Tag Archives: 1960

Fashion, music, politics, sports

[Oct. 14, 1960] Side by Side (the third Presidential debate)

8 Comments

Submitted for your consideration, a logistical nightmare.

Imagine you are a television producer hosting the first ever series of TV Presidential debates.  Both candidates of the two parties that matter have agreed to spar on a weekly schedule, and each event promises to be a ratings bonanza.  Your first two shows live up to expectations, and you lick your chops in heady anticipation of number three.

And then you learn that your special guests are busy campaigning on opposite sides of the country that day. 

What do you do?  The show obviously must go on!  Thank goodness for Bill Bradshaw of Cincinnati's WKRC and his stunning invention, "Split Screen."  You may have seen examples of this technique in recent episodes of Howdy Doody; two completely different images are stitched together, live, so that they can be seen at the same time by the viewer.

As a result, even though last night Jack Kennedy was in Los Angeles, and Dick Nixon was in New York, through the miracle of Split Screen, the two were closer to each other than ever before.  The third debate was quite a spectacle.

Interestingly, though the presentation was wildly different from the previous debate, the format was identical.  Neither candidate was allowed an opening or closing statement.  Rather, they were once again grilled by a panel of professional grillers, two from the networks, and two from print media.

Here's what the candidates had to say:

If the Formosan islands of Quemoy and Matsu made a guest appearance in the last debate, they were full-fledged co-stars in this one.  In the last debate, these two pieces of real estate just a few miles off the coast of Red China, ownership disputed by Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Tse Tung, were dismissed as indefensible by Senator Kennedy and declared the frontline for Democracy by Vice President Nixon. 

The third debate opened up as if the second had never stopped with a question of Senator Kennedy: "You've called the Vice President 'Trigger Happy' over Quemoy and Matsu; are you willing to stand up for West Berlin?"

Without blinking an eye, Kennedy asserted that, as President, he would stand by all of our allies whose sovereignty we had guaranteed by treaty, particularly West Berlin.  Nixon, flustered, assured his audience again and again that Republicans are not "Trigger Happy," and that it was the Democrats who had led us into war the last three times.

At this point I fished around my junk drawer for some twine to wrap around my face, my jaw having fallen quite open.  It was an awfully silly move to suggest that American involvement in the two World Wars and Korea were somehow bellicose acts, and to imply that a Republican would have sat idly by and watched 1) the Kaiser smash the Allies, 2) Hitler enslave Europe while Japan enslaved Asia, and 3) Communism triumph over the entire Korean peninsula. 

In response to the next question, the Vice President refused to detail the level of response to which he would commit over Quemoy and Matsu.  He had difficulty articulating why his desire to defend the islands was so much greater than President Eisenhower's. 

The Senator noted that Quemoy and Matsu did not fall under the ambit of the 1955 Treaty under which America guaranteed the defense of Formosa.  Nixon countered that Kennedy had been one of the few Senators to oppose an amendment to that treaty which expressed a resolution to defend the islands, nevertheless. 

But then the Vice President suggested that the loss to Mao of two small spits of earth would be tantamount to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.  Kennedy lunged in with a cutting jab (I paraphrase): "I can't see why the Vice President is so concerned over Quemoy and Matsu, five miles from Red China, when he showed so little concern over the Communist takeover of Cuba, 90 miles from Florida."

When the Vice President later defended the Eisenhower administration's record on stopping the spread of Communism, specifically in Indochina, Senator Kennedy once again singed his opponent noting that Communism hadn't been stopped in Tibet, Budapest, Laos, Guinea, Ghana, or Cuba. 

In the last debate, Kennedy stated that America should not attempt another summit with the Soviet Union until the nation was militarily stronger so as to have a better position from which to negotiate.  When asked in this debate to articulate his point further, the Senator stated that our airlift capacity needed to be immediately improved so that we could more quickly come to the aid of beleaguered allies.  He also urged rapid deployment of the Minuteman and Polaris nuclear missile systems.  Kennedy encouraged a stronger push toward disarmament discussions and an end to above-ground nuclear testing. 

Nixon's response was characteristically (for this debate) weak, echoing Kennedy's points but mostly saying that Eisenhower hadn't been sitting on his thumbs when it came to defense and pushing for disarmament.

Domestic issues were the subject of about half of the debate.  Kennedy proposed granting the executive office more methods to resolve labor disputes.  The Vice President wanted to keep a largely hands-off approach.  The Senator discussed reviewing and potentially reducing depletion allowances, tax credits offered to energy companies.  Nixon asserted that these credits were vital to the nation's economy. 

Speaking of the economy, the Vice President wants to accelerate its growth was to lower taxes, reduce racial discrimination, and stimulate higher education.  Kennedy noted that the Republicans had blocked every attempt to pass legislation that would do those things. 

On the issue of reducing the trade imbalance, which is depleting our nation's gold reserves, Nixon said he would balance the budget, increase exports, and encourage other countries to support the poor countries in Latin America and Africa.  Kennedy said "ditto" (though he took much longer to do so) and added that he would try to get other nations to eliminate tariffs on American goods.  Neither candidate was particularly strong in this segment.

