濮阳东方医院男科看早泄技术值得信赖(濮阳东方医院看妇科病技术很哇塞) (今日更新中)

The CEO of a skincare company has issued an apology after she accused a man of "defacing private property" by chalking the words "Black Lives Matter" on the building where he lives in San Francisco.The CEO of LAFACE skincare, Lisa Alexander, issued a public apology to James Juanillo, the man she accosted."The last 48 hours has taught me that my actions were those of someone who is not aware of the damage caused by being ignorant and naive to racial inequalities. When I watch the video I am shocked and sad that I behaved the way I did. It was disrespectful to Mr. Juanillo and I am deeply sorry for that," Alexander's statement read, in part.The video, posted to social media on Friday, shows Alexander and another man, later identified as Robert Larkin, speaking with Juanillo. In the video, Alexander accuses Juanillo of "defacing private property" as he stenciled "Black Lives Matter" in yellow chalk on a wall at his home.Alexander and Larkin told Jaunillo that he was "free to express his opinion," but "that was not the way to do it."Juanillo then asked if it would be OK if he were chalking his own property. Alexander and Larkin said that they knew Juanillo didn't own the property because they "knew who lived there."Juanillo encouraged Alexander and Larkin to call the police if they felt unsafe. Juanillo told KGO in San Francisco that the two did call the police, but when officers arrived, they quickly recognized Juanillo as a resident."I didn't even show (the police) my ID," Juanillo told KGO.KGO also spoke to one of the property owners, who said he does not know Alexander or Larkin.The video of the incident spread quickly on social media, with many referring to Alexander as a "Karen" — a slang term for an entitled woman, often used in the context of racism.Alexander's identity was not independently confirmed until she came forward to apologize. However, Birchbox — a makeup subscription service — released a statement on Twitter denouncing Alexander's actions after Twitter users brought the video to their attention. Birchbox said that it had not worked with LAFACE in "several years," but nonetheless had "officially cut ties with the company."The video also prompted trolls to leave negative Yelp reviews of a Los Angeles-based skincare store, My LA Face, which has no connection to Alexander or her business, LAFACE. A representative for Yelp told KGO that those negative reviews would be removed.Read Alexander's full statement below.I want to apologize directly to Mr. Juanillo. There are not enough words to describe how truly sorry I am for being disrespectful to him last Tuesday when I made the decision to question him about what he was doing in front of his home. I should have minded my own business.The last 48 hours has taught me that my actions were those of someone who is not aware of the damage caused by being ignorant and naive to racial inequalities. When I watch the video I am shocked and sad that I behaved the way I did. It was disrespectful to Mr. Juanillo and I am deeply sorry for that. I did not realize at the time that my actions were racist and have learned a painful lesson. I am taking a hard look at the meaning behind white privilege and am committed to growing from this experience. I would love to have coffee with Mr. Juanillo in our neighborhood so I can apologize in person and share a dialogue where I can continue to learn and grow and be a better person.Robert Larkin also issued an apology statement.Over the last two days, I have had my eyes opened wide to my own ignorance of racial inequity, and I have thought a lot about my own personal blind spots. I was wrong to question Mr. Juanillo, and I was wrong to call the neighborhood police watch. It was wrong, and I am profoundly sorry for treating him with disrespect.I have a lot to learn about how racism impacts people in their lives, daily, I have hurt my neighbor. I am full of regret and very sorry. I am hoping to meet with him soon to express my sincere apology and to ask for his forgiveness and guidance in helping me begin the journey towards being a kinder, more thoughtful and sensitive person. 4144

