| From: LindyBill | 4/29/2005 9:56:12 AM | | | | | | Thirty Years at 300 Millimeters
By Hubert Van Es
The New York Times
April 29, 2005
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
PICTURE AT URL - nytimes.com
HONG KONG
THIRTY years ago I was fortunate enough to take a photograph that has become perhaps the most recognizable image of the fall of Saigon - you know it, the one that is always described as showing an American helicopter evacuating people from the roof of the United States Embassy. Well, like so many things about the Vietnam War, it's not exactly what it seems. In fact, the photo is not of the embassy at all; the helicopter was actually on the roof of an apartment building in downtown Saigon where senior Central Intelligence Agency employees were housed.
It was Tuesday, April 29, 1975. Rumors about the final evacuation of Saigon had been rife for weeks, with thousands of people - American civilians, Vietnamese citizens and third-country nationals - being loaded on transport planes at Tan Son Nhut air base, to be flown to United States bases on Guam, Okinawa and elsewhere. Everybody knew that the city was surrounded by the North Vietnamese, and that it was only a matter of time before they would take it. Around 11 a.m. the call came from Brian Ellis, the bureau chief of CBS News, who was in charge of coordinating the evacuation of the foreign press corps. It was on!
The assembly point was on Gia Long Street, opposite the Grall Hospital, where buses would pick up those wanting to leave. The evacuation was supposed to have been announced by a "secret" code on Armed Forces Radio: the comment that "the temperature is 105 degrees and rising," followed by eight bars of "White Christmas." Don't even ask what idiot dreamed this up. There were no secrets in Saigon in those days, and every Vietnamese and his dog knew the code. In the end, I think, they scrapped the idea. I certainly have no recollection of hearing it.
The journalists who had decided to leave went to the assembly point, each carrying only a small carry-on bag, as instructed. But the Vietnamese seeing this exodus were quick to figure out what was happening, and dozens showed up to try to board the buses. It took quite a while for the vehicles to show - they were being driven by fully armed marines, who were not very familiar with Saigon streets - and then some scuffles broke out, as the marines had been told to let only the press on board. We did manage to sneak in some Vietnamese civilians, and the buses headed for the airport.
I wasn't on them. I had decided, along with several colleagues at United Press International, to stay as long as possible. As a Dutch citizen, I was probably taking less of a risk than the others. They included our bureau chief, Al Dawson; Paul Vogle, a terrific reporter who spoke fluent Vietnamese; Leon Daniel, an affable Southerner; and a freelancer working for U.P.I. named Chad Huntley. I was the only photographer left, but luckily we had a bunch of Vietnamese stringers, who kept bringing in pictures from all over the city. These guys were remarkable. They had turned down all offers to be evacuated and decided to see the end of the war that had overturned their lives.
On the way back from the evacuation point, where I had gotten some great shots of a marine confronting a Vietnamese mother and her little boy, I photographed many panicking Vietnamese in the streets burning papers that could identify them as having had ties to the United States. South Vietnamese soldiers were discarding their uniforms and weapons along the streets leading to the Saigon River, where they hoped to get on boats to the coast. I saw a group of young boys, barely in their teens, picking up M-16's abandoned on Tu Do Street. It's amazing I didn't see any accidental shootings.
Returning to the office, which was on the top floor of the rather grandly named Peninsula Hotel, I started processing, editing and printing my pictures from that morning, as well as the film from our stringers. Our regular darkroom technician had decided to return to the family farm in the countryside. Two more U.P.I. staffers, Bert Okuley and Ken Englade, were still at the bureau. They had decided to skip the morning evacuation and try their luck in the early evening at the United States Embassy, where big Chinook helicopters were lifting evacuees off the roof to waiting Navy ships off the coast. (Both made it out that evening.)
If you looked north from the office balcony, toward the cathedral, about four blocks from us, on the corner of Tu Do and Gia Long, you could see a building called the Pittman Apartments, where we knew the C.I.A. station chief and many of his officers lived. Several weeks earlier the roof of the elevator shaft had been reinforced with steel plate so that it would be able to take the weight of a helicopter. A makeshift wooden ladder now ran from the lower roof to the top of the shaft. Around 2:30 in the afternoon, while I was working in the darkroom, I suddenly heard Bert Okuley shout, "Van Es, get out here, there's a chopper on that roof!"
I grabbed my camera and the longest lens left in the office - it was only 300 millimeters, but it would have to do - and dashed to the balcony. Looking at the Pittman Apartments, I could see 20 or 30 people on the roof, climbing the ladder to an Air America Huey helicopter. At the top of the ladder stood an American in civilian clothes, pulling people up and shoving them inside.
