中山哪家医院做外痔手术最好(中山大便里有血怎么办) (今日更新中)

A Dutch lawyer tied to former Trump deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates who admitted to lying to special counsel Robert Mueller's team was sentenced Tuesday to 30 days in prison and ordered to pay a ,000 fine.Alex van der Zwaan is the first person to be sentenced in Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.He pleaded guilty to lying to Mueller's team in February and faced up to six months in prison. 443

A Kentucky infectious disease expert who advocated for social distancing and the use of masks in her state has died after a monthslong battle with COVID-19.According to WBKO-TV in Bowling Green, Kentucky, Dr. Rebecca Shadowen — an infectious disease specialist at The Medical Center in Bowling Green and a community leader amid the pandemic — died on Sept. 11 following a four-month fight with the virus.According to a statement from The Medical Center, Shawoden had worked at the center since 1989 and had been a "physician leader" across Kentucky for more than 30 years.In the early days of the pandemic, Shadowen pushed tirelessly for those in her community to isolate and adopt common-sense social distancing measures."(I)f you could save the life of another person without harming your own, would you?" Showden posted on Facebook on March 13. "Although we are (fiercely) individuals, we still live as community. Please take the Coronavirus (COVID-19) seriously. YOU may be healthy or may not feel this is threatening to you."Shadowen later served on Bowling Green-Warren County Coronavirus Working Group — an inter-agency organization that helped set policy and informed Kentuckians about the risks posed by COVID-19.According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, Shadowen contracted COVID-19 on May 13. David Shawoden, Rebecca's wife, said that both she and their daughter tested positive for the virus, while her son did not. Shadowen's daughter reportedly only suffered mild symptoms.However, Rebecca Shadowen faced a steep road to recovery. NBC News reports she was on and off a ventilator and spent months in the hospital. In a July Facebook post, Shawoden thanked her friends for continued prayers and kind words and asked others to wear a mask or face covering while in public."Although I am not home yet, I am in a very long recovery period and making slow progress here in Bowling Green," she wrote. "Which, by the way is the greatest place on the planet with the most wonderful people." 2007

A decision by McDonald’s to change the way it subsidizes franchisees could lead to an increase in the price of a Happy Meal.The fast food chain is reportedly getting rid of a decades-old deal with franchise owners that helps cover the cost of those Happy Meal toys.Starting in 2021, McDonald’s will stop sending the roughly 0 monthly contribution, called the “Happy Meal rent and service fee,” to it’s U.S. restaurants, according to an internal message."We recognize this subsidy has been in place for many years," reads the memo viewed by Business Insider. "However, it is no longer fueling growth in the way it once was."Franchisees will be able to increase the price of a Happy Meal by 20 cents to offset the difference. McDonald’s doesn’t set menu item prices, and lets franchisees decide depending on location.Franchisees are reportedly not happy about the subsidy being eliminated, and other new fees that will start next year."COVID is surging, and they're worried about taking our Happy Meal subsidy?" a franchisee told Business Insider. "It's not something that families in America want. They want a value-priced Happy Meal."McDonald’s told CNN they are finding ways to provide other subsidies.McDonald’s only owns about 5% of their restaurant locations in the U.S., the other 95% are owned and operated by independent franchisees. 1351

A magnitude 7.2 earthquake struck southeastern Mexico on Friday night, with the epicenter in the state of Oaxaca, the US Geological Survey reported.An earthquake alert was issued in Mexico City, about 348 kilometers (216 miles) away from the center of the earthquake. Buildings were evacuated there, CNN's Leyla Santiago said, and video showed people streaming out of buildings and into the streets.  413

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

来源：资阳报