Music of the week
Music of the week
Article 96 of the Constitution stipulates that any amendment needs to be backed by at least two-thirds of lawmakers in both chambers of the Diet and a majority of support in a national referendum.
But the absence of specific rules for such a national referendum long forestalled attempts to revise the post-World War II Constitution. Indeed, it has never been amended.
Under the first government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a law outlining procedures for a national referendum was enacted in May 2007, 60 years after the Constitution came into effect on May 3, 1947.
Due to a confrontation with opposition parties, the ruling bloc had to railroad the legislation through the Lower House, the more powerful — and important — of the two chambers.
After the U.S. Occupation ended in 1952, a campaign to establish a new Constitution to replace the U.S.-drafted charter gathered momentum. In 1957, a panel of lawmakers and experts was set up by the Cabinet to conduct research on problems with the Constitution.
An American couple of Asian descent who were tried for murder in Qatar after the accidental death of their Ghana-born adopted daughter have revealed the accusations against them were based almost entirely on racism.
Matthew and Grace Huang were initially convicted in the death of eight-year-old Gloria, who was found dead from malnutrition in their Doha home in early 2014 but it was later quashed.
Now living back in the U.S., the deeply religious Huangs say their races – and that of their African children – nearly got them executed in the tiny Arab oil state.
Matthew and Gloria Huang moved to Qatar after Matt’s company, MWH Global, asked them to relocate there in 2012 to work on an infrastructure project related to the 2022 World Cup.
The Huangs told New York Magazine in a recent interview that the racist questioning began just after he rushed his daughter to a Doha hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
The Huangs were arrested in January 2013 after an autopsy found their eight-year-old daughter, Gloria, died of dehydration and cachexia, an irreversible loss of body mass. The couple said Gloria suffered from malnutrition-related diseases since they adopted her from Ghana at age 4.
‘The first question was: ”Who is she?” ”She’s my daughter.”’ recalled Grace, who said the interrogators refused to believe she was American because she and her husband are of Asian descent.
‘They said, ‘How did she die?’ ‘ Matt recalled. ‘They asked me that ten, 15 times.’
A month later, an investigator testified that the Huangs had adopted Gloria, along with her two adopted brothers ‘most likely to either sell their organs or to conduct medical experiments on them.’
The investigator openly based his conclusion on the races of the Huangs and their kids, saying:
‘The adoption process consists of searching for children who are good-looking and well-behaved,’ he said, ‘and who have hereditary features that are similar to those of the parents. But the children connected to this incident are all from Africa, and most of the families there are indigent.’
Matthew and Grace Huang had initially been charged with murder and were convicted of lesser child-endangerment charges last year in connection with Gloria’s death, according to a support website for the family.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3167318/Couple-held-Qatar-death-adopted-daughter-reveal-racist-cops-presumed-guilty-ve-lost-everything.html#ixzz3gSbDL5YX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (CMC) – Yasin Abu Bakr, the leader of the Jamaat Al Mulimeen group that staged an unsuccessful coup in 1990, has been detained in connection with the murder of prominent attorney Dana Seetahal, according to media reports here on Monday.
The reports said that Bakr, 73, had been taken from his home on Monday morning, by police as they continue their probe into the assassination of Seeathal on May 4, last year.
One radio station reported that Bakr had questioned the police who staged the pre-dawn raid on his home in search of guns and ammunition and was told that his detention is in relation to the murder of the former president of the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago.
Seeathal was killed as she drove to her apartment in the capital. Two vehicles are reported to have pulled alongside her causing her to come to a stop and the occupants fired several bullets at her, hitting her in the head and chest.
The police have so far issued no statement regarding the arrest of Bakr, who in 1990 led more than 100 men in an attack on the Trinidad and Tobago parliament in a bid to unseat the then ANR Robinson administration.
Bakr also refused to appear before a Commission of Inquiry that probed the circumstances surrounding the failed coup.
In February this year, the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) distanced itself from media reports that at least six people would have been charged in connection with her murder.
In a statement, the TTPS said that the reports in the media ‘are inconsistent with the progress of the investigation thus far and manifest obvious distortions with material facts of the case”.
The TTPS said it “considers it extremely irresponsible the naming of any officer/individual from any agency or organisation who may or may not be assisting with the investigation”.
