John Simkin

A more conservative interpretation of the subject by Rebecca Terrell in the New American:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/cu...xtbook-massacre

New textbook standards approved in Texas are poised to revolutionize public-school curricula nationwide, and liberal educators are furious. Every year the Texas State Board of Education revises a particular subject curriculum, outlining rules that school districts must follow in purchasing teaching materials with state money. Since Texas is the single largest purchaser of textbooks in the country, it holds sway over content of books available on the market to all states.

This year's revisions focus on the social studies curriculum and promote a more patriotic position than current texts endorse, according to Cynthia Dunbar, one of 10 Republicans on the 15-member board. The revisions were codified at a full board meeting in Austin, Texas, last week and are up for a final vote in May.

"I think [the standards] are pro-American, but not to the extent that the other side is saying we're whitewashing history," explained Dunbar in a March 15 Fox News interview. A Wall Street Journal editorial belittled her for calling public education "clearly tyrannical" and a "subtly deceptive tool of perversion" in her 2008 book One Nation Under God. The article said critics view the school board as "a sort of Texas inquisition, in which buffoons who believe they're authorities hand down half-baked opinions from overstuffed chairs."

The new social studies revisions include:

• an "America is exceptional" theme;

• changes in the Middle East curriculum;

• broad use of terms like free enterprise and expansionism instead of capitalism and imperialism, respectively;

• a requirement to "analyze any unintended consequences" of 1960 reforms such as affirmative action;

• inclusion of information about "communist infiltration in the U.S. government," vindicating Senator Joseph McCarthy;

• use of the term "constitutional republic" rather than "democratic" or "representative democracy" in reference to the U.S. form of government;

• de-emphasis on the history of the civil rights movement and on the concept of separation of church and state;

• emphasis on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms;

• use of traditional date references as B.C. and A.D. rather than B.C.E. and C.E.;

• removal of the term "Enlightenment ideas" from reference to political revolutions;

• exclusion of art work involving nude figures; and

• analysis of devaluation of the dollar since the inception of the Federal Reserve and abandonment of the gold standard.

Dunbar explained the board's efforts as necessary "clean-up" of a curriculum tainted with a "subtle trend" toward negativity about America, which explains their reason for using terms like free enterprise in place of capitalism. "We wanted to make sure ... there was a patriotic position promoted, because America, after all, is still the greatest nation on Earth."

Critics view the changes as part of a right-wing conspiracy. "Religious conservatives began a concerted effort to take control of the state board beginning in 1992" when it became a "culture war battleground" bewails the Texas Freedom Network (TFN), which bills itself as an organization founded "to counter the religious right." It accuses the board of poor scholarship in enacting "numerous and outrageously foolish, intolerant and ignorant changes based on little more than their own (limited) knowledge and personal beliefs." TFN spokesman Kathy Miller complained in a Fox News broadcast, "This is not a good way to make sound education policy."

The Washington Post quotes one textbook author, Paul S. Boyer, expressing his uneasiness. "I'm made uncomfortable by mandates of this kind," said the University of Wisconsin-Madison professor. He worries the changes might make him reluctant to endorse his own work.

Yet others are less quick to judge. "If the textbooks are shifting right, is that a departure from accuracy or a move toward it?" queried Dallas Morning News columnist Mark Davis.

Jonathan Saenz with the conservative think-tank Free Market Foundation (FMF) told Fox News, "What [critics] support is a review committee that took out Independence Day, a review committee that took out Veterans Day, a review committee that took out Christmas, took out Rosh Hashanah, took out Neil Armstrong and Albert Einstein." Saenz explained FMF's involvement in the textbook wars, saying, "We're trying to make sure that any religious heritage of our nation is not censored."

As to rumors the Texas school board stripped Thomas Jefferson from the school curriculum, Dunbar chuckled, "Thomas Jefferson is still in."

The board adopted new science standards last year after an equally controversial battle over creationism versus evolution, acknowledged as a conservative victory. In 2008, updates to language arts standards were enacted. A full webcast of last week's board meeting about the social studies curriculum is available at this link.

I was watching Michael Moore's "Sicko" last night. There is a scene where he has a discussion with a group of Americans living in Paris. They all prefered to live in France that America, mainly because of the issue of health care. However, one American women made an interesting point about the different countries. She said in America people are afraid of their government, whereas in France, the government is frightened of the people. What she meant by this is that the French take to the streets if they don't like what the government is doing. Would you agree about this assessment? Do you think this is a factor in the lack of a true investigation into the assassination of JFK?

I have had several emails from members of the Texas authorities complaining about my website. The internet is a problem for them as they cannot control it in the same way as they do with textbooks. Their main concern is over the way I treat their so-called Texas heroes.

