by the time the rosenbergs were arrested pm didn't exist anymore and. but who was the film critic of the death of pm was one of the three founders of the national guardian, a weekly newspaper, and the guardian cut its teeth in the late 40's and '50's in proclaiming his innocence of the rosenbergs so my guess would be that if pm had been around it probably would have said the same thing although i don't know that. >> if you look in the book you will see a number of cartoons by pm when the investigations happen and the, in turn this all the south and became common form. and they were more of less than that shows the end of any soviet threat as far as we're concerned which, of course, was totally

now you because the russians were never going to use cp members anyway for espionage purposes. but the main spies or nazi members. >> i am being corrected here. >> the main spies were cp members. >> into the postwar time? >> rosenberg's will sue lasik about. >> i stand corrected. any way be that as of may the pm attitude was relatively now you have that once the comintern was dissolved there was no threat anymore and of merchandise should have gone home. he should have gone home in any case. but not for those particular reasons. >> any other questions, comments? if not, do you want to have.

[applause] we have booked for sale. if you buy when he will sign. whew. >> me to appear in >> we have books for sale and we have a wine and cheese in the room. thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations] >> andre schiffrin was the managing director and editor in chief of pantheon books. a and xiaoning director of the new press. he's the author of a political education in the business of books. for more information visit the new press.com.

>> howard zinn discusses "a power governments cannot suppress", his collection of essays which critics america's response to it 9/11. howard zinn die geneina 27, 2010 at the age brandeis university in walter massachusetts this is an hour and five minutes. >> when you know, howard came and read here about a. half ago press and not long after he read when i picked up a book called will be we're about

the current state of american politics written in by a man who coined the phrase counterculture. in that found out that he couldn't find a single publisher in the u.s. to pick up his book, there was not anyone who touches its. i think people get the impression that as long as books like if i did it by adjacency can get published anything canada published. [laughter] it is not the case so today we are here to celebrate something very fortunate to that looks and not like this can be published, that they cannot suppress it can be published by amazing press is like city lights and we can hear the voice directly and some of the greatest is living in the u.s. today, some of the greatest intellectuals and i'm proud to introduce one of them out. please welcome howard zinn. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. we thank you, alex thune, thank you whoever you are what who applauded. [laughter] if you didn't applaud, thanks anyway. when alex was is from and back some pages a book on movie street and they are responsible for this and i want to thank them why they're struggling, i hope he doesn't mind me saying this, but they are. they're struggling little bookstore and a new support michael struggling little bookstores. i think that sign we need to direct people more to bookstores and to libraries away from television, away from the newspapers. i say away from television even though i know there is a television camera focused on us

right now. [laughter] the question is will they turn us off as a result of this. no, this is different. this is special. [laughter] one so this book and, "a power governments cannot suppress", a man named gregory decided on this book. i didn't really write the book. i wrote the stuff that's in it to. [laughter] and he put it together. there's a bunch of essays that i have done over the last three or four years, many of them for the progressive magazine, some of them here and there. and on furlough for princeton university press, i did an essay on eugene debs. those two go together, john de? and the kind of socialist and

anarchistic, i haven't done anything on any republicans i know of. [laughter] but you'll find all sorts of things in this book, things that even surprise me when i find it's there. but the basic idea of the book, i don't read, they voice talk about these things as somebody is going to do a reading. i never read from my books. i don't think they're worth it. [laughter] i will read from tolstoy or thoreau or mark twain, but now, you are stuck with it where as if you pick up a book and read something of mine your going to immediately put it down if you like and go on to something else. so i want to read from ibook but i will try to tell you something about what is in mint or at least what is suggested by this book. in fundamentally a the book tries to make a connection

between history and what is going on today and that's always been my attitude as an historian. i've never been interested in justice and history to go into the archives and look up these old letters and documents. it's interesting that course. it is fun, bonwit but that's not the kind of history i wanted to do. i wanted to go into history and come out into the present. i want to make connection between something that happened in the past. i want history to help us in dealing with situation we face today. and you're always facing a situation today. especially today. especially now. especially now with an administration that's taken us into two wars in a few years with an administration that has run amok with power. that has attacked the

constitutional rights of people all over this country. the administration that wasted enormous wealth this country has on war and the funneling this well then to the upper richest 1 percent of the population and its administration has taken power unto itself and not listen to anything that anybody says except the four or five people around the president. so you're in a situation now where i think we are desperately in need to learn something from history because i feel that's the people of the united states at that moment when george bush got up before the microphone and said we must go to war than 11 took place, a terrorist act took place, and therefore we must go to work against afghanistan, while one if people are listening move history they would not immediately rushed as most americans did at that

