China Detains ‘Activists’, Adopts “Wait-‘Em-Out” Tactic As Hong Kong Protest Swells To 300,000

On day four of the OccupyCentral protests in Hong Kong, leaders are expecting the crowds to swell to over 300,000 as National Day celebrations begin. The Chinese government appears to be taking two different approaches to the civil disobedience. First, major crackdowns on the mainland, as FirstPost reports, authorities have detained more than a dozen activists across China and questioned as many as 60 others who expressed support for Hong Kong's pro-democracy protests in recent days. However, the government's approach in Hong Kong appears to be "wait-it-out", a tactic that would rely on Hongkongers not taking part in the protests becoming fed up with the inconvenience caused by the demonstrations. Of course, how long that tactic remains in place (post National Day) is anyone's guess especially as student leaders threaten to escalate protests as their deadline for Leung's resignation looms.

 

Time-lapse view of the surge in crowds…

As SCMP reports,

Protests are expected to ramp up a gear tonight on the symbolic National Day holiday after student leaders set Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying a deadline of tomorrow to resign before they start occupying government buildings.

 

So far, Leung has refused to budge, raising a toast with mainland officials at the National Day flag-raising ceremony this morning against a backdrop of jeering protesters outside.

And more lawyers consider legal action against the police's use of force

More than 370 solicitors and international lawyers issued a statement yesterday condemning the use of force. Police on Sunday fired 87 tear gas canisters, used pepper spray and restrained protesters with batons. "Regardless of the technical legality or otherwise of such use of force by the police, their lack of self-restraint is an affront [to] the rule of law," they said.

 

 

The statement followed one by the Bar Association, which deplored the "excessive and disproportionate force" used on demonstrators in Admiralty. The Law Society has been silent.

 

Police actions have been defended by Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor as reasonable.

 

Some of the signatories said they would help demonstrators file personal injury claims over the use of pepper spray and tear gas.

 

But solicitor and Democrat Albert Ho Chun-yan said such lawsuits would be difficult to win because the court might accept that the police had discretion to enforce the law.

 

Professor Simon Young Ngai-man, of the University of Hong Kong law faculty, queried the lawfulness of the police actions.

 

Writing on the faculty's blog, Young said police gave protesters neither enough warning nor enough time to disperse before firing tear gas.

 

Officers, Young said, aimed tear gas directly at protesters or into crowds, "suggesting that not the minimum level of force was used".

 

Carter Chim Ting-cheong, a member of the Bar Association's committee on constitutional affairs and human rights, said there were well-established rules that required the police to avoid excessive force while facilitating the safe expression of protesters' opinions.

 

Executive Council member Fanny Law Fan Chiu-fun apologised to the police for saying they should "explain" why tear gas was used. "I might have used the wrong word." she said, adding the use of tear gas "was reasonable".

The Chinese government remains active on the mainland in efforts to quell the spread of this civil disobedience…

Authorities have detained more than a dozen activists across China and questioned as many as 60 others who expressed support for Hong Kong's pro-democracy protests in recent days, campaign groups said Wednesday.

 

The clampdown comes with Beijing's propaganda machine in overdrive to suppress news of the protests, which are expected to draw their biggest crowds yet as the former British colony begins a two-day public holiday on Wednesday.

 

Amnesty International put the figures even higher, saying at least 20 were detained and another 60 called in for questioning.

 

"The rounding up of activists in mainland China only underlines why so many people in Hong Kong fear the growing control Beijing has in their city's affairs," Amnesty's China researcher William Nee said in a statement.

 

The group called on Chinese authorities to "immediately release all those being detained for peacefully expressing their support for protesters in Hong Kong".

 

A group of "up to 20 citizens" were seized by police on Tuesday in the southern metropolis of Guangzhou, near Hong Kong, after gathering in a city park to voice support for the pro-democracy camp, according to CHRD.

