John Simkin

I have just uploaded a new section. It is called history Debates in the Resources section. The first one is entitled National Curriculum for History Teachers and has been taken from the debate we are having on the subject on the forum. It took me three hours to do. The system crashed after one and a half hours and I lost all my work. Apparently you have to actually save the page after every 15 minutes. It looked fine but does not tell you that you have been logged out. You only find that out when you try to upload it. What a nightmare. I hope it is worth it. After all, it looks far better on the forum.

I see they still have not uploaded most of the work we did in Sweden.

I thought it might be a good idea to create a new thread on recommended books for reading during the summer holidays.

Last week Granta sent me several books to review for Education on the Internet. One of these was John Gilmore’s Severed: The Black Dahlia Murder. I have to admit I placed it with the maybe will read books. As I placed it on the pile I noticed that a side view revealed that the book included a great number of photographs. I am a sucker for old photographs and could not resist taking a look. I soon wished I hadn’t. The autopsy photographs were truly upsetting (the victim, Elizabeth Short had been cut up after she was murdered). However, the other photographs were fascinating. They were mainly photographs of Elizabeth and her numerous boyfriends. In each photograph she looked completely different. In fact, if the photographs were not accompanied by captions, I would have refused to believe they were of the same woman. Yet, in each of the photographs, you could tell why she had no difficulty finding male company.

I then began reading the quotes from the critics. They spoke highly of Gilmore as a writer and explained why Granta had decided to reprint what it called this “cult-classic” (it was originally published in the United States in 1998).

That night I ignored my pile of history books I am currently reading and picked up Gilmore's book. I am glad I did. The book is a masterpiece.

The first chapter deals with the discovery of Elizabeth Short’s mutilated body in January, 1947. It is written like a novel. You are unaware of a narrator. Instead you seem to be observing events like they appear on a television screen (Gilmore is also a screenwriter). I assume the conversations that we read are based on witness statements and interviews with the author. Each one speaks with a different voice. One automatically assumes that these words have not been invented by the author.

The next nine chapters explore the early life of Elizabeth Short. You also find out a lot about the people she meets and befriends on her route to what she believes will end up with her being a Hollywood actress. In chapter 10 she is murdered. In chapter 11, a chilling account of the autopsy reveals why she was murdered. One of those rare moments when you feel the hair on the back of your neck standing up. The reason why she was murdered was kept secret until the publication of Gilmore’s book. Why? One of the problems for the police investigating the case was the large number of people who confessed to the crime. To test if they were telling the truth, it was vitally important that only the murderer and the detectives knew why she was murdered. Chapters 12 to 20 follow the investigation and the impact that the murder was to have on Los Angeles (the Black Dahlia case is America’s Jack the Ripper).

In the final chapter the author emerges from the shadows to reveal he was one of the characters in the book. He then explains who killed Elizabeth Short and why the man was never arrested for the crime.

Juan Carlos: What did you make of Spain’s performance last night? To my mind it was competent rather than brilliant. One got the impression that if Russia scored a goal, Spain would have gone up a gear and scored another.

Portugal seemed over-anxious and will now struggle to qualify. I expect Spain and Russia will beat them.

News emerging from the England camp suggests that King will replace Terry. This seems to me to be a terrible gamble. He has not even played much in this position for his own team. Nor has he played in any big games and is likely to suffer badly from nerves against France. Even if my idea of playing Cole against Henry is too revolutionary, why not switch Neville to the centre (he has played in this position in big games for Man United).

Let us hope I am wrong. If so, I will happily write about Sven-Goran Eriksson’s inspired team selection.

I also agree with David that people currently do not make real "choices" about what they eat, and that frequently those choices are structured by economics (the cheapest food is often the least healthy) and saturation advertising.

However it is important that people are allowed to make choices about how they live their lives - once the food industry has been cleaned up and regulated, and once a consistent, balanced and un-hypocritical educational input has been set up -without some foul school marm telling everyone what to do. Not least because prohibition always fails.

I am also against prohibition but as with issues like seat-belts and child labour, I am in favour of compulsion. Until you specify the legislation you object to, it is difficult to say whether we actually disagree on this issue. However, obesity is an issue that this government has so far refused to tackle.

As I said earlier (18th February) I prefer the position of the government in Finland. They have shown that with the right legislation you can reverse this trend to produce larger and larger people. However, it does mean that the people of Finland have had to endure restrictions on their freedom. As the BBC report pointed out: “In this country (Britain), the accusation of presiding over a 'nanny state' is the worst form of insult that can be thrown at a politician. But in Finland politicians seem to smart less at such allegations.”

Next Friday, Cancer 2025, a report written by the country’s top cancer specialists, will be presented to the government. It will claim that cancer cases will treble over the next 20 years. It warns that a cancer underclass is developing (overweight poor people who smoke). The report predicts that by 2025 the NHS will have to treat 3 million people suffering from cancer. It warns that the cost of this treatment will bankrupt the NHS. They claim that unless the government acts on this issue they will be forced to introduce a semi-privatised NHS. In other words, the treatment people receive will depend on their ability to pay.

This report illustrates the dilemma facing the government. An unwillingness to introduce legislation now will result is some unpleasant decisions being made in the future. The problem we face is that governments tend to leave unpleasant decisions until as late as possible. After all, they will say to themselves, why should we make decisions that make us unpopular when future politicians will gain the benefits for these actions. It is very similar to reasons why governments are reluctant to take unpopular decisions to protect the environment. It is in fact one of the disadvantages of democratic government. All we can do is urge our governments to make decisions that are good for future generations. As intelligent individuals we have a responsiblity to do that.

