Hi Phil,

      I asked you four questions. You responded in an evasive way to 2 and
1/2 of them, as I will explain. My inquiry to you was:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Phil Gasper,

      You post a lot of articles without any comments of your own. I would
appreciate it if you let us know your thoughts and why you believe that such
and such an article is worth reading. I have four questions motivated by
your post of Michael Shermer's article.

1. Do Shermer's views on 9/11 agree, more or less, with yours?

2. Do you believe the Warren Commission report that JFKennedy was shot by a
single assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, i.e. that all the "conspiracy theorists"
are full of shit?

3. Do you believe that FDR planned to get the U.S. into WWII and prevented
the commanders at Pearl Harbor from receiving information about the
approaching Japanese attack armada?

4.Do you think the Bush cabal conspired to get the U.S. to attack Iraq?

Sincerely,
George
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Your response was:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To 1. I don't know what Shermer's views are, apart from his rejection of
the wilder conspiracy theories.

To 2. Like Chomsky, I think it's a political waste of time to be obsessed
about the Kennedy assassination.

To 3. Yes to the first part of this question. Robert Stinnett makes the
case for an affirmative answer to the second part in Day of Deceit,
but most other historians find his argument unconvincing.

To 4. For my views about the underlying motivations for the Iraq war see
http://www.isreview.org/issues/27/gamble.shtml.

--PG
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 1, you simply avoided answering what was the clear intent of my question,
as indicated by the earlier sentence, "I would appreciate it if you let us
know your thoughts and why you believe that such and such an article is
worth reading." If all you learned from Shermer's piece is that he rejects
"the wilder conspiracy theories", that means you think his article merely
set up a "straw horse" and went on to demolish it. Why would that be worth
posting, with the implicit suggestion that it's worth our effort to read it?

On 2, you ignored my question about the Warren Commission "finding" that
there was no conspiracy -- just lonely Lee Harvey Oswald. I ought to assure
you that I am not obscessed with trying to dissect the conspiracy, which I
am convinced existed. I asked whether YOU think there was no conspiracy, and
you just told me Chomsky's view, with which I have long agreed. Another evasion.

On 3, you did answer the first part of that compound question directly --
thank you -- but in your response to the second part you declined to say
what YOU think. I know it is difficult for most liberals to even consider
the possibility that FDR actively conspired to allow the Japanese assault on
Pearl Harbor to succeed, but I believe that is what happened. Unfortunately
I don't know enough of the detailed history of those events to say more than
that it is my belief (rather than assurance that it is a fact), but I'm
quite certain that if I could do the research I would affirm as fact my
belief. I think I.F.Stone's view that ALL governments lie is correct, and
that FDR arranged for a massive cover-up to be effected immediately after
the attack.

On 4, I scanned your article and found myself in agreement. It's a good
effort to contribute to our understanding of the historical conditions in
which we live. In particular, you wrote,

"Though many liberals are loathe to admit it, the U.S. is not just a
superpower, it is the world’s preeminent imperialist nation."

"Whatever the precise course of events, there’s one thing we do know. Bush’s
plans for war will mean the slaughter of tens of thousands abroad and
continuing attacks on living standards and civil liberties at home. Whether
the administration can get away with this will depend on the level of
opposition that develops in the Middle East, around the world, and crucially
here in the U.S. itself. The antiwar movement of the 1960s and 1970s played
a crucial role in defeating U.S. imperialism in Vietnam and demonstrating
that the world’s biggest superpower was not invincible. Over the past few
months we have seen the impressive growth of a new antiwar movement in this
country. The urgent task before U.S. is to build it bigger and stronger to
demonstrate that U.S. imperialism is no more invincible today."

      It may be a futile hope of mine that we privileged academics will ever
do more than contribute to the cause of enlightenment. But as one of my
daughter-out-laws wrote me once, "Enlightenment is not a worthy goal." My
hope is that enlightenment is a necessary prerequisite to figuring out what
to do, but that after we do figure out how to act, we will then take action.
Unless we do, all the learned explorations and scholarship are in the end
valueless in so far as making the world a decent livable place for the vast
majority of the world's people.

      Finally, dismissing "conspiracy theorists" as crackpots is precisely
what the corporate media and the government "spokespersons" -- the hired
professional liars -- do in their efforts to legitimize the totally
illegitimate dominant power structures.

With all good wishes, and hoping for a direct response in place of continued
evasion, I remain

Sincerely,
George