NDRC rejects early opening for Zhuhai-Macau link


Mainland authorities say a planned bridge between Macau and Zhuhai will not be opened to the public, until the link to Hong Kong is also complete.

The National Development and Reform Commission said the work on the link from here is behind schedule and the Macau to Zhuhai stretch is now expected to finish first.

But during a press conference in Beijing, the deputy director of the commission, Hu Zucai, brushed aside suggestions that the Zhuhai-Macau stretch of the bridge could be be opened first.

He said the bridge will be opened to the public only when the entire project is completed.

The bridge was originally scheduled to be completed by the end of this year, but it is now going to be late by at least a year.

Abe to leave for Kenya to attend TICAD



Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is to head for Kenya to attend the Tokyo International Conference on African Development, or TICAD. He hopes to expand the country’s infrastructure investment in Africa and seek closer cooperation on counter-terrorism measures.

Abe will leave Tokyo 2 days before the 6th TICAD opens in Nairobi on Saturday. This is the first TICAD conference to be held in Africa. Japan hosted all of the previous conferences where aid to Africa was discussed with leaders from the continent.

This time, the leaders are expected to discuss an expansion of high-quality infrastructure investment in Africa, such as geothermal power generation utilizing Japanese technology.

Also likely to be on the agenda are prevention of terrorist acts by Islamic extremists and enhancement of health care systems to contain infectious diseases, such as Ebola.

The leaders are to adopt the Nairobi Declaration after wrapping up their discussion on Sunday.

Abe will take with him representatives of about 80 companies, universities, and other organizations in Japan. They plan to stress that Japan’s support will lead to long-term training of human resources.

China has been increasing its presence in Africa through large infrastructure projects.

Ariana Grande who looks like a 12 year old Sued for Copyright Infringement Over “One Last Time”

Yet another pop sensation has been slapped with a lawsuit.

This time, Ariana Grande is under fire for her 2015 chart-topping track “One Last Time,” which songwriter Alex Greggs claims was embodied after the Skye Stevens‘ 2012 single he wrote titled “Takes All Night.”

In documents obtained by E! News, Greggs alleges that “One Last Time” and “Takes All Night” bear similarities “so striking that it is highly likely the works were not created independently of one another,” noting the chorus and lyrics of Grande’s version as a primary catalyst for the legal action.

The lawsuit states, “Although the rhythm of the two compositions may differ to accommodate the prosody of the lyrics, there is substantial similarity on the most important rhythmic placement of the pitches on strong melodic and harmonic beats…” as well as “the use of the lyric statement ‘take(s) [or takeing] you home’ as the final lyric statement…”

Greggs is seeking $150,000 per infringement. Additionally, David Guetta (who wrote “One Last Time”), Rami YacoubCarl Falk, Universal Music Group and Republic Records among others are noted in the lawsuit.

This isn’t the first time the 23-year-old has faced legal trouble over her music. In 2013, the singer was sued for a phrase in “The Way” that Minder Music claimed was a replica from a line in a 1972 disco track called “Troglodyte.”

And just days ago, indie band Sleigh Bells sued fellow pop star Demi Lovato for copyright infringement. The group claims the former Disney darling’s 2015 hit “Stars” was ripped from their 2010 track,”Infinity Guitars.”



How Much Does @JessicaValenti Enjoy Her Husband @AGolis’s ‘Male Tears’?


Just about the time Jessica Valenti’s latest book hit the New York Timesbestsellers list, her husband’s business venture went belly-up:

This, the awkwardly named share-one-link-per-day platform, is shutting down at the end of the month, founder Andrew Golis announced over email to users and in a Medium post. The site, launched in 2014, had generated some significant interest among media types, having been invite-only for most of last year. It opened to everyone last fall and began offering automated, curated email newsletters. It recently added a commenting option, and had been exploring sponsorships as well as premium membership options; a new version of its app was featured in the App Store just last month, and Golis was giving it a promotional push just 10 days ago.
Golis explained in his announcement that the lack of funding and any indication of sustainability prompted the decision . . .

