We are ruled by the Zionist globalists. Read Yinon and you will see his plan for the world is what is happening. The Saudis read it. They are Zionists too.
And the Russians read it. They hated Clinton for good reason. She wanted to disrupt Russia. But Trump is a loose cannon. He will bend if the globalists force it on him.
Hatred of Muslims is a globalist goal. Trump is tolerated by the globalists because he is a racist like they are. We bow to racist Israel who have subjugated the Palestinians for 60 years.
.Now the globalists control economics. Not much we can do about that. But we can change the policy of regime change which is illegal and immoral.
The globalists use that idea of artificial boundaries that threw diverse people together in the Arab world as a reason to do regime change.
Read Yinon, it is all over the net. Dare to read it about the dark side Cheney spoke about. I don't have to prove Yinon. He forecast regime change himself!
Chomsky who I corresponded with, has it correct. Fringe right plans are now mainstream. Also, I emailed Yinon, and said I was of part Jewish heritage. I asked him if he felt guilty for all the Innocent Muslim women and children killed in regime change. He cursed me out. He is evil.
Western Civilization has created more unjust wars than anyone, because we are controlled by the globalists who want regime change. Our Civilization is not what the founding fathers envisioned.
Ike (President Eisenhower) warned us.
JFK was the first victim of globalist regime change.
Yinon predicted regime change, the conspiracy to commit regime change. Only thing, the Israelis didn't have to do it, the US neocons did it for them.


text:
Абрам Гинзбург:
 Гинзбург, Абрам Моисеевич (1878—1937) — революционер-меньшевик, публицист и экономист.
 Гинзбург, Абрам Мордухович (Маркович) (1911—2000) — советский инженер и конструктор, лауреат Ленинской премии.
 Гинзбург, Абрам Соломонович (1911—1996) — советский теплофизик.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


 Destiny 2: Probably The STUPIDEST Lore Yet!!! Babies First Hunter.
Destiny 2: Ace of Spades, NOW Babies First Exotic, and other BAD 2.0.3.1 Changes.
Destiny 2 Lore - Who are Nokris and Xol? Warmind DLC Enemies Lore!
Destiny 2 Forsaken Lore - Petra Venj's Ascension to Queen's Wrath! Lore from the Dreaming City!
Destiny 2 Lore - The Whisper of the Worm & The fate of Xol! Exotic Weapon Lore!


text:
package com.kaylerrenslow.armaplugin.lang.header;

/**
 * Exception for when the description.ext or config.cpp file doesn't exist
 *
 * @author Kayler
 * @since 09/09/2017
 */
public class RootConfigNotDefinedException extends GenericConfigException {

	public RootConfigNotDefinedException() {
		super(HeaderStatic.getHeaderBundle().getString("missing-root-config"));
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The best ideas are just on the right side of impossible. I don't know if this one is possible, but there are signs it might be. Making a new search engine means competing with Google, and recently I've noticed some cracks in their fortress.
The point when it became clear to me that Microsoft had lost their way was when they decided to get into the search business. That was not a natural move for Microsoft. They did it because they were afraid of Google, and Google was in the search business. But this meant (a) Google was now setting Microsoft's agenda, and (b) Microsoft's agenda consisted of stuff they weren't good at.
That does not by itself mean there's room for a new search engine, but lately when using Google search I've found myself nostalgic for the old days, when Google was true to its own slightly aspy self. Google used to give me a page of the right answers, fast, with no clutter. Now the results seem inspired by the Scientologist principle that what's true is what's true for you. And the pages don't have the clean, sparse feel they used to. Google search results used to look like the output of a Unix utility. Now if I accidentally put the cursor in the wrong place, anything might happen.
Don't worry if something you want to do will constrain you in the long term, because if you don't get that initial core of users, there won't be a long term. If you can just build something that you and your friends genuinely prefer to Google, you're already about 10% of the way to an IPO, just as Facebook was (though they probably didn't realize it) when they got all the Harvard undergrads.
Do you know the reasons behind Open and Proprietary?
Even if Google's search engine is an open source project and I have the resources to create the next generation search engine, I will not do it due to the first mover advantage and the reasonably high costs I need to fund the project to get competent personnel to do exactly what I want, there is a need to transfer of patents which I am not willing to pay. I would rather licensed it and give advice and do what I do best, rather than go into the nitty gritty of things which I have no control, the best returns is to licenced it to Microsoft, Yahoo, Baidu and Google, and let them co-operate to do the development, cause the markets is big enough for 2-3 players only, there is a great demand for certain language of searches eg english, chinese, malay etc(Horizontal competition) but not Vertical competition. Sometimes it is not feasible to support "Destructive Competition" where the introduction of new technology means the demise of a present company, in the end, you may pay even more than what the previous company paid to replace their technology, but does the new product pay you an increase demand which is many times the previous? Based on my models, it does not, and even if I can make it profitable, the destructive elements of getting new staff and premises and the extra effort is not my cup of tea. God will help me build but not destroy, I need to walk the talk I preach, or who will listen? I also need to concentrate on what I do best, if I become a software programmer writing codes, that will definitely be the end of my works, the end of everything.


text:
Q: clearing all elements from Javascript knockout observableArray. Items remain causing duplicates I am trying to create an observableArray of "Board" objects to populate a view.
I can currently add new Board objects to the array after each timed page refresh. But instead of clearing the array and then adding new boards from the foreach loop, it just adds to the existing ones causing duplicates.
$(document).ready(function() {
    refreshPage();
});

function refreshPage() {
    getGames();
    setTimeout(refreshPage, 10000);
    console.log("Page refreshed");
};

function Board(data) {
    this.gameChannel = ko.observable(data.GameChannel);
    this.HomeTeamImage = ko.observable(data.HomeTeamImage);
    this.HomeTeamName = ko.observable(data.HomeTeamName);
    this.HomeBeerPrice = ko.observable(data.HomeBeerPrice);
    this.HomeTeamArrow = ko.observable(data.HomeTeamArrow);
    this.HomeBeer = ko.observable(data.HomeBeer);
    this.HomeBeerAdjustedPrice = ko.observable(data.HomeBeerAdjustedPrice);
    this.AwayTeamArrow = ko.observable(data.AwayTeamArrow);
    this.AwayBeerPrice = ko.observable(data.AwayBeerPrice);
    this.AwayTeamName = ko.observable(data.AwayTeamName);
    this.AwayBeerAdjustedPrice = ko.observable(data.AwayBeerAdjustedPrice);
    this.AwayBeer = ko.observable(data.AwayBeer);
    this.awayTeamImage = ko.observable(data.AwayTeamImage);
    this.FullScore = ko.computed(function() {
        return data.HomeTeamScore + " | " + data.AwayTeamScore;
    }, this);
}

function vm() {
    var self = this;
    self.gameCollection = ko.observableArray([]);
}

getGames = function() {
    var _vm = new vm();
    $.ajax({
        type: "GET",
        dataType: "json",
        url: "/Dashboard/PopulateMonitor/",
        error: errorFunc,
        success: function(data) {
            _vm.gameCollection = [];
            $.each(data, function() {
                _vm.gameCollection.push(new Board(this));
            });
        }
    });

    function errorFunc() {
        alert("Error, could not load gameboards");
    }
    ko.applyBindings(_vm);
}