John,

Since some of the suspicion about Phillips depends on the claims of Veciana, the implication of some of the points you make (which are good points) is that Veciana seemed to be out to get Phillips (claiming that he saw Phillips or Bishop and Oswald together). Why would Veciana make up incriminating things about Phillips?

In fact Antonio Veciana denied David Phillips was Bishop. It was Richard Schweiker, a member of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, who speculated that Bishop was Phillips. Schweiker asked his researcher, Gaeton Fonzi, to investigate this issue. Fonzi arranged for Veciana and Phillips to be introduced at a meeting of the Association of Retired Intelligence Officers in Reston. Phillips denied knowing Veciana. After the meeting Veciana told Schweiker that Phillips was not the man known to him as Bishop. Fonzi was unconvinced by this evidence and in his book The Last Investigation (1993) claimed that Phillips was Bishop.

Larry, at the end of chapter 10 you summarize the evidence in favour that David Attlee Phillips was involved in the assassination of JFK. It is so comprehensive I think it is worth quoting in full:

David Phillips held a seminal position in anti-Castro affairs before and during the time in which the Kennedy conspiracy was formed. He had access to strategic plans and information in regard to Cuban affairs by way of his contacts in Washington D.C. and at JM WAVE in Miami. He worked in tandem with David Morales at JM WAVE and in Mexico City and undoubtedly his real politics and feelings were those of Morales rather than the liberal picture he paints of himself as a JFK proponent in his biography.

• David Phillips was Maurice Bishop.

• As Bishop, Phillips pursued his own personal anti-Communist and anti-Kennedy Administration agenda.

• Phillips' direction of Alpha 66 to attack Russian targets in Cuba was intended to provoke a direct U.S. - Russian conflict which would result in the liberation of Cuba.

• Through Veciana, Phillips independently supported multiple unsanctioned assassination plots against Fidel Castro. Alpha 66, Veciana, Eddie Bayo and Tony Cuesta were not directed by the CIA but personally by Phillips. Phillips specifically told Veciana his goal was to provoke US intervention in Cuba by "putting Kennedy's back to the wall."

• Phillips demonstrated his willingness to incite exiles in independent military actions. Phillips had an established history of organizing anti-FPCC "dangles" and propaganda operations.

Phillips was involved in a new anti-FPCC initiative in 1963, including a project to extend the effort outside the United States.

Bishop/Phillips was seen in Dallas, Texas, with Lee Oswald immediately prior to Oswald's trip to Mexico City - a trip in which he made contact with both the Cuban and Russian embassies in an attempt to travel through Cuba to Russia.

We now do know a good deal about David Phillips, both from his official history and from the disclosure of his actions as Maurice Bishop. What we may never know is the extent to which David Phillips used his position and assets to support the Kennedy conspiracy. However, there are two further indications that he was either aware of the conspiracy or actively supported it.

One of these is from conversations which David Phillips had with Kevin Walsh, a former HSCA staffer who went on to work as a private detective in Washington, DC In a conversation not long before his death, Phillips remarked: "My private opinion is that JFK was done in by a conspiracy, likely including American intelligence officers." - David Atlee Phillips, July 1986.

The second conversation was related in an email exchange between researcher Gary Buell and David Phillips' nephew, Shawn Phillips. As Shawn described in the email, Shawn's father, James Phillips, became aware that his brother, David, had in some way been "seriously involved" in the JFK assassination. James and David argued about this vigorously and it resulted in a silent hiatus between them that lasted for almost six years.

As David was dying of lung cancer, he called his brother. Even at this point there was apparently no reconciliation between the two men. James asked David pointedly, "Were you in Dallas that day?" David answered, "Yes," and James hung up the phone on him.

The idea that David Phillips was involved in the assassination appeared in several of the early conspiracy books. Looking at the evidence you provide (in Someone Would Have Talked) this is not surprising. However, I have always had severe doubts about this.

Phillips was a skilled operator. If he had been involved in planning this operation I am sure it would have been done in such a way that would not have raised so many doubts about Oswald acting as a lone gunman. For example, Phillips would have been aware that the Oswald impostor would have been captured on film in Mexico City. Therefore, why did they select someone who clearly did not look like Oswald. The setting up of Oswald seems a very amateur operation. Phillips might have been aware of what was going on, but I cannot believe that he played a major role in the assassination.

If Phillips had been organizing the conspiracy would he not have made sure there was no link between himself and the assassination. For example, would Phillips be the CIA’s direct contact with Antonio Veciana? (MI5 and MI6 defintely don't behave like this). Surely he would have used someone else to have met Veciana in public. Also Veciana claims that in August, 1963, he saw Bishop and Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas. If Phillips knew that Oswald was being set-up to be blamed for the assassination of JFK he would not have got anywhere near him that summer.

Another reason why I do not believe Phillips was involved in the assassination is the interview he gave to Kevin Walsh. If he had been part of a conspiracy would he really have said: "My private opinion is that JFK was done in by a conspiracy, likely including American intelligence officers." If he had been guilty of such a crime he would have kept on denying any possibility that the CIA could have been involved in such an event.

When he died on 7th July, 1988, Phillips left behind an unpublished manuscript. The novel is about a CIA officer who lived in Mexico City. In the novel the character states: "I was one of those officers who handled Lee Harvey Oswald... We gave him the mission of killing Fidel Castro in Cuba... I don't know why he killed Kennedy. But I do know he used precisely the plan we had devised against Castro. Thus the CIA did not anticipate the president's assassination, but it was responsible for it. I share that guilt."

