吉林前列腺增生治疗要多少钱吉林阴茎上有红点点是怎么回事,吉林最好的治疗阴茎短小的医院,吉林前列腺囊肿需要检查那些,吉林男性疾病医院品牌怎么样,吉林专业治疗阳痿医院,吉林那个医院治龟头炎比较好,吉林正规医院的包皮包茎价格

A fraudulent card donning the Department of Justice seal is making its way into the hands of folks against wearing face masks.The Department and Americans with Disabilities Act have come forward publicly stating they do not endorse or support the card. Last week in Downtown Boise, an individual claiming to possess one of the exemption cards walked into Dharma Sushi and Thai and was upset when refused service for refusing to wear a face mask.The restaurant, a privately owned business, requires all customers and staff to wear masks in their restaurant unless eating or drinking. They have signs clearly stating this before entering. They have even spread messages on their social media accounts, asking that anyone who cannot or will not wear a face mask refrain from visiting their location.One of Dharma’s owners said they will continue to enforce their policy because “if an outbreak happened at our store we’d have to close...that could be business ending for us.”The individual refused service claims to have post-traumatic stress disorder. They state that wearing a mask could trigger an episode and several times throughout the video, the same individual references having a “medical exemption.” Upon exiting the restaurant, a male partner shows local authorities his “face mask exempt card” telling them that refusal to comply with the card can result in a fine.This incident was filmed on a cellphone by the individual involved. After the encounter, this person uploaded the content online, where it received just over 32,000 views (the video has since been removed for privacy reasons). Dharma’s owner says that the video led to a series of threats and one-star reviews from strangers out of state.This article was written by Frankie Katafiasor KIVI. 1773

A former student and three current students have been arrested and charged for their involvement in a prank that sent a student riding a dirt bike down a hallway at GlenOak High School in Canton, Ohio.According to officials at the Stark County Jail, all four were arrested for taking part in the prank that allowed a student to zoom through the hall on a dirt bike. The prank sent the school into a lockdown.The school said the incident has raised security concerns. One person involved, Eloy Lopes, 18, isn't a student at the school anymore."Our staff at GlenOak acted swiftly in addressing the immediate safety concerns as a result of the prank," a school representative school said in an email.Lopes was criminally charged with inducing panic with a reckless disregard for others, according to the sheriff. The sheriff's report said he was charged with criminal trespassing because he is not a current student at GlenOak. According to authorities, he held a door open for the dirt bike rider. The three students involved, a 17-year-old male and two 18-year-old males, were also arrested and charged with inducing panic with a reckless disregard for others for their involvement in the prank, according to authorities.The school has not addressed the status of the three current students, nor has it said whether or not security policies will change moving forward. 1515

A football coach. An athletic director. And young, fresh-faced students.They are among the 17 people killed by a gunman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on Wednesday.Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said Thursday that all families who lost loved ones in the shooting have been notified.  332

A majority of teens think remote learning is worse than in-person learning, however only one-in-five would do full in-person learning this fall if it was up to them, according to a survey released this week by SurveyMonkey and Common Sense Media.The survey asked 890 teenagers, ages 13-to-17, a series of questions about the academic school year and their feelings about the impacts of coronavirus pandemic safety measures that have canceled school-related sports, activities and some classes.About 59 percent of participants said that remote learning was “worse” or “much worse” than in-person instruction. And roughly the same percentage are worried about falling behind academically because of the impacts on learning during the pandemic.About one-in-four participants are worried about unreliable internet connection at home."More than any other issue, teens point to remote learning as their biggest academic challenge this fall," said Jon Cohen, chief research officer at SurveyMonkey, in a statement. "So much of the national conversation on virtual schooling focuses on the burden it places on parents and corresponding losses in workplace productivity, but it's possible that the day-to-day impact on students that will have longer-term implications."But teens appear to understand the seriousness of coronavirus and the reasons behind the changes to their learning situation. About 42 percent would prefer to be fully remote learning this fall, and the majority of them cited the threat of coronavirus as their reason.About 69 percent of survey participants are somewhat or very worried that they or someone they know would get sick because of in-person learning.Participants are also worried about their current relationships and future prospects. More than half, 56 percent, say they are somewhat or very worried they will lose connection with friends.Looking ahead in life, about half of teens in the study said they were worried about losing scholarship opportunities and future job or college aspirations because of the pandemic.Survey responses were gathered in the last week of August. About a third of survey participants reported they were going to attend school fully remote learning, and only seven percent were planning on full in-person learning. 2277

A lawsuit against Harvard brought on behalf of Asian-American students who failed to gain admission goes to trial on Monday in one of the most consequential race cases in decades, with affirmative action policies across the country at stake.The lawsuit was crafted by conservative advocates who have long fought racial admissions practices that traditionally benefited African-American and Latino students. Their ultimate goal is to reverse the 1978 Supreme Court case that upheld admissions policies that consider the race of students for campus diversity.Parties on both sides expect the Supreme Court to eventually resolve the issue. And with President Donald Trump's two appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the high court now has five conservative justices who may be inclined to reverse the landmark ruling.The challengers are led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has devised a series of claims against racial policies, including an earlier affirmative action lawsuit on behalf of Abigail Fisher against the University of Texas and several challenges to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key vote in 2016 when the court last endorsed race-based admissions in the University of Texas case, was replaced by Kavanaugh earlier this month. Gorsuch succeeded the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who had opposed all affirmative action and criticized the University of Texas program, but died before that case was completed.The Students for Fair Admissions group Blum founded when he filed the Harvard case in November 2014 contends the university engages in unlawful "racial balancing" as it boosts the chances of admissions for blacks and Hispanics and lowers the chances for Asian Americans.Harvard's practices, the group says, are "the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s."That assertion has deeply resonated with some Asian Americans who fear they are held to a higher standard than other applicants to prestigious universities. Yet Asian-American advocates, representing a wide swath of backgrounds and educational experiences, have come in on both sides of the case.Some who back the lawsuit seek to end all consideration of race in admissions, while others, siding with Harvard, argue that universities should be able to consider race for campus diversity and that some Asian Americans, particularly those with ties to Southeast Asian countries, may have had fewer educational opportunities before applying to college.The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a brief on behalf of 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations comprising blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and whites. The Legal Defense Fund calls the lawsuit an effort "to sow racial division" and emphasizes the Supreme Court's repeated endorsement of the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.Those subsequent rulings, however, turned on a single vote, either that of Kennedy or Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2006.The Trump administration, which is separately scrutinizing of race-based admissions practices at Harvard through its Education and Justice departments based on a complaint from more than 60 Asian American groups, has backed Students for Fair Admissions.Harvard, the country's oldest institution of higher education, denies that it engages in racial balancing or limits Asian-American admissions. It defends its longstanding effort for racial diversity as part of the education mission and says admissions officers undertake a "whole-person evaluation" that includes academics, extracurricular activities, talents and personal qualities, as well as socioeconomic background and race.Since the case was first filed, both sides have mined similar statistical evidence and testimony but with sharply contrasting conclusions -- all of which will now be presented before US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs."Each party relies on its own expert reports to show the presence or absence of a negative effect of being Asian American on the likelihood of admission ... and claims that there is substantial -- or zero -- documentary and testimonial evidence of discriminatory intent," Burroughs said in an order last month rejecting requests from both sides to rule for each, respectively, before trial.The case was brought under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibiting racial discrimination at private institutions that receive federal funds.Burroughs, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, has said she expects the trial to last about three weeks. Both sides will offer opening statements on Monday. 4719