Home > Analysis, News, Opinion > Opinion: the Occupy Wall Street movement will eventually fizz

Opinion: the Occupy Wall Street movement will eventually fizz

The recent Occupy Wall Street movement across the U.S. may be weighing in your minds. I couldn’t help but draw the parallel to the 1989 Tiananmen protest. With the unemployment in America stuck at 9.1%, pressure on society is gradually mounting. Many young Americans are starting to doubt their future. This sentiment is not that different than the students in China when they went out to Tiananmen uncertain what a decade-long privatization would bring them – as the iron rice bowl was apparently no longer guaranteed.

If unemployment in America is 15-20%, I think it is possible for this movement to escalate. If media around the globe then egg them on, and NGO’s provide them supplies to sustain their occupation of Wall Street, city halls, and so on, we may be seeing the beginnings of a revolution. But, those conditions do not yet exist. Honestly, I see this movement eventually fizzing out.

Occupy Wall Street is rallying the disenfranchised across the U.S. to confront the “greedy and corrupted.” They say their tactics are modeled after the Arab Spring in occupying symbols of injustice:

Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.

Is the movement demanding a revolution? Is it asking the 1% to redistribute their wealth? How is it proposing that the corruptions be stopped? As with the Tiananmen students, I don’t see a real proposal on how this country can change to accommodate what they want. Who does the U.S. government negotiate with? That was too a problem with the 1989 protest.

The population can generally empathize, but they also respect the rule of law. That means public support can quickly wane once the narratives in the media about the movement is primarily of lawlessness.

So, what is the U.S. media position on this movement? It is certainly not making the front pages. The media elites in America are not interested in a revolution at home. In fact, there has been many criticisms hurled at the movement by the U.S. media.

Finally, does any other country on this planet dare to agitate this movement? I don’t think so.

For these reasons, I think the Occupy Wall Street movement will eventually fizzle out. This 9.1% unemployment is more like a moderate back pain. Many people in fact learn to live with such ill.

One more caveat. Trade protectionism could come into vogue in America, because who knows how crazier this next election cycle will turn into. China is where American exports enjoy the fastest growth. In 2010, it was 32%. It is hard to predict what will the impact be when this 32% drops. Furthermore, the RMB will likely become one of the worlds reserve currencies – and soon according to HSBC – which then means demand for the USD drops. That in turn makes for more expensive in U.S. borrowing. Interesting times ahead.

Categories: Analysis, News, Opinion Tags:
  1. raventhorn2000
    October 4th, 2011 at 18:08 | #1

    A friend of mine gave a more likely outcome I think: The Rich will placate to the protesters by distributing some of their wealth voluntarily. (George Soros is gathering a following in the Rich to increase their tax rate).

    But that’s a bread and circuses type solution. It won’t really make the Rich more responsible, just allowing them deflect the problem.

    *But it is rather funny that While US Congress is passing bills and making comments condemning China for all the economic woes, the protesters are out on the street blaming Wall Street and the Political cronies.

    At least it shows to a limited extent, that the population in US is not as stupid as their own elected “representatives” thought they are.

    The protesters apparently know WHO exactly should be blamed for the US economic problems. NOT China, not Japan, not Middle East Oil Lords, But US corporations and US politicians.

    Maybe, just Maybe, after US politicians have used China, Japan, etc. (and overused) as scapegoats. And the protesters are finally wising up to the game.

    About time too. I mean, how obvious can it get. Rising unemployment in US, and YET US corporations making record profits.

    All the politically correct slogans can’t explain that one away. Some thing is rotten with this “democracy”, no matter how “democratic” one choose to call it.

  2. pug_ster
    October 4th, 2011 at 21:36 | #2

    I don’t agree with you on this yinyang. The problem is that with high unemployment rates, people (especially young people) have nothing to do, and take their frustrations at the government. This is just the beginning, I would like to see what happens in the next few weeks or months into this.

  3. October 4th, 2011 at 22:02 | #3

    I understand your point. How about we bet a cup of coffee this thing blows over in 5 years time?
    I think the anti-war movement for Iraq and Afghanistan lasted for about as long.

  4. October 5th, 2011 at 03:13 | #4

    what is the U.S. media position on this movement? It is certainly not making the front pages.

    Just the other day, the brooklyn march was the top story on the front page of NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, CBSNews, HuffPo etc. websites (as I’m not in the US I have no idea what was on TV). I dunno where everyone gets this ridiculous narrative about how the media is “silent” on these protests…

    Interesting comparison to 1989, with regard to their lack of clear demands or leaders. I think it kind of ends there, though. For one thing, the scale is vastly smaller, at least as I understand it. I wish them well, though.

  5. October 5th, 2011 at 05:15 | #5

    It is a case of taxable without representation in reverse. I bet the rich would move to other countries that will not tax so much. The poor will suffer from unemployment as the rich will not invest here for high taxes and the extra risks.

    Details on “Democratic system would lead to socialism and in turn would lead to self destruction.”

  6. raventhorn2000
    October 5th, 2011 at 06:02 | #6

    @C. Custer

    “I dunno where everyone gets this ridiculous narrative about how the media is “silent” on these protests.”

    Who said they were being “silent” on these protests?

    yinyang was asking what’s US media’s “position” on these protests (other than merely show some pictures)?

    Back again with your usual wild inferences/implications/assumptions again??!!

  7. raventhorn2000
    October 5th, 2011 at 06:10 | #7


    HK politicians called it “(Greater) Representation without (equal) taxation”. In this case, the Rich are getting MOST of the influences in wealth and political power, without paying their share of taxes.

    It would be somewhat self-evident that if the US top rich 1% owns more than 34% of all the resources, they should pay proportionally more than 34% of the taxes.

  8. raventhorn2000
    October 5th, 2011 at 06:21 | #8

    Interesting on the “smaller scale” of the Occupy Wall Street protest: NYPD arrested more than 700 protesters on Brooklyn Bridge.

    700 arrested for such as “small” protest, eh? What are the NYPD afraid of?

    Surely such a “democracy” has nothing to worry about. And yet, they pepperspray girls armed with protest signs, and haul them away to jail for what? Jaywalking? No protest zones?

  9. raventhorn2000
    October 5th, 2011 at 06:45 | #9

    Best comment I have seen recently on the net:

    On the story of US ambassedor to UN Susan Rice saying US is “Outraged” by China and Russia’s Double veto of UN resolution condemning Syria for cracking down on its protesters:

    1 commenter wrote: “Next, UN votes on resolution demanding US stop cracking down on its Occupy Wall Street protesters, US vetos.”

    Where is all the outrage over US and Europe’s cracking down of their protesters?? Where is the UN resolution on all that?

  10. October 5th, 2011 at 08:15 | #10

    Most of the protesters most likely are unemployed, receive entitlements, and belong to the 45% or so citizens who do not pay any income taxes. Greece demonstrates what happens when we have more free loaders than tax payers.

    The rich should pay their fair share of taxes. They are just investors like most of us are and only invest in ventures that have decent returns. US is not a good place to invest today with coming high taxes (you need to give to free loaders) and tough regulations. Without more investments, US will suffer from prolonged unemployment. The rich is not the problem (Deng let its citizens to be rich), the democratic system has its faults.

    So we always have two sides of a story.

  11. Wahaha
    October 5th, 2011 at 08:30 | #11

    Just the other day, the brooklyn march was the top story on the front page of NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, CBSNews, HuffPo etc. websites (as I’m not in the US I have no idea what was on TV). I dunno where everyone gets this ridiculous narrative about how the media is “silent” on these protests…


    That is ridiculous.

    In the first two weeks of the protest, nearly no reports at all on the protest. Media never turned their camera to the protest in the first two weeks. Then very very slowly, there were some reports that basically discouraged people to joining the protest, like ” they had no clear political goal’, “residents complained.”

    Finally, the protesters had no choice but to do something to get public attention, like walking on the main traffic road, now NY police got involved, the reports were more like trying to turn public anger towards government, the typical daily jobs of media and journalists.

    Oh, even the pictures, now protesters disguised as Zombies, now paper shows bunch of Zombies. Are protesters like that ? if so, there would be already riots in Manhattan.

    Do you think the media likes Wall st ? Of course they dont. So instead of burying your head in sand, you should ask yourself why media and journalists have behaved like this way.

  12. Wahaha
    October 5th, 2011 at 08:36 | #12

    The rich is not the problem (Deng let its citizens to be rich), the democratic system has its faults.


    The system makes sure that no1 have the power over the rich (in the name of govenment having no power over people).

    Deng did let citizens to be rich, but he never let few to control the capital. That is why China is still a socialist country as government controls most capital and hence most surplus, that is why Chinese government always has money to solve problems.

