Modern Events as Yesterdays SF?
GrapeApe
We've all seen SF of the past come true as well as totally miss the mark. Armed
only with
the truth as you know it, do you think you could successfully sell the present
as SF to the society of 60 years ago?
Let's say you're a modern citizen of 1998 suddenly finding themselves
befriending a publisher of Speculative Fiction at the 1939 Worlds Fair. What
true stories from the years 39-98 do you think might work or sell as
Speculative Fiction? Would some fail to be too fantastic, or not fantastic
enough to sell? Would some never gel into a cohesive theme to attract an
editors attention?
Heres a few ideas from the top of my head. Which of these might sell in 1939?
Why or Why not? Can you think of any other true events you might be able to
sell as fiction? (One rule of the exercise is that you cannot veer from the
truth as it was presented to you very much to make the story more commerical,
your first drafts and outlines should represent the "truth" as you were exposed
to it.) Would one decade seem more futuristic and unlikely in comparison to
others?
Some available gimcracks and gizmos you might use: DNA, Genetics; lasers and
their non weapon uses; space flight manned and unmanned, sattelites; IC chips
and personal computers; TV and media manipulation; Rock and Roll.
Stories you might present. Which would Fly? Anything too boring or too
fantastic to "buy" in 1939?:
Non Anthropomorphic Robots
Helter Skelter- The Manson murders and the music and sociology inspiring them.
Presidential Sex Scandal
Barney and Betty Hill-Roswell, alien abuduction and Men in Black
OJ Trial
Rodney King Riots
The Late Shift- internal politics of a new media and attitudes of the men and
women agents and executives fight for the throne of a 30 year reign.
The Computer Wars -from garage startup to control of society.
A sample outline:
A disgruntled artist starts a genocidal war which is ended by an apocalyptic
weapon. The weapon gives rise to factions of continuing struggle, allowing more
society rendering misdeeds by self-serving fools, a race for outer space, bad
budgetary practices until a wall constructed because of this world order falls
during the presidency of a B actor.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 07:08:13 GMT, see...@iconz.co.nz (Brian Logan)
wrote:
>Rumour has it that on 07 Jun 1998 22:45:32 GMT, grap...@aol.com
>(GrapeApe) etched into the electrons in message
><199806072245...@ladder03.news.aol.com>:
>
>>Presidential Sex Scandal
>Surely only honourable people will aspire to the presidency.
You don't remember the Harding administration? You know, the
president who was blackmailed by the mother of one of his illegitimate
daughters?
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 4/24/98
Jake Kesinger
GrapeApe (grap...@aol.com) wrote:
[Wrapped to 80col...]
: We've all seen SF of the past come true as well as totally miss the mark.
[...here...]
: Armed
: only with
: the truth as you know it, do you think you could successfully sell the
: present
: as SF to the society of 60 years ago?
Turtledove had a story along similar pretenses, about a SF author who
traveled (through means unknown) to the '50s. Besides plagarism on
a grand scale, she had stories about Watergate (with names changed) and,
IIRC, Vietnam.
I don't remember the title, but it's in one of his anthologies.
--
--Jake _ Jake Kesinger (kesi...@math.ttu.edu), Outrageous Liar
PERTH -> _|*~- http://www.math.ttu.edu/~kesinger/ McQ
\, _} ``Although we have no quarrel with you, we *are* Samurai and
\( *will* give you what for.'' Miaowara Shimura. (Mark Rogers)
John Boston
In article <6lfcb0$5...@ttacs7.ttu.edu>, kesi...@math.ttu.edu says...
>
>GrapeApe (grap...@aol.com) wrote:
>[Wrapped to 80col...]
>: We've all seen SF of the past come true as well as totally miss the mark.
>[...here...]
>: Armed
>: only with
>: the truth as you know it, do you think you could successfully sell the
>[...and here.]
>: present
>: as SF to the society of 60 years ago?
>
>Turtledove had a story along similar pretenses, about a SF author who
>traveled (through means unknown) to the '50s. Besides plagarism on
>a grand scale, she had stories about Watergate (with names changed) and,
>IIRC, Vietnam.
>
>I don't remember the title, but it's in one of his anthologies.
If memory serves, Anthony Boucher's "Transfer Point" (ca. 1950) is
to similar effect.
John Boston
Brian Logan
Rumour has it that on 07 Jun 1998 22:45:32 GMT, grap...@aol.com
(GrapeApe) etched into the electrons in message
<199806072245...@ladder03.news.aol.com>:
>We've all seen SF of the past come true as well as totally miss the mark. Armed
>only with
>the truth as you know it, do you think you could successfully sell the present
>as SF to the society of 60 years ago?
>
>Let's say you're a modern citizen of 1998 suddenly finding themselves
>befriending a publisher of Speculative Fiction at the 1939 Worlds Fair. What
>true stories from the years 39-98 do you think might work or sell as
>Speculative Fiction? Would some fail to be too fantastic, or not fantastic
>enough to sell? Would some never gel into a cohesive theme to attract an
>editors attention?
>
>Heres a few ideas from the top of my head. Which of these might sell in 1939?
>Why or Why not? Can you think of any other true events you might be able to
>sell as fiction? (One rule of the exercise is that you cannot veer from the
>truth as it was presented to you very much to make the story more commerical,
>your first drafts and outlines should represent the "truth" as you were exposed
>to it.) Would one decade seem more futuristic and unlikely in comparison to
>others?
>
>Some available gimcracks and gizmos you might use: DNA, Genetics; lasers and
>their non weapon uses; space flight manned and unmanned, sattelites; IC chips
>and personal computers; TV and media manipulation; Rock and Roll.
>
>Stories you might present. Which would Fly? Anything too boring or too
>fantastic to "buy" in 1939?:
>
>Non Anthropomorphic Robots
Why build a robot which does not have arms?
>Helter Skelter- The Manson murders and the music and sociology inspiring them.
No one would do that.
>Presidential Sex Scandal
Surely only honourable people will aspire to the presidency.
>Barney and Betty Hill-Roswell, alien abuduction and Men in Black
[Arched eyebrows]
>OJ Trial
What about justice?
>Rodney King Riots
But the police are law abiding and everyone knows their place.
