Quote:To the Moon and “Free” Ride Home

On the remainder of the trip, astronauts will continue to evaluate the spacecraft’s systems, including demonstrating Earth departure and return operations, practicing emergency procedures, and testing the radiation shelter, among other activities.

The Artemis II crew will travel approximately 4,700 miles beyond the far side of the Moon. From this vantage point, they will be able to see the Earth and the Moon from Orion’s windows, with the Moon close in the foreground and the Earth nearly a quarter-million miles in the background.

With a return trip of about four days, the mission is expected to last about 10 days. Instead of requiring propulsion on the return, this fuel-efficient trajectory harnesses the Earth-Moon gravity field, ensuring that—after its trip around the far side of the Moon—Orion will be pulled back naturally by Earth’s gravity for the free return portion of the mission.
Two Missions, Two Different Trajectories

Following Artemis II, Orion and its crew will once again travel to the Moon, this time to make history when the next astronauts walk on the lunar surface during Artemis III.

Quote:(March 18, 2025) -- The official Artemis II mission crew patch. The Artemis II test flight begins when a mighty team launches the first crew of the Artemis generation. This patch designates the mission as “AII,” signifying not only the second major flight of the Artemis campaign, but also an endeavor of discovery that seeks to explore for all and by all. Framed in Apollo 8’s famous Earthrise photo, the scene of the Earth and the Moon represents the dual nature of human spaceflight, both equally compelling: The Moon represents our exploration destination, focused on discovery of the unknown. The Earth represents home, focused on the perspective we gain when we look back at our shared planet and learn what it is to be uniquely human. The orbit around Earth highlights the ongoing exploration missions that have enabled Artemis to set sights on a long-term presence on the Moon and soon, Mars.

Quote:Jay C. Hormel was the SPAM Man. Head of Hormel Foods, he was the canny heir to his father’s canned-meat business. Under him, the company introduced the smooth, spiced pork product known as SPAM right on the cusp of the Second World War. But there was a problem. By wartime’s end, 90 percent of Hormel’s inventory was shipped overseas, as food for American troops and allies. The company now needed to market wartime, tinned food to a peacetime audience.

So, in 1946, the Hormel Company started hiring for the Hormel Girls, a drum and bugle corps of female musicians who had served in the war. As a veteran himself of World War One, Hormel was concerned for his employees who served. During the war, according to authors Jill M. Sullivan and Danelle D. Keck in their paper The Hormel Girls, he had sent letters to enlisted male employees assuring them that their jobs were waiting. When two managers devised a marketing strategy of an all-female, military-style band to promote Hormel products, Jay Hormel was quick to support it. As Sullivan and Keck point out, it was designed to push a “quasi-patriotic” button for consumers, who associated Hormel with the American military.

The requirements to be a Hormel Girl reflected the times. Most of the performers were white, and all were unmarried. They also had to play instruments.

Twenty girls from the original 48 agreed to stay on, and those numbers soon grew. They marched in parades, played in shows, and sold Hormel products (especially SPAM) door-to-door. Advertisements proclaimed that when “talented ex-G.I. Drum and Bugle Girls” came to town, they distributed free SPAM or chili in stores. Driving 35 matching white Chevrolets, the performers proceeded like a caravan, drawing attention wherever they went.

In 1948, the Hormel Girls went to Hollywood and took to the airwaves. According to Sullivan and Keck, they changed their style for radio. While before they had played a mix of military and popular music, the Music with the Hormel Girls show featured big-band music, punctuated by regular reminders that Hormel’s chili and ham was the best. It proved a good combination. By 1953, the show was “number four in the yearly [Nielsen] rankings.”

In the early 1950s, the show expanded to include dance. The Hormel Girls wore elaborate costumes and performed for locals and grocers. Jay Hormel, channeling his inner bandleader, decided who would sing and play which instrument. (Some of the musicians considered him nitpicky, but he may have just been passionate about music. Several of his children and grandchildren became performers.) As the group reached its peak, many newer Hormel Girls were photogenic professional musicians, instead of G.I.’s.