You can read the whole thing, but I’m sure you’re less interested in whyThis ended up in the rubbish bin of bankrupt dot-coms than you are incongratulating Jessica Valenti on her husband’s failure. However, to repeat what I’ve said so often, never talk to a feminist:

There are 21 million women ages 20–29 in the United States, most of whom are not hate-filled anti-male ideologues constantly shrieking about how they are being oppressed by the patriarchy. Why, therefore, should the young bachelor bother arguing with a feminist? She hates the mere sight of a man, and certainly doesn’t care to hear any man speak. Learn to walk away.
Of course, feminists generally claim they don’t hate men, even while they’re busy dreaming of putting men in “some kind of camp” (Julie Bindel) or proclaiming their pleasure in “male tears” (Jessica Valenti).
Any man who disagrees with a feminist is a “misogynist,” so that her ideology has the effect of negating the opinions of half the world’s population. And what does Jessica Valenti’s husband Andrew Golis say about this? Nothing.
Well, what could he say? Male silence is necessary to feminism’s success. Feminism is not about equality, because if it were, a man might have the right to his own opinion. Yet any man who says anything to a feminist is condemned as “mansplaining,” in the same way that any man who expresses attraction toward her will be denounced for “objectification,” and if he claims he meant no harm, she’ll give him a lecture about “rape culture.”
Feminism presents men with exactly two options:

1. Damned if you do.
2. Damned if you don’t.

There is no way for a man to win this game, except never to play it, which is why smart men avoid feminists, rather than “crawling around on all fours” in a hopeless attempt to placate the cruel whims of a sadistic Bitch Goddess. . . .

You can read the whole thing at Medium.com. Did I mention I threw in a few Elvis Costello lyrics? Because I’m cool like that, you know.



Should conservatives feel sad for Gawker’s shutdown?


Gawker, the gay hard-left gossip website, was forced to shut down yesterday. Hulk Hogan won a $140 million dollar verdict against Gawker for violating his privacy rights when it published clips of a sex tape he made. He won so much money that Gawker had no choice but to be sold off and shut down, a humiliation for Nick Denton, the far-left founder.

Should we feel bad that a media site has been shut down? Should we feel worried about freedom of the press?

Normally, I would say yes. But Gawker was such a vile, hard-left site that they had it coming.

The articles on Gawker fell into several basic varieties:

1) Articles about how proud and virtuous anal sex is, which is the prime transmission source for AIDS.

2) Articles talking about how evil white people are.

3) Articles talking about how evil the police are.

4) Articles talking about how evil men (presumably, non-homosexual men) are

5) Articles talking about how oppressed Muslims are (but only oppressed by white Americans, not by other Muslims in the Middle East who are slaughtering them by the thousands).

While constantly spewing this toxic mix of racist, sexist, anti-American, pro-Islamic, and pro-AIDS agenda, there is little to feel sad for. Other news sources–The New York Times, The Washington Post, the major news networks, and more–have the same agenda, the only difference is that they are just a little bit less direct about it than Gawker, and a little bit less vile in the words they use. Perhaps the most commonly used word on Gawker.com was the word “shit”–perhaps the readers were in love with that word given it’s proximity to anal sex.

Gawker won’t be missed. Pass the popcorn.

VIRGINIA: Shouting “Allahu Akbar” MUSLIM TERRORIST attacks two people with knife in apparent attempt to behead them

“But this has nothing to do with Islam,” per what designated terrorist group CAIR will soon hold a press conference to say. The FBI has launched a federal terrorism investigation into a weekend stabbing in Roanoke, Virginia, looking at whether the MUSLIM attacker may have been trying to behead his victim in an alleged ISIS-inspired assault, sources told ABC News. (What – no “mental issues” excuse here?)



Abigail Simon is found guilty of having unforced sex with a 15-year-old boy whom she tutored while employed at Catholic Central High School in 2013.


Barbara Ellen:

do we seriously think that a female teacher sleeping
with a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher sleeping
with a girl pupil? I don’t.


Debunking the ‘Born This Way’ Myth

Science proves that the LGBT feminazis are mentally ill!


Here is the world according to the LGBT Left: Just as there are black and white, there are gay and straight. One’s sexual orientation, like one’s race, is fixed and immutable at birth. The process of “questioning” one’s orientation isn’t a process of deciding but of discovering.