>The Late Shift- internal politics of a new media and attitudes of the men and
>women agents and executives fight for the throne of a 30 year reign.
Fighting for a throne, you mean with swords and stuff?
>The Computer Wars -from garage startup to control of society.
Garage computers. You mean they may one day fit inside a garage?
>A sample outline:
>
>A disgruntled artist starts a genocidal war which is ended by an apocalyptic
>weapon. The weapon gives rise to factions of continuing struggle, allowing more
>society rendering misdeeds by self-serving fools, a race for outer space, bad
>budgetary practices until a wall constructed because of this world order falls
>during the presidency of a B actor.
This is too unbelievable to even sell.
None of these ideas are realistic. science is an important part of
science fiction. We (in 1939) only want to sell stories which the
readers can identify with
Brian
-- Brian Logan ICQ#4931597
mailto:see...@iconz.co.nz
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars...
- Oscar Wilde
Steven Silver
> [...here...]
> : Armed
> : only with
> : the truth as you know it, do you think you could successfully sell the
> : present
> : as SF to the society of 60 years ago?
>
> traveled (through means unknown) to the '50s. Besides plagarism on
> a grand scale, she had stories about Watergate (with names changed) and,
> IIRC, Vietnam.
>
> I don't remember the title, but it's in one of his anthologies.
The Turtledove story is called "Hindsight" and appears in Analog,
Mid-December, 1984 (as by Eric Iverson) and in Harry Turtledove's
collection _Kaleidoscope_.
--
Steven H Silver
shsi...@ameritech.net
http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/
MSK
In article <199806072245...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
grap...@aol.com (GrapeApe) wrote:
> We've all seen SF of the past come true as well as totally miss the
mark. Armed
> only with
> the truth as you know it, do you think you could successfully sell the present
> as SF to the society of 60 years ago?
There was a good short story on this theme in Analog called _With Time
Comes Concorde_. I don't remember the author, but I enjoyed the story.
Mariette
--
-Tom &/or Mariette K. "Bless me, what _do_ they teach
Remove X from address to reply them at these schools?"
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 07:20:32 GMT, see...@iconz.co.nz (Brian Logan)
wrote:
>Rumour has it that on Sun, 07 Jun 1998 12:15:45 GMT,
>lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) etched into the electrons in
>message <357a8424...@news.clark.net>:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 07:08:13 GMT, see...@iconz.co.nz (Brian Logan)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Rumour has it that on 07 Jun 1998 22:45:32 GMT, grap...@aol.com
>>>(GrapeApe) etched into the electrons in message
>>><199806072245...@ladder03.news.aol.com>:
>>>
>>>>Presidential Sex Scandal
>>>Surely only honourable people will aspire to the presidency.
>>
>>You don't remember the Harding administration? You know, the
>>president who was blackmailed by the mother of one of his illegitimate
>>daughters?
>
>The name vaguely rings a bell, but as I'm not american, could someone
>give me details like dates?
March 4, 1921 to August 2, 1923.
ObSF: Larry Niven's grandfather became rich through the oil deals
that were a major scandal of the Harding administration, and it was
the family fortune that made it practical for Niven to become a
full-time writer while still quite young. Without Harding's
corruption we might never have had "Neutron Star."
Brian Logan
Rumour has it that on Sun, 07 Jun 1998 12:15:45 GMT,
lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) etched into the electrons in
message <357a8424...@news.clark.net>:
>On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 07:08:13 GMT, see...@iconz.co.nz (Brian Logan)
>wrote:
>
>>Rumour has it that on 07 Jun 1998 22:45:32 GMT, grap...@aol.com
>>(GrapeApe) etched into the electrons in message
>><199806072245...@ladder03.news.aol.com>:
>>
>>>Presidential Sex Scandal
>>Surely only honourable people will aspire to the presidency.
>
>You don't remember the Harding administration? You know, the
>president who was blackmailed by the mother of one of his illegitimate
>daughters?
The name vaguely rings a bell, but as I'm not american, could someone
give me details like dates?
Brian
Alter S. Reiss
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Brian Logan wrote:
> lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) etched into the electrons in
> message <357a8424...@news.clark.net>:
> >On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 07:08:13 GMT, see...@iconz.co.nz (Brian Logan)
> >wrote:
> >>Rumour has it that on 07 Jun 1998 22:45:32 GMT, grap...@aol.com
> >>(GrapeApe) etched into the electrons in message
> >><199806072245...@ladder03.news.aol.com>:
> >>
> >>>Presidential Sex Scandal
> >>Surely only honourable people will aspire to the presidency.
> >
> >You don't remember the Harding administration? You know, the
> >president who was blackmailed by the mother of one of his illegitimate
> >daughters?
>
> The name vaguely rings a bell, but as I'm not american, could someone
> give me details like dates?
Warren Gamliel Harding, President from 1921-23. Other notable
presidents along these lines include William Henry Harrison (1841-41), who
ran under the principles of giving voters alcohol, and torchlit parades.,
and oh, I forget -- either Grover Cleveland or somebody else publically
acknoledged an out of wedlock affair as a response to an attempt at
blackmail, which would be an issue of a "Presidential Sex Scandal",
perhaps, but not much of a challenge to the requirements of honor in
candidates.
Candidates notably lacking in the honor catagory include
luminaries such as Millard Fillimore, when he ran in 1850 as the
Know-Nothing candidate (the know-nothings were a party that focused on
exluding immigrants and denying Roman Catholics the ability to hold
elected office).
Suffice it to say: There was a period of time when only people of
unquestioned moral probity and patriotism were elected to the country's
highest office. And then Washington decided not to seek a third term.
--
Alter S. Reiss --- www.geocities.com/Area51/2129 --- asr...@ymail.yu.edu
"Woe unto those that awake early in the morning..."
Isaiah, 5:11
Robert A. Woodward
In article <3580f91b...@news.clark.net>, lawr...@clark.net
(Lawrence Watt-Evans) wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 07:20:32 GMT, see...@iconz.co.nz (Brian Logan)
> wrote:
>
> >Rumour has it that on Sun, 07 Jun 1998 12:15:45 GMT,
> >lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) etched into the electrons in
> >message <357a8424...@news.clark.net>:
> >
> >>On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 07:08:13 GMT, see...@iconz.co.nz (Brian Logan)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Rumour has it that on 07 Jun 1998 22:45:32 GMT, grap...@aol.com
> >>>(GrapeApe) etched into the electrons in message
> >>><199806072245...@ladder03.news.aol.com>:
> >>>
> >>>>Presidential Sex Scandal
> >>>Surely only honourable people will aspire to the presidency.