But in 1953, the show came to an end. The caravan was costing the Hormel Company $1.3 million dollars a year, and Jay Hormel was sick and would die in 1954. As television proved to be cheaper advertising, the last performance was held on December 13, 1953. Laverne Wollerman, one of the final performers, told Sullivan and Keck that the curtain was quickly pulled to hide that many of them were crying.

Hormel Girls went on to other jobs at the company, or in music. But there was no denying their effectiveness. In the years that the Hormel Girls performed, Hormel’s sales doubled, and SPAM successfully made its transition from food of necessity to classic Americana. Still, in a 2010 interview, Hormel Girl’s announcer Marilyn Wilson Ritter noted that SPAM wasn’t even her favorite. “I liked the chili con carne,” she said.

The Rise and Fall of the Hormel Girls, Who Sold America on SPAM

Quote:Inside the "Men's Club" -- Secrets of the Patriarchy by HAWTHORNE ABENDSEN of A-albionic Research.

sex and death

love and war

Slayer and Slain

(Caesar and Christ)

God and Satan

religion and politics

(Church and State)

Aryans and Semites

and

much more ......

PATRIARCHAL ORIGINS

There is at least circumstantial evidence in support of the hypothesis that the peoples whom we describe as patriarchal were once a special caste or "guild" in earlier Near Eastern civilizations. They seem to have been a 'taboo' group, 'branded" and set apart, like Cain --whose name, by the way, means 'expelled"-specializing in the risky skills of smelting (fire) and slaughter of arimals (bloodletting) for ritual purposes.

Not only this, but, because of their indifference to pain and death, they provided manpower for the first militias of early Near Eastern Empires, developing eventually into a distinct warrior caste. Careful reading of texts from 2000 BC suggest that, from male-bonded and therefore exclusive solidarity among themselves, they became an autonomous power and at last rose in revolt against their own rulers, who were temperamentally unprepared to resist storms of violence. (Archeologists examining the corpses of their victims note that they seem to have submitted passively, without resistance.)

Abraham's departure from Ur coincides with the collapse of its 3rd Dynasty in civil war -- an event equivalent in its time to the fall of Rome. At the same time, in the northern colonies of Babylon, the ancestors of the Indo- European tribes were also rebelling against foreign rule. Indeed, given evidence of widespread communication amongst all Near Eastern peoples, it is apparent that there was a international revolution as all these warrior bands made common cause -most likely at the crossroads of Harran, where Abraham sojourned-- and one by one overthrew the bull-worshipping "matriarchal" Near Eastern empires.

Those empires not destroyed were transformed, assimilating the first wave of invaders or adapting to the new threat of violence. In Egypt, for example, there was a priestly civil war (marking the beginning of the Middle Kingdom) after which, in defense against the Hyksos invaders, the Pharaohs evolved into warlords. (The Hykaos, a Semitic tribe, were finally driven out around the time of Moses.)

The fragmentary manner in which ancient history is usually presented obscures these connections between "local" events existing on an international context.

One of the facts proving contact and the intermingling of Indo-European and Semitic populations is that the Sanskrit alphabet developed from the Phoenician during this period.

Other such data may be found in the work of historian Cyrus Gordon, The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations.

Quote:The prime minister of Hungary Victor Orbán posted this morning:

Quote:    Today, the Brusselians are crossing the Rubicon. At noon, a written vote will take place that will cause irreparable damage to the Union.

    The subject of the vote is the frozen Russian assets, on which the EU member states have so far voted every 6 months and adopted a unanimous decision. With today’s procedure, the Brusselians are abolishing the requirement of unanimity with a single stroke of the pen, which is clearly unlawful.

    With today’s decision, the rule of law in the European Union comes to an end, and Europe’s leaders are placing themselves above the rules. Instead of safeguarding compliance with the EU treaties, the European Commission is systematically raping European law. It is doing this in order to continue the war in Ukraine, a war that clearly isn’t winnable. All this is happening in broad daylight, less than a week before the meeting of the European Council, the Union’s most important decision-making body, bringing together heads of state and government. With this, the rule of law in the European Union is being replaced by the rule of bureaucrats. In other words, a Brusselian dictatorship has taken hold.

