Home > Uncategorized > Broken Steam Valve of Democracy Explodes in UK (and other places)

Broken Steam Valve of Democracy Explodes in UK (and other places)

London UK riots for 3 straight nights August 2011, after a suspicious police shooting death of a young man.  Now more than 1000 arrested.

Oakland, California, US, riot, July 2010, after transit police shoots and kills a young protester, and verdict on the police was less severe than expected; several hundred arrested.

Dresden Germany, about 1000 Neo Nazi riot February 2010, after they were banned from gathering at a memorial.

France race riot October 2005, after deaths of 2 teens.  Almost 2900 arrested.

Tampa Florida, US, riot multiple times up to 1992.

Los Angeles California, US riot, 1992.  Over 1000 arrested.  National Guard deployed.

We are confronted with violence, and we ask, if Democracy is supposed to be the steam valve for dissent.  Then why is it not working?

Is this truly the better way for China?  In light of recent events and others above, do we expect it somehow work better in China?

We expect and see a variety of opinions in the public.  So share yours.  Expect to disagree with each other, but hope that you learn something new.  (Just remember, even leaders of many nations are confronted by the same question, and I doubt any reasonable ones would say they know for sure all the reasons for chaos in society).

If you want the simple answers, this thread is not for you.  Simple answers are not going to cut it in China or in any of the Democracies any more.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. August 11th, 2011 at 14:32 | #1

    Flash Mob violence on the rise, in Philadelphia, where a mob suddenly gathered and attacked people.

    Also in Wisconsin State Fair, characterized as a mob of black youths who attacked white patrons. (For whatever that means).

    http://newsone.com/nation/jothomas/questions-continue-to-surface-on-wisconsin-state-fair-violence/

  2. August 11th, 2011 at 15:41 | #2

    Full 70% of Americans say they don’t believe the US government cares what they think.

    How can that be, if it is a “democracy”?

    http://today.yougov.com/news/2011/08/09/americans-and-their-government-70-say-it-doesnt-ca/

  3. pug_ster
    August 11th, 2011 at 17:53 | #3

    I don’t think this has much to do with democracy as to the failed policies of trying to assimilate immigrants into the European Society. Many immigrants are increasingly marginalized economically and socially. There is basically no upward mobility for many of these immigrants. Many native Europeans are increasingly paranoid against these immigrants and passed racist laws (ie no Minarets) and many racist right wing justifying their actions. As a result, you see the crazed gunman who thinks that assimilation is wrong.

    The actions by Cameron is wrong by dismissing the issue caused by a bunch of hooligans and sweeping the problems under the rug. There is a problem with race and racism within Europe yet many White Europeans are blinded by it.

  4. August 11th, 2011 at 18:20 | #4

    Pug_ster,

    I disagree, it might be part racism in the cause, but how “Democracy” has FAILED to deal with the problem before it festered into violence is ALSO a part of the problem.

    Plainly, the disenfranchised had no outlet under the system, and it eventually popped.

    Yes, there was racism. But theoretically, the minorities could seek “redress” within the system. Yet, they felt like they were NOT being heard. No one cared.

    Again, the “steamvalve” failed to let out the steam in the system. Steam builds up. Explosion.

    So my question, why did the “steamvalve” (aka elections, free speech, etc.) failed to relieve the pressure, if they were designed to do so in the 1st place??

    Perhaps the design was all theory and no practical use.

  5. August 11th, 2011 at 21:59 | #5

    raventhorn2000 :
    Pug_ster,
    I disagree, it might be part racism in the cause, but how “Democracy” has FAILED to deal with the problem before it festered into violence is ALSO a part of the problem.
    Plainly, the disenfranchised had no outlet under the system, and it eventually popped.
    Yes, there was racism. But theoretically, the minorities could seek “redress” within the system. Yet, they felt like they were NOT being heard. No one cared.
    Again, the “steamvalve” failed to let out the steam in the system. Steam builds up. Explosion.
    So my question, why did the “steamvalve” (aka elections, free speech, etc.) failed to relieve the pressure, if they were designed to do so in the 1st place??
    Perhaps the design was all theory and no practical use.

    Yes. China’s approach is much more practical, and that’s why there are never riots in China. Especially not in the areas of China where there’s ethnic diversity.

    If racial tension and riots are your evidence that a system of government has failed, China is just as much of a failure as any Western country, and things are only going to get worse as immigrant populations grow and make it more diverse.

  6. raventhorn2000
    August 12th, 2011 at 05:22 | #6

    “Yes. China’s approach is much more practical, and that’s why there are never riots in China. Especially not in the areas of China where there’s ethnic diversity.”

    You are OFF TOPIC, Custer.

    We are here for SERIOUS questions, NOT to entertain your fantasies about something that no one here wrote!!

    Who said “there are never riots in China”?? YOU, trying to draw a strawman!!

    “If racial tension and riots are your evidence that a system of government has failed, China is just as much of a failure as any Western country, and things are only going to get worse as immigrant populations grow and make it more diverse.”

    NO, Western Countries, (Democracies which are supposed to prevent this kind of problem), FAILED to live up to their HYPE.

    Your refusal to deal with that question ONLY shows the kind of double standard Western countries have promulgated throughout the last 5 decades.

    UK is cracking down on Free Speech and “human rights”.

    Guess what, West is copying China!

    Guess Democracy came around!

  7. August 12th, 2011 at 07:19 | #7

    I do enjoy how you accuse me of being off-topic and then dive headfirst into the topic yourself.

    Side note: how is the UK cracking down on free speech or human rights? Name as many people as you can who have been arrested in the UK over the last — let’s be generous here — five years for political speech or writing?

  8. August 12th, 2011 at 07:30 | #8

    BTW, when I don’t respond to whatever your next comment is for a few days, it’s not because I’m avoiding you. I’ll be in Datong this weekend and likely won’t have internet access (and even if I do, we’ll probably be too busy with work to get online at all)

  9. raventhorn2000
    August 12th, 2011 at 08:35 | #9

    Cameron admitted publicly that he won’t let “human rights” get in his way.

    I call that admission sufficient evidence of his intent.

    And you are diverting the issue by making strawman arguments based upon your own fantasies. No one said “there are never riots in China”, except you!

  10. raventhorn2000
    August 12th, 2011 at 08:47 | #10

    “how is the UK cracking down on free speech or human rights? Name as many people as you can who have been arrested in the UK over the last — let’s be generous here — five years for political speech or writing?”

    Over last week, more than 1000 “protesters” were rounded up by UK police. Surely, by Western logic, they are all POLITICAL arrests for the “speech” against the government of UK.

    Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_London_anti-cuts_protest

    over 200 arrested, 66 injured.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_UK_student_protests

    over 50 arrested, 30 injured (for HEAD injuries).

    That’s ONLY the last 2 years!

  11. raventhorn2000
    August 12th, 2011 at 08:50 | #11

    Oh, BTW, at least 3 people were arrested in UK for merely “inciting violence on Facebook and Twitter”.

    UK police already promised to make more arrests based SOLELY upon social media postings.

    AKA crackdown by political speech in UK.

    *UK also has the world’s densest public surveillance system, more than China.

  12. raventhorn2000
    August 12th, 2011 at 09:04 | #12

    UK formally charges more than 600 over “riot”. Now more than 1700 arrested, UK PM Cameron promising more arrests to catch every “rioter”, not letting Human Rights get in the way, and pulling the plug on social media in UK during crisis.

    Hey, Riot = Policy Failure = Political System Failure. (At least according to standard Western media logic).

  13. August 12th, 2011 at 10:08 | #13

    UK police raid video.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14510265

    And 2 girl rioters in UK bragging about “doing what they want”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424

  14. August 12th, 2011 at 10:10 | #14

    Those arrested in the UK were not political prisoners, but looters and assailants of the police and others, and arsonists and “hooligans.” If the UK were rounding up people based on ideology, like the Chinese when they arrest Ai Weiwei or Liu Xiaobo or others for the political views they believe and advocate, that’s taking political prisoners.

    Of course they would go after facebook users using the site to incite violence. It is absolutely against the law to use freedom of speech to incite people to violence, in the US and most of Europe and certainly in China. There is a big difference between stating a political belief versus inciting people to actually carry out acts of violence. This falls under the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” category. Not everything is protected by free speech when it can lead to violence, breaking the law or death.

    The riots were not a test of democracy, which has contained and stabilized many riots and demonstrations in the past (like the riots in France a few years ago). These riots are definitely a wake-up call that something is wrong, but it is as much a proof of failure of democracy as the Xinjiang and Tibet riots (and the thousands of other demonstrations in China each year) show a failure of Chinese socialism (or however you want to define China’s system of government).

    If this proves the failure of democracy, do other factors prove the success of democracy — a majority of citizens being in the middle class, freedom of travel, freedom of expression (if it doesn’t hurt others), a powerful navy, the greatest museums in the world? To single out one bad thing and broad-brush democracy as a failure is very bold. Even when horrible things happen like the Depression, democracies have absorbed the blow, overcome the crisis and functioned as well as any government can be expected to. The crisis does not mean their system of government has failed. Not for the UK, not for China.

  15. August 12th, 2011 at 10:12 | #15

    UK Teen Olympic ambassador, Chelsea Ives, arrested for riot.

    She has denied all charges. (Hmmm…. She sounds like a political dissident).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14502718

  16. August 12th, 2011 at 10:15 | #16

    Turn about, BBC complains about “false rumors” on internet during the riot.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14490693

    “In times of uncertainty or heightened fears in communities, rumour mills have always churned.

    But in a world of social media, a whisper can acquire a damaging momentum regardless of its relationship to the truth.”

    Hey BBC, I think you are violating Chinese Media’s copyright.

    🙂

  17. August 12th, 2011 at 10:40 | #17

    Turn about, BBC complains about “false rumors” on internet during the riot.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14490693

    *What would one expect from the world’s largest State-owned Media, aka BBC? 🙂

  18. August 12th, 2011 at 10:53 | #18

    @raventhorn2000 #16

    “In times of uncertainty or heightened fears in communities, rumour mills have always churned.

    But in a world of social media, a whisper can acquire a damaging momentum regardless of its relationship to the truth.”

    But in better times, if the riots had been in China, they may have written

    In times of hope with taste of change in the air, people’s voice must be heard.

    In a world of social media, a whisper is amplified into a cry that cannot be ignored, a momentum that forces the government to face the truth, to face their incompetence, and turn a page where the they are no more.”

    BBC is disgusting.

  19. Charles Liu
    August 12th, 2011 at 10:55 | #19

    @raventhorn2000

    Raven, I think you can take comfort in the fact even James Fallows disagrees with Richard and Charles Custer:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/08/david-cameron-meet-hu-jintao/243478/

    At least Fallows is consistent. IMHO it is completely hypicritical for those who criticized the Chinese government of the same thing to now stay silent or flip-flop their position on UK.

    And look at the BS insinuation Richard and Custers are making re political speech arrest. There are plenty to Chinese netters criticizing their government, how come only a few are getting arrested?

    – Qi Chonghuai was extorting money from people by threatening them with bad online publicity

    – Liu Xiaobo was taking money from US government via the NED to advocate abolition of China’s constitution (foreign sponsorship of domestic politicics is universally outlawed, ref FARA)

    – Hu Jia was arrested for taking money from NED in exchange for passing information to US embassy, something China had every right to prosecute (ref Babur Maihesuti prosecution in Sweden where no state secret was passed to the Chinese embassy)

    – Ai Weiwei was arrested for tax evasion (he shipped Qin/Min Dynasty chairs under relic protection out of country, underreporting of income from overseas auction of artworks/antiques)

  20. August 12th, 2011 at 11:01 | #20

    “Those arrested in the UK were not political prisoners, but looters and assailants of the police and others, and arsonists and “hooligans.” If the UK were rounding up people based on ideology, like the Chinese when they arrest Ai Weiwei or Liu Xiaobo or others for the political views they believe and advocate, that’s taking political prisoners.”

    The difference is, UK is being 100% indiscriminate, rounding up 1700 all as “rioters”.

  21. Naqshbandiyya
    August 12th, 2011 at 11:36 | #21

    Iran amusingly responds with the standard Amnesty International/Western government fare: At the beginning of the riots, it urged the UK government to “show restraint” with protestors, and urged Britain to allow it send a delegation investigating human rights violations by police. Now Iran condemns the killing of Mark Duggan, condemns the UK government’s calling its “deprived people” “thieves and looters”, and is currently offering to deploy its own peacekeeping forces to the country.

    http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=233103
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/193467.html

  22. Charles Liu
    August 12th, 2011 at 11:44 | #22

    Just for reference, NYT wrote a while ago about a woman involved in a Twitter arrest in China. I started combing her fiancee’s twitter feed and it turned out:

    1) She did Twitter ‘sarcastically’ that people should smash the Japanese pavillion and attack Japanese at the Shanghai Expo. Is there any way for the authority to distinguish sarcasm and actual call to incite violnce, at the height of public emotion? Will the public be able to?

    2) The real reason she got her a$$ hauled is because she b!tched out the popo about her rights. Seems she was confrontational with the police and was arrested for obstructing (happens all the time in the States.)

    3) Condition of her immediate release was write an apology letter to the police and promise to check her online behavior, but guess what? She went on a friggin hunger strike.

    4) NYT claims Cheng was sent to a reeducation camp far away from her financee, but the truth is she was living with her boyfriend when her “crowd watching” thing blew up, and was sent back to her hometown so her sister and father can visit.

    None of these facts made into NYT’s story:

    http://www.baidu.com/s?bs=%C9%CF%BA%A3+%C8%D5%B1%BE%B9%DD+%C9%BF%B6%AF&f=8&wd=%D4%D2%CA%C0%B2%A9%C8%D5%B1%BE%B9%DD+%C0%CD%BD%CC%D2%BB%C4%EA&n=2

  23. Wahaha
    August 12th, 2011 at 15:11 | #23

    Custer,

    If the british government is able to control the situation quickly, it is because medie and journalists are on its side. Imagine if media and journalists had fanned the fire, tanks and military force would be the only solution.

    It is completely opposite in China where media and journalists cant wait such things to happen.

  24. August 12th, 2011 at 16:23 | #24

    @richard #14

    In this comment, you can find a link to Liu Xiaobo’s sentence.

    There are many ways to incite violence. Liu Xiaobo is not jailed for his conscience, but for attempting to incite violence.

    You wrote:

    If this proves the failure of democracy, do other factors prove the success of democracy — a majority of citizens being in the middle class, freedom of travel, freedom of expression (if it doesn’t hurt others), a powerful navy, the greatest museums in the world?

    Sure you may attribute the success of UK to democracy, but many (I included) attribute it to its imperial, colonial past.

    In my view, the Europe Renaissance is made possible only by the loot from the Americas. Without that, it would have withered away like all other golden ages of other civilizations.

    The Industrial Revolution is made possible by colonialism. Without Imperial, colonial loot that came to UK from subjugation of the world, it would not have been sustainable.

    UK prosperity rode more on those two events than anything else. All things “admirable” today about UK derived from this ignoble past (or is that glory?).

    “Middle class and freedom to travel” – yes, those are good, and developing nations like China are developing those. Whereas UK middle class and freedom to travel that derive from economic empowerment of the middle class rode on the back of world subjugation, China is development its middle class and mass empowerment on their own merits.

    “Freedom of expression (if it doesn’t hurt others)” – you got it. Every society balances freedom (to do whatever you want) against other freedoms (to not get hurt by others’ exercising of freedom). There is no such thing as “absolute freedom.” China’s no different.

    “A powerful navy” – yes, but made possible because it was able to pillage the world for so long, and still using it (with U.S. and NATO) to subjugate and pillage the world

    “The greatest museums in the world” – collections made possible by a few centuries of pervasive and persisting looting on a scale never seen in human history…

    I do agree with you Richard on one thing: I don’t think the riots necessarily show a systemic failure of democracy as Raventheorn2000 may believe. I will write a post or comment about that soon…

  25. pug_ster
    August 12th, 2011 at 16:38 | #25

    C. Custer :

    raventhorn2000 :
    Pug_ster,
    I disagree, it might be part racism in the cause, but how “Democracy” has FAILED to deal with the problem before it festered into violence is ALSO a part of the problem.
    Plainly, the disenfranchised had no outlet under the system, and it eventually popped.
    Yes, there was racism. But theoretically, the minorities could seek “redress” within the system. Yet, they felt like they were NOT being heard. No one cared.
    Again, the “steamvalve” failed to let out the steam in the system. Steam builds up. Explosion.
    So my question, why did the “steamvalve” (aka elections, free speech, etc.) failed to relieve the pressure, if they were designed to do so in the 1st place??
    Perhaps the design was all theory and no practical use.

    Yes. China’s approach is much more practical, and that’s why there are never riots in China. Especially not in the areas of China where there’s ethnic diversity.
    If racial tension and riots are your evidence that a system of government has failed, China is just as much of a failure as any Western country, and things are only going to get worse as immigrant populations grow and make it more diverse.

    China is just as much of a failure as any Western Country in terms of Racial tensions? yes and no. While there is racial tensions in the east and the West, I’ve mentioned that there is alot of those racist Right Wing Nutheads popping up like mushrooms within the last 20 years passing racists laws and increasingly margionalizing the poor, but you don’t see much of that in China.

  26. August 12th, 2011 at 19:02 | #26

    Bay Area California Regional transportation system unilaterally shut down cell phone service in train stations, paranoid about UK-style protests.

    http://www.baycitizen.org/bart-police-shooting/story/bart-cell-phone-service-legal/

  27. August 12th, 2011 at 19:05 | #27

    “Free speech happens outside the fare gates. That is the free speech zone,” he said.

  28. King Tubby
    August 13th, 2011 at 15:31 | #28

    @richard
    “Even when horrible things happen like the Depression, democracies have absorbed the blow, overcome the crisis and functioned as well as any government can be expected to.”

    Some dodgy history here, Richard. Recall the Anacostia Hooverville.

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

    And there are many other similar instances during the US’s Great Depression.

    The British ruling elite’s response to these shopping riots stink to high heavens of double standards and hypocrisy.

    1. Widespread rorting by all and sundry of the parliamentary allowance system – fraud and perjury – court activity to date = a bit above zero.

    2. !2 arrested to date for phone hacking – conspiracy and other serious charges – court action to date – absolutely zero.

    3. Met officers accepting cash for inside police information – corruption, conspiracy etc. ######

    4. The shopping riots. 2,000 arrested to date, 700 sentenced in a 24/7 accelerated judicial process, including one idiot getting 6 months for stealing a large bottle of water (I kid you not.)

    Lets close down social media and bring in Bill Bratton with his police-military solution.

  29. cp
    August 13th, 2011 at 16:59 | #29

    Man, State and the Myth of Democratic Peace.

    Abstract
    This article examines the role of ‘democracy pacifist’ theory advocated by the West in international relations. ‘Democratic peace’ is an idea, which is closely related to political globalization. It is an instrument ostensibly to create a politically homogenous world. ‘Democratic peace’ is merely an adjunct of the American foreign policy based on the vision of the ‘two worlds’, and is just another tool in the hands of western powers to challenge the sovereignty of the states in the era of globalisation. The paper also attempts to understand the growing tendency among the West to target individual leaders in various countries for human rights violations. A closer scrutiny of the American policy suggests that its main function is to reform the rogue states by targeting first the territory of that state through an armed attack and then blaming the leader of that distraught nation for all the destruction and war. Therefore, it is apparent that what seems to touch the heart, soul and the basic interest of the American foreign policy is Man, State and Democratic Wars. It is in this light that the study of democratic peace or war gains added significance in the post-Cold War world, where the absolutes of state sovereignty are being constantly challenged.

    “The anarchical condition inherent in any system of multiple sovereignty constitutes one of the prerequisites of international conflict: without it there could be no international relations, peaceful or non-peaceful, the division of the world into sovereign states is a precondition for international cooperation as well as conflict.” – Arnold Wolfers1

    The idea that peace depends above all on promoting democratic institutions has been central to American thought till the present day. The Americans consider Woodrow Wilson’s presidency a watershed. Wilson’s vision accorded some semblance of direction and morality to their foreign policy, in the wake of the emotional appeal of Communism and the European concept of raison d’etat, which asserted that states, actions can only be judged by their success. As early as 1915, Wilson envisioned American security interests to encompass the security of all mankind. He justified the American declaration of war on Germany as the war for democracy. Wilson argued, “We have no quarrel with the German people. We have no feeling towards them but one of sympathy and friendship. It was not upon their impulse that their government acted in entering this war. It was not with their previous knowledge or approval. It was a war determined upon in the old, unhappy days when peoples were nowhere consulted by their rulers and wars were provoked and waged in the interests of dynasties.”7 Echoing Wilson, Harry S. Truman said, “Totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples ….undermine the foundation of international peace and hence security of the United States”.8 However, one fails to understand the volatility of the American love for ‘people’, which vanishes as soon as the war begins to kill civilians. The collateral damage and killing of civilians is explained in terms of ‘military necessity’. More than 1000 civilians were killed in the American endeavours to catch Osama bin Laden ‘dead or alive’ in Afghanistan. The starvation of innocents in Iraq is of much lower concern to the US than the removal of Saddam Hussein. Therefore, the people of Iraq would have to bear till their leader becomes an American ‘kind of guy’. Similar apathy towards the welfare of the people was witnessed in Kosovo where the NATO bombing caused an unmanageable refugee crisis in 1999. However, once the USA begins to smell victory in a war, it brings people back into its strategy and directs its overwhelming wrath against their leader. This is done to prove two things. First, the war being waged is for a just cause and to free the nation from the clutches of a despot. Secondly, to impress upon the people of a bombed country that the ideals of liberalism are best suited for the growth of humanity.

    In Pursuance of Peace
    Why is USA so keen on pursuing democratic peace? One could trace the answer to this question in the idea of globalisation. Globalisation is a multi-dimensional phenomenon which operates in the realm of politics, culture, economics and security. Democratic peace is an idea which is closely related to political globalisation. However, deep tensions exist between globalisation and democracy. As the state’s monopoly over its national economy reduces, its power to provide social security diminishes. As governments fail to deliver on promises, the gap between them and the people widens, producing a large ‘democratic deficit’ in the process.

    According to Prem Shankar Jha, “to contain the growing conflict within the winning nations, their governments may launch a successful attempt to project the blame on ‘outsiders’-be they rogue nations or rogue individuals from ‘alien cultures’.29 The shifting of the blame for international recession and slump in the US economy on Osama bin Laden to keep the domestic audience in America calm, proves Jha’s assertions to be right, at least partially.

    The ideology of globalisation believes that irrespective of the inequalities it generates, the conflict can still be contained through the use of superior technology. The idea that globalisation is the panacea for the ills afflicting the third world countries and needs to be pursued with a ‘hidden fist’ in the form of US economic and military capability is promoted by globalists. The anarchy management model uses two methods to create the global hegemony of the core group. In the first phase (begun in 1990s) the states were exposed to advantages of globalisation. However, the entry for the developing world into the core group came with a price. Apart from carrying out economic reforms advised by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, countries are also required to conform to the political agenda of the neo-liberal global economy by adopting the democratic form of governance. Samir Amin, who does not consider free market and globalisation to be synonymous, says, “the traumatized societies of the periphery will sometimes lean towards the adoption of the values of the capitalist culture in question… Alternatively, the disappointment and chaos that follow the failure of the liberal bourgeois (or para-socialist) attempts to implement capitalist democratic ideas can lead to a relapse into neurotic celebration of the past. Religious fundamentalism and the resort to ethnicism are both manifestations of this”.30

    The second phase begins when partial hegemony has already been established. During Phase-II (late 1990s) the state becomes redundant and the international order is maintained by controlling the individuals and leaders perceived to be causing anarchy. In this phase, the ideals of democracy which had been associated with economic liberalisation are abandoned for the more lucrative tool-’governance’. In the latest phase of globalisation, a new basis for categorisation of the states is beginning to emerge-”pre modern, modern and post-modern states.”31

    Conclusion
    The logic of democratic peace is hard to comprehend. It lacks intellectual clarity. In the absence of any global consensus on the definition of democracy it is hard to ascribe the degree of democracy to the nations. Countries like Malaysia and China view the western concept of democracy as being far from comprehensive. Furthermore, the spread and the acceptability of the idea of democratic peace could have a detrimental impact on the stability and peace in the world, because it promotes the trend-’with me or against me.’ The stratification of nation-states on the basis of their polity challenges the equality between nation-states and their political sovereignty. The legitimisation of ‘interventions’ and the use of force against non-democratic states, to promote political homogeneity in the world do not augur well for world peace, because of its potential to push the world towards the medieval age, ‘just war’ paradigm.

