John Simkin
-
Posts
15,705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by John Simkin
-
-
There is nothing more humorous to me than seeing conspiracy nuts like you fuming, flustered, and panicking when they vainly attempt to struggle with issues that are not germane to the discussion at hand. You guys are all alike. Well, if you are going to ignore my questions and points raised then I will simply have to discuss the assassination with someone less paranoid. Thanks for the insightful comments and keen logical discussion, you've impressed me greatly. Incidently, what difference would it make to you what my name is really (assuming it's not T. Folsom, as you fear)? By the way, I have printed all of our discussion back and forth to use in my class when I discuss how all-consuming the conspiracy mindset is. I believe it eats away at logical, coherent behavior, and reduces a person (like you) to a nervous, shadow chasing, whisper-hearing, reactionary. You are a great example of how conspiracy thinking distorts the world around you. My students will get a kick out of you. Finally, I have someone besides Jack White and Robert Groden to discuss. By the way, how many hours have you been frantically searching on the Internet for clues as to my "real" identity? I would roll on the floor laughing looking over your shoulder as you race from site to site to find clues. This is another conspiracy for you to solve isn't it? You should send me a thank you note for giving you another challenge.
If you are truly interested in the education of your students I would suggest you give them the URL of this forum so they can judge for themselves who is being logical. I dare say they will develop the ideas you require if you give them an edited account of this debate.
I would think any logical observer would see that Lee has attempted to answer your questions. The problem seems to be that you don’t like his answers.
The rules of this forum require people to reveal their true identity. As you seem so keen on people quoting their sources I cannot understand how you can justify hiding behind a false name. What have you got to hide? One possibility is that your real identity undermines your own argument. For example, Burton Folsom is a conspiracy theorist himself (he believes that there is a conspiracy to provide left-wing textbooks to American schools).
Alternately, you are not a teacher. That of course does not really matter. However, it would seem strange that to support your arguments you need to pretend to have an academic background.
By the way, it took only two minutes to type in the keywords “Folsom” and “history” into a Google search-box.
My guess is that your name is not Folsom at all. Nor do you write like a history teacher. I suspect you are one of John McAdams’ cronies. Maybe you are even the man himself.
-
Last year the Department for Education and Skills spent £2.4m on the Curriculum Online website. Research shows that despite this spending, the website is still unpopular with teachers. The government has therefore decided to pay Flow Interactive to give it a makeover. There are now subject-specific home pages, which include news and features. Resources have also been divided into more hierarchies relating to topics. The website allows you to search through 1000s of multimedia resources. It is still a mess and it is very surprising to discover that it is on the shortlist for the Government Computing/BT Syntegra Awards for Innovation.
-
This month sees £100m worth of e-learning credits being made available to schools. However, the Department for Education and Skills admitted last week that there was still £75m unclaimed from the 2003-04 budget. Any credits which are not used will be taken back by the government in August. Eric Spear, the former president of the National Association of Head Teachers says: "Of course they are not being used, there's a limit to the amount you can spend on software. We're approaching saturation point."
-
When I developed an interest in ICT I attended a one-week course on Computing in the Humanities (back in 1979). This was enough to get me going. Since then, everything that I have learned about ICT is the result of self-tuition.
The role of all school work (including homework) should be to create independent, life-long learners. It is the only type of education that really matters.
-
In February 2000, David Blunkett, announced the establishment of UKeU, Britain's first e-university. The government spent £62m on the project. However, it was a commercial venture as the plan was to run and deliver e-learning to students around the world. A £20m contract was given to Sun Microsystems to build an e-learning platform for UKeU. This decision was questioned by experts in this field who pointed out that you could buy off-the-shelf technology at a fraction of the price. The Sun Microsystems platform was so bad that only 215 of the university's 900 students used it. Despite the poor record of UkeU (900 students out of a target of 5,000) John Beaumont, the CEO, awarded himself a £45,000 bonus on top of his £180,000 salary. This week it was announced that the Higher Education Funding Council for England is to dismantle UKeU, the company set up to run the project and is seeking to sell its assets. As this comprises the e-learning platform developed by Sun Microsystems the British taxpayer is unlikely to get any of its £62m back. The House of Commons Education Committee is looking into the role of the Higher Education Funding Council for England in this debacle. I would suggest they look at the decision to give Sun Microsystems the contract to produce the e-learning platform.