Here is an interesting article by Chris McGreal about plans to rewrite school textbooks in Texas. I wonder what they new books will say about the assassination of JFK?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/1...ites-us-history

Cynthia Dunbar does not have a high regard for her local schools. She has called them unconstitutional, tyrannical and tools of perversion. The conservative Texas lawyer has even likened sending children to her state's schools to "throwing them in to the enemy's flames". Her hostility runs so deep that she educated her own offspring at home and at private Christian establishments.

Now Dunbar is on the brink of fulfilling a promise to change all that, or at least point Texas schools toward salvation. She is one of a clutch of Christian evangelists and social conservatives who have grasped control of the state's education board. This week they are expected to force through a new curriculum that is likely to shift what millions of American schoolchildren far beyond Texas learn about their history.

The board is to vote on a sweeping purge of alleged liberal bias in Texas school textbooks in favour of what Dunbar says really matters: a belief in America as a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world, and free enterprise as the cornerstone of liberty and democracy.

"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

Those corrections have prompted a blizzard of accusations of rewriting history and indoctrinating children by promoting rightwing views on religion, economics and guns while diminishing the science of evolution, the civil rights movement and the horrors of slavery.

Several changes include sidelining Thomas Jefferson, who favoured separation of church and state, while introducing a new focus on the "significant contributions" of pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the civil war.

The new curriculum asserts that "the right to keep and bear arms" is an important element of a democratic society. Study of Sir Isaac Newton is dropped in favour of examining scientific advances through military technology.

There is also a suggestion that the anti-communist witch-hunt by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s may have been justified.

The education board has dropped references to the slave trade in favour of calling it the more innocuous "Atlantic triangular trade", and recasts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as driven by Islamic fundamentalism.

"There is a battle for the soul of education," said Mavis Knight, a liberal member of the Texas education board. "They're trying to indoctrinate with American exceptionalism, the Christian founding of this country, the free enterprise system. There are strands where the free enterprise system fits appropriately but they have stretched the concept of the free enterprise system back to medieval times. The president of the Texas historical association could not find any documentation to support the stretching of the free enterprise system to ancient times but it made no difference."

The curriculum has alarmed liberals across the country in part because Texas buys millions of text books every year, giving it considerable sway over what publishers print. By some estimates, all but a handful of American states rely on text books written to meet the Texas curriculum. The California legislature is considering a bill that would bar them from being used in the state's schools.

In the past four years, Christian conservatives have won almost half the seats on the Texas education board and can rely on other Republicans for support on most issues. They previously tried to require science teachers to address the "strengths and weaknesses" in the theory of evolution – a move critics regard as a back door to teaching creationism – but failed. They have had more success in tackling history and social studies.

Dunbar backed amendments to the curriculum that portray the free enterprise system (there is no mention of capitalism, deemed to be a tainted word) as a cornerstone of liberty and argue that the government should have a minimal role in the economy.

One amendment requires that students be taught that economic prosperity requires "minimal government intrusion and taxation".

Underpinning the changes is a particular view of religion.

Dunbar was elected to the state education board on the back of a campaign in which she argued for the teaching of creationism – euphemistically known as intelligent design – in science classes.

Two years ago, she published a book, One Nation Under God, in which she argued that the United States was ultimately governed by the scriptures.

"The only accurate method of ascertaining the intent of the founding fathers at the time of our government's inception comes from a biblical worldview," she wrote. "We as a nation were intended by God to be a light set on a hill to serve as a beacon of hope and Christian charity to a lost and dying world."

On the education board, Dunbar backed changes that include teaching the role the "Jewish Ten Commandments" played in "political and legal ideas", and the study of the influence of Moses on the US constitution. Dunbar says these are important steps to overturning what she believes is the myth of a separation between church and state in the US.

"There's been this amorphous changing of how we look at religion and how we define religion within American history. One concern I have is that the viewpoint of the founding fathers is very clear. They were not against the promotion of religion. I think it is important to present a historically accurate viewpoint to students," she said.

On the face of it some of the changes are innocuous but critics say that closer scrutiny reveals a not-so-hidden agenda. History students are now to be required to study documents, such as the Mayflower Compact, which instil the idea of America being founded as a Christian fundamentalist nation.

Knight and others do not question that religion was an important force in American history but they fear that it is being used as a Trojan horse by evangelists to insert religious indoctrination into the school curriculum. They point to the wording of amendments such as that requiring students to "describe how religion and virtue contributed to the growth of representative government in the American colonies".

