text:
Brady throws for 4 TDs, Patriots beat Dolphins 35-17
Posted on 11/26/17 by devontaeknight
New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady (12) passes against the Miami Dolphins during the first half of an NFL football game, Sunday, Nov. 26, 2017, in Foxborough, Mass. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. (AP) — Tom Brady tossed four touchdown passes — including two to Rob Gronkowski — and the New England Patriots pushed through injuries and a mistake-filled game to beat the Miami Dolphins 35-17 on Sunday.
New England (9-2) posted its seventh consecutive victory and third straight win over Miami. The Dolphins (4-7) have lost five straight for their longest slide since 2011.
It was Brady's 28th career game with four or more touchdown passes — ranking third all-time. His 26 touchdowns passes are the most ever in a season after turning 40 years old.
Rex Burkhead also scored two TDs and Dion Lewis had 15 carries for 112 yards for New England, marking his first career 100-yard game.
Miami got within 28-17 in the fourth quarter, but came up empty on a fourth-down pass play with 8:48 left. On the ensuing series, the Patriots pushed their lead to 35-17 on a 5-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Brandin Cooks.
The Dolphins played without quarterback Jay Cutler, who practiced Friday, but remained in the concussion protocol.
Matt Moore struggled to find a rhythm in his second start of the season. He completed 23 of 34 passes for 215 yards and a touchdown, but also had two interceptions.
Miami also lost more key players to injury.
Running back Damien Williams was carted off the field in the third quarter with a shoulder injury following an 11-yard run. Return man Senorise Perry was placed in the concussion protocol after what appeared to be a helmet-to-helmet collision with New England's Trevor Reilly on a kickoff return in the second half.
The Patriots got tricky to set up their first quarter, using a fourth-down run by Nate Ebner on a punt fake to keep their opening drive alive after three lackluster plays. Burkhead finishing the drive with a 2-yard touchdown run.
Following a quick three-and-out by Miami, New England made it 14-0 via a 5-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski.
Miami rebounded late in the second quarter, taking advantage of a rare self-inflicted mistake by New England.
Patriots center Ted Karras sent a second-down shotgun snap flying past Brady , who was not ready for the ball. It was scooped up by Dolphins safety Reshad Jones and returned for a touchdown.
Karras was filling in for David Andrews, who sat out for the second straight week with an illness.
But New England bounced right back. A pair of defensive holding penalties, a 27-yard pass from Brady to Cooks and a 22-yard run by Burkhead helped the Patriots drive to the Dolphins 1. Two plays later, Brady hit Burkhead for a 1-yard score to push the lead to 21-7.
Miami cornerback Bobby McCain was ejected for throwing a punch at New England receiver Danny Amendola.
McCain and Amendola got into it at the bottom of the pile early in the second half. McCain, who intercepted Brady in the second quarter, was called for unnecessary roughness and thrown out for throwing the punch. He had a few words for the referee as he left the field, and then was walked off toward the Dolphins locker room.
The penalty put the Patriots at the Miami 12. Two plays later, Brady found Gronkowski for a 15-yard TD and a 28-10 lead.
MOVING ON UP
It was the 16th multi-touchdown game by Gronkowski, setting a franchise record. Randy Moss held the old record with 15.
Dolphins: DE Terrence Fede needed help off the field after being injured in the scrum during Jones' fumble recovery touchdown run.
Patriots: Ebner left with a knee injury after his fake punt run in the first quarter. … Reilly left with a head injury after the collision with Perry. … DL Trey Flowers (ribs) and LB Marquis Flowers left in the third quarter after a collision. … OL LaAdrian Waddle left in the fourth quarter with an ankle injury. … LB Kyle Van Noy (leg) was able to walk off the field on his own after being shaken up in the fourth.
Dolphins: Return home to host the Broncos next Sunday.
Patriots: Play first of three straight road games at Buffalo next Sunday.
Tags: dolphins, NFL, Patriots. Bookmark the permalink.
Previous post ← Trump chooses legislative agenda over GOP repulsion of Moore
Next post Conyers steps aside from Judiciary post amid sex allegations →


For most of us, instant noodles as a quick meal, but one artist in Singapore is turning them into slow art.
Cynthia Suwito says her work is a reflection on the modern world's obsession with instant gratification.
She boils and cools the noodles before knitting them.