> >>
> >>You don't remember the Harding administration? You know, the
> >>president who was blackmailed by the mother of one of his illegitimate
> >>daughters?
> >
> >The name vaguely rings a bell, but as I'm not american, could someone
> >give me details like dates?
>
> March 4, 1921 to August 2, 1923.
>
> ObSF: Larry Niven's grandfather became rich through the oil deals
> that were a major scandal of the Harding administration, and it was
> the family fortune that made it practical for Niven to become a
> full-time writer while still quite young. Without Harding's
> corruption we might never have had "Neutron Star."
>
I thought it was his great-grandfather (who was already a wealthy oilman
before the Teapot Dome scandal).
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Did I miss a generation? It's possible, but I hadn't thought so.
And he went from wealthy to extremely rich, yeah.
Dan Goodman
I have the 1967 issue of Daedalus devoted to the proceedings of a 1965
conference on the year 2000.
There are two mentions of the war in Vietnam. 1) A prediction that by
1967, the US would have essentially won. 2) A slighting reference to
right-wing dissent on the Vietnam war. (Yes, I said _right-wing_ -- no
mention of dissention farther left.) Those naive rightists couldn't
understand that the US government knew best.
The technological predictions were nearer the mark. People getting their
news via computer networks -- faxed, or printed out in some manner. (The
idea of reading news on the screen wasn't mentioned.) Information
available the way it turned out to be, thanks to the Web -- but it's
assumed that big business, big government, and big education will be
supplying the information. Not a hint that private individuals could have
information sites, and compete with some of the biggies.
And what, I wonder, are today's futurologists missing?
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <s4pf1.535$bj2.2...@ptah.visi.com>,
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>I have the 1967 issue of Daedalus devoted to the proceedings of a 1965
>conference on the year 2000.
>
>There are two mentions of the war in Vietnam. 1) A prediction that by
>1967, the US would have essentially won. 2) A slighting reference to
>right-wing dissent on the Vietnam war. (Yes, I said _right-wing_ -- no
>mention of dissention farther left.) Those naive rightists couldn't
>understand that the US government knew best.
>
>The technological predictions were nearer the mark. People getting their
>news via computer networks -- faxed, or printed out in some manner. (The
>idea of reading news on the screen wasn't mentioned.) Information
>available the way it turned out to be, thanks to the Web -- but it's
>assumed that big business, big government, and big education will be
>supplying the information. Not a hint that private individuals could have
>information sites, and compete with some of the biggies.
>
>And what, I wonder, are today's futurologists missing?
We'll have to wait and see....I think the thing that would surprise
me most would be if the present tendency toward social fragmentation
reverses, and we end up with a few huge social systems (I'm still going
to bet that they won't be countries) and hardly anyone living on
the fringes.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
May '98 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Martin Soederstroem
Nancy Lebovitz skrev i meddelandet <6llf0v$f...@universe.digex.net>...
That depends on what you mean by "country". If you are thinking about the
national state, I would tend to agree with you. But I am certain that the
state will continue to become stronger and to span larger area (both
geographic and otherwise). This is because new technology keeps evolving
that makes this possible. Some excamples are railroads, telephones and
databases.
_____
Martin
Remove NOSPAM to reply
Jeff Suzuki
Lawrence Watt-Evans (lawr...@clark.net) wrote:
: On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 07:08:13 GMT, see...@iconz.co.nz (Brian Logan)
: wrote:
: >>Presidential Sex Scandal
: >Surely only honourable people will aspire to the presidency.
: You don't remember the Harding administration? You know, the
: president who was blackmailed by the mother of one of his illegitimate
: daughters?
My American history's not as good as it should be (I've been studying up on
the French), so I've probably screwed up the attributions, but here goes
anyway: let's not forget "Ma, ma, I want Pa!" (Garfield? Arthur? One of the
minor ones), the Grant "my damned friends" administration, the stolen election
(Hayes?), and, while we're at it, Thomas Jefferson stretched a constitutional
point or two, Aaron Burr (a vice President) was suspected of treason,
Alexander Hamilton (another vice President) had a whole flock of scandal
associated with him...
Jeffs
Jeff Suzuki
GrapeApe (grap...@aol.com) wrote:
: Let's say you're a modern citizen of 1998 suddenly finding themselves
: befriending a publisher of Speculative Fiction at the 1939 Worlds Fair. What
: true stories from the years 39-98 do you think might work or sell as
: Speculative Fiction? Would some fail to be too fantastic, or not fantastic
: enough to sell? Would some never gel into a cohesive theme to attract an
: editors attention?
I'll take "too fantastic to believe" for $100, Alex...
In no particular chronological order:
That we'd get to the Moon...and do _nothing_ about it afterwards.
That the United States and the Soviet Union would hold the world half an hour
from total destruction for fifty years...and yet despite that, never go to
war (directly) with each other.
That the most powerful man on Earth (the President of the United States) could
be brought down by two newspaper reporters...and there would be a movie made
about _them_.
That a second rate actor would become President of the United States and be
considered (by a majority of the voters, at that) good enough to elect for a
second term.
That, after having its land and industry smashed in a great war, both Germany
and Japan would become economic superpowers that would challenge the global
supremacy of the United States, in large part because the United States
rebuilt both countries.
That the United States armed forces would become dangerously close to being
second rate, filled with drug addicts, incapable of winning a war with a third
world country.
That the British Empire would evaporate, more or less peacefully, more or less
within twenty years.
If I was an editor in 1939, and someone submitted a story with any of these
"plot elements" in it, I'd say it's too fantastic to be believable.
(But then again, I'm the one who always goes back to the quote, "Truth _is_
stranger than fiction, since fiction must be plausible.")
Jeffs
Jeff Suzuki
Jake Kesinger (kesi...@math.ttu.edu) wrote:
: Turtledove had a story along similar pretenses, about a SF author who
: traveled (through means unknown) to the '50s. Besides plagarism on
: a grand scale, she had stories about Watergate (with names changed) and,
: IIRC, Vietnam.