Among the advisers the board brought in to help rewrite the curriculum is David Barton, the leader of WallBuilders which seeks to promote religion in history. Barton has campaigned against the separation of church and state. He argues that income tax should be abolished because it contradicts the bible. Among his recommendations was that pupils should be taught that the declaration of independence establishes that the creator is at the heart of law, government and individual rights.

Conservatives have been accused of an assault on the history of civil rights. One curriculum amendment describes the civil rights movement as creating "unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes" among minorities. Another seeks to place Martin Luther King and the violent Black Panther movement as opposite sides of the same coin.

"We had a big discussion around that," said Knight, a former teacher. "It was an attempt to taint the civil rights movement. They did the same by almost equating George Wallace [the segregationist governor of Alabama in the mid-1960s] with the civil rights movement and the things Martin Luther King Jr was trying to accomplish, as if Wallace was standing up for white civil rights. That's how slick they are.

"They're very smooth at excluding the contributions of minorities into the curriculum. It is as if they want to render minority groups totally invisible. I think it's racist. I really do."

The blizzard of amendments has produced the occasional farce. Some figures have been sidelined because they are deemed to be socialist or un-American. One of them is a children's author, Bill Martin, who wrote a popular tale, Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? Martin was purged from the curriculum when he was confused with an author with a similar name but a different book, Ethical Marxism.

An alternative candidate is Jack London. The illegitimate son of a wandering astrologer, left school at 14 and after working as a sailor he experienced periods of unemployment and poverty. London enjoyed writing and as a teenager won a winning competition held by the San Francisco Morning Call with the short-story, Typhoon off the Coast of Japan.

In December 1899 he met the young writer, Anna Strunsky. She later recalled: "Objectively, I confronted a young man of about twenty-two, and saw a pale face illumined by large, blue eyes fringed with dark lashes, and a beautiful mouth which, opening in its ready laugh, revealed an absence of front teeth, adding to the boyishness of his appearance. The brow, the nose, the contour of the cheeks, the massive throat, were Greek. His form gave an impression of grace and athletic strength, though he was a little under the American, or rather Californian, average in height. He was dressed in gray, and was wearing the soft white shirt and collar which he had already adopted."

London spent spells working as a sailor and gold miner before attempting to become a full-time writer. His first story, To The Man on Trail, was published by the Overland Monthly in 1899. His adventure stories soon had a wide following and they were accepted by other magazines such as the Atlantic Monthly, Cosmopolitan and McClure's Magazine. London still found time for politics and in 1901, campaigned as the socialist candidate for the post of mayor of Oakland. However he won only 246 votes and was not elected.

In July 1902 London moved to England where he worked with the Social Democratic Federation. He was shocked by the poverty he saw and wrote The People of the Abyss, a book about slum life in London. He later wrote that it was his favourite book: "Of all my books I love most 'The People of the Abyss'. No other book of mine took so much of my young heart and tears as that study of the economic degradation of the poor."

London returned to the United States in 1903. Later that year he and Anna Strunsky wrote a joint novel, The Kempton-Wace Letters (1903). Norma Fain Pratt argues that the "book is devoted to a debate on the nature of love in which the woman correspondent, Dane Kempton, defines the ideals of love as romantic, while the man, Herbert Wace, contends love is essentially biological."

London's novel, The Call of the Wild, appeared soon afterwards. It was an immediate best-seller. The first edition of 10,000 copies sold out in 24 hours. Unfortunately for London, he had sold the rights of the book to his publisher for a flat fee of $2,000.

London followed The Call of the Wild with The Sea-Wolf (1904), The War of the Classes (1905), The Iron Heel (1907) and Martin Eden (1909), a book that sold a quarter of a million copies within a couple of months of being published in the United States. London, a heavy drinker, wrote about the problems of alcohol in his semi-autobiographical novel, John Barleycorn (1913). This was then used by the Women's Christian Temperance Union in its campaign for prohibition.

With his royalties London bought a 1,400 acre ranch. He told one interviewer that he was still a socialist but: "I've done my part, Socialism has cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars. When the time comes I'm going to stay right on my ranch and let the revolution go to blazes."

London's health deteriorated rapidly in 1916. He was suffering from uraemia, a condition that impairs the functioning of the kidneys. On 21st November, 1916, Jack London died from a morphine overdose. From the available evidence it is not clear whether this was an accident or suicide.

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

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

Follow-up email from John Luquer:

Mr. Williams,

I understand the confusion concerning my e mail. If you will be so kind as to indulge me I shall endeavor to clarify myself. First and foremost I was, in no way attempting to insinuate that you claim to be Chief Williams. If I gave that impression I apologize. I agree with you that your information is there for anyone to read who cares to look however some people do not expend the effort to do so. I did read your biography page hence I knew you were not Chief Williams and the conclusion that there was some confusion about the identity of the two of you.