    The profits by American companys is about 6 trillion each year, imagine government controls 40% of shares.

  13. pug_ster
    October 5th, 2011 at 11:58 | #13


    I would’ve agree, but this movement is different. Just today the Unions, Moveon.org and many other left groups whom have supported Obama in the past are joining this protest. These are the very same groups who have supported in Obama’s ‘Audacity of Hype” campaign that got him elected and now felt cheated by Obama. People used to have faith in their government to revolve their problems, and now they are part of the problem. This is a dangerous precedence here.

  14. raventhorn2000
    October 5th, 2011 at 13:51 | #14

    “Raventhorn, I hope you weren’t being completely disingenuous by suggesting that the UN should consider rebuking the NYPD for arresting protesters who were blocking a bridge. You have some legal training, right? You must understand that there is a difference between briefly detaining some protesters and overtly murdering protesters. And it’s not like NY police officers are going around arresting every protester; they basically just removed some protesters from a bridge. Tomorrow those same protesters who were arrested could be back out on the street engaging in protests — legally and without being unreasonably restricted (or murdered!) by their government.”

    Define “overtly murdering protesters”. I’m not aware of such a legal term.

    I am aware that arresting 700 protesters in such a “small protest”, for jaywalking, and use of pepperspray on nonviolent protesters, would seem to be disproportional.

    “Blocking the bridge”? I thought it was a “small scale protest”, but I guess scale is defined by relative terms.

    How “briefly” was “briefly detaining”??

    “Tomorrow those same protesters who were arrested could be back out on the street engaging in protests — legally and without being unreasonably restricted (or murdered!) by their government.”

    Oh, are you putting up some kind of guarantee here for tomorrow?

    Seriously, you should, because of “democracy” right? Well, we’ll what happens tomorrow and the day after, because the protest is not over yet.

    Try 3 months, and then we will talk. 🙂

    *”We know why China didn’t want to support the UN resolution condemning Syria’s killing its own citizens. The CCP likes to do the same to Chinese protesters. The CCP likes to lock up dissidents in secret prisons, keep their family confined to their homes, forbid communication with the outside world, and basically not be held accountable by anybody. China thinks this is the “right” of every government — to hell with universal human rights, right?”

    “Universal human rights”? What’s that? US specifically disavowed UDHR as binding. There is no such thing.

    CCP is just going by its definition of Human rights, as US does with its (ie. rendition, Gitmo, etc.) If it was “Universal”, Bush and Cheney would be indicted by the Interpol by now.

    But hey, to hell with reality, let’s talk fantasy Human Rights League, who are constantly “outraged”. 🙂

  15. pug_ster
    October 5th, 2011 at 14:13 | #15


    The tactic used with the 700 people arrested is called Kettling. The police basically corralled them until they have nowhere to go and then arrest them. Seems that it was invented in the UK and happens frequently in Europe and North America.

  16. Wahaha
    October 5th, 2011 at 16:20 | #16


    Look at this link, tell us what you feel about this protest.


  17. pug_ster
    October 5th, 2011 at 21:29 | #17


    keep repeating your lies about Syria. Considering how many cops and the army are brutally tortured and murdered, maybe some of these protesters are not so ‘peaceful?’

    This problem with Occupy Wall Street is a pressure cooker ready to explode. There’s going be lots more people protesting this Saturday/Sunday since they got major union backing. Meanwhile, Washington seems to be death, dumb and blind about this while the Media seem to made a mediocrity out of this. They said that this is some kind of ‘fringe’ movement while a poll say that there is 79% of Americans who actually support this.

  18. Charles Liu
    October 5th, 2011 at 22:06 | #18

    Just saw it on news, the police removed tents and arrested protesters. The reason given is people can protest, but no tent, as it is illegal (no camping overnight, no excluding others from use.)

    Compare this with the tents that went up in Egypt, etc. How is that when they tried to remove tent, it’s human rights violantion, but when we do it it’s legal?

  19. pug_ster
    October 5th, 2011 at 22:21 | #19

    Charles Liu,

    It is not a human rights violation because it happens in the US. In NYC, it is even illegal to pitch tents. So people have to sleep in makeshift beds and cardboards.

  20. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 06:06 | #20


    No Jim, I asked what you mean by “OVERTLY murdering”, because there are LOTS of different categories of MURDER in US law, none of which are called “OVERTLY murder”.

    Now you redefine it as “OPENLY kill”. AGAIN, I know of no such category of MURDER in US law, as “openly kill”.

    You can cite references to enlighten us, if you have any.

    “What would NYPD do if the protests kept growing and even became very violent? How would we deal with riots like those in London this past summer? I hope that some group of people somewhere has already contemplated this question and has a good plan in place. More likely, our police forces would make some serious mistakes (like police made post-Katrina), and then we’d be stuck having to ‘fix’ those mistakes after the fact.

    But we can be sure that the response in the U.S. wouldn’t be to drive tanks over the protesters. Our response wouldn’t be to secretly detain leading dissidents and threaten their families. ”

    Really? Read “Bonus March” protest in US??!!

    “Let’s see if I can think back to when I took a course on public international law… Even if not all states have signed or ratified the UDHR, it’s commonly assumed to have already become customary international law. Similarly, the U.S. never ratified UNCLOS, but nobody really disputes that the U.S. is bound by UNCLOS because UNCLOS is now customary law anyway. Also, the UDHR defines human rights as the term is used in the U.N. Charter, and the U.N. Charter definitely is binding on member nations.”

    You are wrong on both counts. US has specifically disavowed any legal binding force of UDHR or UNCLOS on US. Can’t say those are “customary laws” in US, because US courts have simply refused to enforce those “customary laws” as such.

    “No country gets to have its own definition of human rights; the definition is the same for the United States and China. And hell, maybe Bush and Cheney — or whoever authorized secret renditions — should be charged for violating others’ human rights. This issue was actually openly debated early in Obama’s term, but Obama caved to political pressure.”

    Again, Wrong. “Should be” is in fact not reality. Bush and Cheney are NOT charged, and so much for your “should be”.

    I don’t deal with what “should be”, I deal with what IS.

  21. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 06:11 | #21


    Interesting comparison: In Syria, government try to divert the attention of the people during Protests, by blaming US and Israel for the problems. In US, the protesters are blaming Wall Street and DC, and Congress is blaming China for all the problems.

    We can clearly see the growing and parallel disconnect between the Leaders of US and its people.

  22. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 06:25 | #22


    I think sending supplies and weapons to fuel an on-going Civil War (as done by US and NATO) should be considered Human Rights violations.

  23. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 06:28 | #23

    Arrests again! in NY and Seattle. Reporters hit by pepperspray and baton!! Wait, I thought that only happens in places like Egypt!


  24. October 6th, 2011 at 06:31 | #24

    The reason it took so long before they arrested the 700 or so protesters in the bridge could be waiting for the shipment of the cost effective plastic locks from China. 🙂

  25. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 06:32 | #25


    At 7:48 p.m., a protester near the barrier made an announcement: “If you’re willing to get arrested, go in front.” The crowd shuffled a little bit, and then with a chant of “three, two, one,” scores of protesters attempted to storm the barricades.

    The police pushed back, shoving and spraying pepper spray. One white-shirted officer almost immediately started swinging a baton that hit numerous protesters and a Fox 5 reporter. The heavy sound of the baton’s contact with human bodies has already reverberated online, spawning accusations of unnecessary force.

    Nobody made it over onto Wall Street without being arrested; at least four were taken into custody immediately. For hours afterward, several hundred protesters played a game of cat-and-mouse with police that seemed to stretch all over Lower Manhattan. Setting off on unpredictable, quick-paced marches, the protesters loped around corners and ran through streets, daring the police to arrest them. Sometimes the police did, using batons and force in the process.

    There were reports of an attempt to enter Wall Street from another intersection that also ended in arrests. At Beaver and Marketfield the protesters somehow overturned police motorcycles. The department responded by sending in officers on horseback. Twenty minutes or so later, near State Street at Pearl Street, another one of the running sallies resulted in approximately five arrests. The police repeatedly told HuffPost they were only arresting people who left the sidewalks — but why it was illegal to leave the sidewalks was not explained.

    A CBS helicopter caught images of “an officer with a baton hitting a protester as other police surrounded him and tossed the protester to the ground.”

    By the end of the night, as local TV networks like WABC talked about the evening as “easily one of the most violent confrontations between police and protesters so far,” the running marches and the resulting police reaction had cast a shadow over the peaceful, thousands-strong labor and community rally earlier in the day.

