Princess Mononoke: The 1997 Japanese epic historical fantasy anime film by Hayao Miyazaki screens (with English subtitles) in a special 20th anniversary presentation. [7 p.m., Century 20, 1901 Junipero Serra Blvd., Daly City]
Manjula Martin: The author of the essay collection “Scratch: Writers, Money, and The Art of Making a Living,” speaks, in a session with writers Caille Millner, Laura Goode, Susie Cagle and Yiyun Li. [7:30 p.m., Green Apple Books, 1231 Ninth Ave., S. F.]
Rhino in the Castro: Theatre Rhinoceros, The City’s pioneering queer stage company, hosts a series of readings of plays reflecting the LGBTQ community and its allies. [7 p.m., GLBT History Museum, 4127 18th St., S. F.]
Stolas: The Las Vegas-based progressive-rock trio opens for The Number Twelve Looks Like You, a “mathcore” band from Fair Lawn, N. J., combining “grindcore, progressive metal, and later salsa, funk and jazz.” [8 p.m., Brick and Mortar Music Hall, 1710 Mission St., S. F.]
Selena Bartlett: The neuroscientist and professor at Queensland University of Technology in Australia speaks about her book “MiGGi Matters: How to Train Your Brain to Manage Stress and Trim Your Body.” [7 p.m., Book Passage, 51 Tamal Vista Blvd., Corte Madera]
Dorothie and Martin Hellman: The couple is promoting “A New Map for Relationships: Creating True Love at Home and Peace on the Planet,” their collaborative book about how they saved their failing marriage. [7 p.m., Books Inc., 74 Town & Country Village, Palo Alto]
Drop In Improv: The $15 session offers the opportunity for experienced actors and practitioners to sharpen skills, and newcomers to get introduced to the world of improvisation. [7 p.m., Leela Improv Training Center, third floor, 901 Mission St., S. F.]
Closing Time-Music of Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen and Nick Cave: DJs Omar (Popscene) and Cole (Ownership) play music by the master songwriters in the eclectic club night. [Make Out Room, 9:30 p.m., 3325 22nd St., S. F.]
Tim Lee: The “scientist turned comedian” opens a two-night engagement. [8 p.m., Punch Line, 444 Battery St., S. F.]
Vintage Toy Buying Show: In an event described as “‘Antiques Roadshow’ meets Vintage Barbie,” America’s Toy Scout Joel Magee offers on-the-spot cash payments for popular 20th century (and earlier) toys, including “Star Wars” action figures, Transformers, Hot Wheels and 1960s comic book collections, [9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.. Courtyard San Francisco Airport, 1050 Bayhill Drive, San Bruno]
Janie Chang: The best-selling author of “Three Moons” is promoting her new novel, “Dragon Springs Road.” [7:30 p.m.. Kepler’s, 1010 El Camino Real, Menlo Park]
Everyone Deserves a Home: An event corresponding with the exhibit of photographs by Audra Miller (and coordinated by Ariel Fortune and Lauren Hall) offers visitors the opportunity to meet the formerly homeless San Franciscans whose portraits and oral histories comprise the show. [4 p.m., Latino Hispanic Room, Main Library, 100 Larkin St., S. F.]
Son of the Velvet Rat: The band, the project of Austrian songwriter Georg Altziebler and his wife Heike Binder on organ and accordion, appears on a bill with Step Jayne and Dan Cantrell. [8 p.m., Hotel Utah, 500 Fourth St., S. F.]
Zadie Smith: The best-selling, award-winning English novelist (“White Teeth”), essayist and short story writer appears in a sold-out City Arts & Lectures presentation. [7:30 p.m., Nourse Theater, 275 Hayes St., S. F.]
Bay City Blues with Chris Cain: The evening’s special guest is Chicago blues guitar veteran Rockin Johnny Burgin. [7:30 and 9:30 p.m., Biscuits and Blues, 401 Mason St., S. F.]
Mark Shaw: The former criminal defense attorney and legal analyst discusses his new work “The Reporter Who Knew Too Much: The Mysterious Death of What’s My Line TV Star and Media Icon Dorothy Kilgallen.” [7 p.m., Books Inc., 1375 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame]

Similarity rank: 0

Sentiment rank: -0.7

© Source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/jan-9-10-princess-mononoke-manjula-martin-rhino-castro-selena-bartlett-stolas-drop-improv-tim-lee/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