Let me assure you no one called me, I have a Google alert set for “Chattanooga Police Department” that allows me to keep up with events involving my agency. I was alerted to a post on your thread made by Greg Burnham on May 24th, asking if you were Chief Williams and he included Chief Williams’ credentials and bio information in the post. This question was not addressed perhaps because the focus was on ballistics but the post was forwarded with the information no less than 17 times.

Just as Mr. Burnham was initially confused as to whether you were Chief Williams it is reasonable to believe others may be as well. I took not addressing the original question and the posts forwarding the information as an unintentional oversight, nothing more. This is what I was attempting to convey to Mr. Simkin as our motivation behind the request to remove references to Chief Williams from the thread.

The press seldom digs very deep in to the background of a situation before printing a story and defense attorneys may introduce misleading information in a trial in an attempt to discredit an expert witness. The intent of the e mail was to facilitate the removal of Chief Williams’ information to circumvent any confusion with the press or any court proceedings Chief Williams may be called to testify in.

This request was not intended to throw doubt on your own credentials or discredit you in any way.

Please do feel free to call me if you like concerning this matter.

Respectfully,

Officer John Luquer

Staff Inspector

Office of Accreditation

Chattanooga Police Department

Phone: (423) 643 - 5164

Fax: (423) 643 - 5246

If I could choose any lawyer to investigate the assassination of JFK I would opt for Clarence Darrow:

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

One candidate is Upton Sinclair. A religious boy with a great love of literature, his two great heroes were Jesus Christ and Percy Bysshe Shelley. An intelligent boy he did well at school and at 14 entered New York City College. Soon afterwards he had his first story published in a national magazine.

The work of Frank Norris was especially important to the development of Sinclair as a writer. He later spoke about how Norris had "showed me a new world, and he also showed me that it could be put in a novel." Sinclair was also influenced by the investigative journalism of Benjamin Flower, Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens and Ray Stannard Baker. Sinclair argued: "The proletarian writer is a writer with a purpose; he thinks no more of art for art's sake than a man on a sinking ship thinks of painting a beautiful picture in the cabin; he thinks of getting ashore - and then there will be time enough for art."

In 1904 Fred Warren, the editor of the socialist journal, Appeal to Reason, commissioned Sinclair to write a novel about immigrant workers in the Chicago meat packing houses. Julius Wayland, the owner of the journal provided Sinclair with a $500 advance and after seven weeks research he wrote The Jungle. Serialized in 1905, the book helped to increase circulation to 175,000.

Sinclair had The Jungle, rejected by six publishers. A consultant at Macmillan wrote: "I advise without hesitation and unreservedly against the publication of this book which is gloom and horror unrelieved. One feels that what is at the bottom of his fierceness is not nearly so much desire to help the poor as hatred of the rich."

Sinclair decided to publish the book himself and after advertising his intentions in the Appeal to Reason, he he got orders for 972 copies. When he told Doubleday of these orders, it decided to publish the book. The Jungle (1906) was an immediate success selling over 150,000 copies. Within the next few years the novel had been published in seventeen languages and was a best-seller all over the world.

After President Theodore Roosevelt read The Jungle and ordered an investigation of the meat-packing industry. He also met Sinclair and told him that while he disapproved of the way the book preached socialism he agreed that "radical action must be taken to do away with the efforts of arrogant and selfish greed on the part of the capitalist."

With the passing of the Pure Food and Drugs Act (1906) and the Meat Inspection Act (1906), Sinclair was able to show that novelists could help change the law. This in itself inspired a tremendous growth in investigative journalism. Theodore Roosevelt became concerned at this development and described it as muckraking.

In 1906 Sinclair decided to use some of his royalties into establishing, Helicon Home Colony, a socialist community at Eaglewood. One of those who joined was Sinclair Lewis, who was to be greatly influenced by Sinclair Upton's views on politics and literature. Four months after it opened, a fire entirely destroyed Helicon. Later, Sinclair blamed his political opponents for the fire.

Sinclair's next few novels such as The Overman (1907), The Metropolis (1908), The Moneychangers (1908), Love's Pilgrimage (1911) and Sylvia's Marriage (1913) were commercially unsuccessful. Sinclair continued to write political committed novels including King Coal (1917) based on an industrial dispute and Boston (1928) on the Sacco-Vanzetti Case. He also wrote books about religion (The Profits of Religion, 1918), newspapers (The Brass Check, 1919) and education (The Goose-Step, 1923 and The Goslings, 1924).