: I don't remember the title, but it's in one of his anthologies.
The story about Vietnam was called "Tet Offensive".
I don't remember what the title of the story was, though...I do seem to recall
that she had problems with editors saying, essentially, the stories were too
unbelievable.
Jeffs
Jeff Suzuki
Dan Goodman (dsg...@visi.com) wrote:
: assumed that big business, big government, and big education will be
: supplying the information. Not a hint that private individuals could have
: information sites, and compete with some of the biggies.
Oddly enough, most of the stories about getting to the Moon assumed little or
no government involvement; it was almost always done by private individuals.
In 1939, you might have had a hard time convincing people that government was
just going to get bigger, and bigger, and bigger...the signs were there, but
it wasn't obvious the trend was irreversible.
Jeffs
Robert A. Woodward
Alexander Hamilton was never a vice-President; he was Secretary of
Treasury. The "Ma, ma, I want Pa!" quote was a slam against Grover
Cleaveland, I wouldn't call him a minor president.
Keith Morrison
Jeff Suzuki wrote:
> I'll take "too fantastic to believe" for $100, Alex...
That you can have thinking machines that can fly a plane,
drive a car, navigate a ship, balance your checkbook, manage
the appliances in your house but you can't have a conversation
with it.
That one day some rich, white males would complain *they* were
being discriminated against while still being rich, white and
male.
That the above-mentioned thinking machines would be used, in large
part, to replace the telephone, mail and to play games on.
That people would prefer a psychic over a scientist when it comes
to explaining something.
That popular forms of entertainment, like movies, would have a
black man as the saviour of the planet (twice).
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
GrapeApe
I would think that to the 1939 mind, one of the most difficult to believe
notions would be that the most widespread use from the development of lasers
would be to price groceries.
Alan Gore
je...@bu.edu (Jeff Suzuki) wrote:
>Dan Goodman (dsg...@visi.com) wrote:
>: assumed that big business, big government, and big education will be
>: supplying the information. Not a hint that private individuals could have
>: information sites, and compete with some of the biggies.
>Oddly enough, most of the stories about getting to the Moon assumed little or
>no government involvement; it was almost always done by private individuals.
These predictions may have something to do with why SF depictions of
space exploration were always too optimistic, while projections about
information science were generally too conservative.
ag...@primenet.com | "Giving money and power to the government
Alan Gore | is like giving whiskey and car keys
Software For PC's | to teenaged boys" - P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.primenet.com/~agore
Anton Sherwood
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> writes
: I have the 1967 issue of Daedalus devoted to the proceedings
: of a 1965 conference on the year 2000. ... Information
: available the way it turned out to be, thanks to the Web -- but it's
: supplying the information. Not a hint that private individuals could
: have information sites, and compete with some of the biggies.
But Ted Nelson started Xanadu about 1973, and flattening the
information pyramid was part of the Xanadu vision, wasn't it?
--
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher at netcom point com
Alter S. Reiss
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Keith Morrison wrote:
> Jeff Suzuki wrote:
>
> > I'll take "too fantastic to believe" for $100, Alex...
> That people would prefer a psychic over a scientist when it comes
> to explaining something.
I'll take "Theosophy" for $100, on this one...
Joe Bernstein
Steven Silver <shsi...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Jake Kesinger wrote:
> > Turtledove had a story along similar pretenses, about a SF author who
> > traveled (through means unknown) to the '50s. Besides plagarism on
> > a grand scale, she had stories about Watergate (with names changed) and,
> > IIRC, Vietnam.
>
> The Turtledove story is called "Hindsight" and appears in Analog,
> Mid-December, 1984 (as by Eric Iverson) and in Harry Turtledove's
> collection _Kaleidoscope_.
Nancy Kress's "The Price of Oranges", from Asimov's and reprinted in her
<The Aliens of Earth>, follows the probably-safer route of having the
time traveler be an SF *reader* of the '30s, who is thereby able to make
sense of what he finds in the '80s, and builds an academic career on it.
-- JLB
Joe Bernstein
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
> That one day some rich, white males would complain *they* were
> being discriminated against while still being rich, white and
> male.
Yeah, I remember that story. It was called "Reconstruction" and ran in
the March 1837 issue of <Amazing>. All I can say is, it sure did
justify that name for the magazine. And to think the opera called <Gone
with the Wind>, whose libretto was based on that story, was a success in
all the houses of Europe! What *is* modern culture coming to? - JLB
Joseph Askew
Alter S. Reiss (asr...@ymail.yu.edu) wrote:
: > >>Surely only honourable people will aspire to the presidency.
: > >You don't remember the Harding administration? You know, the
: > >president who was blackmailed by the mother of one of his illegitimate
: > >daughters?
: > The name vaguely rings a bell, but as I'm not american, could someone
: > give me details like dates?
: Warren Gamliel Harding, President from 1921-23. Other notable
: presidents along these lines include William Henry Harrison (1841-41), who
: ran under the principles of giving voters alcohol, and torchlit parades.,
: and oh, I forget -- either Grover Cleveland or somebody else publically
: acknoledged an out of wedlock affair as a response to an attempt at
: blackmail, which would be an issue of a "Presidential Sex Scandal",
: perhaps, but not much of a challenge to the requirements of honor in
: candidates.
Andrew Jackson, who despite his loud claims to have a lot of
honour didn't act that way as far as I can see, fought at least
one duel over allegations he was a bigamist who had married his
wife while she was married to someone else.
Most famously of all Thomas Jefferson declined to respond to
allegations he had a long running affair with Sally Hemmings
and had sold at least one of their daughters into prostitution.
: Suffice it to say: There was a period of time when only people of
: unquestioned moral probity and patriotism were elected to the country's
: highest office. And then Washington decided not to seek a third term.
Although he was a grower of marijuana and may well have smoked
the noxious weed himself. Although perhaps not, I can think of
lots of reasons you would want to separate out the female heads.
Joseph
--
Last Week Australia 76 England 0
This Week Australia 45 Scotland 3
Got to feel sorry for the poor bastards.
