John Simkin

Last night I was reading Harold Weisberg’s book Whitewash. Although it was published in 1965 it is the first time I have looked at the book. Weisburg was one of the first writers to argue that the Warren Commission was a cover-up. I found one passage very thought-provoking. When the motorcade turned toward the Depository Building on Houston Street, for several hundred feet there was a completely unobstructed view of it from the sixth-floor window. The police photographs and the forgotten Secret Service reconstruction of 1963 also show this. There was not a twig between the window and the President. There were no curves in that street, no tricky shooting angles. If all the shots came from this window, and the assassin was as cool and collected as the Report represents, why did he not shoot at the easiest and by far the best target? Why did he wait until his target was so difficult that the country's best shots could not duplicate his feat? If Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, why did he wait until the motorcade had reached Elm Street before opening fire? As Weisberg points out, Houston Street provides a clear view whereas from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository the first part of Elm Street was obscured by a tree. That is why the gunman had to leave it so late before opening fire. The obvious reason is that gunmen in more than one position were involved in the assassination. In other words, he had to wait until Elm Street so that a gunman in the Grassy Knoll area was in a position to hit his target. If the gunman on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository had opened fire when the car was in Houston Street, the reactions of William Greer, driving Kennedy’s car, would have been such that the gunman at the Grassy Knoll would have stood no chance of hitting his target. Has anyone else got a better explanation for the decision of the gunman in the Texas Book Depository not to open fire when the motorcade was in Houston Street? Here is a drawing of the Dealey Plaza in November, 1963. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmapL.htm

A string of blasts has hit three Madrid train stations during the rush hour with latest reports speaking of at least 131 people killed. Spain's government has blamed Basque separatist group ETA for the attacks which come ahead of Sunday's elections. However, I doubt very much if ETA carried out this attack. They have no history of attacking civilians. It seems to me much more likely to have been an attack by terrorists campaigning against the Spanish government’s support for the invasion of Iraq. I fear that in time the same kind of attack will be seen in London and New York.

There is a good case for Willy Brandt. He was active in the campaign against the Nazis until being forced to flee from Germany in 1933. As Foreign Minister he developed the policy of Ostpolitik (reconciliation between eastern and western Europe). In 1969 Brandt became Chancellor of Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). He continued with his policy of Ostpolitik and in 1970 negotiated an agreement with the Soviet Union accepting the frontiers of Berlin. Later that year he signed a non-aggression pact with Poland. The Basic Treaty was signed in 1972. In this treaty the Federal Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic committed themselves to developing normal relations on the "basis of equality, guaranteeing their mutual territorial integrity as well as the border between them, and recognizing each other's independence and sovereignty". For his work reducing tensions between East and West he deservedly won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1971. As Ray Blair pointed out it is far easier to be considered great as a writer than as a politician. Brandt is an example of a politician who stuck to his principles and when in power actually made a difference. Brandt even left office over a issue of principle. In April 1974 he resigned after it was discovered that his close political aide, Gunther Guillaume, was an East German spy. He continued to be active in politics and between 1977 and 1983 was chairman of the Brandt Commission on economic development. Its report, North-South: A Programme for Survival, argued that the rich north should help countries in the poor southern hemisphere. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERbrandtW.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWostpolitic.htm

You are a great source of information Graham. You are providing a great service for members.

Type in “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Then click the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button.

It is amazing how it is possible to undermine the Google’s search-engine. Go to Google http://www.google.com and type in “French Military Victories”. Then click the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button.

A collection of important audio tapes that includes Eugene Debs speaking during the 1904 presidential campaign, Huey Long, announcing his "Share the Wealth" proposal, Robert E. Peary explaining how he planting the American flag at the North Pole, a radio reporter describing the explosion of the Hindenburg, Neville Chamberlain declaring war on Germany, a radio reporter providing an eyewitness account of the Allied invasion of Europe, Paul Tibbets describing how he dropped the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and the last broadcast of the German propagandist, Lord Haw Haw. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/vofrm.htm

A collection of online geography tests for secondary school students. Subjects covered include Flood Disaster, Earthquakes & Volcanoes, People Everywhere, Exploring England, Environmental Geography, Geography Skills, Rivers, Coastal Environments, Investigating Brazil, Limestone Landscapes, Weather Patterns, Shopping, Crime and the Local Community, Development, Mining, Tourism and Globalisation. http://www.learn.co.uk/TestYourself/SelectContent.aspx

Are you one of the experts? If not, you should be.