I suspect that this extract reveals Phillips’ true involvement in the assassination of JFK. Maybe that was the real reason Oswald was chosen as the patsy. When the CIA realised that one of their agents recruited to kill Castro had killed (or been made to look like he had killed) JFK, they had no option but to try and cover up the crime. The same goes for Robert Kennedy, who was likely to have been told as part of Operation Freedom, that Oswald was the agent being trained to kill Castro.

The United States Army had 10 regiments of cavalry. The 9th and 10th Cavalry were Afro-American regiments led by white officers. Highly respected by the Native Americans these men were called Buffalo Soldiers because their short curly hair resembled that of the buffalo. They played an active role in the Indian Wars and took part in campaigns against the Sioux, Comanche and Apache. Eleven of these soldiers received the Medal of Honor. The first black officer was Henry O. Flipper, who served in the 10th Cavalry.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWflipper.htm

It is well worth looking at the career of Flipper. He took part in the Indian Wars and fought against Victorio and the Apache in 1880. Colonel Benjamin Grierson wrote that "He came under my immediate command during the campaigns against Victorio's band of hostile Indians, and from personal observation, I can testify to his efficiency and gallantry in the field."

After being transferred to Fort Davis he became quartermaster. When Colonel William Rufus Shafter became commanding officer of Fort Davis in 1881, he immediately sacked Flipper as quartermaster. Flipper suspected what he later called a systematic plan of persecution, and is said to have been warned by civilians at the post of a plot by white officers to force him from the army. The following year, when he discovered post funds missing from his quarters, he attempted to conceal the loss until he could find or replace the money. When Shafter learned of the discrepancy, he immediately filed charges against him.

Flipper was accused of embezzling $3,791.77 from commissary funds. Flipper denied the charge and claimed that he had been framed by his fellow officers, who hated him because he was African American. A court-martial found him not guilty of embezzlement but on 30th June, 1882, convicted him of conduct unbecoming an officer and ordered him dismissed from the Army.

In 1893 Flipper became a mining engineer for the Justice Department. He also worked as a consultant for the Sierra Mining Company (1908-1912) and as resident engineer for the William Greene Gold-Silver Company (1912-1922). Fluent in Spanish he was interpreter-translator for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations investigating Mexican Affairs (1922-23).

Flipper continued to prosper and was appointed assistant to the Secretary of the Interior (1923-1930) and held a senior position at the Pantepec Company in New York until he retired in 1931. His memoirs, Negro Frontiersman: The Western Memoirs of Henry Ossian Flipper, was published after his death.

Henry Flipper died in Atlanta, Georgia, on 3rd May, 1940. His supporters continued to campaign to overturn the sentence of the court-martial that had taken place in 1882. This was finally achieved in December 1976 when he was granted a posthumous honorable discharge. On 11th February, 1978, he was given a full military funeral at Thomasville, Georgia.

You will find an account of the Indian Wars on my website:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWindianwars.htm

You should find all the answers on this page (and the internal links). However, feel free to come back with individual questions about the topic.

The full index on the American West can be found at:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAamericanwest.htm

In their book, Double Cross (1992), Charles and Sam Giancana (Sam's half-brother and nephew) argue that Richard Cain, along with Charlie Nicoletti, were the two gunman who killed President John F. Kennedy. The authors claim that it was Cain, rather than Lee Harvey Oswald, who fired from the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository.

In 1996 Eric Hamburg claimed that Cain worked with Dave Yarras and Lenny Patrick in the assassination of Kennedy in Dallas. This statement was based on information obtained from Claudia Furiati, a Brazilian journalist. Later that year Peter Dale Scott suggested that Cain was implicated in the assassination as a result of his links with Johnny Roselli and John Martino.

However, these writers have failed to put forward any reliable evidence that Cain was in Dealey Plaza on 22nd November, 1963.

Richard Cain was murdered in 1973. Since then researchers such as Larry Hancock and Michael Cain (Richard's younger brother), have investigated the case and have been unable to find any evidence that shows Richard Cain was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Does anyone else have information on Richard Cain’s involvement in this case?

This great turn from left to right was not just a case of the pendulum swinging - first, the left hold sway and then the right, and here comes the left again. The truth is, conservative thought is no longer over here on the right; it's the mainstream now. And the tide of history is moving irresistibly in our direction. Why? Because the other side is virtually bankrupt of ideas. It has nothing more to say, nothing to add to the debate. It has spent its intellectual capital, such as it was, and it has done its deeds. (Ronald Reagan)

It is clearly true that since the 1980s the pendulum has swung right in both the United States and the UK. It is also true in most European countries (France, Italy, Sweden, Spain, etc.). There have been some cases where right-wing leaders have been replaced by those who appeared to be on the left of their predecessors (Clinton/Blair) but once in office they failed to reverse the trends started by Reagan/Thatcher). As a result the gap between rich and poor continues to get wider in these countries. The real gain for the conservatives is the move towards greater inequality.

I would argue that the main reason for this move to the right is a change in political consciousness. I would argue that people in 19th century had a greater political understanding than people did in the late 20th century. One of the reasons for this was that people realised that the capitalist media would distort the truth in order to maintain economic equality. Although the public remained sceptical about what they were told by the media, they did not have a political understanding of this deception. The common view was that all newspapers (as well as all politicians) could not be trusted to tell the truth. Worryingly, they trusted television to tell them the truth about the situation. In most cases (in the UK) it did. The problem is that television was very selective about the truth it told them. For example, television rarely highlighted the way the tax system worked.

The great achievement of right-wing politicians was to persuade people with below average incomes to vote for policies that would make them worse off. This was only possible because so many people lacked a full understanding of the way the capitalist economic system worked. For example, they seemed unaware that a reduction in progressive income tax would also mean an increase in regressive indirect taxes. This automatically resulted in a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.