-
When I was at school I never did my homework. My punishment was that I left school without any qualifications.
Later I went to university. I soon realised that you did most of your learning outside the confines of the university teaching rooms. It would be impossible to survive at university without doing your homework (or more correctly, your own work).
The main issue for teachers is to set homework that is exciting to do. So much so that it is not seen as work. Easier said than done of course. But it is possible.
-
What are their names and what are their credentials? Then we will discuss their agreement.
So far you have refused to disclose your full identity. Is it possible you are Burton W. Folsom. See biography below:
Dr. Burton W. Folsom, Jr., formerly a Senior Fellow in Economic Education with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan, has taken a new position at the Center for the American Idea in Houston, Texas. He is also adjunct full professor at Northwood University. He received his Ph.D. in American history from the University of Pittsburgh, where he also taught before becoming a full professor at Murray State University.
His books include The Myth of the Robber Barons, (Young America's Foundation), which is in its third edition. He has also written Urban Capitalists: Entrepreneurs and City Growth in Pennsylvania's Lackawanna and Lehigh Regions, 1800-1920 (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981); and edited two books, The Spirit of Freedom: Essays in American History (Foundation for Economic Education, 1994), and The Industrial Revolution and Free Trade, (Foundation for Economic Education, 1996).
His most recent book is Empire Builders: How Michigan Entrepreneurs Helped Make America Great, (Rhodes and Easton, 1997). His articles have appeared in the Journal of Southern History, Pacific Historical Review, Journal of American Studies, Great Plains Quarterly, The American Spectator, and the Wall Street Journal. He has also served as editor-in-chief of Continuity: A Journal of History.
-
I have discovered via the US Embassy in Ireland that his full name was Edward Grant Stockdale.
They provide these details about him:
Name: Edward G. Stockdale
State of Residency: Florida
Non-career appointee
Title: Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Appointment: Mar 29, 1961
Presentation of Credentials: May 17, 1961
Termination of Mission: Left post, Jul 7, 1962
This information enabled me to discover he was born in Greenville, Washington County, Mississippi, in 1915.
I have also discovered that there is a connection between George Smathers and Stockdale (Smathers talks about him in an interview given to Donald A. Ritchie on 5th September, 1989.)
Stockdale moved to Florida after leaving his post in Ireland. Smathers was of course represented Florida in the Senate (January, 1951 - January, 1969).
I see Smathers resigned from the Senate at the end of 1968. Anyone know the reasons for this?
According to the Biographical Directory of Congress website George Smathers is still alive. Has anyone interviewed him about these issues?
-
As to Stockdale, I don't think he was President of Serve-U-Corp, he had been involved in Florida with another vending machine operation along with Gene Hancock who did become Serve-U-Corps President (although as far as investigators could tell he really didn't do anything and the stockholders handled all the paperwork). The best source for all this and the ins and outs of Serve U Corp is a little paperback The Bobby Baker Affair by G.R. Schriebier - he went through all the Committee paperwork on the investigation and did a lot of digging.
Do you know very much about Grant Stockdale? There is very little about him on the web. William Torbitt (Nonmenclature of an Assassination Cabal) also says that George Smathers was also involved with Black in Serve-U-Corporation. Any truth in that? I believe Kennedy's secretary later claimed that JFK intended to replace LBJ with Smathers.
-
The UK has its own Michael Moore. His name is Robin Ramsay. Over the last 20 years he has published Lobster, a magazine that has attempted to uncover corruption in government. You will find details here:
-
At Czech and Slovakian Forum there are so far four active participants but because they did not submit any biography (lack of knowledge of English or lack of confidence prevented them to do that) they are not included in the statistic. Isn’t that a pity?
The amount of active participants is far larger and in respect of origin far more exotic than we actually know about if we only use the biography details to make a statistic.
I am fully aware of this and is the main reason why I ask people to post their biographies on the forum. It is the only way I have of knowing where people are coming from. As Andy says, it only has to be brief (just name and country will do).