A nice moment came when Kennedy was asked what he thought of the Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard's declaration that he was voting for Nixon.  The Senator graciously defended the Vice President, insisting that in no way should Nixon be identified with the racist group.  The Vice President took the opportunity to declaim racial discrimination, repeating his first debate point that it is not only wrong and economically debilitating, but makes us look bad in front of the Russians.

Speaking of first debate echoes, Kennedy again maintained that his budget was balanced despite the emphasis on new programs.  Nixon called Kennedy's plan a "mirror game," and that it must unbalance the budget.  He went on to criticize the Senator's suggestion that the national debt might be reduced through inflation.  That's not quite what Kennedy had said, however (Kennedy noted that he did not recognize his proposals when paraphrased by Nixon).  Rather, the Senator had proposed interest rates be lowered to reduce the interest burden on the debt. 

The debate wrapped up with a question on how one might measure the prestige of the United States, which Kennedy insists is on the decline.  The Senator proposed four methods: 1) counting the number of countries trying Communist rather than Democratic governments, 2) gauging the success a superpower has in outer space, 3) Gallup polling, 4) and tabulating support for U.S. initiatives in the United Nations. 

Nixon's response was that it was defeatism and the giving up Quemoy and Matsu that would lead to a loss of national prestige.  Otherwise, we're doing just fine.

And there the contest ended.  I don't know about you, but it was definitely the Senator's night.  Kennedy came off feisty and detailed; Nixon was stuttering and vague.  I imagine that, if you are fine with the policies of the current administration and think Nixon will continue with more of the same, you'll be happy to cast your ballot for the Vice President.  But if presentation sways you at all, I suspect you drifted just a little bit to the Left last night.

Up next: fiction reviews!

8 Comments Leave A Comment
Conventions/Performances

[Oct. 12, 1960] For the Girls (a mini-convention in Seattle)

5 Comments

There's no question about it–conventions are here to stay.

Remember the first "Worldcon," when a whopping nine fans (all men) showed up in New York?  Now the annual event always draws hundreds of attendees, and I suspect someday soon it will break the thousand-fan barrier.  Since the War, a number of regional conventions have also sprung up: Westercon, Boskone, Eastercon, Disclave, Midwestcon, Lunacon…

And those are just the big formal ones.  There are plenty of smaller events–irregular gatherings associated with local clubs or movements. 

One that I've enjoyed over the past several years is a little Seattle event run by a gang of highly motivated and talented female fans.  These are ladies who have seen the 90/10 split between male and female authors (on a good day) and want to see things improve.  As always, the shindig was a great opportunity to engage in intellectual discussions, meet like-minded fans, and learn about up-and-coming female science fiction and fantasy talents.

Perhaps the most valuable episode, for me, was a group conversation regarding liking and recommending fiction that contains troubling elements.  For instance, what do you do when your favorite author includes demeaning depictions of certain races in her/his story?  Or when a creator turns out to be a horrible person in private life?  To what length can you diassociate yourself from the bad parts to continue enjoying the good?  And do you mention the bad bits when recommending the works to your friends?  Do you not recommend them at all?  It's a highly nuanced issue.

In the end, the consensus was that everybody has their breaking point (for me and Randall Garrett, for instance, it was Queen Bee), but up to that point, we can enjoy what we enjoy without feeling guilt.  If something really bothers us, we can write letters to the authors and editors and urge them to alter their practices.  And when it comes to recommendations, honesty is the best policy.  Even if you worry that mentioning some teensy-weensy little thing will poison someone's perception of an entire work, it is important that: 1) the recommendee know what s/he is getting into, and 2) that it is understood that you are not blind to the troublesome issue.

On that philosophical note, here are some photos from the gathering!

It's still World War 2 in some places:

(smallsleepingroyal)

Disney remains a perennial source of popular costumes:

Here's an interesting take on the "Bat-girl":

And a rather dapper fellow from another era:

Here are some attendees who came in their street clothes (more or less):

There was even a tiny dealer's hall!

(Becky and James Hicks of Little Vampires; dig their Breakfast at Tiffany's parody!)

(Crystal of Crystal's Idyll)

And, of course, yours truly. 

Thanks to all of you lovely people who made our weekend so enjoyable We will be back next year.

Stay tuned: the third Kennedy/Nixon debate is airing tomorrow.  I hope you'll all join me for this prime-time event so that we can compare notes the next day…

5 Comments Leave A Comment
Fashion, music, politics, sports

[Oct. 8, 1960] Tarnished Images (the Second Presidential Debate)

6 Comments

Something has been lost, recently.  Call it innocence or naivete.

In ancient times, a national leader was a mythic figure.  The average citizen never caught a glimpse of the sovereign, except maybe as a stylized sculpture or a face on a coin.  This gulf between the commoner and ruler inspired reverence and fear.  The leader was no mere mortal.  In fact, often, the King or Emperor was a God.  A lesser God, perhaps, but still a deity. 