Population is a big issue happening in the world today, with our numbers having increased massively from around 1 billion in 1850 to what now looks like 11 billion at the end of the century. Right now, the numbers of the world's poor increase by 80 million each year and the number of unwanted pregnancies are 210 million per annum. Considering that human population predicts 88% of impact to other animal and plant species (according to the International Union for the Conversation of Nature) human population remains a huge, yet very controversial concern. (This article was written by Michael Bayliss as part of an information booklet with Mark Allen (founder, Population Permaculture and Planning) entitled: 'Why We Need To Talk About Population.' This booklet is designed to engage with a younger, left leaning generation including environmentalists and activists. It will be available at the Sustainable Living Festival Big Weekend at Federation where Mark Allen will also present on town planning and population issues. To find out more, click here.
It almost seems absurd to extend these world population concerns to Australia. Australia's a population of just under 24 million (at time of writing) and a density of around 3 people per square kilometre seems minuscule when compared to the demographics of other (mostly densely overpopulated) countries. Surely with miles and miles of free uncharted space, Australia could take its fair share of the world's load? Isn't Australia one of the highest per capita fossil fuel guzzling and carbon emitting countries in a society awash with consumerism and materialism? Couldn't we all consume less, replace those coal industries with renewables, and open up our borders to take in our fair share?
The problem is that when you look at our continent more closely, our vast land of plenty starts to look a bit wanting. Only around 6% of our soil is arable by world standards, with 80% of the land-mass arid or semi-arid. This means that we have an incredibly fragile ecosystem with a very low carrying capacity that has struggled with white occupation for the last 200 years and it is about to get another wallop through climate change. There is every good reason why the south-east coast of Australia is populated and the central and north-west are nearly vacant, and that having large numbers of people live in the interior of Australia makes almost as much sense as populating the Sahara.
I would like a rational discussion about population to return to the conversations of progressive and socially minded people. Population numbers are intrinsically linked to our economy, and manipulated by our government to fast-track GDP growth (as I shall explain soon) so it is really difficult to talk about the end of neo-liberal capitalism without talking about population numbers at some point. It is hard to talk about cooperative self-resilient communities and eco-villages as the way of the future whilst our town planning system is trying to keep up with an Adelaide's worth of growth in our major cities every few years. It is hard to share our environment with our native plants and animals for much longer if an end point to our population growth is never debated and if our only option to reduce our per capita footprint infinitely lower is unrealistic. Finally, higher population growth does not automatically mean greater diversity and better outcomes for refugees and asylum seekers. Under our currently societal structure, it can even be the other way around!
Below are three models of possible population growth in Australia, representing three ideologies, where I want to table the pros and cons with each model. The first is the 'business as usual' approach of our current system. The second is an open borders policy, and the third is a sustainable population model.
Business as usual with ~1.5% growth per annum, majority of growth policy regulated to raise GDP, and with a current tax system that allows people to pay less tax from owning property (negative gearing).
As can be seen from the chart, our current model of population growth is beneficial for government to raise money through more people paying tax. It is also very beneficial for employers, as it allows an environment for more applicants for jobs, placing downward pressure on wages and conditions. It is most certainly of benefit for those in the property and construction industries, especially for those who invest in property, where a growing customer base ever drives up the demand for the price of properties in established suburbs (for now).
Unfortunately, things become pretty much worse for everyone else. Whilst it is easy enough to deduce the negative effect of this kind of population growth policy has on young job seekers (for example) and in raising general costs of living, it may be surprising to note that refugees, both past and present, are adversely affected by this type of population growth. For example, past generations of migrant market gardeners have been priced out of their area as the urban boundaries of Melbourne and Sydney expand. Likewise, refugee immigrants are being pushed out due to the increased gentrification that comes with high density living in inner city Melbourne suburbs such as Footscray, Carlton, and Richmond that have traditionally been very viable hubs of strong migrant communities. In recent years, new arrivals through the humanitarian program have tended to settle in areas around Broadmeadows, Deer Park, Heidelberg Heights and Dandenong. A far cry from (say) Victoria Street in Richmond, current generations of refugees face social isolation and difficulties in accessing essential services, which makes establishing community or assimilation more difficult. The Multicultural Development Association has reported that refugees in current times are lacking access to essential information, such as what the swimming flags mean on Australian beaches! The fact that Broadmeadows has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country is telling.
In other words, the asylum seeker fiasco during the Howard Government era, Tampa crisis et al, was politically engineered so that people would be complacent to another kind of population growth that the government (and big business) prefers!
Imagine if we traveled to another planet and witnessed and alien society where the government, swayed by big business, had an immigration policy that was based almost entirely on making money for small sectors of society. Imagine this was at the expense of refugees, or people in desperate need from other countries. Imagine the government engineered a border crisis so that refugees were seen as a huge problem so that, once a tough stand seen to be taken towards them, the government used that ruse to bring in population growth policies from other avenues. Imagine, in this society, the the former leader could basically state this word for word and pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Imagine, in the society where the left were disinclined to call the government out on these policies, for fear of sounding anti-refugee and xenophobic, even when the population policies themselves are discriminatory towards asylum seekers. Imagine if keeping silent perpetuated this growth as a component of the neo-liberalist growth-at-all-costs agenda and if keeping silent on this was a liability on environmental objectives. From an outsider point of view, I'm sure the whole situation would seem more than a little illogical and farcical.
Population has been a very prickly issue for us on the left, particularly in recent decades, with the shadow of Pauline Hanson and One Nation/Reclaim Australia, and particularly when population growth is generally equated in our minds to refugees and open borders policies. However, if we choose to not debate population at all, then our current social and politically engineered population growth policy will continue, the same one that unfairly disfavours refugees and asylum seekers in favour of migration programs that generate short term increases in GDP. This is, to my mind, a very cynical neo-liberalist ideology. We, on the left, have the obligation at the very least to be educated on population policy as it currently stands, and at very least, lobby for a change in policy in favour of the humanitarian program again, even for those of us who are pro-growth. There is also a strong argument that it is very important to support the anti-war movement to prevent the formation of refugees in the first place and that refugee crises are generated by arms manufacture, neo-colonialism and global conflict.
Even if one were recipient to the short-term benefits of this kind of population growth, it must be recognised that the positives are just that - short lived. Eventually, property becomes so expensive that it is not worth investing in anymore. This is called a housing bubble, and has happened to Japan in the late 80s early 90s and currently China and the USA. Coupled with an infrastructure deficit and environmental overshoot, this can only affect everyone in the long term.
So if the current model sounds unfair to most, one might consider a more egalitarian open borders approach. Let's explore that below, with its associated pros and cons.
Open borders policy, no cap on humanitarian intake, no policy to mitigate natural birth rate or GDP fuelled migration (This is in spirit the policy of the Greens Party). This model assumes growth of 600 000 per annum (250 000 humanitarian, 250 000 GDP, 100 000 natural growth).
This model is conducive to the ideal for many who identify with the social left, as an open border policy provides an unbiased avenue of entry into Australia regardless of race, religion, socio-economic status etc. An opens border policy means that industralised countries such as Australia can play a more definite role in accommodating displaced people from abroad and the idea that everyone is free to move wherever they wish to worldwide. The idea of border restriction or control can be uncomfortable for many as this implies an exclusion from those living in the majority world from the relatively privileged position of Australia. From the political field, many Labor-Left and Greens politicians support this ideology, with perhaps Sarah Hanson-Young of The Greens being the most vocal and well-known advocate of this position.
However, in trying to write the above table objectively, I tried to come up with tangible Pros that were practical rather than ideological. This proved to be more difficult than I was anticipating, and had to put in a few question marks in the pros column as the practical benefits are either tenuous or are a double edged sword with associated cons.
Speaking of the Greens, I've observed that many Greens policies cry out for more and more infrastructure (trains, trams, social services, public housing etc). At the same time they generally do not support environmentally destructive mining practices, not least unconventional mining such as fracking. But then, where will all our infrastructure come from? Trains lines, schools, public housing, plumbing - these all require raw materials that need to be dug up from the ground, and processed into tram lines by use of fossil fuels. There really is no way around this unless we learn a way of making train lines out of renewable resources, which isn't likely. So much of Australia's per capita consumption is embedded within the town planning system - suburbia and high density apartment living are both inherently resource hungry. Separation of homes and workplaces, and our physical and economic separation from our food sources result in a reliance of our earth's resources that no amount of wilful reduction of our per capita consumption will mitigate, unless our town planning system changes substantially. If it doesn't, there is no way we can really put much of a brake on our dependency on resources, and with model 2's annual growth rate at 600 000 per annum, this could only escalate within our current town planning system. Instead of being able to plan to change the town planning system to accommodate more people in a sustainable way, any government would probably be doomed to play an endless cycle of infrastructure catch up under our current system - at the environment's expense, even more-so than under our currently system.