point. 80 percent of americans rushed to say yes. progress, of course, rush to say yes because that's the job of congress to say yes. whenever the president wants to go to war. and if people do some history there would not be that rush to support a work, there would not be bad acceptance of the idea we are going to war to fight terrorism. there would not be an acceptance of the idea we're going to war to bring democracy. >> , bring democracy to the whole middle east. because the people if they use of history they would know of the instances in the american past when presidents have come before the public and said, as president pulled did in 1846, with back to go into mexico to spread civilization for the mexicans were as mckinley did in 1898, we've got to go to cuba to liberate the cubans. we are always liberating somebody. but we went into cuba and

liberated, we liberated them from spain but not from us. and that's our record. our record is sometimes liberating people from other tyrants and then imposing our will on them so the spanish were added cuba in 1898 and the american corporations and american military were in cuba and stayed there for a very long time coming dictatorship after dictatorship supported by the united states. the people knew some of that history. if they knew the history of the american occupation of the philippines they would be very wary of an american occupation of iraq, they would be wary of the idea we are occupying so we can bring democracy to by iraq. we fought a bloody war in the philippines and committed massacres in the philippines and then we occupied the or 50 year. did we bring democracy to the philippines? brought dictatorship after

dictatorship and misery to the filipino people about half a million of whom had died in a war that we waged against the filipinos. of course, of the history then in to the 20th-century coming into the marines going again and again into the caribbean, general smedley butler advise you to look at him. a marine general who want to congressional medals of honor helping leading the military into various countries of central america and at a certain point he stopped and turned around and said, you know, i was an errand boy for wall street. he realized that what he had done, what the american military had done in central america was try to make central america and various countries in central america and the caribbean and haiti and the dominican republic and honduras to make them

profitable places for american corporations, not places where democracy would flourish, in fact, democracy did not flourish in all those places. where we send the marines to take over and to do with good bidding of american economic interests. of course, bringing the history up to more recent times with people even as studied closely the history of the vietnam war that wasn't that long ago, there are actually people here who remember the vietnam war. despite the attempts of the media to forget the vietnam war, despite the attempts of our political leaders when we went into iraq the first time in 1991 and one in this quick smashing victory, is blended were just like the spanish-american war had become of very quick victorious war. and george bush said senior, the

smarter one, -- george bush said in, well, we have now buried the vietnam syndrome. in the sands of the arabian peninsula. a rare politics demint out of the white house. [laughter] did well, the practice we have not. the vietnam syndrome. in vietnam is coming back to haunt us and people are thinking about that more and more every day and people who remembered the and on, they would remember how the calls for withdrawal that came early on. i must say in 1967 to years after we were escalating the war in 1967i wrote a book, i looked -- i love to advertise my books -- i will try to resist kids later on.

but i can't resist this -- i wrote a book called bignami, the logic of withdrawal. mine was the first book that called simply for the united states to get out. ..

>> we can't do that, there will be chaos. there will be chaos? in vietnam? there was chaos in vietnam. we were bombing vietnam into eternity. were destroyed vietnamese villages. we were destroying their lead. we were killing their people. ultimately, 2 million people died and it noncom and we mustn't leave because there will be chaos in vietnam? so we stay. in 1967 when a few of us were calling for withdrawal, we were stated and what was the result? another 30000 american dead, another 1 million been amazed at. so same arguments today. we mustn't leave iraq, as if our presence in iraq is preventing civil war.

the question is, is our presence preventing civil war or is our presence of provoking civil war? and i think the answer is clear, just looking at the history of these for years of our occupation in iraq, iraq is a mess after four years. and the numbers and numbers of iraqi dead and would are enormous, into the hundreds of thousands. so yes, the history is useful. and not the history that you get in the traditional textbooks, but the history that a citizen learned or himself or herself when he says and goes to the library or listens to the independent media, when a citizen reads alternative journals instead of simply watching cnn, and fox news. so yes, history is very useful. it still is today.

and i think that one of the things we might learn from history, and this is very important, very important conclusion to get from the long history of this country. it's that the government's interest are not necessarily the same as ours. in fact, are really the same as ours. because if you think that governments interest are the same as yours, then you think, well, if something is going wrong it must be that they made a mistake because they really care about us. they don't care about us. the government does not care about its own soldiers. if it did it would not send soldiers into the quagmires of vietnam, and iraq. it would not send him into a situation where they will come back main or without arms or legs or they come back with her psyche destroyed, if they really cared about the soldiers and

cared about the families of the soldiers that they would not be taking the wealth of this country and squandering it on $500 billion this year on the military budget. that's a hard thing to grasp, that the government does not have the same interest as us. it's hard to grasp because we grew up in a culture where the language of the culture predisposes us to think, yes, we have a common interest, the constitution starts off with a preamble, we, the people of the united states, cuba, establishes. it wasn't we, the people establish the constitution. it was 55 rich, white men who established the constitution. i know you're not supposed to say anything about the founding fathers. [laughter] >> they are our fathers. we are all one family. [laughter] >> not so. founding fathers were slaveholders and merchants and bondholders, really.