The founder of the Women's March is calling for the movement's current co-chairs to step down for allowing bigotry into their mission.Teresa Shook, a lawyer and educator who founded the Women's March movement, accused the group's current co-chairs -- Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez -- of associating with bigoted outside groups and tarnishing the Women's March's initial goals in a post on her Facebook page Monday.The co-chairs "have steered the Movement away from its true course. I have waited, hoping they would right the ship," Shook wrote. "But they have not. In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs.""I call for the current Co-Chairs to step down and to let others lead who can restore faith in the Movement and its original intent," Shook added. "I stand in Solidarity with all the Sister March Organizations, to bring the Movement back to its authentic purpose."The Women's March leaders swiftly shot back, crediting Shook for "creating a Facebook event named the Million Women's March" and lambasting her for not working to support the movement's ongoing growth."Today, Teresa Shook weighed in, irresponsibly, as have other organizations attempting in this moment to take advantage of our growing pains to try and fracture our network," the Women's March wrote in a post on its Facebook page. "Groups that have benefited from our work but refuse to organize in accordance with our Unity Principles clearly have no interest in building the world our principles envision. They have not done the work to mobilize women from diverse backgrounds across the nation.""Our ongoing work speaks for itself. That's our focus, not armchair critiques from those who want to take credit for our labor," the statement continued.The 2019 Women's March is slated for January, two years after the initial march that followed President Donald Trump's inauguration, and inspired countless sister marches nationwide.Shook's critique comes following longstanding criticism of the group's association with Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the black nationalist group Nation of Islam, who has made numerous anti-Semitic and homophobic comments.Mallory and Perez have both posted photos on Instagram of themselves with Farrakhan praising the National of Islam leader, and Sarsour spoke at the Justice or Else rally headlined by Farrakhan in 2015. Mallory, an African-American leader of the Women's March and anti-gun violence activist, attended a large event in February where Farrakhan stated that "the powerful Jews are my enemy."Mallory declined to denounce Farrakhan after the event. The Women's March released a statement emphasizing that Farrakhan's statements were "not aligned with the Women's March Unity Principles" and that "our external silence has been because we are holding these conversations and are trying to intentionally break the cycles that pit our communities against each other."Sarsour said that following the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, critics suddenly called on the Women's March to denounce Farrakhan."There was nothing new that happened between Women's March and the Minister," Sarsour wrote in an online essay. "Folks decided to rehash 8 months ago."MPower Change, a Muslim organization that Sarsour co-founded, helped raise over 0,000 to cover the funeral expenses for the Tree of Life victims"This is not a letter in defense of Minister Farrakhan," she added. "He can do that for himself. We have been CRYSTAL CLEAR in BOTH of our statements that we REJECT antisemitism and all forms of racism. We have been CLEAR that Minister Farrakhan has said hateful and hurtful things and that he does not align with our Unity Principles of the Women's March that were created by Women of Color."A week before the Tree of Life shooting, Farrakhan made public anti-Semitic remarks, saying, "I'm not an anti-Semite. I'm anti-Termite." 4113

The ceasefire between the United States and China has set off a huge celebration on Wall Street.The Dow soared about 400 points at Monday's opening bell after China and the United States reached a temporary trade truce. It's a big relief because the damaging trade war between the world's two largest economies was set to deepen in January.The Nasdaq and the S&P 500 climbed more than 1% apiece."A truce is definitely better than an escalation of hostilities," Kit Juckes, strategist at Societe Generale, wrote to clients on Monday.Juckes said that even though investors may doubt the substance of the US-China agreement, "this morning's response reflects relief and a desire to pick up some last-ditch bargains."The relief rally comes after the S&P 500 spiked nearly 5% last week, its best since December 2011. That rebound was triggered by hopes of progress on the trade front and a speech by Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell that investors interpreted as a signal the central bank will not rush to raise interest rates."The China trade situation is the keystone in the arch of agita," said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA Research.The progress on talks with China means "now we have a very good chance of experiencing a Santa Claus rally," said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA Research.It wasn't just US markets celebrating. Major indexes in Hong Kong and Shanghai surged more than 2.5%. And markets in London, Frankfurt and Paris climbed 2%. Commodities also raced higher. Copper and soybeans rallied. US oil prices, boosted by hopes of an agreement by Russia and Saudi Arabia to cut output, surged 4%.After meeting on Saturday, US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to hold their fire on tariffs while they try to reach a trade deal. Trump agreed not to raise the 10% tariffs on 0 billion worth of Chinese goods for now. Those tariffs had been scheduled to automatically rise to 25% on January 1. And China said it would be willing to purchase a "very substantial" amount of agriculture, energy and other US products.Still, some analysts warned that the celebration on Wall Street could be short-lived. China and the United States now only have 90 days to sort out nagging trade issues that have been in contention for years, if not decades. And the statements that emerged from the trade meeting lacked concrete details."The beefiest part of Saturday evening's meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi may well have been the local sirloin served for dinner," Nicholas Colas, co-founder of DataTrek Research, wrote to clients on Monday.Goldman Sachs economists said the most likely outcomes are that the truce gets extended after 90 days or that the trade war escalates. The investment bank sees just a 20% chance over the next three months of a comprehensive deal rolling back tariffs."The specter of higher and broader US tariffs remains," Goldman Sachs chief US political economist Alec Phillips wrote to clients on Sunday. 3014

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

The coronavirus pandemic has had a big impact on businesses of all kinds, restaurants and retailers alike are closing permanently and others are doing what they can to financially survive.That also means it could be a good time for consumers looking for specific items to save some money.The website rather-be-shopping.com compiled a list of 13 items that have become cheaper during the pandemic.Items like clothing for the whole family. Retailers like Macy’s, Stein Mart, Ann Taylor, and many more are closing anywhere from several stores to most of them. That could mean deep discounts during liquidation sales.Those looking for a home or want to refinance will find low mortgage rates right now. Mortgage rates have hit an all-time low.Gas is about 50 cents cheaper nationally than it was in the summer of 2019. Maybe it’s time for a road trip or long drive and save on fuel prices.That also contributes to low shipping costs. Many online sites are offering no or low shipping costs right now.In time for school to start, technology is cheaper and many places are offering discounts on laptops and electronic devices and headphones that can be used for at-home learning. There are also 16 states with "no sales tax" weekends to encourage shopping. 1259

来源：资阳报