The American President is hardly a God, but the Executive Office yet holds an element of majesty.  Our great leaders are enshrined as statues and on currency.  Even when we disagree with a President's policies, we still pay great respect to the position (if not the person).

I think this is all about to change.  Thanks to the miracle of television, the distance between the electorate and the President is negligible.  Watching Senator Kennedy and Vice President Nixon spar in the second televised debate last night, I felt no sense of awe, no feeling that these were extraordinary people.  I might as well have been watching two fellows compete for the mayorship or a seat on the school board. 

Perhaps this is a good thing.  After all, the President is a human being, and we want a human to represent us, don't we?  Still, I can't help feeling a pang of regret at the close of a (rose-tinted) era.

This may have been exacerbated by the format of the second debate, which was quite different from that of the first.  In the first contest, both candidates were allowed long opening and closing statements.  This afforded them a bit of dignity and gave a detached air to the proceedings.  The second debate was a more impromptu affair–strictly a question and answer session.  The candidates addressed each other far more directly.  They weren't talking to us anymore–they were talking near us. 

The Nixon I saw last night was far more poised and rested than the one I saw just two weeks ago.  Kennedy, on the other hand, seemed a little lost and occasionally shrill.  As for the content of their words, both said a lot of compelling things, but without an army of fact-checkers, it is difficult for me to gauge their value.  Here are some highlights:

Regarding foreign policy, management of which is perhaps the President's greatest duty, Kennedy seemed to take a conciliatory tone toward the East.  He conceded that U2 spy plane flights are necessary for national security, but that lying about the flights caused the recent Summit in Paris to fail.  The Senator also described the Taiwanese islands of Quemoy and Matsu, lying just a few miles off the coast of Red China, as indefensible and that World War Three should not be started over them should Mao make a move to grab them. 

On the other hand, Kennedy stated that America must be militarily and economically stronger before heading back to the Summit table.  Kennedy asserted that our national prestige was at an all-time low, and that we had all but abandoned Latin America and Africa to the Communists.  When President, he promised, he would address these issues. 

Nixon, of course, disagreed vehemently.  He noted that eight Latin American dictators had been toppled during the Eisenhower administration (though what role we had in that, he didn't say).  The Vice President asserted, and I think he's right, that Khruschev never intended to attend the Summit in good faith because the Premier had no chance of getting what we wanted: a resolution of the Berlin issue favorable to the Soviet Union.  Nixon drew a sharp line around Quemoy and Matsu.  He also contended that the situation in Cuba might yet be salvaged.  The Vice President noted that 600 million people had gone behind the Iron Curtain during the Truman Presidency, but during the Eisenhower term, Communism had been stopped in Indochina, in Formosa (Taiwan), and in Lebanon. 

On the issue of Civil Rights, which neither candidate had really discussed in the first debate, Nixon stated that he would pursue equal opportunity employment in government contracts and support federal spurring of education integration.  He urged the end of discrimination not just because it is right, but because it gives fodder to Khruschev to denounce our country. 

Kennedy's response was, essentially, that Nixon and Eisenhower might pay lip service to ending racial discrimination, but neither of them are really serious.  The Vice President replied that his efforts had been hamstrung by a lack of support in Congress, and in any event, Kennedy could not be trusted so long as he retained pro-segregation Lyndon Johnson as his running mate.

On the economy, Nixon's statements were contradictory.  On the one hand, he asserted that the country is not going into a recession, but should it, he would stimulate the private sector with tax cuts without increasing federal spending.  Later, however, Nixon said he would raise taxes, even as early as next year, if he felt it would be necessary to balance the budget.

Kennedy stated, as he did in the last debate, that the key to improving the national economy is federal stimulus.  Medical care for the aged under Social Security.  More financial aid to the poor.  Federal funding of education.  He maintained that his platform would not require increased taxes and that he was opposed to raising taxes in the near future for fear of increasing unemployment and causing deflation.  Nevertheless, the American people, he said, should be prepared to pay more taxes, and to otherwise make sacrifices, to preserve and enhance the nation as a whole.

Distilled to the essence, Nixon touted the record of the Eisenhower administration and promised more of the same: slow, steady progress.  Kennedy castigated the Republicans (while refraining from directly attacking the President) and claimed that only the Democrats could bring real change. 

There are two more debates in this series.  Now that we have seen Kennedy and Nixon on both strong and weak days, I'd be interested to see if the debates sway significant numbers from one camp to another.  Either way, I think the experience of watching the two candidates struggle their way through hours of verbal wrestling has gone a long way toward reducing these would-be Titans to simple humans. 

The Bronze Age of Heroes is over.  The Iron Age has begun.

6 Comments Leave A Comment
Science / Space Race

[Oct. 5, 1960] Point-to-point (Courier, the first active communications satellite)

9 Comments

How do you talk to someone on the other side of the planet?

