银川哪里有算命很准的古浪算命比较准的人,会东哪里有看的准的看相,三明算命灵验的地方,滨州有名的算命大师是谁,大冶有算命好的人吗,荣成哪里有算命的比较准,兴化哪有算命准的师傅

The Senate has passed its long-stalled legislation that would overhaul how sexual harassment complaints are made and handled on Capitol Hill and would hold members of Congress personally responsible for paying such settlements out of their own pockets.The legislation moved forward following a deal reached by Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt and Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and praised by leaders of both parties in the Senate.The bill now goes back to the House of Representatives, which passed its version in February and where the expectation is that there will be a conference committee to work out the differences between the two bills after Congress returns from its weeklong Memorial Day recess.The differences between the House's and Senate's versions of the legislation include the language used in describing when a member would be required to pay for settlements -- and when they would not -- and the reporting of settlements.California Republican Rep. Jackie Speier, one of the chief negotiators of the House's bill said that there is "disappointment" in Senate's bill among some members on both sides of the aisle in the House."We will go to conference and hopefully we can iron out some of those differences," Speier said Thursday on CNN's "New Day."There also is criticism of the Senate's bill among some outside advocacy groups, which have written to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Chuck Schumer expressing concern that the House bill became essentially too watered down in the Senate's negotiations."This bill contains numerous provisions that are contrary to key principles we've previously articulated, falls short of an acceptable compromise, and may have unintended negative consequences," says a letter sent to Senate leaders signed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Equal Pay Today, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights National Women's Law Center and Public Citizen.Additionally, these groups say they see "significant differences" between the House and Senate bills and are "deeply concerned" that "neither senators nor key stakeholders have been given adequate time to fully vet the bill."Congressional sources tell CNN there are numerous areas that the discussion will center on when the two sides meet to work out a compromise.Among the chief areas of concern: The provision for members being held personally responsible in the Senate bill states that they have to pay out of pocket only for sexual harassment, not for any awards that may be ordered for sex discrimination or any other kind of discrimination. Some fear that could provide a loophole for members who are accused of harassment to settle with a victim for sex discrimination, knowing that they won't be required to pay the settlement and it will instead come out of a US Treasury fund.Additionally, there is concern that in the Senate's legislation would empower and involve the Ethics Committee more so than the House's. The Senate version would give the chair and ranking member of the committee the authority to overrule settlement repayments. The House bill would create a third-party investigatory process instead. 3183

The world's No. 1 tennis player’s offer to upgrade a tennis center in Boca Raton was rejected by the public park system’s leadership Monday, and many in the community call it a win. The Greater Boca Raton Beach and Park District had been looking to upgrade Patch Reef Park since 2014.Tennis star Rafael Nadal wanted a tennis academy in his name, which would have included restaurants, dorms, indoor and outdoors courts.The district has been looking at renovating the tennis center at Patch Reef Park since 2014. Last summer, Rafael Nadal had reached out and offered to help build a new indoor facility. "It just wasn’t right. It was wrong. We’re happy to have Nadal here but build elsewhere. This place belongs to the people of Boca Raton," said Dina La Voe, an advocate of Patch Reef Park. Instead, the park will make a request for proposals and have more public input. It’s possible for Nadal to win a bid that way.At the beginning of the month, renderings of the facility were shared and the facility was called the “Rafael Nadal Academy.” The renderings showed indoor and outdoor tennis courts, dormitories, and restaurants.District executive director Arthur Koski said the district was not going to agree to what the Nadal group had offered. “We advised the Nadal group that an academy would not be something we would consider.” “Right now, we think the best first step is a step backwards,” said Koski.Some people in Boca Raton were not happy to hear about the proposed Nadal Academy. “It looks to me like they are tearing everything out of here,” said Dan Bianco. Koski said he would like to see different ideas about an indoor tennis center that would fit everyone's needs.  1745

The sheriff's sergeant who initially responded to last month's mass shooting at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, California, was fatally shot by gunfire from a California Highway Patrol officer, officials said Friday.Sgt. Ron Helus was struck five times by gunfire from the suspect, Ian David Long, according to Ventura County Sheriff Bill Ayub, but was hit by a sixth bullet from a CHP officer's rifle.Helus could have potentially survived the five wounds from Long's weapon, but the sixth bullet proved fatal. It struck Helus in the chest and his heart, according to Dr. Christopher Young, the Ventura County medical examiner. It was the "most lethal wound" Helus sustained, Young said.The 29-year law enforcement veteran was set to retire from the Ventura County Sheriff's Office next year. He was among the first officers through the door at the Borderline when the shooting began November 8 and was shot as he tried to stop the gunman, who killed 11 others in the attack.Helus later died at a hospital. 1029