-
As Ronal Reagan died yesterday I thought it might be worth discussing a speech he made to the National Conservative Political Action Conference on 8th March, 1985. Was he right?
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.
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.
We became the party of the most brilliant and dynamic young minds. I remember them, just a few years ago, running around scrawling Laffer curves on table napkins, going to symposia and talking about how social programs did not eradicate poverty, but entrenched it; writing studies on why the latest weird and unnatural idea from the social engineers is weird and unnatural. You were there. They were your ideas, your symposia, your books, and usually somebody else's table napkins.
All of a sudden, Republicans were not defenders of the status quo but creators of the future. They were looking at tomorrow with all the single-mindedness of an inventor. In fact, they reminded me of the American inventors of the 19th and 20th centuries who filled the world with light and recorded sound.
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.
But along with that, perhaps the greatest triumph of modern conservatism has been to stop allowing the left to put the average American on the moral defensive. By average American I mean the good, decent, rambunctious, and creative people who raise the families, go to church, and help out when the local library holds a fundraiser; people who have a stake in the community because they are the community.
These people had held true to certain beliefs and principles that for 20 years the intelligentsia were telling us were hopelessly out of date, utterly trite, and reactionary. You want prayer in the schools? How primitive, they said. You oppose abortion? How oppressive, how anti-modern. The normal was portrayed as eccentric, and only the abnormal was worthy of emulation. The irreverent was celebrated, but only irreverence about certain things: irreverence toward, say, organized religion, yes; irreverence toward established liberalism, not too much of that. They celebrated their courage in taking on safe targets and patted each other on the back for slinging stones at a confused Goliath, who was too demoralized and really too good to fight back. But now one simply senses it. The American people are no longer on the defensive. I believe the conservative movement deserves some credit for this. You spoke for the permanent against the merely prevalent, and ultimately you prevailed...
Now, whether government borrows or increases taxes, it will be taking the same amount of money from the private economy, and either way, that's too much. We must bring down government spending. We need a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. It's something that 49 states already require -no reason the federal government should be any different.
We need the line-item veto, which 43 governors have-no reason that the President shouldn't. And we have to cut waste. The Grace commission has identified billions of dollars that are wasted and that we can save.
But the domestic side isn't the only area where we need your help. All of us in this room grew up, or came to adulthood, in a time when the doctrine of Marx and Lenin was coming to divide the world. Ultimately, it came to dominate remorselessly whole parts of it. The Soviet attempt to give legitimacy to its tyranny is expressed in the infamous Brezhnev doctrine, which contends that once a country has fallen into Communist darkness, it can never again be allowed to see the light of freedom.
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.
-
Well, T, let me add a little to the paranoia here:
I think it would be more productive to answer the questions raised by Mr. Folsom. As he rightly says, "my authority, qualifications, and background are the following: I can read. I can see. I can think."
-
All of the things John says in his "dispassionate examination of the record" are true - and are among the reasons I never voted for the man. However, I don't think John's "dispassionate examination" is truly that - it only tells half the story. Michael White's reply is right on target; the role of the President is bigger than just head of government.
What recent President DIDN'T deserve to be impeached because of some underhanded deal? I always thought the impeachment hearings against Bill Clinton were focused on the wrong thing - what happened to his deals with China? This doesn't mean we have to accept underhanded dealings, but we do have to accept the flaws of a democratic system if we in fact want to be a democracy.
I agree that both Clinton and Reagan should have been impeached. My view is that any political leader caught lying to the public needs to be sacked (It is why Tony Blair should resign from office).
The main crime committed by Reagan is that he convinced the American people that he could improve the state of the economy by cutting spending on welfare schemes. In reality, all he did was to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich. One way he did this was by increasing military spending. As critics at the time pointed out, this was no more than “corporate welfare for the defence industry”. As Dwight Eisenhower predicted in his last speech as president, for democracy to survive, the Military-Industrial Complex has to be controlled.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAreagan.htm
I rather like Paul Conrad's cartoon of Reagan in 1987 (inspired by Bernard Gillam
and his attacks on James Blaine in 1884).