    Hungary protests this decision and will do everything in its power to restore a lawful order.

The EU used the Article 122 of the treaty to make the freezing of the Russian assets in Europe permanent by the vote of a qualified majority in the Council of Europe where each nation has a vote. Previously that freeze was voted on every six month and required unanimity. Any country could thus veto further sanctions. Putting the freeze under Art.122 in effect deprives Hungary and others of their veto power.

The whole issue came up because Belgium, where most of the assets are frozen, has fears that any use of the Russian assets for an EU ‘loan’ to Ukraine would in the end require it to pay Russia if the sanctions were lifted. Making the freeze permanent are supposed to shield it from EU member veto.

It is very doubtful that the use of Art. 122, which is for economic emergency “in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy”, is applicable. The decision will likely be challenged in court:

Quote:    On Wednesday, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever cast doubt over the suitability of Article 122 and the existence of an economic emergency to justify its activation.

    “This is money from a country with which we are not at war,” De Wever said, speaking to reporters at the Belgian parliament. “It would be like breaking into an embassy, taking out all the furniture, and selling it.”

Russia’s response to the EU shenanigans did not take long:

Quote:    MOSCOW, December 12. /TASS/. The Bank of Russia has filed a lawsuit against the Euroclear depository in the Moscow Arbitration Court for damages caused to the Bank of Russia, the regulator’s press service reported.

    The amount of the claim against the depository was not specified in the statement.

    “In connection with the illegal actions of the Euroclear depository, which are causing damages to the Bank of Russia, as well as in connection with the mechanisms officially reviewed by the European Commission for the direct or indirect use of Bank of Russia assets without the consent of the Bank of Russia, the Bank of Russia is filing a lawsuit in the Moscow Arbitration Court against the Euroclear depository for damages caused to the Bank of Russia,” the statement reads.

    The regulator stressed that the actions of the Euroclear depository caused damage “due to the inability to manage cash and securities belonging to the Bank of Russia.”

    The majority of Russia’s sovereign assets frozen in Europe (over €200 billion) are blocked on Euroclear’s platform in Belgium. The depository repeatedly opposed the expropriation of the assets, warning that it could lead to Russia seizing European or Belgian assets elsewhere in the world through legal action.

    Earlier Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that the global financial and economic order would be destroyed, and economic separatism would only intensify, if the West stole Russia’s frozen assets. Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that Moscow would definitely respond to the theft of its assets in Europe. He stressed that the Kremlin intends to organize legal proceedings against those involved in this scheme.

Russia is following the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) procedure through arbitration courts. This helps it to avoid seeking judgment in any potentially hostile national jurisdiction. ISDS procedure have been  successfully used by Russian billionaires who had been sanctioned. The details of how they function is beyond my pay grade though Yves Smith covers a bit of it. She closes her piece with this:

Quote:In any event, pass the popcorn. Things are about to get ugly. The long-standing erosion of national rights in favor of stateless investors is being turned against its neoliberal creators.

When the war in Ukraine started it was quite obvious that it would damage NATO and probably lead to its demise. But I did not expect how much damage it would do to the EU. Brussels is de-legitimizing itself. That damage will last and may well lead to significant changes in whatever is by then left of the European Union.

Quote:On 12 July 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China) issued a unanimous award largely favourable to the Philippines. China has rejected the ruling, but it may nonetheless be a stepping-stone on the way to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Legal Victory for the Philippines against China: A Case Study (2017)

Quote:Blockade: The Ultimate Guide to an Act of War [US Law Explained]

What is a Blockade? A 30-Second Summary

Imagine your neighbor's driveway is the only way to get to your house. One day, they park their cars across it, station family members to watch it 24/7, and declare that no one—not you, not delivery drivers, not guests—can enter or leave. They haven't set foot on your property, but they have effectively cut you off from the world. This is the essence of a blockade. In the world of nations, a blockade is an act of war where one country uses its naval forces to prevent all ships, regardless of their nationality, from entering or leaving an enemy's ports. It's not just a suggestion; it's a physical barrier enforced by military power. Its goal is to strangle the enemy's economy, cut off its military supplies, and force it to surrender. This is fundamentally different from an `embargo`, where a country prohibits its *own* citizens and ships from trading with another nation. A blockade is an active, external, and military operation against everyone. For anyone involved in international trade, from a small business owner shipping goods overseas to a sailor on a cargo vessel, understanding the rules of a blockade can mean the difference between safe passage and catastrophic loss.