they set up a government that was more democratic than other governments were. they set up a government that was independent of england, but they did not set up a government that was a government of the people. they set up a slaveholding government that was going to do the interests of the bondholders and the merchants. the interests of the government in the interest of the people, right from the beginning, were not the same. and that same difference of interest has continued down to the present day, all through -- look at the history of legislation in this country. it's class of legislation. it's legislation that has always benefited the upper classes. there's always been subsidies for the corporations and subsidies for the railroads that they didn't call it welfare. when the government began helping poor people, they called it welfare. when the government gave hundreds of millions of acres of land to the railroads, they didn't call that welfare. but the legislative history of this country as a history of

legislation favoring the rich, to put it bluntly. and there were some breakthroughs, some oddities, there were some moments in history when this was not true. in the 1930s, something happened. in the 1960s, something happened. what happened is that people rose up all over the country and demanded change. and the demands grew so loud and so threatening, that didn't come in the 1930s, we got social security and we got unemployment insurance, and get subsidized housing. in the '60s we got medicare and medicaid. so there have been moments in our history when the people and their desires and their anguish over the situation has broken through, and then we got legislation that moved away from the traditional class, upper-class legislation of the government. but it's extremely important to understand this conflict of

interest between government and us. otherwise, you would think, and the young guy going off to war while the, well, wish this interest was the same as mine. it's not. no one is excellent interests the same as mine. nor halliburton's interest is the same as mine. know. that's a very important thing to learn. i think from history. and when you learn, when you study the history of the united states, you do not see the kind of country that we all learn about when we go to school, which is a kind of america. we're not different by the way than other country. countries everywhere teach their history and a nationalist way. they are all prideful of their flag and their anthem, and you know, their history. and the united states is no

different. except that we are bigger and better and stronger. [laughter] >> but we are -- we grew up in this country singing the star-spangled banner and liberty and justice, pledging allegiance and all that. we grow up with the idea that we're special, we are different. we are the boy scouts of the world. we help countries across the street. [laughter] >> we -- we are good. we have our little problems, like slavery may be. maybe we weren't nice to the native americans. you know, we have our little problems, but basically we're okay. when you look at the history of this country, we were not. we were not. we destroyed the indian civilizations. we expanded into the caribbean. we expanded into the pacific. we send our young people into war again and again. we did not take care of poor people when poor people organize, when workers -- were

organized into unions and went out on strike, the government called out the place and the national guard to suppress their strike. that's the history of labor struggles in this country. it's not the kind of glorifying history that too many of us, you know, grew up with. and when i say that, when anybody says something like that, that there is a kind of fear of saying it. you're putting in our country. you are unpatriotic. no, i'm not putting down our country. when i am honest about what our government has done. i am putting down our government, yes, but there's a distinct between a government and a country. there's a very fundamental principle of democracy, and the

government and the country are not the same. the government and the people are not the same. that's the basic idea of the declaration of independence, which has governments are set up by the people. they are artificial creations. they are set to achieve certain ends, the right to live in liberty and the pursuit of happiness, equality. and when governments become destructive of those and, according to the words of the declaration of independence, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government. that's serious. those a revolution in which. after all, it was a revolution. and something about a revolution that brings out some honesty and also brings out the idealistic language and hopes and dreams, which may not be realized because the dream of the declaration of independence was not realize, but it is there. it is telling us that governments are not to be obeyed, simply because their governments. to be patriotic is not simply do what the government says.

to be patriotic is to subscribe to the principles of the declaration of independence. to check up on the government to see if it really is fulfilling its obligation to take care of our right to equality, for life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. and patriotism, the best sense of the term, means follow those principles. and when the government doesn't follow those principles, the government is being unpatriotic. so we must be honest about ourselves. about our history. about the history of our government are and i think that we need -- maybe we need some concession on the part of our government leaders, and acknowledgment, you know, like alcohol synonymous? [laughter] >> where they get up before and confess, yes. and maybe, you know, cheney and bush and the others should get

up, you know, form a group called in playlists anonymous. [laughter] [applause] >> and tell the truth, and that is what they're aiming for in the middle east is not democracy and not liberty, it and they don't really care about the overthrow of tyrants like saddam hussein. our governments have supported tyrants all over the world. know, what they really care about, this is hard to say. oil. it seems so means, so cheap. the oil will not be cheap. but it seems, you know, really it's just oil, yes. its oil. history comes in handy there. the history of american policy towards the middle east has been based on the desire to control the oil resources with the middle east. that's been true since the end of one or two. ever since president roosevelt got in and they made a deal. the unite states will replace the old oil powers of the dutch

and british and french in the middle east, and in return the united states will support the government. talk about democracy. the saudi government, the government of saudi arabia all this years have been far from democracy as you can find. we did not invade saudi arabia to give democracy to saudi arabia, because saudi arabia gives us oil and is our ally in our quest for oil in the middle east. so yes, history is are useful in all of these ways. i guess our problem is, once we accept what the reality is, once we look honestly at what we have done and what we're doing, and the question is, you know, what do we do about it? and are we helpless to do anything about it?

