NoneFriedman Institute Releases Report on " Analysis on Libyan Oil and Gas Supply - Italy's Strategic Role in Mediterranean Energy "
Extra NHS capacity and Jobcentre reforms at heart of Labour's plan to 'get Britain working'Greens Senator David Shoebridge has rebuked the Albanese government for cutting deals with the Coalition to pass "brutal" immigration bills. On Thursday, Senators sat until close to midnight and passed 31 bills, including the social media ban for under-16s and immigration laws that gave the government additional powers when dealing with non-citizens. Three migration bills were bundled together and passed with Coalition support, giving authority to the Australian government to to pay third-party countries to take non-citizens, as well as banning travellers from certain nations and criminal penalties for non-citizens refusing to cooperate with their deportation case. Mr Shoebridge said the Labor government "gave themselves the power" to deport more than 80,000 people and "weren't telling the truth" about the details of the legislation. However, Immigration Minister Tony Burke told Sky News political editor Andrew Clennell that this "bizarre speculation" was not true. "I think maybe even from your next guest that we're about to deport 80,000 people or something like that. It's nothing like that," Mr Burke said. "But there are... large numbers of people who leave voluntarily every week, small numbers who leave forcibly, and smaller numbers who then lawyer up and say, 'well, I'm not going anywhere'. "And any country has a right to run its own immigration system. And that's what we want to be able to do." Mr Burke also suggested scrapping business visas from countries who were refusing to take back their deportees. Mr Shoebridge said while the Prime Minister and Immigration Minister claimed the legislation would only cover the 250 individuals part of the NZYQ cohort, the law would actually cover 80,000 people. "This is the government not telling the truth," Mr Shoebridge told the Sunday Agenda host. "They've given this power to a potential future Coalition minister, you tell me James Paterson won't be deporting thousands of people? "I want to make sure we don't have James Paterson as a future immigration minister." Mr Shoebridge said the government's "brutal" legislation passed due to it making a deal with the Coalition. "This was the Coalition, and they said it, this was the Coalition driving immigration policy," Mr Shoebridge said. "The reason they were signing onto this was they would never get these powers themselves. "They could only get them through a completely supine, surrendering Labor government that have given in." On Wednesday, Liberal Senator and shadow home affairs minister James Paterson said the Coalition had negotiated in "good faith" with the Albanese government. "We will not allow their mess and incompetence when it comes to community safety and national security to harm the Australian public any more than it already has," he said. Shadow immigration minister Dan Tehan said the Coalition was "basically running the immigration system for the government" after the deal was made. Mr Shoebridge was asked whether it was "reasonable" to be able to get criminals out of the country if they cannot be detained in immigration detention. The Greens Senator said Australia dealt with criminals through the justice system, but immigration matters should be dealt with separately. "We believe the immigration system should deal with immigration matters, not be a quasi-criminal system, not just us, the High Court has been telling the Parliament time after time this," he said.
Fall is the best time to think about cooking soup. Here’s 5 recipes you’ll want to tryMphasis share price 2.31 per cent
Sportscaster Greg Gumbel dies from cancer at age 78
Byfield scores in 200th career game as Kings hold off Kraken for 2-1 win
LAHAINA, Hawaii (AP) — Tyrese Hunter scored 17 of his 26 points after halftime to lead Memphis to a 99-97 overtime win against two-time defending national champion and second-ranked UConn on Monday in the first round of the Maui Invitational . Hunter shot 7 of 10 from 3-point range for the Tigers (5-0), who were 12 of 22 from beyond at the arc as a team. PJ Haggerty had 22 points and five assists, Colby Rogers had 19 points and Dain Dainja scored 14. Tarris Reed Jr. had 22 points and 11 rebounds off the bench for the Huskies (4-1). Alex Karaban had 19 points and six assists, and Jaylin Stewart scored 16. Memphis led by as many as 13 with about four minutes left in regulation, but UConn chipped away and eventually tied it on Solo Ball’s 3-pointer with 1.2 seconds remaining. Memphis: The Tigers ranked second nationally in field goal percentage going into the game and shot it at a 54.7% clip. UConn: The Huskies saw their string of 17 consecutive wins dating back to February come to an end. The teams were tied at 92 with less than a minute remaining in overtime when UConn coach Dan Hurley was assessed a technical foul for his displeasure with an over-the-back call against Liam McNeeley. PJ Carter hit four straight free throws — two for the tech and the other pair for the personal foul — to give Memphis a 96-92 lead with 40.3 seconds to play. UConn had three players foul out. Memphis attempted 40 free throws and made 29 of them. Memphis will play the winner of Colorado-Michigan State on Tuesday in the second round of the invitational. UConn will play the loser of that game in the consolation bracket. Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here . AP college basketball: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-basketball-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-basketball .Voters should have say on replacing misbehaving politicians
