Abe to retain all LDP executives in leadership reshuffle


Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Wednesday he will retain all five executives of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party in their current posts in a reshuffle of the Cabinet and LDP leadership next week.

Abe made the remarks in a meeting with reporters accompanying him on his visit to Jamaica following his stay in New York to attend U.N. conferences.

The five LDP executives are Vice President Masahiko Komura, Secretary-General Sadakazu Tanigaki, Policy Research Council Chairwoman Tomomi Inada, General Council Chairman Toshihiro Nikai and Election Strategy Committee Chairman Toshimitsu Motegi.

Abe said a new ministerial post to be created in the Oct. 7 reshuffle would have significant power to promote new policies. He said the post would help achieve his government’s stated goal of creating a society in which every citizen realizes his or her potential.

He also said, “Women’s contributions will always be kept in mind in conducting the Cabinet reshuffle.” He said he was not attaching weight to a balance among LDP factions.

Abe said he planned to retain a minister from Komeito, the LDP’s junior coalition partner. Akihiro Ota now serves as transport minister and the party is expected to call for Ota’s retention in the post.

Regarding his recently announced policy priorities, Abe said his government will aim to boost Japan’s total fertility rate to 1.8 by the middle of the 2020s. The rate stood at 1.42 in 2014.

At a news conference held last week after securing another three-year term as president of the LDP, Abe said he will redouble efforts to take his “Abenomics” economic policies to another level with three new goals of economic expansion, support for child rearing and improved social security.

As for the expansion of Japan’s nominal gross domestic product to ¥600 trillion, one of the targets Abe announced last week, he told reporters in Jamaica that his government will strive to realize the goal by around 2020. The GDP stood at about ¥490 trillion at the end of the year that ended in March.

The GDP goal would be achievable if Japan achieves nominal economic growth of 3 percent, Abe said.

On another goal of creating a society where no one has to quit their job to take care of elderly relatives, Abe said in Jamaica that his government will aim to achieve this by the early 2020s as well.

The #AmberRoseSlutWalk: Feminism as Public Celebration of Inchoate Rage


Before attempting to describe Saturday’s event in Los Angeles — a tawdry carnival of celebrity-driven feminist lunacy — I must first remind you how, when and where the “Slut Walk” movement began.

In January 2011, a Toronto police official, Constable Michael Sanguinetti, gave a presentation on the topic of crime prevention at York University, during the course of which he said that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” This incited a huge controversy and, although official apologies were issued, Canadian feminists refused to be placated or appeased. Among these implacable women was Heather Jarvis, a self-described “queer feminist activist,” who was then 25 and attending Guelph University. In an interview, she explained the idea behind the first Slut Walk:

Jarvis says an apology is simply not enough.
“We are still skewed toward victim-blaming,” she explained. “Most sexual assaults don’t happen to a woman in a short skirt by a stranger in an alleyway. We need (Toronto Police) to modify their education and training.”
After Jarvis connected online with York graduate student Sonya Barnett, they enlisted the help of three other women — Alyssa Teekah, Jeanette Janzen and Erika Jane Scholz — to organize the walk. The controversially named protest came from an “instinctual place,” Jarvis says, and should not deter women, or men, from supporting their cause.
“Reclaiming language is not new,” Jarvis said. “It can be very powerful. (Slut) is a word that is used day in and day out to damage us. Let’s use it to empower us.” . . .
“We need to say that blaming victims of sexual assault is not OK.”

Thus, the concept of women marching in deliberately provocative clothing and embracing the word “slut” had a specific origin, but was aimed generally at promoting certain feminist ideas — criticism of women’s sexual behavior is never permissible, and it is “blaming victims of sexual assault” to expect women to take reasonable precautions for their own safety. Feminists say it is misogyny to suggest that women “dressing like sluts” are at greater risk of rape. The first Slut Walk, in April 2011, was intended to make the point that women ought to be able to parade half-naked in the streets without fear.