-
I AM NEW TO THIS FORUM --I CAN SEE THERE IS LIVELY DEBATE ABOUT THE JFK MURDER WHICH IS GREAT. HOW DO I PARTICIPATE AND PUT IN MY OPINION?
GERRY GREENSTONE
Welcome to the forum.
To start a new subject go to the appropriate section and click “NEW TOPIC”. Then post your message in the box provided.
Please post your biography at:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=530
To do this click “ADD REPLY” (bottom of the page). A box will come up where you can post your message. When you have done that scroll down and click “Add Reply”.
It should then appear on the Forum.
If you want to add your photograph to your postings:
Select My Controls (top, right of the screen).
On the left-hand side click ‘Edit Avatar Settings’ (under Personal Profile).
Go to the bottom of the page where it says ‘Upload a new image from your computer’. Click ‘Browse’.
(A box will appear at the top that will show what is on your computer. You now have to find your photograph (best to leave it on your Desktop – if not, find the folder where you have stored it).
Click the image and then click ‘Open’.
Now click ‘Update Avatar’. You picture should now appear on the screen. It will now appear every time you make a posting.
Add details of your website in the appropriate section/s. I would also recommend you add the URL to your signature (see My Controls). This will then appear every time you post and will help your ranking in second-generation search-engines like Google.
-
I have been rather surprised by the way that the media has claimed that Ronald Reagan should take credit for the end of the Cold War. This appears to be based on the idea that Reagan’s hard-line speeches against communism, speeches that included phrases such as the “evil empire” and “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this (Berlin) wall”. Speeches like this were nothing new for American presidents. Every president since Harry Truman have made similar speeches without bringing an end to the Cold war (in fact they were often accused of only making the situation worse). Anyway, it would seem very bizarre that Gorbachev should bring an end to communism (and aspects of the system like the Berlin Wall) because Reagan told him to do it.
Others point out that Reagan was willing to meet Gorbachev to discuss nuclear disarmament. That is true but there is nothing new here. Eisenhower, Kennedy and Carter were also willing to do that. However, they were unable to bring the Cold War to an end.
The third reason given is that Reagan’s willingness to increase military spending by a third created serious economic problems for the Soviet Union. It is indeed true that the Soviet’s attempt to keep up with American spending did have economic repercussions. This is especially true in the United States and by the time Reagan left office the company had a national debt of $3 trillion. This has had a long-term impact on the American economy (although it did wonders for Reagan’s political backers – the American arms industry).
If the Cold War was just about the arms race we would have seen a dramatic fall in American arms spending since the fall of communism. However, this has not happened, the Military-Industrial Index still manages to persuade American governments to spend increasing sums of money on the latest weapons of mass destruction. Whenever the American public start to question this strategy they find an excuse to use up some of these weapons.
If Reagan’s anti-communist policies were so powerful, why did it not bring an end to communism in other countries such as China, Cuba and North Korea. It seems that he needed the support of someone who was actually making decisions in the Soviet Union to make it possible. That man was Mikhail Gorbachev. The end of what had become known as the Cold War started when Gorbachev announced he would no longer interfere in the domestic policies of other countries in Eastern Europe. This was reinforced in 1989 by withdrawing Soviet forces from Afghanistan.
Aware that Gorbachev would not send in Soviet tanks there were demonstrations against communist governments throughout Eastern Europe. Over the next few months the communists were ousted from power in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and East Germany.
It is Mikhail Gorbachev and not Ronald Reagan who deserves the credit for bringing the Cold War to an end.
-
The one thing everybody agrees about Ronald Reagan was that he had charm. He is not alone in having this. Most people who meet Tony Blair talk about his charm. Until recently Blair used this charm with the electorate. The problem with charm is that people who have it tend to rely on it too much (I have taught several students with this problem). I think that was the problem with Blair and he eventually got caught out and his charm drained away. This never happen with Reagan despite being in power for eight years.
One political commentator recently commented that “whereas Richard Nixon was blamed for everything, Ronald Reagan was blamed for nothing”. Even after he was caught lying over the Iran Contra affair. He was actually allowed to get away with the following comment: “A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.”