Of course, there was no possibility that all the people on the roof could get into the helicopter, and it took off with 12 or 14 on board. (The recommended maximum for that model was eight.) Those left on the roof waited for hours, hoping for more helicopters to arrive. To no avail.
After shooting about 10 frames, I went back to the darkroom to process the film and get a print ready for the regular 5 p.m. transmission to Tokyo from Saigon's telegraph office. In those days, pictures were transmitted via radio signals, which at the receiving end were translated back into an image. A 5-inch-by-7-inch black-and-white print with a short caption took 12 minutes to send.
And this is where the confusion began. For the caption, I wrote very clearly that the helicopter was taking evacuees off the roof of a downtown Saigon building. Apparently, editors didn't read captions carefully in those days, and they just took it for granted that it was the embassy roof, since that was the main evacuation site. This mistake has been carried on in the form of incorrect captions for decades. My efforts to correct the misunderstanding were futile, and eventually I gave up. Thus one of the best-known images of the Vietnam War shows something other than what almost everyone thinks it does.
LATER that afternoon, five Vietnamese civilians came into my office looking distraught and afraid. They had been on the Pittman roof when the chopper had landed, but were unable to get a seat. They asked for our help in getting out; they had worked in the offices of the United States Agency for International Development, and were afraid that this connection might harm them when the city fell to the Communists.
One of them had a two-way radio that could connect to the embassy, and Chad Huntley managed to reach somebody there. He asked for a helicopter to land on the roof of our hotel to pick them up, but was told it was impossible. Al Dawson put them up for the night, because by then a curfew was in place; we heard sporadic shooting in the streets, as looters ransacked buildings evacuated by the Americans. All through the night the big Chinooks landed and took off from the embassy, each accompanied by two Cobra gunships in case they took ground fire.
After a restless night, our photo stringers started coming back with film they had shot during the late afternoon of the 29th and that morning - the 30th. Nguyen Van Tam, our radio-photo operator, went back and forth between our bureau and the telegraph office to send the pictures out to the world. I printed the last batch around 11 a.m. and put them in order of importance for him to transmit. The last was a shot of the six-story chancery, next to the embassy, burning after being looted during the night.
About 12:15 Mr. Tam called me and with a trembling voice told me that that North Vietnamese troops were downstairs at the radio office. I told him to keep transmitting until they pulled the plug, which they did some five minutes later. The last photo sent from Saigon showed the burning chancery at the top half of the picture; the lower half were lines of static.
The war was over.
I went out into the streets to photograph the self-proclaimed liberators. We had been assured by the North Vietnamese delegates, who had been giving Saturday morning briefings to the foreign press out at the airport, that their troops had been told to expect foreigners with cameras and not to harm them. But just to make sure they wouldn't take me for an American, I wore, on my camouflage hat, a small plastic Dutch flag printed with the words "Boa Chi Hoa Lan" ("Dutch Press"). The soldiers, most of them quite young, were remarkably friendly and happy to pose for pictures. It was a weird feeling to come face to face with the "enemy," and I imagine that was how they felt too.
I left Saigon on June 1, by plane for Vientiane, Laos, after having been "invited" by the new regime to leave, as were the majority of newspeople of all nationalities who had stayed behind to witness the fall of Saigon.
It was 15 years before I returned. My absence was not for a lack of desire, but for the repeated rejections of my visa applications by an official at the press department of the Foreign Ministry. It turned out that I had a history with this man; he had come to our office about a week after Saigon fell because, as the editor of one of North Vietnam's military publications, he wanted to print in his magazine some pictures we had of the "liberation." I showed him 52 images that we had been unable to send out since April 30, and said he could have them only if he used his influence to make it possible for us first to transmit them to the West. He said that was not possible, so I told him there was no deal.
He obviously had a long memory, and I assume it was only after he retired or died that my actions were forgiven and I was given a visa. I have since returned many times from my home in Hong Kong, including for the 20th and 25th anniversaries of the fall, at which many old Vietnam hands got together and reminisced about the "good old days." Now I am returning for the 30th anniversary reunion. It will be good to be with old comrades and, again, many a glass will be hoisted to the memories of departed friends - both the colleagues who made it out and the Vietnamese we left behind.
Hubert Van Es, a freelance photographer, covered the Vietnam War, the Moro Rebellion in the Philippines and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: LindyBill who wrote (111726) | 4/29/2005 10:02:29 AM | | From: kumar | | | | US house market boom set for bust?