At the dawn of civilization, one might dispatch messengers via horseback (or fast runner in the Western Hemisphere, horses being unknown until the Conquistadores came).  That might take months or even years.  Smoke signals and heliographs were a little better, but they still were limited to line of sight transmission. 

The telegraph was a revolution.  Now, messages could travel from point to point at the speed of light.  A few decades later, telephones enabled live conversations at great distance.  Radio broadcasts shrunk the world further, broadcasting messages wirelessly throughout the globe.

But neither the telephone nor radio are perfect solutions to the presented problem.  With telephones, both parties need to be physically connected to each other.  Radio is notoriously unreliable at great distances.  Things are worse if you're in the military–neither phones nor the wireless are secure: wires can be tapped, and radio is broadcast in the clear.

What you really want is a tight-beam radio broadcast, one that could be directed at any recipient without need for wires.  But for that, you'd need a series of repeating towers that provide service anywhere on Earth.  That's a tall order.  Not only is it expensive, but pesky oceans get in the way.  You could get away with fewer towers if they were tall enough, but how do you construct a 100-mile high repeating tower?

Easy.  You build just the top of the tower–and launch it into orbit, where it can be overhead indefinitely.  And that's just what the U.S. Army Signal Corps did yesterday (October 4) with its brand-new communications satellite, aptly dubbed "Courier." 

Courier is a revolution.  Where Project Score, launched two years ago, merely sent a pre-recorded message, and NASA's recent Project Echo only reflects signals off of its balloon surface, Courier is an "active repeater."  This means it can receive messages from a transmitter, then wait until the recipient is in sight to deliver them.  It's secure…and fast.  Courier can relay 68,000 words per minute, enough to send an entire King James Bible in 11 minutes!  And all one needs is a receiver that can hear the frequencies on which Courier transmits.

Yesterday's launch was actually the second time the Army tried to launch a Courier; the first attempt on August 18 ended prematurely thanks to a balky Thor Able-Star booster.  But the current mission is a complete success; the 500 pound, 51-inch wide sphere has already been used to send a message from the President (at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey) to Secretary of State Christian A. Herter (at the United Nations, by way of Salinas, Puerto Rico). 

We've come a long way in the three years since Sputniks, with triumphs ranging from moon probes to weather satellites to space dogs.  The next three years will be even more exciting: manned orbital shots, probes to Venus and Mars, space telescopes, commercial communications satellites…and who knows what else!

9 Comments Leave A Comment
Magazine

[Oct. 2, 1960] Second-rate fun (November 1960 IF Science Fiction)

10 Comments

Galaxy's little sister, IF Science Fiction has settled into a predictable format.  Filled with a number of "B" authors, mostly neophytes, it generally leads with a decent novelette, and the rest of the stories are two and three-star affairs.  I don't think the blame can be put on IF's shadow editor, Fred Pohl (Horace Gold is all but retired these days, I understand).  Rather, this is about the best quality one can expect for a penny a word. 

That said, the stories in IF are rarely offensively bad, and perhaps some day, one of these novices learning the ropes of writing in the minor leagues will surprise us with a masterpiece.

Preamble out of the way, let's take a look at the November 1960 issue:

Jim Harmon is actually quite the veteran, and he has a knack for interesting, off-beat writing.  His novelette, Mindsnake, depicts a future where interstellar teleportation is possible, but fraught with risk.  Only the Companions, colloquially known (and disparaged) as Witches, can keep a traveller's mind intact over the long journey.  Good stuff, and original.  Four stars.

Then we have the short Superjoemulloy by unknown Scott F. Grenville.  How can the most powerful man challenge himself?  By creating a superior version of himself, of course.  Three stars.

Now, I was a bit dismayed to find Daniel Keyes in the Table of Contents.  Whenever I see a "big name" in IF (and there is no question that Keyes is a big name: he won the Hugo this year for Flowers for Algernon), the story is usually a second-rater.  Sure enough, The Quality of Mercy, which clunkily mixes sentient computers with organ transplants and mandated euthanasia, is a bit of a talky mess.  Two stars.

R.A. Lafferty is a fellow who may surprise us some day.  He seems to be enjoying an upward trajectory with his stories, not just in quality but in venue.  McGonigal's Worm, in which every animal on Earth loses the ability to breed, is sort of a poor man's Brain Wave.  Read it, and you'll see what I mean.  Three stars.

Esidarap ot Pirt Dnuor is an engaging little tale of tourism in a rather backward place, brought to us by Lloyd Biggle, Jr, who spends much of his time appearing in Fantastic.  I liked it, but I'm afraid I didn't get the final joke–an Un-Prize to anyone who can explain it to me.  Three stars.

I was gratified to find that, per his book review column, Fred Pohl liked much the same stories in Aldiss' Galaxies like Grains of Sand as I did.  On the other hand, he liked Dickson's Dorsai! far more than me.  Perhaps the novelization (titled The Genetic General) is better than the serial.

William Stuart is back with another well-written story that doesn't quite hit the mark.  Don't think about it is a low-grade F&SF-style tale that takes too long to get to its kicker, and whose kicker lacks kick.  Three stars.

