WhatsApp Facebook Odessa High School’s Broncho Legacy member Salma Lujan rehearses for their spring show Friday in the Performing Arts Center. Odessa High School’s Broncho Legacy will hit the stage with its spring show, “The Greatest Show,” at 7:30 p.m. May 10 at the OHS Performing Arts Center. Head Choir Director Ginger Storey said the group includes 16 vocalists. The show’s theme comes from the movie “The Greatest Showman,” about Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus. Story said the theme comes from the show’s opening number, which is from the movie. “We just thought that that was a great title and it worked well,” Storey said. “We’ve kind of gone with that theme.” The show also includes music from other shows and skits. OHS faculty member Aaron Cox will be the emcee for the show. She added that everyone has a solo and there is a duet. The students are all “pretty great,” she said. “I love them. They’ve been doing a really good job, working hard and just seeing the progress they’ve made since the beginning of the year has been pretty amazing, so we’re really pleased with them,” Storey said. “And I can tell, they’re getting really excited about the show.” “We’ve got several seniors we’ll be losing at the end of the year. I’m excited that they’re getting to end on such a good note,” she added. Storey said the music is difficult, but the students have handled it well. “We’ve been working on it since January and they’ve already gotten an opportunity to perform some of the music for different gigs and such,” she said. The group performs for a district meeting Monday night and for middle and elementary school students May 9. For Rene Rodriguez, Xan Carrasco, Jealousy Jones and Jeffery Howell, all 18-year-old seniors, this is their last show with Legacy. They have some mixed emotions about that. “It’s just kind of sad that we’ve had this long journey to get here and now it’s coming to an end,” Rodriguez said. “I’m just happy to have been with this group and been a part of legacy and I hope that I leave a mark here,” Jones added. Rodriguez said he thinks they all have that hope. They also hope that everyone who comes into legacy or moves up as upper classmen will make them proud “and continue to do great things.” Other students in the show were Justin Lawhone, Kierra Higgs and Salma Lujan. Broncho Legacy show is next week Twitter Pinterest Facebook Pinterest TAGS By Digital AIM Web Support – February 24, 2021 Twitter Local News WhatsApp Previous articleHIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL: Odessa High sweeps its way past San Angelo CentralNext articlePort Houston Weathers Historic Winter Storm Digital AIM Web Support
Tag Archiv: 上海lf已验证
Yet this all-or-nothing approach may not be to patients’ advantage First-time opioid prescriptions drop by 50 percent Pharma-to-doc marketing a vulnerability in opioid fight A nation nearer to the grave Another decline in U.S. life expectancy signals urgent need for more comprehensive strategy against opioids, suicide, specialist says Harvard-Michigan summit on issue explores addiction, policy Drug companies and distributors are facing thousands of lawsuits filed by U.S. cities, towns, and tribal governments whose communities have been ravaged by the opioid epidemic, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives from overdoses. Resolving all those legal actions separately is impractical, many legal experts say. Instead, lawyers for the states and attorneys general are exploring a solution that would resolve all the cases in a so-called “global deal.” Currently two drug companies and three distributors have proposed a settlement framework for such a deal worth approximately $48 billion that would include cash and medication to treat addiction. But many local governments are wary of such an arrangement, skeptical about how the money would be divided. The Gazette spoke with Alexandra Lahav, 2019-20 Matina S. Horner Distinguished Visiting Professor at Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, and professor at the University of Connecticut who studies tort law, about how global settlements operate.Q&AAlexandra LahavGAZETTE: What is a global settlement? Do all parties involved have to sign on or agree to it?LAHAV: A global settlement is an agreement that includes everyone involved in a large-scale litigation. An example is the class action. In a class action, all the people who meet a certain description — for example, cellphone customers during a certain period — are included in the class. They are represented by a named plaintiff, and if that lawsuit reaches a settlement they would all be bound by it and not be able to sue on their own. But there are other ways to reach a global settlement as well. For example, a defendant can offer a single amount in settlement on condition that everyone who has a claim against them agrees to be part of that settlement. What makes a settlement global is that everyone or nearly everyone agrees to sign on.GAZETTE: Can you talk a bit about the discussions around crafting an agreement to settle the thousands of opioids lawsuits?LAHAV: Right now, several attorneys general have suggested a global settlement in the opioids litigation. In that case, there is a very novel settlement structure on the table. The court has certified a class action, which includes all the cities and towns in the United States. They have the option to opt out of this class. If they don’t, then they are deemed to have agreed to the following structure: When a settlement is reached, the terms will be circulated to the class. If 75 percent approve of the settlement, it will bind everyone, even the 25 percent who did not approve. This is called a “negotiated class action,” and it has never been tried before. It was the idea of a Harvard law professor, William Rubenstein, and a Duke law professor, Francis McGovern.