Shwa

Seems to me it is, or about behaviour that could be considered 'Floridian' whatever that may be. Southern conservative maybe, I dunno. Even noting that on another forum they refer to this sort of behaviour as 'Florida' indicates a sense of localized or regional social traits. Certainly, but I did not get - from the OP at least - a sense that this was a general application towards Americans in the same way that your post about the British Columbian "phallometers" referred to Canadians in general. I thought your response was to show that some regions are just as weird as any other, including regions in Canada. It was, excuse the pun, tit-for-tat, but I believe I got what you were saying. I didn't get that. It could be that one precinct in one city becomes the state (and perhaps regional) but I am not sure that it refers to the US in general. William Faulkner is well known and often beloved writer up here I think.

It appeard to me - and GH can correct me if I have missed the mark - that he was giving snow birds and other ex-pats a little shot, due in part to the perceived Canadian 'prudishness,' in such a way as to be considered, tongue-in-cheek, as the cause for the complaint against the young lady or the other "strange things" that seem to happen in Florida. This irreverent sentiment appears to apply to the entire OP including the posted comment from 'Americanpatriot1.' The only comments that referred to the US - and in a very general and innocuous way - was Dre's: The previous posts were about the merit of "boobs" to affect behavior. Your response seemed a titch sensitive and really focused the on the idea of Americans and America as the subject, as opposed to boobs or Floridians. Naw, the first post that uses the word 'America' as the topic is yours. For all I know, Dre could be referring to Floridians when he said "down there." He might have some insider knowledge on Floridians or snow birds or something. But you made the extrapolation explicit. Really? You got a nationality from a once removed internet handle? You are far more assumptive than I in this regard. Perhaps it was supposed to generate irreverant humour by suggesting that Florida or prudish Floridian behaviour like this - including snow birds or expats - wasn't a part of "America." But the comments were not "all directed at the US in general" which is my point. Dre's comment was suggestive, but even still somewhat ambiguous. For instance, if someone responded to BC's (appropriate) post about British Columbia and someone else said something about those people 'up there' I would assume they were referring to British Columbians (or even Western Canadians) and not Canadians in general, especially when dealing with some ambiguous comment. Perhaps some threads do take that sort of attacking tone towards the US right from the get-go, but it didn't appear - to me - to the case in this thread until you brought it up. And for all I know, it might have headed in that direction anyway. But I was curious to see if you consider comments about any region of the US to be a direct reference to all of the US or that, sometimes, a Floridian is just a Floridian.

Boasting or not, he outed himself. Often criminals are caught by boasting about what they think they got away with. Excellent point of course and no doubt that Pol Pot thought he was doing something right according to his internal logic. Something that a good historian would look at, I'm sure. But I believe he is also condemned by Cambodians too. Kissinger never consumed his own people, so there is a slight difference. Logic? Why appeal to logic when you have apologetics? The thing about studied apologetics is that there is a deep rabbit hole to fall into before even remotely considering elementary logic. I have no allusion to "coincidence" when it comes to Indonesia. Cripes, look what they did for frickin bananas in Central America.

But such laughable and disgusting rationalizations are available to whomever no matter what side of the porch one is rocking on. Although even Moynihan admits his complicity in the Cold War sham excuse. However after the fact that was, it was still retrospect. From the wiki page: I think it is reasonable to expect that a historian would attempt to frame an event within the context of the times that the event occurred. Spring 1975 was a pretty heady time is Asia would you not agree? However, I think it is fair to say - given enough information about the events as they unfolded - which I am sure Kissinger had, that the context would be changed to include what was reasonable. In other words - WE might have operated under the old Cold War apparatus back THEN (including the public justification), but was it necessary for Kissinger given the access to detailed information he must have had about the supposed conflict? I mean, how long do you go on before you say 'oh-oh...' especially after Vietnam? I think the only "Cold War policies" at play long after the fact of the massacres and genocide would be the economic type policies of arms sales. Billions of dollars worth. Well, there is always Hansard, which I had posted elsewhere. But who reads Hansard?

Thanks for the reply, appreciate it and yeah, I can see how your perception of motivation does irritate some, although I really do think when some people comment, the focus is regional and not necessarily about Americans in general (or Canadians in general for what its worth).

And just the sort of thing that will get him some dates on the talk show circuit, maybe a book about the incident and then a role on some truly bad reality-TV show that employs has-beens that never really were.