The issue appears within the getGames() function on or around the line
_vm.gameCollection = [];

I appreciate any help available. Not very well versed with Knockout.js

A: Every time you're calling getGames you're creating a new '_vm':
getGames = function () {
    var _vm = new vm();

Move var _vm = new vm(); to
$(document).ready(function () {
    var _vm = new vm(); // <-- HERE
    refreshPage();
});

Some lines have to be moved too, see the snippet :

$(document).ready(function() {
  _vm = new vm();
  refreshPage();
});

function refreshPage() {

  getGames();
  setTimeout(refreshPage, 10000);
  console.log("Page refreshed");

};

function Board(data) {
  this.gameChannel = ko.observable(data.GameChannel);
  this.HomeTeamImage = ko.observable(data.HomeTeamImage);
  this.HomeTeamName = ko.observable(data.HomeTeamName);
  this.HomeBeerPrice = ko.observable(data.HomeBeerPrice);
  this.HomeTeamArrow = ko.observable(data.HomeTeamArrow);
  this.HomeBeer = ko.observable(data.HomeBeer);
  this.HomeBeerAdjustedPrice = ko.observable(data.HomeBeerAdjustedPrice);
  this.AwayTeamArrow = ko.observable(data.AwayTeamArrow);
  this.AwayBeerPrice = ko.observable(data.AwayBeerPrice);
  this.AwayTeamName = ko.observable(data.AwayTeamName);
  this.AwayBeerAdjustedPrice = ko.observable(data.AwayBeerAdjustedPrice);
  this.AwayBeer = ko.observable(data.AwayBeer);
  this.awayTeamImage = ko.observable(data.AwayTeamImage);
  this.FullScore = ko.computed(function() {
    return data.HomeTeamScore + " | " + data.AwayTeamScore;
  }, this);
}

function vm() {
  var self = this;
  self.gameCollection = ko.observableArray([]);
  ko.applyBindings(this);
}

getGames = function() {
  $.ajax({
    type: "GET",
    dataType: "json",
    // placeholder:
    url: 'data:application/json;utf8,[]',
    //url: "/Dashboard/PopulateMonitor/",
    error: errorFunc,
    success: function(data) {
      _vm.gameCollection.removeAll();
      $.each(data, function() {
        _vm.gameCollection.push(new Board(this));
      });
    }
  });

  function errorFunc() {
    alert("Error, could not load gameboards");
  }
}

A: Couple of things:

*

*You shouldn't call applyBindings more than once. So, move it outside of your setTimeout.

*_vm.gameCollection = [] won't work. To clear your observableArray, use removeAll. You can also set it to an empty array like this: _vm.gameCollection([])

*Also, if you want to call the same function after an interval of time, you can make use of setInterval.

Here's a minimal version of your code. Click on Run code snippet to test it out. I have created a counter variable which updates gameCollection with new data every second.

let counter = 0;

function refreshPage() {
  getGames();
  console.log("Page refreshed");
};

function Board(data) {
  this.gameChannel = ko.observable(data.GameChannel);
}

function vm() {
  var self = this;
  self.gameCollection = ko.observableArray([]);
}

getGames = function() {
  let data = [
  {
     GameChannel: `GameChannel ${++counter}`
  },
  {
     GameChannel: `GameChannel ${++counter}`
  }];

  _vm.gameCollection.removeAll(); // <- Change here

  data.forEach(function(item) {
    _vm.gameCollection.push(new Board(item));
  });
}

var _vm = new vm();
ko.applyBindings(_vm); // this needs to be only called once per page (or element)

setInterval(refreshPage, 1000);