    With so much of destructive material in the arsenal of both the autocrats, democrats, and also terrorists, it is increasingly difficult to trust any of them to be peace loving. Like all religions, all ideologies also talk about establishing peace. But the harsh realities of nationhood, nationalism and the lure of lucre always emerge stronger, to scuttle most of the peace initiatives. Therefore, one could safely argue that peace cannot be tied to any ideology, because peace itself is an ideology and needs to be promoted rather peacefully.

    http://www.mafhoum.com/press3/112S21_files/AN-APR0402-9.htm

  30. cp
    August 13th, 2011 at 17:21 | #30

    Un-American Revolutions

    Most rebellions end in carnage and tyranny. So why are Americans cheering on the Arab revolutionary wave?

    Americans love a revolution. Their own great nation having been founded by a revolutionary declaration and forged by a revolutionary war, they instinctively side with revolutionaries in other lands, no matter how different their circumstances, no matter how disastrous the outcomes. This chronic reluctance to learn from history could carry a very heavy price tag if the revolutionary wave currently sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East breaks with the same shattering impact as most revolutionary waves.

    In Ten Days That Shook the World, the journalist John Reed was equally enthusiastic about the Russian Revolution of 1917, a book for which Lenin himself (“great Lenin” to Reed) wrote an enthusiastic preface. Reed’s counterpart in China’s communist revolution was Edgar Snow, whose characterization of Mao—“He had the simplicity and naturalness of the Chinese peasant, with a lively sense of humor and a love of rustic laughter”—today freezes the blood.

    Time and again, Americans have hailed revolutions, only to fall strangely silent as those same revolutions proceeded to devour not only their own children but many other people’s too. In each case the body count was in the millions.

    Yes, Americans love revolutions. But they should stick to loving their own.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/02/27/un-american-revolutions.html

  31. August 14th, 2011 at 13:55 | #31

    Western Hacker group Anonymous retaliates against Bay Area Regional Transit (BART) for shutting down cell phone service in train station.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/197601/20110814/bart-cell-phone-anonymous-opbart.htm

  32. August 15th, 2011 at 00:40 | #32

    Charles Liu :
    @raventhorn2000
    Raven, I think you can take comfort in the fact even James Fallows disagrees with Richard and Charles Custer:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/08/david-cameron-meet-hu-jintao/243478/
    At least Fallows is consistent. IMHO it is completely hypicritical for those who criticized the Chinese government of the same thing to now stay silent or flip-flop their position on UK.

    There is nothing “hypicritical” (or even hypocritical) about what I said or “my position on the UK.” I have not said anywhere that I support Cameron’s approach or remarks. I simply suggested that (1) China has the same issues, so gloating about how this riot proves democracy doesn’t work doesn’t make much sense and (2) raventhorn would have a tough time pointing out to me who the UK has imprisoned for their speech or writing (and he has, considering he has been noting the numbers of people JAILED for rioting, not the number of people IMPRISONED for speech crimes.

    And look at the BS insinuation Richard and Custers are making re political speech arrest. There are plenty to Chinese netters criticizing their government, how come only a few are getting arrested?
    – Liu Xiaobo was taking money from US government via the NED to advocate abolition of China’s constitution (foreign sponsorship of domestic politicics is universally outlawed, ref FARA)

    – Ai Weiwei was arrested for tax evasion (he shipped Qin/Min Dynasty chairs under relic protection out of country, underreporting of income from overseas auction of artworks/antiques)

    You do realize that the Chinese government accepts money from the US government, right? Anyway, that aside, your Liu Xiaobo argument has been done to death and, as has been pointed out to you a billion times, the FARA comparison is utterly absurd.

    As for Ai Weiwei, we all know what he was arrested for. But no one has ever seen any proof, and given that he was released, I’m inclined to believe there isn’t any.

    As for the other two cases you mentioned, I’m not familiar enough with them to comment.

  33. Charles Liu
    August 15th, 2011 at 00:59 | #33

    @C. Custer

    Check your own absurdity with this “Chinese government accepts money from the US government”. How many times have you mentioned this without citing some examples where you think it’s remotely similar to the sponsorship of Liu Xiaobo’s political activity by US government.

    Examples please.

  34. raventhorn2000
    August 15th, 2011 at 06:47 | #34

    “China has the same issues, so gloating about how this riot proves democracy doesn’t work doesn’t make much sense”

    Who’s “gloating”?? I’m putting up this post to discuss some serious problems with “Democracy”. Why are you turning this about “gloating”?

    “(2) raventhorn would have a tough time pointing out to me who the UK has imprisoned for their speech or writing (and he has, considering he has been noting the numbers of people JAILED for rioting, not the number of people IMPRISONED for speech crimes.”

    I don’t see a difference between “rioting” and “speech crimes”, since you don’t distinguish between the 2 by any specific differences, and UK media have had a history of NOT distinguising between the 2 (until now).

    If you can define the difference, go ahead. There are plenty of examples of where UK government and media do not make such distinctions, (and now apparently, they make the distinction PURELY by repeating the 2 phrases over and over again, as if that alone is sufficient to define the differences. As much as you are doing now).

    So tell us, what are the differences between “RIOTING” and “speech”.

    “your Liu Xiaobo argument has been done to death and, as has been pointed out to you a billion times, the FARA comparison is utterly absurd.”

    That’s not even an argument, you are just repeating your assertions over and over again. Why is the FARA comparison “absurd”?? JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO??!!

    Irony.

    China never said it doesn’t have riots (but you did), and now UK apparently says it doesn’t have political prisoners, only Rioters, (as much as Iran doesn’t have Gays).

  35. raventhorn2000
    August 15th, 2011 at 09:29 | #35

    A Western Version of “Guanxi” is causing polarization. (though they call it “hyper-connection”, it just means it’s actually worse than Guanxi).

    Note: Like Guanxi, there is nothing wrong with “connection”, except when it turns into closed systems of segregations and corruptions.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/08/reflections-on-connections-social-segregation-and-the-london-riots/243575/

  36. colin
    August 15th, 2011 at 10:45 | #36

    @pug_ster

    There’s also plenty of racism and bias by the liberal left, especially against asians.

  37. colin
    August 15th, 2011 at 11:11 | #37

    And why aren’t there more race riots in the US? Cause 99.9% of the native americans are dead.

  38. August 16th, 2011 at 06:07 | #38

    UK PM Cameron places blame of “riot” solely on “declining moral values”, and rejects all other suggested factors such as austerity measure, racism, cut backs on education and law enforcement, etc.

    In other words, a “few bad apples”.

    Also interesting, no one is saying, “Totally preventable”. (I personally think it was completely foreseeable and preventable, since UK already had numerous student protests recently, and Europe had several riots).

  39. August 16th, 2011 at 06:14 | #39
  40. August 16th, 2011 at 06:19 | #40

    UK Magistrates ordered to disregarding sentencing guidelines, and send EVERY RIOTER to jail.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026239/UK-riots-Tear-sentencing-guidelines-jail-EVERY-looter-magistrates-told.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

  41. August 16th, 2011 at 06:25 | #41

    A forgotten UK crackdown of protesters, 100 years ago, 1911.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14529442

    Winston Churchill is rightly reviled in Rhondda for turning troops on the Tonypandy miners in 1910, but this was possibly an even bigger betrayal as it was a locally-taken decision,” says Edwards.

    While union leaders were negotiating inside the town hall, troops from the Worcestershire Regiment bayonet-charged the crowd in order to clear the line for a passenger train.

    Whilst the locomotive made it through the first level crossing, strikers pursued it, clambering aboard, raking out the fire and rendering the train immobile.

    Troops followed on the strikers’ heels but soon realised that they’d trapped themselves in a cutting, surrounded by stone-throwing strikers on the banks all around them.

    Major Brownlow Stuart ordered the soldiers of the Worcester Regiment to open fire.

    One protester was heard to call out in Welsh: “Popeth yn iawn! Blanc yw hi, bois! Peidiwch a symud, Saethan nhw ddim” (In English: “It’s all right! It’s blank, boys! Don’t move, they won’t shoot!”)

    But they did shoot – and two young men, John ‘Jac’ John and Leonard Worsell, were killed.

  42. August 16th, 2011 at 06:31 | #42

    Lots of parallels between UK riot and French Riot 2005, 1st above all else, Cameron’s line was literally copied from the French President’s line in 2005.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/14/uk-riots-france-2005-parallels

  43. raventhorn2000
    August 16th, 2011 at 08:53 | #43

    DC Area Maryland 7/11 store robbed by “flash mob” coordinated by social media.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0816/7-11-flash-mob-Maryland-police-investigate-store-robbery-VIDEO

  44. raventhorn2000
    August 16th, 2011 at 09:04 | #44

    I think this guy used some of my lines: (alright fess up, which one of you did it? Not that I mind).

    “Amnesty International is completely silent on the Riots in UK, while they are currently challenging China’s account of the riot in Xinjiang or Libya or Malaysia or India or Iran or Gaza. And AI’s headquarters is located in LONDON!! Apparently, they know more about things in all these countries, but they won’t look out of their own windows in London!!”

    http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2011/08/london-riots-amnesty-international-has.html

  45. raventhorn2000
    August 16th, 2011 at 09:09 | #45

    http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2011/08/global-times-blood-stains-the-silk-road/#comment-43292

    for comparison.

    raventhorn2000 August 9th, 2011 at 10:03 | #12 Reply | Quote Noticeably, Charles,

    Amnesty International is completely silent on the Riots in UK, while they are currently challenging China’s account of the riot in Xinjiang.

    (even when UK police have rounded up over 500 people over the riot, some of whom are arrested due to UK police’s trace of their online social media activities, organizing the “trouble”).

    And AI’s headquarters is located in LONDON!!

    Apparently, they know more about things in Xinjiang, but they won’t look out of their own windows in London!!

  46. August 16th, 2011 at 09:50 | #46

    @cp

    Not my point at all. My point is that that “even when horrible things happened” during the Depression they were absorbed and democracy was not threatened.

    Raventhorn:

    Amnest Int’l is silent because these aren’t seen as repressive political demonstrations. If political prisoners were taken and the people repressed maybe they’d be more vocal. Most of those arrested are charged with looting and disturbing the peace and given mild sentences. Those inciting the riots over Facebook need to be arrested, as inciting people to violence is illegal. Shouting fire in a crowded theater. Inciting people to riot and loot is not a right of freedom of speech.

    This has nothing to do with AI.

    About that Olympic athleste arrested, she was in no way a political prisoner:

    A teenager arrested after allegedly attacking a police car during London’s riots is an ambassador for the 2012 Olympics.

    Chelsea Ives’ parents called police after they allegedly spotted her amid rioters on a TV news report on the mayhem in Enfield, North London, The Sun newspaper reports.

    The 18-year-old is accused of attacking a police car, hurling a brick through a window and stealing from two mobile phone shops.

    Westminster Magistrates Court heard the young woman was among a mob of rioters and yelled “this is the best day ever!” before throwing the brick at a shop.

    The teenager’s mother, Adrienne, said was shocked when she spotted her daughter on TV while watching the news with her husband Roger.

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8285132/olympics-ambassador-arrested-over-rioting

    Political prisoner indeed.

  47. raventhorn2000
    August 16th, 2011 at 09:56 | #47

    “Amnest Int’l is silent because these aren’t seen as repressive political demonstrations. If political prisoners were taken and the people repressed maybe they’d be more vocal. Most of those arrested are charged with looting and disturbing the peace and given mild sentences. Those inciting the riots over Facebook need to be arrested, as inciting people to violence is illegal. Shouting fire in a crowded theater. Inciting people to riot and loot is not a right of freedom of speech.

    This has nothing to do with AI. ”

    “Given MILD sentences”?? Oh, UK Magistrates ORDERED to ignore Sentencing Guidelines and JAIL all “rioters”, and you call it “MILD sentences”? What’s MILD about it?

    If it was “MILD”, why were the Magistrates specifically ORDERED to ignore sentencing guidelines??

    No, you repeating the same UK government line is not an argument. It’s a POLITICAL issue, because the protest was due to POLICY failures in UK.

    AI’s silence is showing their own double standard.

  48. raventhorn2000
    August 16th, 2011 at 10:01 | #48

    “Those inciting the riots over Facebook need to be arrested, as inciting people to violence is illegal. Shouting fire in a crowded theater. Inciting people to riot and loot is not a right of freedom of speech.”

    Yeah well, I don’t recall that being the definition when Tibetan Exile Government was inciting people to “uprise” in China.

    I distinctly recall AI telling China to respect that as “freedom of speech”, and condemning China for tracking down those people inciting the “uprising”.

  49. August 16th, 2011 at 11:07 | #49

    @richard
    If the British Olympic athelete received $200k yearly from China’s version of NED and protest and challenge the govn’t fulltime she will become a “political prisoner” pretty soon.

  50. August 16th, 2011 at 11:24 | #50

    AI’s words:

    “The Chinese authorities reported that during the 2008 protests, 21 people were killed by violent protestors while Tibetan sources say that over 100 Tibetans were killed.

    According to the United States’ Congressional-Executive Commission on China, more than 1,000 people detained for protests of March 2008 remain unaccounted for. Testimonies of those released, tell a story of desperate prison conditions, including beatings, refusal of medical treatment, and inadequate food and drink.

    Official reports state that 76 people have been sentenced in connection with the unrest in spring 2008. Those convicted have received sentences ranging from three years fixed term imprisonment to life imprisonment. Most of them have been sentenced for crimes described as “arson, looting, picking quarrels and provoking troubles, assembling a crowd to storm state organs, disrupting public service, and theft.”

    Amnesty International has documented a pattern of unfair trials, including a failure on the part of the Chinese authorities to distinguish between individuals engaged in peaceful protests and those perpetrating criminal acts.

    Amnesty International has called on the Chinese authorities to account for all those who have been killed, injured or gone missing, and for all those detained in Tibet, including their names, whereabouts, and any charges against them.”

    Now, why hasn’t AI released a statement on UK Riot demanding answers?!

    I guess AI doesn’t care about the British citizens’ rights and “freedom”.

  51. August 16th, 2011 at 11:40 | #51

    Straight from Egyptian Protesters on UK’s handling of social media:

    “In fact [the Chinese] did have a pretty good point,” Hussein said. “If you can’t handle free communication in your country, stop telling us to handle it your way.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/16/bart-london-riots-egypt_n_928144.html

  52. August 16th, 2011 at 12:00 | #52

    @raventhorn2000

    One girl was sentenced to 6 months for stealing a TV set. Pretty mild. Others were harsher, but certainly mild by the standards of many if not most other nations. AI is about political prisoners like Ai Weiwei and Liu Xiaobao, about people like Myanmar’s Aung Syan Kyi, and about certain detainees at Guantanamo, etc. It’s not about teens stealing TV sets and breaking windows and setting fires. The UK has its laws, and this is none of AI’s business — unless there are political prisoners for whom AI seeks amnesty. Read Amnesty Internationals mission statements. It’s about human rights. Teens getting arrested in Philadelphia and London and San Francisco or wherever for looting local stores and breaking stuff is not a human rights issue, unless and until they are violently or unjustly oppressed. Being given a tough sentence within the guidelines of the law is not repression of one’s human rights. If so, why isn’t AI getting involved in every criminal case? Have you even read their mission statement? This is a good example of making stuff up to complain about. This is wholly outside of AI’s bailiwick, and I think you know it.

  53. August 16th, 2011 at 12:02 | #53

    “It’s not about teens stealing TV sets and breaking windows and setting fires.”

    REALLY?! Lots that went on in Tibet and Xinjiang, AI was all over it.

    I guess you don’t know AI as you think you do.

  54. Charles Liu
    August 16th, 2011 at 12:38 | #54

    @raventhorn2000

    Also, what about those in UK arrested for twittering about the protest? Sounds like the same thing to me, yet these suddenly don’t arise to the level of human rights violation – when it’s not China.

    Hypocrisy pure and simple.

    BTW, Liu Xiaobo was taking money from US government via the NED to advocate abolition of China’s constitution (foreign sponsorship of domestic politicics is universally outlawed, ref FARA and DOJ vs John Huang)

    Ai Weiwei was arrested for tax evasion (he shipped Qin/Min Dynasty chairs under relic protection out of country, underreporting of income from overseas auction of artworks/antiques. citations)

  55. August 16th, 2011 at 12:51 | #55

    When there is no logic and pure hypocrisy, Western media and journalists just keep on repeating the “it’s different” statement over and over again, hoping that the rest of the world will believe them.

    Even the Egyptians see the hypocrisy in their statements now. (But of course, Egypt is now a military dictatorship, after all that bloodshed).

  56. August 16th, 2011 at 13:30 | #56

    “Now, why hasn’t AI released a statement on UK Riot demanding answers?!

    I guess AI doesn’t care about the British citizens’ rights and “freedom”.

    Going around in circles here. If there were reports of UK citizens being tortured or held as political prisoners, you’d better be damned straight Amnesty International would be there in a heartbeat. Their mission is in regards to human rights, not demonstrations where some young people loot and break things. Arresting looters is not repression, it’s following the law. But they go after the US just the way they go after China. Here, take a look:

    http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/189/2006/en

    See, AI goes after the US just like it goes after China, just as it goes after any government it sees as repressing or torturing prisoners, including the US.

    Here is how they went after Xinjiang; it was not for looting TVs:

    Amnesty International has urged the Chinese government to launch an independent investigation into last year’s riots in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, after new testimony obtained by the organization has cast further doubt on the official version of events.

    A new report, “Justice, justice”: The July 2009 Protests in Xinjiang, China includes newly gathered testimonies from Uighurs who fled China after the unrest, which centered on Xinjiang’s capital, Urumqi.

    Interviewees described unnecessary or excessive use of force, mass arrests, enforced disappearances, and torture and ill-treatment in detention that occurred on 5 July 2009 and during the ensuing government crackdown.

    That’s when AI gets involved, not in local disturbances with no evidence of torture, disappearances and repression. Can you grasp this distinction? And they did the exact same thing as they did with China when they went after the US for Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. And if some government or group, like Tibetan activists, took Chinese political prisoners and tortured them, the AI would be on the case instantly, just as they got on America’s case. They are politically neutral and go after communists like Castro and Chavez with the same energy as when they go after Mugabe and Milosovic.

    I realize this won’t get anywhere, as for some odd reason commenters here seem to be equating the arrests in London with Abu Ghraib or Auschwitz. AI does not get involved in anything but political repression, which is not what we are seeing in London. It’s not what we’re seeing with the flash mobs, which are just some teenage kids looking for ways to stir up some trouble and have some fun, while they break things and scare people. Now, if they were arrested, if they disappeared and there were reports they were being tortured, then AI would get involved, just as it did with Guantanamo.

  57. August 16th, 2011 at 14:08 | #57

    “That’s when AI gets involved, not in local disturbances with no evidence of torture, disappearances and repression.”

    REALLY! I thought the whole thing in UK started with a suspicious shooting death of a young father of 4 kids and police brutality!

    Please, where is the distinction here. 1 UK guy getting shot by police (then police claims he shot the police 1st) is not suspicious enough for you?

    “Local disturbances”?

    How local do you want it to be? UK was pretty big disturbances for 1 small island nation.

    “I realize this won’t get anywhere.”

    never stopped you before, nor AI. I expect you will just keep repeating, “there is a difference, can’t you see it, blah, blah, blah….”

    Well, Even Egyptian protesters don’t see the difference now!! LOL!!

  58. August 16th, 2011 at 14:13 | #58

    “Arresting looters is not repression, it’s following the law. But they go after the US just the way they go after China. Here, take a look:
    http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/189/2006/en
    See, AI goes after the US just like it goes after China, just as it goes after any government it sees as repressing or torturing prisoners, including the US.”

    Funny enough, AI could see for themselves in UK that 1 guy who was shot by the police (and the police attempt at cover up afterwards that started the protest).

    So AI doesn’t demand answers, NOT even for that 1 guy (should be pretty easy), NOT even when it caused the “riot”!

    AI doesn’t even check up on the over 1700 Brits who got arrested, nor say anything about why the Magistrates were ORDERED to disregard the sentencing guideline (which is by definition extra-judicial prosecution without any public accountability).

    So what has AI said about US, (more to the point about UK)??

    Please, let’s see AI’s extensive critique of racism in UK that would shed some light on the whole riot.

  59. August 16th, 2011 at 14:30 | #59

    @richard #56

    Interviewees described unnecessary or excessive use of force, mass arrests, enforced disappearances, and torture and ill-treatment in detention that occurred on 5 July 2009 and during the ensuing government crackdown.

    That’s when AI gets involved, not in local disturbances with no evidence of torture, disappearances and repression. Can you grasp this distinction?

    Richard, I am thinking about doing a post on this but instead of just touting my views, I want to try to answer (not argue against) some of your questions.

    local disturbance: are the riots in Xianjiang last year or the recent violence at a police station in Xinjiang considered “local disturbances” or not? In what sense are they more than “local”?

    torture and disappearances: do all insinuations of torture oblige organizations like AI to criticize or must there be some credible torture? This is a serious question. Also, do all torture and disappearances deserve attention? My sense is that a bunch of tortures and civilian disappearances occur all the time under the auspices of NATO or U.S. allies like Israel in the Middle East and Afghanistan, yet how often has NATO or U.S. allies opened up to answer every charge and insinuation of torture and disappearances…?

    repression: how do you define repression? Not to be cute, but if we are not careful, any government action we don’t agree with can be defined as repression. My pacifist libertarian friends think being forced to pay taxes that support wars they don’t agree with is one of the most oppressive acts of repression they have endured…

    unnecessary or excessive use of force – this appears ambiguous. What is unnecessary and what is excessive? In the Lhasa riots a few years ago, some people blamed the gov’t for being overly passive, at least during the first stages of the riot, for allowing the riots to run its course. A gov’t cannot betray the trust shown in it by the people to protect. An under show of force during crisis can be an abuse of human rights in and of itself. By corollary, an excessive shock and awe presence of force that stops people from turning violent arguably promotes human rights (i.e. people’s right to live…).

    mass arrests – isn’t this what happened in UK?

  60. August 16th, 2011 at 14:43 | #60

    Allen,

    Richard’s “local disturbance”.

    He means any thing “local” to Amnesty International’s headquarters in London. LOL!

    Like I said, AI don’t care about what’s going on right outside of their own windows in London, because that’s too “local” for them.

    You know the Brits, a bunch of “local” hooligans. 🙂

  61. Wahaha
    August 16th, 2011 at 14:58 | #61

    Those arrested in the UK were not political prisoners,

    *********************************************

    You dont have political prisoners because you dont have different political opinions.

    Did you ever say anything that was not taught by your media or your media didnt like ?

