
Fixing my accents comprehension problem - Void_
https://medium.com/@vojto/fixing-my-accents-comprehension-problem-adda9a52a8ae#.ahimelp5m
======
emonna
BEIJING: China will double the number of AIDS patients it treats with
traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), officials have said, part of a broader
push to increase the use of the ancient practice in the country's medical
system.

The promotion of TCM is part of a five-year plan from the State Council,
China's cabinet, to tackle HIV/AIDS.

"The number of people living with AIDS who are treated with traditional
Chinese medicine should be twice what it was in 2015," the State Council said
on its website Sunday (Feb 5).

The plan outlined collaboration between traditional Chinese medicine
departments and national health and family planning commissions "to find a
therapeutic regimen which combines traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and
Western medicines".

The TCM push aligns with a recent effort by the government to make the
practice a priority for both development and publicity.

TCM, dating back thousands of years, treats ailments using herbal mixtures and
physical therapies such as acupuncture and cupping.

The science behind such remedies has long been questioned. Last month medical
researchers disputed a study claiming that acupuncture could cure babies of
colic.

In late December the Chinese legislature passed its first TCM law, which will
allow practitioners to be licensed and make it easier for them to open
clinics.

There are about 450,000 TCM practitioners across the country, according to the
State Council Information Office.

The government sees the practice as a cost-saving alternative to modern
healthcare.

The new initiative to tackle HIV/AIDS will aim to reduce "AIDS-related
homosexual behavior" by at least 10 per cent and mother-to-children
transmission rates to less than four per cent.

In a 2015 report China told the UN that it had 501,000 cases of HIV/AIDS as of
the end of 2014.

\- AFP

------
emonna
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s executive order on immigration has prompted a
constitutional showdown that could leave a mark on the law for generations and
seems likely to end in a landmark Supreme Court decision.

A ruling by the court on Mr. Trump’s travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim
countries could help answer some crucial legal questions: How much independent
constitutional authority does the president have over immigration, and how
much power has Congress given him?

The likely answer to both questions: a lot. But other parts of the
Constitution may temper or defeat that power. Among them are the due process
and equal protection clauses and the First Amendment’s ban on government
establishment of religion.

Here is a look at the leading arguments in the case. What have the judges
said?

Many trial judges around the country have blocked aspects of Mr. Trump’s
executive order. But none have issued an order as broad as the one by Judge
James Robart, a federal judge in Seattle, who blocked the key parts of the
executive order, which had suspended travel from the seven countries and
limited the nation’s refugee program. Continue reading the main story Related
Coverage

    
    
        Trump Clashes Early With Courts, Portending Years of Legal Battles FEB. 5, 2017
        Lifting of Travel Ban Sets Off Rush to Reach U.S. FEB. 5, 2017
        Where Trump’s Travel Ban Stands FEB. 5, 2017
        Trump Protesters Borrow From Tea Party to Put Pressure on Lawmakers FEB. 5, 2017
    

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

The case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, in San Francisco. That court on Saturday declined to issue an
immediate stay of Judge Robart’s order, but it indicated that it would weigh
in soon after additional briefs were filed, with the last one due Monday
afternoon. After it rules, an appeal to the Supreme Court seems likely.

Judge Robart’s brisk ruling contained almost no reasoning. By contrast, Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton, of the Federal District Court in Boston, issued a 21-page
decision on Friday refusing to block the program and discussing the legal
arguments in detail.

Judge Gorton also sketched out the broader picture.

“The rich immigrant history of the United States has long been a source of
strength and pride in this country,” Judge Gorton wrote. “Conversely, the
public interest in safety and security in this ever-more dangerous world is
strong as well.” The balance, he wrote, tipped in favor of Mr. Trump. How
broad is the president’s constitutional power?

Article II of the Constitution confers authority on the president, the Supreme
Court has said, to conduct foreign affairs and address immigration.

In their brief to Judge Robart, lawyers for Washington State, one of the two
plaintiffs, along with the State of Minnesota, said there were constitutional
checks on these powers. “While courts generally give more latitude to the
political branches in the immigration context, this does not mean that the
political branches can act with impunity,” the brief said.

“Federal courts,” the brief said, “have no more sacred role than protecting
marginalized groups against irrational, discriminatory conduct.”

In the Ninth Circuit, the Trump administration said judges were ill-equipped
to decide cases involving national security. “Unlike the president,” the
administration’s brief said, “courts do not have access to classified
information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in
particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the
United States, or gaps in the vetting process.”

Noah G. Purcell, the solicitor general of Washington State, appeared to
concede in court that there were areas in which Mr. Trump was entitled to act.
But he asked the court to protect people whose lives had been changed by Mr.
Trump’s order in a flash.

“The focus of our claim,” he said, “is on people who have been here and have,
overnight, lost the right to travel, lost the right to visit their families,
lost the right to go perform research, lost the right to go speak at
conferences around the world. And also people who had lived here for a long
time and happened to be overseas at the time of this order, which came with no
warning whatsoever, and suddenly lost the right to return to the United
States.”