That brings us to Frank Herbert's Egg and Ashes, told from the point of view of a charming if horrifying little symbiote (parasite?) I felt like the beginning was better than the ending, but I do like the way Herbert turns a phrase.  Three stars.

The issue ends with The Impersonator, the third story ever published by Robert Wicks.  In the midling future, the Earth is threatened by an impending Ice Age thanks to humanity's rapacious exploitation of the planet's resources.  A host of outrageous plans are developed to fix the problem: from salting ice fields with carbon dust, to altering the axial tilt of the planet, to tapping the heat from the Earth's core.  It's not a great story, but I liked Wicks' satirical presentation of "doubling down" in an attempt to thwart catastrophe.  Three stars.

As you can see, this isn't the best crop of stories.  On the other hand, minor league games draw crowds, too.  And the tickets are cheaper….

10 Comments Leave A Comment
Science / Space Race

[Sep. 30, 1960] Discoverer 15 and a preview for October

13 Comments

It's the end of the month, and that means a sneak preview at what's in store next month on the Journey.  There is also a bit of space news I missed.  Things are now moving fast enough in the world of rockets that it's easy to fall behind!

For those following along at home, here's what's coming out in October.  Items that I plan to review are listed in bold:

Magazines:

October 1960 IF Science Fiction

October 1960 Analog

October 1960 Fantasy and Science Fiction

October 1960 Amazing

October 1960 Fantastic

Books:

Starfire, Robert Buckner

Men into Space, Murray Leinster

Movies:

I aim at the Stars

Television:

The Twilight Zone

The Flintstones

2nd, 3rd, and 4th Presidential Debates

Conventions:

Geek Girl Con

Here's a recap of this month's digests and how they fared against each other:

F&SF was the clear winner at 3.75 stars.  Both Galaxy and Analog trailed far behind, both at 2.75 stars.  F&SF also had my favorite story: From Shadowed Places.  There were 23 authors across the three books; two of them were women.

Now for the Space News:

Looking back through my newspapers, I see that the Air Force got off another Discoverer on September 13.  This fifteenth in the series of capsule-return spacecraft was the third success in a row.  Like its predecessors, it was launched into a polar orbit (as opposed to the East-West orbits used for civilian shots), with an apogee of 787 km and a perigee of 217 km.  17 orbits later, the capsule began its reentry somewhere over Alaska.  Though the airplanes deployed to recover the capsule did not manage to catch it in mid-air, the probe was later found drifting in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Christmas Island.

Now here's the interesting part.  The capsule carried no biological payload (as usual), but it did carry instruments being "tested for later reconnaissance satellites," namely MIDAS, the missile-launch detector, and SAMOS, the official Air Force spy sat program.  This is the first time the Air Force has admitted what I've suspected all along–that Discoverer is really a testbed spy sat.  One of the articles I read went on to say that the capsules will be carrying monkeys sometime soon.  Don't hold your breath.  Discoverer never had anything to do with the manned space program.

Thus ends September.  Here's looking at a busy October!

13 Comments Leave A Comment
Fashion, music, politics, sports

[Sep. 28, 1960] Face to Face (the first Presidential debates)

9 Comments

What an immediate world we live in.  Think about life six hundred years ago, before the printing press, when news and knowledge were communicated as fast as a person could talk, as fast as a horse could trot.  Think about life two hundred years ago, before the telegraph knit our nation together with messages traveling at the speed of light.  Think about the profound effects movies, radio, and television have had on society.  With each advancement, the globe has shrunk.  One can now hear broadcasts in virtually any language from the comfort of one's home.  One can get news as it happens from the other side of the planet. 

And, for the first time, the American people can, through our representatives in the media, have a direct conversation with our presidential candidates.  For yesterday, thanks to the marvel of modern television, Senator Kennedy and Vice President Nixon were able to discuss matters of national urgency in the first-ever televised presidential debate, on September 26.

I can't stress enough how exciting the experience was for me, as I imagine it was for you.  For the first time, the candidates felt like people.  Their platforms were clearly articulated.  By the end of the event, I had a much clearer idea of what my choices would be come November.

It was an interesting contest, and I think both candidates acquitted themselves well.  Kennedy began the event rather stiffly, but by the midpoint, he had hit a fiery, engaging stride.  Nixon affected a rather deferential mien, which surprised me.  As a result, he came off as a gentleman, but a bit complacent.  He also seemed, at times, to struggle for words.  Not often, but it suggested a touch of exhaustion.  I shouldn't be surprised, given the man's campaigning schedule.

As for the substance of their remarks, during this hour-long debate specifically on domestic matters, I took four pages of hastily scrawled notes.  I'll try to digest them into something short and cogent.