Key Takeaways At-a-Glance:

    A Warlike Act: A blockade is a military operation under `international_law` that cuts off access to an enemy's coastline to prevent all vessels from entering or leaving.

    Direct Impact: For an ordinary person, a blockade can disrupt supply chains for essential goods, skyrocket prices, and for those in the shipping industry, it poses a direct risk of vessel seizure and financial ruin.

    Strict Legal Rules: For a blockade to be considered legal, it must be officially declared, effectively enforced, and applied equally to ships of all nations without discrimination.

Quote:On the night of today, December 16, 2025, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, violating International Law, free trade, and freedom of navigation, has issued a reckless and serious threat against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

On his social media, he assumes that Venezuela’s oil, land, and mineral wealth are his property, and that Venezuela must therefore hand over all its wealth immediately. The President of the United States intends to impose, in an absolutely irrational manner, an alleged naval military blockade against Venezuela with the objective of stealing the riches that belong to our Homeland.

Venezuela, in the full exercise of the International Law that protects us, of our Constitution and the laws of the Republic, reaffirms its sovereignty over all its natural resources, as well as the right to freedom of navigation and free trade in the Caribbean Sea and the world’s oceans. Consequently, in strict adherence to the United Nations Charter, it will fully exercise its freedom, jurisdiction, and sovereignty above these warmongering threats.

Immediately, our Ambassador to the United Nations will proceed to denounce this serious violation of International Law against Venezuela.

We call on the people of the United States and the peoples of the world to reject by all means this extravagant threat, which once again reveals the true intentions of Donald Trump to steal the riches of the country that gave birth to the United Liberating Army of South America and to our Liberator, Simón Bolívar. The people of Venezuela, in perfect popular, military, and police unity, will know how to defend their historic rights and prevail along the path of Peace.

Mr. Donald Trump explicitly puts forward the following interventionist and colonialist expression: “until all the oil, land, and other assets that were previously stolen from us are returned to the United States.” His true intention, which has been denounced by Venezuela and by the people of the United States in large demonstrations, has always been the appropriation of the country’s oil, land, and mineral resources through massive campaigns of lies and manipulation.

Venezuela will never again be a colony of an empire or any foreign power and will continue, together with its people, along the path of building prosperity and the unrestricted defense of our independence and sovereignty.

The Venezuelan people, in perfect popular, military, and police unity, remain firm in the unrestricted protection of their territory, their wealth, and their freedom. With our Father Liberator, we say: “Fortunately, it has been seen that a handful of free men can defeat powerful empires.”

(12-17-2025, 06:32 AM)EndtheMadnessNow Wrote:

Quote:...

What is a Blockade? A 30-Second Summary

Imagine your neighbor's driveway is the only way to get to your house. One day, they park their cars across it, station family members to watch it 24/7, and declare that no one—not you, not delivery drivers, not guests—can enter or leave. They haven't set foot on your property, but they have effectively cut you off from the world. This is the essence of a blockade.
...

Quote:"These are the times that try men’s souls; the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."

Thomas Paine publishes “The American Crisis”

Quote:    "Don't expect too much in the early days; for some time we shall transmit comparatively simple programmes, to give the best chance of intelligible reception and provide evidence as to the type of material most suitable for the service in each zone. The programmes will neither be very interesting nor very good." This address was read out five times as it was broadcast live to different parts of the world.