------
torekiso
[https://www.reddit.com/r/sb51live2017tv/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sb51live2017tv/)

~~~
emonna
HOUSTON -- As soon as New England Patriots kicker Stephen Gostkowski was
satisfied with his Lombardi trophy selfie, the plan was to pass the 22-inch,
7-pound sterling silver bauble into the waiting arms of special teams captain
Matthew Slater. By then, though, the trophy had already made two full circuits
of the crowded, joyous locker room inside NRG Stadium. It had been smooched,
hugged, pumped, cradled and caressed by nearly every team member. ("Chest hair
or no chest hair?" Gostkowski had laughed as he fiddled with his shirt collar
before posing with Lombardi.) The once-shimmering world championship prize was
looking a little, well, "nasty" is what lineman Marcus Cannon shouted when he
saw the splotchy, smudgy condition of the trophy headed for the beloved and
respected Slater, a six-time Pro Bowl pick. "Naw, naw, naw, this won't do for
Slate," yelled Cannon. "Give me that thing."

    
    
        "Chest hair or no chest hair?"
        Patriots kicker Stephen Gostkowski, while fiddling with his shirt collar before posing for a Lombardi selfie
    

Cannon, a West Texas native and TCU grad who made the key block on James
White's 2-yard TD run in overtime to cap one the greatest comebacks in sports
history, wasn't finished cleaning things up for the Patriots on this historic
night. He intercepted the trophy before it reached Slater and grabbed a big
blue bath towel with one hand and a fistful of Purell from a wall dispenser
with the other. After a flurry of buffing and wiping, he delivered a proper
Lombardi trophy, shiny and spotless, to his esteemed teammate.

It made sense. After five Super Bowl titles since the 2001 season, the
Patriots have more recent experience than anyone in the care and handling of
the most prized possession in sports.

The trophy, named in honor of the five-time NFL champion coach Vince Lombardi
and built from a design sketched on a cocktail napkin during a 1966 lunch
between Pete Rozelle and Tiffany & Co.'s Oscar Reidner, made its first
appearance inside NRG Stadium with 1:57 left and while the whole world thought
it was still going to Atlanta. A white-gloved rep from Tiffany & Co., which
handcrafts the Italian silver in a four-month process each year, took the
trophy out of its familiar robin egg blue velvet bag at the 10-yard line near
the Falcons bench. There, he held it through the end of regulation and into
overtime as the Patriots completed their stunning comeback.

Editor's Picks

    
    
        Behind the scenes of Super Bowl 51
    
        The Patriots' historic comeback against the Falcons was seen across the globe by hundreds of millions. We take you behind the scenes of Super Bowl LI.
        Super Bowl LI in pictures
    
        Behind Super Bowl MVP Tom Brady and New England's offense, the Patriots made a historic comeback to secure their fifth Vince Lombardi Trophy for Brady and coach Bill Belichick.
    

At game's end, tradition dictates that the Tiffany rep hand the trophy off to
a former NFL great for a 30-yard walk through a gantlet of players and to the
foot of the postgame awards podium. This year, the task fell to former Patriot
and three-time Super Bowl champ Willie McGinest. In what has to be the most
NFL moment ever, a worldwide audience of millions saw and heard McGinest take
the shiny, clean artwork from a guy wearing white gloves and stomp through a
mob of sweaty, bloodied, exhausted players who slobbered all over it while
McGinest screamed at them to "kiss this [expletive] trophy, man, [expletive]
kiss it!"

------
torekiso
Researchers believe they have the answer to why some people find certain
noises, such as another person's chewing, so annoying.

A study from Newcastle University, published in the Current Biology journal
(view study here), suggests this phenomena is linked to a key part of the
brain that processes emotion.

Experts say for those diagnosed with misophonia certain sounds can lead to
severe anxiety and even panic attacks.

From the study:

Overall, our data show that for misophonics, trigger sounds cause
hyperactivity of AIC and an abnormal functional connectivity of this region
with medial frontal, medial parietal, and temporal regions; that there is
abnormal myelination in medial frontal cortex that shows abnormal functional
connectivity to AIC; and that the aberrant neural response mediates the
emotional coloring and physiological arousal that accompany misophonic
experiences. Together, our data suggest that abnormal salience attributed to
otherwise innocuous sounds, coupled with atypical perception of internal body
states, underlies misophonia. With the available data, it is not possible to
decide whether misophonia is a cause or consequence of atypical interoception,
and further work is needed to delineate the relation between the two.

Misophonia does not feature in any neurological or psychiatric classification
of disorders; sufferers do not report it for fear of the stigma that this
might cause, and clinicians are commonly unaware of the disorder. This study
defines a clear phenotype based on changes in behavior, autonomic responses,
and brain activity and structure that will guide ongoing efforts to classify
and treat this pernicious disorder.

Read more here.

Neuroscientists reviewed patients' brain scans and found the emotions area of
the brain goes into overdrive when the patient is listening to chewing,
eating, drinking and even sounds such as heavy breathing.

Sign up for ClickOnDetroit breaking news alerts and email newsletters Search
for a specific story:

Search ...

Copyright 2017 by WDIV ClickOnDetroit - All rights reserved.

