Saturday, December 6, 2008

From the E-Mailbag...

Here are two that seemed worth answering in public, starting with this one from Rob Hansen...

A fine tribute to Forry Ackerman, someone I've known about for decades but whom, unfortunately, I never got to meet. I've recently been putting copies of a WWII British fanzine online — Futurian War Digest — and so have read a fair bit about how he helped British fandom during the war. Here's a small tribute to him from 1941.

I do however have to take issue with your claim that "the first known s-f fan convention was held in New York in 1939." Not even close. It wasn't even the first SF convention to be held in New York. That would be the Second Eastern Convention of February 1937. "Second?" Ah, that's where things get a little complicated.

The actual first ever SF convention was held at on Sunday January 3rd, 1937 at the Theosophical Hall in Leeds, England. Among those who had travelled from all corners of the country to attend were Arthur C. Clarke and Eric Frank Russell. UK fans had been talking about this event in their fanzines for months beforehand, fanzines that were also sent to the U.S. On October 22nd, 1936 a group of five New York fans travelled up to Philadelphia to meet up with some of that city's fans in the home of one of them, Milton Rothman. While they were chatting away, someone got the idea of declaring this impromptu gathering the first convention. Hence the 1937 event in NY being the second. I don't actually regard a gathering in someone's front room as a convention and consider the Leeds event the first ever con, but there are those who disagree. So it goes. The first ever London convention was held in 1939 in Druid's Hall (lost in the Blitz, alas), which also predates the first Worldcon.

Probably more than you wanted to know on the subject...

Yes, but interesting, nonetheless. Actually, over the years, I've heard a lot of fanzines and gatherings described as "the first fanzine" or "the first convention" and don't claim to be enough of an authority to declare a definitive answer in either category. You'll notice I said the designation of The Time Traveller as the former was just a widely-held view. I should have said the same about the alleged first convention. I believe Forry claimed the con he attended was the first but maybe there was a little asterisk there...the first by some particular definition.

By the way: Here's a link to the New York Times obit on Forry, which includes the declaration that he was born Forrest James Ackerman but took to using "J" (sans period) as his middle initial. The piece also reminds me that I should have mentioned that Ackerman created the character Vampirella... and wrote one or two of her early stories in one of his few forays into the world of comic books.

Changing the subject, here's a message from Michael J. Hayde...

Enjoyed the O.J. commentary. I find it odd, though, that you're convinced that he's guilty of the double murders. Did we watch the same trial all those years ago? Maybe I shouldn't say this, but I think if I'd been on that jury, having witnessed all that transpired in the courtroom, I'd've been on the side of acquittal.

In writing up the election, some pundit — maybe one you linked to — wrote that it was great for America because it meant race was no longer "a deal-breaker" for the Presidency. I'd submit the original O.J. trial was a similar step forward: race could no longer tip the scales of justice when the prosecution puts forth a shoddy, unconvincing case.

Okay, so if you'd been on that first O.J. jury, you'd have voted to acquit. Now, the question is: Do you think he did it? I sure do...and I don't know why you think that's odd because most people do.

I wouldn't argue that the prosecution did a less than stellar job, and I also think Judge Ito (remember him?) bungled the basic responsibility of his job by allowing the case to get out of control and off onto so many tangents and confusions. But I also think there was so much evidence of Simpson's culpability — and not one indicator that anyone else dunnit — that Professor Irwin Corey should have been able to prosecute that case and get a conviction.

I mean, just to dredge up a fraction of the proof: It was undisputed that the killer dripped blood at the murder scene. The next day, Simpson turned up with a deep cut on his hand that seemed to have occurred the previous evening and he had no explanation of how he'd gotten it...plus, there was the little matter of the DNA in the blood evidence matching his.

There was a lot more than that — O.J.'s history of violence against his ex, the limo driver's testimony, the blood evidence at Simpson's house, etc. — but just the stuff in the above paragraph is enough. We strap people into electric chairs in this country and parboil them based on less proof. And while the "Dream Team" managed to get the jury to be generally suspicous of the evidence, they never specifically disproved a bit of it.