text:
koreaReview
HOME > Publications/E-Library > Articles
Council on Foreign Relations dialogue with Ambassador Bosworth
File : CFR Dialogue.pdf
North Korea, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Regional Security in Northeast Asia
The North Korean Nuclear Threat: Evaluating Its Twenty-Year Evolution
Speakers: Stephen W. Bosworth, Dean Emeritus, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; Special Representative for North Korea Policy, U.S. Department of State, and Han Sung-Joo, Professor Emeritus, Korea University; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea Presider: Richard C. Bush III, Director, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, and Senior Fellow, John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution April 24, 2014
BUSH: ... to chair this meeting today on the North Korea issue 20 years on. It was 20 years ago this spring that it was a really bad time to be a specialist on the Korean peninsula, because we were inching towards war with North Korea. Former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry writes in a book he did call "Preventive Diplomacy," that during that time, there was serious and intensive review and revision of our war plans, because North Korea seemed on the brink of breaking out of nuclear restraints.
North Korea was warning that it would turn Seoul into a sea of flames. And Secretary Perry writes, "We were on the brink of war that might involve the use of weapons of mass destruction."
And it's a useful time to look back, to see where we've been, what the nature of the North Korean nuclear threat is today, and what we might do about it. To examine these issues, we have two outstanding specialists and practitioners; Steve Bosworth, who is at Harvard University, and Ambassador Han Sung-Joo is Professor Emeritus at Korea University.
Each of these gentlemen has served his country with distinction, both in government and in the academy. They have thought about these issues for a long, long time. And I think they will provide us an outstanding perspective.
You have their bios in front of you. And so I don't need to go through the details. I think you'd rather listen to them than to me.
What we're going to do today is first, Ambassador Bosworth, Ambassador Han and I will have a little conversation about some framing issues. And then we'll open it up for your contributions.
So to start off with, was there a point in this odyssey when the outcome we had today became inevitable? Or were there some inflection points where we could have achieved an outcome that's much different and much better? Steve?
BOSWORTH: Well, first I would like to thank the council, and to thank you, Richard, for the opportunity to be here. I was just thinking to myself, you said 20 years ago. And it was 19 years ago, almost to the day, that I first met Dr. Han, who was then foreign minister, or recently-retired foreign minister. I'm not quite sure which.
But I was in Korea with my good friend and colleague, Choi Young-Jin. And we were coming from the Korean Energy Development Organization in New York to take a sounding in Seoul as to where we might be going with that enterprise.
I think there have been a number of inflection points. This is not a Shakespearean tragedy destined to end in a certain way. I think at various points there was the opportunity – and I hope there will still be the opportunity – to gain some degree of control over what seems all too frequently to be a kind of inexorable descent.
I would point out that it has not always been as grim. From 1994 to 2002, we know that the North Koreans did not produce plutonium. Now, they were doing other things undoubtedly that we wouldn't have liked. But they did not produce plutonium. And they did not start new plutonium production facilities.
I also happen to think that in the year 2000 to 2001, there was an opportunity to, I think at least modestly, set a new direction in the relationship, and in North Korea's course. And here, I fear that the U.S. domestic political time table got very much in the way. And that was the period from – the transition from President Clinton to President George W. Bush.
And even since 2001, there have been opportunities which, for various reasons, either because of our domestic politics, or our concerns about other events in the region, or because of North Korean's own intransigence, we were not able to take advantage of those. But I don't think It's Shakespearian in its ultimate course.
Sung-Joo, what's your perspective on the question of inevitability?
HAN: Well, actually, I'll let you on that Richard posed that question before we came here, and I thought about it. Of course, there are people who say we should have used more sticks or more carrots. But looking back, over the past 20 years, I think, if I'm a little provocative here, there were two major occasions where we probably would have, and should have done things differently.
And one is back in 1992, when the IAEA found out that there was a discrepancy between the amount of plutonium that the North Koreans reported and the amount that the IAEA and the international community suspected that they had produced.
We insisted on what's known as "special inspection," which put the North Koreans into a corner, and gave them the need, as well as the opportunity, to get out of the NPT system and the safeguard agreement that they subsequently signed. And that started the whole thing, which ended with the Geneva agreed framework.
Now, if we had not put the North Koreans to a corner, and continued with the inspection arrangements of the IAEA monitors and the cameras, and all that, it was not necessary to have the negotiation that led to the Geneva agreement. So in this case, in the interest of probing the past, we sacrificed the control of the present.
So I think we could have done differently. We probably should have done differently in this case. And when the time came for North Korea to get the main bulk of the light water reactors and ultimately dismantle their – all their nuclear facilities, then the opportunity came to the North Koreans with A.Q. Khan, and all, to develop uranium enrichment to a highly enriched uranium program.
Now, the second case I would mention is in 2002, when we had enough of a reason that they were getting into this uranium enrichment program. We – well, in this case, particularly the Bush Administration, pushed for scrutinizing or having North Korea admit that they have this program, and – which ultimately led to the dismantlement, not of the North Korean nuclear facilities, but of the Geneva Agreed Framework.
And in this case, it was sacrificing the present in favor of preventing the future prospect of North Korea engaging in the UEP. And so if we had kept the Geneva Agreed Framework, and dealt with the HEU issue in a different way, I think we most probably would have come out with a different outcome.
BUSH: Thank you very much. Thinking about the present now, I wonder if you could elaborate on what each of you thinks is the nature of North Korea's threat today, nuclear and otherwise, and who is threatened? Is it South Korea, Japan, the United States, China, all of the above? Sung-Joo, do you want to talk about that a little bit?
HAN: I think it's actually everybody that is threatened, including North Korea itself, and China. If you put them in any rank order, I think the country, the party that is most threatened is South Korea. Not only by the prospect of North Korea actually using the nuclear weapons, but also because what it does to the opportunities for North Korea to engage in provocative actions, the possibility of accidents, especially because much of this program is secret, and there's no opportunity to ensure nuclear security or safety with the program and facilities, what it does to the military balance in general, or what it does to the possibility of a military conflict, and so on.
Next to South Korea, I think it is North Korea. And then comes Japan, because of the proximity, because of the presence of the U.S. military personnel and facilities there, and China itself, with the proximity; not only with the weapons' capability, but also the fallout that might come from whatever might happen in North Korea with its nuclear facilities.
And then in medium to long term the United States, of course. And so probably Russia is the country which is I think also threatened, but not – probably the least so, among the six parties. But everybody is threatened.
BUSH: Steve, do you want to amplify on that?
BOSWORTH: Well, I agree very much with what Sung-Joo just said. I think the threat is such that we all share in the threat. To be more – to elaborate just briefly on that, I think what possession of a credible nuclear-weapons program gives North Korea is an even greater ability, capacity than they now have to act with impunity, vis-à-vis South Korea, vis-à-vis the U.S.
The things that they have done over the last 40 years, for which, in most cases, we've found a way to, I wouldn't say punish, but at least make that not cost-free. If they have a credible nuclear-weapons program – and I am persuaded they do – I think that changes the balance in Northeast Asia in a very alarming way.
The other casualty of course is the global non-proliferation regime, which for the United States in particular, has been a cornerstone of our foreign policy for half a century or more, and which has been, if you look at what's happened over that period of time, remarkably successful. There's leakage, and things happen that we would wish didn't happen, but nuclear weapons have not become sort of the household acquisition of very many countries in the world.
And I fear that North Korea's example is not a constructive one in that regard. I am somewhat puzzled and bemused by the fact that in U.S. foreign policy, and in the foreign policies of most of our partners and friends, the prospect that Iran might acquire nuclear weapons has become sort of the number-one alarm – fire alarm in the world. Whereas, North Korea, we know has nuclear weapons.
And we kind of proceed, I wouldn't say with indifference. We express a lot of outrage about it. But we don't seem to do much. So I find that bemusing, to say the least.
BUSH: I wonder if there's another casualty here, and that's the U.S. policy of extended deterrence, vis-à-vis Japan and Korea if North Korea has a proven ability to hit the United States with nuclear weapons.
BOSWORTH: Well, of course, the Soviet Union had the same ability during the Cold War. And we managed to find a way to make extended deterrence credible. I believe we could make extended deterrence credible in the case of Northeast Asia if we had to. And we may have to, given what's been going on.
I do worry about the pressures on other countries in the region, as I know the Chinese worry about that, that if North Korea goes nuclear, and seems to be getting away with it, so to speak, internal political debates in, say, Japan, and conceivably in some future existence in South Korea, could change in a way in which the possible option to go nuclear would no longer be as unthinkable as it is now.
So I think it does change that potential tone of that discussion.
BUSH: Sung-Joo, you want to comment on this, what South Korea might do if it was clear that North Korea could hit the United States, and therefore, perhaps call our commitment to South Korea into question?
HAN: Well, I don't really think that the commitment or idea of extended deterrence, especially vis-à-vis Japan, but also vis-à-vis South Korea, would be very much affected by North Korea's ability to hit the United States.
Even with the capability, the U.S. is much more defensible, than either Japan or South Korea, from the North Korean nuclear attack, partly because of the technical capability, technological capability, and the distance involved. And so I don't think it's simply a wishful thinking that that would be the case.
Clearly, there'll be a debate in South Korea as to what we should do under those circumstances if there's the slightest sign of the United States weakening its commitment. But I don't think it will ever come to a point where South Korea will actually decide that they will have to do something by way of nuclear route.
BUSH: Thank you. So we have a situation that is somewhat dangerous, highly frustrating, because we haven't been able to take advantage of the opportunities, puzzling, as Steve said, and bemusing. So what do we do about it?
Is there any chance that at this late date, we could actually get a mutually-acceptable negotiated solution? Does the United States and Japan and South Korea just have to accommodate to an emerging reality? Or should we think about some kind of containment? Steve?
BOSWORTH: Well, I think we are containing at the moment. If you look at our basic options, none of them are very encouraging or attractive. As you suggest, there is the option, which we may be moving toward, simply accepting North Korea as a nuclear-weapon state, de facto, if not de jure, and we never formally declare that.
But if they have nuclear weapons, and we're not doing anything about it, it seems to me that that's something you can't just rule out. You find some people who talk about the need for either regime change in North Korea, or a forceful military response.
If I could figure out some way to make that happen, without putting 25 million South Koreans in grave danger, I would be all for it. But I've not been able to come up with that. So I think on any political or moral basis, the notion that somehow there's a military response here, is just not right.