 

 

"All problems that affect the party's creativity, cohesiveness and effectiveness must be addressed, all illnesses that harm the party's advanced nature and purity completely cured and all tumours grown on the healthy organism of the party removed," he added, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

But in Hong Kong, amid the actual protests, the government is adopting a different strategy…

Leung Chun-ying, Hong Kong's chief executive, has adopted a new strategy to marshal the city's widespread pro-democracy protests: allow the demonstrations to continue until the protesters tire or lose support from the wider public, according to a person familiar with the matter.

 

The impetus to resolve the standoff peacefully has come from the Chinese government in Beijing, this person said.

 

"Beijing has set a line to C.Y. You cannot open fire," this person said. "You must halt it in a peaceful way."

 

The thinking behind the tactic is to resolve the standoff by peaceful means and comes after a move on Sunday to deploy tear gas backfired on the government.

 

"The strategy is to control the situation and let them occupy until a time that the inconvenience caused to others in Hong Kong will swing the public opinion against Occupy or pressure the organizers to call it off," this person said. "They can wait to a time the public opinion will swing."

*  *  *

Despite shutdowns on Instagram, images still escape and with the eyes of the world on China's treatment of these free-speech-advocates, it is perhaps no surprise they switched tactics (for now) but if student leaders escalate and occupy government buildings as they promised to do if Leung does not resign, then all bets are off….

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1v5UpFY Tyler Durden

China Detains 'Activists', Adopts "Wait-'Em-Out" Tactic As Hong Kong Protest Swells To 300,000

On day four of the OccupyCentral protests in Hong Kong, leaders are expecting the crowds to swell to over 300,000 as National Day celebrations begin. The Chinese government appears to be taking two different approaches to the civil disobedience. First, major crackdowns on the mainland, as FirstPost reports, authorities have detained more than a dozen activists across China and questioned as many as 60 others who expressed support for Hong Kong's pro-democracy protests in recent days. However, the government's approach in Hong Kong appears to be "wait-it-out", a tactic that would rely on Hongkongers not taking part in the protests becoming fed up with the inconvenience caused by the demonstrations. Of course, how long that tactic remains in place (post National Day) is anyone's guess especially as student leaders threaten to escalate protests as their deadline for Leung's resignation looms.

 

Time-lapse view of the surge in crowds…

As SCMP reports,

Protests are expected to ramp up a gear tonight on the symbolic National Day holiday after student leaders set Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying a deadline of tomorrow to resign before they start occupying government buildings.

 

So far, Leung has refused to budge, raising a toast with mainland officials at the National Day flag-raising ceremony this morning against a backdrop of jeering protesters outside.

And more lawyers consider legal action against the police's use of force

More than 370 solicitors and international lawyers issued a statement yesterday condemning the use of force. Police on Sunday fired 87 tear gas canisters, used pepper spray and restrained protesters with batons. "Regardless of the technical legality or otherwise of such use of force by the police, their lack of self-restraint is an affront [to] the rule of law," they said.

 

 

The statement followed one by the Bar Association, which deplored the "excessive and disproportionate force" used on demonstrators in Admiralty. The Law Society has been silent.

 

Police actions have been defended by Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor as reasonable.

 

Some of the signatories said they would help demonstrators file personal injury claims over the use of pepper spray and tear gas.

 

But solicitor and Democrat Albert Ho Chun-yan said such lawsuits would be difficult to win because the court might accept that the police had discretion to enforce the law.

 

Professor Simon Young Ngai-man, of the University of Hong Kong law faculty, queried the lawfulness of the police actions.

 

Writing on the faculty's blog, Young said police gave protesters neither enough warning nor enough time to disperse before firing tear gas.

 

Officers, Young said, aimed tear gas directly at protesters or into crowds, "suggesting that not the minimum level of force was used".

 

Carter Chim Ting-cheong, a member of the Bar Association's committee on constitutional affairs and human rights, said there were well-established rules that required the police to avoid excessive force while facilitating the safe expression of protesters' opinions.

