宝鸡市曙光植发有用吗(弥漫性女性脱发) (今日更新中)

In the months since last November's election, the Merriam-Webster dictionary has been on overdrive.It's transformed itself into a cheeky, fact-checking machine. And in the process, it's struck social gold (more than half a million Twitter followers and counting).On Monday, the dictionary released more than 250 new words and definitions. True to its fresh image, the list includes several words that, in this new political and social climate, have taken on a different meaning.Consider "troll."Originally, it was a noun used to describe a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore. The new definition that Merriam-Webster added is a verb: "to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content."How about "dog whistle?"Once upon a time, it was what it said: a whistle for dogs inaudible to humans. Now, it's earned a political twist: It's "an expression or statement that has a secondary meaning intended to be understood only by a particular group of people."Other additions this go-round include "alt-right," "concealed carry" and "open carry.""With politics seeming to be ever-prominent in the public's mind, terms like alt-right and dog whistle are not surprising additions," Merriam-Webster said in a statement on its website.The dictionary usually releases its list of new words every few months. When the last list came out in February, the 1,000+ new words included "SCOTUS," "FLOTUS," and "truther." 1491

In May, most chain restaurants will have to post calories on their menus. Some restaurants already do adhere to the new federal requirement. But just how accurate are these calorie counts? People like Jodi Rogers, a realtor who tries to eat healthy and exercise a few times a week, says she doesn't count every calorie but she finds calorie listings helpful when ordering. She admits sometimes she feels bombarded by all the numbers. "I see them pretty much everywhere I go, I feel like," she said. "I think it gives you a little bit of guidance as to what you're looking at and what you might actually be consuming."The test included calorie counts on three items from three national chains. The test included two club sandwiches with fries from Denny's. The menu said there would be 1100 calories in each order. McDonald's promised 540 calories for its signature Big Mac. The test included two sandwiches and no sides. The test also included two Steak and White Cheddar Paninis from Panera. Each should have 940 calories.The food was taken by The Now to a lab for testing. The technician ground up and scientifically analyzed the food to find out how many calories were in each. The results showed that the menus can sometimes be inaccurate.At McDonald's, the 540-calorie sandwiches came out just slightly higher at 581 calories and 552 calories. That's not much of difference, said dietitian Jessica Crandall. "If the recipe calls for a teaspoon of mayo put on a sandwich, maybe when the person in the line who is making the sandwich uses a tablespoon instead," said Crandall.At Panera, the food didn't come in over; it was exactly the opposite. The sandwiches were expected to have 940 calories but measured in with 149 fewer calories and 205 fewer calories.At Denny's the sandwich and fries should have been 1100 but both were over, one by 180 calories and the other by 110.Crandall said, "It's an extra two or three hundred calories. If someone is trying to lose weight that can actually hold their weight loss."Think of it this way: Jodi would have to work out for an extra 18 minutes just to burn those extra 180 calories.No one regulates whether menus are accurate. The FDA says restaurants must explain how they came up with the calorie results only if the FDA asks. The FDA says the requirement to list calorie counts on menus "applies to restaurants and similar retail food establishments if they are part of a chain of 20 or more locations, doing business under the same name, offering for sale substantially the same menu items and offering for sale restaurant-type foods."Jodi says she doesn't expect every restaurant to be perfect and she still plans to use calories listed on the menu for some general guidance and will keep exercising. "I think you have to give yourself a little bit of wiggle room and realize that whoever's preparing the food probably isn't getting exactly the same serving size and it might not be exact same food as what was provided in their test kitchen," she said. 3129

Israeli news outlet Haaretz reported on Tuesday that explosions were heard south of the Syrian capital of Damascus as tensions appear to be heating in the Middle East. Syrian state TV reported that Syria downed two Israeli missiles over Syria late Tuesday. This news comes as the US State Department warned of possible attacks on the Israeli settlement of Golan Heights. The US State Department issued a travel alert on Tuesday as President Donald Trump announced the US no longer is part of the Iran nuclear agreement. Haaretz reported that the Israeli army said it believes Iran is planning to carry out an imminent strike from Syria.While the United States' European allies fiercely opposed the US walking away from the Iran deal, Israel applauded Trump's decision.  827