The new conservatives made anew the connection between economic justice and economic growth. Growth in the economy would not only create jobs and paychecks, they said; it would enhance familial stability and encourage a healthy optimism about the future. Lower those tax rates, they said, and let the economy become the engine of our dreams. Pull back regulations, and encourage free and open competition. Let the men and women of the marketplace decide what they want. (Ronald Reagan)

This is of course the basic lie of those on the right. The idea that if you lowered tax rates and deregulated the economy you would get economic justice is ridiculous. By trying to recreate the economy of the early 19th century you would of course get the same social injustices of that period. The introduction of progressive taxation and the regulation of the capitalist system were brought in by politicians in order to protect the less vulnerable in society. By deregulating you gave more power to the people who controlled the capitalist system. They in turn would use these changes for their own advantage.

What Reagan and Thatcher never did was to reduce the overall levels of taxation. They could not do this because they needed to increase the money the government had to spend. Both Reagan and Thatcher believed in increased spending on defence. They could never balance the budget without increasing indirect taxation. Thatcher found this easier to do than Reagan and was therefore more successful at balancing the budget.

Why were Reagan and Thatcher so committed to increased defence spending? Officially it was because of the fear of communism. Unofficially, it was about providing money to what Dwight Eisenhower described as the Military-Industrial Complex. The arms and oil industries have always played a prominent role in providing the funds for right-wing political leaders. The Military-Industrial Complex is the post powerful group within capitalist society. It has always worked very closely with the intelligence services. Whenever a political leader in the United States has attempted to negotiate an end to the arms race they have found themselves assassinated or embroiled in a serious political scandal: Kennedy (1963), Nixon (1974) Reagan (1986). Yes, even right-wingers like Nixon and Reagan had to be punished when they began serious arms discussions with the Soviet Union and China.

The Military-Industrial Complex was in trouble with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Surely now, we could reduce defence spending. It was therefore necessary to provide a new threat to the democratic free world (capitalism). Islamic fundamentalism now fulfils that role. Despite the collapse of communism defence spending is at a all-time high. One of the major advantages of this new enemy is that it allows you to use up some of these weapons against weak military powers. This military action leads to acts of terrorism which further justifies increased spending on defence.

Well, it occurs to me that history has already begun to repeal that doctrine. It started one day in Grenada. We only did our duty, as a responsible neighbor and a lover of peace, the day we went in and returned the government to the people and rescued our own students. We restored that island to liberty. Yes, it's only a small island, but that 's what the world is made of-small islands yearning for freedom.

There's much more to do. Throughout the world the Soviet Union and its agents, client states, and satellites are on the defensive - on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man - in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America. In making mention of freedom fighters, all of us are privileged to have in our midst tonight one of the brave commanders who lead the Afghan freedom fighters - Abdul Haq. Abdul Haq, we are with you.

They are our brothers, these freedom fighters, and we owe them our help. I've spoken recently of the freedom fighters of Nicaragua. You know the truth about them. You know who they re fighting and why. They are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance. We cannot turn away from them for the struggle here is not right versus left; it is right versus wrong. (Ronald Reagan)

This rhetoric is partly about justifying increased military spending. It is also about promoting an ideology of freedom and democracy that is crucial for imperialism. It has to convince the public that it is necessary to spend large amounts of money to intervene in other country’s affairs. In reality it is about keeping friendly governments in power. Let us look at the examples Reagan gives of America protecting freedom.

First of all, Grenada. It is true that the Americans invaded Grenada to overthrow a Marxist government led by Bernard Cord. What Reagan does not tell us is that Cord had just overthrown another Marxist government led by Maurice Bishop. In 1979 Bishop had gained power by overthrowing a government led by Eric Gairy. He had officially been elected to office in 1976. However, all neutral observers believed that Gairy had used his power to corrupt the election.

The invasion of Grenada was deemed by the United Nations General Assembly to be an unlawful aggression and intervention into the affairs of a sovereign state. A similar resolution was discussed in the UN Security Council and although receiving widespread support it was ultimately vetoed by the USA. Reagan ignored the advice of the UN and imposed his own “friendly government”.

In 1985 Reagan was proudly telling the world he was supporting Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He said it was about freedom and democracy but of course it had nothing to do with that. These political groups had no desire to bring about any such thing. Why they were helped was because they were doing what they could do to destroy left-wing movements in their countries.

The same was true of Nicaragua. In 1985 Reagan was supporting the Contras. These were the supporters of Anastasio Somoza Debayle, the Nicaraguan military dictator who had been forced to flee to America in 1979. The Contras were involved in a guerrilla war against the FSLN government that had been democratically elected in 1984. Yet Reagan describes the Contras as being “the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance”. Yet this is the man the American people are currently celebrating as the brave campaigner for freedom and democracy.

Now, we're not in power because they failed to gain electoral support over the past 50 years. They did win support. And the result was chaos, weakness, and drift. Ultimately, though, their failures yielded one great thing - us guys. We in this room are not simply profiting from their bankruptcy; we are where we are because we're winning the contest of ideas. In fact, in the past decade, all of a sudden, quietly, mysteriously, the Republican party has become the party of ideas. (Ronald Reagan)

So is Reagan right? Has the battle been won. Well, I am the eternal optimist and see signs of the tide turning. Yesterday we saw the current party of the Military Industrial Complex, New Labour, take a beating in the local elections. True, many of these votes went to the Tories. However, the left (in the form of the Liberal Democrats and the Greens also made significant gains). These gains took place in those areas that had traditional supported the left (industrial areas and university towns). The main reason for this change was these parties views on income tax and the Iraq War. The working class are largely apathetic about politics but the middle-classes are gradually developing a greater understanding of the way our economic system works. It is the middle-classes that will eventually move society to the left.