This excellent Open University website provides a Virtual Planisphere (spectacular photographs by leading astrophotographers that allows you to view the constellations at any time of the year), Brit-o-meter (see where you sit in the multicultural spectrum), Virtual Holiday (take yourself on a virtual holiday from Milton Keynes to Nice, and balance the costs - can you afford to save the planet?) and a Digital Microscope (allows you to examine plant and animal material and a selection of microbes). http://www.open2.net/home2/

Nation States is a simulation game for political students. You create your own country, fashioned after your own ideals, and care for its people. When you begin you will be asked to choose a name for your nation, a motto, a national animal, and a currency. Then you answer a short questionnaire about your politics. This will determine what sort of nation you end up with: authoritarian or permissive, left-wing or right-wing, compassionate or psychotic. Once a day, you'll be faced with an issue, and need to make a decision as to what to do about it. This determines how your nation evolves. http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi

Sir David King recently wrote an article for the American journal Science criticising the US Government for failing to take global warming more seriously. He wrote: "In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism." What do scientists think?

Are you absolutely sure that it is you who is right and that Tony Blair is without any pardon wrong? If it is so what is the ground for this view? The newspapers article you read? The critical television programs you watch? The debates with your friends (which probably do have the same opinion as you have) you have? Or do you have any other information unknown to us which you base your opinion at? Or are you reacting only like righteous citizen fighting for the truth? What is the truth? (Dalibor) My analysis on Tony Blair opinions is based on forty years of studying history, politics and economics. I am a libertarian socialist and therefore I am unable to buy a newspaper that shares my political opinions. However, one of the two newspapers that I buy does allow the odd article to appear that reflects my views. It is very unusual for television or radio to represent my opinions on domestic and foreign affairs. Some of my friends, especially the ones that date back forty years, share my views on Blair. However, when we get together we spend more time disagreeing than agreeing. After all, none of us have to follow the party line, as none of us are party members. The politicians as I called them with a “realistic” approach to the world affairs and the politicians with a “humanitarian” approach. The second ones, in my view, very often deliver to the mankind a lot of sufferings despite their noble goals. I do believe that Tony Blair is a “realistic” politician. I do not believe that he is guided by feelings and reasons which could be called as; “a right thing must be done, a right decision must be taken”. (Dalibor) I disagree. Blair is desperate to be seen as an humanitarian. I think he is currently very confused and has probably not yet decided on his future foreign policy (he is probably waiting for George Bush to make up his mind first). Nor am I convinced that Blair’s speech is really a serious proposal as a future foreign policy. In his speech in Sedgefield Blair proposed two possible reasons for a pre-emptive strike. One concerns the belief that a “rogue state” has WMD. The second is a belief that such action is justified for “humanitarian reasons”. One major problem with the first reason is that you have to rely on military intelligence to discover if a country has WMD that might get into the hands of terrorists. As we found with Iraq, this military intelligence is often wrong (or manufactured for political reasons). It is also clear that Britain and the United States would be highly selective in the countries they would be willing to invade. For example, terrorists are much more likely to get WMD from Pakistan than any other country. However, for political reasons Pakistan is unlikely to be invaded. Therefore, if this policy is followed, it will mean invading countries like Syria. However, as Iraq is showing, no country is easy to conquer. Once in, it is not easy to get out. Do you really think the British public will be willing to accept the cost of a long-term occupation of these “rogue states”? On the surface, invading a country for “humanitarian reasons” is a more attractive proposition. However, we have a long list of countries guilty of abusing human rights. Top of the list is China. However, I doubt very much if that is on Blair’s agenda. Instead he will pick on the weak ones he feels he will be able to defeat. Ironically, it will have to be states that do not possess WMD (one of the reasons Iraq tried to give the impression they had them). This lets off other human rights abusers like North Korea. This small nation list is probably headed by Zimbabwe. After all, we do have some responsibility for the plight of this country. Defeating the armed forces will not be difficult. However, the guerrilla warfare that would develop after invasion, would be much more difficult to deal with. Once again, would the British public be willing to accept the cost of a long-term occupation of Zimbabwe. Not that I think that Tony Blair was really serious about implementing this policy. I suspect he is just trying to claim that the invasion of Iraq was part of a new ethical foreign policy.