There is a school of thought in the United States, and I know elsewhere, which argues that China should just take care of this problem. This is – they're North Korea's ally, and North Korea's very dependent upon them for certain material benefits. So why don't they just do something about it?
And in part, that's sort of where the U.S. has been over the last couple of administrations, having spent more late nights than I want to recount, talking to senior Chinese officials about this. I don't have a high level of confidence they're going to do that.
Their dilemma's even worse than ours, because they don't – definitely do not want China to become a nuclear-weapon state...
BUSH: North Korea.
BOSWORTH: ... or North Korea to become a nuclear-weapon state. China, we can't do much about.
But on the other hand, they don't want North Korea to collapse. They don't want to have to deal with a unified Korean Peninsula, which they assume would be under South Korean sway, if you will, with a military relationship with the United States. That's, from their point of view, is a decidedly negative change in the so-called correlation of forces. And they don't see a lot of middle ground between them.
What they end up doing is advocating that the U.S. and other countries engage with North Korea. Now we tried to do that. We tried to do that many times. And I – again, having worked through all of the possible alternatives to it, I think we have, in the end, no choice but to try it again.
You find some people who talk about the need for either regime change in North Korea, or a forceful military response. If I could figure out some way to make that happen, without putting 25 million South Koreans in grave danger, I would be all for it. But I've not been able to come up with that."
And I think, while we're unlikely, to say the least, to get North Korea to unilaterally capitulate on its nuclear weapons program before we sit down to talk to them about it – which is the view of some Americans – I do think that as in the so-called Leap Day Agreement, which for reasons I still don't completely understand, fell apart quickly, I think there is the opportunity to at least slow down the North Korean nuclear program through freezes on testing, freezes on other things, including the production of plutonium, and conceivably, something in the area of uranium enrichment.
Those are very tough things to bring about. But I sort of am of the view that there are three things that are fundamental to us in dealing with North Korea as it is, not as we would like it to be, but as it is.
And this is not original with me. Sig Hecker and other people have argued this, that we should be – we should be working toward North Korea not having any more nukes, and North Korea not having any better nukes, and doing something about our concerns about North Korean export of nuclear material, the so-called Three No's.
And I think that is difficult to achieve, but not impossible. And that is, for me, a place to start. And then you move on over that, after that. And getting them to agree to give up their nuclear-weapons program, I don't see happening in the near or medium term. And in the long term, who knows.
And as people have said, if you don't try, you never will succeed. But I advocate that only because I don't see any more attractive alternative.
BUSH: Sung-Joo, do you disagree?
HAN: No, I don't disagree at all. I'm going to respond to your...
BUSH: Please. No, yes, please.
HAN: ... question.
BUSH: That was a way of asking you to respond to my question.
HAN: This is really a good opportunity to look ahead by looking back, which is the title of one of the sections in the book, "Going Critical," actually. Obviously, I don't have any magic bullet to solve the North Korean nuclear problem.
But if I can dwell in some generalities, I think I can offer some principles or guidelines in our policymaking. And I came up with six, seven of them.
And here it goes. One, we should not sacrifice the present for the sake of the past, or the future as I mentioned earlier. Secondly, I think pragmatic and strategic goals are more important than principles or ideologies. And in both cases of 1992 and 2002, those who pursued or pushed North Korea very hard were more in favor of principles than the practical results at that time.
Even now, those people who are opposed to adjusting this precondition of concrete actions by North Korea before coming to the six-party talks, they say we're sending them the wrong message, it's against our principles, and so on. I think that is something that may not be a very productive way of doing things.
Third, I think if we're not going to get a surrender document, which we cannot at this point, give and take is very important. And so, as in the case of the Geneva Accord, I think it's important to give them the stake, to implement an agreement when it's signed, or even to sign the agreement.
It is important to integrate both carrots and sticks, and of course, to use them. And to specifically answer your question, I think negotiated arrangement is better than other options, including sanctions.
And six, I would say half a loaf is certainly better than no loaf at all. So, I mean, even as you go ultimately for CVID, in order to get there, you have to settle for some less-than-perfectly satisfactory goals.
And finally, we have to always remember that in order to reverse your course, you have to stop at some point. When you drive an automobile, you can't suddenly go back – backward. So it is important that we seek to stop the increase in North Korean nuclear arsenal, nuclear capabilities, before actually reducing and dismantling them.
BUSH: Thank you both for your insights and your wisdom. The floor is now open. I should have said before that this is an on-the-record session. So none of the usual constraints are present.
BOSWORTH: Other than our inability to articulate.
BUSH: Couple of guidelines. Once I call on you, please wait for the mike. Identify yourself and your institution, and then please keep your question concise.
OK, I see a question back there, center right.
"I think pragmatic and strategic goals are more important than principles or ideologies."
—Han Sung-Joo
QUESTION: Michael Krapon, the Stimson Center. Could you both give us your assessment of North Korea's new leader and the stability of his regime?
BOSWORTH: He's your neighbor, Sung-Joo.
HAN: Well, there are basically two assessments. One is that – did you say North Korea or the leader? The leader, Kim Jong-un, is his own man. He is in fairly good control. There are others who think that he exhibits more vulnerability and weakness than control and power.
And naturally, I would go somewhere in between, probably on the side of more to his vulnerability and weakness, and the fact that he might be more acting and – acting in several meenings, acting his role to the tune decided by others. But he is on the way to become his own person.
And initially, the execution of his uncle-in-law is an indication of his – more – his sense of insecurity and his weakness than his strength. But that might contribute to consolidating his power ultimately.
BUSH: Steve, any additions?
BOSWORTH: Not too much. I think one of the disadvantages of not having virtually any contact with the North Koreans at all is that we know very little about how they are being run at present. I think there is always a tendency, in the U.S. in particular, but outside North Korea generally, to assume that somehow this one person is the decision-maker in the North Korean structure.
I have never been convinced that all of these senior generals and party officials, and others, with deep personal stakes in the continuity of the regime, are going to give all authority to a 30-year-old person with virtually no real-world experience.
So I tend to think that there is a more collective form of decision-making in North Korea about which, quite frankly, we seem to know very little. And I think as time goes on, we will see perhaps more coherence.
I think the execution was not a sign of either weakness nor strength on the part of Kim Jong-un. I think it was a sign that there were people within the upper reaches of the regime who didn't like Jang Song Thaek, and thought he was taking too much of the cream off the milk. And that in the end is what undid him.
But I have no real way of knowing. And I'm always, again, bemused by people who can tell me with great certainty what North Korea is doing and why, because I don't think we really know very much, and never have.
BUSH: OK, next. Right here.
QUESTION: Thank you. Mike Billington. I'm with the Executive Intelligence Review, Lyndon LaRouche.
You've both mentioned the importance of carrots, and of course, the general framework had very strong carrots with the nuclear plant, and food, and potentially the rail development. And there is such an approach going on now between South Korea, and Russia, and China.
In fact, Park Geun-hye sent the head of Korea Rail up to the North while Obama's coming to discuss with Russia, and potentially with China also, building rail connections. Potentially the oil connections would be with that. And yet, Obama and the neoconservatives here seem to have no interest in such an engagement, as you called it, at that level.
BUSH: Is there a question, Mike?
QUESTION: Yes, well, that's it. I mean, there seems to be nothing like that coming from the United States. Don't we need the U.S. to be engaged in this process of discussing the rail and other development that's already taking place?
BOSWORTH: Maybe not. I mean, I've thought for a long time that one of the many keys to this situation is a consensus position in South Korea as to how they would like to see it turn out. And, frankly, the divisions within the South Korean polity have always been, as they have been within the American polity, a major obstacle to effective action, vis-à-vis North Korea.
So if this is ultimately designed to produce a new form of engagement, in this case, economic engagement, I would think we have no objection to that. But I may be mistaken.
BUSH: Sung-Joo, do you have any comment?
HAN: Well, it's just – wrote an article in Korea on the occasion of President Obama's visit to Korea. And I was suggesting that the U.S. actually consider adjusting or modifying the precondition for six-party talks. There's no guarantee, of course, that six-party talks would solve the problem in any fundamental way. But it certainly would be better, and a good start to resume it.
And so I don't know about any big formula or initiative. But the Obama Administration, President Obama, started out with the very forward taking posture, and then decided – right now on a very stiff mood. And I think it has to be relaxed somewhat.
BUSH: OK. Over here.
QUESTION: Tom Davis with the Spectrum Group. Ambassador Bosworth, I would have to put myself among those Americans that you described as kind of having the general feeling, "Why don't the Chinese just fix this," I think as you put it.
But would you elaborate a little bit more on what the calculation that you perceive they go through is? It just kind of seems from the American prism that they would be better off with a major trading partner, unified South Korea, than they would with a potentially enormously troublesome nuclear-armed and unpredictable North Korea.
BOSWORTH: Sure. I guess I become more and more reluctant with the advance of age to try to explain to other countries what their national interests really are. I think this is particularly true in the case of China. I don't know China at all well enough to be able to tell Chinese, who have spent their lives deciding what their national interests are, how they should behave vis-à-vis North Korea.
I can point out to them the advantages and disadvantages of various courses of action. But in the end, only they can make that decision. And I think they simply, on their periphery, they have many, many countries on their periphery. And they don't like to see change in any case, and particularly, not change on the Korean Peninsula.
So I don't know if this is ever going to be reassessed, or what they might do. But my strong judgment at the moment is that they may apply a little bit more pressure on North Korea here, and a little bit more there. And they may certainly want to give us the impression that they, in the interest of a better relationship with the U.S. in regional harmony, are prepared to do a lot of stuff.
But so far, I haven't seen much evidence that there is much follow-through to that. So they – as I said, they don't like the decision they're faced with; a nuclear-weapons state on the one hand, or a unified Korea on the other.
And they're looking for some middle ground. And so far, they've not been able to find one which meets the ultimate objective of causing North Korea to give up its nuclear-weapons state.
BUSH: Scott Herald right here?
QUESTION: Thank you, Richard. Scott Herald of the Rand Corporation. Ambassador Han and Ambassador Bosworth, I wonder if you could put the North Korean nuclear issue in the broader context of security threats that North Korea poses to its neighbors in the region, including its chemical and biological weapons programs, including its cyber and unmanned systems programs, and its conventional strike capabilities.