The top U.S. public health agency stirred confusion by posting — and then taking down — an apparent change in its position on how easily the coronavirus can spread from person to person through the air.But officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say their position has not really changed and that the post last week on the agency’s website was an error that has been taken down.It was “an honest mistake” that happened when a draft update was posted before going through a full editing and approval process, said Dr. Jay Butler, the CDC’s deputy director for infectious diseases.The post suggested that the agency believes the virus can hang in the air and spread over an extended distance. But the agency continues to believe larger and heavier droplets that come from coughing or sneezing are the primary means of transmission, Butler said.Most CDC guidance about social distancing is built around that idea, saying that about 6 feet is a safe buffer between people who are not wearing masks.In interviews, CDC officials have acknowledged growing evidence that the virus can sometimes be transmitted on even smaller, aerosolized particles or droplets that spread over a wider area. Certain case clusters have been tied to events in which the virus appeared to have spread through the air in, for example, a choir practice. But such incidents did not appear to be common.Public health experts urge people to wear masks, which can stop or reduce contact with both larger droplets and aerosolized particles.But for months, agency officials said little about aerosolized particles. So when the CDC quietly posted an update Friday that discussed the particles in more detail, the agency’s position appeared to have changed. The post said the virus can remain suspended in the air and drift more than 6 feet. It also emphasized the importance of indoor ventilation and seemed to describe the coronavirus as the kind of germ that can spread widely through the air.The post caused widespread discussion in public health circles because of its implications. It could mean, for example, that hospitals might have to place infected people in rooms that are specially designed to prevent air from flowing to other parts of the hospital.But the CDC is not advising any changes in how far people stay away from each other, how they are housed at hospitals or other measures, Butler said.The CDC has come under attack for past revisions of guidance during the pandemic, some of which were driven by political pressure by the Trump administration.Butler said there was no external political pressure behind the change in this instance. “This was an internal issue,. And we’re working hard to address it and make sure it doesn’t happen again,” he said.In a statement released Monday, the CDC said the revisions to the “How COVID-19 Spreads” page happened “without appropriate in-house technical review.”“We are reviewing our process and tightening criteria for review of all guidance and updates before they are posted to the CDC website,” the statement said.At least one expert said the episode could further chip away at public confidence in the CDC.“The consistent inconsistency in this administration’s guidance on COVID-19 has severely compromised the nation’s trust in our public health agencies,” said Dr. Howard Koh, a Harvard University public health professor who was a high-ranking official in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration.“To rectify the latest challenge, the CDC must acknowledge that growing scientific evidence indicates the importance of airborne transmission through aerosols, making mask wearing even more critical as we head into the difficult fall and winter season,” Koh said in a statement.___The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. 3964

The U.S. Constitution states in order to be president, you must be 35 years of age, a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. To become vice president, you have to be eligible to become president.Sen. Kamala Harris, 55, was born in Oakland, California, in 1964 and a US citizen at birth. Akin to the controversy he tried to stir during the Barack Obama's Presidency, President Donald Trump suggested on Thursday that Harris isn’t eligible to run for vice president.Harris on Tuesday was announced as Joe Biden’s running mate on this year’s Democratic presidential ticket."I heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements. And, by the way, the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very qualified, very talented lawyer,” Trump said.On Thursday, Newsweek published an op-ed questioning her eligibility. Newsweek defended the op-ed's publication. The argument that the op-ed makes, penned by John C. Eastman, is that Harris isn't a natural born citizen because her parents were not US citizens at the time of her birth. The issue Eastman raises is that the US constitution does not define "natural born citizen." But the 14th amendment clearly states that those born on US soil are citizens at birth."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," the amendment reads.Similar controversies have transpired when Sens. John McCain and Ted Cruz ran for president. Both were US citizens at birth, but were not born on US soil. Harris was born to two immigrant parents, a Jamaican father and Indian mother. According to his official college biography, Harris’ father Donald J. Harris was born a Jamaican citizen but has naturalized as an American citizen. Donald J. Harris is a professor emeritus at Stanford.According to her official obituary, the senator’s mother Shyamala Gopalan Harris, who died in 2009, came to the United States as a teenager and began participating in the Civil Rights Movement. She then became a cancer researcher at UC Berkeley. 2124