I think that is how many ppl will see it and that is the reason for the remarkably long posting which I made. I think Nader will mobilise ppl who would not dream of voting if all that were involved were the political fate of Kerry and Bush. He will not so much be taking votes away from Kerry as away from apathy...away from not bothering to vote. Gore failed to beat Bush 1) because of some electoral jiggery-pokery by members of the shrub family 2) because ppl could not differentiate between the policies of the two. For democrats to round on Nader is a blatant attempt to find scapegoats for their own failure to enthuse the electorate. To quote Debs (again) "Don't vote for freedom, you might not get it. Vote for slavery, you have a cinch on that." Of course as a citizen of the 51st state I do not have a vote in this election. If I did I would be disinclined to cast it for Beelzebub rather than Satan This view is not supported by the latest public opinion polls. A CNN poll yesterday showed that Kerry and Bush are equal with Nader at 5%. When Nader was omitted, Kerry leads 50% to 45%.

Educational forum supports exchange of debates between European teachers. The same goal has the Communities created at all the departments of Virtual School. The same debates as are going today at Educational Forum should have been done there. It was vital for the long term survival of Virtual school. Some communities succeeded better than others. I would argue that this forum is doing more for the long-term future of the Virtual School than the communities section of the site. The communities section used bad technology and was poorly thought out. One of the problems with the Virtual School is that it has a very hierarchal structure. This means people at the top making decisions and then telling its members about them. This might work in organizations where the individual’s pay and career prospects are determined by those giving the orders. In a voluntary organization like the Virtual School it is a very bad model that is bound to fail. The Education Forum is a very different model. It is completely shaped by its members. It also makes it very easy for others to join and to post suggestions on the way people can collaborate. For the communities section to have worked it needed to use software like that used by the Education Forum. If the Virtual School really wanted to encourage the maximum cooperation it would have fully embraced it rather than boycotting it. I resent the claim that I am doing anything to destroy the Virtual School. I promote the organization via my own website and in my newsletters. I was the one that argued for its logo to appear on every one of the Education Forum’s pages. I have also added the Virtual School URL to my signature. I am surprised that other members of the Virtual School have not followed my example.

So far Percy Shaw, Mohandas Gandhi, Jesus, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Nelson Mandela have been nominated as the world’s greatest citizen. My original criteria was that the person had to make a large contribution to the achievement of democracy, freedom of expression, political equality and the welfare state. Although Percy Shaw was obviously an admirable person I don’t think he did anything to achieve any of the above. Dietrich Bonhoeffer is an interesting choice. He cared deeply about citizen rights but unfortunately Hitler managed to successfully suppress his political and religious movement. I think his friend, Martin Niemöller, is a better candidate. Mainly because he survived the war and managed to play an important role in helping us maintain peace in Europe after 1945. Jesus has obviously had the most influence of all the people named so far. Unfortunately, his philosophy has been terribly distorted by his followers and therefore his role in the achievement of democracy, freedom of expression, political equality and the welfare state, is somewhat debateable. With some notable exceptions, his followers have probably done more to prevent these objectives being achieved. Mohandas Gandhi is a towering figure in the struggle for democracy and equality. His most important contribution was to remind us that political change could be achieved by non-violent methods (also the message of Jesus). Unfortunately, he has not had a tremendous influence of most political movements since his death. The one exception is that his political ideas did influence that other great world citizen, Martin Luther King. The problem with Gandhi and King is that their influence depended largely on them remaining alive. They were charismatic leaders who had the ability to persuade large numbers of people to follow their example. Whereas Tom Paine relied on his writings and these continued to influence the world long after his death. Nelson Mandela is probably the best loved human being in the world today. Everybody seems to admire his policy towards his former oppressors. However, his influence in the short-term has been negligible. Almost without exception, political leaders find it more acceptable to call for revenge rather than reconciliation. Look for example, how George Bush and Tony Blair responded to September 11th. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is I think the main rival to Tom Paine. Two of his books, Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men and the A Treatise on the Social Contract, had a similar impact to Paine’s Common Sense and the Rights of Man. Rousseau gave us of course the slogan, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” that has inspired many fighting for universal human rights. Therefore I would argue that the current top three are: (1) Tom Paine (2) Jean-Jacques Rousseau (3) Mohandas Gandhi