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Dominic Zvada kicked a 21-yard field goal with 45 seconds left and stunned Ohio State 13-10 on Saturday, likely ending ’ hopes of returning to the Big Ten title game. Kalel Mullings broke away for a 27-yard run, setting up the Wolverines (7-5, 5-4) at Ohio State's 17-yard line with two minutes remaining in the game. The drive stalled at the 3, and Zvada came on for the chip shot. Ohio State (10-2, 7-2, No. 2 CFP) got the ball back but couldn't move it, with Will Howard throwing incomplete on fourth down to seal the Wolverines' fourth straight win over their bitter rival. “You come to Michigan to play this game,” Zvada said. “So, it's the biggest one of the year. It's the one that everyone looks forward to, and to be able to come in here and take the win, it's amazing.” This Ohio State loss in the “The Game” might have been the toughest of the past four because Michigan was unranked and wrapping up a disappointing season. The Wolverines were also playing without a couple of top players: tight end Colston Loveland and cornerback Will Johnson. The Buckeyes were favored by 21 points, the widest point spread for this rivalry since 1978, according to ESPN Stats and Info. Records — and point spreads, for that matter — rarely mean much when these two teams meet. “Our defense played outstanding," Michigan coach Sherrone Moore said. "We held a high-powered offense to 10 points, 77 rushing yards.” The Buckeyes were off all afternoon. Howard was 19 for 33 for 175 yards with one touchdown and two interceptions and Jayden Fielding missed two field-goal attempts. The run game was hardly there. “It's hard, man,” an emotional Howard said. “I really don’t have much right now. I do know we're a two-loss team. We're going to get into the playoffs and make a run. But, I mean, this one hurts.” Mullings was Michigan's primary weapon. He rushed for 116 yards and the Wolverines only touchdown of the game in the first half as neither team could get much going offensively on the frigid afternoon. “They made plays, we made plays, so as the game wore on you could definitely, slowly feel them starting to lose confidence, lose that energy and lose that faith,” Mullings said. Howard was clunky all day. In the first half he threw an interception from deep in his own territory that led to Michigan's touchdown. He went out for a play in the second quarter to be checked for a head injury. After the game, he said he was fine. “We're very disappointed, and never thought this would happen right here,” Ohio State coach Ryan Day said. “We expected to win this game and go play in the Big Ten championship game.” After the game, Michigan players attempted to plant their flag at midfield and were confronted by Ohio State players. A as both teams pushed and shoved before being separated. The Takeaway Michigan: Did just enough and caught Ohio State on an off day. Ohio State: It's inexplicable how badly the Buckeyes played in their biggest game of the season. They would need No. 4 Penn State and No. 10 Indiana to lose later Saturday in order to make it into the Big Ten title game next week. Seniors let down There has been talk all season about how many of the Ohio State team leaders, including receiver Emeka Egbuka, running back TreVeyon Henderson and defensive end Jack Sawyer, chose to return for another year instead of entering the NFL draft because they wanted to beat Michigan at least once. Those players were inconsolable after the game. One of them, linebacker Cody Simon, was asked how he felt. “I just can't speak that right now,” Simon said. “I feel like we let the whole Buckeye nation down.” Up next Michigan will wait for a minor bowl game. Ohio State, assuming either Penn State or Indiana wins on Saturday, will see how the final College Football Playoff rankings shakeout on Dec. 8. ___ AP college football: and . Sign up for the AP’s college football newsletter: Mitch Stacy, The Associated Press
Sa'ar speaks to EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs
Fox News Flash top sports headlines are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com. Player safety has recently become a topic of conversation in the sports world, and the NBA is the latest major professional league to raise awareness as it relates to home security. The league sent a memo to team officials after Milwaukee Bucks forward Bobby Portis and Minnesota Timberwolves guard Mike Conley were victims of home invasions. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the memo. The NBA noted that the FBI believes a number of the burglaries were connected to "transnational South American Theft Groups" that are "reportedly well-organized, sophisticated rings that incorporate advanced techniques and technologies, including pre-surveillance, drones, and signal jamming devices." CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM A basketball is seen on the court next to the NBA logo during a break in the first half of a Summer League game between the Portland Trail Blazers and the Houston Rockets at the Thomas & Mack Center in Las Vegas on July 7, 2023. (Ethan Miller/Getty Images) Conley's home was broken into on Sept. 15 as he attended a Minnesota Vikings game against the San Francisco 49ers. The Timberwolves guard participated in the Vikings' traditional pregame festivities as he helped fire up the more than 66,000 fans inside U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis, but while Conley was attending the game, his home in Medina, Minnesota, several miles away, was targeted by thieves, police said. Burglars left the property with jewelry, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported at the time. NFL ISSUES SECURITY WARNING AFTER BURGLARIES AT MAHOMES, KELCE'S HOMES LINKED TO 'ORGANIZED' GROUP: REPORTS Medina Police Chief Jason Nelson noted that Conley's property was one of three home burglaries that authorities investigated on the same day. All the homes were unoccupied at the time the break-ins occurred. Meanwhile, Portis said his home was broken into on Nov. 2 and has offered a $40,000 reward for information related to the incident. Milwaukee Bucks forward Bobby Portis dunks against the Miami Heat during Game 2 of their first-round playoff series at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee on April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aaron Gash) Elsewhere, the homes of Kansas City Chiefs stars Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce were broken into within days of each other last month, according to law enforcement reports. The NFL issued a similar warning memo to its teams this week. "Obviously, it’s frustrating, disappointing, but I can’t get into too many of the details because the investigation is still ongoing," Mahomes recently said. "But, obviously, something you don’t want to happen to anybody, but obviously yourself." The NBA logo is seen on a backboard before the game between the Houston Rockets and the Miami Heat at Toyota Center in Houston on April 5. (Troy Taormina-USA TODAY Sports) The NBA's memo, relaying information from the FBI, said the theft rings "are primarily focused on cash and items that can be resold on the black market, such as jewelry, watches, and luxury bags." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The league, which has also been giving guidance to team security personnel, recommended that players install updated alarm systems with cameras and utilize them whenever leaving the home; keep valuables in locked and secured safes; remove online real estate listings that may show interior photos of a home; and "utilize protective guard services" during extended trips from the home — and even suggested having dogs assist with home protection. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X , and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter . Chantz Martin is a sports writer for Fox News Digital.
Relaxed mode
WWE Survivor Series WarGames 2024 Results: Winners, Live Grades, Reaction, Highlights - Bleacher Report
None( MENAFN - Asia Times) The United States, like all nations, was created through territorial conquest. Most of its current territory was occupied or frequented by human beings before the US came; the US used force to either displace, subjugate, or kill all of those people. To the extent that land“ownership” existed under the previous inhabitants, the land of the US is stolen land. This was also true before the US arrived. The forcible theft of the land upon which the US now exists was not the first such theft; the people who lived there before conquered, displaced, or killed someone else in order to take the land. The land has been stolen and re-stolen again and again. If you somehow destroyed the United States, expelled its current inhabitants, and gave ownership of the land to the last recorded tribe that had occupied it before, you would not be returning it to its original occupants; you would simply be handing it to the next-most-recent conquerors. If you go back far enough in time, of course, at some point this is no longer true. Humanity didn't always exist; therefore for every piece of land, there was a first human to lay eyes on it and a first human to say“This land is mine.” But by what right did this first human claim exclusive ownership of this land? Why does being the first person to see a natural object make you the rightful owner of that object? And why does being the first human to set foot on a piece of land give your blood descendants the right to dispose of that land as they see fit in perpetuity, and to exclude any and all others from that land? What about all the peoples of the world who were never lucky enough the first to lay eyes on any plot of dirt? Are they simply to be dispossessed forever? I have never seen a satisfactory answer to these questions. Nor have I seen a satisfactory explanation of why ownership of land should be allocated collectively, in terms of racial or ethnic groups. In general, the first people who arrived on a piece of land did so in dribs and drabs, in small family units and tiny micro-tribes that met and married and fought and mixed and formed into larger identities and ethnicities and tribes over long periods of time. In most cases, the ethnic groups who now claim pieces of land as their own did not even exist when the first humans