The radio encyclopedia

Quote:According to journalist John Gunther writing of Las Vegas in his Inside USA, “Jack Entratter is responsible for the transformation of Las Vegas from a little desert village to a town boiling over with glamour.” Entratter was a nightclub guy—starting as a reservation clerk at the French Casino in Miami. In 1936 he followed the seasonal migration back to New York to become a floorman (a.k.a. bouncer) at the French Casino there. In 1938 while still in his early twenties Sherman Billingsley made him a host at the Stork Club, New York’s most illustrious and exclusive restaurant. In 1940 he moved to the Copacabana Club, one of Manhattan’s new hotspots, as a “floorman,” eventually becoming show producer and co-owner. He excelled at finding and booking new talent such as Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin, Peter Lind Hayes, Johnnie Ray, and Frankie Laine. And he had a sharp eye for women. As show producer Entratter established a chorus line, the Copa Girls, which he personally selected.

“Entratter shocked the rest of the producers in the ‘entertainment capitol of the world’ when he opened his first show at the Sands with 15 of the most beautiful girls in the West, wearing costumes that cost a total of $12,000—which was more than the headliner, Danny Thomas, was getting in salary! Since then, the rest of the Las Vegas show producers have been on a merry-go-round trying to outdo each other with huge production numbers, involving 20 and 30 people in $20,000 production numbers which only run about six minutes.”

Entratter had a formula for his girls: 5’4” in height; 116 lbs. Bust 32-34, waist 24, hips 34. Face—small features, the American girl look, oval rather than round face. Hair—usually black. Unlike Donn Arden, Entratter was not terribly interested in dancing. His trade magazine ads for Copa Girls read simply, “all you need be is beautiful.” A 1953 Pageant Magazine story recounted Entratter auditioning girls. He flew into Los Angeles one recent afternoon, arranged with agents to model a dozen girls and blithely said: “I’ll take the first, third and ninth girls.” “But Mr. Entratter,” the bookers protested, “the ones you picked can’t dance so good.” Jack laughed. “I don’t care if they never dance. They’re beautiful and I want beauty.” Donn Arden’s auditions, on the other hand, became legendary for terrorizing young hopefuls, demanding not only a tall, long-legged balletic beauty (minimum height of 5’8”) but also expert dance technique. Jack Entratter would never have been heard yelling from his seat, “Get off my stage, you fat cow!” as Arden was known to do.

Jack Entratter and the Copa Girls

Quote:Though written from a distinctly Australian perspective, there is a great article from the Australian Naval Institute, Pax Americana to Pax Sinica, that would be a great way to start your week.

What I find most useful is that it efficiently outlines why, from Washington, to Brussels, to Canberra, serious people should not simply shrug their shoulders as the U.S. Navy, foolishly, has allowed itself to become the world’s #2 navy, and fading.

It should give you a few strong point to respond to people who don’t want to take the time to fully understand what it would mean for the People’s Republic of China to put its stamp on the world’s oceans that have been given a uniquely productive status by the firm, but gentle hand of Anglo-Saxon power at sea for the better part of two centuries, first by the United Kingdom, then the United States.

If we could get a copy of Geoffrey Till’s Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century, that would help everyone, I believe.

Quote:Till’s emphasizes the relational character of maritime power[ii]; he argues the sea is not merely a physical domain but a political medium where the balance of naval capabilities determines the viability of norms. He identifies two conditions that sustain maritime order:

Stable Naval Balances – Naval balance does not necessarily mean parity. Rather, it describes a situation in which the distribution of capabilities discourages unilateral coercion and maintains predictability among actors.[iii] Stability in naval power relations generates restraint, reducing the risk of escalation.

Freedom of Navigation – Freedom of navigation is the practical expression of the openness of the maritime commons. Till notes that while international law codifies this principle, its enforcement depends upon naval capability.[iv] The ability to contest blockades, challenge excessive maritime claims, and guarantee passage is therefore central to its preservation.

In Till’s conception, navies thus play a dual role: they are both guarantors of security and arbiters of access. Maritime order emerges when balances are perceived as legitimate and when freedom of navigation is respected in practice. Conversely, disorder ensues when power asymmetries tempt coercion or when norms of access are challenged by restrictive interpretations of law and sovereignty. This framework provides the lens through which the shift from Pax Americana to a potential Pax Sinica should be understood.