There are other areas that North Korea poses risks and challenges, and the nuclear one obviously gets the most attention. But are there any prospects for enhancing our engagement with North Korea in other domains? For example, in the aftermath of the Syrian use of chemical weapons, we managed to get some forward progress there.
Is there any prospect for using that to begin a relationship with North Korea in a different domain, or to put pressure on them to come forward and make progress in some other area?
HAN: Well, clearly, there's a need to address these other issues, not only chemical, biological weapons, but missiles as well. But at the same time, I don't think it's advisable to mix the nuclear issue with these other issues. It will only make the issue more complicated and difficult beyond the one we have, which is already very much complicated.
And so the other issues are very important, and have serious security implications. But we have to deal with them separately.
BOSWORTH: I very much agree with that. I would simply come back to something I at least indicated earlier. And that is all these other things are important, and we should be trying, along with our partners in the region, to deal with them, but to deal with them vis-à-vis a nuclear-weapons state, North Korea, is much more difficult than dealing with them without North Korea having nuclear weapons. It raises the level, makes it that much more complicated.
BUSH: Saw a hand over here. Yes, Scott Snyder.
QUESTION: Scott Snyder. I'm here at the Council on Foreign Relations. As you all know, in the last couple of weeks, the North Koreans have threatened to conduct a new form of nuclear tests. And earlier this week, the South Korean foreign minister said a fourth North Korean nuclear test would be a game-changer.
I recall last year in the context of post-third North Korean nuclear test, in a moment of frankness, Susan Rice said that we're going to go through the usual drill at the U.N. Which one will it be this time after a fourth nuclear test? Do you think that the international community will treat it as a game-changer, or do you think we'll be going through the usual drill?
BOSWORTH: Well, everybody's quiet. I – first of all, I don't know if there's going to be a fourth nuclear test or not. I would suspect, yes, at some point. When, I have no idea. Maybe next week, maybe next year. I don't know.
My inclination would be to say it'll be the usual drill, because I don't sense that anyone has made the sort of strategic decisions that would be required to do anything other than the usual drill in response to a North Korean nuclear test.
HAN: North Koreans have the habit of bluffing and blustering, but at the same time, they usually do what they announce that they would do, maybe not exactly in the same way that they project, but they will. So we don't know when it will be, but they will probably follow through on that warning that they gave already.
There are, of course, speculations. And from their own point of view, there are pluses and minuses of what they would do, partly in their relations with China. So somebody in North Korea, or some group, is thinking about the strategic and tactical implications of whatever they do. And they obviously have some kind of a roadmap which they're going to follow through.
So – but the problem is that short of complete turnaround by China, even though China is gradually inching toward putting more pressure on North Korea, I think a reaction at the U.N. or other collective reaction, collective or individual reaction, would not be much more than the usual drill, not that we have other options.
Let me just make one comment about the test. We put – place enormous importance to the fact of testing. We think as if it is by testing, North Korea comes to have this big nuclear weapon they did not have before, or something. But that tends to mislead ourselves to think that by preventing them from the fourth test, we have achieved a great deal to check their nuclear development. And I think there's a danger in putting too much emphasis on it.
BUSH: To follow up on the question of game-changer versus sort of same-old-drill, is there perhaps a perverse value in North Korea's testing either missiles or nuclear devices, in that it sort of leads China step by step to conclude that their strategy's not working, that the North Koreans are playing them, and they need to consider some other approach, one that sort of punishes North Korea more than it's already done so, and does so in a more significant way?
BOSWORTH: Maybe. I don't see much evidence that we've concluded that we in the U.S. – because we continue to warn against the test. If we wholeheartedly endorse that in the interest of open diplomacy, we should be urging them on, more tests.
BUSH: Jessica Mathews?
QUESTION: Thank you. Jessica Mathews, Carnegie Endowment. Sometimes bargaining chips, if they never get spent, presumably have very little value. Has there ever been a time in your opinions when it would have made sense for the United States to say, "Yes, the war is over," or is there such a time in the foreseeable future?
BOSWORTH: Is that for... either or both of us...
My own personal view is that at some point, if we can reach – where sort of the point we were at in 2005 with the joint statement that came out of the early workings of the six-party talks, that yes, we should say, "We don't want you to have nuclear weapons, and you've sort of agreed that you won't have."
We need a peace regime to replace the armistice. Yes, let's work on that. We need diplomatic relations between all countries concerned. And some countries need energy and economic assistance. So let's work on that agenda.
We've never been able to work out the problem of sequencing. I don't know many people in the U.S. who would argue that we shouldn't move toward an end of the war, which has now been going on for more than half a century.
But when to do that is a big question. And how do you sequence that with meaningful North Korean commitments on denuclearization? And the six-party talks really broke down, in my judgment, over the inability of the participants to come up with a sequence of actions and events that all parties would agree to.
Clearly, the North Koreans want to move denuclearization to the back of the train. We want to make it the leading issue on the train. And this is not without some possibility of compromise on all sides.
But I continue to think that you're not going to reach – we're not going to reach a compromise on any of those issues if we're not talking to them. And I think we have to talk to them.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) So my question assumed or suggested "give without get," in the hopes of changing a now pretty-well broken process.
BOSWORTH: Well, "give without get," at the same time, I mean, physical capabilities in North Korea being what they are, they can barely carry on negotiations on one set of these issues, much less all of them simultaneously. I'm not sure the U.S. is any better off, quite frankly.
So you have to have some agreement on when you give and when you get. And I think, yes, within reasonable bounds, it's probably in our long-term interest to give something more – in the shorter term, and get something a little later on.
This is the dilemma that Kim Dae-jung worked his way through when he was trying to engage with the North Koreans, and came up with this formulation of "give before getting," in effect, and do the easy stuff first, and push the hard stuff off until the end. Well, South Korean politics being what it was, that didn't prove to be sustainable in the longer term. And we have the same dilemmas.
BUSH: Sung-Joo, any comments?
HAN: I think this unilateral concession, so to speak, "give," would make sense if there is a willingness on both sides to give and take ultimately.
And if that – if they cannot engage on negotiated settlement, negotiated give and take, because of the lack of trust or lack of habit of doing that, in this case, I don't think that this is the case as it was previously between the United States and the Soviet Union. I think there was some willingness to mutually give and take, mostly in the form of reducing their nuclear weapons, for example.
But in this particular sense, North Koreans feel that they need nuclear weapons, that they want to use all kinds of excuses and opportunities to keep doing that. And so unfortunately, unilateral concession, or "give," will not be reciprocated. And so that is a formula that we have to think about very carefully.
BOSWORTH: Just to add one thing to my answer to Jessica's very sensible and insightful question. I continue – I believe strongly that by focusing as exclusively on the nuclear issue as we are now, we're ignoring, as has been suggested by Sung-Joo and others, we're ignoring long-term considerations that are of great importance.
I come back to the question that was raised about railways between South Korea, North Korea, Russia, et cetera. And there was an allusion in there to the flow of natural gas, perhaps, along the Korean Peninsula.
My view is that in the longer term, starting now, the best way to deal with North Korea is not to focus just on their nuclear capability, although that is obviously a grave concern, but to focus on what I think is the underlying problem of great seriousness, which is the inherent weakness of North Korea. And as long as they are as weak as they are, and perceive that they're as weak as they are, in their calculus, the only way of dealing with that is to be able to pose a threat to the other countries in the region.
And my answer to that would be, all right, let's tie them in to a meaningful network of regional economic engagements. And energy – given my experience on the Korean Peninsula organization, and dealing with our efforts to build nuclear plants there, energy is probably the most pressing economic need that the North Koreans face.
And if you could tie them in through their own self-interest into a network of involving the flow of natural gas down from Russia into the Korean Peninsula, I think the benefits from that in the medium and longer term could be quite substantial, because it would give them a stake in stability. And now they really don't have a stake in stability. They get most when they just threaten to raise the roof.
BUSH: Jonathan Pollock?
QUESTION: Yes, Jonathan Pollock from Brookings. This is directed primarily at Sung-Joo, but either can address it. I think Steve's last comments about trying to think about North Korea's future in a wider context are very, very relevant.
In this aspect, Sung-Joo, I'd be very interested in your thoughts about the very dynamic quality now of the China–ROK relationship. After all, Madam Park has had a state visit to Beijing after her visit to the United States. Kim Jong-un has not made any travel plans of which we are aware.
China now does in excess of $250 billion a year in trade with your country, which is about more than 40 times that that they do with North Korea. The trends over time are even more in those directions.
Beyond this, the fact that the Chinese, in my judgment at least, by dint of what they have not done, have in some sense distanced themselves, in some measure politically from North Korea. The fact that the international department of the party, which used to have the primary responsibility here, does not anymore.
The only visitors from China to North Korea that we are aware of over a period of time now have been foreign ministry officials, and with all due respect to diplomats. It's not the most...
BOSWORTH: We agree.
QUESTION: Yes, right. So my question – and I see Richard waving his hands – is there some other story? Is there a different dynamic here, particularly as we looked about how China weighs its longer-term interests in Korea vis-à-vis both Pyongyang and Seoul?
HAN: I think the Chinese are talking among themselves. They're thinking about this issue. And as you know, they're allowing meetings, for example, in Beijing, to talk about the future of Asia in a euphemistic way.
And so both in the person of Xi Jinping, and within the leadership, there is a soul-searching of what to do with North Korea, as opposed to until now, when China always had the clear thought of keeping North Korea afloat beyond all other issues.
And so we have a little bit of opening there. In that regard, this evolving relationship between South Korea and China is a positive thing for everybody, not only South Korea itself, but including the United States as well.
BOSWORTH: Not really anything to add to what I said earlier, no.
BUSH: OK. We have time for one more brief question. Right over here.
QUESTION: Lloyd Hankegon Spalding. Picking up Ambassador Bosworth's comment earlier about North Korea being in fact a de facto nuclear state, have we developed an arrangement with them as a pragmatic matter, as we did with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, to guard against false launches?
BOSWORTH: It would be some magical solution if we had, because I'm not aware. We don't talk to them.
BUSH: It does raise an interesting question – have the Chinese talked to them about it?
BOSWORTH: Well, one would hope, but...
BUSH: I think we've come to the end of our time. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you for your questions. Please join me in thanking Steve Bosworth and Han Sung-Joo.
Family Site --------- 아산정책연구원 통일부 외교통상부 고려대학교 일민국제관계연구원
#504 Hannam Officetel, 6 Hannam-daro 36-gil, Yongsan-gu, Seoul 04417 TEL:794-4199 FAX:798-4199
COPYRIGHT(C) 2009~2017 IPSIKOR ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