Sinclair wrote at the time: "In the course of my twenty years career as an assailant of special privilege, I have attacked pretty nearly every important interest in America. The statements I have made, if false, would have been enough to deprive me of a thousand times all the property I ever owned, and to have sent me to prison for a thousand times a normal man's life. I have been called a xxxx on many occasions, needless to say; but never once in all these twenty years has one of my enemies ventures to bring me into a court of law, and to submit the issue between us to a jury of American citizens." In 1926 Arthur Conan Doyle argued: "I look upon Upton Sinclair as one of the greatest novelists in the world, the Zola of America."

In 1940 "World's End" launched Sinclair's 11 volume novel series on American government. His novel Dragon's Teeth (1942) on the rise of Nazi Germany won him the Pulitzer Prize. The British author, George Bernard Shaw, wrote at the time: "I have regarded you (Upton Sinclair), not as a novelist, but as an historian; for it is my considered opinion, unshaken at 85, that records of fact are not history... When people ask me what has happened in my long lifetime I do not refer them to the newspaper files and to the authorities, but to your novels. The object that the people in your books never existed; that their deeds were never done and their sayings never uttered. I assure them that they were, except that Upton Sinclair individualized and expressed them better than they could have done, and arranged their experiences, which as they actually occurred were as unintelligible as pied type, in significant and intelligible order."

By the time Upton Sinclair died in November, 1968, he had published more than ninety books.

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

Jim gains my respect for refusing to serve in Vietnam.

Email from John Luquer, Staff Inspector, Office of Accreditation, Chattanooga Police Department

On post http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=192762 a question was asked and the credentials of Assistant Police Chief Mike Williams of the Chattanooga Police Department have been inadvertently attached to this thread, The Mike Williams posting in this thread is not Chief Williams but has forwarded the credentials of Chief Williams several times giving the impression that he is Chief Williams and furthermore has not denied that he is Chief Williams. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&start=2625

Several efforts have been made by us to correct this misconception. Chief Williams attempted to create an account on your site but new memberships are being denied, the moderator of the topic did not enable the report option in the thread, no moderator information available on the page.

At this time we believe this to be an unintentional oversight by the members of the thread, we request that you remove all references to Chief Williams from this thread and post a statement concerning the error.

Feel free to contact me regarding this matter.

Thank you,

Officer John Luquer

Staff Inspector

Office of Accreditation

Chattanooga Police Department

Phone: (423) 643 - 5164

Fax: (423) 643 - 5246

Maybe John Simkin will enourage Arlene to join the forum and post some excerpts and answer some questions from forum members?

He rejected the idea but he might be willing to answer questions. If you post them on this thread I will ask them by email.

Now he has been sacked I thought it might be worth posting the revised win stats.

Billy Bonds (43.61) 1990–1994

Charlie Paynter (41.25) 1932–1950

Alan Pardew (41.10) 2003–2006

Ted Fenton (39.75) 1950–1961

Alan Curbishley (39.44) 2006–2008

John Lyall (39.12) 1974–1989

Syd King (38.87) 1901–1932

Harry Redknapp (37.00) 1994–2001

Lou Macari (36.84) 1989–1990

Ron Greenwood (35.07) 1961–1974

Glenn Roeder (31.40) 2001–2003

Gianfranco Zola (28.75) 2008–2010

Email from Arlene Villamia:

Just want to mention to William Kelly and Michael Hogan that their recent posts are basically wrong - my father Mario Silverio Villamia, is still alive, and well. He was Cuban born to Galician parents and nationalized here in the US when he married my mother Carmen Guzman - still alive too - in the 1940's. My father was involved in the pro democratic Cuban nationalist movement the M267. My father, now aged 86 and is writing his memoirs and we have received FOIA papers in realation to him recently. He refused to participate in the Bay of Pigs and Operation Mongonse when invited to do so by the CIA - and ended up serving federal prison time in the US for his pro Castro activities.

My uncle Frank Guzman, born in Puerto Rico, came to live in NYC - the Bronx, at age 6 with my mother and their family. He was brilliant and a life long plane enthusiast and self taught mechanical genius. He was a member of the John Birch Society - very conservative man - who loved to perform in the sky and was in several paracuting clubs in Long Island and then Florida with his wife. He was fairly successful and leased his planes out while in business in Venice - one of which was used by a marijuana smuggler - unbeknown to him - when the plane crashed with its cargo my uncle - being the only link to that person - was lured to that hotel and murdered so that he could not give the name of the person. There was no substantial investigation into his murder. This was during the time that the Columbian drug gangs were taking over southern Florida and competing with the traditional organized crime elements - who had often worked in tandem with anti Castro forces within the US - those lines a blurry in fact. Our family assumed that law enforcement was in the pockets of these organized criminals and did not press for further investigation since we feared for the safety of his wife and children at the time.