 

Executive Council member Fanny Law Fan Chiu-fun apologised to the police for saying they should "explain" why tear gas was used. "I might have used the wrong word." she said, adding the use of tear gas "was reasonable".

The Chinese government remains active on the mainland in efforts to quell the spread of this civil disobedience…

Authorities have detained more than a dozen activists across China and questioned as many as 60 others who expressed support for Hong Kong's pro-democracy protests in recent days, campaign groups said Wednesday.

 

The clampdown comes with Beijing's propaganda machine in overdrive to suppress news of the protests, which are expected to draw their biggest crowds yet as the former British colony begins a two-day public holiday on Wednesday.

 

Amnesty International put the figures even higher, saying at least 20 were detained and another 60 called in for questioning.

 

"The rounding up of activists in mainland China only underlines why so many people in Hong Kong fear the growing control Beijing has in their city's affairs," Amnesty's China researcher William Nee said in a statement.

 

The group called on Chinese authorities to "immediately release all those being detained for peacefully expressing their support for protesters in Hong Kong".

 

A group of "up to 20 citizens" were seized by police on Tuesday in the southern metropolis of Guangzhou, near Hong Kong, after gathering in a city park to voice support for the pro-democracy camp, according to CHRD.

 

 

"All problems that affect the party's creativity, cohesiveness and effectiveness must be addressed, all illnesses that harm the party's advanced nature and purity completely cured and all tumours grown on the healthy organism of the party removed," he added, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

But in Hong Kong, amid the actual protests, the government is adopting a different strategy…

Leung Chun-ying, Hong Kong's chief executive, has adopted a new strategy to marshal the city's widespread pro-democracy protests: allow the demonstrations to continue until the protesters tire or lose support from the wider public, according to a person familiar with the matter.

 

The impetus to resolve the standoff peacefully has come from the Chinese government in Beijing, this person said.

 

"Beijing has set a line to C.Y. You cannot open fire," this person said. "You must halt it in a peaceful way."

 

The thinking behind the tactic is to resolve the standoff by peaceful means and comes after a move on Sunday to deploy tear gas backfired on the government.

 

"The strategy is to control the situation and let them occupy until a time that the inconvenience caused to others in Hong Kong will swing the public opinion against Occupy or pressure the organizers to call it off," this person said. "They can wait to a time the public opinion will swing."

*  *  *

Despite shutdowns on Instagram, images still escape and with the eyes of the world on China's treatment of these free-speech-advocates, it is perhaps no surprise they switched tactics (for now) but if student leaders escalate an
d occupy government buildings as they promised to do if Leung does not resign, then all bets are off….

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1v5UpFY Tyler Durden

Hilsenrath Asks “Does Ben Bernanke Deserve A Nobel Prize?”

No, it’s not a joke or sarcasm. The Fed-whispering Jon Hilsenrath has penned the first strawman sponsoring Ben Bernanke for the Nobel Prize…

Via The Wall Street Journal’s Jon Hilsenrath,

It is October, which in the geeky world of academic economics means it is Nobel Prize month, or actually in the case of the economics field, Sveriges-Riksbank-Prize-in-Economic-Sciences-in-Memory-of-Alfred-Nobel month. The prizes start getting announced next week, and as is the custom for this time of year, speculation has started about who will get them.

 

Thomson Reuters, using academic citations, predicts Phillippe Aghion of Harvard University and Peter Howitt of Brown University will win the prize for work advancing thinking on the idea of “creative destruction.” Others names including William Baumol and Paul Romer of New York University, Jean Tirole of Toulouse School of Economics, and Robert Barro of Harvard are sure to make the rounds in the days ahead.

 

Purely in the name of being speculative and provocative, here’s another name that warrants some debate: Ben Bernanke. Mr. Bernanke would get attention from the Swedes not for his work as Fed chairman from 2006 to 2014, but for an academic career that pre-dated his stint in government and mapped out links between the financial system and the economy, a subject of great importance today.

 

Mr. Bernanke’s 1990s “financial accelerator” papers with New York University professor Mark Gertler and Simon Gilchrist presciently drew attention to the damage done to the broader economy by shocks to the credit system.

