Valley View vs. Greenville
Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > August > 29
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Kevin Riley: Wright brothers captured world’s attention in 1908
It was early in 1908, just five years after the Wright brothers had first flown, and they had problems on their hands.
They had not been able to sell their flying machine, and because they insisted on keeping the technology behind their invention a secret, much of the world was skeptical of what they claimed to have accomplished.
After all, they hadn’t taken to the air for about two-and-half years after flying at Huffman Prairie through October of 1905. And the Huffman Prairie flights had been mostly observed by a local audience without much media attention.
And so in the spring of 1908, they headed back to Kitty Hawk for a critical period in the development of their airplane. They had hoped to do their experimenting in private, but instead created an early version of a media circus — complete with paparazzi, reporters hiding in bushes and exaggerated, inaccurate media reports.
But, in the end, the journalists catapulted the Wrights to worldwide recognition for their achievement.
This pivotal 11-day period is chronicled in a new book by East Carolina University professor Larry E. Tise, who is the school’s Wilbur and Orville Wright Distinguished Professor of History. “Conquering the Sky: The Secret Flights of the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk” is scheduled for publication on Sept. 29.
During this period, the Wrights faced what Tise calls the “dilemma of inventors.” They wanted to get credit for what they had done, but had not yet figured out how and when to tell the world about it. And they were more than a little paranoid about someone stealing and replicating their ideas.
The Wrights had tried to sell their airplane to the U.S. and some European governments — and now a number of inventors in France were trying to take credit for figuring out powered flight. The brothers were getting ready to go public.
“The Wrights recognized that the time for secrecy was over,” said Tom Crouch, senior curator of aeronautics at the National Air and Space Museum and a Wright Brothers scholar.
But they still wanted to perfect their plane in private.
They went back to Kitty Hawk in 1908, hoping that an inaccessible place would offer privacy. Crouch calls this time the Wrights’ “dress rehearsal” before the brothers had to demonstrate their airplane in Europe and the United States later that year. Those demonstrations required controlled flying, carrying a passenger and flying long distances.
And while the Wrights were confident, one of their big challenges was a new control system they had developed for pilots to sit upright, Crouch said. Before this point, they had always flown lying down.
“They hadn’t flown for two-and-a-half years. This is not like riding a bike,” Crouch said. Once the word got out that the Wrights were back at Kitty Hawk, a local telegraph operator began to send word out about it.
Inaccurate, oddly worded reports began appearing in newspapers — including the Dayton Daily News — about what the Wrights were doing, Tise said.
Tise said his research shows the reports were at first claiming long flights even before the brothers had gotten their plane assembled at Kill Devil Hills.
Eventually, New York and London newspapers sent reporters to Kitty Hawk to confirm what was going on. Unwelcome by the Wrights, they at first hid in trees, Tise said.
The Wrights were early risers, so the reporters, who stayed about seven miles away in Manteo, N.C., had to be up early and faced heat, sand fleas and chiggers as they sought to document the Wrights’ achievements.
“They were absolutely miserable,” Tise said.
A famous early photojournalist, James H. Hare, took a photograph that became the first published showing the Wrights’ plane in flight. (The famous and familiar Kitty Hawk picture of the Dec. 17, 1903, flight was not actually published until later.)
Tise insists these journalists did the Wrights a huge service because they confirmed for the world that they were actually flying. And Tise argues that the Wrights came dangerously close to not getting credit for their achievement.
But after the reports of their 1908 flights at Kitty Hawk, and their flying demonstration in France later that year, no one could dispute the Dayton brothers’ place in history.
TweetPlease share your comments on our facebook page.
Editorial: Ohio pensions already cost enough
The August newsletter to Ohio’s teachers from their pension fund is sobering.
As upsetting as the news is, public school teachers still have a great retirement plan. But, clearly, it can’t be as great in the future.
Because of the stock market dive, last year the fund lost almost 22 percent of its value. That’s awful, but the number is low compared to what many individuals lost.
Over the long haul, the system banks on an 8 percent return each year to meet its obligations. Put another way, it will take some really good years to lift up the plan’s finances. And nobody thinks those exceedingly good years are coming soon or in quick succession.
So what to do?
The teachers’ pension fund, as well as Ohio’s other four pension plans, have to report to an oversight body in September how they’re managing their finances to assure that they can cover their liabilities. This week the police and firefighters pension fund said it wants the legislature to increase the rates paid both by workers and local governments.
The teachers’ fund may also ask for more from school districts as well as teachers themselves. There also are changes that would decrease benefits and increase eligibility standards that are on the table, too.
Two big points:
The legislature can’t increase pension costs for state and local governments and school districts. They’re already generously supporting retirees, and ordering them to pay more is out of the question. Taxpayers kick in a minimum of 14 percent of public employees’ salaries — and 24 percent for firefighters.
The pension funds are in a bad way because they also provide health care to retirees, a benefit they’re not required to provide. Of course, they’re not going to end that practice, but it’s at the root of the funds’ financial problems.
If President Barack Obama and Congress agree on health care reform, the pension systems quickly could find themselves in much better shape. The point is not that Washington should bail out public employee pension funds; rather, it’s that health care reform does matter even to people who currently have insurance benefits.
Some time back, when Republicans controlled the governor’s office and the legislature, the teachers’ pension fund proposed taking more out of teachers’ pay to cover retirees’ health care and upping the amount school districts pay the fund as well. The idea died quickly.
What’s different today is that Ohio has a Democratic governor and a Democratic House, but the economy is way worse and school district finances are no more stable. Teachers — indeed all public employees — have to find a way out of this bind other than asking taxpayers.
None of the funds is without options.
Many private pension funds don’t provide cost-of-living increases, while the public funds do. The funds could increase the age at which people may start collecting benefits. (The 30-years-and-out practice is an anachronism, what with people living longer and with beneficiaries expecting their pensions will keep rising even after they quit, often in their 50s.)
They could calculate benefits based on, say, a workers’ last five years instead of three. They could simply reduce benefits. Some very long-time public employees get 88 percent of their old salaries in retirement.
They could eliminate the option of double-dipping, which encourages people to start collecting benefits earlier than they otherwise would. That practice milks the system and has become a symbol for what’s wrong with public pensions.
Lawmakers, who have to sign off on benefit changes, need to send a signal now, so there’s no confusion about what has to happen to get the funds back on sound footing.
Changes have to come in the form of reduced benefits — not what the public pays.
TweetPlease share your comments on our facebook page.