My argument is with those "socialists", and "interventionists" or whatever you want to call them who apparently believe that the world would be so much better for everyone if the world just did as they said because "they know best," rather than attempt any democratic or educative engagement with the people.

Could you make it clearer what proposed legislation that you are objecting to. Until you do that, I am not sure what we are disagreeing about.

A recent survey suggests that the disadvantaged desperately need help to help break their addictions. For example, 76% of the unemployed who smoke want to give up and are in favour of legislation that will help them do this.

Tobacco smoke pollution is the only class A carcinogen from which workers have no protection. It is estimated that around 2,000 people die each year from tobacco smoke pollution. This includes one non-smoking bar worker per week.

My second concern is the defence especially against the French. As a gooner I have seen the likes of Henry, Pires, Vieira and even Wiltord rip the heart out of so many teams with their incredible pace, energy and sublime skill. Without the injured John Terry in the middle whoever replaces him (Carragher or King) is going to be in for a tough time against Titi. (Dan Lyndon)

With the loss of Terry in defence Henry is bound to cause England serious problems on Sunday. I have no confidence in either Carragher or King being able to stop him. William Gallas is the only defender who has coped with him this season. My solution would be to bring in Wayne Bridge at left back and give Ashley Cole a man-marking role on Henry.

El Corte Inglés (nothing to do with England), the biggest department store in Spain, has just launched a special offer in their supermarkets: "If Spain wins the Cup, we will give your money back". I have to admit that Spanish firms are not very supportive with our National Team. (Juan Carlos)

I am afraid we have seen a big patriotic surge with about a third of all cars flying English flags.

I bet that the teams that will reach semifinals will be Portugal (let's enjoy Figo), England (although Beckham was lately a bit depressed in Madrid), France (the best in the world is playing there) and Spain (Although, I am a Real Madrid supporter, keep an eye on Fernando Torres, a young player of Atlético de Madrid) (Juan Carlos)

I look forward to seeing Fernando Torres. David Beckham looks like the hard season has caught up with him (I mean playing football). He will not the only one under-performing at Euro 2004. I thought Henry was showing signs of tiredness at the end of the season. Well, you can hope anyway.

I am currently researching the relationship between John F. Kennedy, Edward Grant Stockdale and George Smathers. I would be very interested if members have any information on Stockdale and Smathers.

Stockdale and Smathers (member of the Senate for Florida) formed a company, Automatic Vending, that was involved in providing vending machines to government institutions.

Stockdale was head of the State Democratic Party committee to elect John F. Kennedy in the 1960 presidential campaign.

In March, 1961, President Kennedy appointed Stockdale as Ambassador to Ireland. Later that year Automatic Vending was sued for improper actions in getting a contract at Aerodex but the suit was eventually dismissed.

Stockdale resigned as ambassador in July, 1962. He returned to Miami where he became consultant to another vending machine company which had contracts at Cape Canavaral.

According to William Torbitt (Nonmenclature of an Assassination Cabal ), Stockdale was involved with Bobby Baker, Fred Black and mobsters Ed Levenson and Benny Sigelbaum in a company called Serve-U-Corporation. Established in 1962, the company provided vending machines for companies working on federally granted programs. The machines were manufactured by a company secretly owned by Sam Giancana and other mobsters based in Chicago.

In 1963 rumours began circulating that Bobby Baker and Fred Black were involved in corrupt activities. Eventually Baker and Black were imprisoned for their actions. Some researchers have claimed that there was a link between this scandal and the assassination of JFK (Evelyn Lincoln later claimed that in November, 1963, Kennedy decided that because of the emerging Bobby Baker scandal he was going to drop Lyndon B. Johnson as his running mate in the 1964 election. Kennedy told Lincoln that he was going to replace Johnson with George Smathers).

Edward Grant Stockdale died on 2nd December, 1963 when he fell (or was pushed) from his office on the thirteenth story of the Dupont Building in Miami. Stockdale did not leave a suicide note but It was claimed that he had become depressed as a result of the death of John F. Kennedy.

George Smathers resigned from the Senate in 1968. According to the Biographical Directory of Congress website George Smathers is still alive. Has anyone interviewed him about these issues? Does anyone know anything about the possible business relationship between Smathers, Stockdale, Baker and Black?

There was an interesting article in the newspaper the other day about the writing of obituaries. The writer claimed that obituaries of political figures are very different in the US and the UK. In the US it is unacceptable to be critical of political figures when they die. However, in the UK more effort is made to tell the truth. I get the impression that the US like to end someone’s life as they end movies (sentimental and upbeat).

I am a member of an American assassination of JFK forum. Members tend to be anti-establishment but over the last week they have been keen to say what a good man Ronald Reagan was. They did not like it when I pointed out that Reagan’s foreign policy was very similar to that of LBJ (the man most supporters of JFK hate the most).

My fear is that we in the UK are becoming too influenced by the American approach. I was very disturbed by the BBC 2’s documentary on Ronald Reagan last night. The programme mentioned some of Reagan’s failures but all those interviewed (except nice old Walter Mondale who refuses to say anything about anybody) were ardent supporters of Reagan. In fact, like the recent BBC documentary on the Kennedy assassination, it seemed to be an American documentary with a BBC correspondent, Gavin Essler, used to provide the commentary and to cover up what was going on (in more ways than one).