Ya think? East Timor Government dot com (History section) U.S. Cold War Foreign Policy and the Neglect of East Timor: An Apology for Henry Kissinger Interesting eh?

I predict that infidelity will be the next pandemic and they are already working on a vaccine: First meadow voles, then frisky spouses. After The Great Infidelity Pandemic is cured, the next pandemic will have something to do with out-of-work divorce lawyers.

Not quite sure where you want to go with this, but I will try: Surely you are not equating the use of the term 'Cold War' as used in official government documentation and correspondence as being used in the same way as on this forum. Then we only need to alter one word: "You" in this case referring to the person using it as a catch-all phrase. But let's look at this. The government says we did Act A because of {term B} (i.e. "the Cold War.") The citizen, knowing that the phrase is a substitute for a certain body of evidence, accepts this as a plausible explanation. They are likely not familiar with most of the details of the body of evidence of {term B} , and in their daily routine to feed themselves and their families, should they be? But if they should be - who is going to fill them in on the requisite details to understand Act A? That is, who is going to accuse them of ignorance on the matter and prosecute their thoughts for relying on such flimsy plausibility? I would say it is the critics responsibility in this day and age. And, if it is, the critics had better come bearing sound and convincing body of evidence. But even still, there are those that will reject the cold reality of people treating others horribly, preferring the comfort and warmth of their pursuit of happiness instead. I don't think there is much you can do for those folks, except perhaps chip away at the notion that such a pursuit has no hidden costs.

You might be on to something: How does our system really run - we all know that liberalism debases the population; and makes it weaker - not more free ... High arch conservatives love the fact that liberal henchmen do their dirty work, and create a submissive, stupid population - that is easier to control ... - funny though - the average liberal does not have a clue that they work for some old conservative banker types who get great glee out of jerking the chains of a dog-like society. In my observation - that seems to be the way it works..drugs - gayification - same sex and no sex unions; toss in a liberal amount - of subduing pharma product... Along with some liberal political correctness...(force tolerance); and you have the perfect population that can be run by a bunch of supermen that look at the nation as some sort of ant farm - to by toyed with ... But beware the political poet who hits the mark. Very difficult to deny and more difficult to disprove...

Curious. In the OP, GH makes reference to 'Florida' and then also mentions the retired Canadians there - a T-I-C reference of a possible cause to some of the strange goings on - like this supposed prudishness. Did you not get that? However, what is more curious is your willingness to transpose the specific concept of 'Floridian' into the general concept of 'American' and then take offence due to some criticism of Americans-as-a-whole. Almost like an over-sensitive transvaluation or something. For instance, when is a Floridian just a Floridian? When GH references 'Florida' I have enough knowledge and experience of the area and the people to understand what he means by Floridian. Now his generalization about Floridians might be unfair, but far less so for Americans-as-a-whole, which are not really referenced at all. In fact, I don't think GH meant 'American' at all, but Floridian. So, do you - and BC as well - see any criticism of any US citizen or any state as an overall commentary on the US or Americans in general? I would hope not, but it sometimes appears that way. Conversely, there are those who actually DO see specific commentary as a reference to the whole; do you find this to be the normal way in which other posters here view the US?

Japanese War Crimes - Debate in Japan My apologies. I was referring to the revisionism going on seemingly in conjunction with the "Modern apologetic commentary..." as per the OP.

Wait for what? A couple million people to starve to death or rot away from lack of food and medicine? Or to rebuild their bombed out factories and renew the bloodshed? Or would you keep bombing them with conventional weapons until a couple million were dead and millions more living in rubble. Try rebuilding from that. Actually, trying invading that, then rebuilding. The problem is that the Japanese used the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to mourn themselves and take on the role of victim. The people who suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were victims, for sure, but the rest of Japan wasn't.

Naw, neither Republicans, Democrats, Liberal, Consevative or NDP. Most likely Libertarians or their close cousins, the Anarchists.

Is it that they didn't agree or that it was simply an ad-hoc organization that came and went, while the Tea Party - no doubt the purpose of their focus - appears to be less of an ad-hoc movement, even though they play up that motif a good deal? For example, the Rolling Stones have likely sold more tickets and albums during a given touring year than all the other ad-hoc music festivals during the same year. Something can be said for permanence and consistency, for internal integrity. Which kinda leads into Pliny's assertion making sense, in a completely unsubstantiated way. Permanence, consistency and internal integrity generates more "news." Smaller governments generate less "news." And what is news, mostly about? People. So the bigger the government, the more intrusive the eye, the more stories available. I can see "the media" being kind of like farmers in a way: you might get a good yield if you plant crops are here and there, once in a awhile, that's horticulture. But if you want to control the supply of your product, you establish fields. And if you want to increase your yield, bigger fields and more fertilizers are in order. That's agriculture. Big news media are news farmers, not subsistence hunters and gatherers of news. And what does big government supply? A steady yield. And in these days of competition, good yields are required for survival. Of course I can't readily prove any of this, but thought it was an interesting take that ties in the two topics.