 

His research in the 1980s on the Great Depression also proved to be a useful roadmap for how links between the financial system and the economy break down in a crisis.

 

The work, along with work by others like Douglas Diamond at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, is seen by many academics as being at the leading edge of research in the field. Mr. Bernanke is the 25th most cited economist on the Ideas website hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, just behind Nobel winner Paul Krugman and ahead of previous Nobel winners including Edward Prescott, Daniel Kahneman and Robert Shiller.

 

Having led the Fed through a crisis, Mr. Bernanke will forever be a lightning rod for the central bank’s role in the great downturn of 2008. Supporters believe he steered the economy from disaster; critics say the Fed caused the crisis with low interest rates and then took reckless chances after it had happened. Regardless of your view on this question, he has an academic legacy to stand on.

*  *  *

Perhaps this is the chart upon which we should judge Bernanke’s prowess?

 

But then again they gave warmonger Barack Obama a Nobel Peace Prize, so anything’s possible…




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1rM7Axo Tyler Durden

Hilsenrath Asks "Does Ben Bernanke Deserve A Nobel Prize?"

No, it’s not a joke or sarcasm. The Fed-whispering Jon Hilsenrath has penned the first strawman sponsoring Ben Bernanke for the Nobel Prize…

Via The Wall Street Journal’s Jon Hilsenrath,

It is October, which in the geeky world of academic economics means it is Nobel Prize month, or actually in the case of the economics field, Sveriges-Riksbank-Prize-in-Economic-Sciences-in-Memory-of-Alfred-Nobel month. The prizes start getting announced next week, and as is the custom for this time of year, speculation has started about who will get them.

 

Thomson Reuters, using academic citations, predicts Phillippe Aghion of Harvard University and Peter Howitt of Brown University will win the prize for work advancing thinking on the idea of “creative destruction.” Others names including William Baumol and Paul Romer of New York University, Jean Tirole of Toulouse School of Economics, and Robert Barro of Harvard are sure to make the rounds in the days ahead.

 

Purely in the name of being speculative and provocative, here’s another name that warrants some debate: Ben Bernanke. Mr. Bernanke would get attention from the Swedes not for his work as Fed chairman from 2006 to 2014, but for an academic career that pre-dated his stint in government and mapped out links between the financial system and the economy, a subject of great importance today.

 

Mr. Bernanke’s 1990s “financial accelerator” papers with New York University professor Mark Gertler and Simon Gilchrist presciently drew attention to the damage done to the broader economy by shocks to the credit system.

 

His research in the 1980s on the Great Depression also proved to be a useful roadmap for how links between the financial system and the economy break down in a crisis.

 

The work, along with work by others like Douglas Diamond at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, is seen by many academics as being at the leading edge of research in the field. Mr. Bernanke is the 25th most cited economist on the Ideas website hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, just behind Nobel winner Paul Krugman and ahead of previous Nobel winners including Edward Prescott, Daniel Kahneman and Robert Shiller.

 

Having led the Fed through a crisis, Mr. Bernanke will forever be a lightning rod for the central bank’s role in the great downturn of 2008. Supporters believe he steered the economy from disaster; critics say the Fed caused the crisis with low interest rates and then took reckless chances after it had happened. Regardless of your view on this question, he has an academic legacy to stand on.

*  *  *

Perhaps this is the chart upon which we should judge Bernanke’s prowess?

 

But then again they gave warmonger Barack Obama a Nobel Peace Prize, so anything’s possible…




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1rM7Axo Tyler Durden

Throw Away a Banana Peel, Pay a Fine in Seattle

Composting is great, but should
it be mandatory? The Seattle City Council thinks so. Last week all
nine councilmembers decided that those who fail to put their banana
peels in the right bin will pay a fine.  

The penalty is $1 for individual households, whereas apartments
and commercial buildings will receive two warnings and then a $50
fine.