I doubt an open borders policy would be practical for any government in the long term. Without an opportunity to transition large scale to a better town planning system, the housing, services and infrastructure costs would be huge. This means either a steep decline in quality of life for residents, or huge taxes or government debt (most likely a combination of all the above). Voters tend to not like those things. Voters on the left would also feel alienated and lied to by a government that would be forced to continue to mine for resources to build the infrastructure with, even if the economy was completely powered by renewable energy. Finally, the huge population growth would have a massive and unavoidable impact to the environment, particularly habitats and water supplies near to the large urban conurbation, even if our per capita footprint were to go down. Any government being elected on an environmental platform would soon let down many of their voters. This is probably a realistic prediction of the Greens if they won government on an open borders platform - they'd soon be shot down. This is also a conundrum that I'm sure many of the left deep down struggle with. That environmental, as well as anti-capitalist objectives, are at odds, at some point, with a human population growth that is not sustainable. Government would survive better, in the long term, if there was some compromise and balance between open borders ideology and the realities of environmental objectives.
Open borders policy only works in the long term if we can work with the world to address the root causes of conflict and displacement that generate high numbers of refugees and asylum seekers. Without this, an open borders policy is great at helping individuals in immediate need for asylum, but can only serve to diffuse the larger problem into the long term. One example is the island of Tuvalu, which made a strong case for evacuating many of its people to Australia and New Zealand in 2003, due to land loss as sea levels rose. New Zealand now has a relocation policy which is very reasonable in those circumstances, however their population is expected to more than double from 12 000 to 28 000 in by 2050. This will mean an endless cycle of relocating people, unless there is a way for Tuvalu to be sustainable in its population growth. Fortunately, according to the UN, non-coercive population sustainability strategies work if women are empowered and educated, and when there is access to family planning and contraceptive strategies (often at odds with the predominating patriarchal religions in host countries). No need for one-child policies or for coercion by the west to the majority world! Mostly grass-roots foreign aid and proactive international cooperation is key.
A medium term sustainable population numbers policy that promotes (1) fiscal policies that do not encourage large family sizes and (2) promotes policies where immigration = emigration (e.g. Between 70 - 80 thousand per annum), with priority given to the humanitarian program (intake of at least 20 000 per annum, with flexibility in times of crisis). An emphasis on foreign aid funding would go to empowering women to make their own life choices, including career decisions, earning capacity and family size.
No model is perfect, and although it is probably self-evident that I advocate for this third model, it would not be objective of me if I did not acknowledge the cons associated with the model. However I would like to highlight that most of the negatives are either risks arising from poor management of the model, or from short term changes as our society goes through adjustments. On balance, this model of population sustainability strikes me as one that allows for the best balance of long term economic objectiveness, environmental and pollution goals, town planning goals, whilst allowing for a defined but generous humanitarian intake. Keep in mind that refugees and asylum seekers would be better off adjusting to a country that had the capacity to provide them with the services that they required to participate fully in their new home. They would not need so much the additional burdens of suburban sprawl, un-affordable housing, and an unforgiving job market that many refugees, along with other disadvantaged groups, face in today's growth-at-all-cost system. That's not to say that these problems will disappear, but they will be less and so much easier to address and manage. Currently, many migrants who come to Australia in recent times report feeling very socially isolated in the outer suburbs and miss the greater sense of community that they had back home.
Not that immigration is the only way to a sustainable population - far from it. I envision a future where families with no children are seen as societal norms just as much as families with children, and where adoption is seen as a viable and accessible alternative to couple of all sexual and gender identities. The key, as always is through education, empowerment, and allowing people to make their own choices. High schools, for example, should educate young people into the pros and cons of having children, and with consideration of the environmental impacts of having children, and the implications for future generations with worsening environmental conditions. I do not advocate fiscal policies that reward large family size, instead this money should be spent on children's services, such as schools and and medical subsidies.
With a sustainable population, more money and energy could go into grass-roots foreign aid instead of more and more infrastructure and more investment could go into transitioning our society and economy into one that less focused on growth and more focused on social and environmental resilience. If our town planning system were to reflect the ideals of eco-villages, intentional communities, and permaculture principles, we would be in a better position to accommodate our current population longer term. We may also be in a better position to assist people in need of asylum or refuge into the future.
I hope this article has helped to disentangle some of the confusion and assumptions that have been barriers for further discussion on population issues for Australia and abroad. Although my own views are currently for population sustainability at this stage, I acknowledge that there will be many differing views and ideas on this topic and I hope my ideas may help to stimulate further thoughtful discussion and debate. I have not yet heard a successful argument for long term high rates of population growth that can also account for positive outcomes for our cities, towns, environment and asylum seekers, however that does not mean that one doesn't exist! Please let me know if you have any ideas =).
Europe is undergoing a crisis from which they will never recover, but the immediate population jump is a temporary issue. The long term issue is the change in composition. I think a "population policy" which neglects this will be seen as less and less relevant.
All due respect to Kelvin, but I can't see a consensus where the most important thing is numbers lasting very long. That is to say, Political Correctness requires us to hold the idea that a society is just a mass of interchangeable individuals (what neo-liberalism says), and that managing it is managing the size only.
One Nation/Reclaim et al talk about composition, which is heresy, bigotry, whatever, but I can't see a movement which excludes the question of composition making headway against those who do.
In short, in backing the 20th century political theories, environmentally friendly sustainable population groups will struggle due to outdated and incorrect theory.
I am about to bake a fruit cake for which I have a recipe that gives me specific quantities of currants , sultanas , cherries and raisins. These I will categorise as "fruit". The other ingredients make up a batter in which the fruit will be suspended. I have a favourite tin in which I will put the mixture and in which I know, when the cake is properly cooked it will rise just to the top with quantities as specified. I look in the cupboard and see that I have more currants than I need and it would be nice to tidy up the shelves of my pantry. I could throw them in the cake mixture. Currents are so delicious so the cake will be even nicer, perhaps In fact I more than double the quantity of currants in the recipe and see that the mixture looks very dense. I feel a bit doubtful about my rash decision which I must admit was not primarily in the interests of improving my cake! It's too late however so I put the mixture in the oven. The cake rises and a little spills over the edge of the cake tin. I remove the cake from the tin and let it cool. I then cut off a slice and am disappointed with the result. It's not really like a cake! The batter is overwhelmed by the amount of fruit. There seems to be hardly any actual cake in the slice.
I wonder to my self "Would the cake mixture have been affected as badly had they been spare sultanas I had used...... or cherries?"
No, the problem is that I put in too much fruit or if you like , too many pieces of fruit and the cake lost something important because of this; its "cake-iness".
In Australia the population will reach 24 million next Tuesday. It is the increasing numbers that are badly affecting the natural environment, putting immense pressure on coastal areas, waterways, land and biodiversity. Things can only get worse as hyper -population growth continues. Without our high quality environment what is left for the people who live here?
Populations aren't cakes, so I'm not sure how the analogy relates.
My argument isn't that numbers don't matter, but that a solution to migration policies which exclude social change will take a backseat to those that do.
So you have NO CHOICE but to weigh in on the issue, because if you choose neutrality, politically, you'll be dead in the water as it will be seen as accepting a status quo.
Besides, it isn't the old ones who are racist, it's the young ones. Compare Vic First with Reclaim in terms of age.
I'd like to see a solution as much as anyone else, but I've realised that trying to narrow the issue to numbers purely is a politically weak strategy, even if it is logical and rational. In the end, social interests win over "logic", and you need to take into account the social issues others deem important.
That is, despite some sustainable population groups having mathematically and logically sound positions in terms of population and carrying capacity and all that, in politics these positions wont go far. Logic and truth doesn't advance political change.
The analogy was with population (fruit being an ingredient ) in an environmental context (the cake). It's not a political position but an attempt to illustrate what is objectively important- the whole environment.