That first march spawned imitations in many other cities — I covered the 2013 Slut Walk in Washington, D.C. — but this movement’s meaning and purpose has really never been very coherent. Constable Sanguinetti apologized immediately for his remark, and the protesters in Toronto weren’t saying anything that feminists hadn’t said before, going back to the “Take Back the Night” rallies of the late 1970s and ’80s.

What the “Slut Walk” movement has made obvious, really, are the inherent contradictions of liberal “pro sex” feminism, which celebrates irresponsible promiscuity as the measure of women’s “empowerment,” even while condemning men who react to such wanton behavior by regarding women as “sex objects.” Liberal feminists act as if men alone are to blame for the putrid decadence of contemporary sexual culture. Women can do whatever they want and never be held responsible for the consequences, whereas any man who says a word of criticism or disapproval is denounced by feminists as a hateful monster.

Thus we come to Saturday’s “Slut Walk” event in Los Angeles, which was organized by a hiphop celebrity named Amber Rose, whose B-list biography can be summarized in fewer than 140 characters:


Abby Sewell of the Los Angeles Times describes Saturday’s carnival:

In a scene that was half-red carpet paparazzi circus, half-political protest, several hundred people joined stripper turned model Amber Rose at Pershing Square on Saturday afternoon for an event dubbed SlutWalk.
The event was promoted as a way to express “outrage toward issues of sexual violence, gender inequality, derogatory labeling and victim blaming.” . . .
The mostly female crowd, some shirtless, others in costume and in various states of dress, carried signs declaring “My Clothes Are Not My Consent” and “The Way I Dress Does Not Mean Yes.”
Rose, bearing a sign that read “Strippers Have Feelings Too,” led the group on a brief march up and down Olive Street as curious tourists and shoppers, and a few hecklers, watched. . . .
Some of the attendees said they were drawn by the star power of Rose, who first came into the limelight in 2008 when she was dating rapper Kanye West.
Courtney Scott, 22, attended with her mother and sister from Los Alamitos after learning about the event on Rose’s Instagram. She said she wanted to spread the message against “slut shaming,” but also was excited to catch a glimpse of Rose.
“She’s really comfortable in who she is,” Scott said. “She’s not ashamed of her past.”
There were some parts of Rose’s past that she evidently wanted to avoid discussing Saturday, however.
A document distributed to media covering the event listed “approved topics” of coverage, including “Amber Rose Slut Walk LA,” “feminist platform,” “other projects/business ventures Amber is working on,” and “Amber’s fashion.”
It added the injunction: “No Questions regarding Kanye West or Kim Kardashian.”

A minor celebrity, whose chief claim to fame is that her ex-boyfriend is now involved with a Kardashian. wants the world to know that “Strippers Have Feelings Too.” It’s so . . . profound. Meanwhile, this happened:

Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was ejected from the Amber Rose Slut Walk in Los Angeles [Saturday] afternoon. Slut Walkers could be heard yelling to police officers, “Thanks for taking out the trash!”?
Yiannopoulos was reporting from the event with a film crew, interviewing Rebel Media broadcaster and Canadian libertarian politician Lauren Southern about the feminist movement which protests against “rape culture” and “slut-shaming.”
Southern had just asked host Amber Rose whether she believed in rape culture. Event organizers immediately announced to Breitbart that they were calling law enforcement to have both journalists escorted from Pershing Square in downtown LA.
Protesters snatched and tore up Yiannopoulos’s placard, which read: “‘Rape Culture And Harry Potter’: Both Fantasy” in view of the police, who stood by while protesters bellowed and grabbed at a second placard that read, “Regret is not Rape.”?

You see asking questions — being skeptical of feminism’s truth-claims — is impermissible in 21st-century America. Are women really victims of “rape culture”? Is promiscuity actually “empowering” for women? You aren’t even allowed to ask these questions, and certainly you can’t expect feminists to provide coherent answers.

Feminism is never a dialogue. It is a lecture, a diatribe, a one-sided totalitarian propaganda of hatred, demonizing males as scapegoats who are always to blame for anything and everything.

Doubts increase over Hung KMT presidential bid


TAIPEI, Taiwan — Kuomintang (KMT) presidential candidate Hung Hsiu-chu’s (洪秀柱) campaign office stated yesterday that she will respect the decision of party headquarters on whether a party congress will be held to determine the viability of her candidacy.