By Stephen Evans
BBC North America business correspondent
Is the current property boom an unwelcome replay of the dot.com bubble of the late Nineties and destined to burst in the same way, showering a lot of people with a lot of pain?
In financial crazes, there's usually a general frenzied belief that the old rules of economic gravity have been superseded - but are we about to (re)learn the hard way that prices that go up can come down with a bump?
Certainly, the anecdotes indicating there's a boom with at least an element of speculation are starting to echo those of the red-hot Nineties.
Official figures just out show that the housing market is as hot as ever: the sales of new homes rose by twelve per cent last month despite widespread gloom about oil prices and debt.
Stories abound of property in Florida being bought and sold within the same day to make a killing on the rising price, and the "how to" guides to trading real estate are selling as fast in the book shops as, well, as fast as a new condominium in Florida.
Golden opportunity
Just like in the Nineties, cheerleaders are urging buyers to believe that staying out of the market means foregoing easy money.
Home-price speculation is more entrenched on a national or international scale now than ever before
Robert Shiller
Professor of economics
Yale University
David Lereah, the chief economist of the National Association of Realtors, says in his new book, "Are You Missing the Real Estate Boom?" that investors should "experience substantial and satisfying wealth gains".
He calls the current boom a "once-in-every-other generation opportunity".
Sharp price rises
In New York, Miami, Los Angeles and San Diego (fastest of all), the price of an average family home has pretty well doubled in the last five years.
Twenty years ago in the United States, the price of a middle of the range home would have represented about five years of income for the house-holder.
Now, it's nearly eight years.
No crystal ball
But there are some signs that the peak may have been reached: the seemingly relentless rise in applications for mortgages has shown signs of wavering recently.
Certainly, one of the best observers of markets believes that the rise in property prices has been driven by speculation.
Yale economist Robert Shiller wrote at the end of the 90s about the bust that was waiting to happen.
His book "Irrational Exuberance" was published in March 2000 as the market started to turn.
He's now up-dated it with a focus on the property market.
"There is no hope of explaining home prices solely in terms of population, building costs or interest rates. None of these can explain the 'rocket taking off' effect starting around 1998.
"So what did cause this real estate boom in so many parts of the world? My conclusion: home-price speculation is more entrenched on a national or international scale now than ever before," Mr Shiller observes.
None of which means that the market is about to turn or even crash tomorrow. Nobody - nobody - can predict market behaviour.
And a change in sentiment in the housing market may just mean stagnant prices as incomes rise.
Limited upside?
But caution does seem to be in order.
There can't be any certainty that property prices will continue their steep, relentless rise, particularly since interest rates are going up, perhaps higher than previously feared if oil starts to inject inflation into the economy.
And rising interest rates ought to give some pause for thought to anyone thinking of borrowing big sums to buy assets that may not rise in price.
Big debts when asset prices are falling is bad arithmetic.
Story from BBC NEWS:
news.bbc.co.uk
Published: 2005/04/26 22:34:49 GMT
© BBC MMV |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: michael97123 who wrote (111715) | 4/29/2005 10:02:37 AM | | From: DMaA | | | | | If a third party was able to stumble on a successful formula, the Dems and Reps would instantly adopt it and cut the third party off at the knees. There's no point for a "centrist" third party. That area is already thoroughly covered by the big two. There's some purpose for experimental third parties exploring political spaces the mains can't afford to mess around in. |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| From: LindyBill | 4/29/2005 10:09:11 AM | | | | | | The New Jersey governor's race
tigerhawk.blogspot.com
By TigerHawk
Newshounds know that New Jersey holds its elections on odd years, which makes this year's governor's race one of the few big state elections that political junkies can twist their hankies over.
The Democratic candidate in this very blue state will be Senator Jon Corzine, who is willing to trade his very expensive first-term seat in the United States Senate for the opportunity to preside over the nest of vipers in Trenton. Corzine expects to spend another big wad to win Drumthwacket, but is trying to turn his wealth into an asset: his wealth, we are to believe, makes him uncorruptible, at least in the petty Sopranos sense of corruption:
Corzine said he will refuse campaign donations from people associated with firms that have state contracts. He will limit individual contributions to $500 - more than $2,000 lower than state law allows. And he said he would forgo public financing and pay for his effort largely out of his personal wealth, valued at $300 million.
"There might be a better way for the public to spend its money than financing someone who has the wherewithal to do it," Corzine said.