I care much more that my new neighbour moves in and does an oversized extension on his house and blocks my sunlight than I care that he and his family are from a different religious or cultural background. In fact my neighbour IS from a different cultural and religious background and he hasn't done an extension. His Aussie predecessors with 3 children did an upstairs extension which has deprived me of about 1 hour of winter sunlight per day. This is a microcosm of what I observe that people more in the homeowner category care about and that is anything that threatens their amenity. The people in Carnegie are upset about an overhead rail as it will diminish their amenity. People get upset about losing local open space, they hate to see houses and gardens replaced with units surrounded with concrete or fence to fence huge edifices with cavernous garages and all garden sacrificed. That's my experience and without doing a survey I can only speak from this knowledge. The drive to protect amenity is in fact emotionally charged. I believe people care deeply about their surroundings and their quality of life and so they should. They are dismissed with the appellation NIMBY.
Another driver is environmentalism, typified by people who want to protect the wider environment, who care that that the growling grass frog still exists even if they do not have daily contact with it; who care about the fate of our kangaroos especially affected by outer urban development and increased traffic (as well as being "culled") Environmentalists care about the destruction of our ecosystems, waterways and biodiversity. They sound objective, scientific and soundly logical but their endeavours also have an underlying emotional impetus, the desire to conserve something of great value that they love. Some of them (usually young) put themselves in danger by putting themselves between a forest coupe and a bulldozer. They are often dismissed as "Greenies"
I think you are saying that younger people feel more strongly about social differences than in any argument about long term sustainability and population numbers and that the age group in "Reclaim" is an indication of this (compared with the age of Victoria First members as seen at meetings).
I agree with you that facts and figures will win very few hearts but one would need to do a survey to really get an accurate idea of what concerns "young people" Whatever they do feel , it cannot continue to be ignored.
The other aspects of immigration cannot be avoided.
In the middle of this is immigration. Is immigration a means of engineering and pushing some outcome dictated from above, or not?
I think the phrase "You are either a globalist or a nationalist" is prescient, as this will become more and more the issue. The politics of the 20th century is dying. The far left and far right in Europe are rising. Trump and Sanders are both outside of the establishment of their respective parties and somewhat revolutionary (at least as revolutionary as a Republican or Democrat can get away with and still have a chance). The world is moving away form open borders (again, Australia is behind, but Trump want to put a wall and he has a chance of winning, Shengen agreement in EU looking like it will be suspended, walls going back up in Europe).
I see this as 21st century politics. We are seeing people moving away from the tired, old, failed 20th century politics and 20th century ideas. I got the sense from Vic First that there was a kind of desire to hold on to the past. To hold on to old ideals, old morals, old values. I see this in related organisations too.
The idea that a population is just administered as a matter of total numbers I think fits less and less with the emerging politics. Granted Australia is well behind (as with everything else!), but this is the future I see. Making concessions to 20th century Political Correctness isn't going to pay off like it might have in the 70's or 80's or 90's, but likely to be more divisive now than it was in the past.
How do you take a position without getting involved in the major questions arising? For example, do you support the idea of Germany limiting immigration to ensure a strong majority of the population remains ethnically German or not? Hungary openly states it wants to maintain its composition as a Hungarian nation, so it puts up a wall.
You may not want to answer the question, but Europe is having this question FORCED upon them. And its a vital one.
There was an admission in the article that when the issue is brought up, it's pounced about by people who want to bring other aspects in. This is seen as a problem, and is interpreted as being a phenomenon where a valid issue is siezed by a small number of people, but I think this analysis is backwards.
The reason that the question always comes up, is because any discussion of population control MUST address immigration, by virtue of the fact that population here is inflated by immigration. As a result, all the attendant issues are brought in.
It would be like talking about wealth inequality, but not wanting to bring up economic beliefs, or talking about whether prayer works, but not wanting to discuss specific religions.
"And partly due to the mass media promoting the social-demographic arguments of Pauline Hanson, One Nation and others to drown out rational ecologically-based discussion." There is really no ideal, or completely politically-correct way of championing the population problem we have. While Pauline Hanson has been the pariah of speaking out about our immigration, and focusing in the Asianization and Islamization of Australia, there really is no polite way of going about it. It takes prods from many angles and sectors to get the message across, and it might not always be pretty. One Nation is hated by the media, and Pauline Hanson is vilified by some, but she does make some good points about how Australian society is "changing", and not for the better. People are NOT pure numbers, and population growth (largely from high immigration) has economic and social/cultural dimensions.
Noting the "ecologically-based" logical discussion, Australia's environmental record is abysmal, and even our Great Barrier Reef, a world heritage listed area, is not immune for "development" for coal. An environmentally-logic argument for a sustainable population is not enough. We need some of the "radicals", and lobbyists without fear of the PC police to say what a lot of us feel, but can't express.
In the wee small hours of Tuesday, Australia's population clock will tick over to 24 million.
The milestone follows record overseas migration, which made up more than half of Australia's population increase in the year before July 2015, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australia's population increases by one person every one minute and 31 seconds after accounting for births, deaths and international migration.
Australia's annual population growth rate is 1.4 per cent, relatively high compared to the rest of the world.
New Zealand and the United States both have a growth rate of 0.7 per cent, the United Kingdom's is 0.6 per cent and China's is 0.5 per cent.
Japan's rate is actually decreasing, recording an estimated 0.2 per cent decline in population last year.
The baby is a nice symbol but isn't it more likely that the 24 millionth person to become part of the Australian population is actually an adult arriving from overseas at either Melbourne or Sydney Airport next Tuesday? After all the greater part of Australia's population growth comes from net overseas migration rather than the surplus of births over deaths.
More than a million migrants and refugees crossed into Europe in 2015, reads the BBC headline.
Europe's population is around 837 million. This is about 0.1% of Europe's population.
Yet Australia's government deliberately floods the country with mass migration equal to 1% of the population annually.
The irony is that Europe is now building walls to restrict the flow while Australia's government continues to sanction chaotic mass migration which is as out of control as the migration into Europe by virtue of its sheer volume in percentage terms.
Only a few nations are putting up barriers, and these nations have small populations. Hungary has just under 10 million. Having tens or hundreds of thousands people pass through is a big deal.
But it's not just population size. Victor Orban is also concerned about demographic issues.
Europeans have dealt with "population policy" before. They have been on the receiving end of ethnic cleansing, expulsions and other forced programs.
It is completely rational, and necessary for them to be on guard again for other "population policies" which threaten their national character.
Because Europe has the open borders, it's no reason for them to accept their countries as a soft target for external migration. The Schengen Agreement is a treaty which led to the creation of Europe's borderless area. It was signed on 14 June 1985 by five of the ten member states of the then European Economic Community near the town of Schengen, Luxembourg. Due to external migration, the population of Luxembourg increased by 4 527 in 2015. EU is under growing strain from nearly a decade of slow economic growth, a mounting number of migrants from the Middle East and Africa, and internal debate over the EU's core rules. Some 45 percent of Luxembourg's population of 550,000 are foreigners, over four-fifths of whom are EU citizens.
The EU's failure to get a grip on the migrantion problem is even more serious because it is well understood that the inflow of refugees and migrants is likely to continue for years and probably decades. Growing migration pressure can also be expected from Africa, which according to UN forecasts will experience a doubling of its population by 2050. Population overflow will continue to spread, instead of being addressed!
Economists believe that in view of the low birthrates in the majority of EU countries, a large number of immigrants will be needed to preserve the potential for economic growth and ensure the long-term financing of European welfare systems. If birthrates are low, it's the decision of the communities in response to rising global populations, and environmental awareness. It's not a flag to retro-fit their countries with floods of foreigners! Welfare is a magnet to refugees, but systems will be broken.
More needs to be done to prevent these human tsunamis, not just accept them as inevitable. There needs to be global overpopulation awareness, a tightening up of national borders, a resurgence of patriotism, and more done to stop Western intervention in the Middle East.
Human smugglers have a document that helps asylum seekers compare the different levels of welfare benefits they can receive in various European countries. It compares conditions in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, telling asylum seekers how much money they can expect, the type of accommodation they will find and how long it will take to obtain residency. Keeping the doors open intensifies the crisis. In the Netherlands 50-70% of former Muslim 'asylum seekers' live permanently on welfare. Of the former asylum seekers with a Syrian, Iraqi or Eritrean nationality more than half collect government assistance. 80 % of the 50 million Muslims in the west are on welfare. It's unsustainable. It's assumed that Europe is a global charity, and as a result their economy could collapse.


