宜宾脸部填充对比图照片(宜宾双眼皮前后对比) (今日更新中)

utting a Band-Aid on things, it's all OK. But, no. What about our feelings? What about those people who died trying to put Puerto Rico back (together) again? People needed (electricity) because they had oxygen (machines). They were ill; they had cancer. They had other issues, health-wise. They needed the government, and the government failed them."She shared Ruiz's story, she said, so "at least someone will know he existed." 4726

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a Toronto restaurant to pay a black customer ,000 Canadian dollars for racially discriminating against him and his friends.Emile Wickham was celebrating his 28th birthday with three friends when the group decided to grab a bite at Hong Shing Chinese Restaurant on May 3, 2014.The four were the only black patrons in the restaurant, Wickham said, and they were stunned when the waiter demanded they pay before they were servedWhen the group complained, they were told it was policy, according to?their testimony."I still felt skeptical, so then I approached other tables," Wickham told CNN. No one else he spoke with had been asked to prepay, he said."There was frustration initially. And that frustration turned into a feeling of dejection and sadness," he said. 819

The photos from doctors came quickly and in succession: blood-stained operating rooms, blood-covered scrubs and shoes, bullets piercing body parts and organs.The pictures on Twitter were an emotional response to a smackdown by the powerful gun industry lobby, which took issue with the American College of Physicians' call late last month for tighter gun control laws. The recommendations included bans on "assault weapons," large capacity magazines and 3D-printed firearms."Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane. Half of the articles in Annals of Internal Medicine are pushing for gun control. Most upsetting, however, the medical community seems to have consulted NO ONE but themselves," the National Rifle Association tweeted.Physicians across the United States seized on the phrasing, taking to Twitter with 22,000 comments and the hashtags #thisismylane and #thisisourlane, posting photos of their encounters with gun violence and offering their own personal stories of treating such wounds.The debate gained new urgency this week with the shooting death of an emergency room doctor outside the hospital where she worked, as physicians argue shootings are a public health crisis that they must play a key role in trying to stem. Dr. Tamara O'Neal was killed Monday outside a hospital in Chicago in what police say was a dispute with her ex-fiance. The shooter and two other people — a responding police officer and a resident in the hospital's pharmacy — also died."It just shows that not only is this is in our lane, but this happens to us," said Dr. Joseph Sakran, a trauma surgeon at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore who as a 17-year-old was shot in the throat by a stray bullet fired during a dispute at a high school football game.Sakran created a Twitter account @ThisIsOurLane which in just two weeks has attracted nearly 15,000 followers. They include Dr. Peter Masiakos, a pediatric trauma surgeon in Boston, who wrote "The Quiet Room" just hours after the mass shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, about breaking the news that a loved one has died."We need to start talking about this as a public health issue. Politics aside, we have a problem that no other country has, and we shouldn't," Masiakos said.About 35,000 people each year are killed by guns in the United States, and about two-thirds are suicides. That's about 670 people per week and among the largest number of civilian gun deaths in the world.The world's highest rate of gun deaths is in El Salvador with a rate of 72.5 per 100,00; the rate in the U.S. is 3.1 per 100,000. Among all European countries, the rate never breaks 1 gun death per 100,000, according to Small Arms Survey, a Switzerland-based research organization that examines firearms and violence."These are not just statistics. These are people, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters that are being killed," Sakran said. "The worst part of my job is having to go out and talk to these families and to tell them that their loved one is never coming home."It's not the first time that medical professionals have taken on powerful industries: auto companies over seat belts, Big Tobacco over cigarettes and toys that posed choking hazards. It's also not the first time that the gun lobby has pushed back against the medical community or researchers it considers to be biased. In the 1990s, Congress barred the Centers for Disease Control from conducting research that advocated or pushed for gun control; while it didn't ban research from being conducted, it did have a chilling effect.More recently, the NRA backed legislation in Florida — eventually overturned in court — that would have barred doctors from asking patients about guns in the home.Dr. Stephanie Bonne, a trauma surgeon in New Jersey, was in the hospital when she saw the dispute playing out on Twitter."I was reading this, and I was like 'Stay in my lane', are you kidding me? Gun violence is something I deal with every day. We're mopping it up in the hospital every day," she said. "My second sort of reaction is maybe people ought to see what this lane is really all about."Bonne works at a Level I trauma center — the top-level hospital for treating the most serious cases. Her hospital sees about 600 gunshot wounds each year, and she described the toll that unfolds: medically, psychologically and financially."It's always tragic and it's always preventable," Bonne said.Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in the San Francisco Bay area, examines the dead. She took to Twitter to push back at the gun lobby, posting: "Do you have any idea how many bullets I pull out of corpses weekly? This isn't just my lane. It's my (expletive) highway.""The chutzpah, the gall is what really got to me," Melinek told The Associated Press. "The NRA seems to think they've cornered the market on expertise when it comes to guns. And that's not correct."She's conducted about 300 autopsies involving gunshot wounds, about half of those suicides. She's seen the damage from bullets and believes more and better research would help prevent gun violence.Would GPS tracking on firearms or high-tech trigger locks make firearms safer, for example?Dr. Arthur Przebinda, director of the gun rights advocacy group Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, said the pushback from physicians is largely driven by more liberal forces within medical academia and based on ignorance about firearms.He described it as old, tired debate that shows a knee-jerk bias against firearms. Rather than stripping away constitutional rights, physicians should focus on finding ways to study the underlying causes of violence, he noted."These virtue-signaling physicians would be in their lane if they pursued better surgical techniques, better postoperative treatments. They are in the wrong profession if they want to cure society's ills," Przebinda said. "If that was their life's calling, they should have pursued a career path in psychology, criminology or the clergy."___This story has been amended to correct the first name of Dr. Judy Melinek. 6087