An „exemplary“ British student died on New Year’s Eve after reportedly falling from a high-rise building in Japan.
Durham University student Justin Browning had been part-way through his year abroad at Waseda University in Tokyo.
His body was discovered on the ground by a taxi driver, according to The Sunday Times.
It is thought the history student had gone to the top of the building to watch the new year celebrations.
Anthony Bash, honorary professor at Durham University and senior tutor of Hatfield College, said: „Justin was an exemplary student in the third year of his history degree and he was a well-liked member of Hatfield College. “
He added: „Justin’s untimely death has shocked and saddened everyone connected with Hatfield and the wider university. He will be greatly missed. Our thoughts are with Justin’s family and friends at this time.
Professor Jo Fox, head of history, said: „Justin was one of our very best students and was clearly on course for a strong first class degree. He demonstrated passion for history and in particular the history of Japan and China.
„We had recently heard that Justin’s second year extended project on Tibetan Buddhist folklore and ethnicity had just been accepted for publication in the Princeton Journal of East Asian Studies. We are incredibly proud of him.
„He was a model student – funny, committed, sharp, independent, and very well-liked by all. „

Similarity rank: 1.1

Sentiment rank: -4.6

© Source: http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/uk-student-dies-after-falling-from-building-in-japan-on-new-years-eve-35351908.html
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Jan. 9 (UPI) — Japan’s Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. said Monday it will purchase U. S.-based cancer drugmaker ARIAD Pharmaceuticals for about $5.2 billion.
Takeda will fund the acquisition by taking on up to $4 billion of new debt and paying for the remainder in cash at $24 each for all 194,389,661 of ARIAD’s shares. The deal, approved by both companies‘ board of directors, is expected to close by the end of February, pending regulatory approval and other conditions.
Sarissa Capital, which holds 6.6 percent of ARIAD’s common shares, and each member of ARIAD’s board of directors agreed to tender their shares to complete the purchase by Takeda.
„The acquisition of ARIAD is a unique opportunity that will enable us to positively impact the lives of more patients worldwide, advance our strategic priorities and generate attractive returns for our shareholders,“ Christophe Weber, president and chief executive officer of Takeda, said in a statement. „This is a very exciting time for Takeda as we will broaden our hematology portfolio and transform our global solid tumor franchise through the addition of two innovative targeted therapies. Opportunities to acquire such high-quality, complementary targeted therapies do not come often, and we are very excited about the potential for this transaction to benefit patients, our shareholders and other stakeholders. “
ARIAD is based in Cambridge, Mass. The company’s primary drugs are Iclusig, used in leukemia treatment, and Brigatinib, an anti-cancer ALK inhibitor pending U. S. approval that is expected to have annual sales of over $1 billion.
„We are very pleased to combine with Takeda, which will allow us to not only accelerate our mission to discover, develop and deliver precision therapies to patients with rare cancers, but also deliver immediate and meaningful value to our shareholders through a substantial cash premium,“ Paris Panayiotopoulos, president and chief executive officer of ARIAD, said in a statement. „This exciting transaction is a testament to the hard work and dedication of ARIAD’s talented team of employees. We have tremendous respect for Takeda, and I believe our shared commitment to innovation and research-driven cultures will provide for a smooth transition. „