discovered or settled that land. But even in those cases when it did exist, why should land ownership be assigned to a race at all? Why should my notional blood relation to the discoverers or the conquerors of a piece of land determine whether I can truly belong on that land? Why should a section of the map be the land of the Franks, or the Russkiy, or the Cherokee, or the Han, or the Ramaytush Ohlone, or the Britons? Of course, you can assign land ownership this way - it's called an“ethnostate.” But if you do this, it means that the descendants of immigrants can never truly be full and equal citizens of the land they were born in. If Britain is defined as the land of the Britons, then a Han person whose great-great-great-grandparents moved there from China will exist as a contingent citizen - a perpetual foreigner whose continued life in the land of their birth exists only upon the sufferance of a different race. This is the price of ethnonationalism. The downsides of ethnonationalism have been exhaustively laid out in the decades since World War 2, and I'm not going to reiterate them all now. Suffice it to say that most nations of the world have moved away from ethnonationalism - there is an informal sense in which some people still think of France as the land of the Franks and so on, but almost all nations define citizenship and belonging through institutions rather than race. Israel, one of the few exceptions to this rule, receives a large amount of international criticism for defining itself as an ethnostate. And yet these days I am subjected to a constant stream of ethnonationalist claims from progressives in the country of my birth. Here's one from the ACLU of Nebraska: And here's an Instagram post from Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib: This isn't just something you see on social media around Thanksgiving.“Land acknowledgments” have become ubiquitous in progressive spaces and institutions - just the other day I saw one at my friend's community dance recital. These land acknowledgments are, legally speaking, incorrect - there is no legal sense in which the land on which they are being performed belongs to a Native American tribe. These are moral claims about rightful land ownership. But the moral principle to which they appeal is ethnonationalism - it's the idea that plots of land are the rightful property of ethnic groups. There is an obvious moral appeal to these land acknowledgments. They are a way of decrying the brutal, cruel, violent history of conquest and colonization. And they probably feel like a way of standing up for the weak, the marginalized, and the dispossessed. Yet what should we think of the morality of following the principles behind land acknowledgments to their logical conclusion?“Decolonization” of the land of the U.S. would likely be an act of ethnic cleansing surpassing even the previous conquests - there are 330 million people here now, and almost none of them descend from Native Americans. An attempt to dispossess 330 million people would inevitably involve violence on a colossal scale. Here was Najma Sharif Alawi's famous tweet right after the October 7th Hamas attacks on Israel: Of course,“colonizers” could presumably avoid violent death or second-class citizenhood by voluntarily deporting themselves. But where would they go? Take me, for example. My ancestors were Lithuanian Jews. I could leave the country of my birth and go“back” to Lithuania - a land I don't know, whose language I don't speak. Yet my ancestors were not“indigenous” to Lithuania either; they moved there from somewhere else. What if the ethnic Lithuanians chose not to accept me? Where would I go then? Israel? But the folks who do land acknowledgments would consider me a“colonizer” there as well.1 Would I then wander the Earth, desperately seeking some ethnostate that would allow me and my descendants to live there as a permanently precarious resident aliens? Once the logic of land acknowledgments and“decolonization” is followed, it leads very quickly to some very dark futures. Assigning each person a homeland based on their ethnic ancestry and then declaring that that homeland is the only place they or their descendants can ever truly belong, would not be an act of justice; it would be a global nightmare made real, surpassing even the horrors of previous centuries. And in practice, any attempt to create such a world would inevitably lead to violent resistance by the groups in danger of being“decolonized.” The orderly world of nation-states would dissolve into a chaotic free-for-all of competing irredentist claims, backed by genocides and expulsions. Ten thousand October 7th-style attacks would be followed by ten thousand Gaza-style wars. I do not want that, and you should not want it either. The American people certainly don't want it, and the insistence of progressives on intoning land acknowledgments has probably tanked the movement's cachet in wider society. I agree with Wayne Burkett when he says that land acknowledgments have probably hurt the Democratic party: Americans do not want to see their country destroyed in the name of irredentist ethnonationalism. Nor do I blame them. So does this mean we should paper over, ignore, or deliberately forget America's history of violent conquest? Absolutely not. That history ought to be remembered, so that we don't repeat it in the present