Right on! There would certainly be more bank robberies since they wouldn't even have to change! That's pretty dangerous. I can feel the banks practically being robbed as I write this! We need to arm the tellers.

So one of two things (or varying degrees of either) should result: There is no bias in Canadian media compared to US media, including the so-called 'liberal bias' of media or: There is a bias between Canadian and American media and, if there is, which way does it lean?

Some people have a good idea about what countermeasures mean and fully or partially support them. Others might not have access to the data, the criticism or plainly might not care enough to pay attention. And others still answer to the pangs of hunger before the pangs of conscience... No, not defending such behaviour at all, but merely accepting it as fact. But Hedges could have used a little bit more background to show that this sort of thing has been happening in Western countries for a very long time. Spying and surviellance may have differing methods and processes in different ages, but it is still spying and surviellance. Agreed, hence the use of constitutions, laws and policies and the use of such instruments in their defence. The innocent-until-proven-guilty ethic also plays a part in this as well. Governments will admit to certain mistakes, but not if no one complains. You don't have to go far in a library, bookstore or Internet to find the word 'despotism' creeping into the text. And it appears to me that we are sliding towards a form of despotic power hoarding under the guise of "well, you elected us fair and square. It's democracy, rah-rah-rah." Me too, but less about the corporate side of the establisment with regards to the article, and more about the governing establishment at the time. No, but "Cold War" was/is a substitute phrase for a body of evidence that is incumbent on you being familiar with before making your accusation about it. It is an effective phrase because you have given it piety, but I am certain that to the folks who had to deal in the currency of Cold War data it has a much more significant meaning, less religious and much more worldly. Now, had you dug through the Cold War data and come across some nasty and illegal acts of people treating others horribly, you may question that aspect. But questioning an aspect does not necessarily invalidate the whole, especially with a subject matter such as war. And, in wartime then as now, access to that data is restricted so your observations of it, and any subsequent criticism would only be in retrospect. But you see what I mean yes? That some people, perhaps a large portion of them, perhaps a majority of them find the fact that someone is looking out for them to be comforting. Like...a... big brother of sorts. Call it 'family values.' Yes indeed. But what if there were an overwhelming Islamist threat, would that make it all justified? Would you be comforted then? Gawd, we have a crusade, they have a crusade, we have another crusade to throw off their crusade and they respond with a new crusade, then we have a crusade to get some of their resources, and they have a crusade called a 'Jihad.' Oh, and there was this little interuption from Russia about some economic theories they wanted to try out, but for 900 years, the basic same pattern. Those crazy worker bees! And neither can Hedges since he tries to pull the coattails of a champion into his own cause. However, if the FBI investigation into Howard Zinn for all of those years had even the slightest postive input into his work, it's delivery or impact - specific or overall - well that is a game changer now isn't it?

