沈阳治疗灰指甲医院哪里比较好沈阳看皮肤好的医院挺肤康,沈阳哪里治疗干癣效果好,沈阳看皮炎哪个医院比较好,沈阳有没有治狐臭更先进医院,沈阳看皮肤的那家医院好,灰指甲哪家医院比较好沈阳,沈阳治疗灰指甲究竟需多少钱

A day after audio clips of President Donald Trump admitting he "downplayed" the coronavirus pandemic surfaced, Trump defended his statements as "good" and "proper" in a Thursday morning tweet.On Wednesday, The Washington Post, CNN and other media outlets published audio clips from several of Trump's interview with journalist Bob Woodward. During an interview on Feb. 7, Trump described the dangers of the virus that had not yet fully engulfed the U.S., calling it "deadly." However, publicly, Trump maintained that the virus was "under control" and that it would "disappear" in the coming months.On March 19, after he declared a state of emergency and recommended that Americans not gather in groups of 10 to prevent the spread of the virus, Trump told Woodward that he had intentionally "downplayed" the threat of the virus so as not to "create a panic."On Thursday, Trump stood by his decision to downplay the virus, even as the U.S. death toll soars over 190,000 — the most in the world. He also attacked Woodward for not reporting on his comments earlier."Bob Woodward had my quotes for many months. If he thought they were so bad or dangerous, why didn't he immediately report them in an effort to save lives? Didn't he have an obligation to do so?" Trump tweeted. "No, because he knew they were good and proper answers. Calm, no panic!" 1352

A district judge in California denied Netflix's attempt to have actress Mo'Nique's discrimination case against them dismissed on Wednesday and said the lawsuit can move forward.The decision was made in the Central District Court in California by U.S. District Judge Andrè Birotte, Jr.Mo'Nique is alleging that Netflix discriminated against her because of her race and gender by offering her a "lowball offer" to perform a one-hour comedy special and then retaliated against her when they “dug its heels in the ground” and refused to negotiate fair pay with her, according to court documents.In his decision, Judge Birotte said that Mo'Nique's allegations are "plausible.""Mo’Nique raises a novel theory here, namely that an employer’s failure to negotiate an “opening offer” in good faith, consistent with its alleged customary practice which typically leads to increased compensation, constitutes an “adverse employment action” for purposes of a retaliation claim," the judge noted.In her lawsuit, which she filed last year, the Oscar-winning actress says she the streaming service offered 0,000, but claimed they paid comedian Amy Schumer "twenty-six times more than her for the same one-hour comedy special on grounds that Schumer had sold out Madison Square Garden and had a recent movie released.""Regardless of whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on (her) claims, dismissing this case under Rule 12(b)(6) is not appropriate," the judge said in his decision. "The plaintiff’s complaint may raise a novel issue, but that does not justify dismissing it at this stage."You can read the entire court documents below: Actress Mo'Nique's discrimination case against Netflix moving forward, judge rules by Sarah Dewberry on Scribd 1751

A man riding a horse on Saturday was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence when he entered the 91 freeway near Long Beach, California.The California Highway Patrol Santa Fe Springs division posted pictures of the arrest on Twitter saying "Don’t put yourself, your beautiful animal, or others in danger of being killed in traffic." So a horse walks onto the 91 freeway...no joke. Rider arrested by CHP for DUI in the greater Long Beach area. Don’t put yourself, your beautiful animal, or others in danger of being killed in traffic. @CBSLA @NBCLA @KTLA @ABC7 @FOXLA @CNN @FoxNews @ABC @NBCNews @CBSNews @CHP_HQ pic.twitter.com/YdiL54ctvQ— CHP Santa Fe Springs (@CHP_SFS) February 25, 2018 721

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 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