What is charm? Scott Fitzgerald discusses it in some length in the Great Gatsby. According to Fitzgerald, Gatsby has charm because he helps other people feel good about themselves. As Erich Fromm explained in the Art of Loving, people love you because you help them love themselves. This is what Reagan did.
Like in his western movies, Reagan arrived on the scene at the right time to rescue the American public from the traumas and tragedies of the 1960s and 1970s. After the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the Vietnam War, Watergate, etc. someone was needed to restore America’s confidence in itself. According to Newsweek Reagan was “America as it imagined itself to be.” Or as Fitzgerald says of Gatsby, he appeared to see you as you wanted to see yourself.
Others have used their charm to good effect (Franklin D. Roosevelt for example). However, I would argue that Reagan used his charm to sell the policies demanded by his rich backers (the Californian arms industry). Lyndon B. Johnson did the same for his backers (the oil and arms industry in Texas) but lacked the charm to carry it off.
Let us look dispassionately at his record:
(1) Reagan was a liberal member of the Democratic Party in his early years. This was partly because his father, who held left-wing views, had been unemployed until Roosevelt’s New Deal. Soon after becoming an actor he became active in the Screen Actors Guild. However, he took advantage of the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) investigation into the Hollywood Motion Picture Industry during the late 1940s to reposition himself as a staunch Cold War warrior. As president of the Screen Actors Guild he used privileged information against liberal members of the union. He also at this point became a paid informant of the FBI throughout the period that became known as McCarthyism. As a result of the activities of people like Reagan over 300 were blacklisted from the entertainment industry.
(2) Reagan supported the Republican Party after the war but it was not until 1964 that he became a national political figure. This was as a result of a televised speech in support of Barry Goldwater. It did not help Goldwater win the election (seen by most people in America as a dangerous, right-wing extremist). However, it did convince members of the Californian arms industry that here was a man with the charm to sell right-wing extremism. He was approached about becoming the Republican Party candidate as Governor of California. With the help of a smear campaign against Pat Brown and promises of cutting taxes he won an easy victory.
As governor Reagan quickly established himself as one of the country's leading conservative political figures. This included dramatic budget cuts and a hiring freeze for state agencies. He also put up student fees and when they complained he sent state troopers to deal with their protest meetings.
Re-elected with 52 per cent of the vote in 1970, Reagan introduced a series of welfare reforms during his second term in office. This included tightening eligibility requirements for welfare aid and requiring the able to seek work rather than receiving benefits. However, the tax cuts never came, in fact, he presided over the largest tax increase any state had ever demanded in American history.
(3) During his campaign for president he promised a "patriotic crusade" to reduce the size and scope of government, to rebuild American military power and self-respect and to restore traditional values". This campaign was based on the ideas of Reagan’s pollster, Richard Wirthlin. His polls showed that events such as Vietnam and Watergate had “shattered traditional confidence in America”. Wirthlin argued that Reagan campaign needed to reflect this problem and to offer ways it could be overcome.
Although there was a federal deficit of over $100 billion, Reagan managed to persuade Congress in 1981 to pass a plan for a three-year reduction in income tax rates (a total of 25%). This was followed by cuts in domestic spending. During the 1980s Reagan's policy of reducing income taxes and federal domestic budgets became known as Reaganomics. These tax changes and the dramatic cuts in the welfare system widened the gap between rich and poor. It also caused a deep recession.
(4) Reagan was elected to power with a promise to reduce public spending and to bring an end to “big government”. He did neither. He increased public spending so much that by the time he left office the United states had a national debt of $3 trillion. Nor did he reduce “big government” he just made sure it worked for the benefit for the Military-Industrial Complex.
(5) Although Reagan made a lot of speeches against the spread of communism in Central America his record of achievement was extremely poor. Castro remained in power in Cuba. He proved incapable of curbing Nicaragua’s left-wing Sandinista regime. His only tangible success was in invading the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada.