Well, there is no arguing with that.
Corzine has spent around $15 million of his own money for every year that he has served in the Senate, and now he is going to switch jobs. Why? Perhaps he calculates that as a liberal Senator from a blue state he can't really get anything done in Washington right now. Sure, like the rest of the Democrats in the Congress he can devote himself to frustrating Republicans, but that won't satisfy a guy like Corzine, who once ran the most powerful investment bank on Wall Street. Perhaps he has also learned from John Kerry's example that it is very difficult for a sitting Senator to become President. While he is unusual among Democratic politicians in that he has extensive experience as an executive, most voters won't give him credit for that until he has been a governor. This year is his shot.
The Republicans will nominate either Bret Schundler, the conservative former mayor of Jersey City, or Douglas Forrester, the choice of New Jersey's creaky Republican establishment. This is a choice not unlike Dean and Kerry last year -- Schundler is the choice of the faithful, but Forrester is the moderate who "can win."
Jersey blogger DynamoBuzz linked yesterday to the results of a new poll that show Forrester and Schundler neck and neck in the Republican primary race, even though most of the respondants admit that they have weak preferences. More interestingly, both Forrester and Schundler have narrowed the gap vs. Corzine significantly, trailing by only ten points, instead of the usual twenty or so. The question, of course, is whether this reflects a substantive improvement in Republican chances, or whether it is an artifact of the publicity around the forthcoming Republican primary. Unfortunately, I believe it is the latter.
Meanwhile, New Jersey's last elected governor, James McGreevey, continues to sink into the mire. |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: LindyBill who wrote (111717) | 4/29/2005 10:10:38 AM | | From: DMaA | | | | | The coming confrontation will also be a barometer of the effectiveness of the MSM. Can they still spin the country to blame the Republicans for the government shut down? |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Mary Cluney who wrote (111727) | 4/29/2005 10:15:46 AM | | From: Lane3 | | | | >>You see, America is ruled by conservatives, and they have a private obsession: they believe that more privatization, not less, is always the answer. And their faith persists even when the evidence clearly points to a private sector gone bad.<<
>>The point, instead, is that even though all the evidence suggests that we would be much better off under a system of universal coverage, any such move will be fiercely opposed, on principle, by conservatives who want us to move in the opposite direction.<<
I don't see how Krugman's view is any less ideological. |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: gamesmistress who wrote (111704) | 4/29/2005 10:16:10 AM | | From: Ilaine | | | | Back when I hung out with science fiction fans there was a pedophile among the group, Roger Lovin, who wrote The Complete Motorcycle Nomad. A lot of people admired him because he was a published author, but I could tell he was a con man. He was caught with a lot of kiddie porn, some of it starring himself. He liked to have sex with the children of his girlfriends.
The weird thing was -- well, there was two weird things. 1) I knew he liked to joke about stuff like that but I didn't take him seriously until he was arrested; 2) after he was arrested it seemed to me that he was still admired (not by me.)
Tarring all science fiction fans with the pedophile brush is silly, but I do find it very weird that so many pedophiles are science fiction fans.
I would have expected something different, NASCAR, maybe. Or paramilitary.
Edit: reading commentary on that blog, I came across one that makes sense. They catch pedos using the computer. Well, people who use computers tend to be geeks, and geeks tend to like science fiction.
So it's a coincidence.
This means they don't catch the pedos who don't use the computer.
Well, one more comment -- I don't think being attracted to 15 year old girls is warped, although it's illegal. The ones I want to kill are the ones who are attracted to five year olds. And we won't even talk about the ones who are attracted to younger kids. Death is too good for them.
Sorry for talking about horrible things. I know a lawyer who used to prosecute these guys, and she had to quit. |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (4) |
|
| To: kumar who wrote (111729) | 4/29/2005 10:17:33 AM | | From: DMaA | | | | I mentioned earlier that my parents bought a house in 1962 for $15,000. The house has been maintained and upgraded over the years and is probably a better house today than it was in 1962. You could buy it for about $95,000. According to my inflation calculator, in real terms this house hasn't appreciated one dime in 40 years.
I would say there are vastly more properties like this in the country than the absurd pockets like south Florida and CA. |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: DMaA who wrote (111730) | 4/29/2005 10:19:17 AM | | From: Lane3 | | | | There's no point for a "centrist" third party. That area is already thoroughly covered by the big two.
I disagree that the middle is currently covered. I agree, however, that solving that problem via a third party is unfeasible. |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