  26. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 06:38 | #26

    “The police repeatedly told HuffPost they were only arresting people who left the sidewalks — but why it was illegal to leave the sidewalks was not explained.”

    LOL! I thought so, JAYWALKING is now an arrestable offense in NYC (as oppose to normally just a fine).

    (The only country I know of that arrest people for jaywalking is Singapore).

    But wait, when did NYPD get the power to change laws in NYC? Oh, it’s just the usual “arrest first, ask questions later” deal!!

  27. W. Tseng
    October 6th, 2011 at 06:57 | #27

    I fully agree with yinyang’s assertion that the protest will eventually fizzle out. For unlike the NED, which openly funds dissident groups & probably also encourage/organise civil disobedience/rebellion, there is no country in the world today that dares to interfere with the internal affairs of America. You may say what you like but that’s the perogative of a real super-power.

  28. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 07:07 | #28

    “there is no country in the world today that dares to interfere with the internal affairs of America. ”

    Perhaps should be qualified as “dares to OPENLY interfere with the internal affairs of America.”

    But that leads to underground influence peddling.

  29. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 07:09 | #29

    @W. Tseng

    While no country openly interferes with US internal affairs, LOTS of countries learned to use the corrupt lobbying process in US to their own gain. Even China does it.

  30. pug_ster
    October 6th, 2011 at 07:30 | #30


    This is the kettling tactics used by the NYPD all along. They crammed the protesters in a closed space as much of them as possible so where else could they go?

  31. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 07:42 | #31


    “And you’re just being silly if you can’t admit that a common adjective can modify the word murder — you should be able to think of many examples: brutally murder, heartlessly murder, indiscriminately murder, etc.”

    “Common adjectives” are not precise legal terms. That’s not a lawyer’s job, that’s the job of a spin doctor.

    *And I won’t dignify your remarks if you are going to start it by insulting me personally.

    2. “We don’t often have these incidents in the United States, and when they happen, we hold our government accountable.”

    Define “accountable”, because you seem to condemn others harder than holding your own “accountable”.

    3. see 2. above.

    “Also, I don’t think my assessment of customary international law is incorrect. Rather, I think you don’t know what customary international law is and how it operates as a source of international law.”

    I know what it IS, which is UNRECOGNIZED in US.

    You can talk about what you think it “should be”, but that’s not LAW, that’s what you imagine it “should it”.

    What you IMAGINE is not LAW, in US or anywhere else, last time I checked.

  32. Wahaha
    October 6th, 2011 at 08:19 | #32

    Is there something spectacular about those pictures? I ask because it seems like you expect me to be struck by something in particular.


    Your question gave the answer : there is nothing special about this protest, and lot of them are punks, homeless and trouble makers, why bother to join them.

    Get the point ?

  33. Wahaha
    October 6th, 2011 at 08:25 | #33


    Dont believe ? Ok, let us have a look of CNN report today “How Occupy Wall Street has evolved”.

    Go to their website, see the picture on top ?

    Let me ask you : after seeing that picture, do you have any enthusiam to join the protest ?

    and more, in the 2nd to last paragraph :
    “Draw focus to the concerns — and anger — many Americans have about the country’s growing economic gap, plant the seed of an organized voice, and let the protest evolve naturally. ”

    Is this the reason for this movemet ?

    We all know this movement is about the anger towards big corps, but you can hardly see such sentiments in any newspapers.

    So, they can talk, but how public understand this protest is in the hand of rich-run media.

    Get it ?

  34. Wahaha
    October 6th, 2011 at 08:34 | #34


    From what you said, you have no idea what free-speech is (I am not saying Chinese people have the freedom.)

    In China, Government controls the TV and newspaper, they block the information they dont like, that is censorship.

    In West, Government have no control of information. It is the rich and corps that owns the media, and the media and journalists controls the information. So the freedom of speech should NOT be judged by if you can bash governement, rather it is judged by when you say something that the rich, corps and meida dont like.

    In China, they block the information, which is stupid, because people know something happened, just dont know what is behind it, this greatly damages the credibility of themselves.

    In West, media and journalists talk about everything, except westerners never know what they didnt tell you, this is called the misleading, clear ?

    So, blocking the information vs misleading, neither can be called “freedom of speech”.

    BTW, in China, Government cant brainwash people cuz the state-run media doesnt have enough credibility. Back to you, did you ever doubt the reports by your media ? did you ever say anything your media doesnt like ? If your answer to both of them are “NO”, then 75% chances that you are brainwashed.

  35. Wahaha
    October 6th, 2011 at 08:38 | #35

    OK, so your point is that there is nothing special about the OWS protest. Can you help me understand why you directed this point at me?


    Your free speech is meaningless unless media and journalists( who are controled by the rich and corp) want to make it an issue, like Charlie Sheen.

    Did you ever ask why unemployment never dropped after Obama injected trillions of dollors ? Should not the FOREVER-RIGHT media make it big topic, like the crap about Charlie Sheen

    This movement will die down slowly or the anger will be turned towards government GUIDED BY YOUR “FREE” MEDIA.

    Please remember, the most powerful people in West is not government, it is the rich and corporations.

  36. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 09:01 | #36


    “I’m pretty sure juris doctor could be replaced with the title of spin doctor. I mean, have you never written a compelling statement of the facts?

    And you really don’t understand international law.”

    That may be your opinion, but your opinion of “customary international law” does not override what US courts’ positions are on UDHR and UNCLOS.

    So, don’t tell me that I don’t understand “international law”. I understand it in accordance to US courts’ present positions.

    I don’t understand why you think your opinion to the contrary is “international law”. (That’s your “spin doctoring”, not mine).

    a “compelling statement of fact”??!!

    FACTS are FACTS, “compelling” doesn’t override what is FACT.

  37. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 09:09 | #37

    “One could find no dignity in missing 40% of the questions on the LSAT.”

    I don’t know who you are talking about, but my LSAT score was “average”. No shame in that. I didn’t brag about my LSAT score, nor do I find it that bad.

    But hey, My LSAT SCORE “should be” pretty high, so I guess that makes it GREAT, then. Who cares what it actually is?? LOL! 🙂 (Since we are talking about what “should be” vs. what “is”).

  38. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 10:07 | #38


    You have got to be kidding me. (Not that you know anything about my LSAT scores)

    155 is “stupid” by your standard? 155 on LSAT is “average”, and it is PERCENTILE ranking of about 63.9%!! That means I would be almost at top 1/3 of all LSAT test takers at that test.

    I would not be ashame of that. If you want to call me “stupid” for having 155 on LSAT, I don’t give a damn what you think. I have D’s in college too, go enjoy that too. (It only makes you look stupid).

    “Lawyers definitely spin facts to make the best presentation possible to serve a client”

    Key word, spin “FACTS”. You, on the other hand, is spinning something OTHER than facts.

  39. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 10:11 | #39


    “the ICJ held that the United States violated international law by depriving Mexican nationals of consular access, even though U.S. courts approved.”

    Last I looked, US courts don’t recognize ICJ’s authority on US either. 🙂

    And yes, that is US hypocrisy.

    But hey, STILL NOT US law.

    Try citing something that US courts actually RECOGNIZE!! I thought I was being perfectly clear about what US laws actually ARE.

  40. pug_ster
    October 6th, 2011 at 10:25 | #40

    Ah yes, we are talking Occupy wall street movement and Jim only cares about other people’s LSAT scores. Maybe you can brag about your LSAT score and claim how ‘smart’ you are, just like C Custer brags about his Ivy League status.

    @W. Tseng

    W Tseng,

    I would agree with you, but this movement is grass roots and not supported by foreign governments.

  41. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 10:27 | #41


    “I’m not condoning spin in the media or blatant distortions anywhere. I was making a limited response to your comment about lawyering versus spin doctoring.”

    I think you have been watching too much court drama TV.

    There is a big difference between “interpretation” of laws vs. “spin doctoring”. You trying to draw a similarity between those 2 just makes your comment look foolish.

    Frankly, it also makes plain that you don’t know anything about “lawyering”. (That along with your shallow understanding of significance of LSAT scores. I’ll give you a “freebie”: Lawyers don’t put up their LSAT scores on their resumes. 🙂 OK, may be the really stupid ones would feel a need to brag about their LSAT scores on their resumes)

  42. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 10:37 | #42


    Oddly coincidental, don’t you think? 2 peas in a pod, both neurotically obsessive about rather superficial academic achievements as the sole measure of intelligence.

    I guess this sort of “academic overcompensation complex” is common in some population segments.


  43. Charles Liu
    October 6th, 2011 at 12:08 | #43

    Personal attacks aside, how does OWS square with recent veto by China and Russia on Syria?