    In Germany and USA, we all watched what happened if someone dared to express different political views.

    You like it or now, if a country or an area has different opinions on major political issues, the country or area will be in chaos, and politics >>>> economy.

    See what happened in America when media had different opinions on Clinton-Lewinsky issue ? it basically divided America, this is not even about country, just about a person.
    .

  62. Charles Liu
    August 16th, 2011 at 16:29 | #62

    @raventhorn2000

    Raven, Amnesty Internation made a statement about the twitter arrest in Comment 22. Let’s see if Richard can come up with the AI statement on the UK twitter arrest.

  63. cp
    August 16th, 2011 at 18:19 | #63

    richard :
    @cp
    Not my point at all. My point is that that “even when horrible things happened” during the Depression they were absorbed and democracy was not threatened.

    The doctrine of “democratic peace” now provides vital camouflage for the American war machine. Michael Novak, a theologian with the pro-war American Enterprise Institute, observed, “Democracy is the new name for peace.” The idea that democracies never fight wars against each other has become axiomatic for many scholars. Prof. Jack Levy commented in 1989 that the democratic-peace doctrine is “as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations.”

    The only way that history supports this doctrine is to exclude all the cases of wars between democracies. This theory can survive only as long as people look at history in a way that is so contorted that it makes the typical political campaign speech appear honest. Some of the advocates of the democratic-peace doctrine are slippery regarding categories, as if the fact that a nation starts a war proves that it is not a democracy.

    Democracy versus democracy

    There are plenty of cases to refute the democratic-peace claims. As professors Thomas Schwartz and Kiron Skinner noted, Britain, the mother of parliaments, “fought the United States in 1776 and 1812 and revolutionary France in its comparatively democratic years of 1793 and 1795. In 1848 the United States fought Mexico, not a perfect democracy but a good one for the times.”

    The American Civil War was the biggest clash in the Western world between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War. Both the United States and the Confederacy were representative governments with presidents supposedly bound by constitutions.

    Britain’s Boer War, 1899–1902, involved the brutal crushing by one democratic government of another democratic government, as well as the pioneering of concentration camps and other methods of suppression that would become far more widespread in the 20th century.

    The First World War was by far the bloodiest conflict in human history up to that time. Schwartz and Skinner noted, “Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a war for democracy against ‘Prussian dictatorship,’ but that was propaganda. Germany had civil rights, an elected parliament, competing parties, universal male suffrage, and an unparalleled system of social democracy.” Germany was far more democratic than either the British or French empire.

    Professor Joanne Gowa, author of Ballots and Bullets, examined “pairs of states between 1815 and 1981” and found “no statistically significant relationship between democracy and peace before 1946.” After World War II, democracies rarely fought each other because most of them were allied against a Soviet threat that was far more perilous than quibbles over trade flows or fishing rights. However, the fact that New Zealand and Switzerland have never fought each other is not sufficient basis for an iron law of international relations.

    The popularity of the doctrine that democracies do not attack each other is another tribute to the historical illiteracy of both politicians and prominent commentators. The doctrine that democracies never fight each other should have been laughed out of existence after its first promenade. Yet, as long as Clinton, and later Bush, recited the democratic-peace dogma, all contrary evidence vanished from the scales of respectable judgment. The theory serves the interests of the government — the ultimate test of truth in Washington. The primary effect of the doctrine of democratic peace has been to lower Americans’ resistance to U.S. government foreign aggression.

    http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0803c.asp

    ****************

    The Five-Hundred Years’ Peace

    One of the great myths of Western social science is that national states and their organization in an interstate system are European inventions. In reality, except for a few states that were the creation of European colonial powers (most notably, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines), the most important states of East Asia–from Japan, Korea, and China to Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Kampuchea–were national states long before any of their European counterparts. What’s more, they had all been linked to one another, directly or through the Chinese center, by trade and diplomatic relations and held together by a shared understanding of the principles, norms, and rules that regulated their mutual interactions as a world among other worlds. As Japanese scholars specializing in the China-centered tribute trade system have shown, this system presented sufficient similarities with the European interstate system to make their comparison analytically meaningful. [1]

    Both systems consisted of a multiplicity of political jurisdictions that appealed to a common cultural heritage and traded extensively within their region. Although cross-border trade was more publicly regulated in East Asia than in Europe, since Song times (960-1276) private overseas trade had flourished and transformed the nature of tribute trade, the main purpose of which, in Takeshi Hamashita’s words, “came to be the pursuit of profits through the unofficial trade that was ancillary to the official system.” Analogies can also be detected in the interstate competition that characterized the two systems. The separate domains that were held together by the tribute trade system centered on China were “close enough to influence one another, but… too far apart to assimilate and be assimilated”. The tribute trade system provided them with a symbolic framework of mutual political-economic interaction that nonetheless was loose enough to endow its peripheral components with considerable autonomy vis-a-vis the Chinese center. Thus, Japan and Vietnam were peripheral members of the system but also competitors with China in the exercise of the imperial title awarding function, Japan establishing a tributary type relationship with the Ryukyu Kingdom, and Vietnam with Laos. [2] Sugihara explicitly maintains that the diffusion of the best technology and organizational know-how within East Asia makes it “possible to think of the presence of an East Asian multi-centered political system… with many features analogous to the interstate system in Europe.” [3]

    These similarities make a comparison of the two systems analytically meaningful. But once we compare their dynamics, two fundamental differences become immediately evident. First, as argued elsewhere, the dynamic of the European system was characterized by an incessant military competition among its national components and by a tendency toward the geographical expansion both of the system and of its shifting center. [4] Long periods of peace among European powers were the exception rather than the rule. Thus, the “hundred years’ peace” (1815-1914) that followed the Napoleonic Wars was “a phenomenon unheard of in the annals of Western civilization.” [5] Moreover, even during this hundred years’ peace European states were involved in countless wars of conquest in the non-European world and in the escalating armament race that culminated in the industrialization of war. While the initial result of these involvements was a new wave of geographical expansion which dampened conflicts within the European system, their eventual result was a new round of wars among European powers (1914-1945) of unprecedented destructiveness. [6]

    In sharp contrast to this dynamic, the East Asian system of national states stood out for the near absence of intra-systemic military competition and extra-systemic geographical expansion. Thus, with the exception of China’s frontier wars to be discussed presently, prior to their subordinate incorporation in the European system the national states of the East Asian system were almost uninterruptedly at peace with one another, not for one-hundred, but for three-hundred years. This three-hundred years’ peace was bracketed by two Japanese invasions of Korea, both of which precipitated a war with China–the Sino-Japanese wars of 1592-98 and 1894-5. Between 1598 and 1894 there were only three brief wars that involved China–the 1659-60 and the 1767-71 wars with Burma, and the 1788-89 war with Vietnam, and two wars that did not involve China–the Siamese-Burmese Wars of 1607-18 and of 1660-2. Indeed, in so far as China is concerned, we should speak of a five-hundred years’ peace, since in the two-hundred years preceding the 1592 Japanese invasion of Korea China was at war against other East Asian states only during the invasion of Vietnam in 1406-28 to restore the Tran dynasty. [7]

    The infrequency of wars among East Asian states was associated with a second crucial difference between the East Asian and European systems: the absence of any tendency among East Asian states to build overseas empires in competition with one another and to engage in an armament race in any way comparable to the European. East Asian states did compete with one another. Sugihara, for example, detects a competitive relation in two complementary tendencies typical of Tokugawa Japan (1600-1868): its attempt to create a tribute trade system centered on Japan instead of China, and its absorption of technological and organizational know-how in agriculture, mining and manufacturing from Korea and China. Through these tendencies, as Heita Kawakatsu put it, “Japan was trying to become a mini-China both ideologically and materially.” [8] This kind of competition, however, drove the East Asian developmental path toward state-and-national-economy-making rather than war-making and territorial expansion–that is in the opposite direction of the European path.

    This contention may seem to be at odds with the long series of wars that China fought on its frontiers during the closing years of Ming rule and in the first 150 years of Qing rule. As Peter Perdue has noted, the history of the China-centered system appears in a different light when seen from a “frontier perspective.” The presence of nomadic horsemen who raided the borders and sometimes conquered the Chinese capital made military activity particularly prominent in the history of China’s north and northwest frontier. Military activity became more prominent when northern conquerors in 1644 established the Qing dynasty and set out to ensure that other northern invaders would not do to them what they had done to the Ming.

    In the north and northwest, China faced much more powerful and more sharply distinctive peoples than on other frontiers. Here it was very clear that the threat of force undergirded the trading-ritual order. The Qing could only seriously claim to be the uncontested central pole of a tribute system focused on Beijing after they had created military alliances with the Eastern Mongols, exterminated the rival Western Mongols, conquered Xinjiang, and secured formal suzerainty over Tibet. [9]

    The territorial expansion that ensued, and the military activities that sustained it, fixed the boundaries that all subsequent Chinese regimes would struggle to preserve. Their main purpose was the transformation of a hard-to-defend frontier into a pacified periphery and a buffer against raiders and conquerors from Inner Asia. Once the objective had been attained, as it was by the 1760s, territorial expansion ceased and military activities turned into police activities aimed at consolidating the monopoly of the Chinese state over the use of violence within the newly established boundaries. Although quite substantial, this territorial expansion paled in comparison with the successive waves of European expansion–the earlier Iberian expansion in the Americas and southeast Asia; the contemporary Russian expansion in north Asia and Dutch expansion in southeast Asia; not to speak of the later expansion of Britain in South Asia and Africa and of its offspring in North America and Australia. Unlike these successive waves, the Qing expansion was strictly limited in space and time by its boundary-drawing objectives, rather than a link in an “endless” chain of connected expansions.

    The difference was not just quantitative but qualitative as well. China’s territorial expansion under the Qing was not embedded in the kind of “self-reinforcing cycle,” whereby the competing military apparatuses of European states sustained, and were sustained by, expansion at the expense of other peoples and polities of the earth. [10] No self-reinforcing cycle of this kind could be observed in East Asia. Qing China’s territorial expansion was neither driven by, nor did it result in, competition with other states in extracting resources from overseas peripheries. The logic of political economy associated with this latter kind of competition had little in common with China’s practices. “Rather than extract resources from peripheries, the Chinese state was more likely to invest in them. Political expansion to incorporate new frontiers committed the government to a shift of resources to the peripheries, not extraction from them.” [11]

    These different dynamics of the European and East Asian systems were closely related to, and in key respects determined by, two other differences–a difference in the distribution of power among the systems’ units, and a difference in the degree to which the primary source of power was internal or external to the system. Even before the “extended” sixteenth century in European history (1350-1650) and the Ming era in East Asian history (1368-1643), political, economic, and cultural power in East Asia was far more concentrated in its center (China) than in Europe, where a center proper was much harder to identify. But the difference became sharper with the defeat in 1592-98 of Japan’s attempt to challenge militarily Chinese centrality by conquest in Korea and the institutionalization of the European balance of power by the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648.

    The balanced power structure of the European system in itself contributed to the disposition of European states to wage war on one another. As Polanyi has underscored, balance-of-power mechanisms–the mechanisms, that is, whereby “three or more units capable of exerting power… behave in such a way as to combine the power of the weaker units against any increase in power of the strongest”–were a key ingredient in the organization of the nineteenth century hundred years’ peace. Historically, however, balance-of-power mechanisms had always attained the objective of maintaining the independence of the participating units “only by continuous war between changing partners.” [12] The main reason why in the nineteenth century those same mechanisms resulted in peace rather than war is that political and economic power came to be so concentrated in the hands of Britain as to enable it to transform the balance of power, from a mechanism that no individual state controlled and functioned through wars, into an instrument of informal British rule that promoted peace. [13]

    The nineteenth century association between an increase in the imbalance of power and a decrease in the frequency of war within the European system suggests that the imbalance of power typical of the East Asian system was a reason for the infrequency of wars among East Asian states. However, the fact that the nineteenth century concentration of power in British hands was accompanied by an escalation of interstate competition both in the production of ever more destructive means of war and in the use of these means to gain access to extra-systemic resources, suggests that a greater imbalance of power cannot in itself explain the virtual absence of these two kinds of competition in the East Asian system. Some other ingredient had to be present in the European and absent in the East Asian “mix” to produce this divergent pattern of interstate competition. The most plausible candidate is the greater extroversion of the European developmental path in comparison with, and in relation to, the East Asian path.

    http://www.japanfocus.org/-Giovanni-Arrighi/2630

  64. raventhorn2000
    August 17th, 2011 at 05:19 | #64

    Now UK reportedly arrested over 3000! (Magistrates were ORDERED to disregard sentencing guideline to JAIL EVERY rioter).

  65. August 17th, 2011 at 06:49 | #65

    Charles Liu :
    @C. Custer
    Check your own absurdity with this “Chinese government accepts money from the US government”. How many times have you mentioned this without citing some examples where you think it’s remotely similar to the sponsorship of Liu Xiaobo’s political activity by US government.
    Examples please.

    I have literally never mentioned it before. I didn’t even know it was true until a few weeks ago.

    Liu Xiaobo’s “political activity” was limited to writing and distributing a letter. I have no idea what the US’s $45 million in aid gets used for in China, but that’s not my point. My point is that if taking money from a foreign government is a crime, period, then it’s one China itself is committing.

    If taking money from a foreign government to undermine the Chinese government is a crime, fine. But I’d argue that’s not what Liu Xiaobo did, and that his imprisonment is a violation of his constitutional rights as a Chinese citizen. He didn’t use the money to raise an army, and

    Wait a minute, why are we even talking about this? Remember back on ChinaGeeks, when I pointed out to you that the NED money had nothing to do with Liu’s sentencing and the relevant Chinese law doesn’t even appear in the court’s decision to find him guilty? That’s still true. So seriously, let it go.

  66. raventhorn2000
    August 17th, 2011 at 07:12 | #66

    “My point is that if taking money from a foreign government is a crime, period, then it’s one China itself is committing.”

    That’s a ridiculous strawman “point”.

    FARA applies to individuals, NOT to governments.

    Governments taking money from each other is called “DIPLOMACY”.

  67. raventhorn2000
    August 17th, 2011 at 07:15 | #67

    “If taking money from a foreign government to undermine the Chinese government is a crime, fine. But I’d argue that’s not what Liu Xiaobo did, and that his imprisonment is a violation of his constitutional rights as a Chinese citizen. He didn’t use the money to raise an army”.

    FARA doesn’t require that the individual “used the money to raise an army”. Another ridiculous assumption without any basis on facts.

    FARA can be applied when the individual used the money in ANY fashion to influence policies on BEHALF of a foreign government’s interests.

    Liu obviously used the money to further NED’s agenda to attempt to influence Chinese policies. That motive is written all over his own professed agenda.

  68. raventhorn2000
    August 17th, 2011 at 07:29 | #68

    “Wait a minute, why are we even talking about this? Remember back on ChinaGeeks, when I pointed out to you that the NED money had nothing to do with Liu’s sentencing and the relevant Chinese law doesn’t even appear in the court’s decision to find him guilty? That’s still true. So seriously, let it go.”

    I’m ONLY GOING TO STATE THIS ONCE, for all: You are WRONG and making up sh*t without reading your own cited sources.

    English translation of Liu’s Court verdict.

    http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dclarke/public/liu_xiaobo_verdict-en-ch.pdf

    “2. The Beijing and Muxi branches of the Bank of China, Ltd. provided the “evidence of opening an
    account” and “bank money order receipt” that prove that Liu Xiaobo’s wife Liu Xia went to the bank to
    receive and withdraw money orders (in foreign currency) coming from outside the borders of mainland
    China.

    It is OBVIOUS that the court considered the foreign source of Liu’s funding as a factor in determining his motive in inciting against the Chinese government.

    Also the verdict was replete with numerous paragraphs mentioning Liu’s use of foreign based computer servers for spreading his incitement, specifically, using servers owned by Falun Gong organizations outside of China, as further evidence of Liu’s ties to foreign governments and use of foreign government aid (non-monetary aid).

  69. raventhorn2000
    August 17th, 2011 at 07:38 | #69

    Richard’s “local disturbance”:

    Translation: Amnesty International doesn’t P*ss in its own “local” backyard, but much more prefer to p*ss on other countries.

  70. August 17th, 2011 at 07:49 | #70

    @C. Custer
    It is you who didn’t get it or pretend the western press treat its “allies” the same as the “others”.

    The riot/uprising in London is very telling of this double standard. Have any US, German or French govn’t officials make any unsavory commentary on this incident?

    But we are know what they will do if the same incident was to happened in say Moscow or Beijing. They would actually be channeling funds to enlarge the riots, calling for intervention and making all sorts of demands.

    One major reason, this blog exist is not because we think China is perfect but rather feel that China is being held to a different standard as the west. We also understand the numerous problems and challenges China faces. However, unlike MOST western commentators who feel their advice is law and will work like a charm solving all problems over night, we sincerely believe that a lot of hard work has to be done before things can improve. And we also believe that most external meddling actually did more harm than good to the common people of China.

    The reason so many of you got “attacked” here is your refusal to ackowledge that there is flaw in every system, much like Cameron pretending all is fine and dandy in London, and all those who rioted are hooligans. The fact of the matter is every civilization has its discontent, even the ones whose scoial-economics development index is higher. Clearly shown by the various riots that have raged through the richest of the western countries, or even the bombing and shooting of Norway.

    The indignant we have here is when the rooster come to roost, such as the London riot, there is denial and total apathy displayed by the self-appointed “human rights champions”.

  71. raventhorn2000
    August 17th, 2011 at 08:18 | #71

    4 year sentence for UK man’s facebook post that incited NO ONE. (Disproportional? Yes, but it’s “local disturbance”, so I guess it’s OK).

    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/four-years-jail-for-facebook-post-that-incited-no-one-20110817-1ix4h.html

  72. Charles Liu
    August 17th, 2011 at 10:50 | #72

    @C. Custer

    Taking money from a foreign government is not a crime, but individual conducting domestic polical activity under foreign sponsorship is (Ref: FARA, DoJ vs John Huang)

    And as Raven explained to you, foreign remittance was prominent in Liu Xioabo’s verdict. It didn’t mention NED specifically is probably due to political reason, or such remittance was not made under NED’s name.

    But the fact Liu accepted foreign underwriting for his domestic political activity is an undeniable FACT.

    @raventhorn2000
    Compare this with the Twitter detention that people b!tched about in China. AI, HRW all complained about it when China arrested some woman for egging people to attack the Japan pavillion. Compare the 4 year sentence with hers – write an apology letter and promise to watch her online behavior.

    Where’s AI, HRW, NYT, ChinaGeek, PKD now? Where’s the parity in objecting to the same/worse human rights violation by UK govt?

    Hypocrisy pure and simple.

    While those of us who rightly recognized ALL governments’ right to enforece the limit of free speech can now be consistent with our opinion.

  73. Charles Liu
    August 17th, 2011 at 11:28 | #73

    @raventhorn2000

    And to further substantiate Raven’s assertion RE Falun Gong. At the same period of time (years leading up to Beijing Olympics), former Congressman Tom Lanto’s wife and NED veteran Mark Palmer, via their non-profit “Friends of Falun Gong”, funnled approximately 6 million dollars to various Falun Gong organizations:

    http://falungongpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/03/money-trail-between-us-government-and.html

  74. raventhorn2000
    August 17th, 2011 at 11:28 | #74

    UK’s mass arrest has netted over 3000.

    Compared to that 1400 arrested in Xinjiang for China’s “crackdown”. (Even with WUG’s exaggerated estimate of 4000, consider the relative damage of the riots in comparison).

    UK’s mass arrest is far more harsh of a dragnet than China’s judicial enforcements.

    Where is demand for “independent inquiry” in UK?

    Here is answer for AI, HRW: No F*ING “independent inquiries” in China, until you get them in UK and France (for 2005 riot). You can stick it in UK and France, because UK and France don’t shine in HR.

  75. raffiaflower
    August 17th, 2011 at 19:38 | #75

    Arresting more than 4000 people, some for little more than steaming off on FB, has the near-equivalency of martial law. And it also has little to do with upholding law and order, but with putting a shine back on David Cameron’s tatty reputation. Entirely political.

  76. August 18th, 2011 at 00:07 | #76

    raventhorn2000 :
    “If taking money from a foreign government to undermine the Chinese government is a crime, fine. But I’d argue that’s not what Liu Xiaobo did, and that his imprisonment is a violation of his constitutional rights as a Chinese citizen. He didn’t use the money to raise an army”.
    FARA doesn’t require that the individual “used the money to raise an army”. Another ridiculous assumption without any basis on facts.
    FARA can be applied when the individual used the money in ANY fashion to influence policies on BEHALF of a foreign government’s interests.

    Only if the individual has failed to register properly, which there would be no reason for them to do. As long as they’ve registered, they can use the money to influence US politics, no problem. The “R” in FARA stands for “Registration”.

    But it’s kind of an outdated point anyway. There hasn’t been a successful FARA prosecution in the US since 1966, and in that whole time there have only been three indictments.

    Liu obviously used the money to further NED’s agenda to attempt to influence Chinese policies. That motive is written all over his own professed agenda.

    How is it “obvious”? What evidence do you have of how he spent the NED money? And what does that have to do with anything anyway, considering it is not why he was arrested or convicted??

  77. August 18th, 2011 at 00:09 | #77

    raventhorn2000 :
    “Wait a minute, why are we even talking about this? Remember back on ChinaGeeks, when I pointed out to you that the NED money had nothing to do with Liu’s sentencing and the relevant Chinese law doesn’t even appear in the court’s decision to find him guilty? That’s still true. So seriously, let it go.”
    I’m ONLY GOING TO STATE THIS ONCE, for all: You are WRONG and making up sh*t without reading your own cited sources.
    English translation of Liu’s Court verdict.
    http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dclarke/public/liu_xiaobo_verdict-en-ch.pdf
    “2. The Beijing and Muxi branches of the Bank of China, Ltd. provided the “evidence of opening an
    account” and “bank money order receipt” that prove that Liu Xiaobo’s wife Liu Xia went to the bank to
    receive and withdraw money orders (in foreign currency) coming from outside the borders of mainland
    China.

    It is OBVIOUS that the court considered the foreign source of Liu’s funding as a factor in determining his motive in inciting against the Chinese government.
    Also the verdict was replete with numerous paragraphs mentioning Liu’s use of foreign based computer servers for spreading his incitement, specifically, using servers owned by Falun Gong organizations outside of China, as further evidence of Liu’s ties to foreign governments and use of foreign government aid (non-monetary aid).

    And what law does it say he was convicted of, again? Please feel free to post that information, and the text of the laws in question. Then show me how that has anything to do with NED. Kthxbye. 🙂

    (Also, that says they proved in court his WIFE did that…not Xiaobo.)

  78. August 18th, 2011 at 00:33 | #78

    Charles Liu :
    @C. Custer
    Taking money from a foreign government is not a crime, but individual conducting domestic polical activity under foreign sponsorship is (Ref: FARA, DoJ vs John Huang)

    Only if the foreign agent in question hasn’t properly registered. Not sure which DoJ v. John Huang case you’re talking about; the one that I can find is a case where he was convicted of violating campaign finance laws, not FARA.

    And as Raven explained to you, foreign remittance was prominent in Liu Xioabo’s verdict. It didn’t mention NED specifically is probably due to political reason, or such remittance was not made under NED’s name.

