>> ^qbert:

Zinn's a fool. He means well, but so did Stalin.
"expanding not our military power but our humanity"; This sort of insipid, simplistic idealism is the stuff of Bush.
It's amazing what the Iraq war and two terms of the Bush administration has done to people. Many of these comments are shockingly stupid.


Out of all of the comments in here, most of which I didn't read, this one stood out.

What the fuck are you talking about? This comment is so non-sequitur that I get the feeling your world view is war is peace; which it is clearly not. Did you support the Iraq war? What is so shockingly stupid? Are you implying that people are stupid because they do not support war? Or the spending of tax dollars on military expansion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Wars, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism and other wars are the biggest reason for government expansion and the destruction of civil liberties.

Don't get me started on unemployment in the private sector, and the public sector gaining employment. That is another box of spiders.

@blankfist It's hard to put ideologies into nifty compartments. But their is a long history of social democratic anarchists. Like Howard Zinn and 70's feminist movement. Emma Goldman might have been more of your type, and peggedbea's for that matter as the true pioneer for non-interference in women's right's for self determination.

Throughout history, the only blood to be spilled has been done at the hands of the religious? Does that make sense?

In public, there should be caps on speech. In the US, the principle of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is on well known restriction on free speech. The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do. I don't care too much about what a person does or says in their home, if it doesn't harm me.

Run that buy me again? Hang on, one more time I didn't quiet believe my eyes! I, wait I can't say anything because of the new caps on freedom of expression. Oh wait, this website is now gone because of the new international laws that stop us from free speech. Guess what Longde, your speech on this website would be capped just as everyone else would be.

Welcome to the world were no one can speak without being beheaded because "someone might get offended." Hang on, while we're at it lets go ahead and hang:

• George Carlin Posthumously


• Howard Zinn Posthumously


• Noam Chomsky


• Theo van Gogh (film director)- Oh wait, they got him already.


• Frank Zappa


• Saad Eddin Ibrahim

Wait, here is a whole list you can start with; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_speech_activists.

Hell while we are being politically correct lets go ahead and enact a law that will make mandatory executions for all independent investigative journalists. I mean while we are going all out here, why don't we go ahead and make it a crime to be anything independent.

I think someone said this before me, "There can be no freedom without free speech."Free Press. You know what they say? If you don't like it don't read it! If you don't like it don't watch it! If you don't like it don't eat it! If you don't like it go back to your protective bubble!

Hypberbole aside where I come from it is an inalienable right to speak your mind even if it offends someone. It is that offended persons right to think you are a douche bag. But as soon as there is violence both parties are in the wrong. Justice is properly blind but in most cases she is not stupid; she doth not tread across that line to become a tyrant.

Quotes from one John Stuart Mill speaking on the Harm Principle.

If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. (1978, 15)

John Stuart Mill quote on the Harm Principle, again:

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[28] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.[28]

What do these quotes mean to you and I? Well they mean simply; that a person can speak their mind so long as the argument presented is valid even if it is embarrassingly immoral. That means, as it is already a statute the US, that hate crime is not free speech. But the prosecuting party has the burden of proof. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had the intention of causing harm with said speech. Then we enter the realm of Libel and Slander. A person has to proven knowingly lieing about someone in order to be charged with Libel or Slander.

I have for you, sir or mam a quote from Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, this quote is often confused with Samuel Johnson's "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Hell is paved with good intentions." Even earlier than that, it's been attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

Fixed.>> ^shuac:
Apparently, the word 'speech' is some mystical, magical thing that causes people to spell it like it was a fruit. I've seen others get similarly mystified and this is the conclusion I shall draw.

>> ^ponceleon:
Inconceivable!


You keep using that word.I do not think it means what you think it means.

Thanks!
In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
*quality

This deserves a much more vast audience than I presume it will probably achieve.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Another anti-American marxist, dead and buried. It remains true that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts; every time facts meet Zinn rhetoric, the latter loses.


kinda like your comment QM...

Howard Zinn, 1922-2010. He was a brilliant human.

I agree with what you're saying but it may be worth considering that Zinn was born in 1922; history may not have been taught this way when he was in school.
>> ^9058:
On the contrary i endlessly heard how we slaughtered indians and beat slaves. There was no patriotic reasoning for taking the land with violence and smallpox, just that we did it. So I cant help it if my propaganda alarm goes off in the back of my head when watching this.



I remember when I took Utah history classes when I was a kid the Mountain Meadows Massacre was still being taught as a slaughter at the hands of an Indian raid when historians have known for a very long time it was an organized massacre at the hands of Mormon settlers. This was only 12 years ago.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'g20 summit, protest, police, law enforcement, abuse, violence, howard zinn' to 'g20 summit, protest, pittsburgh, police, law enforcement, abuse, violence, howard zinn' - edited by kronosposeidon

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

^ "for no other reason than it's the US doing it."

Where do the people on the right come up with this stuff... Oh yeah.. RUSH-bag.

Spoken like a true Blame-America-Firster. So which of the two bigger liars is your idol, Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky?

>> ^westy:
maby this onyl aplie sin usa its not the case in uk , not with a number of people i know. its gneraly acepted that killing people is not constructive howevr justified it might seem


Wonderful speech. While I would agree the US is guilty on all counts, it does not stand alone by any means in the field.

UK (Tony Blair and gang) went into Iraq, giving the US their total support in that sham of a war. The UK had, and is currently involved in many joint US operations (some overt, most covert). Far more than most of us even realize.

To claim the UK is innocent of global domineering activities is incorrect. Lest we forget British history within past centuries. Occupation of India, Africa, Australia, and elsewhere during the colonial era. The number of non-conformist 'heathens', non-Christian 'natives', the 'uncivilized' if you will... who died for standing up to those who wished to exploit them for their resources... their slave labor. All for the benefit of the 'mother land'. Human capital expended for the benefit of the very few 'well to do'.

I for one would counter, that the UK proved to be a strong example for other strong, domineering nations to follow. Beyond the invasionary, exploitation mentality of the Roman Empire.. the UK is a strong contender for top prize. Taking into account all factors, extent of the empire, wealth taken, percent of resultant dead per population.

The cards are now in the hands of the USA. The question we should be asking is.. will the USA abuse that power, or use it wisely?

To think the US will maintain it's superiority indefinitely is completely naive. All great empires eventually end are are superceded by another. The USA has existed mere centuries. The Roman empire thousands of years.

For a bit of a play on words. A flame that burns too brightly will not burn as long. While I do believe the USA at it's core is good intentioned, it is those in power who have sway. How they exercise that power is what matters. So far, I have not seen much to change the path we are on.

We need to stop being shortsighted, and see the greater picture. As Howard Zinn stated. "Who Benefits?". It is a simple question... often with a very easy answer. Oil my friends. Iraq is all about Oil. Not 'good intentions'.

forgot to add that there is also commentary from Howard Zinn..my hero!
well..as a historian that is....