Considering its importance, Tony Blair’s speech last Friday in Sedgefield has not received very much publicity. In the speech he put forward ideas that might in future may become known as the Blair’s Doctrine. Much of what Blair had to say has already been said before by George Bush. However, Blair went further than Bush has he suggested that International Law might need changing. One of the most important passages in the speech was when he admitted that regime change on its own would never have been a justification for war. Instead, Blair made an attempt to link the invasion of Iraq with the war on terrorism. He restated the point made several times by Bush that everything changed with what happened in the United States on September 11th. Although he claims that he was so shrewd he was already changing his opinion on international law before this event: “So, for me, before September 11th, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely that a country's internal affairs are for it and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance.” Blair gives two reasons for this: (1) “The first was the increasing amount of information about Islamic extremism and terrorism that was crossing my desk.” (2) “The second was the attempts by states - some of them highly unstable and repressive - to develop nuclear weapons programmes, CW and BW materiel, and long-range missiles.” Blair adds: “The global threat to our security was clear. So was our duty: to act to eliminate it.” In what was a very muddled speech Blair then jumps to the need to invade Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. Yet there was no evidence of a link between Iraq, al-Qaida and international terrorism (although since the invasion is has become good recruiting ground for terrorists). Bush claims that Islamist terrorists are attempting to bring about a worldwide religiously motivated conflagration with no discernible political goals. This is of course false and shows a lack of understanding what terrorism is all about. Blair admitted that invading Iraq was risky: “But do we want to take the risk? That is the judgement. And my judgement then and now is that the risk of this new global terrorism and its interaction with states or organisations or individuals proliferating WMD, is one I simply am not prepared to run. This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long. Their worldly wise cynicism is actually at best naivete and at worst dereliction.” The implication from this is that Blair is willing to order pre-emptive strikes against states helping international terrorism. Blair admitted that this to do this is to break international law. Therefore, he suggests that international law needs to be changed. Of course this could lead to international anarchy. Therefore Blair argues only democratic countries should have this freedom to take pre-emptive action. In doing so Blair attempts to divide the world into “good guys” (democratic states) and “bad guys” (non-democratic states that might help to support international terrorists). In this way Israel becomes a “good guy” while the rest of the Middle East contains countries that are or have the potential to be “bad guys”. The main problem with the Blair Doctrine is that it applies different standards to different countries. Therefore democratic countries like Britain and the United States have the right to produce weapons of mass destruction in order to protect their security. However, those undemocratic countries who attempt to produce them for their security, can be invaded and disarmed. The Blair Doctrine does not support the idea of equal rights. It is only the strong and powerful under this new system that will have the freedom to carry out pre-emptive strikes.

I have just had this email from America about my Ku Klux Klan page. I thought it gave an interesting insight to the way the British are seen by a racist from the Deep South. Read your internet article on the Klan, I'm not a member but your article sucked. Why don't you write about all the black gangs that are killing whites and other races, or the black gangster disciples, or the Kings, or the BLACK PANTHERS?????? They are just as if not more racist than the Klan and have done things much worse than the inhuman torture you speak of the Klan doing. Pull your British head out of your posterior region, have a cup of tea, and go judge American Idol or yell God Save the Queen or something. But quit writing about things that you have no idea what you're talking about. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkkk.htm