Similarly, when it comes to gender identity, there is “cis” and there is “trans.” A cis person’s gender identity matches the sex they were “assigned” at birth. A trans person — well, a trans person is any one of the fifty-plus other genders on the entirely reputable Facebook spectrum. This, you see, is science. Anyone who contradicts it — whether relying on ancient, discredited “holy” texts or outdated notions of morality — isn’t just ignorant, but bigoted. And when it comes to bigots, why draw minute moral distinctions? Is there really much difference between a Klan member and a Christian conservative? Such reasoning has been the source of much of the LGBT movement’s political force. It’s the narrative that dominates the academy, pop culture, progressive corporate America, and, lately, the Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to the LGBT population’s “immutable” nature in his opinion constitutionalizing same-sex marriage. To those who live in the real world, this narrative has always run counter to observed reality. Human sexuality is not so neatly and cleanly divided and determined. Circumstances and culture matter, as does morality. So it should come as no surprise that — upon closer scientific examination — the LGBT Left’s case collapses. Sexual orientation and gender identity are nothing like race.

Yesterday, The New Atlantis released a comprehensive “study of studies,” taking a look at the accumulated body of credible scientific research on LGBT issues. The study is by Lawrence Mayer, a scholar-in-residence at Johns Hopkins University, and Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and its findings destroy the narrative. First, regarding sexual orientation, the view that it is “an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.” Indeed, the authors highlight numerous studies finding that sexual orientation is often fluid, with one study showing high rates of abandonment of non-heterosexual identification as young men grew out of adolescence.

Second, “compared to the general population, non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes.” The numbers are sobering. Non-heterosexual populations have 1.5 times the risk of anxiety disorders and substance abuse, twice the risk of depression, and 2.5 times the risk of suicide. The transgender population also is at elevated risk for mental-health problems, with the suicide numbers particularly troubling: “The rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population.” Third, the idea that “gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.” Indeed, only a minority of children who experience “cross-gender identification” will continue to do so as they get older.

The study is lengthy and comprehensive, and when you dive into its depths, it’s clear that McHugh and Mayer aren’t positing simplistic alternative explanations for human sexuality that would mirror and rebut the Left’s narrative. Instead, what emerges is a messy, realistic vision of human beings who are shaped by myriad social, cultural, and biological forces. To take one example, the authors spend considerable time talking about the high incidence of childhood sexual and physical abuse in the LGBT community. Do LGBT people experience higher rates of abuse and assault because of their orientation, or does the life-altering experience of abuse and assault contribute to the formation of an LGBT identity? As the authors note, the answer is not necessarily either/or. A person can be targeted because they’re perceived to be gay and “sexual abuse perpetrated by men might cause boys to think they are gay or make girls averse to sexual contact with men.”

Here’s the thing, the messy reality McHugh and Mayer describe has been experienced by humans since time immemorial. The LGBT Left’s narrative is the new nonsense. But in response to the new nonsense, there are sectors of American and European politics and culture that can’t kick away the old norms of marriage and gender fast enough, and they keep doing so in spite of the mountain of evidence that those who forsake the allegedly oppressive “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement,” to quote Black Lives Matter, face far greater challenges than those hidebound bigots who stick faithfully to the heteronormative nightmare of traditional male-female marriage.

What’s even worse — what’s downright insane — is that some on Left want to end the debate. They want to keep selling their moral vision to the public without any competition. Here’s their vision, in a nutshell: Consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their bodies, and the resulting physical or emotional harm is either reasonably tolerable or can be alleviated through a combination of government programs and public re-education. The Judeo-Christian model, by contrast, is aspirational, calling on people not to do what they want, but what they should. Admittedly, this path is far easier for some than others, but there has always been some play in the cultural joints. The Left’s response is alluring, but it offers a self-indulgent path down which lies cultural ruin. The LGBT Left is driving us there just as fast as it can depress the gas pedal, but thanks to McHugh and Mayer, we now know they most assuredly are not doing so in the name of “science.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439273/liberal-views-sexuality-debunked