“It seems to me there isn’t an appetite to have all of these companies go bankrupt. For example, some of them distribute a lot of drugs that people depend on,” said Alexandra Lahav. Photo by Tony RinaldoGAZETTE: What is the challenge with this type of arrangement?LAHAV: There are a few. First, will everyone agree to join this settlement structure, knowing that they will be bound by a supermajority vote? Second, what about the attorneys general who have brought separate lawsuits, many of whom have opposed this settlement structure? Also what is the relationship between the state attorney general that represents the state as a whole, and all of the state’s subdivisions? For example, let’s say all the cities and towns in Massachusetts are included in a settlement. What then is the role of Attorney General Maura Healey? Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? I haven’t heard of anybody who knows the answer to this. It’s sort of a local government question in a way. And each state law is going to be different with respect to the power of cities and towns to sue when the state is also suing.GAZETTE: What’s the advantage of settling the lawsuits in this way?LAHAV: It’s not realistic that every case is going to go to trial. We are talking about many thousands of cases, and the system just can’t handle it. You can imagine a world where the judge holds a trial every six months, and the defendant settles one for $200 million here and another for $200 million there, and this goes on and on and on. That’s just not good for the communities, and it’s not good for the defendants. The idea behind a global settlement is to come up with something that benefits both and that resolves the dispute.GAZETTE: How would a global settlement like this compare to the Big Tobacco case in 1998?LAHAV: There are some similarities, in that both are public health crises that led to massive lawsuits. But there are also a few important differences. First, the tobacco cases were settled exclusively by state attorneys general. Here both attorneys general and individual municipalities are suing, and they have more competing interests. This makes it harder to reach a global agreement. Second, there appears to be less money available here than there was in the tobacco case, which settled for around $200 billion.GAZETTE: Do you think public anger and the desire for an admission of guilt or an apology factor into whether or not these cases end in a settlement, or are taken to trial?LAHAV: It seems to me there isn’t an appetite to have all of these companies go bankrupt. For example, some of them distribute a lot of drugs that people depend on. Others have played a relatively small role in the opioid crisis. That said, I do think people want accountability. But you know, one of the things about the American system that’s so interesting is that we do settle a lot of cases, and in most of those settlements, there is no apology, and there is no admission of liability. Instead, we sort of take the amount of money as the apology and the admission of liability, as if the dollars speak for the accountability.GAZETTE: What can be put in place in these settlements to stop similar crises from happening?LAHAV: This is a very difficult question to answer. The general theory of deterrence says that if wrongdoers are forced to pay for the harms they cause, then in the future companies considering wrongdoing will not do similar things. We hope that is the case. But it isn’t clear that a litigation can prevent the kind of regulatory failure that we saw in the opioids situation. If there is a settlement it’s likely to provide some relief to states and localities that are suffering, but it is not clear what preventative effect it will have.GAZETTE: What do you expect to happen next and what are the chances that the global settlement under consideration will be achieved?LAHAV: Right now there is a settlement proposal on the table proposed by several attorneys general for $48 billion over a period of years. But it is not clear that it will be agreed to by the lawyers for the local governments, who at the moment are opposing it. And some states have also voiced concerns. In order to reach a global settlement, that proposal would need the agreement of the lawyers representing this class of localities. I think we will see a settlement eventually, but when and for how much remains to be seen.GAZETTE: Are there specific reasons why plaintiffs like or prefer a global settlement, and why defendants prefer it?LAHAV: Defendants prefer a global settlement because they can wrap up their liability at once. This allows them to announce to the markets the scope of liability. It also gives them the opportunity to move on. Plaintiffs may prefer global settlements because they have greater leverage than they would individually to negotiate a better deal overall, but they may also feel left behind or left out, especially as they lose the power to negotiate individually.GAZETTE: Do you expect to see criminal trials in these cases? And would they also be solved with a global settlement?LAHAV: I don’t know if there will be criminal trials, but any criminal action would be completely separate from the global settlement we have been discussing. Any global settlement would only resolve civil claims against these companies.This interview was edited for clarity and condensed for space. Related Conference finds that it keeps users from seeking help, taints views of medical professionals Stigma of opioids a hurdle to solving crisis