Phil Hunt
In article <dasherEu...@netcom.com>
das...@netcom.com "Anton Sherwood" writes:
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> writes
> : I have the 1967 issue of Daedalus devoted to the proceedings
> : of a 1965 conference on the year 2000. ... Information
> : available the way it turned out to be, thanks to the Web -- but it's
> : assumed that big business, big government, and big education will be
> : supplying the information. Not a hint that private individuals could
> : have information sites, and compete with some of the biggies.
>
> But Ted Nelson started Xanadu about 1973, and flattening the
> information pyramid was part of the Xanadu vision, wasn't it?
Whatever happened to Xanadu? IIRC Nelson was working on it with
Autodesk (the makers of Autocad), but nothing came of it.
--
Phil Hunt
"Dreaming something won't make it happen,
but not dreaming something will make it not happen"
Mary Creasey
Joseph Askew wrote:
>
> Alter S. Reiss (asr...@ymail.yu.edu) wrote:
>
> : > >>Surely only honourable people will aspire to the presidency.
>
> : presidents along these lines include William Henry Harrison (1841-41), who
> : ran under the principles of giving voters alcohol, and torchlit parades.,
And who was noted for two things: dying of damnfoolishness (contracted
pneumonia after giving a four-hour inaugural address [the longest
on record] on a snowy day--he died within a month of inauguration),
and beginning the so-called "zero-year jinx" in which every President
elected in a year ending in zero (we have fixed four-year terms) died
in office until Ronald Reagan survived an assassin's bullet. (The cause
is variously attributed to a) a curse put on Harrison by the Indians he
beat at the battle of Tippecanoe, or b) a 20-year cycle of conjunctions
of Jupiter and Saturn which happen to fall every fifth election year.)
Only one American President who died in office was NOT elected in one
of the zero years (Zachary Taylor, I think).
> : Suffice it to say: There was a period of time when only people of
> : unquestioned moral probity and patriotism were elected to the country's
> : highest office. And then Washington decided not to seek a third term.
No argument here.
> Although he was a grower of marijuana and may well have smoked
> the noxious weed himself. Although perhaps not, I can think of
> lots of reasons you would want to separate out the female heads.
I don't know much about marijuana--what's the difference?
Mary the Filker
Samuel Paik
>news via computer networks -- faxed, or printed out in some manner.
USA Today
Sam
--
Samuel S. Paik / pa...@webnexus.com / Speak only for self
Oh, veiled and secret Power We know thy ways are true--
Whose paths we seek in vain, In spite of being broken
Be with us in our hour Because of being broken.
Of overthrow and pain; May rise and build anew
That we--by which sure token Stand up and build anew!
Rudyard Kipling / Hymn of Breaking Strain
Jo Walton
In article <6m1qmj$g...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
cre...@worldnet.att.net "Mary Creasey" writes:
[snip - a lot of stuff about White Murderer Harrison]
This is a spoiler for Orson Scott Card's :Alvin Journeyman: and for the
later (not yet written) books in the series.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.
James Nicoll
In article <6lvpd6$mri$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
Joseph Askew <jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Most famously of all Thomas Jefferson declined to respond to
>allegations he had a long running affair with Sally Hemmings
>and had sold at least one of their daughters into prostitution.
Accusations which came from a known drunk who Jefferson had
done out of a job.
It is possible that there some things the slave-keeper
drug lords of the US weren't actually guilty of.
--
"Pigs are not a fruit."
Cambias
In article <199806111826...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
grap...@aol.com (GrapeApe) wrote:
Indeed. I noticed a sign back in my college days, "HUMANITIES COMPUTER
ROOM" and it struck me how bizarre that would have sounded to a visitor
from even a couple of decades previous. About the way "HUMANITIES PROTON
ACCELERATOR" would seem today.
Cambias
Dan Goodman
In article <6m1nqi$qbq$1...@hub3.san-jose.webnexus.net>,
Samuel Paik <pa...@webnexus.com> wrote:
>In article <s4pf1.535$bj2.2...@ptah.visi.com>, Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>>The technological predictions were nearer the mark. People getting their
>>news via computer networks -- faxed, or printed out in some manner.
>
>USA Today
Sorry; wrong answer. USA Today is printed at several printing plants; I
believe the copies sold in Minneapolis/St. Paul are printed in Chicago.
This is a _whole_ lot different than having it printed out on my home
printer or fax machine, after being electronically transmitted.
liz...@mrlizard.com
In article <dasherEu...@netcom.com>, das...@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) wrote:
>Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> writes
>: I have the 1967 issue of Daedalus devoted to the proceedings
>: of a 1965 conference on the year 2000. ... Information
>: available the way it turned out to be, thanks to the Web -- but it's
>: assumed that big business, big government, and big education will be
>: supplying the information. Not a hint that private individuals could
>: have information sites, and compete with some of the biggies.
>
>But Ted Nelson started Xanadu about 1973, and flattening the
>information pyramid was part of the Xanadu vision, wasn't it?
>
"Ted Nelson is to Internet as Charles Babbage is to:
a)Radio
b)Television
c)Computers
d)Hyperdrive"
(Answer, of course, is 'c')
Kristopher/EOS
Joseph Askew wrote:
> I don't find that too fantastic to believe. After all rich, white,
> Jewish males have been complaining for some time that they were
> discriminated against while still being rich, white and Jewish.
> About 2000 years in fact. Not all of them were rich perhaps, but
> the European Jewish community is definitely an over-achieving one.
And the funny thing is, they really were being discriminated against
in many cases.
Kristopher/EOS
Gareth Wilson
liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
> People *voluntarily* broadcasting their lives, including the most intimate
> moments, to millions. (JenniCam)
Globalisation not by a world UN government, but by multinational
corporations.
The first animal cloned is a sheep, and the creator says human cloning
would be immoral, and he doesn't chuckle at _all_...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
"Evil will triumph because Good is dumb."
-Cronan Thompson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ste...@access.digex.net
Dan Goodman wrote:
>
> I have the 1967 issue of Daedalus devoted to the proceedings of a 1965
> conference on the year 2000.
>
> 1967, the US would have essentially won. 2) A slighting reference to
> right-wing dissent on the Vietnam war. (Yes, I said _right-wing_ -- no
> mention of dissention farther left.) Those naive rightists couldn't
> understand that the US government knew best.