(6) His policies in the Middle East and against terrorism was a disaster. He failed to prevent Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. American forces also became involved until he was forced to retreat after a suicide bomb killed 241 marines. He also funded Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He also provided money for the Islamic fundamentalist government in Iran in order to gain the release of American hostages in the Lebanon. The profits of the deal were then used to supply weapons to the ant-Marxist Contra guerrillas fighting in Nicaragua. This was in defiance of declared government policy and of congressional directives. Reagan deserved to be impeached and only got away with it because the American public were not willing to sack another president after the trauma of getting rid of Richard Nixon.
-
Concerning the direction of the shots. I cannot believe what I am reading in these posts. There is not one single speck of hard evidence to support the belief in ANY shots from the front of the motorcade. I am speechless. Has anyone on this site even watched the Zapruder film? The Zapruder film (and yes it is authentic, there is no evidence of ANY tampering of any kind to the Z-film) shows NO shots entering the front of the President's head. The only reaction to a show is when Kennedy suffers the entrance wound to the back of the head. it breaks apart, blowing a five-inch wound to the right front of the President's head. The Zapruder film is as clear as day on this topic. Kennedy's head suffers the massive trauma to the right frontal lobe, it is propelled backwards by the expulsion of matter, and he falls forward after his backward movement. Theories about gunmen in sewers, or behind the stockade fence, or hiding in trees on the grassy knoll are so ridiculously illogical they do not really merit serious discussion.
Welcome to the forum. It is good to have someone join who does not share our view that JFK was not killed as a result of a political conspiracy. I hope you continue to ask us some serious questions about the assassination. In return, no doubt we will ask you some difficult questions. I am a great believer of logical debate and would like to think that between us we can cast some light on these matters.
By the way, like Wim, I have also read your biography. Unlike him, I feel you are fully qualified to express your opinions on this subject (and all others on this forum).
-
Now the fact that I haven't seen the film itself inhibits me from having too many opinions about it, but I thought I'd ask the question: what do you think about Michael Moore?
I remember reading that last year Michael Moore was the most read American author in the United States (it seems that some foreign born authors sold more books than him). This is a stunning achievement – or does it mean that only those people on the left still read books in America.
Personally, I am not great fan of his books. I don’t find his writing particularly funny and prefer a more measured, logical approach to political debate. However, I do like his documentaries. He is a talented communicator and is a great manipulator of emotions.
Moore also has a great skill that is extremely rare for someone on the left. He is able to shape the agenda of the mass media. One way he does this is by running a very popular website. When need be, he can go straight to the people without the help of conventional media. He also uses his website successfully to sell his books and films. Look at the way he has run rings around Disney over the distribution of his film Fahrenheit 911. It has been said that Howard Dean was the first person to master the techniques of web communication for political advantage. I would suggest that it is Michael Moore who deserves this accolade.
-
Some members have been discussing this issue here:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=861
I was considering voting for Repect. However, after visiting its website, I was very unimpressed with its attempt to smear the Liberal Democrats with a completely false story about political corruption. It reminded me what an unscrupulous character George Galloway is and have now decided to vote either Green or Liberal Democrat.
-
It was not until 1965 that I first became aware of the Alger Hiss case. I came across it when I was reading about the origins of the Cold War.
In August 1948 Whittaker Chambers appeared before the House of Un-American Activities Committee and during his testimony claimed that Alger Hiss had been spying for the Soviet Union. In a federal grand jury investigation of the case, Hiss denied Chambers's accusations. However, as a result of this investigation, Hiss was charged with perjury. His first trial in 1949 ended in a hung jury but the following year, a second jury found Hiss guilty and sentenced him to five years imprisonment.
Hiss was released from prison in 1954. He spent the rest of his life trying to clear his name. In the 1970s Hiss unsuccessfully sued the U.S. government under the Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to gain access to FBI and State Department files about the case.
Telegraph cables between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Second World War were eventually released by the National Security Agency. One of the messages dated March 30, 1945, refers to an American with the code name Ales. According to the message, Ales was a Soviet agent working in the State Department, who accompanied President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the 1945 Yalta Conference and then flew to Moscow. As Hiss was with Roosevelt at Yalta it has been claimed that he was the Ales referred to in the cable.