    But, as I explained to you and him, the laws Liu officially violated, according to that verdict, have nothing to do with accepting money from foreign governments. Of course it was mentioned in the trial, but it’s not why he was convicted (at least not officially). As I’ve pointed out before, China has a specific law somewhat like FARA that concerns citizens accepting money from foreign governments, but Liu was not charged with or convicted of violating it. It’s pretty obvious why he was imprisoned from the court’s conclusion, which you’ll note makes NO MENTION of any foreign financing:

    This court believes that the defendant Liu Xiaobo with the purpose of incitement to overthrow our country’s people’s democratic dictatorship system and socialist system, used the Internet to distribute
    his document because of its rapid speed, great scope, large social influence and the attention to which the people pay to it. He wrote the documents and used the Internet to publish it in order to slander and urge other people to overthrow our country’s people’s democratic dictatorship system and socialist system. This conduct already constitutes the crime of incitement to overthrow state power. Moreover, he has been committing this crime for a long while and the subjective evil caused is great. The published documents have been spread through links and republishing. People read them and they have a bad effect. This is the crime of a major criminal and should be severely punished according to law.

    Above, raven picked out the one section of the verdict that mentions foreign finances at all but (1) it implicates Liu Xia, not Liu Xiaobo (2) it offers evidence only that the money came from outside China, not from a foreign government.

    But the fact Liu accepted foreign underwriting for his domestic political activity is an undeniable FACT.

    Sure. So is the fact that he wears glasses. But he wasn’t convicted of wearing glasses either, so I’m not sure why we’re talking about it…

    @raventhorn2000
    Compare this with the Twitter detention that people b!tched about in China. AI, HRW all complained about it when China arrested some woman for egging people to attack the Japan pavillion. Compare the 4 year sentence with hers – write an apology letter and promise to watch her online behavior.
    Where’s AI, HRW, NYT, ChinaGeek, PKD now? Where’s the parity in objecting to the same/worse human rights violation by UK govt?
    Hypocrisy pure and simple.
    While those of us who rightly recognized ALL governments’ right to enforece the limit of free speech can now be consistent with our opinion.

    #%$#^$^, for the 900th time, ChinaGeeks is a site about China. So is the Peking Duck. I really don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. As for the rest of the places you mention, you’d have to ask them.

    Honestly, if you make this argument again, I’m going to stop responding to you forever just on principle. It should not be that hard to figure out why a China blog doesn’t cover UK politics. If you really can’t wrap your head around that, I don’t think there’s any point in communicating with you because you’re obviously 弱智.

    (Don’t bother though, it’s way classier to gloat smugly about it in comments forums, and this way, no one challenges you on it. Win-win.)

  79. raventhorn2000
    August 18th, 2011 at 05:43 | #79

    “And what law does it say he was convicted of, again? Please feel free to post that information, and the text of the laws in question. Then show me how that has anything to do with NED. Kthxbye.

    (Also, that says they proved in court his WIFE did that… not Xiaobo.)”

    You were the one making the claim that Liu’s conviction had nothing to do with outside funding. You should cite the law to prove your case.

    Obviously, at the very least, YOU are wrong, the Verdict specifically STATED foreign funding, LOGICALLY, the foreign funding had SOMETHING TO DO with his conviction!!!

    And so his wife withdrew the money, but it was Liu who OPENED the account at the bank!!

    Liu Xiaobo opened an account at the bank in her name. Deposits to the account for Liu Xiaobo’s writings come irregularly. Every month she goes to the bank at irregular intervals to withdraw money.”

    You can argue Liu had nothing to do with his wife’s money, but you just don’t know laws of China and US. Comingled funds (by acts) would result in joint liability of husband and wife from any uses of the fund. (It’s obvious that Liu had instructed his wife to use her name as mere financial cover. Any US lawyer could defeat that kind of flimsy cover. It’s obvious that Liu’s wife was acting on behalf of him in withdrawing the money for his work).

    You can argue the evidence is circumstantial, but nevertheless, the verdict HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH FOREIGN FUNDING!!

    So, again, You are WRONG, and it was obvious (again), you don’t read your own cited sources!!

  80. raventhorn2000
    August 18th, 2011 at 05:51 | #80

    “for the 900th time, ChinaGeeks is a site about China. So is the Peking Duck. I really don’t know why that’s so hard to understand.”

    Yeah, well, here is one for you. If it’s JUST about China, then you shouldn’t use your own Westernized standards in discussing China.

    Here is you, discussing the WEST on ChinaGeeks.

    http://chinageeks.org/category/china-from-the-west/

    (And your expat friends do the same. Obviously, you introduce the West in discussing China whenever you feel like it. So, it’s not JUST about China!”

    So, the question is, why the silence when you have a perfectly good opportunity to compare UK’s riot to China, to show a Western perspective on China, in view Western history and experiences with “riots”?

    You don’t have to answer, the SILENCE is answer enough.

  81. August 18th, 2011 at 09:32 | #81

    raventhorn2000 :
    “for the 900th time, ChinaGeeks is a site about China. So is the Peking Duck. I really don’t know why that’s so hard to understand.”
    Yeah, well, here is one for you. If it’s JUST about China, then you shouldn’t use your own Westernized standards in discussing China.
    Here is you, discussing the WEST on ChinaGeeks.
    http://chinageeks.org/category/china-from-the-west/
    (And your expat friends do the same. Obviously, you introduce the West in discussing China whenever you feel like it. So, it’s not JUST about China!”
    So, the question is, why the silence when you have a perfectly good opportunity to compare UK’s riot to China, to show a Western perspective on China, in view Western history and experiences with “riots”?
    You don’t have to answer, the SILENCE is answer enough.

    “China from the West” is a category about Western media coverage of China (if you had clicked on it or read any of the stories in that category, this would have been obvious to you, but I’ll admit it’s unfair of me to expect you to read anything). I do not, ever, do “compare the West with China” posts, despite the desperate begging of some of your cohorts in the comments.

    These days, I also try not to respond to you in any thread because you’re perpetually hysterical and it’s like arguing with a malfunctioning megaphone. However, I will address one thing you’ve mentioned here for the others who may read this comment:

    Why don’t I address Western politics on ChinaGeeks? It is a fair question. There are a number of reasons, but here are a couple good ones.

    First, a blog without focus is a blog without readers. If a blog about “translation and analysis of modern China” digs into US politics, or into the long history tangents you guys occasionally like here, it’s inevitably going to lose reader interest. It’s better to pick a particular theme and stick with it to build a consistent audience.

    Second, unlike some people here, I do not consider myself an expert on everything. A comparative analysis of China’s reaction to the Xinjiang riots and the UK government’s reaction to the recent riots would indeed be an interesting post, but I am not well-equipped to write it. I know little to nothing about UK politics, and I frankly don’t have the time to do the kind of research such a post would require. Similarly, although I am an American, my exposure to US politics starts and ends with the Daily Show on most days — hilarious, but hardly a solid foundation for any substantive writing.

    What I do know about is China, or more specifically, I know about some aspects of China. I certainly don’t know everything about everything — but then again, neither do you, or any Chinese people who live in China. Anyone who claims they know everything about China is a liar (or an idiot, sometimes both). But China is, like it or not, my area of expertise. The subjects I choose for my blog are the subjects I feel knowledgeable and comfortable writing about, generally because they’re subjects I have some personal connection to outside of the blog in my daily life, and/or subjects I have been following for some time.

    Now, I’m sure some of you have already stopped reading, eager as you are to tell me that I don’t understand China (after all, I’m white, so how could I?). You’re welcome to your opinion, but be aware that I’m (probably) going to ignore it, unless you can tell me something I haven’t heard a hundred times before. I’m quite comfortable with what I understand and don’t in China — there is indeed plenty I don’t understand — and what’s on my blog is, with the exception of the things I didn’t post myself, all stuff I’m pretty comfortable with. You may think I’m wrong, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that you represent some “Chinese perspective” (there is no such thing) that I have missed or don’t get. With rare exceptions, I’ve heard more or less every argument I’ve read on this site before, I just don’t agree. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand China, it just means I disagree with you.

    In fact, if ChinaGeeks were to write about the US or the UK, it would damage our brand because we have no credibility in that area. Among my team of writers, all speak fluent Chinese, all have lived in China long-term, some are Chinese, all studied Chinese culture in college and afterwards, and all have worked and/or are working jobs that relate to China and current events here. None of us are remotely qualified to offer up any real substantive opinions on the UK or the US; for the most part we haven’t been there long-term in several years, we don’t have any kind of special training that’s relevant there, and none of us work in fields that have any real connection whatsoever to that.

    You all may consider yourselves expert enough to expound on the UK, the US, China or Africa without batting an eye; to each his own. But I try to hold my blog to a fairly high standard and consequently we don’t talk about those things (you’ll notice that there are few, possibly 0, posts on ChinaGeeks about China’s involvement in Africa for that very reason).

  82. Charles Liu
    August 18th, 2011 at 09:51 | #82

    @C. Custer Liu obviously used the money to further NED’s agenda to attempt to influence Chinese policies.

    And that, violates state’s right to sovereign independence, which is universally recongnized. Liu Xiaobo’s conviction includes elements of foreign sponsorship that contributed to the guilty verdict, is also a fact. To argue Liu was not convicted on this, when foreign funding was front and center in the evidence list, as completely asinine.

    DoJ vs John Huang further illustrates the various laws in US that assert prohibition of foreign financing of doemstic politics.

    Also, you are mistaken, under FARA source of funding does not have be from foreign government, rather any foreign entity. To argue the registration aspect of FARA is again asinine, as the catch-22 leagal trap is never about registration.

  83. raventhorn2000
    August 18th, 2011 at 11:01 | #83

    “But I try to hold my blog to a fairly high standard and consequently we don’t talk about those things (you’ll notice that there are few, possibly 0, posts on ChinaGeeks about China’s involvement in Africa for that very reason).”

    High standard???!! Please, aren’t you forgetting how quickly you draw up your wild “speculations” without basic research (which you admitted doing)??

    I don’t know what “standards” you think you have, but you certainly have not demonstrated it on your own blog or here.

    Just repeatedly saying you have a “high standard” doesn’t mean anything, since you are obviously undermining your claim of “standard” with your “speculations.”

    What does it say about your “standards”, when you “speculate” wildly without research on some subjects, but be silent about some other issues?!

    NOT MUCH at all!

  84. August 18th, 2011 at 12:45 | #84

    @C. Custer #81

    I do not consider myself an expert on everything. A comparative analysis of China’s reaction to the Xinjiang riots and the UK government’s reaction to the recent riots would indeed be an interesting post, but I am not well-equipped to write it.

    You all may consider yourselves expert enough to expound on the UK, the US, China or Africa without batting an eye; to each his own. But I try to hold my blog to a fairly high standard and consequently we don’t talk about those thing…

    Actually, I would encourage our writers and commentators to do the opposite. I encourage people to stretch outside their comfort zones to read about and write about things that are not in their core area of competency. This is the only way for us to grow and learn – to become global citizens.

    You will notice that my posts alone span topics from history to race to economics to politics to environment to technology and science. I have to learn and stretch myself often, but I enjoy the process. Of course, I try to do my due diligence and strive to put my best knowledge and research forward on all topics I write, but I don’t really write based on the claim to be an expert on anything. Obviously I have my convictions and do read a lot, but I am sure I have made mistakes, yet those mistakes only make me a broader minded and more well-rounded person.

    This is a blog, not a reference book. We are normal people, not Ivy Tower scholars.

    The rise of China touches on every aspect of the world. To understand China, you have to understand a whole gambit of things – and then challenge them. Most things written here are thus not written in stone, but as part of a dialogue.

    Have fun bloggin!

  85. Charles Liu
    August 18th, 2011 at 14:14 | #85

    @Allen

    Exactely, it’s just a convienent cop out. Now that UK government did the same thing, suddenly some people choose to be silent, or flip flop their opinion. The internet is a huge place, did Richard or Charles Custer go espouse their opinion on non-China related blogs, or China blogs that make the comparison, with the same parity?

    BTW, on the Liu Xiaobo case, here’s an opinion from a criminal law expert in China:

    http://jm.hqu.edu.cn/show.aspx?id=476&cid=5

  86. August 18th, 2011 at 17:00 | #86

    Allen,

    Regarding Custer’s “high standard”, I think you read it too literally.

    He obviously has NO standards whatsoever when making ridiculous baseless conclusions about Liu’s verdict, when he clearly didn’t even bother to read it carefully.

    (AND he made LEGAL conclusions about Chinese laws, obviously by pretending he IS an expert in the subject matter).

    Oh, I don’t think Custer has a problem going “outside of his comfort zone”. He has gone WAY out, out on the deep end of the Twilight Zone, on numerous occasions.

    I don’t pretend I know every thing about UK’s “democracy”, that’s why I write a post, and ask questions, but folks like Custer call it “gloating”.

    Hey, is it “gloating” to ask for an explanation of disparity in UK’s own police policies in practice when they criticized similar actions in China?!

    I merely await for an answer, and the silence is deafening.

    I make no conclusions about the correctness of UK government’s actions, LEGALLY or MORALLY or ETHICALLY.

    I only observe that the DISPARITY is ILLOGICAL. (That’s something well within my comfort zone, but apparently quite OUTSIDE of some people’s comfort zone).

  87. August 18th, 2011 at 21:52 | #87

    Allen :
    @C. Custer #81

    I do not consider myself an expert on everything. A comparative analysis of China’s reaction to the Xinjiang riots and the UK government’s reaction to the recent riots would indeed be an interesting post, but I am not well-equipped to write it.

    You all may consider yourselves expert enough to expound on the UK, the US, China or Africa without batting an eye; to each his own. But I try to hold my blog to a fairly high standard and consequently we don’t talk about those thing…

    Actually, I would encourage our writers and commentators to do the opposite. I encourage people to stretch outside their comfort zones to read about and write about things that are not in their core area of competency. This is the only way for us to grow and learn – to become global citizens.
    You will notice that my posts alone span topics from history to race to economics to politics to environment to technology and science. I have to learn and stretch myself often, but I enjoy the process. Of course, I try to do my due diligence and strive to put my best knowledge and research forward on all topics I write, but I don’t really write based on the claim to be an expert on anything. Obviously I have my convictions and do read a lot, but I am sure I have made mistakes, yet those mistakes only make me a broader minded and more well-rounded person.

    Of course it’s good to read and discuss things outside one’s comfort zone. I feel the same way; my blog is meant to be informative rather than exploratory, and I would much rather do such exploration on my own time and refrain from sharing my views in public until I’m sure I can properly defend them. Given the response I get to every comment I post here, I’m sure you can understand why.

    The topics covered on ChinaGeeks have shifted and expanded over our history as I do learn about new things, but I try not to post about something until I’ve learned enough about it to feel competent commenting publicly.

    This is a blog, not a reference book. We are normal people, not Ivy Tower scholars.
    The rise of China touches on every aspect of the world. To understand China, you have to understand a whole gambit of things – and then challenge them. Most things written here are thus not written in stone, but as part of a dialogue.
    Have fun bloggin!

    Certainly, the rise of China touches many aspects of global politics, culture, etc. My point was not that we don’t ever mention those things on CG, just that we try to avoid focusing on things we don’t know too much about. I could, for example, write a post about the Weibo reaction to the UK riots — that would be right in our wheelhouse, although we haven’t done it because I don’t think the Weibo reaction has been all that interesting in this case.

    Ultimately, though, it’s impossible to get an all-encompassing picture of China anyway. If that’s the goal, then we — and anyone who writes about China — have already failed. Given that what we cover is going to be limited and only cover small parts of “China” no matter what angle we take, I’d rather focus on the stuff we know well enough to comment on intelligently.

    This is not meant as a criticism of the HH approach, which I think is also valuable. I’m just explaining our approach, and why we don’t write about stuff like politics in the UK.

  88. August 18th, 2011 at 22:10 | #88

    Charles Liu :
    @C. Custer Liu obviously used the money to further NED’s agenda to attempt to influence Chinese policies.

    If it’s obvious, then I’m sure you wouldn’t mind pointing to some evidence of how the money was used to attempt to influence Chinese policies.

    And if the foreign funding was such an important part of the trial, which isn’t it mentioned at all in the conclusion, and why wasn’t Liu charged with violating the relevant legal statute? I’m not denying his finances are mentioned in the document, but they’re one item on a long list of evidence, and given that (1) Liu was not convicted of violating the relevant law and (2) It wasn’t mentioned in the conclusion (or introduction) of the decision as part of Liu’s crimes I think you are vastly overestimating the importance it played in his conviction.

    And I know you are vastly overestimating the extent to which “FARA is the same thing.” I also think that’s irrelevant — just because the US does something doesn’t mean it’s right and China should too.

    Personally, I don’t think that writing a critical document and soliciting a few hundred signatures for it is a violation of national sovereignty regardless of who funds it, and I would oppose the prosecution of that as a “crime” in ANY country. If Liu had used foreign government funding to sabotage or otherwise attempt to overthrow the government, that would certainly be a violation of sovereignty. But he didn’t.

    Furthermore, I’ve never seen a clear connection between the NED money Liu received and Charter 08. Not saying it’s not there, but I’ve never seen more than circumstantial allegations. You may consider this insignificant but I, as a foreigner in China who regularly receives money from institutions directly connected to the Chinese government, do not. Why not? Because I know that the receipt of that money has nothing to do with any critical statements I might make, or documents I might write, about the US government or the US in general (I actually do write about the US a fair amount, just not on ChinaGeeks).

    This is not to say that Liu’s writing wasn’t supported or funded by NED. I am, however, a fan of the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and a fan of the idea that political speech cannot be a crime regardless of content, until it has crossed somehow into the realm of action.

  89. Charles Liu
    August 18th, 2011 at 22:20 | #89

    @C. Custer

    Here’s my source of evidence – you wrote it in comment 76:

    “Liu obviously used the money to further NED’s agenda to attempt to influence Chinese policies. That motive is written all over his own professed agenda.”

    Also, it was adjudicated by the Chinese court, given the evidence including foreign remittance sent to him.

    The article cited above from legal experts in China says Liu’s subversion case would’be yeilded the same result in US. Even based on words alone, according to Schenck vs United States, political speech can be reasonably limited if the government deems it “clear and present danger”.

    Similar to Schenck, the Chinese government has the right to deem Liu’s call to abolish China’s constitution, at the sponsorship of foreign entity, as exceeding the limit of free speech.

    The professor of criminal law interviewed obviousely disagrees with you.

  90. August 18th, 2011 at 23:25 | #90

    Charles Liu :
    @C. Custer
    Here’s my source of evidence – you wrote it in comment 76:
    “Liu obviously used the money to further NED’s agenda to attempt to influence Chinese policies. That motive is written all over his own professed agenda.”

    I was quoting something Raventhorn wrote, I just forgot to put the blockquote tag. See the paragraph after it; it’s pretty obvious I didn’t write that.

    The article cited above from legal experts in China says Liu’s subversion case would’be yeilded the same result in US. Even based on words alone, according to Schenck vs United States, political speech can be reasonably limited if the government deems it “clear and present danger”.
    Similar to Schenck, the Chinese government has the right to deem Liu’s call to abolish China’s constitution, at the sponsorship of foreign entity, as exceeding the limit of free speech.
    The professor of criminal law interviewed obviousely disagrees with you.

    As for your “scholars”, first of all, they’re experts on Chinese law, not US law, so I’m not sure what use the comparison is. I would love to read a piece on the legality of what Liu did under US law that was written by someone licensed to practice law in the US.

    Moreover, the article’s conclusions are misleading. Two seconds on Wikipedia showed that the Schnenck decision and the “clear and present danger test” have long since been replaced by the “imminent lawless action test.” To quote:

    Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of “imminent” may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess’s words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,”[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

    The Court upheld the statute on the ground that, without more, “advocating” violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927). But Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

    Charter 08 does not pass the test of imminent lawless action, as it does not incite lawless action. To quote the text, “Accordingly, and in a spirit of this duty as responsible and constructive citizens, we offer the following recommendations on national governance, citizens’ rights, and social development […] Accordingly, we dare to put civic spirit into practice by announcing Charter 08. We hope that our fellow citizens who feel a similar sense of crisis, responsibility, and mission, whether they are inside the government or not, and regardless of their social status, will set aside small differences to embrace the broad goals of this citizens’ movement. Together we can work for major changes in Chinese society and for the rapid establishment of a free, democratic, and constitutional country. We can bring to reality the goals and ideals that our people have incessantly been seeking for more than a hundred years, and can bring a brilliant new chapter to Chinese civilization.”

    It’s simply too vague in what’s it’s calling for people to do, and when they should do it, to pass the “imminent lawless action” test. It does call for people not to “put off” the democratization of China any longer, but there’s no specific timeframe and no indication that this is meant to be an extralegal movement, rather than a legal reform movement within the system. Morever, it does not pass the “likeliness” aspect of the “imminent lawless action test” (aka Brandenburg test) because despite Liu’s aspirations, there is no evidence whatsoever that his spreading of Charter 08 would actually have led to an overthrow of the Chinese government “subversion of the state”. In fact, Liu spread the document to hundreds of opinion leaders before his arrest, and yet nothing happened. There was no coup or revolution. So it’s quite clear that regardless of anything else, Charter 08 wouldn’t be illegal in the US because it fails to pass the “likeliness” part of the Brandenburg test.

    Moreover, it’s notable that all the major cases involving this kind of legislation in the US (Schenck, Hess v. Indiana, etc.) happened during wartime and directly relate to protests of the war effort. Given that, I don’t think any of these cases are particularly analogous to China in general or Liu in specific.

    And, finally, for the billionth time, even if this WOULD be illegal in the US, that doesn’t make it right or mean I have to agree with it in China or anywhere else.

  91. August 19th, 2011 at 05:53 | #91

    “In fact, Liu spread the document to hundreds of opinion leaders before his arrest, and yet nothing happened. There was no coup or revolution. So it’s quite clear that regardless of anything else, Charter 08 wouldn’t be illegal in the US because it fails to pass the “likeliness” part of the Brandenburg test.”

    “likeliness” test doesn’t depend on your 20/20 hindsight. If Liu hadn’t been arrested and his material confiscated, what guarantee do you have that it was NOT likely to lead to anything??!

    Aren’t you trying to boil the egg before it comes out of the chicken?!

    “And, finally, for the billionth time, even if this WOULD be illegal in the US, that doesn’t make it right or mean I have to agree with it in China or anywhere else.”

    No, just means that you are making up your own legal theories without any basis in FACTS, and you don’t know squat about legal systems.

  92. August 19th, 2011 at 07:27 | #92

    Court verdict:

    “Between September and December 2008, the defendant Liu Xiaobo colluded with others to draft and
    concoct the “Charter 08”, that proposed views such as “eliminate the monopoly of one party on the
    exercise of political power”, “to create a Chinese federation under the framework of democratic
    constitutional system of governance”, seeking to incite the overthrow of state power.”

    I won’t go into some people’s limited quotations, which only proves their inability to read documents comprehensively.

    And the imminent lawless action test” (aka Brandenburg test) has never been applied to challenge the constitutionality of FARA in any fashion. In that it is not applicable.

    FARA is a criminal code based upon (1) activity of a foreign agent, (2) who is not registered.

    While one may argue that (1) activity (speech) may be constitutionally protected, REFUSAL to register as foreign agent (or identify one’s pay master) is not protected as speech.

    Additionally, Speech made at the BEHALF of a FOREIGN government is NOT Constitutionally protected in US, as a foreign government/organization has no legal rights under the Constitution, except where international treaties and diplomatic protocols afford. Ie. they have no inherent constitutional rights to “speech” in US. (Conversely, a foreign government/organization has no inherent legal rights to Speech under the Chinese Constitution in China).

  93. August 19th, 2011 at 09:50 | #93

    @C. Custer #90

    One of the key debates of Freedom of Speech in the West during the 20th century is what constitutes “imminent danger.” The U.S. Supreme Court after the much esteemed Holmes changed his mind regarding what constitutes “imminent danger” has taken a attitude where the threshold for such danger be set very high.