Arlene Villamia

Two important women in the struggle for civil rights in the US have died recently.

Lena Horne

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

Dorothy Height

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

I am the nephew of Roger D. Craig. I am 46 years old. I was born on 23rd November 1963. I have been studying the JFK assassination since I was about 10 or 11. My goal is to keep Roger's memory alive. I play guitar and work on my website with a friend.

Welcome to the Forum. You will find a debate on your uncle here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=838

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9463

As time goes on, it is my perception namebase.org, however useful it currently is, could be a perfect database if it would update the name section to ascend chronologically to 2010 instead of somewhat stuck around the mid 1990's. Although, I am sure financial considerations or a very valid reason exists for such a situation.

It is a shame the Namebase is not being updated. Its founder, Daniel Brandt, used to be a member of the Forum.

One of the interesting things about this crisis is that it has revealed the hidden pro-Conservative bias of the BBC. The same thing happened during the 1926 General Strike. This morning, on BBC Radio 4, Nick Robinson, shouted down Paddy Ashdown. In 1986, Robinson, spent a year as national chairman of the Young Conservatives. This was a time when Margaret Thatcher was in power and the Young Conservatives were on the extreme right.

Here is Adam Boulton, who works for Sky News, revealing his pro-Conservative views yesterday.

Bob Vernon is a grifter. Called himself Dr. Truth. Wim Dankbaar is a mark.

The only thing they "solved" was Wim's problem of having too much money.

The media over the weekend have been pressurizing Nick Clegg and the media to do a deal with David Cameron. They have presented the case as one of being a choice between a Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition or a Conservative minority government. Yet, I cannot see how either proposal could possibly work in the interests of the Liberal Democrats. Even if Cameron promised a referendum and legislation on proportional representation, he could never deliver it as it is unacceptable to the vast majority of his MPs. It is possible that Cameron might persuade the Tory MPs to pretend to go along with the deal. Then, say in six months, before the legislation is passed, he could resign and call another election. As a result, the Liberal Democrats will lose the support of those people who voted for them in order to keep the Tories out. The Liberal Democrat vote will collapse and Cameron will get an overall majority and he could govern without the need to appease anybody.

The possibility of changing the voting system only exists in the present. It might never happen again. Clegg has to make sure he gets a deal that will really bring about a democratic revolution. The solution is fairly simple. Clegg has a meeting with the leaders of the Labour Party and suggests the following: Clegg will become the prime minister in a grand coalition that includes representatives of the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party, the Scottish Nationalists, the Welsh Nationalists and the Green Party. A referendum on the reform of the House of Commons and the House of Lords will be held within six months, with the idea of legislation within six months. An emergency budget would be introduced that was ensure a fair tax system, high-tax rates (95%) on bonuses over £50,000, a mansion tax and other redistributive taxes. Legislation should also be introduced to prevent the corrupt funding of political parties and a clean-up of political lobbying. MPs should also be denied the right to do second jobs.

The Labour Party could then elect a new leader and Gordon Brown could be allowed to work in the charity sector (that is what he told a television presenter what he really wants to do). A election under the PR system for the House of Commons and the House of Lords should be held within a year. By that time Cameron will be ousted and the right-wing Tory Party will do badly at the polls.

Gordon Brown has just announced he is to resign and that the Labour Party is to open formal talks with the Liberal Democrats.

The media over the weekend have been pressurizing Nick Clegg and the media to do a deal with David Cameron. They have presented the case as one of being a choice between a Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition or a Conservative minority government. Yet, I cannot see how either proposal could possibly work in the interests of the Liberal Democrats. Even if Cameron promised a referendum and legislation on proportional representation, he could never deliver it as it is unacceptable to the vast majority of his MPs. It is possible that Cameron might persuade the Tory MPs to pretend to go along with the deal. Then, say in six months, before the legislation is passed, he could resign and call another election. As a result, the Liberal Democrats will lose the support of those people who voted for them in order to keep the Tories out. The Liberal Democrat vote will collapse and Cameron will get an overall majority and he could govern without the need to appease anybody.

The possibility of changing the voting system only exists in the present. It might never happen again. Clegg has to make sure he gets a deal that will really bring about a democratic revolution. The solution is fairly simple. Clegg has a meeting with the leaders of the Labour Party and suggests the following: Clegg will become the prime minister in a grand coalition that includes representatives of the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party, the Scottish Nationalists, the Welsh Nationalists and the Green Party. A referendum on the reform of the House of Commons and the House of Lords will be held within six months, with the idea of legislation within six months. An emergency budget would be introduced that was ensure a fair tax system, high-tax rates (95%) on bonuses over £50,000, a mansion tax and other redistributive taxes. Legislation should also be introduced to prevent the corrupt funding of political parties and a clean-up of political lobbying. MPs should also be denied the right to do second jobs.