Sponsored Content This Game Will Eat Days of Your Life This Game Will Eat Days
of Your Life Vikings A Modern House Made of Redwood, Glass and Stone A Modern
House Made of Redwood, Glass and Stone Mansion Global RANKED: NBA All-Time
Rosters RANKED: NBA All-Time Rosters PointAfter The Worst Romantic Comedies of
All Time The Worst Romantic Comedies of All Time PrettyFamous

Sponsored Content Ranking the Worst Rookie QB Busts Since 1980 PointAfter | By
Graphiq NBA Player J.J. Redick Lands a Brooklyn Penthouse for $4.25 Million
Mansion Global The Best No. 1 Picks in MLB Draft History PointAfter | By
Graphiq 30 Baby Names That Were Briefly Trendy MooseRoots | By Graphiq Derek
Jeter’s Charming West Village Rental Can be Yours for $7.5 million Mansion
Global More From ClickonDetroit 70-Year-Old Heads Back to College And Pledges
Fraternity Teen Livestreams Suicide Weeks After 12-Year-Old Did the Same
Neglected Girl, 9, Hadn't Showered in a Week, Was Only Fed SpaghettiOs: Cops
Live With Kellyanne: It's the 1998 Stand-Up Comedy Video Trump's Top Aide
Doesn't Want You to See Boyfriend Dresses in Panther Mascot Suit at 'School
Assembly' to Propose to School Principal Recommended by

------
torekiso
How much power has Congress given the president?

On Friday, defending Mr. Trump’s executive order in a Seattle courtroom,
Michelle Bennett, a Justice Department lawyer, cited Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Co. v. Sawyer, a 1952 decision in which the Supreme Court rejected President
Harry S. Truman’s assertion that he had the authority to seize steel mills
during the Korean War.

The most famous part of the decision is a concurrence from Justice Robert H.
Jackson, which set out a framework for considering clashes between
presidential power and congressional authority. The president has the most
power when he acts with congressional authorization, Justice Jackson said, and
an intermediate amount when Congress is silent. The president’s power is at
its “lowest ebb,” Justice Jackson wrote, when Congress has forbidden a
particular action.

Truman’s actions fell into the third category, Justice Jackson wrote. Ms.
Bennett, by contrast, said Mr. Trump’s order was in the first category.

“Here we have the president acting pursuant to power that Congress gave him,
which means, under the Youngstown steel seizure case, he’s acting at the apex
of his power,” she said.

A key part of immigration law does give the president broad power. It says,
“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of
aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the
United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem
necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as
immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions
he may deem to be appropriate.”

But another part of the law forbids discrimination “because of the person’s
race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence,” but only “in
the issuance of an immigrant visa.” The Trump administration argues that the
power to bar entry, the subject of the first law, is broader than the limits
on issuing visas. What about arguments based on religious discrimination?

Lawyers for Washington State have said that the executive order violates the
First Amendment’s prohibition against government establishment of religion
because its provisions on the refugee program favor minority religions.
“President Trump and his advisers have made clear that the very purpose of
this order is to tilt the scales in favor of Christian refugees at the expense
of Muslims,” they wrote in their brief to Judge Robart.

The Trump administration urged the Ninth Circuit to reject arguments based on
religious discrimination, even though Mr. Trump has said he meant to favor
Christian refugees. Judicial consideration of the president’s motives, the
brief said, would violate the separation of powers.

“The more searching inquiry envisioned by the states would create substantial
separation-of-powers problems, by permitting probing of the president’s
subjective motive in issuing the order,” the brief said. Could the case
founder on the issue of injury?

The states challenging the order face the initial hurdle of demonstrating that
they have suffered the sort of direct and concrete harm that gives them
standing to sue. Judge Robart ruled that they did, relying on a decision from
the federal appeals court in New Orleans, which said Texas could sue to
challenge President Barack Obama’s plan to defer the deportation of millions
of unauthorized immigrants and allow them to work.

“The executive order adversely affects the states’ residents in areas of
employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel,”
Judge Robart wrote. He said the states had been hurt because the order
affected their public universities and their tax bases.

In its Ninth Circuit brief, the Trump administration called the states’
asserted injuries “attenuated and speculative” and did not address the Texas
decision. In court in Seattle on Friday, Ms. Bennett said the government
disagreed with the Texas ruling.

Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter @adamliptak.

A version of this article appears in print on February 6, 2017, on Page A11 of
the New York edition with the headline: The President Has Much Power Over
Immigration, but How Much?. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe Continue
reading the main story Related Coverage

    
    
        Trump Clashes Early With Courts, Portending Years of Legal Battles FEB. 5, 2017
        Lifting of Travel Ban Sets Off Rush to Reach U.S. FEB. 5, 2017
        Where Trump’s Travel Ban Stands FEB. 5, 2017
        Trump Protesters Borrow From Tea Party to Put Pressure on Lawmakers FEB. 5, 2017