    Note that this is just a legal theory – though an incredibly powerful one. There is nothing in the Constitution that says it must be thus or bill of rights or universal declaration of human rights that say it must be so. Every nation should have a right to decide what is of “imminent danger.”

    It’s analogous to the issue of whether governments have power to enact regulations such as environment laws and labor laws that change the essence of private property and contractual rights. It used to be that governments don’t. There is a high bar on what gov’t can interefere with. But then since the 1930’s, for the greater good, the Court made a drastic turnabout, ruling that it will not apply strict scrutiny and allow governments free reign to regulate for the greater good.

    Again, these issues are not embedded in the Constitution or any universal declaration. Every sovereign has a right to decide. Do private individuals have a right to protection of something – property, contract, speech, whatever – or must these private rights submit to the greater good, allowing for sovereigns to regulate – in the name of the people -as the sovereign sees fit?

    Instead of writing a few law reviews, I will do a few posts on this fascinating topic – together with how all these fit in with the democratic process – in the future…

    One thing I want to point out to regarding a potential flaw in your outlook is that while you say you don’t think what the Chinese gov’t is right, even if that’s what they do in the U.S., you cited a bunch of legal standards in the U.S. for the basis of your thinking…

    Are you truly open minded about China or viewing China through U.S. lens? Are you holding China to an unrealistic standard that you don’t even hold for the U.S.?

  94. Charles Liu
    August 19th, 2011 at 10:10 | #94

    @Allen Every nation should have a right to decide what is of “imminent danger.”

    Exactely Allen, each state, as sovereign entity, has the right to judicate for themselves, based on the universally accepted right of state to assert sovereign independence, eg declare policical speech sponsored by foreign entity as beyong the limit of free speech (demonstrate by Schenck vs United States).

    As to where the threshold is, I’d like to suggest couple US cases demonstrating a very low bar: Wen Ho Lee and Chi Mak (there are more.)

    Wen Ho Lee needs no introduction, and Chi Mak was given 25 years for sending the Chinese IEEE presentations he made that is public domain, available to everyone in China.

  95. August 19th, 2011 at 11:04 | #95

    Allen :

    One thing I want to point out to regarding a potential flaw in your outlook is that while you say you don’t think what the Chinese gov’t is right, even if that’s what they do in the U.S., you cited a bunch of legal standards in the U.S. for the basis of your thinking…
    Are you truly open minded about China or viewing China through U.S. lens? Are you holding China to an unrealistic standard that you don’t even hold for the U.S.?

    I cited US legal standards because that’s the argument Chas L and others were making, but frankly, I don’t think the US is a great model to follow. In times of peace, ithe human rights situation is far better than in China, but as soon as there’s a war, the US is quick to lock up whoever the fuck it feels like , and constitution be damned.

    My citations of US law were just to point out that Chas L’s article was misleading and flawed, not to argue that I advocate everything the US does or all the legal decisions of the US system.

  96. Charles Liu
    August 19th, 2011 at 13:17 | #96

    @C. Custer

    It’s not my article, take it up with Renmin University Professor of Criminal Law Gao Mingshuan who’s study includes US legal system (article cite in comment 85, BTW how many criminal law PhDs do you have? How many books did you write on US constitution? Prof. Gao has one of each.)

    I don’t agree with your strawman claims at all:

    – Regardless of US being a great model or not, the legal precedence in US demonstrates the fact state’s right to severeign independence is universal and should be applied to China equally, may it be FARA vs Subversive Activity Law, Twitter detention, supression of riot and restoration of law and order.

    – Later US court decision on imminent danger in no way negates prior decision in Schenck vs US that political speech CAN be limited, nor China’s right to define it’s own limit on political speech or it’s own bar on urgency of clear and present danger.

    – It doesn’t take a fucking war for US to lock anybody up, I cited Lee and Mak as examples.

  97. August 19th, 2011 at 14:54 | #97

    “I cited US legal standards because that’s the argument Chas L and others were making, but frankly, I don’t think the US is a great model to follow.”

    Great, so now on what basis are you going to argue? Your own Fantasy Land’s laws of “freedom” and “human rights”?

    Unfortunately, this forum’s low standards in REALITY won’t match up to whatever “high standard” you have in your fantasy land. So, come back when you got your head out of the clouds.

  98. August 20th, 2011 at 01:08 | #98

    Charles Liu :
    @C. Custer
    It’s not my article, take it up with Renmin University Professor of Criminal Law Gao Mingshuan who’s study includes US legal system (article cite in comment 85, BTW how many criminal law PhDs do you have? How many books did you write on US constitution? Prof. Gao has one of each.)

    And I’m sure they’re both very shiny. Like I said though, I’d love to hear the opinion of someone who’s actually practiced that kind of law in the US. Or, someone who has significant on the ground experience with freedom of speech issues in both countries so they could do a proper comparison. It would have to be someone respected on both sides….someone who’s held high positions in legal academia in the US and China, at well-respected institutions. Hmm….I nominate Teng Biao 😉

    – Regardless of US being a great model or not, the legal precedence in US demonstrates the fact state’s right to severeign independence is universal and should be applied to China equally, may it be FARA vs Subversive Activity Law, Twitter detention, supression of riot and restoration of law and order.

    What….so the US gov’t doing something demonstrates that it is universal now? Man, I bet the human rights and pro-democracy groups the US government runs are going to be happy to hear you say that!

    Moreover, sovereign independence and free speech are two different issues, although there are certainly overlaps from time to time. Accepting that countries have sovereign independence doesn’t mean one has to accept any measure or law they enact in the name of protecting that independence. And in many cases in the US and China alike, I think the “sovereign independence” defense is a load of crap. Liu Xiaobo was not a threat to China’s independence, no matter how much money the NED may have thrown at him.

    – Later US court decision on imminent danger in no way negates prior decision in Schenck vs US that political speech CAN be limited, nor China’s right to define it’s own limit on political speech or it’s own bar on urgency of clear and present danger.

    Political speech can be limited, sure, but in what circumstances? The devil is in the details, and the fact that the US can do it under one set of circumstances does not mean that China should do it under whatever set of circumstances they feel like.

    Of course China’s government has the “right” to define its own limits, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with or support those limits. And the fact that I don’t support them does not mean I don’t recognize that China enjoys sovereign independence as a nation-state. What it means is that I think China has some shitty laws that violate the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

    – It doesn’t take a fucking war for US to lock anybody up, I cited Lee and Mak as examples.

    True, I just meant it becomes much more common in wartime.

  99. August 20th, 2011 at 01:13 | #99

    raventhorn2000 :
    Great, so now on what basis are you going to argue? Your own Fantasy Land’s laws of “freedom” and “human rights”?

    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

  100. August 20th, 2011 at 06:27 | #100

    @C. Custer

    UDHR as interpreted by which country? Your fantasy land again?

    And BTW, UDHR is NON-Binding, much like campaign promises.

  101. Al
    August 20th, 2011 at 09:15 | #101

    Charles Liu: “It’s not my article, take it up with Renmin University Professor of Criminal Law Gao Mingshuan who’s study includes US legal system (article cite in comment 85, BTW how many criminal law PhDs do you have? How many books did you write on US constitution? Prof. Gao has one of each.)”

    Custer:”And I’m sure they’re both very shiny. Like I said though, I’d love to hear the opinion of someone who’s actually practiced that kind of law in the US. Or, someone who has significant on the ground experience with freedom of speech issues in both countries so they could do a proper comparison. It would have to be someone respected on both sides….someone who’s held high positions in legal academia in the US and China, at well-respected institutions. ”

    As already said, for Custer….”wrong” seems to be the hardest word….He will NEVER admit he’s wrong, and he has finally been proven such, he’s to full of himself to do so…He will (and has) find and use every excuses possible (even contradicting himself) to try and save his “face”

  102. August 20th, 2011 at 10:56 | #102

    “And I’m sure they’re both very shiny. Like I said though, I’d love to hear the opinion of someone who’s actually practiced that kind of law in the US. Or, someone who has significant on the ground experience with freedom of speech issues in both countries so they could do a proper comparison. It would have to be someone respected on both sides….someone who’s held high positions in legal academia in the US and China, at well-respected institutions.”

    Custer sure knows how to set a “high standard” for SOMEONE else, but not so much for himself.

  103. August 20th, 2011 at 11:01 | #103

    @C. Custer #99

    About the Univ Declar of Human Rights. It is a piece written in the advent of WWII and colonialism and should be understood as such. 500 – maybe just 100 – years from now, it would probably seem antiquated. It’s like us reading old Greek philosophers. What they write is not per se irrelevant, but it’s just outdated.

    The human condition and journey can never be set in a document, much less a document told from the narrative of one particular tradition.

    In any case, even in such a document, written in a form reminiscent of commandments, there are many interpretations. I am not trying to weasel out of things, but anyone who professes the documents to mean a certain thing of doing things doesn’t understand the document.

    Go down each of these and ask, is any of these an absolute right? When might you think an exception is justified? What is the nature of the exception? As you dig deeper and deeper, you will see that the rights cannot be abosolute. It depends on culture, tradition, norms…

    The delcaration focuses on the individuals – because in the avent of Nazi Germany and WWII – the narrative is of an over-bearing state pushing individuals to do inhumane things (I happen to strongly disagree with that narrative). But even in this rush to promote the individual, the last 2 declarations set clear boundaries.

    Article 29.

    (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
    (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
    (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

    Article 30.

    Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

    The West may want to seek peace and justice through focusing on freedom (at least in terms of rhetoric). That is fine. It is not fine when it becomes blind to the infinite needs of humanity and believes it is the only way (that makes the West look so “Aryan”). The Chinese seeks peace and justice through seeking of empowerment. The Chinese – through its own culture, tradition, and history – understands that the individual is nothing without a just and prosperous society. (Despite our individuality, we are so much more a product of the society in which we belong than we care to admit.) The focus to improving people’s lot must be on building a just and prosperous society, and allow individual freedom to flow from the empowerment that a just and prosperous society provides. Don’t give a pauper fish, teach him to fish. Those two last declarations reflects that thinking.

    Of course, there are many other interpretations. But merely pointing to a declaration – which I don’t really think either timeless nor “universal” – in response to RV’s question I think shows nothing.

  104. August 20th, 2011 at 11:07 | #104

    @Allen

    Exactly, one can easily quote the 10 Commandments and say, “thou shall not kill”, thus God forbids death Penalty and Wars.

    But most Christians and Jews might not agree with that interpretation.

    People who set such “high standards” are simply not living in reality.

  105. Wahaha
    August 21st, 2011 at 16:42 | #105

    “And I’m sure they’re both very shiny. Like I said though, I’d love to hear the opinion of someone who’s actually practiced that kind of law in the US. Or, someone who has significant on the ground experience with freedom of speech issues in both countries so they could do a proper comparison. It would have to be someone respected on both sides….someone who’s held high positions in legal academia in the US and China, at well-respected institutions.”

    **************************************************

    I dont see Westerners have much freedom if they dare to say something that their media doesnt like.

    Dont say you have freedom of speech unless you are free to say something that those who control the information dont like. (in US and west, it is not government that controls what people will know and think.)

    Ask yourself 3 questions :

    1) Did you ever question the information provided by your media and journalists? (especially if they provide the whole picture, not just the part they like.)

    2) Did you ever say anything that your media and journalists dont like ?

    3) Most west democratic countries are deep in debt, even after 20 years of economic development, did you ever ask you why ?

    If your answers to all 3 of them are “no”, you are brainwashed, by your media and journalists.

    Lastly, besides 100% socialism (communism) and 100% capitalism, have you ever thought of some system in between ? ( None, not a single one of the westerners I have talked to, had ever thought of that.)

  106. Wahaha
    August 21st, 2011 at 17:01 | #106

    UDHR as interpreted by which country? Your fantasy land again?

    And BTW, UDHR is NON-Binding, much like campaign promises.

    ************************************************

    Human right should consist of two parts :

    1) Financial part, that anyone who are willing to enjoy a decent life by hard-working, deserves a job that can provide him a decent living.

    2) Personal right should be respected, as long as it doesnt conflict the welfare and interest of other people. (the 2nd half was usually ignored by human right fundementalists.)

    And in real world, they often conflict with each other. If this is too hard for you to understand, just try to find explanation that why the unemployment rate stubbornly stay high in US after Obama injected trillions of dollars.

    As such, so if MLK had accepted money from Soviet Unions, no americans would mind if he had been suppressed or even thrown to jail.

    So, you cant convince Chinese that what Chinese government did to LXB is wrong unless you can convince what he did is good for China and Chinese people.

    One advice for you : try convince chinese by explaining facts, not pointing fingers.

  107. Charles Liu
    August 22nd, 2011 at 10:40 | #107

    @Al

    Thank you Al. If custer wants to denigrade Prof. Gao, he’s gonna have to come up with the goods, instead of some generic insult like “I’m sure they’re both very shiny”.

    Have you notice when it’s China, he sets really high bar like “respected on both sides”, while such bar doesn’t apply to any of the US criticism of China? He just eats up the propaganda without objecting it on the same basis he’s objecting now.

    That is hypocrisy.

  108. August 22nd, 2011 at 19:39 | #108

    Al :
    Charles Liu: “It’s not my article, take it up with Renmin University Professor of Criminal Law Gao Mingshuan who’s study includes US legal system (article cite in comment 85, BTW how many criminal law PhDs do you have? How many books did you write on US constitution? Prof. Gao has one of each.)”
    Custer:”And I’m sure they’re both very shiny. Like I said though, I’d love to hear the opinion of someone who’s actually practiced that kind of law in the US. Or, someone who has significant on the ground experience with freedom of speech issues in both countries so they could do a proper comparison. It would have to be someone respected on both sides….someone who’s held high positions in legal academia in the US and China, at well-respected institutions. ”
    As already said, for Custer….”wrong” seems to be the hardest word….He will NEVER admit he’s wrong, and he has finally been proven such, he’s to full of himself to do so…He will (and has) find and use every excuses possible (even contradicting himself) to try and save his “face”

    Actually, I have admitted that I’m wrong, repeatedly on this forum as well as in other places. And I couldn’t give less of a fuck about face. However, in this instance, no one has proved me wrong. You’ve cited one article, by one lawyer, as quoted in a Xinhua piece. My point is that it would be equally easy for me to quote a Chinese lawyer — someone like Teng Biao, say — who has more knowledge of US law (at least firsthand, one assumes) and would say the exact opposite of what Gao said.

    Neither I nor you has “proved” anything. Well — you have proved that one Chinese lawyer agrees with you. But that doesn’t prove anything else.

    Have you notice when it’s China, he sets really high bar like “respected on both sides”, while such bar doesn’t apply to any of the US criticism of China? He just eats up the propaganda without objecting it on the same basis he’s objecting now.

    I was just making a point, dude. That said:

    I don’t? Are you sure? Because most of the Western sources I quote are respected in China (at least by many), if not always liked or agreed with. And most of the sources I quote criticizing China on my blog are Chinese sources who are essentially totally unknown in the West (and sometimes mostly unknown in China too)And as for my own arguments, offended as you may be by them, I would say that at least to the degree that they are known my arguments about China are respected by many from both countries.

  109. Charles Liu
    August 22nd, 2011 at 20:07 | #109

    Prove it:

    “has more knowledge of US law” – your even admit you are assuming. Cite something to the effect
    “would say the exactely opposit” – Would or would not entirely depends your citation. Cite SOMETHING.

    Why don’t everybody just pull shit out their asses, if that’s the fucking rule?

  110. Charles Liu
    August 22nd, 2011 at 20:34 | #110

    But here’s Prof. Gao’s bio:

    http://www.liuzl.com/msfc.htm

    – digested, edited, authored and translated over 70 legal profession works
    还撰著、主编、合著(译)有法律专业书籍70余部

    – visited and lectured in US, England, Italy, Australia, Japan, France, Hongkong
    先后赴美国、英国、意大利、奥地利、日本、法国、香港等国家和地区访问、讲学

    – was on Cambridge’s Most Influential People in the World
    曾被收入英国剑桥世界名人录

  111. August 23rd, 2011 at 06:05 | #111

    Charles Liu :
    Prove it:
    “has more knowledge of US law” – your even admit you are assuming. Cite something to the effect
    “would say the exactely opposit” – Would or would not entirely depends your citation. Cite SOMETHING.
    Why don’t everybody just pull shit out their asses, if that’s the fucking rule?

    In due time. I’ve been away over the weekend getting married. Apologies that this argument didn’t take precedence over that, but you may just have to wait a while. Kinda busy with real life things at the moment, and don’t have the energy to go digging too far.

    That said, assuming the bio of Gao you’e citing is accurate, I certainly was being unfair when I said “and I’m sure they’re very shiny.” However, I do wonder why a legal scholar of such apparent accomplishment wouldn’t have a page dedicated to him on Baidu’s Baike service…so I must admit I’m a wee bit skeptical.

    It’s perhaps worth noting that I maintain a healthy skepticism about all academics who come out of the Chinese PhD system since the majority of them cheat and bribe their way into some of their accomplishments http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s03-woap.html

    A recent Ministry of Science study of 180 PhD candidates in China found that 60 percent admitted plagiarizing, and the same percentage admitted paying bribes to get their work published.

    “The actual situation might be worse than that, particularly in the area of social sciences,” says Fang Zhouzi, a biochemist who splits his time between California and Beijing, and runs a website that has detailed more than 500 cases of serious academic fraud in China.

    Not saying any of this necessarily applies to Gao. Anyway, NONE of this has to do with my original point, which was that I’d love to see what someone who has practiced law in the US says.

    I remember when a month or two ago I cited Jerome Cohen, a Western scholar of Chinese law with years of in-country legal practice and accomplishments that surpass Gao’s, and yet everyone on this website suggested it was ridiculous for me to believe the word of someone who wasn’t Chinese when it came to Chinese law. But I’m supposed to trust Gao is an expert on the US just because he’s “been to and/or lectured in” the US — somewhere — at some point?

  112. raventhorn2000
    August 23rd, 2011 at 06:14 | #112

    “My point is that it would be equally easy for me to quote a Chinese lawyer – someone like Teng Biao, say — who has more knowledge of US law (at least firsthand, one assumes) and would say the exact opposite of what Gao said.”

    Why would you “assume” that Teng Biao has “at least firsthand knowledge of US law”??! What does that even mean?

    Teng Biao, as I understand it, was not educated in US law, never practiced a single day of US law.

    (For the record of comparison, I have a JD in US, I am barred in Virginia, and I have at least attended law classes in Chinese and HK laws, international comparative legal courses, in HK University Law School).

    Heaven knows where do you come up with your “assumptions”!

  113. raventhorn2000
    August 23rd, 2011 at 06:19 | #113

    “I remember when a month or two ago I cited Jerome Cohen, a Western scholar of Chinese law with years of in-country legal practice and accomplishments that surpass Gao’s, and yet everyone on this website suggested it was ridiculous for me to believe the word of someone who wasn’t Chinese when it came to Chinese law.”

    That’s your assumption again. No one suggested that it was “ridiculous to believe” Cohen, just because he’s not Chinese.

    Cohen’s credibility was destroyed by his own apparent lack of knowledge of Chinese laws, when he said ridiculous things like Ai’s detention was “illegal even under Chinese laws”. It was obvious from such broad generalizations that he didn’t know what he was talking about.

  114. August 23rd, 2011 at 08:14 | #114

    And as I recall, P.C. Chang was the chief author of UDHR, and he ingrained much of Confucian ideologies into the principles of UDHR.

    And as I pointed out before, if one must interpret UDHR (according to the intent of the original framers), one should take a rather Confucian Chinese point of view.

    Chang certainly never intended any of UDHR to define absolute rights, but rather as balance of rights between individuals and societies.

    “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

    These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

  115. Charles Liu
    August 23rd, 2011 at 09:35 | #115

    @C. Custer

    Custer, just give it up and go get married. Here you go again, trying smear Prof. Gao with shit you pulled out of your ass. CSM is intensely anti-China and not respected among Chinese at all. The blog cited current PhD candidates, when did Prof. Gao get his PhD?

    Stop your shit.

  116. Charles Liu
    August 23rd, 2011 at 10:37 | #116

    And here’s the Chinese government’s position stated by its embassy, where the link between Liu’s conviction and the NED is explicitely made:

    http://no.china-embassy.org/eng/zyxw/t773901.htm

    Since the mid 1990s, Liu Xiaobo begun working for the Democratic China, a firm financed by the National Endowment for Democracy in the U.S., and was paid regularly. Liu’s annual salary, according to Aboluowang.com, an overseas news website, was over US$23,004. Even when he is in prison, his payment and other financial support in the form of “human rights prize” and “democracy contributor prize” have never stopped. “I’m not like you, I don’t lack money. Foreigners pay me every year even when I’m in prison,” said Liu to his fellow prisoners.

    Liu Xiaobo has spared no effort in working for Western anti-China forces since 2005, and drew up the so-called Charter 08 in 2008. The charter denies the socialist system, the leadership of the Communist Party and the current State power stipulated in the Chinese Constitution. The charter attempts to push forward the Western political system in China under the pretense of constitutional amendment and preaches the thought of “violent revolution” and “regime change”. The charter entices people to join it, with the intent to alter the political system and overturn the Government. To carry out such a charter will not only make China a vassal of the West, but also destroy the progress of Chinese society and the welfare of Chinese people. Liu’s actions have severe social peril. In December 2008, Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison for the crime of agitation aimed at subverting the Government.

    And the specific law on constitutional change Liu violated, not in his words but his deeds, was cited above.

  117. Charles Liu
    August 23rd, 2011 at 11:21 | #117

    Custer, here’s the 411 on your beloved Jerome Cohen you cited – he’s got multiple hands in NED’s pot-o-money:

    “Jerome Cohen, who is a senior fellow for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and serves on Human Rights Watch Asia Advisory Committee. He is an emeriti trustee of the Asia Society, and formerly served as vice chairman of the advisory council for the Johns Hopkins-Nanjing University Joint Center in China (the current honorary chair of the Center’s advisory board is President George H.W. Bush). Cohen presently acts as a trustee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, (6) and as a director of the National Committee on United States-China Relations.”

    Do you mind citing someone not on the take from NED, to defend NED? He clearly has a conflict of interest on this matter.

  118. August 23rd, 2011 at 19:41 | #118

    Charles Liu :
    @C. Custer
    Custer, just give it up and go get married. Here you go again, trying smear Prof. Gao with shit you pulled out of your ass. CSM is intensely anti-China and not respected among Chinese at all. The blog cited current PhD candidates, when did Prof. Gao get his PhD?
    Stop your shit.

    The CSM article is citing a study by a Chinese institution. It’s not like they made it up. Do you really need me to go find a different link because you dislike CSM? Jesus.

    And yes, it cited current PhD candidates…you think this was LESS of a problem 15 or 20 years ago?

  119. August 23rd, 2011 at 19:42 | #119

    Charles Liu :
    Custer, here’s the 411 on your beloved Jerome Cohen you cited – he’s got multiple hands in NED’s pot-o-money:
    “Jerome Cohen, who is a senior fellow for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and serves on Human Rights Watch Asia Advisory Committee. He is an emeriti trustee of the Asia Society, and formerly served as vice chairman of the advisory council for the Johns Hopkins-Nanjing University Joint Center in China (the current honorary chair of the Center’s advisory board is President George H.W. Bush). Cohen presently acts as a trustee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, (6) and as a director of the National Committee on United States-China Relations.”
    Do you mind citing someone not on the take from NED, to defend NED? He clearly has a conflict of interest on this matter.

    Congratulations, you have completely missed the reason I was talking about Cohen. Please reread my original comment again until it sinks in.