This is a point that navalists understand as second nature, but we seem to keep to ourselves. We think it is self-evident, but like we discussed with John Kuehn on yesterday’s Midrats, we have not been selling the largest benefits of American sea power and the fact that it is a strengthening thread woven through everything the West assumes is part of the natural order. Nothing is granted. Each generation must ensure a stewardship of those positive things previous generations have bequeathed to the future. We are failing at that, and I don’t think we fully appreciate the second and third order effects.

Quote:    The ability to act without fear of maritime challenge reinforced the perception that American hegemony was both natural and enduring. The US Navy became synonymous with American capacity to intervene worldwide, an essential feature of Pax Americana. As Mearsheimer observes, ‘the stopping power of water’[viii] makes maritime dominance crucial for hegemonic states, and the U.S. Navy’s carrier fleet overcame this barrier by extending airpower globally. The casual presidential question reveals that even at the highest levels, the carrier was seen as the default instrument of U.S. geopolitical leadership.

    Unlike Pax Americana, which upheld freedom of navigation as a universal norm, the emergence of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a major maritime power and the green shoots of Pax Sinica risks privileging selective access and hierarchical arrangements. In this order, China could condition access to sea lanes or regional cooperation on political compliance, undermining the universality of maritime openness perceived by the drafters of UNCLOS.

    The rapid modernisation of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA-N) has altered the dynamics of the Indo-Pacific maritime order. Within two decades, China has transformed from a coastal defence force into a blue-water navy. It now boasts the world’s largest fleet by numbers, including aircraft carriers, nuclear and diesel submarines, advanced surface combatants, and amphibious platforms.[ix]

    As the PLA-N expands beyond its near-seas focus to embrace expeditionary operations in the Indian Ocean, the South Pacific, and beyond, Beijing promotes an alternative vision of maritime order—one that privileges sovereignty, restricts access, and increasingly contests the universality of freedom of navigation.

Australia is a large landmass, blessed with riches, with a small population. That gives her a special perspective.

Quote:Who Was David Sarnoff?

The Depression

Less than six months into his presidency, Sarnoff was faced with a formal anti-trust complaint by the Department of Justice against RCA. After a year and a half of complex legal maneuvering and negotiations, Sarnoff convinced General Electric and Westinghouse to sell their holdings in RCA to settle the dispute. The result of this was not only the independence of RCA, but the removal of the last constraints on Sarnoff’s freedom of action within the corporation.

Although RCA recorded its first ever losses in 1932 and 1933, Sarnoff was unfazed. He correctly judged that the market for radio remained strong and he also had another technology in mind. In 1929, Vladimir K. Zworykin, then at Westinghouse, had approached Sarnoff with his ideas on television development. Although mechanical television systems had been successfully demonstrated in the 1920s, Zworykin argued that only an electronic system could solve the technical obstacles to widespread introduction. Sarnoff eagerly backed Zworykin’s research and became a frequent visitor to his laboratory at RCA Camden.

Two years before Zworykin and Sarnoff met, Utah inventor Philo T. Farnsworth had patented an electronic pickup tube that functioned on different principles. In 1932, he successfully filed an action with the Patent Office against RCA on the grounds that its system was subject to his patent. After RCA’s appeal was rejected in 1936, Sarnoff attempted to buy Farnsworth out, but the latter wisely refused and demanded that RCA license the patents from him. Unwilling to jeopardize the introduction of television with lengthy legal proceedings, Sarnoff agreed. The result was a system that Sarnoff believed would create an entire new industry.

Despite these successes, the widespread introduction of television would not happen for another decade. Until 1941, a complex and extremely bitter dispute over national technical standards for broadcast and reception roiled the industry. Although Sarnoff dramatically inaugurated NBC’s television service at the 1939 World’s Fair in New York, declaring “Now we add radio sight to sound,” he was unable to convince the public to buy television sets that might not meet a future national standard. The settlement of the standards dispute in RCA’s favor two years later would have lasting implications, but the entrance of the United States into the Second World War again delayed television’s arrival.