A grand alliance of women and women's organisations around Nigeria demand peace and peaceful resolution to all national conflicts.
The Nigerian Women Unite for Peace Consultative Meeting; Integrating Nigerian Women into the Peace Process; was held to provide a platform for the voices of women across Nigeria to be heard with regards to key issues negatively affecting the lives of Nigerians and their families generally and to ensure that the views and opinions of women in discussions on the issues of the Unity and Progress of Nigeria are not sidelined.
#NGWomen4Peace has created an opportunity to achieve greater participation and representation through political pressure and activism supported by a broad based national alliance of women and women's groups.
We will continue to build a grand alliance of women and women' groups around the country to demand peace, dialogue and de-escalation.
WCC's first program was so successful that we have decided to scale it to cover more communities around the country. Our community advocacy volunteers are chosen from among the community and supported to intervene in domestic violence situations. An unexpected outcome of the initial program was that the CAVs also uses their new skills to mediate in other community disputes successfully and were recognised and respected for the capacity. This can go a long way in ensuring peace in a community and not just for the women and girls of the community.
Scaling the program will mean identifying and training community advocacy volunteers in conflict resolution and management as well as providing economic opportunities for women and girls in communities to enhance their status and decision making ability.
This year, the WCC pilots a 16 Days of Activism event to highlight WCC and its programs, promote Nigerian women artistes and promote self expression and healing through art for women generally and victims of various forms of violence against women specifically.
The Exhibit showcases art works created by women telling their story of personal healing and finding peace in a world of violence, conflict and war that is waged on and with women's bodies.