I don't see where they got such a notion in 1967 -- Goldwater was not
exactly a critic of the Vietnam war per se (critical of how the
Administration was handling it, sure, but that's not the same thing). Of
course, the statement may have been more a political attack than a serious
prediction.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
bil...@uwindsor.ca
In article <6m6t92$e...@enews1.newsguy.com>,
liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
> In article <6m6m8e$f0d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bil...@uwindsor.ca wrote:
>
> >Just looking at the social issues:
> >
<snip>4) Women would prefer to have their children raised by
> >strangers than raising them at home- unbelievable
<snip>
> The majority of married women working full-time.
>
I think what people would find impossible to believe is that women would
choose to work full-time and think publicly funded day care should be a right
even though they would be able to live on one salary in 1998 far better than
people lived in 1939. Married women have always worked out of necessity,
what has happened is that they now work out of choice. I don't believe that
anybody could have foreseen that in 1939.
Correction to the raising of children- _Brave New World_ did foresee the
raising of children by the state.
bil...@uwindsor.ca
In article <3588e746...@news.clark.net>,
lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 20:57:50 GMT, bil...@uwindsor.ca wrote:
>
> >In article <199806072245...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> > grap...@aol.com (GrapeApe) wrote:
> >>
> >> Let's say you're a modern citizen of 1998 suddenly finding themselves
> >> befriending a publisher of Speculative Fiction at the 1939 Worlds Fair.
What
> >> true stories from the years 39-98 do you think might work or sell as
> >> Speculative Fiction? Would some fail to be too fantastic, or not fantastic
> >> enough to sell? Would some never gel into a cohesive theme to attract an
> >> editors attention?
> >>
>
> Nope. I'm sorry, but that's wrong. There have been many times in the
> past -- maybe more than the opposite -- when any woman who could
> afford a nanny or wetnurse left the raising of her children to others.
If you are talking about the upper classes, this is true. However, generally
a nanny was a part of the family and would stay with the family until all
children had reached some level of independence.
> There's nothing unbelievable about it at all. There were plenty of
> Gernsbackian stories published in the 1930s which depicted utopian
> societies where children were raised in creches, or by trained
> professionals or by robot nursemaids.
>
I stand corrected. I am reminded of _Brave New World_ which was published ca
1931 IIRC.
> (Note, by the way, that in the U.S. 35% of women with minor children
> still stay home to raise them.)
>
That means that 65% don't. I doubt that anyone would have believed that
statistic in 1939.
James Nicoll
>Just looking at the social issues:
>
>1) A general acceptance codified in law that all races and creeds are equal-
>believable.
Unbelievable, IMO. What, treat Frenchies as though they
were as good as Englishmen, let alone real people like Nicolls
or Flemings? May as well say Campbells are people.
Insert local flavour to taste but disliking or disrespecting
people of other cultures is the norm not the exception.
>2) Communism would take over half of the world and then collapse-
>unbelievable.
No comment, although the Mongol Empire and the Alexandrian
Empires didn't show much longevity as unified structure, either.
>3) A generation raised by materialistic parents would reject
>their parents' materialism only to embrace it more fully when they became
>parents- unbelievable.
Entirely believable. Pointless, poorly thought out rebellion
against social norms is what young folk do best. The kids in Byzantium
dressed like Huns to piss of their parental units. They didn't do it
as adults, though.
Say, those Byzantines should knew how sports hooliganism worked, eh?
Hard to get worked over a few corpses in Europe when the Byzantines'
sports hooligans burned an entire city.
>4) Women would prefer to have their children raised by
>strangers than raising them at home- unbelievable.
Except that women who could afford to do so have in many cultures.
More people can afford it today is all. See, frex, Victorian era boarding
schools.
>5) High quality imports
>from Asia would threaten the western economies- unbelievable.
Except they don't. They threaten specific sectors of the economy.
Our economies as whole are much wealthier than they were in 1970.
BTW, can someone remind me why the British Empire felt it
necessary to restrict Indian production of textiles?
6) Professional
>athletes would make $millions per year- that's possible.
Agreed.
> 7) Prayers would be
>outlawed from public schools- possible but only in a nightmare society.
Well, no more unlikely than human sacrifice might become socially
unacceptable. Ask an Aztec how likely they thought *that* was.
How else do you handle multi-religious cultures in one educational
system? I'm all for manditory education in the dull bits of religion but
as you know that's because it worked so well in limiting the power of
cultists in the UK.
OBSF: Didn't the Ostrogoths have a prohibition against religious
discussions in public places due to sectarian bloodshed or am I
misremembering?
snip
James Nicoll
Dan Goodman
In article <6m8d5q$405$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>Dan Goodman wrote:
>>
>> I have the 1967 issue of Daedalus devoted to the proceedings of a 1965
>> conference on the year 2000.
>>
>> There are two mentions of the war in Vietnam. 1) A prediction that by
>> 1967, the US would have essentially won. 2) A slighting reference to
>> right-wing dissent on the Vietnam war. (Yes, I said _right-wing_ -- no
>> mention of dissention farther left.) Those naive rightists couldn't
>> understand that the US government knew best.
>
> I don't see where they got such a notion in 1967 -- Goldwater was not
>exactly a critic of the Vietnam war per se (critical of how the
>Administration was handling it, sure, but that's not the same thing).
1) Goldwater was not the _only_ American conservative, nor did he speak
for _all_ American conservatives.
2) The prediction was _made_ in _1965_ -- not 1967.
3) Some people on the right were saying "Win or get out." I believe the
"or get out" part takes this beyond simple disagreement with how the
Vietnam war was being managed.
4) The past is not constrained by what you find believable.
David G. Bell
> In article <199806072245...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> grap...@aol.com (GrapeApe) wrote:
> >
> > Let's say you're a modern citizen of 1998 suddenly finding themselves
> > befriending a publisher of Speculative Fiction at the 1939 Worlds Fair. What
> > true stories from the years 39-98 do you think might work or sell as
> > Speculative Fiction? Would some fail to be too fantastic, or not fantastic
> > enough to sell? Would some never gel into a cohesive theme to attract an
> > editors attention?