The number of US citizens seeking refuge in Canada skyrocketed last year.Exactly 2,550 Americans applied for asylum in Canada in 2017, according to data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. That's more than a sixfold increase from the 395 Americans who applied in 2016.It's believed that the hard-line immigration policies of President Donald Trump have fueled the increase in the number of Americans fleeing to Canada.The United States supplied the third-highest number of asylum-seekers to Canada in 2017, topped by Haiti (7,785 applicants) at No. 1 and Nigeria (6,005 applicants) at No. 2.There's a large number of asylum-seekers this year as well, with 1,215 Americans requesting refuge in Canada through the end of August.Canadian officials said that while Canada remains an open, welcoming country, crossing into it is not "a ticket for permanent residence.""Coming to Canada, asking for asylum in Canada is not a guarantee for permanent residence in Canada," Louis Dumas, a spokesman for the immigration ministry, said last year. 1063

The man taking over the Justice Department following Jeff Sessions' firing as attorney general has argued that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation went too far.Matthew Whitaker, who was Sessions' chief of staff, is expected to take over oversight of Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump campaign associates colluded with Russia. A source close to the President told CNN that the idea of Whitaker ending or suppressing the Russia probe is not an option as of now.In a CNN op-ed written last year, Whitaker argued that Mueller is "dangerously close to crossing" a red line following reports?that Mueller was looking into Trump's finances.He argued that Mueller does not have "broad, far-reaching powers in this investigation," but that the investigation's limits are clearly defined by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's?May 2017 letter appointing Mueller."It is time for Rosenstein, who is the acting attorney general for the purposes of this investigation, to order Mueller to limit the scope of his investigation to the four corners of the order appointing him special counsel," he wrote then. "If he doesn't, then Mueller's investigation will eventually start to look like a political fishing expedition."Back in 2017, Whitaker also told CNN's Don Lemon that he could see a scenario where Sessions is replaced with an attorney general who "reduces (Mueller's) budget so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt."Trump announced on Twitter Wednesday that Whitaker would fill the role of attorney general while he finds a permanent replacement to be "nominated at a later date."Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation after it emerged that he had failed at his Senate confirmation hearing to disclose two pre-election meetings with Russia's ambassador to Washington at a time when Moscow was accused of interfering in the presidential race. The recusal was harshly criticized by Trump and led to the deterioration of their relationship.Whitaker was a CNN legal commentator and former US attorney who directed the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a conservative ethics watchdog group. He ran in the Republican primary for Iowa Senate in 2014.--This opinion article was originally published on August 6, 2017, and authored by now acting AG Matthew Whitaker:Last month, when President Donald Trump was asked by The New York Times if special counsel Robert Mueller would be crossing a line if he started investigating the finances of Trump and his family, the President said, "I think that's a violation. Look, this is about Russia."The President is absolutely correct. Mueller has come up to a red line in the Russia 2016 election-meddling investigation that he is dangerously close to crossing.According to a CNN article, Mueller's investigators could be looking into financial records relating to the Trump Organization that are unrelated to the 2016 election. According to these reports, "sources described an