Hung’s campaign spokeswoman, Wang Hong-wei (王鴻薇), stated that as a party that respects rules, the candidate would respect the decision of the party on the matter.

KMT Central Standing Committee (CSC) member Chiang Shuo-ping (江碩平) broached the idea of an extraordinary party congress to be convened this Wednesday to address Hung’s candidacy due to low polling numbers and lagging confidence that she could muster the support to defeat Democratic Progressive Party Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen in the January 2016 general election.

“Which one of you reporters thinks that she (Hung) can win?” Chiang asked. He expressed exasperation that party headquarters was all for chanting slogans in favor of party unity and said that he would definitely bring up the case for holding the extraordinary meeting. Chiang said at least 20 other members of the CSC would support the motion on Wednesday.

Addressing reporters, Chiang said that the extraordinary party congress would be a move to “consolidate consensus” and that he would support a candidate who could win. Elaborating, he said that Hung does not command the widespread popular support that was garnered by current President Ma Ying-jeou when he sought the nation’s highest office in 2008. Hung has not been able to surmount low morale in local contests outside the KMT’s traditional bastions in the north of Taiwan, he said.

Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), considered by insiders as a potential replacement, said that “experts” needed to weigh in on the effects of replacing Hung on the KMT’s current polling numbers.

According to party officials, scenarios ranged from Hung voluntarily stepping down as the KMT’s presidential candidate, or acceding to a change of policies that would garner more support from CSC members, or finally a motion that would nullify Hung’s candidacy directly as a result of the extraordinary party congress.

Party spokesman Yang Wei-chung (楊偉中) said that the matter would be addressed by the CSC and that “democracy” would determine the final decision taken.

In response to the possible moves to replace her, Hung said that she supported individual freedom of expression.

In recent weeks, Hung has vowed to soldier on with her campaign and responded that murmurs to have her replaced as the party’s presidential candidate were orchestrations to divide the party. Last week, she took the stage with prominent members of the party, including President Ma, Vice President Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and KMT Chairman and New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) to shore up support.

Hung was originally nominated by the KMT as its presidential candidate on July 19 during its 19th national party congress in Taipei.

DV shelter turns away volatile 16 year old boy, mother kills him, then herself


The deaths of a Prince Rupert mother and her severely autistic son have led to recommendations from a coroner’s inquest jury.

Angie Robinson killed herself April 3, 2014, after she ended her own 16-year-old son Robert’s life.

“We can’t bring Angie and Robbie back, but their deaths do not have to be in vain,” said Robinson’s sister, Michelle Watson.

The jury heard testimony that Robinson endured an abusive relationship, instead of moving to safety because her volatile son was not welcome at the women’s shelter.

The jury recommendations included:

  • Increasing training for child safety workers
  • Ensuring more consultation and communication between authorities.
  • Providing free autism training for parents.

The list of 24 recommended changes ends with a poignant point.

The six person jury underlined evidence of a lack of empathy to Angie Robinson’s situation, and noted that the Prince Rupert mother looked for help and ran into walls, instead of support.

The jury began to hear evidence on Monday about the troubles facing Robinson, a single mother.

School suspend boy for paying a staring game with a girl



A staring showdown leads to a student being suspended and now a lawsuit.

The boy’s parents said the suspension never should have happened.


The Tolberts said the principal at St. Gabriel Consolidated School overreacted, so they took their case to court.

“He came home that day and said, I got suspended for staring. I mean, he was in a daze,” said Candice Tolbert.

Tolbert believes her son and another student at St. Gabriel were unfairly punished.

Tolbert said the boys got into a staring match with a female student last school year.

“He was playing a game with her. He said she was laughing. They were engaged. When she finally giggled and said stop. He stopped,” Tolbert said.

The female student was cited in court papers as saying she also stared at the boys.

However, the Cincinnati Archdiocese said the 12-year-old boys were suspended for one day after the girl’s parents complained.

The female student said the boys cornered her in a classroom closet.