The candidates were given eight minutes for opening speeches.  Kennedy led off, linking freedom with economic prosperity.  So long as the world remains half slave and half free (paraphrasing a famous Republican, how the times have changed), the way for freedom to endure is for economic progress to be made.  He touted the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) as a model for future, government-led success.  He acknowledged the moderate prosperity of the post-War era, but charged that we must do better, that we can do better.  Interestingly, this is the only time that either of them addressed the strong racial inequality in our country.  Nixon was conspicuously silent on the issue–perhaps he hopes to wrest the South from Democratic control.

Nixon, unlike Kennedy, used the full span of time allotted for the opening speech.  For the first half, he was strikingly defensive.  America was not standing still, he said, a tone of desperation creeping into his voice, and a sheen of sweat on his chin.  The Vice President fared better as he shifted to propounding his own agenda.  He maintained that the Republicans know the secret to progress, and that the Eisenhower era was far more successful than the Truman era.  He ended his comments with a dig against Kennedy: "I know what it means to be poor."  This is true, but so long as the Republican party is the party of big business, I don't think it matters.

Then a panel of four reporters presented a series of questions to the candidates.  Three of the ten dealt with whether or not Kennedy and Nixon were qualified to be President.  In Kennedy's case, the issue was age, to which Kennedy replied that he and Nixon had both been in governmental service since 1947.  The Senator also noted that Lincoln (again!) had the shortest of political resumes and yet was one of our greatest Presidents.  For Nixon, the issue was eight years of ineffectiveness.  Had he done anything memorable as Vice President?  Nixon said he had; Kennedy disputed Nixon's claimed accomplishments.  It was pretty damning that Eisenhower, himself, said he needed a week to recall a major Nixon accomplishment–and he turned up empty a week later.

Things got more interesting, for me, when substantive policy issues were addressed.  Regarding ongoing farm subsidies, Kennedy insisted that they were necessary given the volatile nature of the agriculture business, the relative weakness of the farmer in his market, and the importance of the food production sector.  Nixon agreed that subsidies must continue while the wartime surpluses remain, but that the farmer must ultimately be weaned off the government teat.

In response to a question regarding the national debt, Kennedy asserted that the debt could not be reduced before 1963, but that his expanded programs would be paid for by the growing economy they would guarantee.  Nixon noted that the government would have to front payment for the programs before it came back as taxes, and he insisted that Kennedy's programs were too "extreme."  The only way to pay for them would be to raise taxes or go into inflation-causing debt, both of which would hurt the American people.

Perhaps the subtlest issue of the debate was teachers' salaries.  Both came out in favor of it.  But Nixon has a record of voting against it.  The Vice President says he worries that involvement of the federal government will reduce the freedom the teachers have to instruct as they wish.  Kennedy dismissed this argument noting that the bill he supported in February of this year had no such strings attached–the federal government would simply give money to the states, which would then spend it as they saw fit.  Nixon noted, however, that this would incentivize the states to simply diminish their contribution to education in an amount equal to what the federal government provided.  Interesting points.

The highest drama ensued when Kennedy was asked if he would be more effective as a President in getting bills passed than as a Senator.  Kennedy noted that he had no trouble getting his proposals passed in his legislative chamber; it was the obstinate Republicans in the House and in the White House that blocked them.  With him as President, his policies would be effected.  Nixon, rather unconvincingly, said it was not Eisenhower's veto that blocked Kennedy, but the will of the people that veto represented. 

The spirited debate continued into the next question, regarding Nixon's ability to lead.  The Vice President rather bashfully averred that whomever the people voted for would be an effective President–but the people wouldn't support someone who espoused extreme measures.

Kennedy countered forcefully that a $1.25 minimum wage was not extreme, that medical insurance for those over 65 was not extreme, and that federal support of education was not extreme.  And should he be elected, he implied, those measures will pass. 

The last question addressed the issue of domestic Communism.  Both candidates expressed their concern over the problem, but it was pretty clear that neither of them were too worried about it.  Kennedy noted that the primary threat was external Communism.  Nixon urged that we must be "fair" to our people when combating domestic Communism, lest we become too like our repressive enemies.  Given Nixon's strong role in the anti-Communist movement a decade ago, this note rang a bit false.

At this point, the candidates were given three minutes to sum up.  Nixon stressed that the Soviet Union may be growing faster than the United States, but that's just because they are so much further behind.  In 1960, as in 1940, the Soviet Union has just 44% of America's Gross National Product.  And while he and Kennedy agreed on general goals, their means were different.  I couldn't quite parse out what Nixon's means would be–only what they would not be (i.e. increased federal spending).

Kennedy ended on the offensive.  He said he did not want America to sit idly while the Soviet Union closed the economic gap.  The Senator said that, if we are happy with the nation as it is, by all means, we should vote for Nixon.  But if we're the least bit dissatisfied (and who is ever completely satisfied?), we must vote Democratic.  Because America is "ready to move," and Kennedy can get us moving.

The debate had a paradoxical effect upon me as a voter.  I was (and am) predisposed to poll Democratic, and seeing Kennedy perform only reinforced that tendency.  On the other hand, I feel I have a better handle on the Vice President, and I like him more than I did before the event.  Thus, while Kennedy may have "won" the debate, I think both candidates came out winners in terms of presenting themselves as competent, likeable executive possibilities.

