濮阳东方医院男科看早泄价格收费低(濮阳东方男科专业吗) (今日更新中)

INDIANAPOLIS — She wasn't the first woman in motorsports, but Danica Patrick has clearly left a large impact on the sport. From becoming the first woman to win an IndyCar race to making the jump to NASCAR where she stole the headlines by winning pole for the 2013 Daytona 500, Patrick's career has been nothing to scoff at. This year's Indy 500 will be bittersweet for Patrick, who announced last year that she'll be retiring after the race. But at 36-year-old, this is far from Patrick's final chapter. From her cookbook and clothing line to her wine-making in NAPA, she has a lot of love left to give to this world.Watch the video player above to hear more from Patrick on what life has in store after she retires from racing.   778

In the summer of 2013, Aimee Stephens sent her employer a letter explaining she was about to change her life. She was a transgender woman, and she intended to start dressing as such at work.She never expected then that she was about to enter into a yearslong legal dispute, one that might soon become a litmus test for lesbian, gay and transgender rights before the next US Supreme Court.Stephens had spent months drafting the message to management at R&G and G&R Harris Funeral Homes, a family-owned business in the Detroit area, she says. She was 52 years old at the time, and she had spent her entire life fighting the knowledge she was a transgender woman, to the point that she had considered ending her life.Now that she was coming out at work, she hoped her nearly six years of positive performance reviews, which had earned her regular raises, would count in her favor.But her boss, a devout Christian, told her the situation was "not going to work out," according to court documents. Thomas Rost offered her a severance package when she was fired, but she declined to accept it.She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor's enforcement agency, and the government sued the funeral home. The department accused the funeral home of firing Stephens for being transgender and for her refusal to conform to sex-based stereotypes.A district court agreed with the funeral home that the federal workplace discrimination law known as Title VII did not protect transgender people. But it found that the funeral home did discriminate against Stephens for her refusal to conform to its "preferences, expectations, or stereotypes" for women. The EEOC appealed.The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Stephens and the EEOC in March. The funeral home's lawyers accused the court of exceeding its authority by expanding the definition of sex in a way that threatens to "shift" what it means to be a man or a woman.In July, lawyers representing the funeral home asked the Supreme Court to take up the case to determine if transgender individuals are protected under Title VII's sex-based provisions. If the court takes up the case, it could have broader implications for the definition of sex-based discrimination. And it could impact case law that precludes firing anyone -- gay, straight or cisgender -- for not adhering to sex-based stereotypes."The stakes don't get much higher than being able to keep your job," said Harper Jean Tobin, director of policy for the National Center for Transgender Equality. "Harris Funeral Homes is a stark example of the job discrimination that so many transgender people face."Advocates say it's one of the most important current civil rights issues for the transgender community, along with similar considerations in education and health care. And they say it has been settled by years of case law. In the past two decades, numerous federal courts have ruled that federal sex discrimination laws apply to transgender and gender-nonconforming people, including Title VII, the Title IX education law, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.But lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian nonprofit representing the funeral home, say it's far from settled."No court or federal agency has the authority to rewrite a federal statute. That power belongs solely to Congress. Replacing 'sex' with 'gender identity,' as the 6th Circuit and the EEOC have done, is a dramatic change," senior counsel Jim Campbell said in a statement."What it means to be male or female shifts from a biological reality based in anatomy and physiology to a subjective perception. Far-reaching consequences accompany such a transformation." 3767

INDIANAPOLIS —  Scammers are getting smarter about how they take your hard-earned money.According to new research from the Federal Trade Commission, a new twist is emerging on a scam targeting grandparents — the scammers now want you to mail cold hard cash.Typically, scammers ask you to wire money or send gift cards, but now they're going the old-fashioned route.The FTC found a striking increase in the amount of money people ages 70 and older are losing to fraud.Currently, people 70 years old and older report losing about ,000 in cash, compared to ,000 to other age groups.Typically, the scammers pose as grandchildren or other friends and family in trouble and ask the victim to send them money in the mail.The FTC reports consumers have lost million over the last year to the friends and family scam, compared to million in the previous year."In about half of the reports of cash payments, people said the caller claimed to be in jail or other legal trouble," said Emma Fletcher, FTC spokeswoman. "About a third of these reports mentioned a so-called car accident (some mentioning texting or drinking while driving). In both cases, the callers play on people’s emotions and sense of loyalty. They may be told they’re the only person trusted enough to call for help, and they’re often told not to tell anyone."The scammers often use personal details from social media sites to make their stories more believable and often give very specific instructions about how to send cash."Many people said they were told to divide the bills into envelopes and place them between the pages of a magazine," Fletcher said. "Then, according to reports, they were told to send them using various carriers, including UPS, FedEx and the U.S. Postal Service."The FTC provides these tips to avoid the scam: 1823