With the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union, attempts were made to obtain information on the case from the Soviet intelligence files. In 1992 Hiss wrote to the Russian historian Dimitry Antonovich Volkogonov, the overseer of the Soviet intelligence archives, to request the release of any files on the case. On 14th October 1992, Volkogonov published a report that stated that he had found no evidence that Hiss had ever been an agent for KGB, for the GRU or for any other intelligence agency of the Soviet Union.
Alger Hiss died on 15th November, 1996.
-
John Simkin, aged 8, child at school, June, 1953.
In 1953 I was not aware of the execution of Ethel Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg. I was more interested in the fact that Blackpool had just won the FA cup.
It was not until 1965 that I first became aware of the Rosenberg case. I cam across it when I was reading about the origins of the Cold War. In fact, one author suggested that the Rosenbergs were the first victims of this war and that it heralded the real start of McCarthyism.
I discovered that in 1950 Klaus Fuchs, head of the physics department of the British nuclear research centre at Harwell, was arrested and charged with espionage. Fuchs confessed that he had been passing information to the Soviet Union since working on the Manhattan Project during the Second World War.
The FBI were desperate to discover the names of the spies who had worked with Klaus Fuchs while he had been in America. Elizabeth Bentley, a former member of the American Communist Party, had in 1945 given FBI agents eighty names of people she believed were involved in espionage. At the time it had been impossible to acquire enough information to bring the suspects to court. These people were interviewed again and one of them, Harry Gold, confessed that he had acted as Fuchs's courier. He also named David Greenglass as being a member of the spy ring. Greenglass was now interviewed and he named his sister and brother-in-law, Ethel Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg as spies.
At this point the confessions stopped. The Rosenbergs both denied they had been involved in spying for the Soviet Union. However, it was decided couple were nevertheless charged with conspiracy to commit espionage. Virtually the only evidence against them was supplied by David Greenglass. He claimed that Julius Rosenberg had given him atom bomb secrets that he in turn passed to Harry Gold. The defense attorney, Emmanuel Bloch, argued that Greenglass was lying in order to gain revenge because he blamed Rosenberg for their failed business venture.
The jury believed the evidence of David Greenglass and both Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg, were found guilty and sentenced to death. A large number of people were shocked by the severity of the sentence as they had not been found guilty of treason. In fact, they had been tried under the terms of the Espionage Act that had been passed in 1917 to deal with the American anti-war movement.
Afterwards it became clear that the government did not believe the Rosenbergs would be executed. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, had warned that history would not be kind to a government responsible for orphaning the couple's two young sons on such poor evidence. Rumours began to circulate that the government would be willing to spare the couple's life if they confessed and gave evidence about other Communist Party spies.
The case created a great deal of controversy in Europe where it was argued that the Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg were victims of anti-semitism and McCarthyism. Nobel prize-winner, Jean-Paul Sartre, called the case "a legal lynching which smears with blood a whole nation".
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg remained on death row for twenty-six months. They both refused to confess and provide evidence against others and they were eventually executed on 19th June, 1953. As one political commentator pointed out, they died because they refused to confess and name others.
-
Following the death of Ronald Reagan last night I thought it might be a good idea to discuss the role he played in the Cold War. After all, some political commentators have said that he was the man responsible for “winning” the Cold War.
I have therefore started a new thread on Reagan and his foreign policy in the Cold War Project. Hopefully members will post their comments on this thread. This will then become a teaching resource (with student activities).
-
I have started a new thread on Reagan and his foreign policy in the Cold War Project. Hopefully members will post their comments on this thread. This will then become a teaching resource (with student activities).
Larry Hancock: Someone Would Have Talked
in History and Political Books: Debates with Authors
Posted
Interesting point about Stockdale nor Smathers both being involved in the same business as Fred Black and Bobby Baker (vending machines focused on government contracts). The fact the business was based in Miami could also be significant.
What do you make of Adele Edisen testimony about Dr. Jose Rivera: “There were other references to the assassination... They will say his best friend killed him. After it happens the President's best friend will jump out of a window because of his grief, and there was such an event about two weeks later, the former Ambassador to Ireland jumped out of a window in Miami, his name was Grant Stockdale. Although, again, at the time I didn't make the connection.”