Similarity rank: 1.1

Sentiment rank: 1.8

© Source: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2017/01/09/Japans-Takeda-to-purchase-US-cancer-drugmaker-ARIAD-for-52B/1191483970003/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Justin Thomas knew he was playing well enough to start the year with a victory in the SBS Tournament of Champions.
He just didn’t expect to have to play so many good shots in the end to win.
Even on Maui, life can move pretty fast.
Thomas had a five-shot lead with five holes to play when he holed a 10-foot birdie putt on the 13th hole. Three holes later, he stood on the edge of the 16th green and watched Hideki Matsuyama stand over a 10-foot birdie putt that would have tied him for the lead.
Asked if there was ever a time in his golfing life that he feared blowing a tournament, Thomas replied, „Today count? “
The thought didn’t linger.
He told his caddie, Jimmy Johnson, as they walked to the 17th tee that he would have gladly taken a one-shot lead with two holes to play before the tournament started. Thomas then hit an 8-iron from 214 yards so pure that he stopped to admire it as it settled 3 feet away for birdie, and he closed by smashing a 369-yard drive — his 10th tee shot of at least 350 yards for the week — that set up a simple two-putt birdie for a 4-under 69.
He wound up with a three-shot victory over Matsuyama that made him sweat a little more than he imagined Sunday at Kapalua. He won for the third time in his third season on the PGA Tour, and they all have one thread.
„I apparently have to fly at least 12 hours to get a win on the PGA Tour,“ Thomas said.
His other two victories were in Malaysia each of the last two years at the CIMB Classic. The one difference at Kapalua was that his parents were there to see it for the first time. Mike Thomas is the longtime head pro at Harmony Landing outside Louisville, Kentucky, and still his coach.
His mother, Jani, was in tears. No surprise there.
„I definitely made them stress a little bit more than probably they would have liked,“ Thomas said. „But yeah, I love having them there. “
The first PGA Tour of the new year didn’t feel much differently from the old year.
Matsuyama had won three straight tournaments — and four of his last five — coming into Kapalua. Thomas was the only player who had beaten him dating to his Oct. 16 victory in the Japan Open.
The 24-year-old from Japan appeared to have taken himself out of contention with two soft bogeys on the front and losing ground early on the front nine. But players who are on a winning streak find a way to get in the mix, and Matsuyama was no exception.
It started with his eagle on the 14th to get within three shots. Matsuyama could have done a little more to squeeze Thomas.
Thomas avoided one big mistake on the ninth hole when he snap-hooked a tee shot into the native grass. Not only did a TV spotter locate the ball, it was sitting high enough above the roots to hack it out into the fairway, and he escaped with par.
He wasn’t so fortunate on the 15th when he hit a fat hook with a 4-iron into the hazard, left his wedge short of the green and made double bogey. Matsuyama missed a 10-foot birdie putt that would have tied it. And he missed the 10-footer on 16 that would have tied it.
And on the 17th, after Thomas stuffed the 8-iron into 3 feet, Matsuyama went after a 30-foot putt knowing he had to make it to stay in the game. It ran 8 feet by the hole, he missed that one to take bogey and the game was over.
„Justin had a little trouble at 15 and then I was really in it,“ Matsuyama said. „But my putter let me down there at 16, 17 and 18. “
Thomas, who finished at 22-under 270, moved to No. 12 in the world.
Defending champion Jordan Spieth got through a round without a big number and closed with a 65 to tie for third with Ryan Moore and Pat Perez. It also enabled him to stay at No. 5 by a fraction over Matsuyama.
Spieth and Thomas first met 10 years ago on the junior circuit and have been close friends ever since. Spieth and Jimmy Walker were by the 18th to congratulate Thomas, and Spieth told him, „Go sign your card. “
„I think it’s potentially floodgates opening,“ Spieth said of Thomas‘ victory. „The guy hits it forever. He’s got a really, really nifty short game. He manages the course well. He’s playing the golf course the way it should be played, and honestly, he’s taking advantage of the easier holes.
„It’s awesome to see,“ Spieth said. „He’s going to be tough to beat next week, too. „

Similarity rank: 1.1

Sentiment rank: 4.4

© Source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/article125360414.html
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Japan’s ambassador to South Korea returned to Tokyo on Monday, reiterating its frustration over a statue of a „comfort woman“ which has reignited a diplomatic row over Tokyo’s wartime sex slavery.
Tensions spiked on Friday when Tokyo said it would recall its envoy over the statue which was placed outside its consulate in Busan last month, symbolising women forced to work in Japanese military brothels mostly during World War II.
Japan argues it is against a 2015 agreement between the neighbours meant to put an end to the hugely emotional and decades-long „comfort women“ issue with a Japanese apology and payment of money.
„It is extremely regrettable that the girl statue was set,“ ambassador Yasumasa Nagamine told reporters ahead of his departure from Seoul Monday morning, adding that he would discuss the issue with government officials, possibly including Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida.
The plight of the women has marred relations for decades but the two governments reached an agreement in late 2015 to finally resolve it.
Under that accord, which both countries described as „final and irreversible,“ Japan offered an apology and a one-billion yen ($8.6 billion) payment to surviving Korean comfort women.
Critics of the accord say the deal did not go far enough in holding Japan responsible for wartime abuses during its 1910-45 colonial rule over the Korean peninsula.
Mainstream historians say up to 200,000 women, mostly from Korea but also other parts of Asia including China, were forced to work in Japanese military brothels during World War II.
The statue in Busan was initially removed by local authorities but after the Japanese defence minister paid homage at Yasukuni Shrine last month — a spot where senior convicted war criminals are honoured — Seoul allowed activists to put the statue back up.

