Opinion: In today’s pages: Imperial China lives, unavoidable underwear
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Columnist Niall Ferguson explains that China has always relied on restricting rights:
The alarming thing about this new Chinese imperialism is, however, its illiberal character. At home, the authorities drum it into a population of 1.3 billion people that unity and order matter more than freedom. Abroad, they have no qualms about doing deals with dictatorial regimes. Two-thirds of Sudan’s oil output goes to China. That too is Qin Shihuangdi’s legacy. The emperor was a tyrant who forcibly suppressed Confucianism and feudalism because, by their very existence, scholars and landlords challenged his claim to a monopoly on power. He imposed his own laws by diktat and handed out death sentences by the hundreds, and, according to one account, ordered the burning of books.
Columnist Gregory Rodriguez discusses the doubts of the faithful and why, perhaps, it helps them do good. West Point’s Gary Solis says military justice may not be broken. And Cal State Fresno’s Jill Fields wonders why city officials want to rule out exposed underwear when celebrities have given up underwear all together.
The editorial board says it’s time for Congress to have a serious debate about balancing liberty and security. The board applauds the Department of Homeland Security’s move to grant visas to illegal immigrants who are victims of violence. Finally, the board says it shouldn’t matter if Little Tokyo’s New Otani Hotel is owned by Iranian Americans.
Readers react to Fred Thompson’s decision to enter the race for the presidency, and how his in-laws helped him get where he is today. Hidden Hills’ Gail Scher says, ‘The Times has committed one of the most malicious character assassinations in political history. Never let the real issues get in the way of the Democratic Party agenda.’