My newspaper today included an interesting photograph. It is of the world’s political leaders meeting on Sea Island. The most striking thing about the photograph is that all ten men are not wearing ties. This suggests to me that a decision was made to have the photograph without ties. Obviously they thought it would provide the right image to the rest of the world (youthful, modern, etc.)

This got me thinking about the wearing of ties in school. As a teacher I did not object to wearing a tie on most occasions. I was brought up to believe that if you were doing an important job you wore a tie. After working for seven years in a factory I looked forward to wearing a tie to work. However, my objection was that you were expected (in fact, forced) to wear a tie all the time. This was especially uncomfortable during hot weather.

A few years ago I was working for a national newspaper. The policy was that you had to wear a tie for meetings with senior members of staff and with meetings with outside organizations. However, if you were working in the office they did not mind what you wore.

Next I worked for a dot com company that was owned by another national newspaper. The managing director (he was a former deputy editor of another national newspaper) took the view we should not wear ties at meetings. The thinking was that this would give the impression that we would look like a youthful, modern company, etc.). I found the reaction to this policy very interesting. Start up dot com companies held similar views and rarely wore ties at meetings. However, people from more conventional companies were openly shocked by our behaviour. I remember on one occasion having a meeting with a highly successful businessman who had been granted a title by the government and placed in charge of a government body on information technology. He found it difficult not to make it clear he greatly disapproved of these tieless executives.

On another occasion I went into a school with the managing director of this company. I of course wore a tie. The managing director was tieless. The headmaster was furious and was reluctant to give us a tour of the school. He was clearly uncomfortable when introducing this man to fellow members of staff. I am sure he felt his authority was being undermined.

Over the last few years I have visited schools all over Europe. In every case, I have seen few teachers wearing ties. Is it time Britain entered the modern world and consigned the tie to the dustbin of history.

'The Language Of Websites' by Mark Boardman, forthcoming title in the Routledge Intertext series.

ISBN 0-415-32853-5 (hb)

ISBN 0-415-32854-3 (pb)

Catriona Murray at Routledge is in charge of its marketing - Her email is catriona.murray@tandf.co.uk.

Mark reckons that his book:

*explores the ways in which websites use and present language

*covers the main generic types of website, from linguistic, technical, historical and media perspectives

*considers how the Web has evolved as a medium, and how hypertext has created fundamentally different types of audience interaction from traditional mass media

*features a full glossary, which assumes very little prior knowledge and includes linguistic, ICT and media terminology

*will soon be accompanied by a supporting website at http://markboardman.com

In 1997 I made a decision to stop writing textbooks and instead put all my written work on the web. I have therefore given some thought about how this new medium has changed the way I write. I have come to the conclusion that the following has taken place:

(1) When writing textbooks you have to take full account of the potential market for your work. For example, it is a much more attractive financial proposition to write a book on Nazi Germany than the United Nations. It goes further than that, textbook publishers have to make commercial decisions about giving contracts to authors writing textbooks. Since the emergence of full-colour textbooks, publishers need to sell at least 10,000 copies to get a return on their investment. This has further restricted what you can write about. For example, a school textbook about the United Nations is now out of the question.

The main advantage of web publishing is the freedom to concentrate on subject matter that interests you. You are still rewarded financially for producing popular material (the money raised is largely dependent on the popularity of the pages created) but you are not completely controlled by the market-place.

(2) Writing for the web gives you an international audience. The web also provides a convenient way to interact with your audience (by email and forums like this). As a historian I have found this very useful. Authors are invariably influenced by their own cultural upbringing. Feedback from people reading my work in other countries have made me fully aware of this and has I am sure has had an influence on what I write.

(3) I always found the publication of books a painful experience. I have never been pleased with the end result. It is not long before readers begin pointing out mistakes in the text. Therefore, you have to wait until the book is reprinted before these corrections can be made. Large print runs of colour books makes this a greater problem than before. Publishers are also not keen about making minor corrections to existing printing plates (this is a fairly expensive business).

The web of course is very different. When mistakes are pointed out they can be corrected immediately. As I also include a “source section” I can also add different interpretations of past events. For example, I write about people who are sometimes still alive. When people go on the web for the first time they often type in their name into a search-engine. Therefore, if I have written about them, they are likely to come to my website. The same is true of children and grandchildren of famous people. They invariably are unhappy about something I have written and the result is a dialogue between the author and the subject. This sometimes results in changes to the narrative. I always give them the right of reply and their comments are added to the sources section. This is therefore the greatest change to the writing process. This is completely different from the kind of writing that one does for a book.

(4) Last year Larry Hancock published a book on the assassination of John F. Kennedy (Someone Would Have Talked). It is the best book I have read on the assassination but without the web it would probably not have been published. It is extremely difficult to get books on the JFK assassination published in America (for political rather than commercial reasons). Although it appears in book form, it has been published by a popular website, JFK Lancer. It also comes with a CD with 1,400 pages of reference exhibits. The book is currently being discussed on this forum.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=693

This forum has resulted in the author being put in direct contact with other researchers as well as people (and their relatives) who appear in the book. This has enabled Larry to make changes to his original text. It seems to me that as far as history books are concerned, this approach is likely to become fairly common over the next few years.

Another possibility is that writers will in the future produce a draft text for the web. After a period of dialogue and with all mistakes removed, the material will published in book form.

I was at an ILT day in Solihull yesterday and the ppl from the Britsh University Film and Video Council gave a presentation which included lots of details about how to access archive TV progs since 1998 - it costs money to join - but they have ALL the terrestial TV progs on record there and you can access them *gasp*

Very useful information. Did they give any advice on copyright? Is it still the case that the programmes have to be wiped after being used in the classroom?

