LDP sets date for leadership vote

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/ldp-sets-date-for-leadership-vote

TOKYO —
Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has set a date for a party leadership election that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is bound to win, effectively assuring him of staying leader of the world’s third-largest economy.

All seven factions within the party supported Abe and there were no signs he would face a contender in the Sept 20 vote, the Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan’s major daily, said.

Abe’s once-mighty public support started sliding after scholars told a parliamentary panel in June that legislation ending a ban on the military fighting overseas to defend a friendly country would violate Japan’s pacifist constitution.

But his ratings bounced following a statement this month to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War Two, in which he expressed “utmost grief” for the suffering Japan caused.

Toshihiro Nikai, a party heavyweight, told a news conference last week that the whole party was moving toward Abe’s re-election and that he had no doubt about his victory.

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

Radical Feminism and the ‘Equality’ Trap

http://theothermccain.com/2015/08/22/radical-feminism-and-the-equality-trap/

Radical lesbian activist @EllenPage decided that @TedCruz needed a lecture from her about equality and discrimination:

DES MOINES — Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and actress Ellen Page, of “Juno” fame, got into a testy and free-wheeling discussion Friday over gay rights here at the Iowa State Fair.
“I’m happy to answer your question but not to have a back-and-forth debate,” Cruz told Page, as she pressed him about discrimination against LGBT citizens, approaching him as he flipped pork chops over an open grill. . . .
“Imagine, hypothetically, you had a gay florist and imagine two evangelical Christians wanted to get married and the gay florist decided, ‘You know what, I disagree with your faith, I don’t want to provide flowers,’” Cruz said.
“I would say they should provide the flowers,” said Page, who earlier charged Cruz’s argument was the same used to justify segregation.
“And I would say the gay florist has every right to say, if I disagree with your faith and don’t want to participate…you know what? There are lots of other people to buy flowers from,” Cruz said. “…We are a country that respects pluralism and diversity and there is this liberal intolerance that says that anyone that dares follow a Biblical teaching of marriage, that is the union of one man and one woman must be persecuted, must be fined and must be driven out of business.” . . .
The senator went on to say that the much bigger challenge for gay people comes from the Middle East, where they are deeply persecuted by the Iranian government as well as the leadership of ISIS.
“On the left you hear complete silence” — “That’s not true!” Page interjected — “about Iran hanging homosexuals, and yet the Obama administration is sending over $100 billion to a regime that murders homosexuals,” Cruz continued. . . . .
“Why does the Obama administration not stand against this?” Cruz said.
“I don’t know, I’d love to talk to Obama about it,” Page replied
“Then we’re agreed!” Cruz shot back,
“No, no we’re not, don’t do that,” the actress said.
“We’re agreed! Ma’am, we’ve had a long discussion,” Cruz said.
“Yeah, I appreciate it, yeah,” she said sarcastically, and walked away.

Unsurprisingly, the liberal media tried to spin this attempted ambush as a courageous triumph for the celebrity lesbian, but Ian Tuttle at National Review isn’t buying the spin:

Alternative headline: “Actress from That One Movie about Roller Derby Confronts Princeton Debate Champ — Goes about as You Might Expect.”

Beyond highlighting Cruz’s expert-level debate skills, the exchange exposed Page’s “rejection of conscience protections altogether, and her endorsement of radical government intervention in all such matters,” as Tuttle says. Her arguments are based in the Equality Über Alles mentality that characterizes not only the militant gay movement, but also the radical feminist movement and the Left in general. Grant them what they demand today, and the radicals will return tomorrow with new demands, because “equality” can never be achieved, not even under the absolute tyranny of a totalitarian dictatorship. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek explained that “social justice” is a mirage — it seems to appear up ahead in the distance, but vanishes as soon as you approach it. There will always be someone claiming to be a victim of unfairness, so that to make “equality” (or “social justice” or, more vaguely, “progress”) your goal is to declare war on society itself, to inaugurate what Trotsky called “permanent revolution.”

No such thing as “equality” has ever existed in the history of human civilization, nor will any measure endorsed by the Left bring about “equality” in the future. The insistent demand for “equality” is nothing more than a pretext for political aggression that the Left uses to gain power by pandering to those who hope to gain some advantage from the enactment of radical egalitarian policies.