More important, perhaps, is the way this debate has presented in a clear-cut fashion, the issues facing the American people.  We all have a lot to think about now.  And stimulating the cerebral juices is a laudable achievement for a device commonly known as the "idiot box."

9 Comments Leave A Comment
Science / Space Race

[Sep. 26, 1960] Third time unlucky (Atlas Pioneer failure)

7 Comments

It's enough to break an engineer's heart: yet another Atlas Able launch has gone awry, sending its Pioneer payload not to the Moon, but into the drink.

It is an anticlimactic ending for a mission that withstood all of nature's attempts to stop it.  Just two weeks ago, one of the most destructive hurricanes in history smashed into Florida, sending the launch crew packing.  They got the booster back up in good time, however.

No, what killed the mission were engineering glitches (a brand-new word for a brand-new problem).  In fact, not once has the Atlas Able, the odd marriage of the Atlas ICBM and the top two stages of the old Vanguard booster, worked out.  The first failure was a static test firing that ended in explosion.  The second disappointment involved a popped nosecone.  This third time, something went wrong in the second stage.  The booster got tipped beyond its ability to compensate, and the thing ended up boring straight into the Atlantic Ocean 14 minutes after launch.  'Dolf Thiel, the Air Force's ex-German rocketeer (counterpart to the Army's Von Braun), says his team still doesn't what caused the crash.  That's $10 million down the drain.

There is only one Atlas Pioneer probe and one Atlas Able booster left in the Air Force stable.  The next flight is planned for the end of this year.  Let's hope the fourth time turns out to be the charm.  It would be nice.  The Atlas Pioneer is an impressive machine– at 140 kg, the biggest American deep space probe yet attempted.  The slew of onboard experiments have already been successfully tested on previous flights (Explorer 6 and Pioneer 5), and the vehicle carries the very first engine that can be started, stopped, and restarted in space.  Interestingly, there is no camera on the Atlas Pioneers; but if you saw the results the last time the Air Force released a photo from space, you can understand why they wouldn't want to use their old camera again.


From here

If you're one of the 158 million Americans (out of 180 million) that owns a TV set, I'm willing to bet I know what you'll be doing tonight: the first ever presidential candidate debates will be televised this evening.  I'm very interested to see how this newest of campaign ideas meshes with the newest of communications media.

7 Comments Leave A Comment
Movies

[Sep. 24, 1960] Mood for a Day (Roger Corman's House of Usher)

5 Comments

We are pleased to present noted scholar Rosemary Benton's thoughts on Roger Corman's House of Usher, the cinemafication of Poe's classic about a cursed family doomed to madness through the ages.  Special kudos must be awarded since Ms.  Benton lives in rural New England, where the movie houses are not all air conditioned…

It's been a particularly hot summer this year, but a deep love of movies compelled me to visit my local theater nonetheless.  This time it was to enjoy a film that has been making quite a stir since it's release in June: House of Usher. 

Buzz about the movie claims that it was shot in only 15 days, and apparently a forest fire in the Hollywood Hills served as the perfect filming location for the opening shots of the movie.  On the one hand, I had to wonder how good a film that was shot in such a rush could possibly be.  On the other hand, Roger Corman's dedication to effect can hardly be questioned when he drags his crew out into the ruin of a forest fire all for the glory of atmosphere.  And with the positive reception that another of Mr.  Corman's recent pictures has been getting, The Little Shop of Horrors, I couldn't justify missing out on an opportunity to see some more of his work. 

What atmosphere there is in House of Usher.  Silence is allowed at times, just to hear the creaking of the house in the dead of night.  When music does occur strains of the orchestra's violin section and the hypnotic vocals utilized in the film's peaks make for a memorable score by veteran composer, Les Baxter.  Music, or lack thereof, is key to what makes House of Usher so very creepy.  The vocals are employed to great effect about half an hour into the movie when our protagonist wanders into the mansion's chapel.  It comes as a great relief that soothes the fear the audience was experiencing just moments before.  Here is a place that, in the honeycombed labyrinth of the Usher mansion, offers comfort and protection.  Then, with a cascade of violins, the scene transforms into a shock that the audience didn't predict.  It's a turn that, in lesser films, would have been achieved only by a shot of the shocked face of the actor, followed by a quick cut to the object of the shock.  Or perhaps a panning shot would shows the audience what the actor will be scared by moments before they themselves see it.  In House of Usher the visuals, acting, and music all unite in many memorable moments throughout the film. 

There is a distinct lack of exposition which I found to be very refreshing.  The audience is allowed to draw their own conclusion on the mental states of characters, and are left on the edge of their seats wondering what twists and turns will come next.  This kind of horror film could not be more anticipated given the many low grade double feature horror movies, sequels, and franchises of recent years.  This glut of horror movies has shown a strain on the formula that made the careers of Bella Lugosi and Boris Karloff. 