  120. August 23rd, 2011 at 19:56 | #120

    Charles Liu :
    And here’s the Chinese government’s position stated by its embassy, where the link between Liu’s conviction and the NED is explicitely made:
    http://no.china-embassy.org/eng/zyxw/t773901.htm
    Since the mid 1990s, Liu Xiaobo begun working for the Democratic China, a firm financed by the National Endowment for Democracy in the U.S., and was paid regularly. Liu’s annual salary, according to Aboluowang.com, an overseas news website, was over US$23,004. Even when he is in prison, his payment and other financial support in the form of “human rights prize” and “democracy contributor prize” have never stopped. “I’m not like you, I don’t lack money. Foreigners pay me every year even when I’m in prison,” said Liu to his fellow prisoners.
    Liu Xiaobo has spared no effort in working for Western anti-China forces since 2005, and drew up the so-called Charter 08 in 2008. The charter denies the socialist system, the leadership of the Communist Party and the current State power stipulated in the Chinese Constitution. The charter attempts to push forward the Western political system in China under the pretense of constitutional amendment and preaches the thought of “violent revolution” and “regime change”. The charter entices people to join it, with the intent to alter the political system and overturn the Government. To carry out such a charter will not only make China a vassal of the West, but also destroy the progress of Chinese society and the welfare of Chinese people. Liu’s actions have severe social peril. In December 2008, Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison for the crime of agitation aimed at subverting the Government.
    And the specific law on constitutional change Liu violated, not in his words but his deeds, was cited above.

    Are you kidding me? That’s propaganda gibberish. For example:

    The charter attempts to push forward the Western political system in China under the pretense of constitutional amendment and preaches the thought of “violent revolution” and “regime change”

    This is absolute horseshit, immediately recognizable as a lie to anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at Charter 08. The term “violent revolution” does not appear anywhere in the text. In fact, the word “violent” doesn’t appear at all. “Revolution” appears only once, in a reference to the Xinhai revolution, mentioned in the preface as a historical reference.

    What you’re quoting is propaganda spin designed to downplay Liu’s fame in light of the Nobel incident. It has no connection to his trial or conviction. (Note, for example, that when talking about his payments from overseas, it sites an “overseas website” rather than any kind of official evidence presented in the trial.)

    I also loved this part:

    “I’m not like you, I don’t lack money. Foreigners pay me every year even when I’m in prison,” said Liu to his fellow prisoners.

    Yes, I’m sure he really said that. If Liu wins a few more prizes, I imagine we’ll start seeing “quotes” from him about how he likes to kick puppies and murder cute babies in their sleep. Nothing quite as easy as quoting a guy who no one can access for the next ten years to confirm the quote, eh?

  121. Wahaha
    August 24th, 2011 at 04:37 | #121

    the thought of “violent revolution” ….
    ***********************************************
    This is absolute horseshit,
    ***************************************************

    How is that horsehshit ? All the facts point to that direction.

    I wont deny that it is for the “wellbeing” of CCP, but it is what makes chinese people worry about what the so-called “universal” values would bring to China.

    As the host of China geek, you should ve known that, or you know but you dont give a damn of what Chinese think ?

  122. raventhorn2000
    August 24th, 2011 at 05:32 | #122

    we see the powerless in our society – the vulnerable groups, the people who have been suppressed and monitored, who have suffered cruelty and even torture, and who have had no adequate avenues for their protests, no courts to hear their pleas – becoming more militant and raising the possibility of a violent conflict of disastrous proportions. The decline of the current system has reached the point where change is no longer optional.”

    No call for violence?

    I like to see someone in UK post that on FACEBOOK as a petition or event, and see what happens with the UK police.

  123. raventhorn2000
    August 24th, 2011 at 05:43 | #123

    And I note Dalai Lama has voiced his support for the Charter 08. Of course, we know how DL’s “non-violence” worked out.

    It’s strangely ironic that people such as DL (and Liu) conjure up images of violent revolutions (and uprisings) in their speech while professing for “non-violence”.

    Orwell would call that Newspeak.

    “1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
    2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.” – Animal Farm

    Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more.

  124. raventhorn2000
    August 24th, 2011 at 06:14 | #124

    Of course, speech is always interpreted in the “context” of the time and the audience.

    When DL says “uprising”, his followers know from their own history that he does NOT mean “peace”, no matter how many times DL says “peace” after “uprising”.

    When Liu conjures up a introduction filled with violent revolutions, and then he says “change”, he does not mean peaceful change, especially when he does not say “peaceful change” any where in the Charter 08.

    Literally, one cannot be reasonably convinced of logic of imagery for oxymoronic proses such as “barn fire for peace” or “Sword of tolerance”.

  125. Charles Liu
    August 24th, 2011 at 10:38 | #125

    Exactely Raven and Wahaha. Custer pretty much blinded himself to the context fo the time, that in 2008 there was this greate convergence of anti-China forces due to the Olympics.

    BTW, many of the claims made by the Chinese embassy I cited in comment 116 can be verfied. For example Chinese netters have posted Form 990 (non-profit disclosure form) that shows Liu Xiaobo was continuing to receive salary from ICPC, at the direction of it’s patron, the NED.

  126. raventhorn2000
    August 24th, 2011 at 10:58 | #126

    Speaking of Plagiarism, (for comparison to US colleges and universities):

    http://urwebsrv.rutgers.edu/medrel/viewArticle.html?ArticleID=3408

    http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2010/07/_dr_scott_segal.html

    22% of the participating undergraduates acknowledged one or more incidents of serious test cheating in the past year.

    Students majoring in business once again self-reported among the highest levels of cheating with 63% of the business students who responded acknowledging one or more instances of serious cheating in the past year.

    (That explains Enron and the Housing Subprime bubble).

    High levels of serious cheating were also reported by education students (60%) and students majoring in communications and journalism (59%).

    (That explains the bad primary education system in US, cheaters teaching the next generation! And explains the Western Media, doesn’t it??!!)

    The lowest levels of serious cheating were reported by students majoring in science (51%).

    1 in 20 Medical residency application essays submitted to the Harvard teaching hospital contained evidence of plagiarism.

    (HARVARD!!!! There goes Custer’s IVY LEAGUE DEGREE reputation.)

  127. Charles Liu
    August 24th, 2011 at 14:22 | #127

    @raventhorn2000

    Well, Raven, to be consisten I’ll have to disagree with you. If today’s decline in state of higher education in China shouldn’t impact Prof. Gao’s credential completed decades ago, then today’s decline in state of highter education in US shouldn’t impact Custer either.

    But what he writes here DOES discredit him.

  128. raventhorn2000
    August 24th, 2011 at 14:49 | #128

    Charles,

    Well, we don’t want to be too specific about his IVY LEAGUE education, do we? It’s not like he really cares more than the superficial reputation of it any ways.

    🙂

  129. August 24th, 2011 at 21:09 | #129

    Wahaha :
    the thought of “violent revolution” ….
    ***********************************************
    This is absolute horseshit,
    ***************************************************
    How is that horsehshit ? All the facts point to that direction.
    I wont deny that it is for the “wellbeing” of CCP, but it is what makes chinese people worry about what the so-called “universal” values would bring to China.
    As the host of China geek, you should ve known that, or you know but you dont give a damn of what Chinese think ?

    What I meant was it is horseshit that Charter 08 advocates violent revolution. Putting it in quotes makes it sound like the Charter even uses those words, which isn’t true, but even figuratively, there is NO advocacy of violence in the charter anywhere.

  130. August 24th, 2011 at 21:11 | #130

    Charles Liu :
    Exactely Raven and Wahaha. Custer pretty much blinded himself to the context fo the time, that in 2008 there was this greate convergence of anti-China forces due to the Olympics.
    BTW, many of the claims made by the Chinese embassy I cited in comment 116 can be verfied. For example Chinese netters have posted Form 990 (non-profit disclosure form) that shows Liu Xiaobo was continuing to receive salary from ICPC, at the direction of it’s patron, the NED.

    So it’s OK for Liu to be prosecuted based on something he didn’t actually say, but which YOU think was implied somehow because of the context of the time when he published it? That is some pretty strong crazy juice you’re drinking, bud…

  131. August 24th, 2011 at 21:18 | #131

    raventhorn2000 :
    Charles,
    Well, we don’t want to be too specific about his IVY LEAGUE education, do we? It’s not like he really cares more than the superficial reputation of it any ways.

    Kindly shut the fuck up about aspects of my private life you know nothing about. I was only ever that specific because idiots — you, specifically — were questioning my academic background. There is no reason I’m obligated to share any more, or even that with you.

    And honestly, how fucking cowardly do you have to be to be making cracks about someone else’s life while hiding behind a fake username, taking no responsibility whatsoever for the things you say? I’ve said many negative things about Charles Liu’s opinions, but at least the man has the balls to put his own name on them.

    Seriously, you are a pathetic joke, and your continued focus on my personal life and background may not embarrass you, but it fucking should.

  132. Al
    August 24th, 2011 at 22:00 | #132

    First of all, use a good dose of soap to wash that foul mouth of yours. Kids need to be disciplined from time to time (it’s not the first time u use this kind of foul language to attack others here – remember a 弱智 and many others “names” used by u around here ).
    Second, do not even start with this idiotic and childish story of “have the balls to pur the real name here” (it may work in the kinda of “pub brawls” u are accustomed to, not in an adult forum) and similar crap, cause nobody is needed to put real names here, is a simple matter of choice, and there’s no particular “courage” or lack of it attached to it (control ur own teenager hubris, would u?).
    third, it’s not ur personal life that is being attacked here, but what u write here (or, better, the level of intelligence of what u write here). It has been u who put on the “field” ur Ivy League education, it was ur choice to do so, so u should be adult enough to bear the consequences of it. Frankly speaking, ur analytic capabilities and the level of intelligence of u write here doesn’t really live up to what one could expect from an Ivy League laureate, so try to bear it, and make up for it, would u?

    Grow up, and stop being so violently arrogant.

  133. Charles Liu
    August 24th, 2011 at 22:37 | #133

    @C. Custer

    Context of the time around Beijing Olympics where there is in fact a convergence of anti-China forces does matter, read your own citation of Hess v. Indiana.

    The Chinese government is very clear it’s not just his words, but also his deeds (accepting foreign remittance, collaborating with overseas anti-China forces, fomenting internal dissent contravening established legal authority for constitutional amendment.)

    All these are in my citations (court verdict, Prof. Gao’s scholarly opinion, Chinese embassy’s official statement), you are just too ideologically blind to see it.

    As a patriotic American I would never allow the Chinese to pay someone advocate to the detriment of the United States’ sovereignty. Therefor I can not in good conscience allow my tax dollar to be used against other country’s sovereignty.

    “do to others what you would have them do to you”
    – Matthew 7:12

    Your foul language is no longer amusing, consider yourself shunned.

  134. August 24th, 2011 at 22:55 | #134

    Al :
    First of all, use a good dose of soap to wash that foul mouth of yours. Kids need to be disciplined from time to time (it’s not the first time u use this kind of foul language to attack others here – remember a 弱智 and many others “names” used by u around here ).
    Second, do not even start with this idiotic and childish story of “have the balls to pur the real name here” (it may work in the kinda of “pub brawls” u are accustomed to, not in an adult forum) and similar crap, cause nobody is needed to put real names here, is a simple matter of choice, and there’s no particular “courage” or lack of it attached to it (control ur own teenager hubris, would u?).
    third, it’s not ur personal life that is being attacked here, but what u write here (or, better, the level of intelligence of what u write here). It has been u who put on the “field” ur Ivy League education, it was ur choice to do so, so u should be adult enough to bear the consequences of it. Frankly speaking, ur analytic capabilities and the level of intelligence of u write here doesn’t really live up to what one could expect from an Ivy League laureate, so try to bear it, and make up for it, would u?
    Grow up, and stop being so violently arrogant.

    I will not be lectured by someone who can’t be bothered to spell the word “you” properly. If you can’t even construct a proper sentence, I can hardly be expected to care what you think about my analytical abilities.

    It is certainly cowardly to hide behind a fake name while attacking someone else’s background. And as I sad, the only reason I ever mentioned what school I went to was because Raven was already making ignorant cracks about my academic background.

    As far as being arrogant, your post is just as or more arrogant than mine. And I’m not being “violent”. I did use curse words to make what I wrote more emphatic in the hopes that some small part of it might actually penetrate raven’s skull. As we’re all grown-ups, we can presumably all handle seeing the F-word every now and then. Personally, I’m a fan of using whatever language a situation best calls for, and in dealing with Raven — which I try not to do — I think the emphatic qualities of curse words do serve some purpose.

    Certainly, I have attacked others. But your insistence, as a group, for turning a blind eye to the pathetic attempts at character assassination that Raven and his ilk attempt on a daily basis, leaves me little other choice. If I take the high road, you ignore my arguments and write pedantic crap about how my analytic abilities are inferior and how you’ve already won. And none of you here EVER call each other out for your hypocrisy and bullshit. So what choice do I really have but to hop down and start slinging mud with raven from time to time?

    If you want a higher standard of debate, then you need to enforce one by stopping ALL references to people’s personal lives and backgrounds, promoting constructive discussion, and calling each other out for violations, not just the people you disagree with.

    I’d be happy to climb out of the mud, but if no one else is going to, what’s the point?

  135. August 24th, 2011 at 23:05 | #135

    Charles Liu :
    @C. Custer
    Context of the time around Beijing Olympics where there is in fact a convergence of anti-China forces does matter, read your own citation of Hess v. Indiana.

    Charter 08 was published nearly five months after the Olympics ended. The ridiculousness of “anti-China forces” aside, that’s simply not the context it was published in. I was living in China then too, and I can tell you that by December, no one was talking about the Olympics.

    The Chinese government is very clear it’s not just his words, but also his deeds (accepting foreign remittance, collaborating with overseas anti-China forces, fomenting internal dissent contravening established legal authority for constitutional amendment.)
    All these are in my citations (court verdict, Prof. Gao’s scholarly opinion, Chinese embassy’s official statement), you are just too ideologically blind to see it.

    I’m not too blind to see that that stuff is in their writings, no. My point is that most of that is a bunch of made-up bullshit that there’s absolutely no evidence for. Certainly, Liu accepted money from foreign government-connected sources. And he did write a document critical of the Chinese government and proposing sweeping reforms. He did solicit signatures for this document. But “collaborating with overseas anti-China forces”? ” fomenting internal dissent”? “contravening established legal authority for constitutional amendment?” Nah. That might be in what the government wrote about him after the fact, but I’ve never seen evidence of that as stuff he actually did.

    As a patriotic American I would never allow the Chinese to pay someone advocate to the detriment of the United States’ sovereignty. Therefor I can not in good conscience allow my tax dollar to be used against other country’s sovereignty.

    Good for you. But since Liu did not advocate subverting China’s sovereignty as a nation-state, I’m not sure why you’re mentioning it here. Even if China’s government followed all the dramatic reforms prescribed by Liu to the letter, China would remain a sovereign nation governed by Chinese nationals, and no foreign government would have any more control over it than they do at the moment. But of course that’s irrelevant, as Liu’s document was (a) essentially just meant as advice and (b) had no chance in hell of ever being enacted anyway.

    “do to others what you would have them do to you”
    – Matthew 7:12
    Your foul language is no longer amusing, consider yourself shunned.

    Honestly, I wish you guys would just block me. This site has begun to take up more of my time than I really have to offer, but damned if arguing with you guys isn’t kind of addictive…

    (Also, I love how everyone here is pretending to be scandalized by hearing a few F-bombs. Don’t you guys all live in the US? Isn’t it 2011 now? ….I guess you guys don’t watch much HBO, huh?)

  136. Al
    August 24th, 2011 at 23:14 | #136

    ”I will not be lectured by someone who can’t be bothered to spell the word “you” properly. If you can’t even construct a proper sentence, I can hardly be expected to care what you think about my analytical abilities.“

    11 yo? Is it? No, probably even less than that, I’ve know 11 yo kids smarter, and less childish than YOU are.

    YOU really must be at a loss for words, if YOU start using this kind of idiotic attacks, aren’t YOU?
    As I said, time to grow up..enjoy YOUrself

    😀 😀

  137. August 24th, 2011 at 23:46 | #137

    Al :
    ”I will not be lectured by someone who can’t be bothered to spell the word “you” properly. If you can’t even construct a proper sentence, I can hardly be expected to care what you think about my analytical abilities.“
    11 yo? Is it? No, probably even less than that, I’ve know 11 yo kids smarter, and less childish than YOU are.
    YOU really must be at a loss for words, if YOU start using this kind of idiotic attacks, aren’t YOU?
    As I said, time to grow up..enjoy YOUrself

    Is this going to be the second thread in a row where you ignore 90% of what I say, declare victory for yourself, and then run away? It’s a tried-and-true tactic. I’d recommend it.

  138. Al
    August 25th, 2011 at 00:36 | #138

    U see Custer u assume about people living place as u assume many other things, ending up with the all the wrong conclusions, even in this u are kinda prejudiced.

    Actually, speaking for myself, not only I don’t live in US (I live in China), but I am not even american…

    try not to assume too much, and try not to use silly excuses for ur foul mouth and rude way of talking.
    If many people around us use them, it doesn’t automatically mean we have to use them too, or like them (especially when used towards us).

  139. August 25th, 2011 at 00:49 | #139

    @Al
    我佩服你的英文. 跟老外说废话还更加要难! 😉

  140. Al
    August 25th, 2011 at 01:39 | #140

    YinYang非常感谢你的夸奖,其实我也不是中国人,我就是个居住在中国的欧洲人.
    你说得真对,不过我觉得,无论如何英文是不是母语,语言的事儿不成问题,不算难。。。真正困难的而是跟自傲,老觉得自己特别聪明,自己说得对,粗鲁而且有偏见的人努力讲道理。。。。那就算难 ;)

  141. August 25th, 2011 at 02:01 | #141

    @C. Custer

    I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: There really isn’t much point debating issues like Charter 08, or indeed any other issue where your opinion is contrary to CCP policy on this forum. This includes, for example, debating whether the use of the phrase “goose-step” to describe the PLA’s parade-step is biased (even where Xinhua etc. use this phrase and there is no other phrase to describe it in the English language), and, most definitely, whether Liu Xiaobo was a “foreign agent” (something he was never charged with, or convicted of being).

    The most productive issues to discuss on this forum are usually:

    1) A point of fact where PRC government-origin statistics supports your point.

    2) Where you essentially agree with PRC government policy.

    Losing your temper is no way of winning arguments, my advice is to chill on arguing where whatever the virtue of your position, it will not be accepted.

  142. August 25th, 2011 at 02:03 | #142

    Al :
    U see Custer u assume about people living place as u assume many other things, ending up with the all the wrong conclusions, even in this u are kinda prejudiced.

    That whole part of my comment was just a joke. Sorry, I forgot I had to label jokes here or people take them seriously :).

    Actually, speaking for myself, not only I don’t live in US (I live in China), but I am not even american…
    try not to assume too much, and try not to use silly excuses for ur foul mouth and rude way of talking.
    If many people around us use them, it doesn’t automatically mean we have to use them too, or like them (especially when used towards us).

    I agree, you certainly don’t have to like them, and everyone’s free to speak how they like. But (1) I don’t think my “excuse” was “silly” and (2) I don’t recall directing any curse words at you anyway.

    Also, I notice that you continue to avoid the main thrust of my comment completely. Want to give it another shot? Third time’s the charm….

    真正困难的而是跟自傲,老觉得自己特别聪明,自己说得对,粗鲁而且有偏见的人努力讲道理

    你不会是说你自己吧….Takes one to know one, n’est-ce pas? 😉

  143. August 25th, 2011 at 02:06 | #143

    FOARP :
    @C. Custer
    I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. There really isn’t much point debating issues like Charter 08, or indeed any other issue where your opinion is contrary to CCP policy on this forum. This includes, for example, debating whether the use of the phrase “goose-step” to describe the PLA’s parade-step is biased (even where Xinhua etc. use this phrase and there is no other phrase to describe it in the English language), and, most definitely, whether Liu Xiaobo was a “foreign agent” (something he was never charged with, or convicted of being).
    The most productive issues to discuss on this forum are usually:
    1) A point of fact where PRC government-origin statistics supports your point.
    2) Where the you essentially agree with PRC government policy.

    I know. I’m totally serious about wishing they would ban me. These arguments are like eating fried twinkies…totally counter-productive, yet difficult to resist when they’re right there in front of you.

  144. Al
    August 25th, 2011 at 02:18 | #144

    FOARP, u will admit that using the worn-out, old, sad and void accusation of “following CCP policies” (really don’t even see the reason here) for people that are not even chinese is rather “pointless” (as well as an easy way to “dodge” the questions)
    Come on let’s make some progress, would u?
    As for Liu Xiaobo, the sentence is there for all to read, and it’s pretty clear….unless u don’t want to be accused “following the usual western propaganda and blind prejudice”…..

  145. August 25th, 2011 at 02:37 | #145

    @C. Custer

    Yeah, I know, that’s why I used to love Fool’s Mountain, which was great because it set both sides on a relatively even playing field – at least at the start. Uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan even has a word for the weird thrill one gets when once reads opinions of the kind one sees around here – he calls it “Hathos” .

    Unfortunately HH is not FM, or at least not the even-playing field that FM was originally intended to be. As an example, discussing the subject of whether the authors of FM (which included Allen, Raventhorn, yinyang and others) could have been responsible for FM being blocked was, in the context of a discussion about how “easy” it is to obey PRC “laws” governing what can and can’t be blocked in the PRC, found to be a personal attack on the authors of this blog. Strangely enough, Raventhorn’s criticism of your background is not considered to be a personal attack under this standard.

  146. August 25th, 2011 at 02:56 | #146

    @Al

    People here heard quite enough of what I thought about the verdict in Liu Xiaobo’s trial on this thread:

    http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2010/10/the-2010-nobel-peace-prize-to-liu-xiaobo-and-what-it-means-to-the-chinese/

    However, I see that you have already read it, and can see that I did read the judgement from my comments, even if Raventhorn does not like my assertion that the abscence of charges under Articles 106 and 107 (i.e., the articles related to foreign collusion in subversion) means that no charges were brought for foreign collusion – do you really want me to re-capitulate what I’ve already said?

    I would like to remind you that not being Chinese (or even having ever lived there long term) yet being an out-and-out supporter of CCP policy, does not make you particularly special on this forum. In fact, if you were a PRC citizen, living long-term in the PRC, yet a staunch supporter of the CCP, this would distinguish you from the majority of contributors to HH, who are, in the main, either US citizens, or living in the US on a permanent basis.

    However, I guess I should also say that, when, in the past, I point out the US residency and citizenship of the majority (entirety?) of the regular contributors to HH, this was referred to as personal attack on the authors of this blog and my comments were threatened with deletion.

  147. August 25th, 2011 at 03:24 | #147

    FOARP :
    @C. Custer
    Strangely enough, Raventhorn’s criticism of your background is not considered to be a personal attack under this standard.

    Yeah, funny how that works, isn’t it?

  148. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 05:20 | #148

    C. Custer :
    Kindly shut the fuck up about aspects of my private life you know nothing about. I was only ever that specific because idiots — you, specifically — were questioning my academic background. There is no reason I’m obligated to share any more, or even that with you.

    And honestly, how fucking cowardly do you have to be to be making cracks about someone else’s life while hiding behind a fake username, taking no responsibility whatsoever for the things you say? I’ve said many negative things about Charles Liu’s opinions, but at least the man has the balls to put his own name on them.

    Seriously, you are a pathetic joke, and your continued focus on my personal life and background may not embarrass you, but it fucking should.