The Labour Party could then elect a new leader and Gordon Brown could be allowed to work in the charity sector (that is what he told a television presenter what he really wants to do). A election under the PR system for the House of Commons and the House of Lords should be held within a year. By that time Cameron will be ousted and the right-wing Tory Party will do badly at the polls.

In the 1980s and for some of the 1990s the UK experienced what is what like to be governed by a right-wing, free-market, Conservative Party. Although the British people took too long to realise it, by 1997, the population had moved to the left and Tony Blair was elected to power. To the dismay of those on the left, Blair continued many of the policies developed under Margaret Thatcher. Despite his many failings he was able to win two more elections. The reasons for this was that the British electorate had moved to the left and in our absurd first-past-the-post system, we had to put up with a right of centre New Labour Party governing the country.

The Conservative Party tried three different leaders but they were unable to come close to removing Tony Blair from power. A combination of Thatcher and Blair had created a desire for a more liberal and equal society. To be fair to Blair, his government did create a society that was more tolerant towards minorities. Attitudes towards the gay community definitely improved during this period. The more extreme kinds of racism and sexism also became more unacceptable in society.

After its third defeat in a row, David Cameron came up with a new strategy. He concluded that the electorate had indeed moved to the left and that unless it changed the Tories would never gain power. On the surface, most Conservative MPs, accepted this argument and he was allowed to develop policies that reflected the UK’s more liberal society. The chairman of the party admitted that in the past, the Tory Party had been in reality the “Nasty Party”. However, that was the past and the new Conservative Party was going to be a “liberal” party.

Of course, the wealthy elite in the UK were not interested in bankrolling this new party. After all, they were getting what they wanted by funding New Labour (PFI and government contracts, honours and places in the House of Lords, low-taxes on high-earners, tax evasion loopholes, etc.). However, all this changed when the public opinion polls showed that the New Labour government had become unpopular as a result of the mismanagement of the economy and its disastrous policy on Iraq and Afghanistan. Money now began flowing into the Conservative Party. Much of this came from multimillionaires like Lord Ashcroft who were based in tax-havens and feared that New Labour might close these loopholes. The Christian Right were also busy providing money to Cameron’s new Conservative Party. They had previously been willing to fund Tony Blair’s New Labour Party and his disastrous Academy schools programme. As John Gray has pointed out: “There can be little doubt that Christian fundamentalism has become a growing force in the (Conservative) party, and the strand of thinking that is emerging has much in common with the theo-conservatism that has divided and paralysed the Republicans in the US.”

David Cameron public views were not shared by most active members of the Conservative Party. For example, a recent poll showed that 94% of Conservative Party candidates in the General Election disagreed with his policy of not cutting overseas aid. When questioned about this he said that the policy shows that the party under his leadership had changed from its more illiberal past. However, the poll shows that this is window-dressing and that the party has not really changed at all.

Cameron had another problem. After the defeat of Alec Douglas Home (the former 14th Earl of Home) by Harold Wilson in 1964 it was argued that Britain would never again have a prime minister who had a public school education. The Conservative Party seemed to agree with this assessment and they had a succession of “grammar school” leaders until they elected the Eton educated David Cameron to the post. Would Cameron become the 19th Eton educated prime-minister in our history? As has happened in the past, Cameron immediately surrounded himself with his schoolmates as advisers and members of his shadow cabinet, including George Osborne, the shadow chancellor. This move is reflected in the fact that in yesterday’s election, 17 men educated at Eton became Conservative MPs (up from 14 in 2001). A total of 43% of the winning candidates were educated privately. Is it possible for this privileged elite to understand what it is like for the vast majority of people to have their public services or pension benefits cut? When George Osborne says “we are all in this together”, we know that is not the case.

With Britain having one of its most unpopular prime ministers in his history and undergoing its worse financial crisis since the 1930s, it was expected the Cameron’s move to the centre would pay dividends in yesterday’s election. However, he failed to gain an overall victory, winning only 36% of the vote. What yesterday’s election showed is that the UK now has a “left of centre” majority. As long as the Labour Party can elect a moderately reasonable leader, it could remain in power for the foreseeable future.