Despite her celebrity status, Ellen Page ultimately cannot escape the inevitable consequences of inequality, not even in gay-friendly Hollywood. Her high-profile “coming out” in 2014 has damaged her career prospects as an actress because, despite what anyone may imagine, the market demand for gay celebrities is much smaller than the availablesupply. Denounce the movie-going public as a bunch of bigoted haters, if you like, but the heterosexual majority (97.7% of Americans, according to federal research) expect their entertainment to be entertaining, and tiresome propaganda about The People’s Glorious Democratic Struggle for Gender Equality is not entertaining.

In reporting Ellen Page’s Iowa encounter with Ted Cruz, Politico noted, “Page attended as part of her new show with Vice, called ‘Gaycation,’ where she travels around the world and explores local attitudes about LGBT culture in each place.” What the heck? In August 2014, A&E Networks paid $250 million for a 20% share in Vice Media, rebranding A&E’s lame H2 channel as Vice TV, with Page’s gay travel show as one of the Genius Programming Ideas to justify this investment. Is this just more Hollywood politically correctness run amok? Not necessarily.

In a nation of more than 320 million people, of whom 240 million are 18 and older, if 2.3% of the adult population are LGBT, that’s a potential audience of nearly 6 million gay people in the U.S. alone. If you consider also Canada, Great Britain, Australia and other English-speaking countries in a worldwide digital media marketplace — where everything is online, just a click and a download away — you could easily envision a much larger LGBT audience, not to mention the even larger audience speaking other languages, watching with closed-caption translations.

The Global Gay-o-Sphere, as we might think of it, could be a valuable niche, and there are plenty of perverts in show business who would love nothing more than to get rich celebrating their own favorite fetishes. However, the mass market will always be heterosexual, and there is a limit to how much Happy Hollywood Homo programming the market will bear. Whether or not the LGBT Lobby has already “jumped the shark” Fonzie-style remains to be seen, but at some point people will get tired of seeingGay! Gay! Gay! everywhere, and a backlash will become evident.

And what’s up with that Donald Trump thing, anyway?

Ellen Page’s militant protest act — “Hey, let’s attack this ignorant Republican bigot in Iowa!” — may please whatever number gay people watch her Vice TV show, but what about the many millions of Americans she implicitly insults? Make no mistake: Ellen Page hates Christians and despises heterosexuality, per se, with the same kind of vindictive sour-grapes resentment of normal people that inspired radical feminists likeCharlotte Bunch, Adrienne Rich, Marilyn Frye and Sheila Jeffreys.

“The radical feminist argument is that men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them, and that lesbians, in rejecting male definitions of sexuality, are undermining the patriarchy. . . .
“Lesbianism is . . . fundamentally a challenge to patriarchal definitions of women.”
Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism(1987)

“Feminist theorists . . . would probably all agree that the pressuring of women into heterosexuality serves the purposes of male supremacy. . . .
“Both heterosexuality as a political system and sexual violence as social control depend upon the construction of heterosexual desire. . . . A feminist analysis would suggest that the reconstruction of sexuality is necessary to undermine the sexual system of male supremacy.”
Sheila Jeffreys, The Lesbian Heresy: A Feminist Perspective on the Lesbian Sexual Revolution (1993)

“Lesbianism was seen as central to feminism, both as a challenge to male supremacy . . . and as a redefining of the category of women, for women, and by women and outside the male hegemony. . . .
“The feminist point is that sex is central to women’s oppression. . . . Lesbianism within the feminist context was meant as a challenge to the exclusiveness and ‘naturalness’ of heterosexual desire as the only form of intimacy women are allowed.”
Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today (2001)

“In the early 1970s both gay and feminis movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and their was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgooing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Theorizing Sexuality(2010)

Feminists have been trying to destroy the traditional family and eradicate Christian morality for more than 40 years. It is certainly no coincidence that in July 2013, more than six months before she announced her lesbianism, Ellen Page declared her allegiance to radical feminism in an interview with the Guardian:

“I don’t know why people are so reluctant to say they’re feminists. Maybe some women just don’t care. But how could it be any more obvious that we still live in a patriarchal world when feminism is a bad word? . . . Feminism always gets associated with being a radical movement — good. It should be. A lot of what the radical feminists [in the 1970s] were saying, I don’t disagree with it.”