But it is clear. Fervant anti-communism, the policies and countermeasures were transferred from administration to administration, regardless of whether they were central platforms or not. Even worse if they weren't. I am not saying everyone liked them, but they did last. They became a prominent media filter and still is to a certain extent today. But that is the way of the democracy isn't it? But I would be surprised to find your average American - evewn back in the day - holding the idea that intelligence operations were clean and fair. Or even completely legal. But even still, the American public got fed up with the high cost of Vietnam and influenced the government to act. I am not about to justify their justification, which is what I think you are seeking. I don't see it that way. They acted on what they believe was the best course of action to attain desired outcomes acording to their values. It is tautology to moralize about past human beings treating each other horribly. Then we shall not discuss capital punishment! However, the philosophical point turns on the notion of what is considered a crime and what a responsibility means. That is the cauldron of polysci isn't it? Each age has their own values it seems, determinable long after the fact. Right. But the critic - especially a moral critic of power - is indeed the prosecutor, she/he is the one in pursuit. If the government accuses a critic of some crime, of course they have to provide the evidence. But are we talking about infractions against a criminal code or are we talking about the criticism of power? Absolutely if you are going to criticize authority you had better make sure you provide evidence of your claims. You would be the one pursuing (prosecuting) them. This is the first rule of credibility. Otherwise we degenerate into conspiracy theory and specious claims of all sorts. (Plus it is also helpful to live in a society that requires evidence of, and the freedom to speak about, those claims.) How do you think the government derives their policy in the first place? Sure, some of it may be in a bar over a few beers, but most isn't. No, I am not choosing sides at all, but trying to provide as disinterested view as possible, of the reality of the value processes which was used as input into political action. And no, I don't believe in institutional integrity and honesty, which slides towards anthropomorphism. Heck, much of the time, the grunt has no idea of the big picture and I am not so certain that even the boss can anticipate all possible outcomes. But we are much more fortunate than that. Which is one of the pitfalls of democracy, alas. But out of scope here I think. Or there wouldn't have been any of the "communist witch-hunts." But there were communist witch-hunts. I m not choosing sides here, you are. Eh, whose complaining? There appears to be this ethic, and I am guilty of it as well, that if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to worry about. Of course, that really doesn't do upon close examination, but we are back to bread and circuses again aren't we? That is, it is comforting to know that someone is looking out for us, even if we call it spying. It is germane, but worthy of its own space and not hung out on some discussion about a Hedges article. For consistency sake - and this is very important - I would state that the perpetrator of the act felt justified, in one measure or another, to fire his weapon. Whether his justification for discharging is weapon could past muster in modern times is another consideration that requires more information than the brief synopsis supplied. You could have also used an example from the Winnipeg riots in 1919. Ah, so now my turn. Do you think Zinn would have made as much as an impact had he not been the subject of an FBI investigation? We can surmise that his experience of dropping bombs on people's heads had a profound influence on his political direction - as it had on many other bombadiers and bomber pilots of that age. Do you think there is a possible corollary between his emerging political ethics and the way in which he was viewed by the authorities of whom he was critical? Of course Hedges doesn't even touch this hot potato, for good reason, being under the "constraints" that he was.

Controversial, maybe, but on it went with the complicit approval of the American people through their representatives. Not for a few weeks or months, but for years. Republicans and Democrats. Nope. I am saying that I have to accept that the FBI felt it was justified in their means and methods because of the complicit approval as noted above. My personal moral stance on the issue is practically meaningless at this point and simply clouds the issue. Now, had McCarthyism continued into this day, I might have some moral stance on it. And that is not to say that I don't have moral stances on other means and methods of willful enforcement, because I do. But that has very little bearing on the subject at hand except a nod to the debt of having hindsight into what they did with their complicit approval. This example is neither here nor there. Might as well talk about bread and circuses if we want to discuss scale. The Gulf War made for some good, dramatic TV. No I think I understand perfectly well, although your legal system analogy seems backwards to me. If you were to accuse (as critic) the judge (the power), you would have to provide evidence of your accusation. As critic, you are the accuser and the accused has a right to defence. Similarly, if you counterclaim about the East Timor fiasco, you need to supply evidence yes? If your evidence justifies your counterclaim, your standard is immediately 'higher.' Now, if you ask (or demand as critics are wont) the authority to justify it's use of power, I would say there is an implied accusation that their justification is invalid. Which is still an accusation. Sure, but if they can justify themselves, then their claims are valid correct? So we look back and see the phenomenon of fervant anti-communism as evidenced by McCarthyism, which had the complicit support of the American people as per the democratic process. Was it justified according to them? Yes, in the way that was required to act. But hindsight tells us the final disposition of that phenomenon, that it could not stand the 'higher standards' demanded by its critics. They burned "witches" way back in the day. Did they think they were justified? Yes and they acted. Myself, living in enlightened times, do not. In the case of Zinn, there is a certain inevitability introduced, but a conspicuously mild form of it. However, Hedges tries to make more out of it than what appears to be the actual case and then argues as if this is some rational example of how the modern state fears 'thinkers like Zinn' However, from where I sit, it is 'thinkers like Zinn' that have ultimately had the last laugh due to the relative moderation of policy since. PS - don't get me wrong. This isn't some form of blanket justification for any modern act just because one day it will be better. We need our critics and we need them to continue to adhere to much higher standards that we personally know about now. But that is a whole other can 'o worms in'it? But it wasn't illegal for them to ask. Off side! I have made no such claim of trust of the FBI nor mistrust of it's critics. I don't necessary trust the French National Assembly, but I can understand that they felt justified in lopping of Louis XVI's head. . Now don't you start pulling a 'Hedges' and ignore context to make wide brush strokes. Are you a police sniper trying to get a hostage taker on the street? Is this a murderous mob that has gone wild? Is this a revolutionary crowd? Were you firing blanks? Are you fighting for your life? Was it a weapon to you, but only a piece of spaghetti to everyone else? But so am I. And, in the case of Howard Zinn and the higher standards of critics like him, has provided impetus for societal change over the past 50 years. No we ought to pay attention to the lessons of history and learn to see when abuses of authority are happening, especially if we are in positions of authority from a Mom or Dad, teacher or principal or government official. Being self-critical or having a vision of a higher standard for ourselves has it's utility. No, but we would be justified in saying that some good came of it from the knowledge we gained of that event and the lessons we learned. But applying an overarching moral sentiment was not my point and you know that. And the long historical view is not necessarily required, just a competent view. And I fully agree, therefore I try and live my life by these simple maxims. However I am not an island unto myself and thus any moral system I wish to incorporate requires me to integrate into a very large world... Wait. Have we gone from Hedges to Sir Francis Bacon? Mmmmmmm. Bacon. (but be careful when you freeze it!)