Of course, somebody called my attention to the New York Magazinestory by “Michael Sonmore” (obviously a pseudonym) who uses feminist arguments to rationalize his wife’s adultery in their “open marriage.” I commented briefly on Twitter but wanted to ignore the story because (a) yuck, and (b) I suspect the story is a hoax. Like Rolling Stone‘s UVA rape hoax, “Michael Sonmore” tells a narrative that is too perfect in its exposition of feminist themes. For example, “Sonmore” describes himself as “an economically dependent househusband coping with the withering drudgery of child-rearing.” Really? Here is a guy in his 30s who is quite obviously well-educated, yet he is “economically dependent”? Times are hard, maybe, but surely they’re not that hard. Maybe a guy with a liberal arts degree can’t find work in whatever field he considers his specialty, but he can still work, right? Well, “Sonmore” tells us, he chose this dependency: “I quit working to stay at home with the kids,” which he describes as his “total withdrawal from the economy and the traditional sources of masculine identity.” See? Too perfect.
If a story seems too good to be true, it’s probably not true, and I suspect “Sonmore” is a hoax designed to elicit reaction — particularly, sexist reactions from men — which will then be cited as proof of what misogynistic pigs men really are. And here’s your big clue that the editors are pulling our collective leg:
She didn’t present it as an issue of feminism to me, but after much soul-searching about why the idea of my wife having sex with other men bothered me I came to a few conclusions: Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression, and, not to get all women’s-studies major about it, patriarchal oppressionessentially boils down to a man’s fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can’t control. We aren’t afraid of their intellect or their spirit or their ability to bear children. We are afraid that when it comes time for sex, they won’t choose us. This petty fear has led us as a culture to place judgments on the entire spectrum of female sexual expression: If a woman likes sex, she’s a whore and a slut; if she only likes sex with her husband or boyfriend, she’s boring and lame; if she doesn’t like sex at all, she’s frigid and unfeeling. Every option is a trap.
OK, that’s the point at which I called “bullshit” on this story. Whose “sexual agency” is “controlled” by monogamy? Both partners are equally obligated to fidelity in marriage, but to suggest that this is “patriarchal oppression” driven by “a man’s fear” of “a woman he can’t control” is a psychological projection, a reversal of reality.
It is the male’s (relatively) greater sexual independence — a natural fact of biology — that has been the underlying source of feminist resentment for more than four decades. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded, and so we must ask, could there actually be a “Michael Sonmore,” a man so thoroughly brainwashed by feminist theory that he can’t see through this ideological falsehood?
It’s possible, perhaps. But this recitation of feminist jargon — “patriarchal oppression” and all that — is simply too perfect.
Ace of Spades calls our attention to the implicit racial context of this story. The wife is hooking up with “Paolo”? Too perfect.
UPDATE: Great minds think alike:
Never underestimate feminists’ infinite capacity for deception. Feminism is like a gigantic Ziggurat of Hatred built entirely of lies.
A charity website advocated the killing of gay people and lapsed Muslims and described homosexuality as a “sick disease”, theCharity Commission said in a report today.
A Commission investigation of historic material published on the Islamic Network’s website also revealed statements referring to homosexuality as “perverted sexual behaviour” and an “evil and filthy practice” which is “even viler and uglier than adultery”.
The Commission found that the trustees had not implemented proper measures to monitor the website, and that articles were being posted without their knowledge.
A 2004 article on the site explained various punishments “in this world”, including that gay people should be “destroyed by fire”, “executed by being thrown from a great height” and “stoned to death”.
The investigation also unearthed a 2003 article that made reference to the circumstances when it is permissible to “spill the blood of a Muslim”.
The article states that “to all those who apostate from Islaam, by whichever method this may occur… it then becomes obligatory on the Muslims to kill him unless he returns to Islaam”. The article summarises “that a Muslim can be killed legally only for three crimes: a) adultery b) murder and c) apostacy”, the regulator said.
The Islamic Network came under scrutiny of the Charity Commission in November 2012 when the charity was visited as part of the Commission’s monitoring work. The Commission issued an “action plan” for the charity in February 2013, that offered “regulatory advice and guidance”.
But in August 2014, the regulator was made aware of public concerns about the inflammatory material on the charity’s website.
A inquiry was launched in 2014 and found that the content – which dated back to 2004 – was uploaded by volunteers under the guidance of former trustees who had since parted company with the charity.
The report revealed that “material was freely uploaded to the charity’s website and there was no mechanism in place by the trustees to vet the content before publication”.
The charity’s chair told the regulator that neither he or the other current trustees had any knowledge of the articles’ existence until they were made aware in August 2014.
Shortly after the material was discovered, the trustees took down the website and released a public statement condemning extremism and hate, according to the report.