because i think that's a great problem, that people, even when they oppose the government feel helpless to do anything about it. and so we don't see, we don't see today, although most americans today are opposed to the war, and most americans today are opposed to the bush policies, we don't see a connection between that opposition and any kind of change in policy. we don't see the wishes of the people represented in what the government does. we are not seen the kind of actions that took place during the vietnam war with a passive opposition to the war that became more than passive when it became civil disobedience. we saw soldiers beginning to refuse to go back to iraq. we are. saying that we are opposed to this war. but the fact is we do not have

democracy in foreign policy. that's a very important thing to knowledge. because we're always talking upbringing democracy everywhere else. we do not have democracy in this country when it comes to foreign policy. we learned in school, we have three branches of government and we have checks and balances, and the legislator will check, you know, the executive and the supreme court will seek if things are constitutional or not. that doesn't work in foreign policy. the president decides on war, and congress goes along like a bunch of sheep. really, that's what they did in the mexican war. that's what they did in the spanish-american war. that's what he did in the world war i. that's what they did with the vietnam war. when was -- did they know what happened in the gulf? it turned out to be a mass of

lies. but they merely voted to give lyndon johnson the authority to launch what then became a very long war in vietnam. there's no democracy in the matters of foreign policy. and no checks and balances, no hope that congress will stop and say hey, let's look into this. let's see if this is true. know, and no hope for the supreme court deciding that a war is unconstitutional. and we have not fought the constitutional war since the end of world war two. constitution requires that congress declare war, connors has not declared war. in any war that we have fought. to have been many world war ii. you learn in school if something is unconstitutional, it's the job of the supreme court to say so and do something about it. know. after all, who are the supreme court? just because they wear black robes doesn't give them any special moral standing.

they are apolitical appointees, and they do the bidding of the people who appointed them. so if they don't have democracy in the upper reaches of government, and we can't depend on checks and balances on representative government, then obviously i think it leads us to the thought that we're going to have democracy, it depends on is that it depends on the people. and distorted, that's been the situation. historically, when working people found out that the government is not going to do anything about the 12 hour day, they organize. they went out on strike and they won an eight hour day. when black people in the south saw the government not just the state government, but the national government, was not going to do anything about racial segregation or brutality in the south, then black people organized. they demonstrate. they went to prison. they were beaten. some of them were killed, but

they created a national commotion which finally brought democracy alive. and that's the situation we're in today. we need to bring democracy alive today and it requires the actions of ordinary people. and we mustn't despair about the fact that the government has all the power. the government has the fbi, they have all their secret apparatus. they are watching us. i don't think i'm paranoid. [laughter] >> they really are watching us. and they love that. so our job is to watch them. and we have to understand that despite all the trappings of government, which indicate that they are all powerful, they have the military, they have the

money, they have the security apparatus and so on. the fact is, historically, and here's where history comes in handy, the most powerful governments that had to change policy when the people demanded it. when an outcry grew so great, when the pressure from below grew so great that it appeared threatening to the government, then the government had to change policy. we have seen governments toppled. we have seen tyrannyis toppled all over the world that seem to be impregnable. you know, in the philippines, suddenly the dictatorship, marcos was totally in charge, he wakes up one morning and there are millions of people industry. he leaves. really. this is happening place after after place. in haiti, quick, get out of here. the people are rising up. the fact is, governments like all powerful entities are vulnerable. the government needs people to obey its in order to keep our and people stop obeying the

government loses its power. corporations the people to work for it. when people stop working for corporations, then the corporations help us. we saw this in the 1930s with a general motors and ford. huge corporations. we're not going to a union here. but when the workers left the factories, or even when they sat in on the factors and wouldn't let production going. general motors was helpless. and so it's important to keep in mind that the power of the establishment rests on our obedience. when we start disobeying, that's where thoreau comes in, and that's where the great people in our history coming. that's where helen keller comes in and goldmann comes in, and mark twain comes in, and eugene debs and martin luther king, that's where they come in. and when that happens, then

