Why Did China’s Biggest Movie Star, and the Interpol Chief, Vanish?

Are there sources claiming that this was a false confession, and that she did not actually falsify her tax returns? I agree that in principle this is a possibility, but I haven't seen such claims. The New Yorker article seems typical in assuming her guilt: "In a nation of runaway economic growth, where tax evasion is rampant among the wealthy, what struck many people was not Fan’s alleged misdeed—that was predictable enough to be banal—but the startling way in which her case was handled."

Similarly, for discussion of the NYT article, I think it's generally assumed that the blatant manipulations of the appraised values happened, the only question is whether it was illegal, and if so, whether it's prosecutable. While you are right that the headlines are primarily because of the "disappearance" of a celebrity, some people (like me) are equally interested in the larger question of whether tax laws can be reasonably enforced without resorting to such measures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great...

Before modern nation-states, there weren't national armies so much as forces 'raised' by the aristocracy of civilians pressed into service, barely equipped or trained or even fed, and led by aristocrats who often had similar training (but better equipment). IIRC, Napoleon was the innovator of the modern nation-state military that you would recognize, in the late 18th century.

In technology, the difference was civilians with heavy or sharp pointy things (maybe knives, maybe pitchforks or homemade spears) and poorly trained soldiers with spears; a mass of civilians had a chance. Today the difference is between civilians with handheld firearms and trained soldiers with tanks, missiles, artillery, attack helicopters and jet fighters. Even for the heavily armed civilian population of the U.S., your fate relies on whether the soldiers are willing to massacre you.

It is okay for you to disagree with it, that was the story.

in the Old World, for thousands of years, farmers and nomads fight each other. Sometimes the former won, sometimes the latter won - don't forget, the Indo-Europeans were steppe nomads who were the first to tame cavalry and make chariots!

It's meta-comments like yours (and now mine) that are a total waste of time.

I live in "Asia" and that kind of usage annoys me, too.

I have the pleasure of being and indian being taught Indian values and then growing up to learn that the Chinese / Thai / Other Asians were pretty much taught the same bull crap about respecting elders, and asking questions as to why will get you into a lot of trouble. Just my personal experience.

Among North Americans and perhaps native English speakers elsewhere, the term "Oriental" has been increasingly taboo and claimed to be offensive for decades now. I am not sure whether this is entirely down to Said’s Orientalism, or if opponents of the term have other grounds, but often saying “oriental” gets you a scolding these days and an encouragement to say “Asian” instead.

When the U.S. courts decided, back in the Bush days, that the U.S. Constitution applied not just to its own citizens, but to everybody we interacted with? Nobody thought through the consequences. If it applies to everybody, it applies to nobody. That is, whatever rules you can make about killing non-combatants in a foreign land, you can make about your own folks right here at home.

And that is where we're headed.

It's like we're having to re-learn the rules of nation-states again: why they exist, why they have embassies, why they're polite to one another even when they do bad things, why they keep certain things secret, and so on. In the constitution issue, it's the rules of the way the country operates, as understood by its citizens, that make them give a crap about it. (Not the rules as applied. The rules as understood by the common person.) You start publicly saying that it's a sucky deal? Soon enough people will believe you. In the U.S. domestic arena, if you treat all of your citizens as if they all might be violent at any time and deserve close watching? They'll live up to that expectation.

I don't like any of it, any violence at all. I understand it exists whether I like it or not, and I understand that international politics is a messy affair. But there are supposed to be some grown-ups involved that keep it all heading in a good direction. Those people have left the room. Decades ago. (Note: my comment was about trends, not current politicians. I don't argue about current politicians and try not to mention any of them if I can. Trends are much more important.)

Well, depends on how you see it. Hillary was the typical hawk ready to continue the war business as usual like Obama. Trump pushed for a more isolationist policy, which after Bush and Obama continuous war making is a breath of fresh air (and made some progress with SK instead of mere aggressions).

And for many people (not the 10% that benefits for such things and which most on HN would belong to) globalization itself causes a race to the bottom and oppression. In fact before the "left" (term used loosely) went full-on Democrat-lite, it used to protest globalization (remember Seattle, Genova, etc).