Not content with her career as a Celebrity Lesbian, the radical feminist Ellen Page uses her influence to attack traditional morality and to ridicule Republicans like Ted Cruz for daring to argue that Christians have a right to live according to their religious beliefs.

Maybe the executives at A&E can justify their $250 million investment in this kind of hateful “entertainment” for the LGBT market, but nobody should be surprised if the dividends on that dubious investment in radicalism include an angry backlash from normal people who don’t enjoy being lectured about their alleged “homophobia.”

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”
— U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker,
Aug. 5, 2010, San Francisco v. Schwarzenegger

“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

Do we want “equality” or do we want liberty? This is really the question, and Americans should not be compelled to apologize for our love of liberty. From the Reign of Terror in France to the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia, we have repeatedly seen atrocities radicals have justified in the name of “equality,” and the feminist movement has been forever stained with innocent blood by its advocacy of the abortion holocaust. Why is it that extraordinarily privileged people like Ellen Page believe the rest of us are ignorant bigots in need of their lectures? Do they suppose that we know nothing of history? Do they believe we are incapable of rational judgment? Do they imagine that we cannot justify our opposition to their radical agenda?

Or do they think that we simply lack courage to fight for truth?

Chinese Airlines ground flight attendants who are too fat to fly

https://thenanfang.com/qingdao-air-stewardesses-must-stay-regulated-weight-safety-reasons/

Qingdao Airlines has confirmed that it requires its flight attendants to maintain strict weight requirements down to as little as 50 kilograms (110 lbs), partly due to reasons of “flight safety”.

Earlier Chinese reports showed a color-coded chart (below) purportedly used by the airline that indicates the ideal weight of a flight attendant as determined by her height.Qingdao Airlines flight attendants that allow their weight to fall into a “yellow zone” were supposedly grounded from flying, while those with a weight that fall into in a “red zone” are immediately terminated.

….

The Qingdao Airlines spokesperson denied these allegations, and explained their chart is not a tool for managing its current employees, but a guide for hiring new recruits:

The chart seen in the article refers to a standard that we use when hiring flight attendants. Every airline has their own recruiting requirements. Our company’s requirements are slightly high.

Qingdao Airlines’ own website under “Flight Attendant Recruiting” shows all new applicants must be under 30 years old and fall within this formula for weight: [height(cm)-110]=weight(kg)(1±10%). This means that a 165 centimeter-tall (5’5″) applicant must weigh no more than 50 kilograms (110 lbs), while a 172 centimeter-tall (5’8) applicant can be no more than 68 kilograms (150 lbs).

The Qingdao Airlines spokesperson said the vast majority of its flight attendants comply with its weight requirements. The spokesperson did not say what punitive actions would be taken if its company’s weight regulations were violated.

The spokesperson further clarified that flight attendants must adhere to their rigorous weight requirements as a way to maintain “flight safety”:

We consider that if the weight of a flight attendant is excessive, her ability to react during an emergency situation will be inadequate, which is why we hope they will be able to maintain their figures.

China’s National Civil Aviation Bureau also thinks the weight of a flight attendant is relevant to the safe operation of an airliner. A representative for the bureau confirmed there is a correlation between the weight of a flight crew member and aircraft safety because when calculating the load of an airplane, the total weight of a flight crew must be taken into account. Therefore, the representative said, the weight of a flight attendant can not be excessive.

No standards pertaining to the weight of pilots was mentioned in the report.

….

Woman Attempts To Shake Down Chicago Bulls Star Derrick Rose With Baseless Rape Claim

http://www.returnofkings.com/70080/woman-attempts-to-shake-down-chicago-bulls-star-derrick-rose-with-baseless-rape-claim

Chicago Bulls star point guard Derrick Rose is in the middle of a civil suit against him for allegedly raping a woman at her apartment in August of 2013. You can read the “complaint” here.

According to reports, Rose and two of his friends are accused of breaking into her apartment and taking turns raping her. This, according to a friend of the accuser, was after a failed attempt by Rose to drug and rape her at a party in his Beverly Hills home earlier in the night.