The Rev. Franklin Graham on Friday called for the banning of all Muslims from entering the United States following the shootings in Chattanooga that left four Marines and a Navy sailor dead.
Noting that the shooter, 24-year-old Muhammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, immigrated with his family from Kuwait, Graham wrote on his Facebook page: “We are under attack by Muslims at home and abroad. We should stop all immigration of Muslims to the U.S. until this threat with Islam has been settled.”
Every Muslim that comes into the United States has the potential to be radicalized, Graham said, adding, “they do their killing to honor their religion and Muhammad.”
He pointed out that during World War II, the United States didn’t allow Japanese or German immigration.
“Why are we allowing Muslims now?” he asked. “Let your Congressman know that we’ve got to put a stop to this and close the flood gates. Pray for the men and women who serve this nation in uniform, that God would protect them.”
Some have noted that Graham’s tone is far different than that of his father, the Rev. Billy Graham, now in his 90s.
Franklin Graham had been known more for his humanitarian efforts as he headed up the group Samaritan’s Purse, but that seemed to take a turn during the presidency of Republican George W. Bush, notes Religion News Service columnist Jonathan Merritt in a piece in The Atlantic.
Franklin Graham has called Islam a “very wicked and evil religion,” which caused the Pentagon to rescind an invitation for him to speak during the National Day of Prayer, Merritt notes.
Graham was criticized by some Christians after his Facebook post, but others stood with him.
“This post is so disappointing. Is that what Christ would do? Shut people out because of fear?” one commentator wrote. “He has already defeated the grave. And we are called to share the love of Christ with these people. You have a big platform here Mr. Graham, perhaps you should use it to tell the truth in grace and love.”
But other commentators said, “Amen,” and, “Agree 100%!”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/franklin-graham-end-muslim-immigration/2015/07/19/id/657877/#ixzz3gR8G5pAW
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
Freedom, prosperity and happiness require people to develop and encourage an attitude that can be described in five words:
Voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit
This is the secret of capitalism, the secret of democracy, and it also the secret to a successful career and family life. Selfish, envious people — those who view life as a zero-sum game, where one person’s gain is always another person’s loss — are the very worst people in the world. Andspeaking of feminists . . .
Every week, we are subjected to stroppy Gawker posts and soporific op-eds in national newspapers about how a woman in the technology industry who was fired for poor performance was secretly a high-achieving go-getter brought down by entrenched sexism and patriarchal oppression.
And every week we’re told that the reason more women aren’t working in technology is a combination of sexism, outdated social attitudes and stereotypes, historical prejudices and too few educational support programmes for women.
We’re told that women find it more difficult to get jobs and that when they do get jobs they’re subjected to hostile workplaces, sexism and bullying and that they’re paid less than their male counterparts for the same work.
We’re invited to believe, contrary to the evidence all around us, that the highly-progressive, socially-conscious and liberal-minded technology industry is in fact one of the most retrograde and oppressive places for women to work.
But here’s the dirty secret about the shrill and insatiable “women in tech” movement: none of that is true.
Read the whole thing by Milo Yiannopoulos at Breitbart.com. Feminism is simply organized selfishness — unhappy women using political ideology to rationalize their own failures and resentments. Presenting men and women as hostile groups engaged in a competition — gender warfare — provides unhappy women with an all-purpose scapegoat for their disappointments: “Smash patriarchy!”
Of all the many excellent points Milo makes, it’s hard to single out a favorite, but this one is crucially important:
7. Identifying As A ‘Woman In Tech’ Is The Kiss Of Death For Your Career
That’s not because employers don’t believe women should have equal access, but because it tells them certain things about your personality. Namely, that you’re likely to be trouble. They worry, with some justification, about bogus sexual harassment claims, which are rampant.
If there’s a problem in the tech workplace it might be that women can bring frivolous gender discrimination lawsuits against their old firms, costing companies in some cases over $100,000 in lawyers’ fees to dismiss, at little or no cost to the woman, who was fired for perfectly acceptable reasons.
The phenomenon of “go-away money” — where any woman who makes a discrimination or harassment claim is handed a year’s salary as payment to leave and avoid the costs of litigation — is a well-known racket, and it is typically not the productive, efficient, team-player type of woman who makes such claims. So if an employer has reason to believe a female applicant is “likely to be trouble,” as Milo says, she won’t get hired. The private sector doesn’t give a damn about “social justice,” they just want profit, and they don’t want to spend money defending against a lawsuit filed by some disgruntled idiot with a Women’s Studies degree