something will change. our job is to purchase but in that process. and to light a fire under these wishy-washy democrats who have just one an election, and you're sort of falling back timidly and they want to pass nonbinding resolutions. how about a binding resolution? [laughter] >> yes. [applause] >> how about holding hearings on impeachment? [applause] >> and impeachment -- talking about a double impeachment. i'm talking bush and cheney. because, you know, they go together. know, impeachment is not a radical solution. some people act, impeachment, they come of the thought of impeachment. in the high reaches of the democratic party, we mustn't

talk about impeachment that impeachment is a constitutional measure. it's right there in the constitution. the president may be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. what bush has done has not met -- does that not match the requirement of high crimes? sending us into war, lying to us, taking away our liberties, taking away the lives of thousands of americans and subjecting so many of them to mutilation and a terrible future, does that not make the requirement of high crimes? we have to talk to our congressmen or congresswomen. we have to talk to them, and let them know how we feel. we have to beef them up and stiffened their spine am a tell them to get going. because it's a situation that cannot be tolerated for too long.

i have to stop him because i have to give you a chance. also the orthodox definition of treason speech is the speech he gives 50 minute and give the audience five minutes. freedom of speech. freedom of speech means the president can speak to millions of people, i can speak to a few hundred. it's a free country. [laughter] >> keep this in mind and keep this in mind about what the government says we will not retreat, we will not give in, we will stay no matter what. to ask them what about the people? what about the fact that most people are opposed to this? well, that doesn't bother me. well, we have seen that in history. we have seen people say, i will

never yield. i will never give in. and they gave him. when enough people got together and enough people organized, they gave him. we've seen that again and again. i remember george wallace getting up before a crowd of a few southern supporters, and sang in segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. and a wild applause. two years later, the segregation signs were down in the south there can wallace was campaigning in the black neighborhoods for support in his presidential race. things change. things change. it's up to us to move that change along. it's up to us to bring democracy alive. thank you. [applause]

[applause] >> thank you. >> we're going to take questions for about half an hour. there are two microphones up here. if you can line up in the side aisles, if you have a question, and villages go back and forth starting with this one and into that one and go for half an hour, and then we will do book signings that if you have questions, feel free to come up to the aisle.

>> as you know, i came from a how to ask you this question so i will try to make it good. and i took off the yankees at. [applause] [laughter] >> being a community organizer and a student citizen, i just was asking for some advice as far as, how do we stem the tide of cynicism and apathy, you, to keep them from reaching the lives of the optimism that you'd food and other politicians, or people like myself were other people who really care about things that's going on? >> had we stem the tide of cynicism and hopelessness, and all the things that all of us feel on tuesday and thursday and saturday? [laughter] >> i think the key to that is, there are two key to that i think. one is history. one is going back and pointing

to those times in the past when people have felt hopeless, and people have felt that they couldn't do anything. but they acted anyway. and they acted and acted and acted, and then something happened. i mean, that's what happened that i lived in the south for seven years during the years of the civil rights movement, and i remember when i came into the south in the late 1950s, there was no sign really, really important sign of a great movement. and it looked kind of hopeless. but people began to do things. people began sitting in, and the city and spread and people went on freedom rides. and the idea spread. and demonstrations took place in this city and that city and another city. and soon, the demonstrations were all over the south. thousands of people were being put in jail. pictures were not going out all over the world and the administration was becoming embarrassed. this is very important to embarrass people in power.

even though we have leaders who are not easily embarrassed. [laughter] >> but i think is one answer to the question. and that is to show the history of those times when people have felt helpless. at the beginning of the vietnam war, and i remember this very distinct we. 1960 -- spring of 65, beginning of the escalation of the war we had escalation. 100 people showed up. a few years later, october 1969 actually, another antiwar meeting at the boston common, 100,000 people were there. the movement grew and grew and grew. people persisted. people understood that all movements start small and all movements start with a kind of hopelessness and feeling, you know, what are we doing? but if people persist and persist in process, there's a chance that something may

happen. the other, the other thing, i said there were two, right? so i should get to the second. very often this happens in class, you say i will now tell you the five causes of the american revolution. after number three, the teacher falters. [laughter] >> but i can never do. that's as high as i go. and my second point is, to overcome cynicism and a feeling of helplessness, surround herself with active people. people who are doing things. when people don't do anything, it's very easy to get hopeless. when people are acting, even if the action doesn't seem to bring anything in me, but after all, there's something about resisting the authorities, there's something about speaking your mind, about being honest about what you are doing, even if you don't see any immediate

result, something about that which is very satisfying and invigorating and it integrates other people, too. . . do that stuff as they were back in the '60s, but is there a

connection between that and a lack of people doing that kind of stuff today? also, the truth movement for 9/11, is there the project for a new american century, i'm sure you're familiar with fact, and i am wondering if they had a plan and do you think there was this plan before 9/11 aladdin and a connection? do you have any feelings on the 9/11 truth movement? >> you all know about the 9/11 truth movement? now. people tell me if i'm misrepresenting. which i do. people very often repeat the questions that they want to hear, not the questions they were actually asked.