War

Sarnoff had entered the U. S. Army Signal Corps reserve as a lieutenant colonel in 1924 and been promoted to colonel in 1931. During the war, he was called up three times for active service. The first two occasions were relatively brief periods in 1942 in Washington and Philadelphia. In March 1944, he was assigned to the Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF) in England and tasked with overseeing press communications and broadcasting for the invasion of France. Widely praised for his leadership, Sarnoff also established a close friendship with the Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight Eisenhower.

His most notable additional service after the invasion was the reestablishment of Paris’s communications links with London and New York. Sarnoff was rewarded with a promotion to Brigadier General in November 1944 and was subsequently invariably referred to as “The General” by RCA staff.

Color

Returning to civilian life in December, Sarnoff laid the groundwork for RCA’s shift to peacetime mass production of television sets, which began barely a year after the Japanese surrender. In 1947, the terminally ill James G. Harbord resigned as chairman of the board and Sarnoff was elected as his replacement. Soon afterwards, Sarnoff turned over the position of president to Frank M. Folsom, but kept the title of CEO, as well as strict control over the company. Before long, Sarnoff became embroiled in a series of disputes over color television that were even more heated that the pre-war standards debates.

There were actually two separate controversies over color television. The first was the CBS’s attempt to leapfrog monochrome television by introducing a mechanical color system in the 1940s and 1950s. Despite winning FCC approval in 1951, the CBS system failed from a number of factors, including its inexperience with manufacturing, the outbreak of the Korean War, and RCA’s successful demonstration of a prototype electronic system.

When RCA started mass producing color televisions in 1954, it ran into an unexpected obstacle. Nobody wanted to buy them. This was the second controversy, which pitted a grimly determined Sarnoff against waves of criticism from the media, industry, and government. For six years, RCA was alone in manufacturing color televisions and each year it lost money on them. However, the corner was turned in 1960, when RCA, just barely, made a net profit on color. The next half decade was perhaps Sarnoff’s finest hour, as RCA made massive profits over a runaway demand for color televisions and competitors belatedly attempted to jump into the field.

Last Years

Sarnoff’s triumph in color television was his last major contribution to the industry. During the 1950s, he had become increasingly focused on his role as a public figure. He had always been a prolific writer and speaker on communications and other science issues and now expanded his subject matter to include subjects as diverse as the Cold War, education, law, and religion. Sarnoff also began seeking out honorary degrees and other awards, eventually amassing dozens of the former and hundreds of the latter. In 1967, he established the David Sarnoff Library at RCA’s David Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton to house his writings, memorabilia, and awards. [The history of both the library and research center will be examined in future blog posts.]

In 1966, he stepped down as CEO in favor of his son Robert W. Sarnoff, but remained actively involved in RCA’s affairs. A serious attack of shingles in 1968 essentially ended David Sarnoff’s career. Now bedridden, he continued to insist on regular briefings from RCA staff and refused to step down as chairman of the board until the end of 1969. Now honorary chairman, Sarnoff remained hospitalized until his death on December 12, 1971.

In more than sixty years of work in the communications industry, Sarnoff gained a reputation as a visionary and brilliant leader. Yet his rapid rise and obsession with publicity made him a controversial figure. RCA survived only fifteen years longer than Sarnoff and many veteran RCA employees firmly believed that had he led the company into the 1970s, RCA would have avoided its ignominious fate. In the end, on this and many other questions, it remains difficult to separate the man from the myth.

Postscript

Out of a (not entirely successful) desire for brevity, this sketch of David Sarnoff’s life has focused on his career with RCA and left out many interesting details, some of which may be explored in future blog posts. For those interested in a more comprehensive biography, the best is The General: David Sarnoff and the Rise of the Communications Industry by Kenneth W. Bilby (New York: Harper & Row, 1985).

Dan Michelson is the Sarnoff Project Archivist in the Manuscripts and Archives Department at Hagley.

Who Was David Sarnoff? | Part I is here