山东强制性脊柱炎厉害吗(山东幼年类风湿怎么治疗) (今日更新中)

The US Air Force apologized Thursday for its ill-advised attempt to incorporate the viral "Yanny" or "Laurel" meme into a tweet about repelling a Taliban attack in Afghanistan.In what was clearly a major social media fail, the initial tweet -- which was posted by the Air Force's official account earlier in the day -- attempted to put a playful spin on the popular meme currently sweeping the internet by comparing it to the distinctive sound of the 30mm cannons aboard an A-10 Warthog aircraft."The Taliban Forces in Farah city #Afghanistan would much rather have heard #Yanny or #Laurel than the deafening #BRRRT they got courtesy of our #A10," the tweet said.The tweet has since been deleted and replaced with an apology that said the initial post was "made in poor taste.""We apologize for the earlier tweet regarding the A-10. It was made in poor taste and we are addressing it internally. It has since been removed," the second post said.Politicians, corporate brands and even the Department of Defense's official Twitter account have weighed in on the debate centered around a viral audio clip that says either "Yanny" or "Laurel" depending on the listeners interpretation.But the Air Force's post incorporating the pop-culture reference sparked criticism from those who said it was inappropriate to mention the meme in a tweet about the thwarted Taliban attack .When asked about the controversy on Thursday, Pentagon Spokeswoman Dana White said she wasn't aware of the tweet."What is important to understand is that this is the Afghans' fight. We are working by, with and through these partners. And they are dying to secure their own future and I think that shouldn't be forgotten in any of this," she added.The US military helped Afghan troops repel a major Taliban attack on the Afghan provincial capital Farah on Tuesday and Wednesday that punctured the security perimeter surrounding the city, US and NATO officials told CNN.The Pentagon said Thursday some US advisers assisted in the fight and coalition airstrikes also took place. US A-10 attack jets also flew overhead but did not conduct any strikes.It was unclear how close the Taliban came to capturing the city, which would have represented a major blow to the Afghan government.The insurgents claimed they briefly seized the city center, while the NATO-led coalition said it saw no direct evidence that they ever made it into the city.Afghan A-29 attack planes and Mi-17 helicopters carried out multiple airstrikes in defense of the city.US military advisers eventually arrived in the city to assist Afghan military commanders at their headquarters, helping to call in drone strikes that killed some 28 Taliban fighters, Lt. Col. Martin O'Donnell told CNN.He said US troops also arrived to advise Afghan commando units involved in the counterattack but did not participate in offensive operations. 2877

The Vans Warped Tour, a long-running punk rock tour and festival that pushed the genre into national relevance, will end after 2018.Warped Tour founder Kevin Lyman shared the news on the tour's website, in an essay headlined "All Good Things Must Come to an End.""It will be bittersweet each morning when I see the sun rise and then watch it set knowing that this will be the last time I get to witness it from that exact spot," Lyman wrote. "Though the tour and the world have changed since ’95, the same feeling of having the ‘best summer ever’ will live on through the bands, the production teams, and the fans that come through at every stop."The Warped Tour has been a summer staple in American cities since 1995. Each year, festival tour featured dozens of acts and multiple stages throughout cities in North America. Acts like Fall Out Boy, Blink-182, The Offspring, Simple Plan and Sum 41 got their start on the tour and helped start a pop punk revolution in the late '90s and early 2000sThough Lyman said the 2018 tour would be the festival's last, he also wrote that he is currently preparing a 25th anniversary celebration for the first Warped Tour in 2019.The cities and dates of the final Warped Tour are listed below. 1259

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Monday that there are 155 patients under investigation this year for acute flaccid myelitis, a condition that that can cause paralysis and mostly affects children.Of these, 62 have been confirmed by the CDC in 22 states, and the remainder continue to be investigated.Acute flaccid myelitis, also called AFM, is a rare but serious condition that affects the nervous system -- specifically, the area of the spinal cord called gray matter. It affects fewer than one in a million people each year across the country, the CDC estimates.The number of patients under investigation is up from 127 patients a week ago, though no new confirmed cases have been reported.The average age of patients confirmed to have the condition is just 4 years old, and more than 90 percent of cases overall occur in children 18 and younger, according to Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the agency's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. 1003

The Trump administration is pushing back on a New York Times report that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is looking into a plan that would allow states to use federal funding to buy firearms for teachers.On Wednesday, the Times reported that the Education Department was considering using a grant program called the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program as a way to give federal funding for firearm purchases to states or school districts. The report cited multiple people with knowledge of the plan.A senior administration official told CNN that the idea laid out in the Times report did not originate with the Department of Education or DeVos. That official said the department received a letter from the Texas state Department of Education asking if the funds from a federal grant program could be used to purchase firearms. It was circulated to departmental lawyers and researchers for guidance, according to the official. The department ultimately chose not to respond, the official said.The official added that DeVos thinks that Congress should take action to clarify whether or not using the grant funding to buy guns is permissible. Moreover, the Education Department believes the grant program is intentionally vague to give school districts flexibility, and the idea of purchasing firearms was likely not considered when it was written, according to the official.In response to the Times report, Education Department spokeswoman Liz Hill told CNN that "the department is constantly considering and evaluating policy issues, particularly issues related to school safety. The secretary nor the department issues opinions on hypothetical scenarios."The discussion around arming teachers has been a deeply controversial one. President Donald Trump floated the proposal to arm educators and school staff on multiple occasions in the wake of the deadly school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in February 2018."If you had a teacher who was adept with the firearm, they could end the attack very quickly," Trump said during a listening session on school safety a week after the shooting.The idea of arming school staff has been met with sharp condemnation.Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords said in a statement Wednesday that "arming teachers is not a solution.""It recklessly puts American children in even more danger," she said in response to the Times report. "It's time for Americans to find the courage to take on the powerful and fight for our own safety."The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association also lambasted the proposal. Nicole Hockley, whose six-year-old son was killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, took the microphone and told Trump she would rather arm teachers with ways to prevent shootings in the first place rather than with a firearm.Despite the criticism, Trump doubled down on the proposal on several subsequent occasions, and in March, the Trump administration proposed providing some school personnel with "rigorous" firearms training.In the wake of the Parkland shooting, the Trump administration also created a federal school safety commission, which is chaired by DeVos. In June, she testified before a congressional committee that the commission would not focus on looking at the role the role of guns in school safety. That stance was panned during a public forum. Democrats on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce have called on DeVos to explain how the commission will explore the role of guns."The Commission was charged with recommending policies and funding proposals to prevent school violence," 17 members of the committee wrote in a letter in June. "A core element of combating school violence is addressing gun violence, both in school and in our communities."The-CNN-Wire 3843

来源：资阳报