The accuser, who at this point is referred to as “Jane Doe,” is seeking unspecified damages due to physical and emotional trauma, as well as post traumatic stress disorder.

In a statement, Rose’s lawyer, Lisa Cohen, states that:

This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to shake down a highly respected and successful athlete.

I don’t know Derrick Rose so I can’t speak to whether or not he’s respectable, but we here in the ‘sphere know a potential false rape accusation when we see one, and this particular one is a layup. Here’s why we have strong doubts about it’s validity.

She didn’t go to the police

What do Emma Sulkowicz, Jackie Coakley, and most other public false rape accusers have in common? They didn’t go to the cops after the incident.

Jane Doe claims she didn’t go to the police out of embarrassment and shame, and was concerned her conservative family would find out.

Doe claims she doesn’t remember much about the facts surrounding the events, but according to reports she definitely recalls every gruesome detail of her brutal rape:

“Jane has very little recollection of the events that followed given her incapacitated state of consciousness, with a recollection of only few second flashes at a time,” the lawsuit states. “However, Jane does recall brutal details of the rape.”

If a woman was gang raped and knew she was being gang raped, she’d file a police report.

Back in January, retired porn star Cytherea was forcibly raped multiple times by three men. She immediately went to the police, filed a report, and the three suspects were apprehended and are awaiting trial in Las Vegas.

The bottom line here is that genuine rape victims go to the cops. This woman waited two years to bravely come forward and regale the world with her harrowing experience with an NBA star and his two sex hungry friends, a story that just so happens to potentially make her a large amount of money. Which brings us to…

She stands to make a large amount of money

This one’s not hard to figure out after reading a detailed account by Yahoo! Sports:

“As a direct consequence of these unlawful acts, plaintiff has suffered severe physical injury, emotional distress including post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as economic, consequential, and other damages,” the suit contends.

When the 2015-2016 NBA season starts, Derrick Rose will be in year three of a five year, $95 million contract with the Chicago Bulls. He also has a $185 million shoe deal with Adidas.

So let’s unpack this, shall we?

Imagine this scenario: girl meets NBA star at a party, they exchange numbers, fuck for two years, then when she learns of his $280 million windfall from his contract and shoe deal, she decides that 24 months after they ended their consensual sexual relationship that she was gang raped by him and two of his friends. Sound plausible?

Rose’s lawyer hit the nail on the head when she called this feeble accusation a shakedown. In my opinion, the slut lost her job and decided to cash in on a two-year tryst with a professional athlete and set herself up for life.

Is this ever going to end?

Not likely. Professional athletes will always draw attention from beautiful women, so their commingling isn’t going to end any time soon.

I’ve stated before that it’s open season on professional athletes on all levels. Combine that with rape hysteria and the sports media publicizing baseless rape claims by side chicks-a-plenty, you can be sure that more are on the way.

Rose’s case will hopefully be open and shut because there is no evidence of rape whatsoever. But similar to walking a suspect into the courtroom in his orange jump suit while shackled at the wrists and ankles to increase the appearance of guilt, ESPN continues to scroll every single rape or domestic violence accusation or report across that famed bottom line.

Females the world over see the fame and publicity that even a thinly-veiled money grab can get them, along with interviews for their “bravery” which ultimately lead to their end game…money.

Conclusion

Based on the shaky facts of the case it appears that, aside from a few weeks of bad publicity, Rose will likely come out of this ordeal unscathed. The Bulls haven’t taken the Baltimore Ravens approach by tearing up his contract (the collective bargaining agreement in the NFL allows this for any reason) and Adidas has voiced their support for Rose stating that their partnership with him is unwavering.

Derrick seems confident as well:

“I am just focusing on staying healthy and getting ready for the season,” Rose said in the statement. “I am not going to comment other than to say — I know the truth, and am confident I will be proven innocent.”

At the end of the day, this appears to be another false rape claim by a woman looking to finance her useless life by exploiting a professional athlete.

Baptist college president’s affair revealed in shocking video shot by his son

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2015/08/28/north-greenville-university-responds-video-jimmy-epting/71299192/

North Greenville University leaders met behind closed doors for several hours on Thursday after a video surfaced purportedly showing the school’s former president and a female staff member being confronted by a third person inside a private home.