Need a job done right the first time call Dino Electric, satisfaction is always guaranteed.
Dino Electric has been a fundamental piece of Union City for the better half of 7 years. Luis is a certified master electrician specializing in residential & commercial work. Growing up in the area Luis has built a reputation as a reliable and affordable electrical contractor.
His repeat and loyal customers prove that quality care and customer service are the most important part of Dino Electric. If you want it done right, Dino Electric is the best fit.
No job is too big or too small for us, call Dino Electric today for all your electrical needs.


Far too many companies achieve a low Return on Strategy™ or no return at all. Existing literature on strategy focuses much on making up a recipe telling exactly what to do in order to obtain success. However, many companies fail or move into underperformance at some stage. Moreover, even companies that have adopted a seemingly "right" strategy may fail when the ("right") strategy is to be executed.


Born and raised in Omaha, Lauren Burns has wanted to do hair since she was a little girl. From that time, Lauren Burns has focused her life in the direction of hairdressing.
Although she loves all aspects of being a professional stylist, Lauren says her passion is with color. Throughout her career, she has been trained as an exceptional colorist with industry leaders such as Beth Minardi, Tabatha Coffey, and Nick Arrojo. As a compliment to her color expertise, Lauren has immersed herself in the world of Bumble and bumble through in-salon BbLive classes as well as cutting and styling classes at the Bumble and bumble University in New York. Lauren has also completed advanced training in men's grooming through American Crew.
Lauren is everyone's best friend. She is dedicated to building deep relationships with her guests by offering precision services while honoring personal creativity and individual diversity. Continually raising the benchmark in the Beauty Industry for exceptional service, Lauren delivers unparalleled guest experiences focusing on the complete visit from beginning to end.