You must find out more abvout this service, the British Univeristies Film and Video Council

it has enormous potential:

http://www.bufvc.ac.uk/

Thank you for the link. I will review it for next week's Education on the Internet. It will then be added to this directory.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REVmedia.htm

After reading all the comments I would now propose the following revised international curriculum for history.

Democracy

An account of how men and women have attempted to gain political control of their destinies. Case studies would include Ancient Greece, Republican Rome, Iroquois Confederacy, Early Parliaments in Europe, Male and Female Suffrage, Sweden – A Modern Democracy, Citizenship, Local Study: The Struggle for the Vote in Your Area.

Poverty

A look at the history of inequality. How people became rich and why so many people remained poor. A study of the strategies of how people protected their wealth and how the poor attempted to improve their situation. Case Studies would include Poverty in the Ancient World, Serfdom in the Middle Ages, Managing the Poor in the 16th and 17th Centuries, West Africa in the 19th century, Poverty and the Industrial Revolution, the Welfare State and a Local Study: Poverty in the 19th Century.

Conquest

A look at the history of conquest and empire. The political and economic advantages of conquest. Strategies used to maintain control over the conquered people. Strategies used by the subjected people to regain control. Case Studies would include the Roman Empire, the Vikings and Normans, Mongol Empire, Incan & Aztec Empires, the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, the Soviet Empire, United States: Postwar Superpower, and a Local Study: Invasion of your Region.

Capitalism

A study of the development of our economic system. Case Studies would include Early Capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, Trade Unionism, Growth and Depression, Alternative Systems, Globalisation, Environmentalism and a Local Study: Trade and Industry.

Ideology

A look at the different ideologies that have emerged over the last 200 years. Case Studies would include Mercantilism, Communism in Russia and China, Fascism in Italy, Spain and Germany, Capitalism in the United States, Religious Fundamentalism in the Middle East and a Local Study: Political Ideology in your Region.

Conflict

A study of conflict over the last 200 years. Case Studies would include the First World War, Spanish Civil War, Second World War, the Cold War, Racial Conflict in South Africa, the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, Religious Fundamentalism, North-South Divide, United Nations and Conflict Resolution and a Local Study: The Impact of War.

Heath and Welfare

A look at the impact that disease and poor living conditions have had on the development of world history. Case studies would include Measles Epidemic in the Roman Empire, the Black Death, Smallpox in the 16th Century, Cholera, Public Health in the 19th Century, 1918-19 Influenza Epidemic, the Welfare State, AIDS.

I would go along with the views expressed by Heather Wheeler and Caterina Gasparini on how the subject should be studied.

The nanny state gets up to all sorts of things, like preventing me from exercising my right to drive on the right-hand side of the road when I visit the UK! The question for me is not whether there are going to be controls or not (obviously there are going to be), but rather what kind of controls they are going to be, and who is going to decide over them.

The idea that there's a 'free choice' in a situation where millions are spent on advertising to shape children's preferences for particular kinds of foods (the unhealthy ones) is, at least, naive.

Agree entirely. People initially are opposed to regulation that controls the way they live. For example, the British people were initially opposed to the wearing of seat-belts in cars. In the days following this legislation Barbara Castle, the Transport Minister, was the most unpopular politician in Britain (stirred up by the tabloid press and the motoring organizations). However, the move was a great success and has saved thousands of lives.

The introduction of legislation against racial discrimination was also unpopular at the time, but is now seen as a vital aspect of a modern democracy.

The important thing about this kind of legislation is that it changes people’s behaviour. At first they retain their views, for example, a belief that black people are inferior or that they prefer to drive without a seat-belt. According to Festinger’s theory of Cognitive Dissonance, people find it an unpleasant experience to act differently to the way they think. Therefore, in time, people change their attitudes to fit in with their behaviour patterns. After all, who do you know who does not wear a seat-belt (alright, Princess Diana, but we all know what happened to her).

Interestingly, public opinion polls show that people have already been won over to legislation on these health issues. This includes all classes (despite the views of Health Secretary John Reid). A survey published yesterday showed that:

When people were asked which workplaces they wanted to see smoking banned in:-

· 96% backed a ban in NHS hospitals

· 85% in shopping centres

· 79% in restaurants

· 78% in cafés

· 62% in railway stations

· 49% in pubs and bars

· 47% in nightclubs

Support for a ban was seen across supporters of all political parties.

For further details see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3794499.stm

I have added the contributions we have had so far for the Olympic Games Project. I have also started adding the Cold War Project (two sections done so far). Including Dalibor's excellent essay on life in Czechoslovakia in the 1950s.

I thought it might be a good idea to use the forum to discuss Euro 2004.

I will start the ball rolling by discussing the prospects of England (I hope others will do the same for their own country).

Unlike on previous occasions I think England will do well in this competition. The main reason is that we currently have several world class players: Steven Gerrard, Paul Scholes, David Beckham and Michael Owen. I am also hopeful that three more: Franik Lampard, Ashley Cole and Wayne Rooney could also emerge as world class over the next few weeks. Others like Sol Campbell, Gary Neville and John Terry are better than most English internationals from the past.

However, it seems we have two major problems. One concerns the tactics of Sven-Goran Eriksson. Success will depend on him playing Lampard and Gerrard in the centre with Scholes and Beckham wide of midfield. I know that makes us look too attacking but I think it is worth taking the risk (even against France).

In past European and World finals tiredness has proved to be a major problem for England. There is obviously a connection between this and our long season. A survey in today’s Guardian shows that the English team played an average of 49.5 games last season. This is much more than other teams: Spain (43.9), Portugal (43.6), France (43.0), Holland (40.9), Germany (39.7), Italy (35.3) and Czech Republic (34.8).