It is 1962, Florence and Edward, a young couple are on their honeymoon at an overcast English seaside spot. Florence is a disciplined violinist, raised in a cold vice of middle-class repression, where her mother crushed any sense of impulse with propriety. Edward offers Florence some promise of freedom. He was raised in the countryside in a more volatile family, and found liberation in literature and ideas. The two arrive at a Chesil Beach guest house in love and ready to begin their life together, but hopelessly ill-equipped for their first night.
Adapted for the screen by Ian McEwan from his best-selling novella.


Update: 7:51PM THE Raiwaqa Cooparoos defeated West Coast Eagles 91-71 in the grand finale of the Australian Football League Fiji at the newly renovated Albert Park in Suva earlier today. Both teams played their best but Raiwaqa Cooparoos proved to be the better team. The side received a trophy and a medal as their prize.


text:
All Numbers of the Journal Special Issues of the Journal
About us Journal's Council Editorial Board Partners Booklet
MAIN PAGE > Experts
Ilya Kravchenko: attempt by the Democrats to destroy Trump's political image is a time bomb
12:08 14.01.2021 • Anna Yershova , member of the editorial staff of International Affairs magazine
Photo: riss.ru
The Democrats have officially submitted to the House of Representatives a resolution on initiating the impeachment of the country's present President Donald Trump on charges of inciting a revolt. According to the resolution, Trump deserves an inquiry, a removal from office, and should be stripped of the right to occupy an honorary, demanding, or financially promising position in the United States. Why did the Democrats embark on such a campaign several days before the end of Donald Trump's term? How could such an impeachment affect the new administration of Josef Biden? Will the Democratic Party campaign add to the split within the American society? The answers to these questions are presented by Ilya Kravchenko, a PhD in Political Sciences, an American studies expert with the Russian Strategic Research Institute.
– About 218 Democratic Congressmen have vowed their support of the impeachment resolution. This number of lawmakers is enough to secure a vote in favor of the document in the House of Representatives. How likely is the approval of the document by the lower housе?
– The likelihood is fairly good, particularly considering that it is a purely political move. Given the situation, the Democrats are interested in adopting the resolution. However, what is of primary importance about the impeachment procedure is not a resolution as such but the nature of accusations against Trump, what exactly he is accused of. An inquiry and proof of guilt takes fairly long, it will be impossible to complete in the days left before the end of Trump's term.
– In case of approval, it will be the Senate that will have to deal with impeachment. However, judging by the schedule, the Senators are not planning to get together for considering any serious, vote-requiring issues until January 19, 2021. The situation looks absurd, since the purpose of impeachment is to remove the president from office. But Trump will leave office anyway on January 20th. Only if he is found guilty of inciting a riot can he be banned from running for office in the 2024 elections or be deprived of the right to occupy a a top government post. Why are leading Democrats headed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi so keen on impeachment?
– The Democrats are set on destroying Trump's image and reducing to zero all his gains, thereby giving it to understand that with just a few weeks to go before his presidency comes to an end, he brought the situation in the country to a critical point, with people storming the Capitol Hill. They are sure that Trump intentionally organized a rally opposite the Congress the day Congressmen gathered for announcing the election results and Josef Biden's victory. Clearly, it's a matter of how one sees it – whether this served as the main urge for people to storm the Congress, or whether there were other reasons for this as well. This is what the court will deal with. But even if the Democrats endorse the resolution, it will be impossible to pronounce Trump prime culprit and instigator for lack of evidence. The Democrats do understand this. However, the reputational losses sustained by Trump, in the first place, the loss of support of moderate Republicans and the undecided electorate, which is dwindling, are important for the Democrats. They see their mission not only in depriving Trump of Twitter supporters but also in destroying him as a politician.
In my opinion, these moves by the Democrats are in fact destabilizing the situation in the United States further. While set on "destroying" Trump, they plant a time bomb through encouraging ever more polarization within the American electorate.
– CNN reports of late say Joe Biden's supporters fear that Trump's impeachment will distract public attention from the new administration. According to the CNN, Biden has been acting in person and through his advisers to hold talks with N.Pelosi and other high-ranking representatives of the Democratic Party with a view to come to a compromise on the future of Trump. Do you think that the Democrats may really get bogged down in the impeachment procedure? And could this hamper the work of the new administration?
– For Joe Biden, the prime target of removing Trump has de facto been hit. Given the situation, this comes as a powerful political move on the part of the Democrats, who are tired of experiencing pressure from a Republican president. These bottled feelings of anger and fatigue spilled into impeachment. But for Biden, it does not matter any longer, nor does the radicalization of the Democrats over Trump. The new president needs to consolidate the young and progressive-minded Democrats over something more meaningful, so that in the first 100 days of his presidency he could successfully implement his programs amid the continuing coronavirus pandemic, decreasing incomes and many other factors. How to achieve that in the absence of a target like Trump is a problem which I am sure the Biden administration are currently trying to resolve.
– Will the split within the American society aggravate? What could be the consequences?
– Undoubtedly, the split will become worse. In addition, radicalization of the society will continue. The pent-up feelings of "have had enough" will persist and even intensify, because despite the victory of the Democrats along with progressive members of the Democratic society, such as Kamala Harris, the problems faced by ordinary Americans remain unsettled: the number of new coronavirus cases is increasing, vaccination campaigns are not demonstrating the appropriate effectiveness. All this spills into the political scene, with people being fully aware that their needs are not receiving much attention as everyone is more concerned with Trump and how to turn him down.
Keywords: Ilya Kravchenko , impeachment , resolution , Trump , USA
Vaccine vs geopolitics? Political ambitions may slow down battle against global pandemic
«Crimean Platform» - Kiev set on opening a new diplomatic front
The price of slavery. Descendants of former US slaves eligible to compensation?
What awaits Ukraine after US presidential elections?
Поделиться с друзьями в Facebook
Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
Поделиться с друзьями на Я.ру
Поделиться с друзьями ВКонтакте
Поделиться с друзьями Моего Мира на Mail.ru
Поделиться с друзьями в Одноклассниках
11:37 20.01.2021Nanjing tragedy – massacre or "incident"?
12:28 19.01.2021EU playing a zero-sum game in Kosovo
12:26 18.01.20212020 – A Year when Distancing became Social
12:17 15.01.2021Constructive dialogue between unwilling partners
14:29 12.01.2021Of BREXIT and all that
Moscow, Gorokhovskiy Lane, 14
journal@interaffairs.ru
Editor-in-Chief: A.G. Oganesyan
Full version of the site
© Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Editorial Board «International Affairs». 2009 – 2021