Late Thursday following questions by The Greenville News the board issued a statement saying its leaders are expected to lead Christ-centered lives.

Thursday evening, Dr. James Epting answered the door at his house and declined to comment when asked if he had anything to say about the video.

“I’ve got to see him right now, sorry,” he said, gesturing to a pastor who had arrived at his home at the same time.

Earlier in the day, Interim President Randall Pannell sent an email to the NGU community saying, “It has come to our attention that a video has surfaced pertaining to our former President and members of our staff.”

“Please join me in prayer for the University at this time,” he wrote.

The video shot with a cell phone camera was posted online this week and a copy was provided to The Greenville News. The video is datestamped Oct. 30, 2014, roughly three months before the university announced Epting would take a sabbatical for the spring semester and retire in June.

The video opens with the videographer pointing the camera at himself and saying, “Here we go. It might be a bad day.” After unlocking a rear door, the man enters the home where he confronts Epting in a hallway.

“Oh, hey buddy,” Epting says.

The man asks, “What are you doing, Dad?” then pushes past Epting and into a bathroom where he confronts a woman.

The woman does not say anything as the man refers to her by name and asks, “What are you doing?”

The video ends as the man says, “It’s over, Dad. This is done.”

In the statement released Thursday afternoon by the school’s board of trustees, Chairwoman Beverly Hawkins said, “North Greenville University’s leaders are expected to lead Christ-centered lives and abide by all campus policies and procedures.”

“The administration and faculty on campus today reflect our legal, moral and ethical expectations. We take our responsibilities as leaders of a Christian institution seriously and hold each member of our community to the highest of standards,” the statement said.

Epting served as president at North Greenville for 24 years and was largely credited with turning the Christian liberal arts university around from the time he took over as the school’s seventh president in 1991.

Then called North Greenville College, the two-year institution had seen enrollment drop to 329 students and was facing closure.

Since changing its name to North Greenville University and becoming a four-year school, enrollment has climbed for 18 consecutive years and stood at 2,632 undergraduate, graduate and online students last fall, the university said.

In January, Pannell praised Epting for his ability to champion the blending of academia and faith. Epting spoke in chapel for the last time at the end of April.

A statue stands on campus outside the Dannon Administration Building that depicts Epting kneeling in prayer. A plaque is inscribed with an Epting quote.

On campus Thursday, as school leaders met late into the evening in the administration building, a security officer passed along a message that Pannell would not be making a statement.

Asked if any action had been taken against any university employees shown in the video, LaVerne Howell, NGU spokesman, said the university would not comment on personnel decisions.

Dear Feminists: You Think Too Much

http://theothermccain.com/2015/08/29/dear-feminists-you-think-too-much/

Not everything has meaning. Not everything requires critical analysis. Not everything is in need of a theory to explain it.

Some things are really simple. They are what they are, and the temptation to intellectualize everything should be resisted. Consider, for example, New York Times column by Emily Witt:

Who could be cynical about the rise of friendship? In recent movies,female friends have banded together to shoot guns from trucks (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and sing a cappella (“Pitch Perfect”). On TV, they have spooned in Greenpoint (“Girls”) and found common ground in prison (“Orange Is the New Black”). Their stoner antics (“Broad City”) have liberated us from the slob dads of sitcoms. Once limited to sassy supporting roles, female friends are now the primary source of romantic tension themselves: making passive-aggressive phone calls, taking baths together, serving as sugar daddies, lying to each other, busting ghosts. Unlike traditional romance, friendship doesn’t force us into archaic gender roles or complicate our professional or sexual independence. It’s now the boyfriends who are vestigial, appearing only in bit parts like “timid suitor” or “obnoxious co-worker.”

(This is because feminist bloggers now instantly attack any movie that doesn’t pass the lesbian-approved “Bechdel Test,” and everybody in Hollywood is scared to death of feminist bloggers. In order to satisfy blogger demands, males can never be heroic in movies, nor can any woman be cast in the role of “hero’s girlfriend,” let alone “damsel in distress.” Third-wave feminism requires that males be “vestigial,” because women must be so “empowered” that men are either peripheral characters — clowns and tagalongs — or else sinister villains representing the Oppressive Patriarchy.)