    If OWS protesters turn violent and resist arrest, attack police, do you think use of deadly force by the state is justfiable? Does such logic apply to other countries? How about Syria?

  44. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 13:33 | #44

    @Charles Liu

    That’s the beauty of the “Democracy”. They don’t bother to justify it!

    They just do it, and do it, until the protesters just go away, try to sue, and lose in court.

    “Democracy” is just what it “should be” on paper, but not what IS in reality.

    And what “should be” should be good enough, no justification for what “IS” needed.

  45. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 15:08 | #45


    Regarding US ratification of ICCPR, it has little legal effect:
    The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992, with five reservations, five understandings, and four declarations.
    Some have noted that with so many reservations, its implementation has little domestic effect. Included in the Senate’s ratification was the declaration that “the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing”, and in a Senate Executive Report stated that the declaration was meant to “clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts.” IE. you cannot sue using ICCPR in US courts.
    Keep digging, LSAT score polisher.

  46. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 15:26 | #46


    “Also, it is a myth that U.S. courts don’t take into account international law, despite current political posturing by Republicans. See, e.g., The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900)”

    “Take into account” is not the same as recognizing it as law. The MYTH is entirely your own creation, because I don’t recall anyone else here making that “myth”, but you just did.

    Arguing against your own imaginary positions? LOL!!

  47. Charles Liu
    October 6th, 2011 at 16:00 | #47

    Someone mentioned that few months ago Madam Clinton chastized the Chinese government for arresting protesters as “on a fool’s errand, trying to stop history”.

    Now we are the ones tearing down tents, arresting those Occupy Wall Street protesters inspired by Arab Spring. Following the same logic aren’t we also on a fool’s errand, trying to stop history? Don’t these protests show coportate-owned government in America is doomed to fail as well?

    Funny how such black-and-white moral archetype all of sudden don’t apply to ourselves. All of sudden law and order, functioning society, sovereignty is a lot more important than ideals.

  48. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 16:01 | #48


    “A country might disregard international law — and there might be no effective recourse — but that doesn’t mean the international law is not in place.”

    “In place”? What “Place” would that be? Limbo la-la land?

    UDHR and UNCLOS, NOT in any “place” in US, with no “effective recourse”. Fine. Done.

  49. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 16:06 | #49

    @Charles Liu

    I don’t need to go that high moral standard.

    I’m just finding it ridiculous that NYPD is now considering JAYWALKING as an arrest-able (and/or pepper spray-able) offense in NYC.

    That “Freedom” is becoming awfully narrow on the streets of NYC.

    When the going gets tough, the Tough reaches for pepper spray and batons and handcuffs, I guess. 🙂

  50. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 17:39 | #50


    “Where did I conflate the type of interpretation of laws in which judges engage with the type of “spin doctoring” (a.k.a. advocacy) in which many lawyers engage?”

    Apparently, you think lawyers don’t interpret laws in their arguments? That says it all for your “conflation”.

    “I do, however, think your low LSAT score tends to support a conclusion I had already made based on my interactions with you: you’re not smart.”

    Yeah, OK, if LSAT score is your “support” for conclusion, you are reaching for straws! and that supports my conclusion, that you are not that smart (and pretty desperate) if you are reaching for LSAT scores!! LOL!! (or by the way you can’t keep comments straight in the right thread)

    “Just because the United States might disregard an international law doesn’t mean the international law obligation disappears.”

    Actually, it does. If US doesn’t recognize an international law, BY DEFINITION, US doesn’t recognize its “obligation”, PERIOD!!!

    I just wonder how you are going to enforce the “obligation”, when US government doesn’t recognize the “obligation”. LOL!! Wait outside of the court house for a few more months, and let me know how that goes!!

    “Also, I already cited a case in which a U.S. court affirmed the U.S. government’s obligation to abide by customary international law; it’s an old case, but it’s regarded as the preeminent case on point.”

    Well, it should be easy for you to remind the US government of its “obligations”!

    Go ahead, make your “compelling” case, let us know when you get somewhere with US to recognize the UDHR and UNCLOS as customary international law obligations of US!!

    I can wait. You have PLENTY of time!!

    “Again, the point here is just that U.S. courts haven’t always disregarded international law obligations, and in many cases, U.S. courts are supposed to be bound to affirm the obligations of the United States that arise under international law.”

    “SUPPOSED to” doesn’t mean any more than “SHOULD be”.
    You are pretty much admitting that US doesn’t recognize UDHR and UNCLOS as “customary international law”, why are you continuing to argue??
    Who cares what you thinks is “SUPPOSED TO BE” or “SHOULD BE”??!! They aren’t law in US!
    “SUPPOSED TO BE” and “SHOULD BE”?? Well, NOT there YET!!
    Let me know when you get the US courts to change it to “IS”!

    “I won’t complement you on your plagiarizing the Wikipedia article on the ICCPR; you copied it word-for-word, except you omitted the citations.”

    Well, I don’t get paid to cite. and it’s Wikipedia, it’s public knowledge, not academic paper.

    Reaching for straws again, eh, (How very desperate of you).

    I take that as an admission that you have nothing useful to say about ICCPR.

    “jus cogens norms”?? Go ahead an explain it to US courts. Yes, it will be your waste of time. Because UDHR is still NOT law in US, you can explain it until you are blue in the face. LOL!!

    I’m at least smart enough to know UDHR is not law in US, and I don’t try to waste my time to convince anyone else otherwise.


  51. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 17:47 | #51


    Here’s Hint for you: (you missed this class!)


    LAW 608
    Statutory Interpretation

    (AKA, interpreting laws)!!!

    Starting with: the chapter on how UDHR is not BINDING on US!! (with emphasis on the meaning of the words “NOT BINDING”) Pretty obvious you don’t know the meaning of those words, by the way you are still yapping about “should be” and “supposed to be”. LOL!!

  52. pug_ster
    October 6th, 2011 at 18:08 | #52

    @Charles Liu

    Gees, Charlies. Those wackos in Washington thinks that America is not capable of these human rights abuses. Tearing down tents, protesters gets corralled and then maced, billy clubbed and then arrested because they are being corralled to a bridge roadway. Protesters thrown down to the ground with their head bashed in, face on the ground and arrested. From the country who thinks that waterboarding is not torture, this kind of police brutality is is not a human rights violation. If half of this kind of crap happens in China, the madam Clinton would have a field day. But since it happens in America where Chase gave a generous donation of 4.6 million to the NYPD for ‘additional equipment’ so they can beat down a couple more protesters, it really doesn’t matter.

  53. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 18:20 | #53

    “Protesters thrown down to the ground with their head bashed in, face on the ground and arrested.”

    for Jaywalking. (I’m doing the “balancing” here).

    Obviously, That was some MAJOR JAYWALKING! I’ll admit it. Those Jaywalking students looked very menacing. They weren’t going to stop their continual jaywalking for the hundredth time! Obviously, the NYPD had to do something to stop all these lawless Jaywalking (off the sidewalk).

    Seriously, what’s next? Corporations making record profits AND donating BILLIONS to influence politicians AND firing people for no reason at the same time?!


    (I don’t know how these jaywalking students can sleep at night) Seriously, I don’t know how they can sleep at night in the park without tents….

  54. Jim
    October 6th, 2011 at 18:39 | #54


    Actually, you’re just continuing to show that you don’t understand how customary international law is developed. The UDHR was never intended to be binding; it was at first an aspirational document. See 19 Dep’t State Bull 751 (1948) (noting that the UDHR is not a treaty and is no intending to be binding on the United States). This doesn’t mean, however, that countries didn’t go on to encourage the development and application of universal human rights standards — and this is how customary international law develops. Saying that the UDHR — the actual document — isn’t binding does not end the conversation; this is the point you don’t understand and why I think you are intellectually shallow. Even if not every country signs off on every provision of the UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, the Genocide Convention, the Torture convention, etc., there has been an unmistakable advancement of international support of universal human rights standards. You’re also neglecting to take account of why some countries with better humans rights records, like the United States, make reservations to some of these instruments. Take the ICCPR for example– The U.S. took a reservation to the provision barring the death penalty for juveniles who commit certain crimes. (This was a stupid reservation in my opinion, but anyway, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently barred the application of the death penalty for juveniles.) The U.S. took a reservation to a provision that would limit First Amendment speech rights. Other provisions simply were already addressed by U.S. domestic law. So it isn’t the case that the United States doesn’t actually support (or apply!) the human rights norms that set out by the UDHR. The real problem is that the — and I already admitted this — is that the United States sometimes refuses to ratify international instruments that purport to provide rights or protections that go beyond what the U.S. Constitution provides, and understandably this makes it difficult for the United States to then go to other countries and argue that they should provide protections that go beyond their respective constitutions or similar laws. Still, the fact is that the United States in recent times has a much better track record than the countries we criticize, e.g. China, Iran, North Korea, Syria. So, often there isn’t a question whether the Untied States is complying with its obligation to abide by international human rights standards, either under a particular instrument or customary international law.