Headlining actor Vincent Price's telltale drawl, soft line delivery and affected mannerisms have type-cast him to such a point that nearly his entire early career has been built upon television spots as villainous rogues.  The characters he portrayed for many years were sadly only as deep as a few establishing shots allowed.  There is a renaissance afoot in Mr.  Price's career, however.  Oddly enough, this maturation was brought on by a satirical horror film with the most ridiculous premise.  The Tingler showed Mr.  Price playing a morally ambiguous mortician/scientist who wavered on a thin line between antagonist and antihero, someone goofy yet menacing.  Now, as the titular master of the Usher household, he has been given the freedom to waver between madman and protector, a person who believes so profoundly in the existence of evil that he is willing to stamp it out even at the cost of his own life and the family line.  It is my firm belief that actors like him, with directors like Richard Corman, will carry horror films on to something greater. 

5 Comments Leave A Comment
Book

[Sep. 21, 1960] If you can't beat em… (Theodore Sturgeon's Venus Plus X)

10 Comments

Ted Sturgeon wrote a book about sex.

It appears that Sturgeon has always wanted to write "a decent book about sex,"–how it affects our society, not the act itself.  At least, that's what Sturgeon says in the post-script of his strange new novel, Venus Plus X.  Well, it is a decent book (pun intended), and Sturgeon has a lot to say about sex and the relations of the genders in its 160 pages.  Some of it is told, some of it is shown; the end result is a fiction-buffered sermon not unlike the kind Heinlein likes to concoct. 

First, a Cook's tour of the plot.  Venus is really two concurrent stories.  The "A plot" involves Charlie Johns, a bit of a lover, a bit of a loser, snatched from present-day America by a band of futuristic hermaphrodites called Ledom.  These are not aliens, mind you–just a new variety of genderless humanity.  His kidnappers ostensibly have the most benign of intentions for Johns.  They simply want him to observe their society and give his opinions; whereupon, he can return whence he came.

Ledom (the place and the people share a name) is a technological wonderland.  The Ledom obtain limitless power from the "A-field," which generates energy from a matter-antimatter reaction, the antimatter being (tautologically) generated by the A-field.  This makes possible structures built in the shape of cornucopias balanced on their points.  Food is abundant, delicious, and perfectly tailored.  Transportation is as instant as one would like.  Most importantly, the lands of the Ledom are completely shielded from the outside world.  It is always sunny in Ledom, and no harmful elements can intrude.

This seeming paradise is also sociologically perfect.  There is no War between the Sexes.  Indeed, there is no violence at all.  Mating is completely consensual and pleasurable, but it is not the driving force nor the pinnacle expression of love for the Ledom.  Children are raised in common, and all are taught to eke a living from the soil, even in the presence of the bounty made possible by the A-field.  Thanks to the other great Ledom invention, the "cerebrostyle," education can be implanted directly in a Ledom's mind.  This frees people to pursue the careers for which they feel most suited.

Sturgeon gives each episode of Johns' journey loving, perhaps overindulgent, attention.  The clothes, the food, the buildings, the pottery, the incessant singing of the children, the worship of the children by the adults (the only kind of religion in which the Ledom indulge), all get pages of description.  The impression one is left with, that one is supposed to be left with, is that through the elimination of gender and by learning from humanity's mistakes, the Ledom have created Heaven on Earth.

As counterpoint, Sturgeon gives us the "B plot," which appears in vignettes alternating regularly with the pieces of Johns' story.  Told in the present tense to further stress its otherness, it is a slice-of-life portrayal of two families living next door to each other in near-future suburbia.  In this thread, Sturgeon points out two concurrent trends: the increasing convergence of male and female roles, and the reactionary reinforcement of "traditional" gender identities.  In the former, we see the genesis of the Ledom; in the latter, we see the strife the Ledom have apparently avoided.

Also highlighted are our (1960s American) hang-ups regarding the physical act of sex.  Again, the Ledom have avoided them, but at a price you and I might be unwilling to pay. 

In presenting the book as I have, theme-first, if you will, it must sound frightfully dull.  Well, it is, in some parts.  Even Sturgeon's unquestioned gift for the written word cannot completely sugar-coat this horse pill of sociology.  The great mystery driving the story (and one is mostly aware of it thanks to the dramatic blurb on the back of the book) is only revealed and then quickly resolved near the end.  As a result, there isn't a lot of a plot to the story, nor much build-up. 

That said, the questions posed are fascinating, and if the reader doesn't leave with profound insights on gender relations, s/he will at least come away with profound insights on Ted Sturgeon. 

Three and a half stars. 

Note: The title of the story is derived from a passage in the book.  At one point, Johns wonders how to represent the gender of the androgynous Ledom: "They used to use the astronomical symbols for Mars and Venus for male and female…What in hell would they use for these?  Mars plus y?  Venus plus x?"

This pedant thinks it makes more sense to say "Mars plus x, Venus plus y" (after the sex-determining chromosome).  Perhaps "Venus Plus Y" was a less appealing title.

Note 2: The book can also be purchased here

10 Comments Leave A Comment