day. The world's evolution from one based on ethnic cleansing and territorial conquest to one based on fixed borders and institutions is something to celebrate - and something we must fight to preserve . We need to remember what the world used to be like, precisely so we can avoid backsliding. The most recent of conquests, expulsions, and genocides should be the last to ever happen. And what of the Native Americans who still live in America today? Must they simply be regarded as the unlucky losers of history, and told to either assimilate into broader American society or shut up? Absolutely not. For one thing, tribal organizations still exist - they may notionally represent ethnic groups, but they are institutions. And they are institutions with which the United States has many agreements and legal obligations that must be honored, which often give the tribes sovereignty over areas of land. Neil Gorsuch has been especially active in pushing the Supreme Court to uphold tribal rights, and I think this is a good thing. But respect for Native American tribal organizations doesn't have to stop at ancient obligations. There are ways to incorporate those tribes into the modern American nation that both respects them and their history and helps them prosper in the present. Vancouver, Canada shows us an example of how this can be done. Part of Vancouver's downtown urban area is officially under the governance of the Squamish Nation, rather than the city itself. The Squamish Nation, realizing they could do whatever they wanted with that land, decided to build a giant high-rise housing development : Here's a picture of what it will look like: An even bigger development called Jericho Lands is now being planned, by a consortium of tribal organizations, on land officially owned by Vancouver. Hilariously, Vancouver's NIMBYs are complaining , claiming that the developments are not in keeping with Indigenous tradition . But Canada's First Nations seem to have little interest in hewing closely to other people's view of what their traditions are. Modern people do not want to live like premodern farmers. They are not mystical Tolkien elves. They would like to have shiny new apartment buildings and walkable neighborhoods. This, I believe, is the key to respecting and honoring Native Americans - not to focus on the tragedies of their past, but to give them the right to build a better future. Tribal lands should definitely have the autonomy to do whatever they want with their lands, including building housing or industry. In fact, we're starting to see a pattern emerge where Native Americans embrace laissez-faire policies toward industry and manage to poach business from their over-regulated neighbors: This sort of thing could lead to a win-win for the US and Native American tribes. American reindustrialization is being held back by a thicket of procedural requirements and local land-use regulations; if tribes were able to use their special legal status to circumvent those barriers, it could end up benefitting everyone.2 The tribes would get both jobs and the ability to tax local industry; America would get to execute an end run around the NIMBYs that are holding it back. In fact, it's probably possible for various American cities to turn over parts of their land to tribal jurisdiction, with the assistance of the federal government. This would probably result in dense urban developments like the ones being planned in Vancouver. But even if it didn't, it could have other commercial benefits - again, a win-win for the US and for the tribes. That would certainly be a lot more substantive than a bunch of land acknowledgments. And it would likely satisfy many people's desire for“giving land back” to Native Americans, without embracing dubious moral principles of ethnic land rights and irredentism. In other words, you're not living on Indigenous land right now, but you could be in the future - and it might be pretty great. The general principle here is that instead of a dark world of ethnic cleansing in the name of“decolonization”, we should try to build a bright future where Native Americans and the United States of America exist in harmony and cooperation rather than in conflict. And that principle doesn't just apply to America, but to the whole world. The history of land ownership is a violent and terrible one, but that doesn't mean the future has to be more of the same. Notes: 1 It is a bitter irony that many of the same people who morally condemn Israel for setting itself up as an ethnostate also justify its destruction using ethnonationalist principles. Personally, I tend to agree with the criticism of Israel's ethnocentrism, but I don't think replacing this with Palestinian ethnocentrism would make things better. 2 There's a lot of historical precedent for this. For example, in the 1960s, Fairchild Semiconductor opened a factory on Navajo land in New Mexico, which was quite beneficial to the economy until an industry downturn and a labor dispute led to its demise in the late 70s. This article was first published on Noah Smith's Noahpinion Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become a Noahopinion subscriber here. Thank you for registering! An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link. MENAFN30112024000159011032ID1108942157 Legal Disclaimer: MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.