呼市治疗痔疮现在流血收费痔疮在呼和浩特市那家看好,呼和浩特那个医院切割痔疮好,呼和浩特专业治疗痔疮与脱肛,治便秘呼市专科,呼市混合痔疮治疗的费用是多少,和林格尔县肛肠医院痔疮价格,呼和浩特治疗痔疮地方

A centuries-old question surrounding Stonehenge has been solved, linking the tall megaliths to a geographic area where they may have come from.The original source of the massive sarsen stones has long been debated, at least four centuries according to the study. The smaller “bluestones” near the center of the circular monument have been traced to an area in Wales, about 200 km away, in an earlier study.Geologists used geochemical data from the sarsens and compared it to the geochemical signature of different regions.“From this, we identify West Woods, Wiltshire, 25 km (roughly 15.5 miles) north of Stonehenge, as the most probable source area for the majority of sarsens at the monument,” researchers stated in their study.The sarsens were erected during the mid-third millennium BCE, and weigh roughly 20 metric tons. Only 52 of the original about 80 sarsen stones remain. 888

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

A Las Vegas family is dealing with a bunny multiplying nightmare.There are so many bunnies they have to divvy them up and block them off in different rooms of their house to stop them from reproducing.Kerryann Curtin and her family got Thumper, the male bunny, a couple years ago. More recently, they were gifted what they thought was another boy bunny."They swore it was a boy, the breeder said it was a boy!" said Kerryann's sister Kathleen Curtin-Coble.But to their surprise Brandon the new bunny was a girl. They changed her name to Brandy.Brandy had nine bunnies September 14, 2017. She had seven more a month later and seven more a month after that. That's 23 bunnies in just three months."Even before you know they had babies, they are pregnant again," said Curtin-Coble.On March 22, one of Brandy's baby bunnies had six babies and a few weeks later had three more.The Curtin family has adopted out 21 bunnies on their own but they need help with at least 11 more.They've asked just about everyone for help but no one can help them."We've called Arizona, Utah, California, and every sanctuary in Nevada that we could find," said Curtin-Coble. "We can not find anyone that can take them."Many of the bunny rescues are overwhelmed with hundreds of bunnies already after massive rescue work that was done at a nearby dumpsite.If you are interested in adopting one of the bunnies, email Kerryann at kerryann.curtin@hotmail.com. 1438

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 longtime Fox News analyst sharply criticized the network on Tuesday, denouncing the outlet as a "propaganda machine" devoted to President Trump, and saying that it was "wittingly harming our system of government for profit," in a stunning internal email announcing his exit from the company.Ralph Peters, a US Army lieutenant colonel who served as a military analyst for Fox News, said he felt "compelled to explain" his departure from the company to colleagues, before skewering the network he has called home for years. Peters had been telling friends that he planned on leaving the network in a "nuclear" fashion, one of those friends told CNN."Four decades ago, I took an oath as a newly commissioned officer. I swore to 'support and defend the Constitution,' and that oath did not expire when I took off my uniform," Peters wrote in the letter sent to a handful of colleagues. "Today, I feel that Fox News is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers. Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed."In the letter, which was first reported on by BuzzFeed and confirmed by CNN, Peters said that he believed Fox News "degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices" to morphing into a "mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration."Peters cited the Fox News opinion hosts' relentless attacks on the FBI, Justice Department, intelligence agencies, and other branches of government. He said he believed Fox News was knowingly causing harm to the country in exchange for profit.Peters said his criticism did not apply to Fox Business, the sister channel of Fox News, and said he deeply respected "the hard-news reporters at Fox," calling them "some of the best men and women in the business."Fox News responded to Peters' email in a statement Tuesday evening. "Ralph Peters is entitled to his opinion despite the fact that he's choosing to use it as a weapon in order to gain attention," the network said. "We are extremely proud of our top-rated primetime hosts and all of our opinion programing."Peters told CNN in an email, "Fox can assail me all it wants, but I intend to do what I believe is ethically correct."As of late, Fox News has faced mounting criticism from the company's own employees. In October, "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace told the Associated Press he was bothered by how some of his colleagues on the opinion side of the network used their platforms to attack the media. And Shepard Smith, the chief news anchor at Fox News, was critical of the Fox News opinion bloc in a story published last week.  2729