Reports in Spain this week have claimed Real Madrid are getting cold feet at the potential costs involved in signing No 1 target Kylian Mbappe from PSG and will instead turn to Salah as a cheaper alternative this summer. As per Spanish outlet El Desmarque, Real are prepared to spend €150million to sign the Egyptian and, expecting his wages to also be far inferior to Mbappe, he is fast emerging as Los Blancos’ preferred option. Furthermore, the Spanish outlet claims they will make official contact for Salah once they have offloaded Gareth Bale, with the Welshman’s reported £600,000 a week package proving a problematic issue for potential suitors. However, amid reports Salah is tempted to try his luck in LaLiga, his close friend Mohamed Elneny has warned the Liverpool forward that a switch to the Bernabeu would be a ‘massive mistake.Advertisement Loading… Liverpool striker, Mohamed Salah, has been advised he’d be making a huge mistake by ditching Anfield for a transfer to Real Madrid this summer. Salah and Elneny are teammates in the Egyptian national team and they moved to Swiss side Basel together. And, speaking to Bein Sports Turkey [via Sport Witness], Elneny said: “For me, he’s currently playing for one of best the teams in the world. He’s a superstar at Liverpool. “If I were him, I’d stay at Liverpool. You see Eden Hazard is struggling at Real after he moved from Chelsea. Read Also:Neville: Salah using Liverpool as stepping stone for Real Madrid, Barcelona “Of course, Real Madrid is bigger than Liverpool, Barcelona is bigger than Liverpool. But he’s very settled at his current club and this Liverpool team is up there with the best. I don’t know what he thinks inside but I would definitely stay at Liverpool.” FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail分享 Promoted ContentMesmerizing Wedding Looks From Different Countries7 Train Stations In The World You Wish To Stay At Longer2020 Tattoo Trends: Here’s What You’ll See This Year9 Facts You Should Know Before Getting A TattooWhich Country Is The Most Romantic In The World?7 Facts About Black Holes That Will Blow Your Mind11 Most Immersive Game To Play On Your Table TopPortuguese Street Artist Creates Hyper-Realistic 3D GraffitiBirds Enjoy Living In A Gallery Space Created For ThemSome Impressive And Almost Shocking Robots That ExistCouples Who Celebrated Their Union In A Unique, Unforgettable WayThe Very Last Bitcoin Will Be Mined Around 2140. Read More
Newsroom GuidelinesNews TipsContact UsReport an Error “I haven’t thought about that yet,” Scott said. “Maybe after the All-Star break, we’ll talk about something like that if necessary. But right now, that’s something we haven’t discussed.”The Lakers resume play after the All-Star break on Feb. 20. Until then, Scott downplayed any concerns about Bryant’s health despite his recent absences. “We both have a real good feel now,” Scott said. “He’s proven he still has a lot left in the tank.” Once he accepted his dream job to coach the Lakers last summer, Byron Scott sounded fully aware his success would partly hinge on how well he managed Kobe Bryant’s workload in his 19th NBA season.“One thing I’ll never do is sacrifice a player’s health for a basketball game,” Scott said before the season started. “If it can hurt him in the long run, I won’t do it.”A little more than four months later, Scott conceded he has failed to live up to that standard. Bryant sat out of Sunday’s game against Portland at Staples Center in what marked the third game he has missed in the past four games. “I’m just trying to make up for all the minutes I played him early to get him more rest,” Scott said. “It was overload. My number was higher and I played to my number. That had a lot to do with him being worn down a little bit.” Scott initially played Bryant between 30 to 40 minutes per game and even exceeded that threshold. Scott justified the move because the Lakers went into overtime in two games and they also had a four-day window between games in another scenario. But Scott conceded he should have restricted Bryant all season to around 31-32 minutes per game and sat him at least one night on all sets of back-to-back games. Scott also repeated that Bryant suggested a more conservative approach, though Scott reported the Lakers’ star remained willing to take on the heavy workload. Bryant has averaged 23 points on a career-low 37.5 percent shooting. So what prompted Scott still to play Bryant more than even the Lakers’ star suggested?“I didn’t take into serious consideration of him missing almost a whole year and him just getting back,” Scott said, referring to Bryant playing only six games last season amid injuries to his left Achilles tendon and left knee. “I should have figured out that would have taken time. But watching his workouts and watching how great in shape he was in, I took a little too confidence expecting he could handle those kind of minutes. I was wrong.”Scott has since scaled back Bryant’s responsibilities. After sitting for three consecutive games last month, Bryant averaged 17 points on 40.9 percent shooting and eight assists in 31.4 minutes per game as a facilitator. Scott plans to rest Bryant on one night of the Lakers’ eight sets of back-to-back games, and will choose the first or second game depending on the schedule. Would Scott ever shut Bryant down for the 2014-15 season to preserve him for the final year of his contract?