It may not be as oft-quoted as the First Amendment or as contested as the Second Amendment, but the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution plays a critical role in supporting some of our closest-held notions of American freedom and equality.For one, it clearly states that American citizenship is a birthright for all people who are born on American soil -- something that President Donald Trump has announced he wants to end. Not only would this unravel 150 years of American law, it would loosen a significant cornerstone of the Constitution's interpretation of American identity.In order to better understand this part of the 14th Amendment, we asked two experts in constitutional and immigration law to walk us through the first section. The amendment has five sections, but we will only be dealing with the first, which contains the Citizenship Clause and three other related clauses.But first, some historyThe 14th Amendment is known as a Reconstruction amendment, because it was added to the Constitution after the Civil War in 1868. That places it at an important historical crossroads, when lingering wounds of divisiveness and animosity still plagued the nation and the reality of a post-slavery America begged contentious racial and social questions."Thomas Jefferson said men were created equal, but the original Constitution betrayed that promise by allowing for slavery," says Jeffrey Rosen. "The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were designed to enshrine Lincoln's promise of a new America."However, as so often is the case, this reaffirmed American ideal fell short of reality. Rosen notes that issues of civil rights and equal treatment continued to be denied to African Americans, LGBT people and other citizens for more than a century after the amendment's ratification.And Erika Lee points out that Native Americans weren't even allowed to become citizens until 1925."Even as [these amendments] were written, obviously there were major built-in inequalities and maybe at the time weren't intended to apply to everyone," Lee says.Why was citizenship by birthright such an important concept?"Citizenship was a central question left open by the original Constitution," says Rosen. "At the time it was written, the Constitution assumed citizenship, but it didn't provide any rules for it. In the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Chief Justice said African Americans can't be citizens of the US and 'had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.'"The US Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case, named for a slave who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom, has since been widely condemned.READ MORE: Scott v. Sandford"The 14th Amendment was designed to overturn this decision and define citizenship once and for all, and it was based on birthright," Rosen says. "It is really important that it's a vision of citizenship based on land rather than blood. It is an idea that anyone can be an American if they commit themselves to our Constitutional values."What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"According to Rosen, this is one of the greatest questions of citizenship. There are two clear examples of people not subject to the jurisdictions of the United States: diplomats and their children, and -- at the time of the 14th Amendment -- Native Americans, who were not recognized as part of the American populace."With those two exceptions, everyone who was physically present in the United States was thought to be under its jurisdiction," Rosen says. "There are numerous Supreme Court cases that reaffirm that understanding, and almost as importantly, there are lots of congressional statutes that assume birthright citizenship."Some scholars, like John Eastman of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, have argued that children of illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and thus should not be considered citizens under the Constitution.But Rosen says this is a minority view among constitutional scholars of all political backgrounds."While the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled [on the instance of children of illegal immigrants], Congress has passed all kinds of laws presuming their citizenship," Rosen says.What is the connection between birthright citizenship and immigration?In 1898, 30 years after the 14th Amendment was adopted, the Supreme Court reached a defining decision in a case known as the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Lee explains that Wong Kim Ark was the American-born son of Chinese immigrants."Asian immigrants were the first immigrants to the US that couldn't be considered white," Lee says. "So they are treated differently. They are taxed differently, they are stripped of many rights. In the 1880s, they are excluded from immigration and barred from citizenship."READ MORE: The United States v. Wong Kim ArkSo, the main question of the case was, could a person born in America be a citizen in a place where his parents could not be as well? The Supreme Court decided yes, and the case remains the first defining legal decision made under the banner of birthright citizenship."[The Supreme Court's decision] said that the right of citizenship is not a matter of inheritance, that it never descends from generation to generation, it is related to where you're born," Lee says. "It's about the power of place. That has been a very expansive, and at the time, a corrective measure to a more exclusionary definition both legally as well as culturally as to what an American is."Why must it be stated that the privileges of citizenship need to be protected?Before the Civil War, states didn't necessarily have to follow the provisions stated in the Bill of Rights; only Congress had to. The 14th Amendment changed that."This second sentence of the Amendment means that states have to respect the Bill of Rights as well as basic civil rights and the rights that come along with citizenship," Rosen says. "The idea was that there were rights that were so basic; so integral to citizenship that they could not be narrowed by the states."Despite the promises and protections of citizenship, Lee says it is abundantly clear that different racial groups were, and often are, seen as unable or unworthy to function as true American citizens. After all, basic rights of citizenship, like suffrage and equal treatment, were denied certain racial groups for a hundred years after the 14th Amendment."The idea of a law applying to 'all people' seems to be clear. But in reality, the debate and the laws and practices that get established are very much based on a hierarchy of, well sure, all persons, but some are more fit and some are more deserving than others," she says.Throughout history, Asian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Muslim immigrants and their children, to name a few, have had unspoken cultural caveats applied to their ability to be Americans."For Asian immigrants, the racial argument at the time was that 'It didn't matter whether one were born in the US or not, Asians as a race, are unassimilable. They are diametrically opposite from us Americans,'" Lee says."That was the argument that was used to intern Japanese citizens. It was the denial of citizenship in favor of race: 'The ability to become American, the ability to assimilate, they just didn't have it.'"Why was it important to legalize rights for non-citizens?So far, we've covered the first clause, the Citizenship Clause, and the second, the Privileges and Immunities Clause. These both deal with American citizens.The final two clauses, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection clause, are a little different, and deal with the rights of all people in the United States.Eagle-eyed Constitution readers will notice that the 14th Amendment contains a "due process" clause very similar to the Fifth Amendment. This, says Rosen, was a technical addition to ensure the Fifth Amendment wasn't theoretically narrowed down to protect only American citizens."The 14th Amendment distinguishes between the privileges of citizenship and the privileges of all people," Rosen says. "The framers [of the amendment] thought there were certain rights that were so important that they should be extended to all persons, and in order to specify that they needed a new 'due process' clause."What does it mean to have 'equal protection of the laws'?"At the time following the Civil War, at its core, it meant all persons had the right to be protected by the police, that the laws of the country should protect all people," Rosen says. "In the 20th century, more broader questions were litigated under the 14th Amendment, like Brown v. Board of Education -- whether segregation was constitutional. Cases involving the internment of Japanese citizens, case from the marriage equality decisions, even Roe vs. Wade have strains of equal protection language and invoke due process law."READ MORE: Brown v. Board of EducationAnother interesting case that speaks directly to the immigration side of the 14th Amendment debate is the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe, in which the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the state of Texas to deny funding for undocumented immigrant children.READ MORE: Plyler v. DoeWhy are we talking about all this right now?This week,?Trump vowed to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil.But his interest in repealing birthright citizenship isn't a new idea. Lee says for the last 30 years or so, there have been several overtures by the political right to explore "citizenship reform," a timeline that she says aligns with the ascendancy of modern American conservatism.Lee fears if the current push to end birthright citizenship is successful, it could have wider implications than most people assume. People from other countries who are here legally on work or student visas, for instance, could have children who do not legally belong to the only country they know."There have been attempts since the 1990s to break away birthright citizenship, or narrow it down, and it did not seem that they would have a chance at succeeding until now," she says."To me this not only reflects the ascendancy of an extreme right position but also a return to a very narrow and exclusionary definition of Americanness." 10356