    You also gloss over articles 55 and 56 of the U.N. Charter. Even if the charter doesn’t lay out specific rules for states to follow, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the sentiment of the U.N. Charter: “[W]e have recently pledged ourselves to cooperate with the United Nations to ‘promote . . . universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.’ How can this nation be faithful to this international pledge if state laws which bar land ownership and occupancy by aliens on account of race are permitted to be enforced?” Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633, 649-50. And don’t forget that the United States actually is the world’s leading venue for private human rights litigation — I know there has been recent litigation on the Alien Tort Claims Act, but that doesn’t discount the fact that the statute has been used successfully by many litigants to seek justice for violations of both customary international law and self-executing treaties (in the absent of reservations). I mean, really, there are lot a of ways to potentially enforce human rights standards… various conventions like the Genocide Convention, the ICPRC, the ECHR, enforcement in national courts, actions by states like sanctions… I’m tired of explaining this shit to you. There’s a reason why an “average” LSAT score only gets you into one of the country’s worst law schools.

  55. Wahaha
    October 6th, 2011 at 18:52 | #55


    Let me speak in plain english :

    US is not a democratic country.

    There is no more freedom of speech in America than in China, the difference is in China it is against government; in America, it is against Corps and media.

    American people think they have freedom of speech because they are brainwashed to equate free speech to bashing government; equate democracy to voting system.


    Yes, you have been brainwashed. Anyone, after tillions of dollars spent by his government but unemployment doesnt change at all, should question the SYSTEM. If not, either he is trying to hide something, he is too stupid or he is brainwashed.

    Sorry if this offended you.


  56. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 18:59 | #56

    “Actually, you’re just continuing to show that you don’t understand how customary international law is developed. The UDHR was never intended to be binding;”

    Actually, ONCE again, you just admitted to what I said in the first place, UDHR is not LAW!! Go “develop” it, when you are done, come back.

    “This doesn’t mean, however, that countries didn’t go on to encourage the development and application of universal human rights standards.”

    Well, I didn’t say anyone is stopping you from “encouraging the development”. GO AHEAD and go “encourage” it. come back when you are done!!

    “Saying that the UDHR — the actual document — isn’t binding does not end the conversation; this is the point you don’t understand and why I think you are intellectually shallow.”

    Actually, IT is the End of the Conversation! Because I don’t know what you are selling, if It’s not binding!!

    No one is stopping you to go “develop” it. Come back when you get some results!

    “(This was a stupid reservation in my opinion, but anyway, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently barred the application of the death penalty for juveniles.)”

    Well, they certainly didn’t REMOVE all the reservations!!! Guess you think you are smarter than the US Supreme Court?! Yeah OK, right, that will get you somewhere in your legal “compelling”! NOT!!


    “The real problem is that the — and I already admitted this — is that the United States sometimes refuses to ratify international instruments that purport to provide rights or protections that go beyond what the U.S. Constitution provides, and understandably this makes it difficult for the United States to then go to other countries and argue that they should provide protections that go beyond their respective constitutions or similar laws. Still, the fact is that the United States in recent times has a much better track record than the countries we criticize, e.g. China, Iran, North Korea, Syria. So, often there isn’t a question whether the Untied States is complying with its obligation to abide by international human rights standards, either under a particular instrument or customary international law.”

    “OFTEN”? Well, yeah, NEVER is pretty much OFTEN not a question, because you can’t SUE under ICCPR in US courts. NO ICCPR enforcement (even if ratified) in US. Who said it was an “question”? I know there is NO question at all, ICCPR is not enforceable in US!

    Again, NOT LAW!

    “You also gloss over articles 55 and 56 of the U.N. Charter. Even if the charter doesn’t lay out specific rules for states to follow”

    I “gloss over”?! Where?

    UN charter is not law in US!!

    “I know there has been recent litigation on the Alien Tort Claims Act, but that doesn’t discount the fact that the statute has been used successfully by many litigants to seek justice for violations of both customary international law and self-executing treaties (in the absent of reservations).”

    What does this have to do with UDHR? And define “successful”.

    “I mean, really, there are lot a of ways to potentially enforce human rights standards… various conventions like the Genocide Convention, the ICPRC, the ECHR, enforcement in national courts, actions by states like sanctions… I’m tired of explaining this shit to you. There’s a reason why an “average” LSAT score only gets you into one of the country’s worst law schools.”

    “potentially enforce”?? Oh please. let me know when you ACTUALLY enforce “international human rights standards” in US courts.

    US courts don’t recognize UDHR as customary international law. You admitted it, end of story. You are wasting your precious “spin doctoring”, AFTER your own admissions. LOL!!


  57. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 19:11 | #57

    “There’s a reason why an “average” LSAT score only gets you into one of the country’s worst law schools.”

    “Average” LSAT score maybe gets YOU into 1 of the country’s worst law schools. (Boy, you must have really mess up bad, to go from “average” to “worst”. How the hell do you get into a “worst” school with “average” scores, LSAT genius?! Gee, no analytical skills at all, eh? Can’t even make sense in your own hypothetical?? Supports my suspicion that you never even taken the LSAT.)

    I’m pretty sure anyone could get into an “average” law school with “average” LSAT score!! It’s not that difficult!


  58. W. Tseng
    October 6th, 2011 at 23:49 | #58

    You’re right ofcourse but this is far cry from the open funding/support the NED uses to fuel civil disobedience, mob tactics or even revolt. Any other country in the world that is even “suspected” of interfering with the present protest would face unimaginable consequences I believe.

  59. xian
    October 7th, 2011 at 03:24 | #59

    Aging hippies and childish idealists. All capitalist free markets are driven by greed and corruption and characterized by a tiny minority holding disproportionate wealth. It’s also the only model known to work consistently. Tax the rich, put down regulations, sure. But there’s no way around the nature of the system itself. The only viable route is not to loathe the rich, but try to outcompete them.

  60. raventhorn2000
    October 7th, 2011 at 05:44 | #60

    @W. Tseng

    nevertheless, Some media already link “Canada” as the “fuze” that caused the Anti-Wall Street protest.

    Too early to tell if “Canada” will suffer some “consequences”.

    Likely “Canada” will crack down on the “cause” in response to US pressure.

  61. pug_ster
    October 7th, 2011 at 09:14 | #61

    I find it funny that in Sept 25, 1789, in Federal hall at 26 Wall Street when Congress at the time proposed the Bill of Rights. Now more than 200 years later thousands of protesters are near the very same spot where the Bill of Rights was proposed. I bet the founding fathers would probably roll over their graves once if they realized that it has happened.

  62. October 7th, 2011 at 10:34 | #62

    Liked what you said. I’ve quoted you in our random quotes section.

  63. pug_ster
    October 7th, 2011 at 11:28 | #63


    I would’ve agree but in every country who calls themselves capitalist countries are not true capitalist and have some form of socialism. Whether it is food stamps, universal health care, public schooling, social security, pensions, public housing, and affordable college. This is what keeps the social safety net. Considering that the US government has taken away or marginalized many of the social safety net in the past 30 years, this is the cause of this movement, and very much like the cause of the 1989 protests when the Chinese realize that the iron rice bowl is no longer there.

  64. xian
    October 7th, 2011 at 14:16 | #64

    Thanks, I appreciate it.

    Almost all countries are a blend of capitalism and socialism, I agree there. It’s clear that social benefits are part of reason for the protests, but the attitude I’m seeing from them appears to be a mix of naive idealism topped with a thick layer of partisan hatred. Then again, that describes just about every political issue in the US.

  65. raventhorn2000
    October 7th, 2011 at 19:35 | #65

    This bit is funny


    “United, proletarians around the world,” was one of the slogans the pensioners chanted. (in China)

  66. pug_ster
    October 9th, 2011 at 22:47 | #66

    I think we will soon see part 2 of this movement. I would not be surprised that the university students will be joining the protest soon, if not already they are.

  67. bayi
    October 10th, 2011 at 03:51 | #67


    Of course you wouldn’t see anything special in that photoset. You, like Custer, are a typical westerner brainwashed by western media. In reading one of their products, how COULD you see it? I’m not being critical or offensive, just stating fact.