Similarity rank: 0

Sentiment rank: 0

© Source: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/japan-envoy-returns-home-in-s-korea-comfort-woman-row/article/483245
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy…
Daniel Hannan, as I’ve noted in the past, has an awkward habit of deleting his tweets. Often, by a strange coincidence, it’s the more embarrassing proclamations that vanish into the ether – no explanation, no, “Apologies, friends, I buggered that up didn’t I?” The tweet simply vanishes as if it had never been tweeted.
I’ve taken, then, to screenshot-ing some of the best morsels, just in case they’re not there the next time I look. Here’s one now:
Funny thing about that tweet is that Danny Boy has not, at time of writing, deleted it. Despite the fact he was tricked into embarrassing himself by a mean-spirited Remoaner, it’s still sitting there on the internet looking for all the world like its author is not crippled with embarrassment at the fact he could have been such a dunderhead as to write it. Two things are wrong with it, one relatively small, the other so huge as to be all encompassing.
The small one lies in the choice of monarchs. Not all of them are unreasonable: Henry VIII famously broke with the Catholic Church in his search for a divorce, an heir, and a quick bonk with Anne Boleyn. Since that meant an end to the period in which the English crown was answerable to a higher authority in the form of the Pope, we’ve already been treated to umpteen “Britain’s first Brexit” articles, and they’re not soon likely to stop – all this, despite the fact the big man liked to go around telling people he was also the King of France.
Similarly England spent much of the reign of his daughter trying to avoid being swallowed by the Spanish Empire, so it’s probably fair to suggest that Elizabeth I wasn’t a big fan of European integration either. George V, though, was closely related to – indeed, shared a face with – half the other head of states in Europe during his time on the planet, so what he’s doing there is anybody’s guess.
The truly vexing inclusion, though, is Edward V. Is Daniel Hannan really saying that a boy king who reigned for 79 days and was murdered by a wicked uncle at the age of 12 had serious concerns about the European project? Was it the damage that the Combined Agricultural Policy wrought on developing world farmers that Edward was brooding about in his tower? The money wasted on repeatedly moving the European Parliament between Brussels and Strasbourg? What?
@JonnElledge To be fair, if you’d ask the Princes in the Tower if they wanted to leave or remain, I’d bet they’d vote leave.
— Chris Cook (@xtophercook) December 29, 2016
Okay let’s be charitable and assume it’s a typo, presumably for another of Henry’s kids Edward VI. (It certainly wasn’t Edward III who spent much of his reign trying to get into Europe, by kicking off an endless war with France.) But the bigger problem here lies not in the specifics of Daniel’s answer, but in the fact he bothered to answer at all. The entire exercise is entirely ludicrous. It’s like asking for Theresa May’s position on the dissolution of the monasteries, or Jeremy Hunt’s proposals for tackling the Black Death.
The question is an ahistorical nonsense – not just because the European Union was invented in the late 20th century to deal with problems specific to a particular time, but because it misunderstands how England’s role in Europe has evolved over the centuries.
For the first five hundred years or so after the Conquest, the nations of the British Isles were a key part of a western European political system that included France and the Low countries. Until it lost Calais in 1558, indeed, the English Crown generally held territory in France.
The idea that the United Kingdom, as the state became, was with Europe but not of it – that its destiny lay on the high seas, not the continent – is a notion that’s core to Eurosceptic mythology, but one which didn’t emerge until the imperial era. Exactly when I’m not sure (unlike certain Conservative MEPs I’m not afraid to admit my ignorance, which is what makes us better than the animals and egg avatars). However you count it, though, the period between then and 1973 must make up a minority of England’s history as a nation. For most of its history, the idea that the England was somehow not properly “European” would have seemed crazy.
Actually, there was one major European project which a king of both England and Scotland kept us out of, a policy decision confirmed by his successors. That project was a key plank of French foreign policy, grew to encompass more far flung countries like Sweden, and was launched largely to prevent the Germans from getting above themselves. It was the Thirty Years War.
But is James I & VI on Hannan’s list? Is he b*llocks.
It has been widely reported that my case – R (Miller) versus The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union – is a Brexit case but this misrepresentation misses the fundamental constitutional issues that it seeks to defend.
The most fundamental rule of the United Kingdom’s constitution is that parliament is sovereign. Today this translates to the constitutional cornerstone that the government of the day, acting as agents for the Crown, cannot by exercise of prerogative powers, override legislation enacted by parliament.
Set within the context of rising populism, I believe the defence of a proper legal process is an important point for this year’s intake of politics students to consider. This is what I fervently believe in and why I took my case to court. To understand the constitutional issue at stake, it is important to look at the political and legal background. On the 23rd June 2016, the country voted to leave the EU.