The warm weather will also be a problem for England, Germany, Holland and the Czech Republic.

Despite these problems I think the following might reach the semi-finals:

England, France, Italy and the Czech Republic.

As a democratic socialist and lover of freedom (these are not mutually exclusive!), I can think of little worse than an elite of well meaning but essentially fussy and bossy individuals telling me how to live my life. I note also with some  hilarity that yesterday such trends were taken to the extreme of telling me how to watch the television without risk of injury!

Could you give me some examples of proposed government legislation that you disagree with? It is possible that we are not in disagreement.

For example, I would like to see the following:

Severe restrictions on the food industry ability to advertise to children.

Strict controls placed on foods and drinks available in schools.

The banning of ingredients in foods, that are clearly harmful, such as hydrogenated fats.

The introduction of free milk and fruit in schools.

Dramatic increases in the taxes on tobacco and alcohol (the money to be used on health spending).

Increased punishments for drunken behaviour.

A ban on smoking in public places.

Are we now all such hopeless incompetents that we have to have central government to inform us that a diet high in fat and sugar will lead to obesity?

Moreover is it desirable for government to take, and more importantly for us to expect them to take, such a role? I think not.

Perhaps I should consider suing the owner of the chip shop at the end of my road? After all nowhere on the newspaper he wrapped my chips in was the warning that excessive intake of said product could lead to obesity, to say nothing of the harmful effects of the ink. A clearer case of double negligence on his part it would be hard to find. Similarly the off-licence next door has never informed me in big print and simple words that an excess of their product could lead to drunkenness. I am clearly a victim of malicious social forces….. there must be someone I can sue? Perhaps I should sue Nanny?

Andy raises a very important point about the debate on child obesity. To what extent should government’s introduce legislation in order to persuade people to behave in certain ways. Currently there is quite a backlash against what people call the development of the Nanny State. This has been led by the right-wing press (Daily Mail, Sun, Daily Telegraph, etc.). To be called a “do gooder” is nearly as bad as being described as a socialist. The intellectual argument against the “Nanny State” is that it creates severe restrictions on human freedom. This dates back to the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher began her attack on the Welfare State. She could not mention the Welfare State by name as it was too popular so the term was changed to the “Nanny State”.

This is not a new argument. The debate began before Britain developed into a parliamentary democracy. At the end of the 18th century social reformers began to campaign for legislation that would protect people from “themselves”. This included factory legislation to protect child workers. It was argued that working long hours was severely damaging the children’s health. The factory owners responded by putting forward doctors who claimed that children (some as young as five years old) working in cramped and set positions, a damp environment, with dangerous, unguarded machinery, for long periods of time, did not damage their health. In fact, they provided facts and figures that their health was actually better than those working outside factories. These doctors, like those who support the eating of unhealthy foods today, were being paid to make these statements (either directly or by the fact they were employees of the factory owners). History shows us that doctors can always be bought.

In parliament the factory owners and their paid representatives argued that this was really an issue of freedom of choice. Surely parents should have the freedom to send out their children to work in order to increase the family income. However, as the parents pointed out to those willing to listen, they had no choice: if their children did not work in the factories, the family would starve. Gradually, with the help of factory owners like Robert Owen and John Fielden, and against the advice of advocators of free choice (including liberal newspapers like the Guardian), the government passed legislation to protect the health of our children. In Britain this took place in the 19th century. In the United States they had to wait until the 20th century. In the underdeveloped world they still have the freedom to send their children to work for long hours in factories.

This struggle to protect the health of children against the capitalist system (sorry, free enterprise) continued throughout the 20th century. This included the provision of school meals, free milk, compulsory medical inspections, free eye tests, etc. It was claimed that we could not afford it (as if we could not afford to take such measures). Gradually they were introduced but during the reign of Thatcher many of these services were either removed or undermined.

We are constantly being told that “little government” is “good government”. This is a philosophy that has been embraced by our current government. Not that they really believe this. They spend a larger percentage of the GNP than ever before. The difference is that they spend it differently. The way the money has been collected has also changed. Progressive taxes like income tax has been reduced but indirect, regressive taxes, have been increased. In doing so the gap between the rich and the poor has widened.

The argument goes that people now have more money in their pockets and are therefore free to spend it as they like. If they decide to spend their money on cigarettes, alcohol, fast foods, etc., that is up to them. However, people make decisions based on the information they receive and the price they are charged for the goods. Governments have always used the tax system to influence people’s decisions. How much someone drinks or smokes is influenced by the price of these goods. One way of reducing the consumption of these goods is to increase the tax on them.

One of the reasons people buy fast foods is that they are perceived as being cheap. I am not suggesting that the government should impose taxes on these foods to make them expensive. After all, the majority of the population is clearly addicted to these foods. However, the government could insist that manufacturers remove some of the more harmful ingredients in these foods such as the use of hydrogenated fats. They could also make sure that healthy, rather than unhealthy foods, are available in schools.

The debate about the government regulation of food and drink is very similar to the one that took place about child labour in the 18th and 19th centuries. Should the people be protected from the system’s desire to maximise the profits of the capitalist. I believe it should and that is why I am a “do gooder” and a supporter of the Nanny State (although I prefer to describe myself as a socialist and a supporter of the Welfare State).

That would be a worthwhile interview. Here's an interesting essay on Smathers by Gil Jesus that was posted a while back on the JFK Lancer forum:

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search

Thank you for the link. Very interesting. I will contact Gil about the information I have on Smathers.