    Oh, now now, can’t you take a JOKE?!! No sense of Humor, I see. You brought up your qualifications to justify your own arguments/1 line spams, No one ASKED for your DEGREES!!

  149. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 05:25 | #149

    “Strangely enough, Raventhorn’s criticism of your background is not considered to be a personal attack under this standard.”

    I didn’t criticize his “background”. I cited a US study on University/college Plagiarism (which Custer brought up the subject). If it relates to his own degree, that’s as he brought up the Chinese study of Plagiarism in discrediting someone else. It’s his logic of relevance, not mine.

  150. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 05:34 | #150

    @C. Custer

    And your continual use of curse words and 1 liners and SPAM all over this forum is a truly remarkable showcase of US education system, (to which you have given much credit for in your own explanation of your own background).

    Lord knows NO ONE here really cares if you got your habits from your “degrees” or from somewhere else.

    You speak as if we needed to use your “degree” to discredit you. Nay, your “degree” provides much IRONY to your own illogical arguments and your own behavior.

    “your continued focus on my personal life and background may not embarrass you, but it fucking should.”

    It amuses me that YOU don’t feel embarrassed by your own behaviors in view of your “background” (which you proudly brought up by yourself to justify your own lack of rational argument). Name-dropping to win an argument, what would your old professors say?!

    Yes, YOU should be embarrassed. YOU should be.

  151. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 06:23 | #151

    “even if Raventhorn does not like my assertion that the abscence of charges under Articles 106 and 107 (i.e., the articles related to foreign collusion in subversion) means that no charges were brought for foreign collusion – do you really want me to re-capitulate what I’ve already said?”

    Even if you can’t read/interpret the laws properly, you continue to make such ridiculous assertions. I have already written a comment regarding your irrational interpretation of Article 106 and 107.

    http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2010/10/the-2010-nobel-peace-prize-to-liu-xiaobo-and-what-it-means-to-the-chinese/#comment-43663

    YES, PLEASE “RE-Capitulate” your position! If you can even understand that WORD “Capitulate” (which means “to surrender”)!!!

    Boy, you have just all kinds of comprehension problems, don’t you??!

  152. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 06:35 | #152

    “However, I guess I should also say that, when, in the past, I point out the US residency and citizenship of the majority (entirety?) of the regular contributors to HH, this was referred to as personal attack on the authors of this blog and my comments were threatened with deletion.”

    You were not merely “pointing out”, you were going completely OFF TOPIC and SPAMMING the forum.

    You can (and you have) “point out” and MOVE ON, but SPAMMING the forum with the SAME irrelevant line of personal arguments is clearly abuse of the forum.

    *and I have already responded to your “point”, you also paid taxes to China when you were in China, that would make you a supporter of Chinese policies which you criticize so much!!

    (Now, we both move on, BACK to the main topic of Democracy’s Steamvalves!)

    If you have nothing relevant to say, just move on. (And if you want to “JOKE” like Custer, we can “JOKE” back).

  153. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 06:48 | #153

    “As an example, discussing the subject of whether the authors of FM (which included Allen, Raventhorn, yinyang and others) could have been responsible for FM being blocked was, in the context of a discussion about how “easy” it is to obey PRC “laws” governing what can and can’t be blocked in the PRC, found to be a personal attack on the authors of this blog.”

    It’s obviously a baseless conspiracy theory personal attack against authors, including myself.

    We can accuse you of being responsible for the same, and it would obviously lead no where.

    And I note, at least we have not accused you of being responsible for various mishaps, (for example, for 1 of our authors’ other websites being hack attacked).

  154. August 25th, 2011 at 07:15 | #154

    raventhorn2000 And I note, at least we have not accused you of being responsible for various mishaps, (for example, for 1 of our authors’ other websites being hack attacked).

    Nice try, but you’re going to have to troll a little bit harder than that to get a rise out of me, except to say that I lack the skill to hack anything.

    Meanwhile, when a website gets blocked for unexplained reasons, and people who wrote on that blog start talking about how easy it is to avoid getting blocked by the GFW, you have to ask how exactly those people know that it wasn’t something that they wrote that got the website blocked. Since no explanation is ever given for blocking, it could have been anything written by any of the people on the blog – and I see nothing unfair in saying so – but then HH is not my website.

  155. August 25th, 2011 at 07:22 | #155

    raventhorn2000 :“However, I guess I should also say that, when, in the past, I point out the US residency and citizenship of the majority (entirety?) of the regular contributors to HH, this was referred to as personal attack on the authors of this blog and my comments were threatened with deletion.”
    You were not merely “pointing out”, you were going completely OFF TOPIC and SPAMMING the forum.
    You can (and you have) “point out” and MOVE ON, but SPAMMING the forum with the SAME irrelevant line of personal arguments is clearly abuse of the forum.
    *and I have already responded to your “point”, you also paid taxes to China when you were in China, that would make you a supporter of Chinese policies which you criticize so much!!
    (Now, we both move on, BACK to the main topic of Democracy’s Steamvalves!)
    If you have nothing relevant to say, just move on. (And if you want to “JOKE” like Custer, we can “JOKE” back).

    Try putting a little oil on your shift-key, it appears to be sticking.

  156. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 07:31 | #156

    @FOARP

    Just a clear contrast between what you accuse others and what they do not accuse you of, as a indication of who’s doing the trolling.

    If I was “trolling” for using your logic, then what were you doing in the first place?

  157. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 07:34 | #157

    @FOARP

    “Try putting a little oil on your shift-key, it appears to be sticking.”

    Try do the same for your computer, it seems to be GFW blocking your words after 1 sentence.

    Since no explanation is ever given for blocking, it could have been anything written by any of the people on YOUR computer.

    and I see nothing unfair in saying so – but then your computer is not my computer.

  158. August 25th, 2011 at 08:02 | #158

    raventhorn2000 :“even if Raventhorn does not like my assertion that the abscence of charges under Articles 106 and 107 (i.e., the articles related to foreign collusion in subversion) means that no charges were brought for foreign collusion – do you really want me to re-capitulate what I’ve already said?”
    Even if you can’t read/interpret the laws properly, you continue to make such ridiculous assertions. I have already written a comment regarding your irrational interpretation of Article 106 and 107.
    http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2010/10/the-2010-nobel-peace-prize-to-liu-xiaobo-and-what-it-means-to-the-chinese/#comment-43663
    YES, PLEASE “RE-Capitulate” your position! If you can even understand that WORD “Capitulate” (which means “to surrender”)!!!
    Boy, you have just all kinds of comprehension problems, don’t you??!

    Thanks for the English lesson. Boy, they sure do speak funny down in ole Virginny.

    RE: Articles 106 & 107 – Rather than pissing around on the internet, I think it would be cool if we could set-up a moot court on this: brief is a guy who claims to have been defamed by articles posted by China-based writers on China-hosted website saying he went to jail for foreign collusion when he was never even charged with it. Jurisdiction is PRC, Raventhorn argues for Defendants and FOARP for the Claimant, each person gets a couple of months to submit written arguments and can consult a PRC-qualified lawyer on form and substance of submission.

    Under English law it would be a lock for the Claimant (assuming they can establish standing on the basis of reputation in England & Wales), but under PRC law I think it would be more balanced – so are you game?

    Someone neutral would have to flesh out the brief, and we’d have to find a neutral PRC legal scholar to be the judge, but I think it would be a cool idea.

  159. August 25th, 2011 at 08:21 | #159

    raventhorn2000 :

    C. Custer :
    Kindly shut the fuck up about aspects of my private life you know nothing about. I was only ever that specific because idiots — you, specifically — were questioning my academic background. There is no reason I’m obligated to share any more, or even that with you.

    And honestly, how fucking cowardly do you have to be to be making cracks about someone else’s life while hiding behind a fake username, taking no responsibility whatsoever for the things you say? I’ve said many negative things about Charles Liu’s opinions, but at least the man has the balls to put his own name on them.

    Seriously, you are a pathetic joke, and your continued focus on my personal life and background may not embarrass you, but it fucking should.

    Oh, now now, can’t you take a JOKE?!! No sense of Humor, I see. You brought up your qualifications to justify your own arguments/1 line spams, No one ASKED for your DEGREES!!

    That wasn’t a joke. Moreover, I didn’t bring up my qualifications to justify any argument in here, it was you who did that, just like it was you who started this whole series of personal attacks with your idiotically prejudiced assumption that I was an under-educated English teacher in China because I “couldn’t find a job” in the US. (Of course, not a single part of that is true).

    In retrospect, I should have just ignored you, but at that time, I didn’t realize how much of an idiot you were, so I chose to respond, providing correct information so that others who read what you wrote wouldn’t confuse it with the truth. Now I realize I didn’t need to respond; that anyone with a half-functioning brain can see you’re completely nuts and no one was going to take anything you said about me seriously.

    So, in that one thread, I mentioned it once. Since then, I haven’t mentioned it at all. Every time it gets mentioned, it’s actually you bringing it up, which is frankly a little stalkerish but whatever. Fine. If you didn’t ask for it — which you did when you attempted to spread lies about me, but we can just pretend that never happened — then why are you so focused on it? Lord knows no one else is.

    What would my professors say? I feel quite certain that all of them — and keep in mind a great many of them were Chinese nationals — would say that I’m absolutely wasting my time here, and that there’s no point in arguing with closed-minded people. They’d be ashamed of me, probably, but not because of a few curse words. It would be because I bother to talk to you at all, and they would consider that a waste of my time.

    Which it is.

  160. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 08:24 | #160

    “a guy who claims to have been defamed by articles posted by China-based writers on China-hosted website saying he went to jail for foreign collusion when he was never even charged with it.”

    Premise fact pattern of your case is simplistic and flawed. “went to jail for foreign collusion” is not the same thing as being “charged with foreign collusion”.

    John Huang was charged with conspiracy to illegal campaign contribution funneling, even though the US court obviously considered his “foreign collusions” as factors in the conspiracy charges.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

    GET it through your head ONCE and FOR all, Liu’s NED connection was established in the court verdict, IT WAS RELEVANT to the charge of incitement.

    YOU on the other hand, claimed that his VERDICT had NOTHING to do with his connection to NED. That is simply wrong from the plain text of the verdict.

    *Please, you want to “brief” your hypothetical case?! You can’t even get your FACTS straight.

    Am I game? Why should I bother arguing legal interpretations with a non-lawyer, who misreads laws?! What’s in it for me?

    I already responded to your ridiculous assertions on Article 106 and 107, make your response (brief), if you can.

    I’m not going to waste more time play court room drama with you.

  161. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 08:26 | #161

    @C. Custer

    “That wasn’t a joke. Moreover, I didn’t bring up my qualifications to justify any argument in here, it was you who did that, just like it was you who started this whole series of personal attacks with your idiotically prejudiced assumption that I was an under-educated English teacher in China because I “couldn’t find a job” in the US.”

    Untrue, YOU brought up your qualifications as “working in the Chinese media” to support your own lack of argument 1st.

  162. August 25th, 2011 at 08:40 | #162

    “So, in that one thread, I mentioned it once. Since then, I haven’t mentioned it at all. Every time it gets mentioned, it’s actually you bringing it up, which is frankly a little stalkerish but whatever. Fine. If you didn’t ask for it — which you did when you attempted to spread lies about me, but we can just pretend that never happened — then why are you so focused on it? Lord knows no one else is.”

    “spread LIES about you”???!! I only “speculated” like you do. What “lies” did I spread about you? Cite me.

    My EXACT quote: “He’s teaching “English” in China for a reason. If he really had something better, would he stick around in China under the thumbs of the Chinese censors? You speak as if he has a choice.”

    Did I say you couldn’t find a job in US? Nope, you inferred it by yourself.

    Shows how much paranoia and insecurity you have about yourself! LOL!! 🙂

  163. August 25th, 2011 at 08:46 | #163

    raventhorn2000 :
    My EXACT quote: “He’s teaching “English” in China for a reason. If he really had something better, would he stick around in China under the thumbs of the Chinese censors? You speak as if he has a choice.”

    Did I say you couldn’t find a job in US? Nope, you inferred it by yourself.

    Allow me to quote you:

    Yeah, I know your type. You can’t find a real job in US, and run away to China, acting like some badas* attitude intellectual, teaching English in China. With no real motivation to get your act together to do anything else real (because reality is apparently too UNCOOL for you).

    I rest my case.

  164. August 25th, 2011 at 08:53 | #164

    raventhorn2000 :
    “spread LIES about you”???!! I only “speculated” like you do. What “lies” did I spread about you? Cite me.

    OK. That should be pretty easy!

    You can’t find a real job in US

    This is a lie.

    teaching English in China

    This is a lie.

    “He’s teaching “English” in China for a reason.

    This is a lie.

    Yeah, I know your type.

    Since you got literally every part of your speculation wrong, this is also a lie. (plenty of other things you said are also lies, but since they’re fairly subjective, I haven’t bothered to include them here. Nor have I bothered to go beyond those two comments).

    You may have been only “speculating”, but your comments were still demonstrably wrong. Given that the information about me you were “speculating” about is publicly available and would have taken you two seconds on Google to find, yeah, I’m prepared to call that intentionally spreading lies. But if you’d like a different term for it, fine. How about slander?

  165. August 25th, 2011 at 08:54 | #165

    Yes, a “REAL JOB in US”! LOL!

    isn’t that “REAL” speculative? LOL!

    is that the same as “A JOB in US”, apparently?

    But hey, whatever, troll. Idiot, FF*, *SPAM, *SPAM, 1 liner, 1 liner.

    Don’t you like “speculations”?? I rest my case. 🙂

  166. August 25th, 2011 at 08:55 | #166

    “teaching English in China”.

    You were, you said so.

    And I said “A REAL JOB in US”. Haha.

    🙂

  167. August 25th, 2011 at 08:56 | #167

    “You may have been only “speculating”, but your comments were still demonstrably wrong. Given that the information about me you were “speculating” about is publicly available and would have taken you two seconds on Google to find, yeah, I’m prepared to call that intentionally spreading lies.”

    OH really, I thought that was “bias”, and different from “lies”/inaccuracy, according to you.

    🙂

  168. August 25th, 2011 at 08:59 | #168

    Classic. Proved brutally, obviously wrong, but unwilling to admit a thing. Let me just pick out my favorite part again, and put it in bold for the others reading this:

    raventhorn2000 :
    My EXACT quote: “He’s teaching “English” in China for a reason. If he really had something better, would he stick around in China under the thumbs of the Chinese censors? You speak as if he has a choice.”

    Did I say you couldn’t find a job in US? Nope, you inferred it by yourself.

    Allow me to quote you:

    Yeah, I know your type. You can’t find a real job in US, and run away to China, acting like some badas* attitude intellectual, teaching English in China. With no real motivation to get your act together to do anything else real (because reality is apparently too UNCOOL for you).

    I rest my case.

  169. August 25th, 2011 at 09:02 | #169

    raventhorn2000 :
    “You may have been only “speculating”, but your comments were still demonstrably wrong. Given that the information about me you were “speculating” about is publicly available and would have taken you two seconds on Google to find, yeah, I’m prepared to call that intentionally spreading lies.”
    OH really, I thought that was “bias”, and different from “lies”/inaccuracy, according to you.

    If you thought that, you clearly didn’t understand what I wrote, because I’ve never said that. That doesn’t even make sense. Bias is choosing facts selectively. But that’s not what you did at all. In fact, nothing that you said about me was a fact.

  170. August 25th, 2011 at 09:03 | #170

    So wait, if someone “speculates” about something that’s publicly available and would have been EASILY found with some BASIC research on Google, that’s “intentionally spreading lies”.

    Hmmm…. I recall Custer didn’t do some BASIC research about train disasters in Europe, and proceeded to make speculations of comparative performances of Chinese Rail system vs. other countries.

    “intentionally spreading lies”??!!

    According to his logic, apparently. (Thanks for the logical admission). 🙂

  171. August 25th, 2011 at 09:06 | #171

    raventhorn2000 :
    So wait, if someone “speculates” about something that’s publicly available and would have been EASILY found with some BASIC research on Google, that’s “intentionally spreading lies”.
    Hmmm…. I recall Custer didn’t do some BASIC research about train disasters in Europe, and proceeded to make speculations of comparative performances of Chinese Rail system vs. other countries.
    “intentionally spreading lies”??!!
    According to his logic, apparently. (Thanks for the logical admission).

    No, because I didn’t say “There have been no train disasters in Europe.” or “Only China has train disasters.” What I said was that Japan and France’s HSR trains haven’t had accidents like the 7.23 accident, which is entirely true. Nothing I said was inaccurate.

    What you said about me, however, was.

  172. August 25th, 2011 at 09:07 | #172

    @C. Custer

    “A REAL job in US” vs. “A job in US”.

    I guess any job in US is a REAL job to Custer’s heart’s true desire.

    Sigh, he can’t even quote right, Classic “intentionally spreading lies”. 🙂

  173. August 25th, 2011 at 09:09 | #173

    “What I said was that Japan and France’s HSR trains haven’t had accidents like the 7.23 accident, which is entirely true. Nothing I said was a inaccurate.”

    Nope, you wrote, “Other high speed rail lines don’t seem to have these problems”.

  174. August 25th, 2011 at 09:11 | #174

    raventhorn2000 :
    @C. Custer
    “A REAL job in US” vs. “A job in US”.
    I guess any job in US is a REAL job to Custer’s heart’s true desire.
    Sigh, he can’t even quote right, Classic “intentionally spreading lies”.

    IN THIS COMMENT, YOU WROTE: “You can’t find a real job in US, and run away to China, acting like some badas* attitude intellectual, teaching English in China.”

    So, uh, yes you did say “a real job in the US.” Nothing wrong with what I quoted, you just have trouble keeping track of all the crap you’ve written about me.

  175. August 25th, 2011 at 09:12 | #175

    raventhorn2000 :
    “What I said was that Japan and France’s HSR trains haven’t had accidents like the 7.23 accident, which is entirely true. Nothing I said was a inaccurate.”
    Nope, you wrote, “Other high speed rail lines don’t seem to have these problems”.

    Right. And then I cited Japan’s and France’s. Are those not “other high speed rail lines”? I never said that no other high speed rail lines have these problems. You may have assumed that’s what I meant, but that’s not what I wrote.

  176. August 25th, 2011 at 09:14 | #176

    @C. Custer

    “you just have trouble keeping track of all the crap you’ve written about me”.

    No, you have trouble quoting what I wrote, and you keep “intentionally spreading lies” about yourself apparently! LOL!!

  177. August 25th, 2011 at 09:15 | #177

    “Right. And then I cited Japan’s and France’s. Are those not “other high speed rail lines”? I never said that no other high speed rail lines have these problems.”

    Nope, you made 1 generalization first, and used Japan and France to support your generalization, WITHOUT searching other rails. “intentionally spreading lies.”

    🙂

  178. August 25th, 2011 at 09:20 | #178

    “your idiotically prejudiced assumption that I was an under-educated English teacher in China because I “couldn’t find a job” in the US.”

    Where did I say you were “under-educated English teacher in China”?? LOL!

    Why do you insist upon spreading so much lies about yourself?! LOL! 🙂

    On that note: Since I didn’t question Custer’s “education”, his bringing up of his own “degrees” is rather demonstrative of his own motives.

  179. August 25th, 2011 at 09:26 | #179

    raventhorn2000 :
    @C. Custer
    “you just have trouble keeping track of all the crap you’ve written about me”.
    No, you have trouble quoting what I wrote, and you keep “intentionally spreading lies” about yourself apparently! LOL!!

    Where did I misquote what you wrote?

  180. August 25th, 2011 at 09:29 | #180

    raventhorn2000 :
    “your idiotically prejudiced assumption that I was an under-educated English teacher in China because I “couldn’t find a job” in the US.”
    Where did I say you were “under-educated English teacher in China”?? LOL!
    Why do you insist upon spreading so much lies about yourself?! LOL!
    On that note: Since I didn’t question Custer’s “education”, his bringing up of his own “degrees” is rather demonstrative of his own motives.

    I never said you explicitly said that. I said you assumed it. Your grasp of English is not firm, I know, but I promise those two words don’t mean the same thing. Why do I think you assumed that? Because you wrote

    Yeah, I know your type. You can’t find a real job in US, and run away to China, acting like some badas* attitude intellectual, teaching English in China. With no real motivation to get your act together to do anything else real (because reality is apparently too UNCOOL for you).

    See the bolded part above. In combination with your assertion that I “can’t find a real job in the US,” the obvious implication is that I am not an intellectual. Indeed, you say as much when you say that I am just “acting”.

  181. August 25th, 2011 at 09:31 | #181

    @C. Custer

    “Where did I misquote what you wrote?”

    “your idiotically prejudiced assumption that I was an under-educated English teacher in China because I “couldn’t find a job” in the US.”

    misquote above.

  182. August 25th, 2011 at 09:33 | #182

    “Why do I think you assumed that?”

    That’s YOUR “speculation”, not my quote.

    You can infer/spin my words in as many steps of inference as you want, that’s still Classic “intentionally spreading lies” by you.

    🙂

  183. August 25th, 2011 at 09:36 | #183

    “In combination with your assertion that I “can’t find a real job in the US,” the obvious implication is that I am not an intellectual. Indeed, you say as much when you say that I am just “acting”.”

    Oh, JUST “acting”? I said “acting like”, you sticking a “JUST” in there to make your own inference only proves your inference, not mine.

    🙂

  184. August 25th, 2011 at 09:36 | #184

    raventhorn2000 :
    @C. Custer
    “Where did I misquote what you wrote?”
    “your idiotically prejudiced assumption that I was an under-educated English teacher in China because I “couldn’t find a job” in the US.”
    misquote above.

    Ah, yup, good point. I forgot to put “real” in there. My bad. Doesn’t change anything, though.

  185. August 25th, 2011 at 09:36 | #185

    I guess Raventhorn just doesn’t want to put his money where his mouth is. Pity.

  186. August 25th, 2011 at 09:39 | #186

    @C. Custer

    “Ah, yup, good point. I forgot to put “real” in there. My bad. Doesn’t change anything, though.

    Shows how you inferred words in and out of other people’s words. (which is “intentionally spreading lies”).

    🙂

  187. August 25th, 2011 at 09:39 | #187

    raventhorn2000 :
    “In combination with your assertion that I “can’t find a real job in the US,” the obvious implication is that I am not an intellectual. Indeed, you say as much when you say that I am just “acting”.”
    Oh, JUST “acting”? I said “acting like”, you sticking a “JUST” in there to make your own inference only proves your inference, not mine.

    Uh…yes. I made an inference based on the words you used. Pray tell, was my inference incorrect? If so, what did you mean when you said:

    Yeah, I know your type. You can’t find a real job in US, and run away to China, acting like some badas* attitude intellectual, teaching English in China. With no real motivation to get your act together to do anything else real (because reality is apparently too UNCOOL for you).

    Care to expand on it now? Do you, for example, still stand by these statements as true and accurate?

  188. August 25th, 2011 at 09:40 | #188

    FOARP :
    I guess Raventhorn just doesn’t want to put his money where his mouth is. Pity.

    EditMore OptionsMoveDe-linkModerateSpamBlacklistTrash

    What money? MY money? or YOUR money?! I don’t see you betting any MONEY!!

  189. August 25th, 2011 at 09:42 | #189

    “Care to expand on it now? Do you, for example, still stand by these statements as true and accurate?”

    They are “speculations” when I made them. Don’t tell me that YOU stand by the “speculations” and “assumptions” you made!!

    You are still making “assumptions” and dropping them just as quick. ie. “Ah, yup, good point. I forgot to put “real” in there. My bad.”

    LOL!