Running parallel to this artistic phenomenon, however, is an anthropological one. Lately, we’ve been inundated with images of real-life best friends, triumphantly displayed. It’s difficult to get through a day on the Internet without looking at photos of women flaunting the depth of their intimacy by posing over dinner or watching television together in matching pajamas. We now flick through images not of celebrity couples but of celebrity friends: Beyoncé and Nicki Minaj eating hamburgers in matching varsity jackets; Taylor Swift with Karlie Kloss, Lorde, Selena Gomez, Ellie Goulding, Lena Dunham, her cat Olivia, the entire runway lineup of a Victoria’s Secret show; the U.S. women’s soccer team. The meme factories have responded to the popularity of pictures of best friends with maximum output, harvesting groups of women posing on beaches and in limos fromcelebrity Instagram feeds and presenting them in slide shows . . . and labeling these images as “#friendspiration” and “#squadgoals.”

(Note the use of the authorial “we” here. Who is “we”? Why does Emily Witt presume that everyone is plugged into the same Internet feeds, so that they are “inundated with images” and it is “difficult to get through a day” without seeing the phenomenon she describes?)

Picture-perfect groups of friends on Instagram make me wonder whether Bridget Jones’s idea of “smug marrieds” could also apply to “squads” and why “The Stepford Wives” hasn’t been re-envisioned with a friendship plot. The portraits seem to be asking a lot of impolite questions: Do you have as many friends as we do? How did you celebrate your birthday? Do you regularly drink prosecco over plates of fruit at Ralph Lauren’s Polo Bar? Have you betrayed your gender by preferring the company of men?You don’t have a friend with whom you publicly exchange photographs of your manicures? What’s wrong with you? If female friendship is so uplifting, then why do these photos make us feel the opposite — unbalanced and unsure?

(Again with the authorial first-person plural. Emily Witt presumes to know how “these photos make us feel,” when she’s actually describing how they make her feel, i.e., envious of the lives of the celebrities whose photos she sees while obsessively checking the online feed that inundates her with these images. Clearly, “we” need to log off Instagram, get outside more often and, perhaps, ask “our” therapist to adjust the Prozac dosage.)

I used to think that friendship as performed for an audience would end with middle school, but the past 10 years of technology have changed that expectation.

(Obviously, she’s one of those unhappy-childhood types who are forever reliving their middle-school identity crises.)

In social media, friendship gets fixed and mounted. It loses its dramatic tension. It becomes a presentation of happiness, an advertisement for friendship rather than an actual portrayal of it. Sometimes, scrolling through photos of women I know looking carefully hungover in front of a perfectly composed brunch, or lying on a blanket in a park in crop tops, or posting screenshots of their exuberant text messages, I’m reminded of something Marnie once said on “Girls”: “I thought that this would be a good opportunity to have fun together and prove to everyone via Instagram that we can still have fun as a group.”

(If you ever find yourself thinking about life in terms of lines from a Lena Dunham HBO series, it’s time to have that talk with your therapist about the appropriate Prozac dosage.)

Mimicking the advertiser’s strategy, these pictures of delightful fun inevitably provoke a feeling of lack or longing in the consumer of the image.
When I think of depictions of friendships that have moved me, I find myself thinking mostly of books — of those passages in novels that illuminate friendship by its moments of thorniness, by the heartbreak it can cause.

(Of course! It’s about characters in novels. People who read too much fiction think everything is about characters in novels, in the same way people who spend too much time on Instagram think everything is about people on Instagram.)

Real friendship is complex. It’s the sadness of Elizabeth Bennet when her friend Charlotte Lucas marries the odious Mr. Collins in Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice.” It’s Leah and Natalie’scomplicated dance of haughtiness and need in Zadie Smith’s “NW.” It’s the once-a-week limit Vivian Gornick has with her friend Leonard in “The Odd Woman and the City” (because men can be friends too). The best works of art about friendship resonate by showing how our closest friends have a way of ruining our attempts to present ourselves as perfect; how those picturesque moments are belied by other truths.