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Looping ACF repeater field - first 4 elements and continue looping within a nested DIV I have a repeater field in ACF which I would like to loop and get first 4 elements regularly and then creating a DIV and continue looping the rest of the elements within the created DIV
Here is an example of what I am trying to achieve:

.tech-item {
margin-bottom: 30px;
}
.tech-item .val {
display: block
}
<link href="https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/4.0.0-beta.3/css/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet"/>

Tech Info 1Value 1

Tech Info 2Value 2

Tech Info 3Value 3

Tech Info 4Value 4

Tech Info 5Value 5

Tech Info 6Value 6

Tech Info 7Value 7

Tech Info 8Value 8

Tech Info 9Value 9

Tech Info 10Value 10

Tech Info 1Value 1

Tech Info 2Value 2

Tech Info 3Value 3

Tech Info 4Value 4

Tech Info 5Value 5

Tech Info 6Value 6

Tech Info 7Value 7

Tech Info 8Value 8

Tech Info 9Value 9

Tech Info 10Value 10

So I'd like to create with a loop the first 4 tech-item elements, then create the hidden DIV and continue looping within the hidden DIV.
Each column has it's own repeater field: technical_details_left and technical_details_right
With subfields tech_title that is represented as Tech Info 1, 2 and etc; The second subfield is tech_content that is represented as Value 1, 2 and etc.
Thanks in advance

A: Please try this :

<?php
    $leftDetails = get_field('technical_details_left');
    $rightDetails = get_field('technical_details_right');
    $leftDSize = sizeof($leftDetails);
    $rightDSize = sizeof($rightDetails);
    if($leftDetails){
    ?>

        <?php foreach($leftDetails as $key=>$ldetail){
        if($key == 4){ echo '
';  }
        echo '
'.$ldetail['tech_title'].''.$ldetail['tech_content'].'
';
        if((($leftDSize - 1) == $key) && ($key > 3)){ echo '
'; }
        }
        echo '

';
        echo '
';
        echo '
';
    } ?>

<?php if($rightDetails){
    ?>

        <?php foreach($rightDetails as $key1=>$rdetail){
        if($key1 == 4){ echo '
';  }
        echo '
'.$rdetail['tech_title'].''.$rdetail['tech_content'].'
';
        if((($rightDSize - 1) == $key1) && ($key1 > 3)){ echo '
'; }
        }
        echo '