> >
> Just looking at the social issues:
>
> 1) A general acceptance codified in law that all races and creeds are equal-
> believable. 2) Communism would take over half of the world and then collapse-
> unbelievable. 3) A generation raised by materialistic parents would reject
> their parents' materialism only to embrace it more fully when they became
> parents- unbelievable. 4) Women would prefer to have their children raised by
> strangers than raising them at home- unbelievable. 5) High quality imports
> from Asia would threaten the western economies- unbelievable. 6) Professional
> athletes would make $millions per year- that's possible. 7) Prayers would be
> outlawed from public schools- possible but only in a nightmare society. 8)
> Poverty would be defined as 20% less than the average disposable income-
> unbelievable. 9) The Indian subcontinent would be a threat to international
> peace- believable. 10) Just the switchover of the year from 1999 to 2000
> could cause an international catastrophe- unbelievable.
>
> Some stuff is just too fantastic for anybody to have believed in 1939.
Item 6) is one that could be argued about a lot. If you cast it in the
form that professional athletes would rival film stars in their
popularity and earnings, and bypassed the inflation question, it might
make a big difference to the response.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
MSK
In article <898103...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>, db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk
wrote:
>>6) Professional
>>> athletes would make $millions per year- that's possible.
> Item 6) is one that could be argued about a lot. If you cast it in the
> form that professional athletes would rival film stars in their
> popularity and earnings, and bypassed the inflation question, it might
> make a big difference to the response.
Wasn't there some controversy in the '20s about Babe Ruth making more
money than the president? IIRC, Mr. Ruth's response was, "I had a better
year."
Mariette
--
-Tom &/or Mariette K. "Bless me, what _do_ they teach
Remove X from address to reply them at these schools?"
bil...@uwindsor.ca
In article <89809798...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
> In article <6m6m8e$f0d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <bil...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>
> >from Asia would threaten the western economies- unbelievable.
>
> Our economies as whole are much wealthier than they were in 1970.
>
sectors of the economy would be threatened. Eg.
Who would have thought that:
i)advances in electronics (transistors) would be introduced into the mass
market by the Japanese and that they would be manufacturing all the high
technology toys?
ii)only one American motorcycle manufacturer would be left because of HIGHER
QUALITY imports?
iii)Imported cars from Asia would have higher quality levels than domestic
cars. (BTW the North American auto industry is far more competitive in all
aspects than it was 15 years but they had to catch up)
iv) the Asian educational system would produce higher test scores than most
jurisdictions in the west.
> BTW, can someone remind me why the British Empire felt it
> necessary to restrict Indian production of textiles?
>
Different animal: The concern was present then as now that commodities from
low labour countries would make manufactured products in the western world
uncompetitive.
> > 7) Prayers would be
> >outlawed from public schools- possible but only in a nightmare society.
<snip>
>
> How else do you handle multi-religious cultures in one educational
> system? <snip>
The religion of most of the western world in 1939 was predominantly Christian
and I don't think anybody really anticipated that prayers would be eliminated
in schools because of the sensibilities of other religions. (After all, the
only people who were eliminating prayers were the communists) At that time
when minorities were allowed in they were expected to adapt.
Thomas R Scudder
MSK (tk...@halcyonX.com) asieoniezi:
: In article <898103...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>, db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk
: wrote:
: >>6) Professional
: >>> athletes would make $millions per year- that's possible.
: > Item 6) is one that could be argued about a lot. If you cast it in the
: > form that professional athletes would rival film stars in their
: > popularity and earnings, and bypassed the inflation question, it might
: > make a big difference to the response.
: Wasn't there some controversy in the '20s about Babe Ruth making more
: money than the president? IIRC, Mr. Ruth's response was, "I had a better
: year."
I think the year in question was 1929. Which means that Mr. Ruth was most
likely correct.
--
Tom Scudder aka tom...@umich.edu <*> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tomscud
Squeezing flinthead trout "I contradict myself? Very well,
in their massive jaws, sparks fly: I contra- hey, wait. No I don't!"
Bears discover fire.
liz...@mrlizard.com
In article <358797...@student.canterbury.ac.nz>, gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
>>
>> People *voluntarily* broadcasting their lives, including the most intimate
>> moments, to millions. (JenniCam)
>
>
>Globalisation not by a world UN government, but by multinational
>corporations.
>
>The first animal cloned is a sheep, and the creator says human cloning
>would be immoral, and he doesn't chuckle at _all_...
>
>
Seed". :) Really.
James Nicoll
In article <6m9662$b7l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <bil...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>In article <89809798...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
> jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>> In article <6m6m8e$f0d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <bil...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >Just looking at the social issues:
>> >5) High quality imports
>> >from Asia would threaten the western economies- unbelievable.
>>
>> Except they don't. They threaten specific sectors of the economy.
>> Our economies as whole are much wealthier than they were in 1970.
>>
>Perhaps, I should rephrase that to say that high/manufacturing technology
>sectors of the economy would be threatened. Eg.
>Who would have thought that:
>i)advances in electronics (transistors) would be introduced into the mass
>market by the Japanese and that they would be manufacturing all the high
>technology toys?
Anyone who knew the history of firearms in Japan. They were
producing firearms good enough to export very quickly after being introduced
to them. Hmmm and given my grandfather's stories about pre WWI Japanese
engineering cunning (eg: order 1 ship from the best in the biz, the Brits,
and use it to reverse engineer a local ability to produce same) I suspect
anyone else who thought about post Meiji Japan's industrialization.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 14:33:40 GMT, bil...@uwindsor.ca wrote:
>In article <3588e746...@news.clark.net>,
> lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 20:57:50 GMT, bil...@uwindsor.ca wrote:
>>
>> >4) Women would prefer to have their children raised by
>> >strangers than raising them at home- unbelievable.
>>
>> Nope. I'm sorry, but that's wrong. There have been many times in the
>> past -- maybe more than the opposite -- when any woman who could
>> afford a nanny or wetnurse left the raising of her children to others.
>
>If you are talking about the upper classes, this is true. However, generally
>a nanny was a part of the family and would stay with the family until all
>children had reached some level of independence.
You're only looking at the period from 1840 to 1930; even ignoring
boarding schools, during the Renaissance wealthy parents would often
go weeks without seeing their offspring.