India squandered the lead twice as Great Britain rallied to earn a 2-2 draw in the rain-delayed opening match at the 26th Sultan Azlan Shah Cup hockey tournament on Saturday.Akashdeep Singh (19th minute) and Mandeep Singh (48th minute) scored field goals to give India the lead two times in the match but only to see the Britons hit back through Tom Carson (25th) and Alan Forsyth (52nd).India survived a last-minute penalty corner that was awarded against them for an obstruction outside the circle.The penalty corner was confirmed after the video referral by India, but British captain Phil Roper sent his drag flick wide to the right.In the last encounter between these two teams, India had defeated Great Britain 2-1 in the Champions Trophy in London last year.The match started two hours behind schedule after the teams, who were warming up, had to scurry off the turf when lightening and heavy showers arrived in the afternoon.Heavy showers and lightening have been a feature of the tropical weather this season.Since the introduction of artificial pitches, hockey is no longer affected by normal rains, but matches are stopped midway at the slightest sign on lightening to avert any threat to players and officials on the pitch.As the Indian and British players ran off the pitch and the start of the game was deferred, organisers were bracing for frequent disruptions during the week-long tournament.India are scheduled to play four of their five round- robin league matches in the afternoon, exactly when dark clouds tend to drench the pitch at the Ipoh hockey stadium.advertisementGreat Britain launched the first raid in the ninth minute and Henry Weir took a reverse shot at the goal from top of the circle, only to see goalkeeper P.R. Sreejesh pad the ball away.Three minute later, India could have posed a danger to the British citadel when Akashdeep beat a defender guarding the circle with a shot that went straight to S.V. Sunil inside the scoring zone.But Sunil failed to trap the ball and British goalkeeper Harry Gibson was not tested.India were awarded their first penalty corner when Pradeep Mor’s diagonal ball landed on a defender’s foot in the circle.The penalty corner shot could not be taken as the push was not stopped, but Manpreet Singh, captain for this match, picked up the ball on the 25-metre line and sent a firm drive into the circle.Manpreet’s shot was padded by the British goalkeeper and the rebound went straight to Akashdeep, who capitalised on the chance by beating the custodian with his flick that put India in the lead in the 19th minute.The British team mounted an attack in the next minute, forcing India to pack the circle to thwart any danger. Great Britain were not to be denied the equaliser in the 25th minute when a fine foray by Ollie Willars split open the Indian defence.Dribbling parallel to the goal-line from the right flank, Willars sent a pass to Carlson, who made the most of his fine positioning by shooting into the goal.India had their second penalty corner cancelled on a video referral by Great Britain, who challenged the umpire’s view of a defender carrying the ball.When several replays could not conclusively establish if the ball had touched a defender’s foot, the video umpire reversed the decision.India reclaimed the lead in the 48th minute when Sunil relayed a narrow-angle pass from Manpreet on the left flank for Mandeep Singh, who deflected the ball past goalkeeper Gibson.India’s lead was short-lived as the determined British made the most of their 52nd minute attack even in a crowded circle.The Indian defenders were not able to clear the ball, which was switched around four Britons before Alan Forsyth’s flick beat Indian custodian Sreejesh.