In the early morning hours of November 8, 2000, the state of Florida, which had been previously called for Al Gore earlier in the evening, was called for George W. Bush.Within minutes, Gore called Bush to offer a concession, as customary, and wished him well as president-elect. As Gore prepared to take the stage to address disappointed, a stunning development occurred.Gore unexpectedly only trailed by several hundred votes. Gore called Bush to retract his concession, which media reports at the time suggest stunned Bush’s campaign.Over the course of a month, legal battles ensued as the pivotal state in that year’s election was very close. More than a month later, after Gore lost a Supreme Court battle, he again called Bush to offer his concession. This time, Gore addressed the nation.“Now the political struggle is over and we turn again to the unending struggle for the common good of all Americans and for those multitudes around the world who look to us for leadership in the cause of freedom,” Gore said. “In the words of our great hymn, "America, America": "Let us crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea. And now, my friends, in a phrase I once addressed to others: it's time for me to go.”For years, Election Nights took a familiar order: The networks project a winner, the losing candidate calls the winner, that candidate speaks, and then the winning candidate addresses the country.In 2016, the usual order was slightly broken. While Donald Trump had been declared the winner by the Associated Press, and Clinton called Trump to offer a concession, it was Trump who decided to speak to supporters. Clinton opted to address supporters the next morning."I congratulated Trump and offered to do anything I could to make sure the transition was smooth," Clinton wrote in her 2017 book “What Happened.” "It was all perfectly nice and weirdly ordinary, like calling a neighbor to say you can't make it to his barbecue. It was mercifully brief.”Like previous concession speeches, Clinton’s concession speech offered gratitude for supporters, and an offer to unite behind the newly-elected president.“Donald Trump is going to be our president,” Clinton said. “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power.“We don't just respect that. We cherish it. It also enshrines the rule of law; the principle we are all equal in rights and dignity; freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values, too, and we must defend them.”While elections of 2000 and 2016 were between two non-incumbent candidates, concessions can become more tricky when the sitting president loses to a challenger, like in 1980 or 1992. The last two times the incumbent president lost were not close elections.“I called Governor Reagan in California, and I told him that I congratulated him for a fine victory,” President Jimmy Carter said in 1980. “I look forward to working closely with him during the next few weeks. We'll have a very fine transition period. I told him I wanted the best one in history.”“I just called Governor Clinton over in Little Rock and offered my congratulations. He did run a strong campaign,” George W. Bush said in 1992. “I wish him well in the White House. And I want the country to know that our entire administration will work closely with his team to ensure the smooth transition of power. There is important work to be done, and America must always come first. So we will get behind this new President and wish him well.”Years later, Bush joined with Clinton to become a philanthropic duo. The two united to raise funds for disaster relief following the Indian Ocean earthquake of 2004, Hurricane Katrina of 2005 and the Haitian earthquake of 2010.Whether the customary order of events happen in 2020 remains in question as Trump has vowed to fight if the election is called in Joe Biden's favor. Currently, Joe Biden holds an advantage in enough states to become elected. 4004

It appears another week on Capitol Hill will come to a close without any sort of agreement on another stimulus plan. The US Senate adjourned on Thursday for the weekend, and won't resume until Monday.While Congressional Democrats, Senate Republicans and the White House are largely in agreement on the need for a stimulus, agreeing to a framework remains in question. The two sides are at odds over how much of unemployment should be supplemented by the federal government. There is also a debate on offering businesses liability protection from coronavirus-related lawsuits.On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats won’t back down from their request to have a 0 weekly unemployment supplement.“We're not having a short-term extension... We have said that we're going to have the 0,” Pelosi said.But what about criticism from Republicans that a 0 a week supplement to unemployment is more lucrative than working?“There are all kinds of reasons that weigh in on this pandemic,” Pelosi said. “People have to stay home if their children are not able to go to school or if they don't have childcare. There are a number of reasons. But none of them is 'I want to stay home because I make more money this way than other', maybe some of these employers could pay their workers more."Meanwhile at the White House, President Donald Trump said he is ready to take action on a few items via executive order if need be. With a federal student loan freeze set to lift in eight weeks, and eviction protection ending last week, Trump tweeted, “I’ve notified my staff to continue working on an Executive Order with respect to Payroll Tax Cut, Eviction Protections, Unemployment Extensions, and Student Loan Repayment Options” 1740

来源：资阳报