I'd say he did it. So, like I pointed out, do most people. It's been a while since I've seen any poll on this but the last time, I think the tally was that more folks claimed they'd seen flying saucers than thought Simpson was innocent. My guess is it's a lot of the same people. I wonder how many of the jurors at that first trial still feel he was framed. (And yes, I understand they had to vote based on the case put before them, not all the other stuff that you and I get to consider. I still think, with all the exclusions and ineptness, there was more than enough there to convict.)

And I think I'd disagree with your second observation, the one about the Simpson verdict changing the rules of the game about race in courtrooms. If it had been a poor, non-famous black guy in front of an all-white jury, you might have a point. But the panel that turned Simpson loose was mostly black and even then, the defendant's money and celebrity were a lot more significant than his skin color. To me, the main thing that verdict changed in this country was to put it right in everyone's face that sometimes, our judicial system isn't as infallible as we'd like to believe it is. It can be manipulated, especially when expensive attorneys are involved, and it sometimes arrives not at the truth but at the exact opposite.

Surveys say that Americans are slowly turning against the Death Penalty and that doesn't seem to be because they decide it's cruel or barbaric. Increasingly, they just don't trust the system to find the right people guilty. A lot of that is because so many convicted murderers are being freed on DNA evidence but some of it is because of the Simpson verdict. If a jury can set an obvious killer free, it can also convict a guy who's innocent. I think that's the legacy of the first O.J. trial. The legacy of this most recent one is that, happily, we probably won't have any more.

• Posted at 11:50 AM · LINK

Today's Video Link

You'll enjoy this: Six and a half minutes with the amazing Al Jaffee, living legend of Mad Magazine and one of my favorite people on this planet...

• Posted at 9:54 AM · LINK

Go Read It!

Hey, I occasionally tell you here about a comic book called Nature that's issued by the the Educational Publishing Department of Channel Thirteen/WNET in New York. I write for it and it's a great gig because I get to preview the terrific TV show of the same name. Here's an article about this worthy project.

• Posted at 9:46 AM · LINK

The Numbers

Okay, so what exactly is O.J. Simpson's sentence? I thought it was fifteen years in prison and he's eligible for parole in nine but all the news sources I'm seeing are a little incoherent on the topic. Right now on this page, CNN has a story headlined, "O.J. Simpson gets at least 15 years in prison." The first sentence of the story immediately contradicts that headline...

Former gridiron great O.J. Simpson will serve at least nine years in prison for his role in an armed confrontation with sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel in 2007.

Simpson was sentenced to a maximum of 33 years after a rambling, emotional apology in which he told District Judge Jackie Glass, his voice shaking, that he was sorry for his actions but believed he did nothing wrong.

I understand that nine years is to when he's eligible for parole...but if he was sentenced to a maximum of 33 years, where does this fifteen number come from? That's what everyone was saying on the news coverage I watched earlier...fifteen years. They were also saying, "Well, at least he didn't get a life sentence." Thirty-three years might be a life sentence to Simpson, who is 61. Fifteen years probably wouldn't be.

If you think this is confusing, you should have watched Fox News, which was giving out a wide array of numbers all day. In the picture above, as you can see, the crawl at the bottom says he has to serve "at least 15 years." As with the CNN report and most others, that's kind of misleading. If he's eligible for parole in nine years, then he's been sentenced to serve at least nine years, not fifteen.

The crawl in the screen shot below says "Simpson sentenced to 15 years; eligible for parole after 6." That's a better way to put it except that the 6 is wrong. He's eligible for parole in 2017, which is nine years, not six. And what's with that box that says "15 to life?"

I'm sure there's a simple explanation for all this. It's just kinda bizarre that none of the news reports — at least the ones through which I've waded — seem to give it. The L.A. Times article doesn't mention the fifteen year number at all and says he was sentenced to 33 years but is eligible for parole in nine. The Times piece also says something I hadn't heard elsewhere, which is that Simpson was offered a plea bargain — for a lot less time than he'll likely serve — and the offer was declined because "Mr. Simpson wanted something just short of a public apology."

Nice going, O.J. The judge was right: Arrogant and stupid.

• Posted at 2:57 AM · LINK

December 7, 2008 • Current • December 5, 2008