(My friendships have never been “complex.” Never once in my life have I engaged in a “complicated dance of haughtiness and need,” probably because I don’t sit around reading novels, filled with a bittersweet nostalgia for middle school or obsessively staring at pictures of Taylor Swift on Instagram. Seriously, lady, you need to have that discussion with your therapist about your Prozac dosage.)

Friendship stories might have replaced tales of romantic love, but the best ones stop themselves from purveying easy clichés of their own — whether clichés about feminist solidarity or about mean girls (sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between the two). Close friendships are worth celebrating — but it is how they look at their least photogenic moments that proves their veracity.

Curious as to who wrote this bizarre column, I found her online bio:

Emily Witt . . . has degrees from Brown, Columbia, and Cambridge, and was a Fulbright scholar in Mozambique.

Oh, that explains it. Those of us who went to state universities didn’t sit around reading novels or having “complex” friendships that were a “complicated dance of haughtiness and need.” Nor do our daily lives as adults consist of scrolling through celebrity Instagram photos, wishing we could hang out with Lena Dunham and her friends.

Only if your Daddy can afford to send you to elite universities (annual tuition at Brown, $46,408), followed by several more years of postgraduate education, can you indulge in that kind of stuff and then get paid by the New York Times to share your thoughts about it using first-person plural pronouns so that you presume to speak for a “we” who share your peculiar obsessions. Speaking of peculiar obsessions, Emily Witt (who got her bachelor’s degree at Brown in 2003, majoring in Portuguese and Brazilian Studies and Art Semiotics) wrote an 800-word article for the New York Times with the headline, “In Praise of Sensible Panties,” which included sentences like these:

“Good design is as little design as possible” is one of the famed German industrial designer Dieter Rams’s Ten Principles for Good Design, and in the underwear from Swiss brands like Zimmerli and Hanro, as in a Braun appliance from the 1960s, Rams’s mandate for elegant minimalism finds fulfillment. . . . .
A country’s underwear preferences say a lot about its ideas of the erotic. . . .
Ultimately, what intrigued me about the underwear I saw in Germany had something to do with its directness — the way it resisted gendered ornamentation of the body.

You see? Even your underwear must be subjected to critical theory, if you’re an intellectual with degrees from three elite universities.

You really have to feel sorry for her Dad. Just imagine Mr. Witt’s conversations with his golf buddies.

“How’s your daughter?”
“Fluent in Portugese and resisting gendered ornamentation.”

This is why you should keep your kids as far away from the Ivy League as possible. Even if you could afford the tuition, you’ll still have to pay for a lifetime of therapy and Prozac.

Court backs Conservatives’ funding cut to ‘anti-Semitic’ Arab group

 

Court backs Conservatives’ funding cut to ‘anti-Semitic’ Arab group

An appeal court has upheld the Conservative government’s decision to cut funding to a “radical and anti-Semitic” Arab-Canadian group once headed by a Liberal candidate.

In 2009, then-Citizenship and Immigration minister Jason Kenney cut $1 million in annual funding to the Canadian Arab Federation, arguing that the group’s leadership had repeatedly expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

The Federation had a long track record of “expressing hateful, antisemitic views, and glorifying terrorists,” said Kenney in a Wednesday email to the National Post.

The group has subsequently failed in two lawsuits to have the funding reinstated. The Federal Court upheld Kenney’s decision in 2014, followed more recently by the Federal Court of Appeal.

 

“I have been on public record disagreeing with the approach taken by the current administration of the Canadian Arab Federation,” said Omar Alghabra, Liberal candidate for Mississauga Centre and a president of the group between 2004 and 2005.

He added, “at the end of the day, it’s government’s prerogative to make decisions on what to fund and what not to fund.”

The Canadian Arab Federation had been paid an annual sum of $1 million in exchange for providing language-training services to new immigrants.

In severing ties with the group, Kenney’s office had cited several specific incidents, including a CAF executive attending a Cairo conference where Hamas and Hezbollah delegates were present, and a CAF-organized rally in which the Hezbollah flag was flown.

Last year, a decision by Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn wrote that, based on the Ministry’s evidence, “CAF appears to support organizations that Canada has declared to be terrorist organizations and which are arguably anti-Semitic.”