';
        echo '
';
        echo '
';
} ?>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Survey and origin identification of breakup debris using time delay integration method
Yuki Seto, Toshiya Hanada, Yukihito Kitazawa
宇宙システム工学
Kyushu University has proposed a strategy applicable to optical search and origin identification of fragmentation debris generated by breakups of spacecraft and rocket bodies. This strategy can predict the population and the motion of fragments by using debris modelling techniques. An observation of fragments from a specific breakup was actually conducted by applying the proposed strategy. The target was the US Titan 3C Transtage (1968-08Ili) exploded in February 1992 in the Geosynchronous Earth Orbit region. In this observation, the Time Delay Integration method was adopted to detect fragments. This method can detect moving faint objects by adjusting a rate of charge transfer in the Charge Coupled Device sensor to their motion on images. In the case of the survey of unknown fragments, the predicted motion can be used as the charge transfer. As the result of this observation, thirty-one unknown objects were detected, and orbit determinations of seven objects have succeeded. The origins of these seven objects were estimated by comparing the estimated orbits with candidates, and one object was identified to the target object. Finally, this paper reviews the proposed search strategy by comparing with the twenty-eight cataloaued 1968-08IE fraaments.
65th International Astronautical Congress 2014, IAC 2014
ホスト出版物のサブタイトル
Our World Needs Space
International Astronautical Federation, IAF
ISBN(電子版)
出版済み - 1 1 2014
65th International Astronautical Congress 2014: Our World Needs Space, IAC 2014 - Toronto, カナダ
継続期間: 9 29 2014 → 10 3 2014
Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, IAC
ISSN(印刷物)
65th International Astronautical Congress 2014: Our World Needs Space, IAC 2014
9/29/14 → 10/3/14
spacecraft breakup
orbit determination
Charge coupled devices
geosynchronous orbits
faint objects
Earth orbits
Seto, Y., Hanada, T., & Kitazawa, Y. (2014). Survey and origin identification of breakup debris using time delay integration method. : 65th International Astronautical Congress 2014, IAC 2014: Our World Needs Space (pp. 2119-2124). (Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, IAC; 巻数 3). International Astronautical Federation, IAF.
Survey and origin identification of breakup debris using time delay integration method. / Seto, Yuki; Hanada, Toshiya; Kitazawa, Yukihito.
65th International Astronautical Congress 2014, IAC 2014: Our World Needs Space. International Astronautical Federation, IAF, 2014. p. 2119-2124 (Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, IAC; 巻 3).
Seto, Y, Hanada, T & Kitazawa, Y 2014, Survey and origin identification of breakup debris using time delay integration method. : 65th International Astronautical Congress 2014, IAC 2014: Our World Needs Space. Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, IAC, 巻. 3, International Astronautical Federation, IAF, pp. 2119-2124, 65th International Astronautical Congress 2014: Our World Needs Space, IAC 2014, Toronto, カナダ, 9/29/14.
Seto Y, Hanada T, Kitazawa Y. Survey and origin identification of breakup debris using time delay integration method. : 65th International Astronautical Congress 2014, IAC 2014: Our World Needs Space. International Astronautical Federation, IAF. 2014. p. 2119-2124. (Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, IAC).
Seto, Yuki ; Hanada, Toshiya ; Kitazawa, Yukihito. / Survey and origin identification of breakup debris using time delay integration method. 65th International Astronautical Congress 2014, IAC 2014: Our World Needs Space. International Astronautical Federation, IAF, 2014. pp. 2119-2124 (Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, IAC).
@inproceedings{4d103263183b45ddae58e1936c77e46c,
title = "Survey and origin identification of breakup debris using time delay integration method",
abstract = "Kyushu University has proposed a strategy applicable to optical search and origin identification of fragmentation debris generated by breakups of spacecraft and rocket bodies. This strategy can predict the population and the motion of fragments by using debris modelling techniques. An observation of fragments from a specific breakup was actually conducted by applying the proposed strategy. The target was the US Titan 3C Transtage (1968-08Ili) exploded in February 1992 in the Geosynchronous Earth Orbit region. In this observation, the Time Delay Integration method was adopted to detect fragments. This method can detect moving faint objects by adjusting a rate of charge transfer in the Charge Coupled Device sensor to their motion on images. In the case of the survey of unknown fragments, the predicted motion can be used as the charge transfer. As the result of this observation, thirty-one unknown objects were detected, and orbit determinations of seven objects have succeeded. The origins of these seven objects were estimated by comparing the estimated orbits with candidates, and one object was identified to the target object. Finally, this paper reviews the proposed search strategy by comparing with the twenty-eight cataloaued 1968-08IE fraaments.",
author = "Yuki Seto and Toshiya Hanada and Yukihito Kitazawa",
series = "Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, IAC",
publisher = "International Astronautical Federation, IAF",
booktitle = "65th International Astronautical Congress 2014, IAC 2014",
T1 - Survey and origin identification of breakup debris using time delay integration method
AU - Seto, Yuki
AU - Hanada, Toshiya
AU - Kitazawa, Yukihito
N2 - Kyushu University has proposed a strategy applicable to optical search and origin identification of fragmentation debris generated by breakups of spacecraft and rocket bodies. This strategy can predict the population and the motion of fragments by using debris modelling techniques. An observation of fragments from a specific breakup was actually conducted by applying the proposed strategy. The target was the US Titan 3C Transtage (1968-08Ili) exploded in February 1992 in the Geosynchronous Earth Orbit region. In this observation, the Time Delay Integration method was adopted to detect fragments. This method can detect moving faint objects by adjusting a rate of charge transfer in the Charge Coupled Device sensor to their motion on images. In the case of the survey of unknown fragments, the predicted motion can be used as the charge transfer. As the result of this observation, thirty-one unknown objects were detected, and orbit determinations of seven objects have succeeded. The origins of these seven objects were estimated by comparing the estimated orbits with candidates, and one object was identified to the target object. Finally, this paper reviews the proposed search strategy by comparing with the twenty-eight cataloaued 1968-08IE fraaments.
AB - Kyushu University has proposed a strategy applicable to optical search and origin identification of fragmentation debris generated by breakups of spacecraft and rocket bodies. This strategy can predict the population and the motion of fragments by using debris modelling techniques. An observation of fragments from a specific breakup was actually conducted by applying the proposed strategy. The target was the US Titan 3C Transtage (1968-08Ili) exploded in February 1992 in the Geosynchronous Earth Orbit region. In this observation, the Time Delay Integration method was adopted to detect fragments. This method can detect moving faint objects by adjusting a rate of charge transfer in the Charge Coupled Device sensor to their motion on images. In the case of the survey of unknown fragments, the predicted motion can be used as the charge transfer. As the result of this observation, thirty-one unknown objects were detected, and orbit determinations of seven objects have succeeded. The origins of these seven objects were estimated by comparing the estimated orbits with candidates, and one object was identified to the target object. Finally, this paper reviews the proposed search strategy by comparing with the twenty-eight cataloaued 1968-08IE fraaments.
T3 - Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, IAC
BT - 65th International Astronautical Congress 2014, IAC 2014
PB - International Astronautical Federation, IAF