A teacher described what the girl told her in court papers.

“She said that during snack time, she was approached by (the student). He walked up to her, said nothing, just stared at her,” said the teacher.

The principal said she felt a one day suspension was appropriate.

Court papers outline what the student handbook lists as possible grounds for suspension.

“A student whose presence possesses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting academic learning may be immediately suspended without a hearing, with notice and hearing to follow as soon as practical.”

Tolbert said she’d like to see a review board added to the school disciplinary process so parents’ voices can be heard if they disagree with the punishment.

“The Archdiocese would not sit down with us. At that point, we are concerned about our son’s record. To have this mislabel of bullying and intimidation behavior on his record does not represent who he is,” said Tolbert.

The case went before a Hamilton County judge Tuesday.

Judge Dinkelacker sided with the school, citing the principal has the right to decide which punishment is appropriate.

Tolbert said they might appeal the decision. Tolbert says her son is in his final year at St. Gabriel.

She says he loves the school and wanted to stay for his final year.

Why West paints Putin as villain & Russian media his evil servants

Minutes after Russia began strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria, Western media began reporting that Russian jets were hitting the ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition. Sputnik International’s political observer Dmitry Babich explains why anti-Russian rhetoric has taken over Western media.

On the morning after the first Russian airstrikes, I appeared on the BBC for a discussion. I asked former head of the British Foreign Office Malcolm Rifkind why British television and the press were convinced that Russian jets weren’t targeting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

I also wondered why Russian reports were not taken into account.

The answer was: “Russian airstrikes on Hama and Homs, where there are no terrorists, are an undisputable fact, because it is reported by the free British press, while all Russian media are controlled by the Kremlin, therefore they will not deliver such information.”

You are you, thus you are guilty

So we are right, because it’s us, and you are wrong, because it’s you. You are in Moscow and therefore the Kremlin controls you. The Western media pondered the ‘Maybe Russia is right?’ question for a very short period of time – a few hours. (During the first hours of the airstrikes some Western media welcomed the new development, calling the Russian involvement in the Syrian conflict as war on IS). But soon enough, the usual anti-Russian narrative began to dominate in all Western sources.

Later, during a press conference by Foreign Minister Lavrov, journalists reiterated Rifkind’s references to the ‘civilian casualties’ reportedly caused by Russia’s newly opened military campaign in Syria.

The journalists presented them as facts, because apparently ‘they’d been widely reported’. Lavrov refused to accept the charges as ‘facts,’ reminding the audience that during the ‘hot phase’ of the Ukrainian conflict, Western media were forced to apologize for similar reports about ‘Russian strikes’ on Ukrainian targets, which later proved to have been faked.

We can also recall breaking news stories in the New York Times about Russian troops launching a Ukraine offensive from Crimea (they stated the Ukrainian authorities as the source, putting the reference in tiny print at the end). There were also narratives about the Odessa fire victims on May 2, 2014, who apparently committed ‘mass suicide,’ and some reports even claimed these people had attacked their killers first.

Western media has never issued an apology for these lies. Just as they never apologized for reporting about the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein allegedly had in his possession, which became the pretext for the American-British invasion in 2003.

Nor did they apologize for describing the Maidan rebels as ‘peaceful protesters,’ even after those peaceful protesters began to kill the police. In 2014, the Western media even included Svoboda (formerly Social-National Party of Ukraine) activists in the list of ‘peaceful protesters,’ and top European diplomat Catherine Ashton shook hands with the party’s leader Oleg Tyagnybok.

Now after the Poroshenko-Tyagnybok fallout, Western media paint the same party activists as dangerous criminals, who killed four law enforcement officers during the clashes in central Kiev on August 31, 2015.

No apologies and no punishment for delivering false, sometimes even immoral information. So the Western media are playing out The Society of the Spectacle [a book by Guy Debord, released in 1967], when they cover international events. They race to put on the hottest news, peddling very catchy (although untrue and almost certainly vulgar) headlines to the audience. Traditionally the villain, whose intentions the reader is supposed to figure out, is President Vladimir Putin.

more at