    I’m not going to explain in detail or legalese my comment like so many others so patiently do here. How do you explain the color blue to a blind person? (From a sampling of your other comments, I think you would try to do so anyway via legalese.)

  68. bayi
    October 10th, 2011 at 04:07 | #68

    I agree with the author that OWS will probably just fizzle. America is still an immensely wealthy country, and the RULERS just need to find some funds somewhere to buy off the segment of the population that the protestors represent. Given a choice between letting the OWS escalate into potentially violent full scale DISRUPTIVE revolt and dropping a few token scraps at the protestors, the only sane option is the latter for the powers that be. Although it might not even get to that point, it might fizzle out before that decision point due to the poor media courage and lack of support as highlighted.

  69. raventhorn2000
    October 10th, 2011 at 06:41 | #69


    I would not say that OWS will “fizzle”. I think it will end without much real change to US politics, but that is not to “fizzle”.

    Rather I think it may end badly, violently.

    As more people join in, the more dangerous the situation can become.

    The out of work types who are joining the protest, they have almost nothing to lose, and nowhere to go.

    They have no jobs to go back to, they congregate with like-minded people in the cities, to gripe and complain and protest.

    They could stay for months and months, if they have no real job prospects, what possible motivation do they have to leave?

    None whatsoever.

    (Wall Street might take notice, and try to hire some of these guys! But I doubt it).

    Recall the Bonus March, out of work Veterans gathered in DC in camps along with their families, because they have nowhere to go, and no money to take with them.

  70. raventhorn2000
    October 10th, 2011 at 13:57 | #70


    IOWA police arrest protesters, use pepperspray to disperse crowd.

    “On Monday, Iowa’s Republican Governor Terry Branstad told reporters the Capitol grounds were not meant to be a place for an overnight camp and no permits were available for such a use.”

    *OH, wait, “NO permits were available for such a USE”? What “use” is this?? “FREEDOM of ASSEMBLY” in public? PERMITS???!!

    Which part of the 1st Amendment of US, required PERMIT for “assembly” in public??!

    Or which part of the 1st Amendment can CLOSE public facility for “assembly” purposes??!

  71. raventhorn2000
    October 10th, 2011 at 14:07 | #71

    I guess IOWA told us all: Democracy requires PERMITS, and “NO PERMITS available” for some “USE”!


  72. raventhorn2000
    October 10th, 2011 at 17:56 | #72

    Video of Chinese Rally in China supporting the “Wall Street Protest”.


  73. raventhorn2000
    October 11th, 2011 at 06:45 | #73


    Boston cracks down on Protesters, police tore down tents in camp, arrested over 100.

    “Civil disobedience will not be tolerated,” Boston (Cairo) Mayor Thomas Menino told the local Fox News affiliate in an interview early Tuesday.

  74. Charles Liu
    October 11th, 2011 at 09:29 | #74

    Wow, for everybody else protest = regime change or we’ll bomb you a$$. For ourselves it’s law and order, functioning society, strong sovereignty.

    But honestly, I objected to few protests usurping the majority back then, and I do believe it now for America, that few OWS protesters should not be allowed to bring the country down. If those hippie beadnecks ever take Chinese government’s money and attack the police, I’ll be the first to congratulate law enforcement for their justifiable use of deadly force.

    But for those to cheered regime change in Egypt, backed NATO bombing of Libya, where does this leave you?

  75. raventhorn2000
    October 11th, 2011 at 09:59 | #75

    @Charles Liu

    I would not congratulate any one, violence is bad for any society, doesn’t matter the cause/justification.

    Ultimately, US government may have caused its own headache by supporting “Arab Spring”, now it would be harder to ignore the “American Spring”.

    He who plays with fire, likely to get burned.

  76. raventhorn2000
    October 11th, 2011 at 11:46 | #76


    Article in “leftist” Chinese Website Utopia, supporting the Wall Street Protest. No good English translation available yet.

    signed by 50 Chinese intellectuals, as letter of support.

    And I believe it is also being distributed by net users. I guess by that “poll”, it’s very popular.

  77. Wukailong
    October 11th, 2011 at 21:50 | #77

    @YinYang: I was going to ask this but note that it’s already in the post. Are there any real proposals what to do about the current system? In the end I think that’s more important than anything else – when there are concrete ideas, there will be much more of an impact.

  78. October 11th, 2011 at 21:57 | #78

    I think a lot of intellectuals are jumping in to influence that ultimate ‘proposal.’ Many segments of American society are jumping in. So, the list of grievances might get too long. I think the Tiananmen student leaders of 89 didn’t want the blue color workers to join them because they feared dilution of what they wanted.

    Agreed when the leaders and few wants emerge, it will be easier for the movement. But whether they can achieve that in the coming winter months is hard to say.

  79. raventhorn2000
  80. Charles Liu
    October 12th, 2011 at 14:32 | #80

    Is there any other systemic change other than revolution? Well that’s not allowed, as after Boston other cities are arresting protesters en mass.

  81. raventhorn2000
    October 12th, 2011 at 14:47 | #81

    @Charles Liu

    Hence, undoubtedly, this adds to the desperation of the protesters on Wall Street. They know very well that the “system” won’t change.

    I’m sure they desperately hope and wish that the leaders would change the system. But I think they are smart enough to know that the chances are very slim, not without the protest getting much bigger, and potentially dangerous.

    (because frankly, the power elites do not want to change, and are willing to resort to force to “defend” their possession and power).

    1 way or another, at least 1 side will have hell to pay, afterwards. (crackdowns, retributions, it is as predictable as what happened in Egypt).

  82. raventhorn2000
    October 13th, 2011 at 06:29 | #82

    US Embassy in Syria tries to spin the Wall Street Protest:


    “Occupy Wall Street groups will not be allowed to destroy public or private property, but they can organize more protests in other cities and they can say whatever they want about the U.S. government without being arrested or shot; the police will not shoot thousands of protesters; some Occupy Wall Street organizers have been arrested for disturbing public order (blocking traffic) but they won’t be tortured, and no family will receive the body of a protester bearing torture marks,” the embassy’s message said.

    *What’s missing? US protesters don’t bring guns and rocks to protests. (not yet anyways).

  83. raventhorn2000
    October 13th, 2011 at 06:51 | #83

    US accusation of Iranian Plot meets skepticisms in Middle East.


    The primary evidence linking Iran to the alleged conspiracy appeared to be that the suspect arrested in the United States had told law enforcement agents that he had been recruited and directed by men he understood to be senior officials of the Quds Force, a covert branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

    “The evidence is weak,” said Lebanese analyst Nabil Bu Monsef.

    *weak indeed.

    The “master-mind” could be anybody, even the FBI.

    A recent FBI sting in Texas, FBI agents posed as Senior Al-Qaeda members to trap a would-be terrorist.


    “In an April 4, 2009, communication, the FBI undercover employee told the young Jordanian, “The operation we are planning will be, with God’s help, a big painful attack that requires the participation of many brothers like you.” The undercover also tried to counsel Smadi: “You may perform jihad in a less dangerous way, such as jihad using your money or in training yourself to avoid sins.”

  84. raventhorn2000
  85. Charles Liu
    October 14th, 2011 at 12:38 | #85

    What if some army guys don’t want to deploy to Afghanistan decided to go rogue, and start killing policemen who are assulting and arresting OWS protesters? Should America allow such chaos to rule, or deploy a mass military action to put it down?

    And should UN impose economic sanction to punish USA for such action? Does any of this apply to Syria?

    Hypocrisy. Rogue military need to be put down, and use of deadly force is justifiable. But instead we are pushing for sanctions.

  86. October 16th, 2011 at 06:35 | #86

    My summary:

    * Protest due to income disparity *
    If you work hard and/or take chances to profit from investment, you’re entitled to have good wealth.

    If you are lazy, collect entitlements, take drugs, and drop out from high school, you’re entitled to be poor.

    The rich and the poor have one vote each, and the politicians are buying votes so they will take care of the poor at first glance. However, the politicians have to satisfy first the special groups who pay their campaigns. When the protesters are not against gun control, wars in Middle East…, I conclude they bark at the wrong tree.

    You know who suffer most for the bankers’ greed that caused this recession. The rich who own most of the bank stocks. Who is negligent? The government for not setting up/enforcing corrective regulations.

    It seems it is representation without taxation. 45% of us do not pay any income tax. I’m not saying the poor should not have the right to vote, but the long-term welfare recipients should not have this right.

    When you’re born in the wealthy US, you’re not entitled to be lazy and collect welfare for life and/or have a good job after college. If we cut down the entitlements of teenage mothers, I bet we’ll not have the multi generations of teenage mothers and hence less single-parent families.