Today on the show I'm proud to share an awesome conversation with Art Santana and Dylan Snow from Ground Kontrol classic arcade! We get some great insight in to Art's gaming life and career as well as his newest endeavors. Dylan and Art also share their experiences hitting the convention circuit over the last few weeks including PAX West and Rose City Comic Con!


….a center of excellence in educational research and Islamic Thought whose main interest is carrying out evidence-based research in advancing education in Muslim societies and disseminating this research through publication and translation, teaching, policy recommendations, and strategic engagements.
The concept for IIIT was developed at a meeting held in Lugano, Switzerland that was attended by many luminaries of the Global Muslim Brotherhood including Youssef Qaradawi. IIIT was founded in the U.S. in 1980 by U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leaders including Iraqi-born Jamal Barzinji and Hisham Altalib who wished to promote the Islamization of Knowledge as conceived by Ismail Al-Faruqi and who were also early leaders of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). A 1991 internal document of the US Muslim Brotherhood, introduced as evidence in the holy Land Foundation trial, included IIIT in "a list of our organizations and organizations of our friends." IIIT was associated with the now defunct SAAR Foundation, a network of Islamic organizations located in Northern Virginia that was raided by the Federal government in March 2002 in connection with the financing of terrorism and both organizations had been under investigation at that time by the U.S. Justice Department until at least mid 2007. The organization appeared to have withdrawn from public view following the 2002 raids but seems to be enjoying a renaissance of late. The IIIT Council of Scholars has included a number of important individuals from the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood such as Ingrid Mattson, the former President of ISNA. IIIT has a network of affiliates located in Europe, Africa, the MIddle East, and Asia and is heavily involved with publishing and promoting publications by Global Muslim Brotherhood leaders including Youssef Qaradawi.


Click here and use the discount code Dawkins to get 20% off this one-of-a kind Chocolate Thunder shirt.
On November 13th, 1979, the Sixers took on the Kansas City Kings at Municipal Stadium in KC. The Sixers were 12-3, on their way to an NBA Finals appearance against the LA Lakers. The Kings, led by the diminutive but explosive backcourt of Otis Birdson and Phil Ford, had stumbled out the gate to start the season, but would eventually right the ship and make the playoffs.
But context isn't really necessary to understand what happened on that November in Kansas City. 38 seconds into the 3rd quarter, Daryl Dawkins took a pass from Maurice Cheeks on the low box, spun to his left as he took a single dribble, then took off into the sky with no one to obstruct his path. He put his full power into the slam, and the strength of the 6'11", 250 pound 21-year old was more than the glass backboard could handle. As he slammed the ball home, the glass shattered as if he had hit it with a sledgehammer, and large shards of glass began to rain down on the court. Kings forward Bill Robinzine memorably covered his face with his hands and took off running. Dawkins nonchalantly ducked his head and walked out of bounds slowly.
Dawkins was known for being an eccentric and for naming his dunks (previous examples included the In-Your-Face Disgrace and the Spine Chiller Supreme). He knew he needed a special name for this one. A week later, he immortalized it as the The Chocolate-Thunder-Flying, Robinzine-Crying, Teeth-Shaking, Glass-Breaking, Rump Roasting, Bun-Toasting, Wham-Bam-Glass-Breaker-I-Am-Jam.
Dime: How did the nickname Chocolate Thunder originate?
DD: Stevie Wonder used to come the ball games and they would have a guy sitting with him. And the guy would be holding on to his arm, telling him what's going on, and he would say, "Hey, the big chocolate guy just put down a thunder dunk. The chocolate guy with another monster dunk." And Stevie Wonder actually gave me the nickname Chocolate Thunder. So a guy who never saw me can give me that name. I think I can wear that well.
If you want to wear Chocolate Thunder well, you can purchase it here.