but the 9/11 truth movement is a movement which is very suspicious of what happened on 9/11, suspicious of the official story and they think maybe there is another story and think maybe the administration is hiding something serious. well, frankly i don't now. i don't know those secrets, i swear i don't. [laughter] i will just say this about 9/11. the administration has used 9/11, has used to scare people and to do what it wanted. what it wanted was to move troops in the middle east for the oil was, wanted to set up military bases in the middle east and a used 9/11 as a wonderful opportunity. it wasn't going to do anything

about terrorism. it's very obvious now to simply follow the evidence of 9/11 by bombing afghanistan did not reduce terrorism. in fact, increased the possibility of terrorism. we have by our actions in the middle east since 9/11 largely increased the number of terrorists in the middle east and in the world because we have antagonized so many people. when you bomb people you antagonize them. [laughter] when you in paid people you antagonize them. he made enemies, you get people angry and out of the anchor of millions of people a small number of them become terrorists so they have used 9/11 -- to me that's the important truth about 9/11. >> the last speaker mentioned the patriot act. in the past several weeks the bush administration has hired a 10 or more top attorneys in the

justice department and under a secret provision of the patriot act has been replacing without congressional approval and with basically no oversight so my question about that is you mentioned in we should bring people to justice basically through impeachment and such things, what happens when the legal system is no longer go responsive or refuses to take action or is filled with figureheads that lacked? what can we do then if the actual institution no longer can deliver the justice necessary and needed? >> that's a really important question it because the represents reality. the reality is that the system of justice is no longer, if it ever was really come as something you could turn to to be sure that the justice system would protect you and protect your rights. this is only rarely been true in american history.

the justice system has been like other parts of the government and generally beholden to powerful interests in now worse than ever and now the bush administration has taken total jolla of the system of justice. it is using all the federal court appointees on the district court level and the appeals court level, it has the supreme court in its hands, probably with the collaboration of the democratic party which came san instead of fighting the republican nominees. and so yes what do you do when you can't depend on a system of justice for your grievances? that's where civil disobedience, sen. that's where popular action comes in and that's where you go over the heads of the courts to appeal to your elected representatives since the people and the justice department are not elected, not beholden to anybody, they often have lifetime jobs. you're representatives at least

have some commitment to represent a constituency and that's why that putting of pressure on your representatives to be in their peak in hearings and to demand, cutting off funds for the war and bringing troops back as fast as possible i think that's the way of bypassing recalcitrant and reactionary justice system. >> the u.s. does seem to have used the fear of terrorism really well and yet at the hypocrisy of the current government around defending the terrorists who have been attacking cuba by putting the cuban live in jail for having exposed what they were doing, it seems like a lesson that people really need to hear about in this country and yet there's been such silence. i'm wondering if you could say a little bit. he wrote a wonderful chapter in

the book, superpower principles, on the background of u.s. cuba relations but i'm realizing a lot of people don't know about these five guys locked up. >> that's one of those things that have happened that nobody ever hears about, people walked away. they've been locked away for years, there are five cubans who currently, you obviously now. usually the questionnaire knows more than the reply air. it but my reply to election, these are five cubans who infiltrated the anti-castro network in miami because of terrorist acts were being committed against cuba. they have been, in fact, ever since castro took power. it's not a secret that the united states tried to invade cuba, that the united states tried to assassinate castro. that the united states was

engaged in secret terrorist activities against cubans. in these five cubans tried to find out about that and they were arrested, charged with terrorism, held i think for a long time without right to counsel, without the right to see their families, and they're still in prison after years. so there are these things that golan -- that go on. so many of them that you never hear about in the press, of course,. you cannot really depend on the major media to report on these things. so we depend on people like you to get up before the microphone and to tell people about it. >> i will leave some postcards on the back table if people want to send just notices to their congress people, information on them and then they can sign and send them to congress because it is just so egregious. but thank you. [applause]

>> greetings. my question is looking for your input. looking at george bush and the way he got into office i see the large part of that came from the backing of fundamentalist religious groups and that their strong desire was to impose their religious beliefs on the legislative process. so that they could change the laws of the country so what ever their beliefs are that would be with the loss of the country are and i'm curious to what your thoughts are on the whole role of fundamentalist religion had to do with putting bush in power. >> well, we never really had a separation of church and state in this country. the talk about it as a principal of american democracy -- it's never been real. presidents have always told you it's in the bible, god has always been invoked all the time, any president who wanted to invade a country has said god