And yes, this was primarily an upper-class phenomenon, because that's
who could afford it. You said "would PREFER." I think the fact that
in the past, just about any time women could afford to have someone
else raise their kids a lot of them did exactly that, would indicate
that such a preference isn't unlikely.
Note that among the lower classes, kids often stayed with Grandma
while Mama was working at the loom or mill.
>> (Note, by the way, that in the U.S. 35% of women with minor children
>> still stay home to raise them.)
>>
>That means that 65% don't. I doubt that anyone would have believed that
>statistic in 1939.
In 1939 I think it would have been believed; in 1955, during the
period of ferocious postwar conformity and the apotheosis of the
Nuclear Family, it wouldn't.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 4/24/98
bil...@uwindsor.ca
In article <89811691...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
> In article <6m9662$b7l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <bil...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
> >In article <89809798...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
> > jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <6m6m8e$f0d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <bil...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Just looking at the social issues:
> >> >5) High quality imports
> >> >from Asia would threaten the western economies- unbelievable.
> >>
> >> Except they don't. They threaten specific sectors of the economy.
> >> Our economies as whole are much wealthier than they were in 1970.
> >>
> >Perhaps, I should rephrase that to say that high/manufacturing technology
> >sectors of the economy would be threatened. Eg.
> >Who would have thought that:
> >i)advances in electronics (transistors) would be introduced into the mass
> >market by the Japanese and that they would be manufacturing all the high
> >technology toys?
>
> Anyone who knew the history of firearms in Japan. They were
> producing firearms good enough to export very quickly after being introduced
> to them. Hmmm and given my grandfather's stories about pre WWI Japanese
> engineering cunning (eg: order 1 ship from the best in the biz, the Brits,
> and use it to reverse engineer a local ability to produce same) I suspect
> anyone else who thought about post Meiji Japan's industrialization.
>
in 1905 was a partial eye opener but the Russians acquired their navy from
western Europe. Furthermore, they had steamed thousands of miles and were in
no shape to fight when they met the Japanese. OTOH just the idea that Asia
could produce technology that could compete in the west still didn't set.
The Zero in 1941 should have been an eye opener but Japanese quality was so
poor that their consumer products weren't taken seriously.
In the 50s imports from Japan were known as "Japanese junk".
That's another one for the books as well. Who would have thought that the
Japanese would have listened to American quality experts like Deming and Juran
while they were ignored in their homeland?
"Japan doesn't make products that Americans want to buy" John Foster Dulles
1954
James Nicoll
In article <6mb48v$9fq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <bil...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>>
>
>That's another one for the books as well. Who would have thought that the
>Japanese would have listened to American quality experts like Deming and Juran
>while they were ignored in their homeland?
Anyone who thought about Taranto and Pearl Harbour.
Demilitarizing Japan, *that* was surprising.
James Nicoll
--
"Bad nun. No rosary."
Jean Lamb
>bil...@uwindsor.ca wrote:
>I think what people would find impossible to believe is that women would
>choose to work full-time and think publicly funded day care should be a right
>even though they would be able to live on one salary in 1998 far better than
>people lived in 1939. Married women have always worked out of necessity,
>what has happened is that they now work out of choice. I don't believe that
>anybody could have foreseen that in 1939.
Unless you asked any of the women, of course, especially the ones who
still had three of them in diapers. My grandmother was thrilled any
time she could get work out of the home (my dad and his sister were
hellions. Cleaning up a filthy railroad roundhouse was nothing in
comparison).
>Correction to the raising of children- _Brave New World_ did foresee the
>raising of children by the state.
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
You think it's so important, _you_ do it for a while and see how well
_you_ like it.
But hey, that would be unbelievable back then too, because there _are_
men who voluntarily stay home to take care of the kiddies.
Jean Lamb, tla...@wizzards.net, where 2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently
large values of 2.
ste...@access.digex.net
> >> I have the 1967 issue of Daedalus devoted to the proceedings of a 1965
> >> conference on the year 2000.
> >>
> >> There are two mentions of the war in Vietnam. 1) A prediction that by
> >> 1967, the US would have essentially won. 2) A slighting reference to
> >> right-wing dissent on the Vietnam war. (Yes, I said _right-wing_ -- no
> >> mention of dissention farther left.) Those naive rightists couldn't
> >> understand that the US government knew best.
> >
> > I don't see where they got such a notion in 1967 -- Goldwater was not
> > exactly a critic of the Vietnam war per se (critical of how the
> > Administration was handling it, sure, but that's not the same thing).
>
> 1) Goldwater was not the _only_ American conservative, nor did he speak
> for _all_ American conservatives.
True, but to all indication his views on the Vietnam issue were common among
American conservatives.
> 2) The prediction was _made_ in _1965_ -- not 1967.
And Barry Goldwater ran for President in 196_4_. I repeat, to all
indications his views on Vietnam were standard conservative positions.
> 3) Some people on the right were saying "Win or get out." I believe the
> "or get out" part takes this beyond simple disagreement with how the
> Vietnam war was being managed.
It was rather obvious that the people saying "Win or get out" had a STRONG
preference for the former, but considered the latter a lesser evil than the
sort of prolonged goatscrew that actually occurred.
> 4) The past is not constrained by what you find believable.
You just lost me -- what point are you trying to make?
The point _I'm_ trying to make, for the record, is that this reference to
right-wing dissent strikes me as simply a political cheap shot, not serious
political analysis.
Dan Goodman
In article <6mjokt$v49$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Not _my_ cheap shot. It was in that issue of Daedalus.
It was _presented_ as serious political analysis; and in 1965, it was
accepted as such.
After all -- everyone with any sense knew that the US government was
conducting the war competently. And it was foolish for those rightwing
whackos to pretend they didn't see how strong the light at the end of the
tunnel was.
It was a time when mainstream conservatives and mainstream liberals would
have agreed with that bit of political analysis.
And what do all right-thinking, politically aware people know _today_,
that will turn out to be just as false as "The President knows what he's
doing in Viet Nam"?
Philbo
When I originally read the headlines that appear in Heinlein's "I Will Fear No
Evil" (pub 1970) they were funny because of their implausibility - I believe
nearly all of them of them have appeared in the weekly tabloids and many of them
in the standard press!
Phil