Those who study Crime and Punishment might be interested in a new book that has just been published. Katherine Watson’s book, Poisoned Lives: English Poisoners and Their Victims, is a study of poisoning in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is a fascinating study of social history. The most shocking fact from the book is that the most likely victim of this crime was a child under the age of five. Most were murdered for insurance. Apparently, mothers insured and poisoned children too young to work. Rebecca Smith poisoned eight of her babies. In 1849 she became the last woman to be hanged in England for infanticide. Most gave children arsenic as it was the cheapest poison available (you could buy an ounce for twopence). It was a terrible death. Arsenic victims would suffer pain like rats gnawing at their insides, a thirst impossible to quench, vomiting and diarrhoea.

The case against Katherine Gun was dropped because if the case proceeded her defence team would have called on Elizabeth Wilmshurst (legal adviser at the Foreign Office) and Lord Boyce (chief of the defence staff) to have given evidence on the background to the advice Lord Goldsmith gave to the government that the invasion of Iraq was legal. Wilmshurst and Boyce would have told the court that the initial advice given by Goldsmith was that the war would be illegal without another resolution being passed by the UN Security Council. That is why Blair tried so hard to get this second resolution (including spying on UN officials and attempts of blackmailing delegates into voting for the resolution). When this failed Goldsmith persuaded the Foreign Office to hold a seminar for international law experts. After “flushing out” the opinions of these experts, Lord Goldsmith then formally consulted the couple who thought war was just about legal. Those experts who thought it clearly would be illegal were of course not consulted. Gun’s case was dropped but the government is not out of trouble yet. There is currently two other cases pending concerning Greenpeace members breaking into military bases. They plan to argue that they were drawing attention to Britain decision to declare an illegal war. In both cases they will be calling Wilmshurst and Boyce as witnesses. I suspect the government will again put pressure on the Crown Prosecuting Service to drop these cases. The first of which is due to start in Southampton on Tuesday.

Mike Iavarone, the creator of the pioneering history website, Trenches on the Web, sadly died on 21st February. He was only 48. Over the years I have had regular email contact with Mike. I have publicised his website several times in Teaching History Online. His website was also reviewed in the first edition of Education on the Internet. I actually saw Trenches on the Web the first time I went online and was one of the three sites (Aerodrome and Nine Planets were the other two) that I saw that inspired me to produce my own website. Mike worked in banking and had never taught. However, he was obsessed by the subject of the First World War and spent all his spare time on the project. When the history of online education is eventually written Mike will I am sure get mentioned as one of the most important figures in its development. http://www.worldwar1.com/

Newsletter 8 Student Debates The International Student Debate is now going strong. Please send details to Richard Jones-Nerzic if you want your school to take part in this venture. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...owtopic=116&hl= http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=116 Biographies and Signatures Only a third of members have so far added their biographies. We do not encourage anonymity on the forum. It is a membership requirement that members let us know who they are by adding their name and educational organization to their signature and by posting a brief biography at: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=403 We therefore ask all those members who have not yet done so, to add both your biography and your name to the signature. To do this: Select My Controls (top, right of the screen). On the left-hand side click ‘Edit Signature’ (under Personal Profile). In the box provided add your name. You may wish to add your country and your educational organization (plus the URL of website). Membership We now have 457 members. Reading the biographies section it seems we now have members from Britain (68), France (11), USA (10), Spain (8), Australia (7), Sweden (5), Netherlands (5), Canada (5), Italy (4), Greece (3), Finland (2), Brazil (2), China (1), Denmark (1), Belgium (1), Germany (1), Poland (1), Serbia (1), Belarus (1), Israel (1), South Korea (1), Sudan (1), Ireland (1), Austria (1) and Hong Kong (1). My Assistant This feature is sometimes referred to as a 'Browser Buddy'. At the top it tells you how many posts have been made since you last visited the board.. Also underneath this the number of posts with replies that have been made in topics that the individual has also posted in. Click on the 'View' link on either of the two sentences to see the posts. The next section is five links to useful features: * The link to the moderating team is basically a quick link to see all those that either administrate or moderate certain forums on the message board. * The link to 'Today's Active Topics' shows you all the topics that have been created in the last 24 hours on the board. * Today's Top 10 Posters link shows you exactly as the name suggests. It shows you the amount of posts by the members and also their total percentage of the total posts made that day. * The overall Top 10 Posters link shows you the top 10 posters for the whole time that the board has been installed. * My last 10 posts links to the latest topics that you have made on the board. Newsletters Past copies of newspapers can be found at: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=163 Debates At the moment, the following issues provide opportunities for good debate. I would welcome your contributions to these and other debates taking place on the forum. Relevance of the Science Curriculum http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=423 The World’s Greatest Citizen http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=474 Migration in the UK http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=458 Positive Thinking http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=200 John Kerry v George Bush http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=390 Humanity and Politics http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=372 National Literacy Strategy http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=79 Alcohol and Taxation http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=477 Holocaust: A Different Perspective http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=311 Nationalism and the School Curriculum http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=421 Ralph Nader http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=476 Spring Day in Europe http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=24