The mechanism for any member state to withdraw from the EU is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The formal withdrawal process is initiated by a notification from the UK to the European Council. The EU and the UK will then have a two-year time-frame to agree on a withdrawal package.
After that, membership ends automatically, unless the European Council and the UK agree jointly to extend the period. However, a major weakness of Article 50 is that it is not substantive in its content or conditions, and only concerns itself with procedural requirements.
Article 50 (1) states: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” The government indicated they intended to bypass parliament and trigger Article 50 using a Crown prerogative power.
The question raised by our case was whether a government minister, the executive, could trigger the process of withdrawing the UK from the EU without being authorised to do so by an Act of Parliament.
Our case argued that once Article 50 is triggered, the legal consequence of the UK withdrawing would inevitably lead to citizens’ rights being diminished or removed, not least the four freedoms of the free movement of goods, people, services and capital over borders, could cease, depending on the exit package negotiated by the UK government.
My legal team and I believed that as a representative parliamentary democracy, our constitutional requirement is that only parliament can grant rights, and only parliament can take them away.
As no-one appeared to be certain in respect of the fundamental constitutional question about where power lies, and this was the issue my legal team and I were asking the courts to resolve. We were not arguing that the result of the referendum was itself a “decision” that the UK should withdraw from the EU, which would satisfy “constitutional requirements”.
Nor were we suggesting that the judiciary can or should decide whether the UK should withdraw from the EU. The contested issue was whether the government, using prerogative powers, had constitutional authority to make that decision without parliament.
The residual Crown prerogative power that exists on the international plain was about to be used on the domestic plain, which would not just undermine parliamentary sovereignty, it would also set a dangerous new precedent.
Our challenge fully accepted that notification itself is likely to be a matter for the executive, acting on parliamentary authority conferred by statute, and having regard to the terms of parliament’s decision. The court was not being asked to interfere with parliamentary procedure.
The question for the court was whether a parliamentary decision, in the form of primary legislation, is constitutionally necessary before a minister can trigger the process of withdrawing the UK from the EU by notifying the European Council pursuant to Article 50(2).
Our submission was that the royal or Crown prerogative is a residual power reserved for the conduct of international relations, and the making and unmaking of treaties. In other words, prerogative powers end where domestic law begins. Consequently, the executive does not have prerogative power to “decide” that the UK should withdraw from the EU; nor can any ministers lawfully “notify” the European Council of any such decision without parliament’s statutory authority to do so.
If the court was to rule in the government’s favour, we would be beginning a new, I believe, autocratic phase in our country where a constitutional legal precedent would have been established that any executive of any government could bypass parliament, sit behind closed doors and decide which rights ordinary citizens keep or lose.
In terms of the effects of leaving the EU, the short-term reality is that the Conservative government would take on all EU law and rights, in acquis, and have the power to decide amongst themselves which to strip away and which we keep. A constitutional precedent set by a government taking such drastic action without consulting parliament is an even larger political issue for our country, than whether Britain leaves the EU.
As we enter an age of populism, political challenges clearly arise for our society. The danger is that the baby is thrown out with the bath water. Fundamental principles of our constitution, such as the rule of law, the separation of powers between the government, the peoples’ representatives in parliament and the independent judiciary provide the very framework within which populism can express itself and indeed flourish. But populism is not anarchy, and whilst it is easy to see why many wish to kick against the system, it is less clear what changes for the better are being proposed to that system.
The solutions will inevitably be political ones. One key aspect of my Article 50 litigation is that so few people have a clear understanding of what our constitutional arrangements are.
For students of politics (and politicians) the lesson is clear; politics does not exist in a vacuum, and it is our constitution which is the glue that keeps our society together, even when populists may wish to change the nature of that same society.
This article originally appeared in the New Statesman’s Political Studies Guide for 2017 .

Similarity rank: 0.4

Sentiment rank: -1.5

© Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/01/adventure-daniel-hannan-and-princes-tower
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.