text:
50 YEARS AGO, THE DAY U.S. PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS ASSASSINATED
HOW PEOPLE IN BEVERLY HILLS REACTED 50 YEARS AGO, THE DAY U.S. PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS ASSASSINATED.
(A NOTE WRITTEN BY BOOTS LeBARON TO HIS THREE-YEAR-OLD SON BRANDON ON THE DAY J.F.K. WAS ASSASSINATED)
Dear Brandy: It's 2:55 p.m. Friday, Nov. 22, 1963. Although it's the kind of day that makes life worth living — a beautiful blue-sky day in Beverly Hills — a horrifying thing happened in Dallas, Texas just a few hours ago. John F. Kennedy, President of our country, was killed while traveling in his motorcade in downtown Dallas. Just thinking about him, I have a lump in my throat. I feel like I've lost a friend. We've lost a President who not only had the potential to be a great leader, but had a presence on television that made you love him. Who knows what history holds, but to me and your mom he was the caring, good-guy President. Ironically, here I sit in an office at Rogers & Cowan, a large theatrical PR firm in Beverly Hills, writing a story about Cliff Edwards, who was the voice of the famous Walt Disney insect, Jiminy Cricket. I had interviewed him in his small bungalow on Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood. He lay in bed the entire interview. Empty booze bottles were scattered all over the place. An oil painting of Mickey Mouse, signed by Walt Disney, hung over the mantel. The pathetic old guy has outlived a vital young leader. I guess that's show business. The devastating news was brought to me by Paul Bloch, a 24-year-old publicist who works at R&C. There was a faint smile on his lips when he stuck his head into the room and told Vic Heutschy, another publicist, and I that President Kennedy had been shot. At first we thought he was making a bad joke. I remember saying, "Who you kidding, Paul?" He wasn't. Instantly, I left my Remington — I'm head feature writer at R&C (Actually, I'm the only feature writer) — and walked through the offices. It's interesting how people react to tragedy. Paul had a smile on his lips, but I'm sure he wasn't smiling inside. When I worked on the police-beat for the Times, covering everything from suicides to homicides, I discovered that every person copes with tragedy differently. Everybody has their own emotional time clock, and it clangs in different ways. As I walked through R&C, alarms were going off right and left. For example: Erma Bergstrom, a white-haired secretary in her 60s, continued working with dry eyes, while a young secretary who worked at a desk next to Erma was a pitiful mess. Her mascara was running, her eyes were bloodshot, and there were tears running down her cheeks. Trying to blot them with a soiled hanky, she was weeping pathetically. Two other secretaries, Myla Page and Greta Liebowitz, sat in the boss's (Warren Cowan) office quietly discussing the assassination. There were no tears, no frowns, no sighs. It was if they were talking about a movie. An hour later, Myla's alarm triggered. Her lips were quivering, tears were streaming down her face, her nose was pink from blowing. In Teme Brenner's office (another R&C principal), publicists Dick Israel and Dan Jenkins were sitting in a cloud of despair. I listened as they discussed the shooting. It sounded so clinical. Jenkins said that the assassin was probably mentally deranged. Dick suggested that the Mafia might be the culprits. After a minute of listening to that bullshit, I got out of there. Vic Heutschy, a talented publicist I've known since our L.A. High School days, had his own theories: (1) A professional hit man hired by a foreign country. (2) A Southerner who's opposed to the President's Civil Rights efforts. (3) Some "glory nut" who's out for the notoriety. There's a lot of sickos in this world, Brandy. When I suggested another possibility, an assassin hired by a political party, Vic saw that as preposterous. Who am I to argue with a UCLA grad? Myla just walked by wearing dark glasses covering a set of puffy eyes. At lunchtime, Paul Block told me he had lost his appetite, so Vic and I left without him. We walked down Beverly Drive and along Wilshire Boulevard. We stopped by a brokerage firm to check the stock market. He had invested in Cinerama Inc. (more) Then we visited BOAC where your mother works at the front desk as a ticket agent. She was all chocked up. Your mom and I had an argument this morning. I was angry as hell at her. But after the news about Kennedy, the anger vanished. Funny, I can't even remember what we were fighting about. Vic and I walked across the street to a restaurant. It was so crowded we went to Blum's. There we bumped into Paul. Apparently his appetite returned because he had an awful lot to eat. Maybe that was his time mechanism registering. The streets of Beverly Hills appeared less crowded than usual at lunchtime. There were very few pedestrians smiling. One well-dressed middle-age guy was red faced and laughing. Who knows why? After lunch, I left Vic and Paul and walked up Canon Drive to Dr. Hoffman's office. He's a cardiologist. Two week ago he put me on a diet and told me to start working out. I lost ten pounds. I'm down to my fighting weight: 190. When I entered his office, the reception room was filled with older people. I was the only person under 50. As the doctor was examining me, he told me he was angry and depressed. If he knew he could contact all of his patients, he would has closed the office. After checking me over, he told me that I'll live and not to come back. I stopped at the pharmacy and asked the price of a fancy pack of licorice. The pharmacist told me have one on him, "no charge."  On the way back to Rogers & Cowan two ladies walked by. One was wearing a gray fur stole. Her hands covering her face, she was wracked with sobs. Trying to comfort her, her companion guided her along the sidewalk. A lot of people loved John F. Kennedy. I was feeling pretty good when I got back to the office. But when I opened the door, I was hit by gloom. Mechanisms were triggering right and left. That was 4:45 p.m. Vic, Paul and I talked about Kennedy's successor. Not that I am an authority on politics, I said that I was afraid that if Sen. Barry Goldwater became president, we would be in World War III. I'd probably vote for Nixon ahead of Goldwater or Rockefeller. Vic agreed about Goldwater. And if I remember our conversation, he wasn't impressed with Rockefeller either. Rockefeller is a mushmouth. He just doesn't impress me. He certainly doesn't have the appeal that Kennedy had. Vice-president Lyndon Johnson was sworn in on the plane and I heard his speech on TV after he landed in Washington D.C. It was brief and ended with: "I will do the best that I can do. I ask your help and God's." Nobody in the office was overly optimistic about the future of our country with Johnson at the reins. Anyway, Brandy, tomorrow is Saturday and we are going to buy you your first bed. You've been sleeping in a crib for almost three years. It's now 5 p.m. British Overseas Airways Corp. (BOAC), where your mom works, locked its doors about 1 p.m. today. But JoAnne will probably have to work until 5:30 p.m. Then we'll pick you up at nursery school and maybe go for dinner at the El Cholo. How will that be?
Your Dad, Boots
(The J.F.K. story is one of many featured in Boots LeBaron's new book, THE HUMAN RACE. The book, available on Amazon/Kindle and contains humorous and inspirational views of life, death, courage, the workplace, spirituality, love, heartbreak and Hollywood as told through interviews, essays and light poetry)
Pres. Kennedy
Boots, someday I will tell you where I was when pres. Kennedy wAS assassinated, another of my interesting 'war stories.'