We now have 457 members. Reading the biographies section it seems we now have members from Britain (68), France (11), USA (10), Spain (8), Australia (7), Sweden (5), Netherlands (5), Canada (5), Italy (4), Greece (3), Finland (2), Brazil (2), China (1), Denmark (1), Belgium (1), Germany (1), Poland (1), Serbia (1), Belarus (1), Israel (1), South Korea (1), Sudan (1), Ireland (1), Austria (1) and Hong Kong (1). Only a third of members have so far added their biographies. We do not encourage anonymity on the forum. It is a membership requirement that members let us know who they are by adding their name and educational organization to their signature and by posting a brief biography at: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=403 We therefore ask all those members who have not yet done so, to add both your biography and your name to the signature. To do this: Select My Controls (top, right of the screen). On the left-hand side click ‘Edit Signature’ (under Personal Profile). In the box provided add your name. You may wish to add your country and your educational organization (plus the URL of website).

The Academy of Medical Sciences published a report yesterday showing a close link between alcohol consumption and taxation. For example, the people of Ireland, Portugal, France and Germany all consume on average over 10 litres of pure alcohol per year. However, the Swedes, who have the most expensive alcohol in the world, consume only 5 litres a year. The report points out that in real terms the price of alcoholic drinks has fallen dramatically over the last 30 years. For example, in 1970, people in Britain paid twice as much (relative to our disposable income) as they do now. To adjust levels to 1970 would mean beer would cost £5 a pint and over £20 for a bottle of whisky. The report argues that a mere 10% price increase would bring down deaths in Britain from cirrhosis of the liver by 7 per cent for men and 8.3 for women. It would also cut male murder victims by 5 per cent and female by 7.1 per cent. The overall drop in alcohol-related deaths would be 28.8 per cent among men and 37.4 per cent among women. The annual costs of alcohol-related crime and public disorder in Britain has been estimated as £7.3bn last year. The costs to the workplace were £6.4bn and health costs were £1.7bn. It is interesting that during the 19th century the left in Britain spent a great deal of time and energy in campaigning against alcohol abuse. This idea went into decline during the 20th century but the 1964-70 Labour government did increase taxes on alcohol. However, the present New Labour government does not appear to see the link between taxation and alcohol consumption. Or are there other factors at work?

Ralph Nader’s policies are more appealing to me than those of John Kerry and George Bush. However, we know that Nader cannot possibly win. In the same way that he could not win in 2000. What he can do is take votes from the more liberal of the two candidates. This is what happened in 2000 and it enabled George Bush to beat Al Gore. From your comments it would seem that you don’t think there is much difference between John Kerry and George Bush. To a Marxist that might be true, in the sense that both candidates are firm supporters of the capitalist system. However, the presidential election is not about choosing between capitalism or socialism. It is about selecting someone to make the important decisions about how that capitalist system functions in America and the rest of the world. A vote for Nader would in reality be a vote for Bush. You might well think that it does not matter if Bush defeats Kerry. As I have explained in another thread (John Kerry v George Bush), I think it matters a great deal. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=390