investigation that has widened to focus on possible financial crimes, some unconnected to the 2016 election." The piece goes on to cite law enforcement sources who say non-Russia-related leads that "involve Trump associates" are being referred to the special counsel "to encourage subjects of the investigation to cooperate."This information is deeply concerning to me. It does not take a lawyer or even a former federal prosecutor like myself to conclude that investigating Donald Trump's finances or his family's finances falls completely outside of the realm of his 2016 campaign and allegations that the campaign coordinated with the Russian government or anyone else. That goes beyond the scope of the appointment of the special counsel.In fact, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's letter?appointing special counsel Robert Mueller does not give Mueller broad, far-reaching powers in this investigation. He is only authorized to investigate matters that involved any potential links to and coordination between two entities -- the Trump campaign and the Russian government. People are wrongly pointing to, and taking out of context, the phrase "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" to characterize special counsel's authority as broad.The word "investigation" is clearly defined directly preceding it in the same sentence specifically as coordination between individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump and Russia. The Trump Organization's business dealings are plainly not within the scope of the investigation, nor should they be.Indeed, Sunday on Fox News, Rod Rosenstein acknowledged Mueller had limited authority and would need to seek his permission to expand the investigation.Beyond the legal reading, the broad authority argument defies plain logic: If the special counsel could investigate anything he wants, why would there even need to be a letter spelling out the specific limits of the investigation?One of the dynamics at play here is that people are conflating this investigation and Kenneth Starr's 1994 investigation into President Bill Clinton. While partly understandable at first glance, the two investigations are not comparable -- not only have more than two decades passed since then, but a completely new law and legal framework governing separate investigations has also passed. Starr was an independent counsel and Mueller is a special counsel, the two words are different for a reason.Any investigation into President Trump's finances or the finances of his family?would require Mueller to return to Rod Rosenstein for additional authority under Mueller's appointment as special counsel.If he were to continue to investigate the financial relationships without a broadened scope in his appointment, then this would raise serious concerns that the special counsel's investigation was a mere witch hunt. If Mueller is indeed going down this path, Rosenstein should act to ensure the investigation is within its jurisdiction and within the authority of the original directive.I've prosecuted several financial crimes at the federal level and I've also defended plenty in my private practice. From this unique vantage point, I can understand how a motivated prosecutor, in a broad investigation into the financial affairs of high-profile individuals, can become overzealous toward the targets of such probes -- with calamitous results. While no one is above the law, in situations such as this, any seasoned prosecutor must use discretion both judiciously and expertly.It is time for Rosenstein, who is the acting attorney general for the purposes of this investigation, to order Mueller to limit the scope of his investigation to the four corners of the order appointing him special counsel.If he doesn't, then Mueller's investigation will eventually start to look like a political fishing expedition. This would not only be out of character for a respected figure like Mueller, but also could be damaging to the President of the United States and his family -- and by extension, to the country. 7167

来源：资阳报