Cameron has offered Clegg a deal in order to gain power. If this deal is accepted, Clegg will split the Liberal Democrats is such a way that the party will disintegrate. Instead, he should do a deal with the Labour Party in order to establish a grand coalition that would include the Scottish Nationalists, the Welsh Nationalists and Caroline Lucas, our first Green MP. This would have to be done under the leadership of someone other than Gordon Brown. The new prime minister should then announce a referendum of parliamentary reform that would take place within 6 months. This should be combined with a promise of legislation that would enforce the decision of the referendum within 12 months. This would keep the coalition together until the next election could take place. Meanwhile, Cameron would be ousted as leader and the Conservative Party would become a party of the extreme-right, destined to be in permanent opposition.

Regarding the F-111: yes, something definitely stunk with that purchase. Surprisingly though, both the US and the UK had a hand in it. For those who aren't aware of the background...

Back in the 1960s, Australia was considering a replacement for its English Electric Canberra bomber fleet. There were a few contenders but the two front runners were the General Dynamics F-111 swing wing strike aircraft, and the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC, the forerunner of BAe) TSR-2.

Evan, you might want to add comments on this thread.

Regarding the F-111: yes, something definitely stunk with that purchase. Surprisingly though, both the US and the UK had a hand in it. For those who aren't aware of the background...

Back in the 1960s, Australia was considering a replacement for its English Electric Canberra bomber fleet. There were a few contenders but the two front runners were the General Dynamics F-111 swing wing strike aircraft, and the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC, the forerunner of BAe) TSR-2.

This subject is discussed in great depth here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6250

Most people take birth-control for granted. However, in the UK, it only came about after some of its advocates were sent to prison.

Working class women were expected to work until they had children. These women tended to have more children than upper and middle class wives. In the middle of the 19th century, the average married woman gave birth to six children. Over 35% of all married women had eight or more children.

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

The Church was totally opposed to the use of contraception to control family size. Several people, including Richard Carlile had been sent to prison for publishing books on the subject.

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

In 1877 Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh decided to publish The Fruits of Philosophy, written by Charles Knowlton, a book that advocated birth control. Besant and Bradlaugh were charged with publishing material that was "likely to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to immoral influences". In court they argued that "we think it more moral to prevent conception of children than, after they are born, to murder them by want of food, air and clothing." Besant and Bradlaugh were both found guilty of publishing an "obscene libel" and sentenced to six months in prison. At the Court of Appeal the sentence was quashed.

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

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

After the court-case Annie Besant wrote and published her own book advocating birth control entitled The Laws of Population. The idea of a woman advocating birth-control received wide-publicity. Newspapers like The Times accused Besant of writing "an indecent, lewd, filthy, bawdy and obscene book".

In 1918 Marie Stopes wrote a concise guide to contraception called Wise Parenthood. Marie Stopes' book upset the leaders of the Church of England who believed it was wrong to advocate the use of birth control. Roman Catholics were especially angry, as the Pope had made it clear that he condemned all forms of contraception. Despite this opposition, Marie continued her campaign and in 1921 founded the Society for Constructive Birth Control. With financial help from her rich second husband, Humphrey Roe, Marie also opened the first of her birth-control clinics in Holloway on 17th March 1921.

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

The 1923 Dora Russell along with Maynard Keynes, paid for the legal costs to obtain the freedom of Guy Aldred and Rose Witcop after they had been found guilty of selling pamphlets on contraception. The following year, Dora, with the support of Katharine Glasier, Susamn Lawrence, Margaret Bonfield, Dorothy Jewson and H. G. Wells founded the Workers' Birth Control Group. Dora also campaigned within the Labour Party for birth-control clinics but this was rejected as they feared losing the Roman Catholic vote.

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

Emily Pankhurst believed that a thirst-strike was worse than a hunger-strike:

The hunger-strike I have described as a dreadful ordeal, but it is a mild experience compared with the thirst-strike, which is from beginning to end simple and unmitigated torture. Hunger-striking reduces a prisoner's weight very quickly, but thirst-striking reduces weight so alarmingly fast that prison doctors were at first thrown into absolute panic of fright. Later they became somewhat hardened, but even now they regard the thirst-strike with terror. I am not sure that I can convey to the reader the effect of days spent without a single drop of water taken into the system. The body cannot endure loss of moisture. It cries out in protest with every nerve. The muscles waste, the skin becomes shrunken and flabby, the facial appearance alters horribly, all these outward symptoms being eloquent of the acute suffering of the entire physical being. Every natural function is, of course, suspended, and the poisons which are unable to pass out of the body are retained and absorbed. The body becomes cold and shivery, there is constant headache and nausea, and sometimes there is fever. The mouth and tongue become coated and swollen, the throat thickens, and the voice sinks to a thready whisper.

When, at the end of the third day of my first thirst-strike, I was sent home, I was in a condition of jaundice from which I have never completely recovered. So badly was I affected that the prison authorities made no attempt to arrest me for nearly a month after my release.

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