    If we set up the entitlement system correctly so you do not lose your free health care when you work, I bet we will have more folks working in place of illegals.

    The rich should pay their fair share. We do not want to drive them out to other countries with lower taxes. We encourage the rich to invest here by fair tax treatment (with less entitlements and ending the two idealistic wars). They are investors like we’re. You do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    I do not belong to any political party. I believe to help the poor by teaching them how to fish but not giving them fish everyday. The young kids fixing their bikes all day long should go to work, so are thousands of ‘disabled’ workers collecting disability social security!!!!

    Our political system is leading to socialism and self destruction.

  87. raventhorn
    October 16th, 2011 at 10:58 | #87


    Of course the government is negligent. But it is undoubted that the Rich has more political influence and more say in the system.

    The system runs more on money, not by “representation” alone.

    Which is to say, the system in US is not “democratic”.

    Calling it “democratic” merely confuses everyone, the Rich, the Poor, and the Politicians. Which is why US is seeing all these protests now, when the questions of “blame” comes up.

  88. perspectivehere
    October 17th, 2011 at 04:50 | #88

    This Venn Diagram between complaints of Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party is very popular:


    Whereas OWS protesters are upset about:
    “Large corporations have way too much power”

    and Tea Party members are upset about:
    “The government has way too much power”

    BOTH OWS protesters and Tea Party members are upset that:
    “Large corporations lobby for the government to have more power, and in return the government enacts laws and regulations favorable to large corporations.”

    Meanwhile, this post, “An open letter and warning from a former tea party movement adherent to the Occupy Wall Street movement” gives some good reasons why the OWS may well fizzle out; his comments on the media and how they portray grassroots protest movements are very interesting:


  89. pug_ster
    October 17th, 2011 at 09:02 | #89


    Interesting article where a woman who is going to get kicked out of her house tapped OWS movement for help.


    I think that the OWS movement has already learned from the Tea Party Movement. If you read their first collective statement, they are not anti-corporation, they are anti-wall street.


    I don’t think they want a Rosa Parks type of person because he/she could’ve easily hijacked by someone like Sarah Palin.

  90. Wahaha
    October 17th, 2011 at 09:08 | #90


    Wow, finally, some westerners are starting waking up from the drugs advised by their media and journalists.

    Who gave the right to criminals ? the media and journalists.

    Who gave the right to parasites and lazy bone ? the media and journalists.

    Who prevented government regulating the rich and corp ? the media and journalists.

    Who claimed that it is part of human right that everyone has right to get piece of government ? the media and journalists.

    Who raped government all the time? the media and journalists.

    West is hopelessly in downward spiral with these goons and thugs control the information.

  91. raventhorn
    October 17th, 2011 at 10:09 | #91

    OWS protests spread to 5 continents. Rome protest turns into riot. US police conduct small arrest rounds continually.

    “Go slow but go hard” crackdown?? Well yes. The number of arrests might be small each time, but show of force and intimidation are quite visible: (1) NYC ordered “power wash” of the protest site streets, oddly coincidental, (2) Police still use pepper spray, batons, dogs, etc., ie. 1 on 1 close quarter show of force.

  92. raventhorn
    October 19th, 2011 at 07:12 | #92
  93. raventhorn
    October 19th, 2011 at 08:20 | #93

    Making sense of numbers in why:


    According to June 2011 report, number of US Millionaires actually increased in 2011 from 2010. The top “1%” is actually getting bigger than 1%. Yes, there is still widening economic disparity, in US, as well as in China.

    So why then, does it seem like the dissent in growing louder in US and Europe?

    Perhaps the dissent is not directly proportional to the economic disparity. What else then?

    Perhaps this will be more illustrative to the point: China also has growing economic disparity, and China’s Millionaires are increasing, still less than US though. BUT, Chinese Millionaires tend to be NEW money, instead of old money, and they are incredibly young. (the average age of Chinese Billionaires is 43, the average age of Chinese Millionaires is 39).

    Additionally, US (and others) may be double counting or (shadow counting) some of their millionaires. US has substantial number of “investment immigrant visas” each year, up to 10,000 such visas may be issued each year.

    So what, you might ask. Well, a foreign “investor” immigrating into US may bring his money, but he/she probably made his/her money in some other country, where the bulk of his/her wealth still lays.

    Also, that means, if a Chinese millionaire moved to US, he might get counted in China, and get counted in US.

    Also, that means, that Chinese millionaire, was probably some poor young Chinese who got his new money in the last 2 decades or so.

    So what?

    That indicates, economic mobility is still there in China, perhaps more than in US. It’s not surprising then, that China is still projecting record growth of Millionaires, even when some of them emigrate out of China each year.

    While US is getting the infusion of capital from investment immigration, that means US’s “new money” is not growing as much. (Incoming Capital, in essence, are “old money” from foreign nations.)

    *Why is this “new money” growth important in the Wall STreet Protests??

    Because the protesters are the desperate and hopeless young people.

    In China, there is undoubtedly social and economic grumbling, but the growth of the “new money” in China is an energy of hope for the Young, who continue to believe that they have hope and opportunities in the Chinese economy. (Perhaps because they see and hear stories of other young Chinese people “making it” in China).

  94. perspectivehere
    October 20th, 2011 at 17:26 | #94

    Chris Hedges, American journalist, author, and war correspondent, writes:

    “This One Could Take Them All Down.”

    By Chris Hedges

    Chris Hedges: “What happens is in all of these movements … the foot soldiers of the elite — the blue uniformed police, the mechanisms of control — finally don’t want to impede the movement and at that point the power elite is left defenseless … the only thing I can say having been in the middle of similar movements is that this one is real, and this one could take them all down … I can guarantee you that huge segments of those blue uniformed police sympathize with everything that you’re doing.” — Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges brings his 20 years of experience as a war correspondent, having covered movements and revolutions throughout the the world, to the discussion.

    Posted October 19, 2011


    Personally I don’t think it will lead to collapse as he thinks – the thin blue line will hold even if some individual police are sympathetic. And when winter comes the crowds will not stay – hard to keep people there in a snowstorm.

  95. wwww1234
  96. pug_ster
    October 20th, 2011 at 19:21 | #96


    Personally I don’t think it will lead to collapse as he thinks – the thin blue line will hold even if some individual police are sympathetic. And when winter comes the crowds will not stay – hard to keep people there in a snowstorm.

    Just because it is middle of January, the OWS crowd will find a way to change. If you remember in Wisconsin last year, people were protesting inside city hall. The protesters will protest inside, although it is illegal. We haven’t seen the level of protest like in the civil rights era where sit-ins were common and arrested for civil disobedience. There’s even talk of people who are arrested asking for jury trials, gumming up the justice system.

  97. raventhorn
    October 21st, 2011 at 06:58 | #97

    I find it interesting that Hollywood celebrities are joining in slowly. They are still somewhat cautious about getting in. Not too many big names yet.

    But it’s building up.

    Celebrities in protests may not be something new, but this may be signaling a wider appeal of the protest. These are not celebrities with their own pet cause that they always do, but celebrities who are “JOINING”.

    In a way, it signals a “cool” factor, that may lead to more young people to join in.

    It’s a momentum thing.

  98. zack
    October 21st, 2011 at 17:35 | #98

    so i wonder, where’s the Dalai Lama in all of this; you’d think someone who’s supposed to be as virtuous as his PR ppl claim would be right in there preaching to the faithful.
    Same goes for Archbishop Tutu

  99. October 23rd, 2011 at 17:16 | #99

    Occupy Melbourne Police Vs Protesters


  100. raventhorn
  101. silentvoice
    October 27th, 2011 at 11:45 | #101

    Ok, I used to live one city away from Oakland, CA.

    You really cannot blame the police. The city government is dysfunctional, the population is mostly Black and poor, all of them hates the police. Add to that you have the anti-establishment types coming from San Francisco. It’s an explosive mix.

  102. October 27th, 2011 at 12:54 | #102
  103. raventhorn
    October 27th, 2011 at 14:42 | #104

    It turned into a war zone. unbelievable.

  104. raventhorn
    October 31st, 2011 at 06:29 | #105


    Some 50 Occupy Wall Street protesters saw red yesterday — giving an enthusiastic welcome to a genuine communist.

    Alex Callinicos, a professor of European Studies at Kings College in London, announced to his rapt audience, “I am a Marxist.’’

    Asked if the upcoming revolution can be non-violent, he parroted the party line of the demonstrators, who call themselves the 99 percent of Americans lined up against the “1 percent’’ with power and money.

    He said violence could be avoided only if the “1 percent accept the decisions of the 99 percent,’’ which he predicted would never happen.