told him to do that. because god steadies the map and a size where we will invade. and then bush goes -- he has gone further than anybody else in tying this administration to in this case fundamentalist radical fanatics christianity. there's a difference in christianity -- christianity that is not a fundamentalist and not extremist of fanatic, christianity which is a humanist. look at the catholic antiwar people. in look at the church men who have supported social movements. it so christianity can be used for good or for ill and bush has used it in a fundamentalist churches, they've been so closely tied to him as to give him a great great support. and i think that fortunately

they do not command the support of the majority of christians in this country. maybe they have 20 percent, leave 25%. but there's always been -- i shouldn't say all is -- that's an extreme statement. i'm not an extremist. [laughter] for a long time of the fundamental core of immovable right wing sentiment in this country which probably accounts for 25 or 30 percent of the population and and probably a little you can do to move them. the problem is to move everybody else and when you move enough other people who are not transfixed by this pseudo religious idea that god is on the side of imperial power, then it's possible for religion to

play a positive role. >> i have one comment and one question. i am a combat veteran who is abused by his own people while serving the military and a lot of us who faced similar things tried to go to our congressmen and senators and they've refused to meet with us. we've also gone to the press and refused to air what we have to say which brings me to the question to you have any advice on other ways to get things public. we've had rallies and that hasn't worked. >> to get things published? >> to make the congressman made the veterans abused. >> what happened during the vietnam war when a congressman refused to meet with people, the people who tried to meet with these congressman and sat in their offices, they went to see them and i wouldn't leave. that's an act of civil disobedience. and that brought attention and that sometimes embarrassed the

congressman into finally meeting with them, but when the orthodox channels don't respond in then you have to go outside the orthodox channels but the orthodox channels do not fulfil the requirements of democracy. so there are things that can be done. there are hard and take risks. maybe very well be arrested and so on. but in times of crisis that's what people do. people did that in the south during the movement there. people did that during the vietnam war. during the '80s when the reagan was carrying on covert warfare in nicaragua and honduras and el salvador, people committed civil disobedience. at 1.500 of us sat in the jfk building in boston and wouldn't move when the building closed down. they arrested 500 of costs. the charge was based on an old

statute and was abbreviated as the old statute like bill year to quit the premises, you see, and it was abbreviated as failure to quit. and [laughter] as we have to do. we have to fail to quit. [applause] >> a quick question and a longer question number two. [laughter] this is driving me nuts. i've been an admirer of your for over 30 years. >> you want to drive me nuts? [laughter] >> i am older than many of these people here, 30 years ago when i was in school we read a book by you and i can't remember the name about begin, and i don't believe it's the vietnam logic, it's another book. a paperback that had read in it and adelstein to look for it and is driving me nuts and i can't remember the name of it.

>> neither can i. at [laughter] >> i know what was written by you. >> you are sure? >> my second question is as i understood you correctly you were mentioning that government is sort of where the wealthy and the opera. on the other hand, i have heard not that i'm disputing you, people like ted kennedy and maybe michael dukakis and others being ones that have been in there to help the underdog, the immigrants, giving out free food stamps or freeway to those people. you agree or disagree with that? >> agree with? >> the fact that kennedy and the other people are sort of on the other end of what you're saying with the government service in the rich rather than -- >> i see. >> and thirdly, who you see as a good president --

>> you are skipping one. >> the book was the other one. >> ic. >> to do like to see beyond ex-president? >> i would just as soon have a lottery and two somebody from this audience. [laughter] [applause] i would gamble that anybody in this audience would probably do a better job than whoever is elected by the democratic party. [applause] so i am have serious. but to answer your question about kennedy and a caucused doing good things for the poor. there are congressmen who are better than other congressman, who are more liberal and congressman who have a better idea of what our tax structure should be and so want. it's nice to have those congressman. we should encourage them and

support them. but they always need to be encouraged and always need to be pushed and there are distinct minority in our system of representation. so as for who i would like to see president -- unfortunately, it's very hard to find somebody in the high reaches of the democratic party. when i look at the possible candidates, well, process of elimination, right? hillary clinton? now. joe biden? no. obama? possibly. [laughter] john edwards? possibly. but you were putting me in that position of the position we're always in at election time where we don't find anybody who really represents our views.

we try to find somebody a little bit represents are used. in ralph nader would represent my views. ralph nader, but the political system won't give him a chance. [applause] it is a sad thing. we talk about bringing democracy to other countries and say they are having an election. this means democracy. [laughter] we have elections all the time. it doesn't mean democracy. you have two parties in you choose. a or a prime and that is it. [laughter] >> what do think about government and mental health? >> what do i think about government and mental health? >> yes. >> i don't know. what can i say? do i think the government should

do more in the area of mental health? yes, i think the government should do much more in a way of health. leading health and mental health to private enterprise is not conducive to giving people the best medical care whether in physical or mental health. so i think it would be important for a universal health care system for people who have problems and mental health can take care of those problems without spending a lot of money. and where that kind of help is available to them and the government can be a kind of intermediary for that process. i don't know what else to say. i don't know that much. >> well, the government seems to overtake funding and grants for mental health. it seems so every year.