The Seattle Times
explains
how dissident trashers will be caught:

Under the new rules, collectors can take a cursory look each
time they dump trash into a garbage truck.

If they see compostable items make up 10 percent or more of the
trash, they’ll enter the violation into a computer system their
trucks already carry, and will leave a ticket on the garbage bin
that says to expect a $1 fine on the next garbage bill.

Apartment buildings and businesses will be subject to the same
10 percent threshold. … Dumpsters there will be checked by
inspectors on a random basis.

Collectors will begin tagging garbage bins and Dumpsters with
educational tickets starting Jan. 1 when they find violations. But
fines won’t start until July 1.

Seattle Public Utility (SPU Director Tim Croll
tells
the Times:

SPU hasn’t decided whether it’s going to have an appeals
process. The new law doesn’t set out any such process. SPU wants to
see how people behave before it decides.

SPU will spend about $400,000 on education, outreach and
marketing for the law. But the agency doesn’t expect any additional
enforcement costs.

“So, why is Seattle making residents compost?” asks
CNN. “The city was not going to meet its self-imposed goal of
recycling 60 percent of all waste.”

Although the city requires residents to compost, it
does not
foot the bill for the approved composting equipment,
which can range in price from
$80 to $238

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1rGxEZ5
via IFTTT

Activist Robert Kennedy Jr. Denies He Wants to “Jail Climate Change Deniers” – Actually Wants to “Execute” Climate Villain Corporations and Think Tanks

Robert Kennedy Jr.In his article, “Jailing
Climate Deniers
” over at EcoWatch, prominent
environmental activist Robert Kennedy Jr. magnanimously allows that
individual Americans – even misguided souls who question the
scientific consensus on man-made global warming – have a First
Amendment right to speak their piece. Corporations and think tanks,
however, are another matter. Kennedy argues that such organizations
do not enjoy free speech protections and therefore can and should
be targeted for death by activist state attorneys-general. As
Kennedy explains: 

Laws in every state maintain that companies that fail to comply
with prescribed standards of corporate behavior may be either
dissolved or, in the case of foreign corporations, lose their
rights to operate within that state’s borders. These rules can be
quite expansive and, in contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court’s
­­­­recent rulings on campaign finance law, companies, under state
laws, enjoy far less protection than human beings. New York, for
example, prescribes corporate death whenever a company fails to
“serve the common good” and “to cause no harm.”…

Any state attorney general with the will, resolve and viscera to
stand to up to the dangerous and duplicitous corporate
propagandists, has authority to annul the charters of each of these
mercenary merchants of deceit. An attorney general with
particularly potent glands could revoke the charters not just oil
industry surrogates like AEI and CEI, he or she could also withdraw
state operating authority from the soulless, nationless oil
companies that have sponsored “Big Lie” campaigns and force them to
sell their in-state assets to more responsible competitors.

Koch Industries and ExxonMobil have particularly
distinguished themselves as candidates for corporate death. No
other companies have worked harder or spent more money to impede
the government from taking action on global warming to safeguard
public welfare. Both companies have employed artifice on a massive
scale and spent tens of millions of dollars to purchase fraudulent
junk science. The greedy, immoral, anti-social pathology behind
ExxonMobil and Koch’s mendacious crusade is even starker given the
open acknowledgment since 2007 by the other major oil companies
including Shell, Chevron and BP, that burning oil is causing
climate change.

Besides the usual suspects of ExxonMobil and Koch Industries,
Kennedy offers a preliminary list of groups that he thinks deserve
execution: 

Among the groups that have received millions from Exxon and Koch
Industries are the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, Cooler
Heads Coalition, Global Climate Coalition, American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC), Americans for Prosperity, Heartland
Institute, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), George C.
Marshall Institute, State Policy Network, Competitive Enterprise
Institute (CEI) and American Enterprise
Institute (AEI).

Of course, this kind of thing could get out of hand. Who knows
but that some brave state attorneys-general might decide to
“execute” prominent organizations that misrepresent the science on
the safety of, say, biotech
crops
, or
vaccines
?