  105. raventhorn
    November 13th, 2011 at 11:17 | #106
  106. zack
    November 13th, 2011 at 12:59 | #107

    predictably, the propaganda arm of the elites in the West do their bit when it comes to deaths at Occupy Wall Street; they loyally call for the shutdown of OWS and in effect, the shutdown of the greatest democratic challenge against their rule.
    Strange how this would be seen as a violation of human rights and the responsibility of the Chinese government if the roles were reversed.

  107. raventhorn
    November 13th, 2011 at 13:08 | #108

    US media are falling over one another to redirect the discussion of OWS to the “impact on business, safety, and increase in crimes”.

    So, when the police cracks down on the OWS protesters, it will be out of the concern for the “business, public safety”.

    Awfully humanitarian of the US “Democracy”, when they are cracking the ribs of the young and the poor, eh??!

    I guess US is doing quite a bit of “Harmonizing” of its own nowadays, of course, more openly, “In your face” style.

  108. raventhorn
    November 15th, 2011 at 06:09 | #109

    US cracks on OWS protests across the country:

    OWS camps cleared in

    (1) OAKLAND,
    (2) NYC

    NYC police also used the “Sound Cannon” to clear the protesters.

    *However, in a quick turn of events, (as the OWS protesters appear prepared for this), National Lawyer’s Guild obtained an injunction against the NYC government, to allow the OWS protesters to return to re-setup the camps, and prohibiting the NYC government from removing the protesters.

    It is unclear from the initial reports, how many OWS protesters will actually return (even when some have vowed to regroup).

    Also unclear is how long the injunction will hold up, or whether NYC government will manage to overturn the injunction eventually.

  109. pug_ster
    November 15th, 2011 at 07:49 | #110


    Notice that the Media was shut out when the OWS camp was cleared in NYC.


    Reporters roughed up, beaten, arrested, and airspace was closed for news choppers. Welcome to the United Police States of America.

  110. pug_ster
    November 15th, 2011 at 11:02 | #111


    Can you say “Media Blackout?” Too bad that the Mainstream Media didn’t complain about it.

  111. raventhorn
    November 16th, 2011 at 05:25 | #112

    Bloomberg and NY state court on “free speech”:

    (1) Tents and sleeping bags are dangerous. Thus, protesters may return, but may not bring back Tents and Sleeping bags, because everyone knows in the Western land of many freedoms, Hitler started his genocide plans in tents.

    (Paranoid about confined spaces formed by fabrics??!)

    (2) plenty of free speech, ONLY if no tents and sleeping bags. (Because a true outdoors kind of people don’t need no stinking tents.)

  112. pug_ster
    November 16th, 2011 at 20:59 | #113


    Interesting Keith Olberman’s comment about Mayor Bloomberg. One thing that I thought that was funny is the number of views… only 303 views with 320 likes and 4 dislikes. Maybe some people can like the video without watching it.

  113. November 16th, 2011 at 21:44 | #114

    Hey pug_ster, I think I might win that cup of coffee. 😛

  114. pug_ster
    November 17th, 2011 at 06:52 | #115


    Don’t be so sure, right now I am looking at another protest of at least thousand people around the stock exchange. Later they are probably going to protest at a bridge.

  115. Charles Liu
    November 18th, 2011 at 12:25 | #116

    Notice our media isn’t in a hurry to use the term “crack down” on OWS stories? Where as everything the Chinese government does in terms of policing is “crack down” and justifiable use of force is automatically human rights violation.

    Pure hypocrisy – blocking traffic for even a minute is illegal in America, but to block traffic for months at Hariri Square in central Cairo is unalienable human rights.

    And functioning governments must be replaced if tiny fraction of the population demonstrates and become violent. Military insurrection and rebellion is righteous.

    Why none of this apply to ourselves?

  116. pug_ster
    November 19th, 2011 at 08:00 | #117


    Looks like it is easier to suppress the protesters than to have the lawmakers to talk to the protesters of what they want. Even during the Spring 89 protests, the Chinese leaders were talking to the protesters.

  117. November 19th, 2011 at 09:01 | #118

    I agree, if the leadership is willing to have a dialogue with the protesters, the situation would be defused as anger would abet. That’s what happened in Shanghai, in the beginning the protest was as bad as the one in Beijing but the Shanghai guys handled the situation well. As such, they were rewarded with the next leadership of China. This is my kind of democracy.

  118. raventhorn
    November 19th, 2011 at 12:01 | #119



    More likely in US, even if some politicians appear to “support” the OWS protesters, they don’t actually talk to the protesters, just vaguely “support”, and then hijack their movements.

    *I heard this interesting comment from a friend: “At least US government is not out to kill the OWS protesters!”

    Hmmm… It’s either telepathy or brainwashing, because I distinctly remember at least 1 OWS protester who had a serious brain injury and had to be operated on because of the crackdown in Oakland.

    Let’s just say that the “US government was out to arrange some serious ACCIDENTS on the OWS protesters”!! 🙂

  119. zack
    November 19th, 2011 at 12:41 | #120

    the new motto of the US ought to be “we support free speech and the right to assembly-but only if it’s for our interests and against rival governments”

  120. pug_ster
    November 19th, 2011 at 18:24 | #121


    Looks like a bank funded lobbyists are going to try to construct “negative narratives” about the OWS movements.

  121. raventhorn
    November 20th, 2011 at 09:32 | #122

    US Universities are conducting widespread crackdowns on Student OWS protesters.

    Recently in Berkeley and UC Davis. Berkeley saw campus police use baton to punch students in the ribcage repeatedly. UC Davis saw campus police hose down students with pepperspray.

    In both cases, the University officials promised to “investigate the incidents”, but have little else to say, no actual reversal of policies, no sanctions of the police, no compensation for the protesters.

    In other words, total political slogans, violation of “democracy” and “rights”, with no explanations or remedies.

    As the student protests ramp up in US, due to rising University fees, declining scholarships and grants, the crackdowns are becoming ever more visible on US campuses.

    *Why isn’t there a Western-style “Tiananmen Spring” in US yet??

    Crackdown early and crackdown HARD. US authorities are paranoid that a Chinese 6-4 may occur in US, and they are not taking any chances.

    Remember that in 1989, Chinese students gather in mass protest in Beijing, because of similar rise in tuition and decreases in scholarships and grants, and when the Chinese government did not initially crackdown for 3 months, the movement grew substantially during that time through students’ spreading of the protest message across many Chinese universities.

    Now, US is potentially facing the same movement, albeit only locally right now.

  122. raventhorn
    November 20th, 2011 at 10:15 | #123

    Watch the video.

    starts with 1 copy, holding up a can of pepper spray and actually showing it off, before hosing down a line of protesters sitting on the ground.

    later, you can see police armed with “pepper spray” paintball guns.


  123. November 29th, 2011 at 08:43 | #124

    OWS protesters bark at the wrong tree. Obama just runs the money press at max. to boost super inflation. The rich would lose 50% of their buying power and the poor would lose nothing (50% of 0 = 0). Now the wealth gap is half way smaller.

    From TV, I notice a lot of protesters use iPhone or iPad that I among the 54% cannot afford.

    I just feel sorry for the unemployed and the new college grads., but not sorry for the long-time welfare recipients if they’re able.

  124. November 29th, 2011 at 12:48 | #125

    Interesting take and agreed with much of what you said. I’d chime in with these other effects:

    1. Real property has intrinsic value and such weathers inflation the best. The rich has at least this ‘protection.’

    2. The poor who doesn’t have much money to begin with now gets their standards of living slashed from inflation.

    3. Assumption is government spending will help redistribute wealth to the poor, but much of that in the U.S. goes to the military and elderly health care. This will help the poor, but that’s a secondary effect.

    Printing more money without bold steps to address systemic problems in America only prolongs it.

  125. November 29th, 2011 at 13:08 | #126

    Hi yinyang, my last comment was intended to be a satire or a comic relief as we’ve been over-loaded with arguments from both side.

    If you work hard and/or take chances to profit from investment, you’re entitled to have good wealth.

    If you are lazy, collect entitlements, take drugs, and drop out from high school, you’re entitled to be poor.

    Click the following link on the Power of a Printer for fun.

  126. November 29th, 2011 at 13:38 | #127


  127. colin
    December 15th, 2011 at 09:59 | #128


    The rich will not have their assets depreciate from printing money. They are smart enough to have their money in hard and income producing assets. Printing money will just further hurt the middle class and the poor.

  128. pug_ster
    January 17th, 2012 at 22:23 | #129


    Idiotic tactic #23 of how to suppress OWS protesters. Charge them with lynching.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.