>> it seems to do what? >> every year or so i have noticed the candidates being elected governor or through the uprights just like a lesbian rights they seem to battle back and forth whether they give or take the rights of it seems like we are always economically fighting for them. so it is a giver take more economics wise as well as politically standing wise for in numbers of candidates who are against positive. seems like it is a deciding vote that always comes up to the one standing in power. my own political view is that if they were to take away the rights where they have already been initiated and they would benefit for mankind, why take them back?

>> well. >> the right to do so over short notice. >> all i can say is i thank you should find people who agree with you about the mental health situation and organize and campaign for which you believe in. are we at the end of our rope? i mean at the end of my rope. [laughter] who are my handlers here? alex? what is our situation with time? >> [inaudible] >> one more question and then we will do a book signing. >> good evening. i'm a second semester seniors at brandeis which means i'll graduate this may. for the past four years of been taking courses on justice and

liberty and in doing case studies on developing nations being taken advantage of by multinational corporations and writing papers about the dominating power of money interest in this and that and now it's time to graduate and get a job. [laughter] if those things are all well and good from behind my desk in my room, but when i look at my job options for next year realistically a lot of the things i'm looking at our consulting firms or jobs in the financial world and i have a lot of friends also wore more politically liberal who are taking jobs and investment banking and fields like this, not necessarily firms that have a dirty records, human rights wise but send a part of what you're talking about. someone like me who was more on the fence, a stock in an ethical dilemma, not exactly sure where one goes in a situation. i know not if you have two minutes to talk me out of working for corporate america. [laughter]

[applause] >> to mr. solve your problem? [laughter] actually we all face that problem. we have to make a living and we want to do something good in the world. no and we have to find ways of doing it. sometimes you can make a living and in the way you make you're living you can do something good in the world. only a small number of people are lucky enough to be able to do that. work for a nonprofit corporation. work for amnesty international or work for the progressive magazine, etc. etc.. right stuff and get published and that sort of thing. some of us are lucky and can do that but most people cannot so what most people do you make a living in whatever way you can it so long as you don't kill

people and exploit people, fiendishly, but to make a living whatever way you can but carve out part of your life and part of your time to be a citizen of the nation and of the world. it's harder, you have to do two things. it's like a woman who has to take care of kids into a job at the same time here and all of us have to do two things at once. that's the reality of it. [applause] >> thank you. >> howard zinn was a political scientist and wrote "original zinn: conversations on history and politics" and "a people's history of the united states". he d january 27th, 2010 at the age of 87.

where did you come up with the name of your book, lift every voice? >> justin thinking about the kind of history i was writing about, it was a way to try to organize every one around of the movement to end racial serration and secure citizenship rights and, of course, lift every voice is the title of the wonderful song written by james johnson and that is called the black national am so it struck a chord in terms of historians and in terms of a song written by one of the great organizers james johnson and. >> when people see you on tv they might wonder why you're

writing the story of the naacp. >> imad historian of american history and this history is central to the american story. and i think it is there for everyone and really behooves every 12 really embrace this history as our history, not limited by caller. of course, the naacp was founded by whites and blacks but the majority of the membership was african-american, those of the people who worked hardest to change the south and really move our country forward and away from the past of racial separation and towards democracy. >> as far as the influence of the naacp today where would you put it? >> sometimes it's highly significant. i think the fact of its success, the civil rights act and the voting rights act came out of this movement that took several decades so there are many venues for people to work toward the war in quality but the naacp is

the only national organization that has an infrastructure branch throughout the country or in your community or school, organize and connecting with national groups committed to equality and justice. and so they work in different ways, focus on different issues but what they created a tremendous relevance and i think the leadership of the naacp, an extraordinary brain leader in our country who is currently the head for the last year moving it forward and a very dynamic forward-looking aspiring person who i think is really a privilege person to take the the next century. >> patricia sullivan, lift every

>> coming up next, booktv presents after words, an hourlong interview program where we invite a guest host to interview the author of a new book. this week from the american revolution round table of philadelphia historian thomas fleming profile is women who played a central part in the lives of the founding fathers. in his book "the intimate lives of the founding fathers", from the partnership of john and abigail adams reminded her husband to remember the ladies and the creation of a new government to the prominent role that dolly madison placed encouraging her once shy husband james and the turbulent marriages of ben franklin and alexander hamilton. his book with barbara mitnick, professor at drew university and editor at new jersey and the american revolution. [applause] >> host: first of all, i want to say when a delighted is to be here this evening with thomas fleming who to