For more background, see my article, “Confessions
of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore
.” 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1v5IEiO
via IFTTT

Activist Robert Kennedy Jr. Denies He Wants to "Jail Climate Change Deniers" – Actually Wants to "Execute" Climate Villain Corporations and Think Tanks

Robert Kennedy Jr.In his article, “Jailing
Climate Deniers
” over at EcoWatch, prominent
environmental activist Robert Kennedy Jr. magnanimously allows that
individual Americans – even misguided souls who question the
scientific consensus on man-made global warming – have a First
Amendment right to speak their piece. Corporations and think tanks,
however, are another matter. Kennedy argues that such organizations
do not enjoy free speech protections and therefore can and should
be targeted for death by activist state attorneys-general. As
Kennedy explains: 

Laws in every state maintain that companies that fail to comply
with prescribed standards of corporate behavior may be either
dissolved or, in the case of foreign corporations, lose their
rights to operate within that state’s borders. These rules can be
quite expansive and, in contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court’s
­­­­recent rulings on campaign finance law, companies, under state
laws, enjoy far less protection than human beings. New York, for
example, prescribes corporate death whenever a company fails to
“serve the common good” and “to cause no harm.”…

Any state attorney general with the will, resolve and viscera to
stand to up to the dangerous and duplicitous corporate
propagandists, has authority to annul the charters of each of these
mercenary merchants of deceit. An attorney general with
particularly potent glands could revoke the charters not just oil
industry surrogates like AEI and CEI, he or she could also withdraw
state operating authority from the soulless, nationless oil
companies that have sponsored “Big Lie” campaigns and force them to
sell their in-state assets to more responsible competitors.

Koch Industries and ExxonMobil have particularly
distinguished themselves as candidates for corporate death. No
other companies have worked harder or spent more money to impede
the government from taking action on global warming to safeguard
public welfare. Both companies have employed artifice on a massive
scale and spent tens of millions of dollars to purchase fraudulent
junk science. The greedy, immoral, anti-social pathology behind
ExxonMobil and Koch’s mendacious crusade is even starker given the
open acknowledgment since 2007 by the other major oil companies
including Shell, Chevron and BP, that burning oil is causing
climate change.

Besides the usual suspects of ExxonMobil and Koch Industries,
Kennedy offers a preliminary list of groups that he thinks deserve
execution: 

Among the groups that have received millions from Exxon and Koch
Industries are the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, Cooler
Heads Coalition, Global Climate Coalition, American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC), Americans for Prosperity, Heartland
Institute, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), George C.
Marshall Institute, State Policy Network, Competitive Enterprise
Institute (CEI) and American Enterprise
Institute (AEI).

Of course, this kind of thing could get out of hand. Who knows
but that some brave state attorneys-general might decide to
“execute” prominent organizations that misrepresent the science on
the safety of, say, biotech
crops
, or
vaccines
?

For more background, see my article, “Confessions
of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore
.” 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1v5IEiO
via IFTTT

New York Times Surprised That Republicans Don’t Want to See Obama Murdered

Peter Baker. |||Swear to God, this is the lead
paragraph of a New York Times
article
by Peter Baker:

President Obama must be touched by all the concern
Republicans are showing him these days. As Congress examines
security breaches at the White House, even opposition lawmakers who
have spent the last six years fighting his every initiative have
expressed deep worry for his security.

If the sarcasm of “touched” and the jaw-dropping deployment of
the word “even” don’t make it clear enough, Baker later writes,
“Yet it would not be all that surprising if Mr. Obama were a little
wary of all the professed sympathy.” And he finishes the article
with the sardonic phrase, “all with Mr. Obama’s interests at
heart.” What a rancid view of the world.

In unrelated news, The New York Times today
announced it is
eliminating 100 newsroom jobs
, due to poorer-than-expected
financial results.

Link via the Twitter feed of
National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1uBE7Iw
via IFTTT