INDIANAPOLIS -- A woman filed a million civil suit against Purdue University basketball standout Isaac Haas on Tuesday claiming she contracted chlamydia and herpes from him after he lied about having been given a clean bill of health.The suit, filed in Tippecanoe County Circuit Court on behalf of the woman by the law firm of Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons, LLP, claims Haas “explicitly assured [Plaintiff] he had been tested for sexually transmitted diseases… and was currently without a sexually transmitted disease or condition.”The suit also claims that the woman received text messages from another former romantic partner of Haas, who claimed that Haas was aware of his diagnosis and that he had “infected a number of other individuals” prior to the woman who filed the suit.In addition to Haas, the suit names Purdue University and the alleged former romantic partner of Haas as defendants. The woman’s attorneys claim in the suit that, after the former romantic partner contacted the plaintiff, she texted her that she had learned of the lawsuit “via one of [Haas’] coaches” and tried to recant her story. The suit alleges that is evidence of a coordinated effort between Haas, the second woman and Purdue coaches to “cover up Haas’ knowledge and wrongful conduct.”Filed alongside the lawsuit were dozens of pages of alleged texts between Haas, the plaintiff and the other woman named in the suit.Asked for comment Wednesday, Purdue said it was aware of the lawsuit, but that the school had no comment.The lawsuit asks for the case to be heard in a jury trial, and for damages to be paid to the plaintiff in the amount of million.A call to the law firm representing the plaintiff was not immediately returned. 1739

来源：资阳报