Are you saying that FBI investigative files on American citizens were somehow illegal or not credible with auhtorities at that time? We aren't talking about you being constrained and tazed, we are talking about an FBI investigation and dossier on Howard Zinn from the 50's & 60's. Now, we can say that McCarthyism was a "bland assertion" and even that some of the methods were dirty - in hindsight - but those undergoing the process weren't under the impression of blandness. Were they? So the actions of the FBI relating to Zinn, appear - at least on the surface - and completely justifiable in the circumstances of the day. Of course we hold critics to a higher standard and hopefully, at least in my case, not as syncophant! I mean, they are specialists and we appeal to their specialty to make determinations about choices we can make. I would hold Zinn to a higher standard than his interlopers, including Hedges. Oh, but not so with Hedges. His article is titled "Why the Feds Fear Thinkers Like Zinn" and then uses some quasi-historical cherry picking to try and make his point. Sounds like a negative to me, but when I do a close read of the article I am under the impression that the importance of Zinn's dossier falls somewhere between the dossier on Sammy Davis Jr. and Area 51. I wonder if Zinn had the same impression since he lived his life like he did. Where in that article does is say the FBI tried to convince Zinn to "cease" his totally legal behaviour? Are you talking about them trying to turn him into a rat? Nothing illegal about being an informant, especially back in the day. I don't see where they asked him to stop speaking free, teaching his ethics, or basically stop defending people in public. Am I reading the article too closely? We don't know if it is unknowable speculation, because Hedges omits to tell us the final outcome of that particular allegation as per the dossier. Over 400 pages - one would think that there would have been a little more information in the file about alleged ties to communism, don't you think? This is the sort of thing about the article that begs the question. Not from the FBI, but from Hedges. Of course there is a co-ersive aspect to intelligence gathering, even today I would imagine. (Just don't use the t-word. ) However, that was over 50 years ago and there doesn't appear to be any censorious effect on the consistent presentation of the subject from Zinn's perspective. Again, we have our modern enlightenment into what they were up to in those times, expectations have changed, we have the Internet, etc. However, no small irony that you mention Orwellian since 1984 was published in 1949 which was contemporary with the times. Heck, you just informed me a lot more in one sentence than Hedge did in 3 pages! You see? We are the beneficiaries of that hindsight, which they were not in that day. So they had to go on what they had on hand. So, in keeping with the theme of holding critics to a higher standard, that is for us to maintain as we critique articles such as Hedges. I am not saying we are specialists (well, you could well be, I don't know) but we have specialized knowledge now that we can apply - quite easily - to determine a moral path when it comes to such things. However the debt of this knowledge lays with the mistakes and bungling of the past. Even the FBI past. He got off pretty easily even if he were guilty you mean. Others, not so much. Some of them not guilty of much at all.