  190. August 25th, 2011 at 09:43 | #190

    raventhorn2000 :
    @C. Custer
    “Ah, yup, good point. I forgot to put “real” in there. My bad. Doesn’t change anything, though.
    Shows how you inferred words in and out of other people’s words. (which is “intentionally spreading lies”).

    No, it shows how I forgot to put the word “real” into that sentence when I typed it. Given that your posts are absolutely riddled with typos and grammatical errors, I’d think you’d be willing to forgive me one missed word at 1AM, especially since it has no effect on the meaning of your sentence. Pick any definition of “real” you want out of the dictionary; your statement is still demonstrably wrong.

  191. August 25th, 2011 at 09:46 | #191

    And I quote myself: “With no real motivation to get your act together to do anything else real (because reality is apparently too UNCOOL for you).”

    I obviously suggested that YOU have no “real motivation” to do something “real”.

    Again, it’s demonstrative that your ability for logic inference has a history of reaching erroneous “speculations” and “assumptions”.

  192. August 25th, 2011 at 09:48 | #192

    raventhorn2000 :
    “Care to expand on it now? Do you, for example, still stand by these statements as true and accurate?”
    They are “speculations” when I made them. Don’t tell me that YOU stand by the “speculations” and “assumptions” you made!!
    You are still making “assumptions” and dropping them just as quick. ie. “Ah, yup, good point. I forgot to put “real” in there. My bad.”
    LOL!

    They may have been speculations, but you presented them as statements of fact. If I say, for example: “Raven is a pedophile,” that might just be my “speculation”, but when I say that specific sentence, wouldn’t you agree that I’m lying? After all, I didn’t say “I think Raven is…” or “It seems like Raven is…” There’s nothing speculative about it. I presented it like it was fact.

    Which is exactly what you did with your statements about me.

    My speculations in debate are clearly marked as such by phrases like “I think…” “I would assume…” etc. When I make a categorical statement, and it is proven wrong, I admit that, as I have several times this evening already. And it’s also worth saying that I have not made speculations about the personal lives of anyone on this site at all, beyond a few suggestions that many of you live in the United States (which I believe is accurate).

  193. August 25th, 2011 at 09:50 | #193

    raventhorn2000 :
    And I quote myself: “With no real motivation to get your act together to do anything else real (because reality is apparently too UNCOOL for you).”
    I obviously suggested that YOU have no “real motivation” to do something “real”.

    Yes. No one is disputing that.

    Again, it’s demonstrative that your ability for logic inference has a history of reaching erroneous “speculations” and “assumptions”.

    What does “it” refer to in this sentence?

  194. August 25th, 2011 at 09:50 | #194

    “No, it shows how I forgot to put the word “real” into that sentence when I typed it. Given that your posts are absolutely riddled with typos and grammatical errors, I’d think you’d be willing to forgive me one missed word at 1AM, especially since it has no effect on the meaning of your sentence. Pick any definition of “real” you want out of the dictionary; your statement is still demonstrably wrong.”

    (1) it’s a simple matter of copy and paste,

    (2) and I said nothing about you being “under-educated”.

    (3) Lots of people have “a job” but not what they would consider a “REAL job”. The distinction is obvious between with and without the word “real”. (also see “a life” vs. “a REAL life”). If you can’t see the difference between those 2 phrases, that’s not my problem, that’s your own erroneous inference.

  195. August 25th, 2011 at 09:56 | #195

    ““Raven is a pedophile,” that might just be my “speculation”, but when I say that specific sentence, wouldn’t you agree that I’m lying?”

    I don’t know, do YOU agree that you would be lying?!

    “Which is exactly what you did with your statements about me.”

    Not true, I said “a REAL job in US”, which is qualified and speculative in what the “REAL job” is. And you never asked what a “real job” is.

    “And it’s also worth saying that I have not made speculations about the personal lives of anyone on this site at all, beyond a few suggestions that many of you live in the United States (which I believe is accurate).”

    I think that’s not a denial but an admission. 🙂

    What should I “infer” from your “suggestion”??! That I’m “under-educated”? I live too well, I’m too rich, too corrupted???!!

    Why, I would be offended!! 🙂

  196. August 25th, 2011 at 10:03 | #196

    raventhorn2000 :
    ““Raven is a pedophile,” that might just be my “speculation”, but when I say that specific sentence, wouldn’t you agree that I’m lying?”
    I don’t know, do YOU agree that you would be lying?!

    Well, I assume that that would be lying. If it’s not, then substitute “pedophile” for something else that’s bad, but isn’t actually true. I was just making a rhetorical point.

    “Which is exactly what you did with your statements about me.”
    Not true, I said “a REAL job in US”, which is qualified and speculative in what the “REAL job” is. And you never asked what a “real job” is.

    Why should I have to? I know what the word “real” means. You may have assigned some alternate definition for it in your head that’s subjective and lets you off the hook, but we have dictionaries that define what words mean. And like I said, by any dictionary definition of “real” that works in this context, your statement was still demonstrably wrong. There was no need for me to “ask” you what you meant.

    “And it’s also worth saying that I have not made speculations about the personal lives of anyone on this site at all, beyond a few suggestions that many of you live in the United States (which I believe is accurate).”
    I think that’s not a denial but an admission.
    What should I “infer” from your “suggestion”??! That I’m “under-educated”? I live too well, I’m too rich, too corrupted???!!

    No, you should infer that I think you live in the United States.

    Anyway, I’m going to bed…it’s now past 1AM here, and I have work in the morning. I do hope that Al, YinYang, Charles Liu, Ray and the other folks behind this site will take the time to read the exchange we’ve had tonight, though. What I want to say has been made extremely clear, and you’ll obviously never admit to anything even when the proof is hitting you directly in the face, so there’s nothing left to do but leave it up to the review of others.

    Of course, none of those guys like or agree with me, but I think most of them are intelligent enough to see this for what it is. Goodnight.

  197. August 25th, 2011 at 10:13 | #197

    “Why should I have to? I know what the word “real” means. You may have assigned some alternate definition for it in your head that’s subjective and lets you off the hook, but we have dictionaries that define what words mean. And like I said, by any dictionary definition of “real” that works in this context, your statement was still demonstrably wrong. There was no need for me to “ask” you what you meant.”

    Then it’s YOUR assumption about what I wrote, NOT what I wrote.

    “No, you should infer that I think you live in the United States.”

    Now, why should I confine my inference to just what you wrote, when you infer things wildly without basis?!

    For example: “Of course, none of those guys like or agree with me.”

    Of course, I’ll let others see if I said anything about you being “under-educated”, any more than you said the same about us living corrupted lifestyles in US.

    🙂

    Want something in your face:

    “your idiotically prejudiced assumption that I was an under-educated English teacher in China because I “couldn’t find a job” in the US.”

    Well, at least we proved that these were NOT MY “idiotically prejudiced assumptions”, but YOUR own inferences, as you have already admitted.

    http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2011/08/broken-steam-valve-of-democracy-explodes-in-uk-and-other-places/#comment-43906

    “Uh…yes. I made an inference based on the words you used.”

  198. August 25th, 2011 at 10:24 | #198

    As a Brit I love a sporting bet, shall we say an hour of my time as a lowly patent engineer (150 Euros) versus an hour of yours? Proceeds to Project Hope?

  199. August 25th, 2011 at 10:30 | #199

    http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2011/07/cctv-reports-d301s-blackbox-recovered/#comment-42805

    YinYang :
    Allen, raventhorn2000,
    I understand what you guys are saying. You are right, what Custer and Pete North are doing here is indeed ad homenim.

    Right, but assuming that expats can

  200. August 25th, 2011 at 10:32 | #200

    And this one for my inference considerations:

    http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2011/07/cctv-reports-d301s-blackbox-recovered/#comment-42779

    My advice was to not make comments about “China” until you’ve been here for a while. It doesn’t have anything to do with this accident, although interestingly it does relate to what I was suggesting earlier — that if you don’t live in China and haven’t lived here for a while, you really aren’t a particularly credible commentator about what China is like, what the “Chinese perspective” is, etc.

  201. August 25th, 2011 at 10:42 | #201

    FOARP :
    As a Brit I love a sporting bet, shall we say an hour of my time as a lowly patent engineer (150 Euros) versus an hour of yours? Proceeds to Project Hope?

    EditMore OptionsMoveDe-linkModerateSpamBlacklistTrash

    You know I bill about $300 per hour. and if you think this hypothetical can be done in 1 hour each side, you are dreaming.

    Even a law school paper for this kind of hypo case would run at least 14 hours, including research. Even a simple hypo case on the California state bar exam, resulting in a rather rough and short “legal memo” (not a full brief) would take at least 3 hours.

    So unless you are going to wager 14 hours of my time, totaling $4200, don’t waste my time. (Or as a lawyer like me would tell a potential client, if I’m not doing this pro bono, then better pay me full for my time. Enticing me with 1 hour of pay is rather insulting).

    (PS: I assumed you must be joking, with 1 hour for each side).

    (PS again: 1 hour of my time was already spent (for free) on the comments to you about Article 106 and 107, if you can’t respond to that, don’t bother wasting more of my time).

  202. August 25th, 2011 at 10:57 | #202

    @raventhorn2000

    If you want to look at it another way, you could make it the cost of 2000 of your comments (1000 Yuan).

  203. August 25th, 2011 at 11:14 | #203

    @FOARP

    You insult me with your low-ball bets. And you show complete disrespect for the hypothetical client who would require at least 14 hours of representation for adequate research.

    Do you suggest that such a client’s defamation damages would be only worth 1 hour of my time?

    How dare you!! If you were barred in US, I would file a complaint against you in the state bar, for suggesting that I should take short cuts and not adequately research for my client’s case!

  204. August 25th, 2011 at 11:29 | #204

    @raventhorn2000

    Unusual, if only a bit – I didn’t know that the legal people working for [Self-edit: a certain special organisation in the state of Virginia] billed by the hour. I’ve met more than a few people who worked there as [Self-edit: people I would naturally come into contact with] and they are by reputation a mixed bag, but this is not necessarily a reflection on your own part of the organisation. Of course, I could be wrong, I only speculate.

  205. August 25th, 2011 at 11:30 | #205

    @C. Custer

    For Custer’s reference, a definition of “a REAL JOB”, at least surveyed from people in US.

    http://www.lifereboot.com/2007/what-is-a-real-job-exactly/

    “Anxious to understand, I started asking people who used the term what they meant by it. Unsurprisingly, to different people it meant different things.

    According to those I’ve asked, a real job is…

    1.a full-time job with set hours.
    2.a job in my major/field/area of specialization.
    3.a job that pays more than minimum wage.
    4.a job that pays salary.
    5.a job with health insurance/sick leave/paid vacation.
    6.a job with room for growth/advancement opportunity.
    7.a position with a job title and description.
    8.anything that’s NOT a temp job.
    9.anything that earns a steady paycheck.
    10.something that will make me feel like going into debt for a degree was worthwhile.”

  206. August 25th, 2011 at 11:31 | #206

    And if you want the DVD version:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0292887/plotsummary

    A Real Job (2001) More at IMDbPro »

    Meet John St. Clair, a happy employee at Videoland, home of a thousand movies. One fateful night while serving behind the counter, he meets Denise Hunter, the girl of his dreams. Their love blossoms amidst a colorful array of characters: John’s movie-savvy coworker intent on breaking into Hollywood, their perpetually angry Indian boss, and an old school pal who points John to a new, upwardly mobile career at Goldbar, Inc. Going from t-shirts to neckties, John takes on his new job to impress Denise. However, his conscience is torn when his new corporate life threatens to wipe out his beloved video store and swallow up time he could be spending with his true love. Romantic complications ensue in this touching, fast-paced comedy, packed with movie in-jokes and witty banter. Discover for yourself how nothing seems easy once you’re tied down to… “

  207. August 25th, 2011 at 11:32 | #207

    Oh, PS, the last bit was a “joke”, sarcasm intended.

  208. August 25th, 2011 at 11:58 | #208

    @raventhorn2000

    You know, like I said, I’ve met a lot of people who used to work in the organisation that you work for, most quit to work elsewhere because they could make more money that way, and to find more challenging work. Maybe you’re in a different part of the organisation to the rest of them, but it’s hardly the pinnacle of my profession to work there. If I were you, I would cut down on the boasting a bit.

    Once again, I could be wrong about where you work.

  209. Al
    August 25th, 2011 at 12:00 | #209

    @FOARP #146…I see u once again completely missed the point..How do u do manage to do this all the time? It’s really a talent, u know?
    😀

  210. August 25th, 2011 at 12:03 | #210

    FOARP :
    @raventhorn2000
    You know, like I said, I’ve met a lot of people who used to work in the organisation that you work for, most quit to work elsewhere because they could make more money that way, and to find more challenging work. Maybe you’re in a different part of the organisation to the rest of them, but it’s hardly the pinnacle of my profession to work there. If I were you, I would cut down on the boasting a bit.
    Once again, I could be wrong about where you work.

    EditMore OptionsMoveDe-linkModerateSpamBlacklistTrash

    I don’t know what “organisation” you are talking about. I don’t recall ever telling you that I worked for an “organization”.

    Are you trying to Phish my personal information? REALLY?! Nice try.

  211. August 25th, 2011 at 12:12 | #211

    “If I were you, I would cut down on the boasting a bit.”

    Speaking of “boasting”, you wanting to wager 1 hour each to mock “brief” a hypo you made up (with facts in your own favor), with me, while claiming it would be a “lock” under UK laws.

    Now, that’s boasting.

    Call me crazy, if I don’t even have a LAW degree, I would hardly be wagering REAL money on a hypothetical case, even 1 hour worth of money.

  212. August 25th, 2011 at 12:15 | #212

    @raventhorn2000

    Once again, only speculating. But I mean it about not boasting.

  213. August 25th, 2011 at 12:18 | #213

    FOARP :
    @raventhorn2000
    I’ll take that as confirmation. Once again, only speculating.

    EditMore OptionsMoveDe-linkModerateSpamBlacklistTrash

    Confirmation of what? You didn’t even say anything specific. “Organization”? What the H are you talking about?

    Well, I’ll take that as a “confirmation” that you work for the same “organization” I do, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

    LOL!

  214. August 25th, 2011 at 12:41 | #214

    Back to the main issue,

    It appears that UK is prosecuting number of Facebook “inciters” under the Inchoate Crimes portions of the Serious Crime Act 2007, namely http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/part/2, section 44, encouraging and assisting others in crime, or more commonly known as the “Aiding and Abetting” crimes.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029920/UK-riots-Teenager-urged-Facebook-friends-kill-million-police-jailed.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    Pelle had pleaded guilty to a breach of section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, doing an act which was capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence, namely violent disorder.

  215. August 25th, 2011 at 18:04 | #215

    @raventhorn2000
    Well, since you have made Custer’s record part of this, surely you have to admit that your own record is in question. As a theoretical question – doesn’t a Chinese nationalist working for the US government have certain questions to answer? Especially where that government is kind enough to give the person concerned so much time during the working day to comment on blogs?

    Meantime, yes I studied law, yes, I graduated (GDL and masters in IP). No, I don’t have a JD, in England & Wales we do not have JDs but professional qualifications (e.g LPC and BVC, for solicitors and barristers respectively). However, I chose to go back to patenting after doing my GDL/CPE, and have passed the CIPA foundation exemption papers. The advanced papers are difficult, but then no-one said life would be easy.

    As for working for the particular US federal government government agency in question – well, my understanding is that you have to be a US citizen to work there, but I welcome correction as to this point. Of course, this is only speculation.

  216. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 18:25 | #216

    @FOARP

    That’s Odd, I thought I was simply restating Custer’s own inferences about himself, since HE LOVES to infer things so much.

    For the record, it’s CUSTER’s own inference that brought out his “education”.

    “surely you have to admit that you own record is in question and that a Chinese nationalist working for the US government has certain issues associated with it?”

    What’s my record? What are you trying to “infer” here with Custer’s Logic? That Chinese “nationalists” in US are “just ignorant” (according to Custer)? 🙂

    Hey, if you want to follow down Custer’s logic, I’m game.

    (By his inference style, both of you would be racists from the very beginning. Him, calling us “just ignorant”, and you questioning our “nationalism”).

    *
    “As for working for the US government. Well, my understanding is that you have to be a US citizen to work there, but I welcome correction as to this point.”

    Work where? In US? Who said I worked for the US government??!! Who said I had a US citizenship??

    Not me!

  217. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 18:33 | #217

    “Meantime, yes I studied law, yes, I graduated (GDL and masters in IP). No, I don’t have a JD, in England & Wales we do not have JDs but professional qualifications (e.g LPC and BVC, for solicitors and barristers respectively). However, I chose to go back to patenting after doing my GDL/CPE, and have passed the CIPA foundation exemption papers. The advanced papers are difficult, but then no-one said life would be easy.”

    Oh you “chose to go back to patenting” rather than your law qualifications.

    Long winded explanation of saying you are not a qualified lawyer. So, whatever.

  218. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 18:40 | #218

    “doesn’t a Chinese nationalist working for the US government have certain questions to answer? As for working for the US government. Well, my understanding is that you have to be a US citizen to work there, but I welcome correction as to this point.”

    Hey, aren’t you a Brit working for the Chinese government? Aren’t you working for the Chinese government? But hey, 2 can play the same game.

    At least CUSTER is a US citizen working for the Chinese state media.

  219. August 25th, 2011 at 18:50 | #219

    raventhorn2000 :
    @C. Custer
    For Custer’s reference, a definition of “a REAL JOB”, at least surveyed from people in US.
    http://www.lifereboot.com/2007/what-is-a-real-job-exactly/
    “Anxious to understand, I started asking people who used the term what they meant by it. Unsurprisingly, to different people it meant different things.
    According to those I’ve asked, a real job is…
    1.a full-time job with set hours.
    2.a job in my major/field/area of specialization.
    3.a job that pays more than minimum wage.
    4.a job that pays salary.
    5.a job with health insurance/sick leave/paid vacation.
    6.a job with room for growth/advancement opportunity.
    7.a position with a job title and description.
    8.anything that’s NOT a temp job.
    9.anything that earns a steady paycheck.
    10.something that will make me feel like going into debt for a degree was worthwhile.”

    OK. So let’s see….If we go by #1, what you said was a lie. #2? Still a lie. How about #3? Still wrong. #4? Nope, still a lie. #5 Definitely still a lie. #6 Yup, still a lie. #7 Still a lie. #8 Yup, definitely wrong. #9 Still a lie. And #10…well, that’s subjective, of course, but from my perspective, still a lie.

    In fact, even if we’re just talking about the past two years, I could name two different jobs I’ve held in the US that would fit those standards.

    So yeah, what was your point again? I said that according to any definition of the word “real”, what you said was still a lie. That remains true.

    And of course, you’ve completely ignored the fact that you also stated repeatedly that I was an English teacher, which is also a lie.

  220. August 25th, 2011 at 18:56 | #220

    raventhorn2000 :
    At least CUSTER is a US citizen working for the Chinese state media.

    Aaaand wrong again. No. I have worked for Chinese state media. However, I do not currently. Seriously, you’re just making a fool out of yourself.

  221. raventhorn2000
    August 26th, 2011 at 05:10 | #221

    @C. Custer

    Nope, as far as I knew at the time, they were all true, thus not lies. 🙂

    “In fact, even if we’re just talking about the past two years, I could name two different jobs I’ve held in the US that would fit those standards.”

    But you didn’t name them. So, again, as far as I knew at the time, they were all true, thus not lies.

    “So yeah, what was your point again? I said that according to any definition of the word “real”, what you said was still a lie. That remains true.”

    Nope, you said, “since it has no effect on the meaning of your sentence”. Obviously, the word “REAL” have an effect on the meaning of my sentence. Thus, YOU LIED, when you clearly professed to know the meaning of the word, and then you say it had no effect on the meaning of my sentence.

    “And of course, you’ve completely ignored the fact that you also stated repeatedly that I was an English teacher, which is also a lie.”

    You were, it said so on your own interviews, as true as I knew the available information, thus not lies.

  222. raventhorn2000
    August 26th, 2011 at 05:17 | #222

    @C. Custer

    “Aaaand wrong again. No. I have worked for Chinese state media. However, I do not currently. Seriously, you’re just making a fool out of yourself.”

    True as I knew from the available information AT the TIME.

    Seriously, “own up” to your own assumptions/inferences, (which are LIES according to your own logic)! LOL!!

    Looking back, you had admitted to a LOT of erroneous assumptions and inferences. ALL LIES according to your own logic then!

    Glad you finally “owned up” to your own LIES!!

    🙂

  223. raventhorn2000
    August 26th, 2011 at 05:34 | #223

    “your continued focus on my personal life and background…”

    (Generalizations aside) Let’s just get the FACTS straight, HOW MANY TIMES have I brought up your personal life and background, say in the last 2 months, or since you came to this forum?

    And how many times have YOU called other commenters “idiots”, “just ignorant”, other personal insults, (oh, add to the number of times you used the F bomb all over this forum)??

    And how many times have YOU made basic errors of facts in your “assumptions”/Inferences in this forum without doing basic research? (Perhaps just count the times you actually owned up to them).

    That should tell you something about which 1 of us is the “fool” and the “troll”.

    (Yes, you do admit to making SOME of those errors, AFTER much backing you to the wall, but you also keep ON making MORE of them, over and over again, without doing basic research. Your admission is not an exoneration of your past errors, they just pile up!)

    🙂

  224. raventhorn2000
    August 26th, 2011 at 05:55 | #224

    @C. Custer

    And BTW, this time when I brought up your “degree”, it was in a JOKE, even if you don’t want laugh.

    The “focus” you complained about is the fact that you on the receiving end of the JOKE, and POOF goes your sense of humor.

    You SEEM quite insecure about your “degree”.

    And just admit it, you brought up your “degree” on your own to BRAG about yourself. Just because I mentioned the word “intellectual”, doesn’t mean I demanded to see your educational credentials, any more than meaning I demanded to see a listing of research papers you wrote, number of times you were cited by other authors, etc., which would have been better proof of your “intellectual”-ness.

    So it was rather odd that you felt compelled to show your “degree”, focus on your “degree”, and not just ANY degree, but an “ivy league” degree with honors. (not the number of jobs you held, etc.)

    A general assertion of your lack of experiences, and you rebut by specifically focusing on your “degree”.

    Yes, you seem quite insecure about that, as if you needed to convince EVERYONE and yourself about its worth to you (apparently, nothing else are convincing enough).

    *And you recent huff about my JOKE only confirms your insecurity more. (I don’t even have an “Ivy League” degree with honors, it would hardly bother me 1 bit if someone joked about my degree or my old schools, or even the legal profession. Indeed, I make jokes about lawyers lots of times in this forum).

    Well, I’ll be kind enough to NOT use your insecurity as a JOKE material in the future. (I wasn’t going to make the JOKE into a big deal, until you started huffing).

    Unfortunately for you, your insecurity is proof to itself, and the JOKE is permanently recorded in the forum.

    🙂

  225. raventhorn2000
    August 26th, 2011 at 10:58 | #225

    raventhorn2000 :Back to the main issue,
    It appears that UK is prosecuting number of Facebook “inciters” under the Inchoate Crimes portions of the Serious Crime Act 2007, namely http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/part/2, section 44, encouraging and assisting others in crime, or more commonly known as the “Aiding and Abetting” crimes.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029920/UK-riots-Teenager-urged-Facebook-friends-kill-million-police-jailed.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
    Pelle had pleaded guilty to a breach of section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, doing an act which was capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence, namely violent disorder.

    Bump back to the REAL topic. (and finally, moving on).

  226. Charles Liu
    September 8th, 2011 at 16:25 | #226

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.