But they did justify why it's right, under the pretext of anti-communism. Are you disputing this point? Not unless they release the files, which they did in Zinn's case. Or unless you have an access to information request. But think of this for a minute BM - the critic must have a higher standard that the purveyors, that is their specialty. And they have to see beyond the immediate to be able to express their criticism, even if using a different model. Now there might be a pang of conscience with the agents doing the active investigation on Zinn, but pangs of hunger trump pangs of conscience, especially in post war USA. Besides, another thing lacking from the article was a designation of how important the dossier was overall. As I said, Zinn was never charged or punished - other than being the topic of investigation - but his career didn't seem to suffer overall. Kind of like John Lennon, another dossier worthy radical. Not "were" but had the potential to be. I highly doubt the FBI were investigating him because he, or his associates, exercised his freedom of speech, but because what that speech could potentially cause. However, when did the FBI or any government sanction him for exercising his freedom of speech? But of course the onus is on them, which perfectly illustrates the worthiness of their very own suspicions, which never resulted in any charges or sanctions. But does the article explain that was the final outcome of the allegation contained in the dossier? No, it said that Zinn denied the allegation repeatedly. When? In 1954? 1958? He got off pretty easy methinks. For the allegation during those times. Why is that? Why doesn't Hedges elaborate on that aspect of the dossier? I might, but others might not. It is hair-splitting, but not without some utility. My aplogies.

To anytime when we claim discovery in light of hindsight. Which the FBI lacked when fulfilling their mandate back yonder. That isn't the context I am referring to, which deals more with the power structures that were in place during the active phase of the investigation. So let's tie in surveillance activities with say, Belle Boyd. Damned Reb spies! How tenuous a context does that sound like? Well there were plenty of abuses of powers when it comes to surveillance. No one said intelligence gathering was a picnic. The context of the anti-communist fervor which was rampant at the time the dossier on Zinn was opened and continued for the next 26 years. That is too neat isn't it? Nevermind the fact that the article doesn't touch any possible reasons why the FBI were investigating him outside of what he said or wrote, it was all anti-communist fervor. And it might have been, but I doubt it. But certainly can't find out from the article can we? Sounds like Zinn was also targeted for whom he knew. And, despite the investigations over all those years, what was the effect on Zinn's career? Many careers went up in smoke because of the anti-communist fervor, but despite all the innuendo, and a 423 page file, Zinn seemed to escape unscathed. And why is that when the FBI described "Zinn as a former member of the Communist Party?" Doesn't that sort of equation not quite add up and imply more? An equally plausible explanation is that some junior agent was placed on the x-files and told to be thorough with the relatively unimportant Zinn dossier. The point is that the final disposition of the testimony is of utmost important for a disinterested view. For instance, did they decide that the data from the phantom-sister was useless or phoney. Or did Hedges discover that? Or did Hedges discover that in the actual dossier. It's not a dig meant to imply hypocrisy. It is an illustration that "...Zinn was a peaceful man, and everything he ever said or wrote attested to this..." is not quite a true statement. Who said that they FBI were investigating him for exercising his freedom of speech? That is, where does that information come from? But that certainly wasn't the point you were making, was it? It's rather as if you unaccountably accused me of having human attributes...as if this especially belonged to me, in some particular way, while everyone else is strangely ommitted. But we aren't talking about "them" or you. We are talking about this specific article that lacks important detail which, when omitted, plays on the credibility of the historicity of the opinion. Hey, I understand the constraint of ideology on articles such as this, and you did state that "Yes, author Chris Hedges is a breed of radical left Christian." So why should I complain? Because I think the article brings up more questions than answers, and those questions - for me - have nothing to do with 'why Zinn,' but more about 'why Hedges.'

Nope. What I did say was: some form of investigation is reasonable. The FBI did not have the benefit of our modern enlightenment with regard to the subject, his activities or associates or the final outcomes in the case such as we do. However, such enlightenment has allowed us (or, at least, Hedges) to view this dossier. This is where the article kind of loses it and doesn't place this subject in any sort of context outside of the fear mongering anti-communism fervor back in the day. Well hindisght is 20/20, so what else is new? It really doesn't inform us of much. Besides, you have neatly side-stepped the possibilty that Zinn was investigated in conjunction with other associates or targeted groups. The FBI were obviously looking to detect something, which appears to have been dropped in 1974. But this is very important and informative context that was missing from the article. And do you know what the dossier says about the final disposition of the phantom-sister testimony? You mean everything he ever said or wrote after he dropped bombs on people from the relatively removed confines of a B-17 during WWII? I am not going to defend some of the FBI's tactics nor question the public character of Howard Zinn because it simply isn't a matter of selecting sides for freedom of speech. As a historical piece - and that is all this article can ever hope to aspire to - it is profoundly lacking in important detail that was likely left out for some constraint of time, article length or ideology.

Because the "higher" qualification standards were devised by men for men. Oops, back to equal.