成都治鲜红斑痣哪家好成都糖足医院哪家好,成都治血管畸形费用,成都那个医院开下肢动脉硬化手术较好,成都怎么治疗脉管炎病,成都肝血管瘤专治医院,成都哪有老烂腿治疗,成都静脉扩张手术费是多少

The cougar spotted traveling through Brookfield, Wisconsin last week was caught on video on someone's front porch.Surveillance video shared with Scripps station TMJ4 in Milwaukee by Dan and Bridget Guerndt shows the cougar coming out from trees. The cougar goes up the residents' driveway and puts its paws on the front window.The footage was captured at 6:30 a.m. on Sunday, February 18.On Saturday, a Brookfield resident called the Department of Natural Resources when they saw a cougar lying in their backyard, under a pine tree.Though they confirmed the animal was a cougar, officers were unable to neutralize it because of the surrounding homes and thick brush.DNR agents went back to the scene on Sunday morning, but the cougar was gone.The fifty pounds and approximately 1-year-old cougar was tracked, but the trail was lost.Experts believe this cougar was the same one that was spotted in Washington County two weeks ago. 967

The California NAACP is urging "The Star-Spangled Banner" be removed as the national anthem, according to the Sacramento Bee. The NFL has been embroiled in a national controversy regarding players kneeling for the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" before games. President Donald Trump has weighed in multiple times condemning players as being disrespectful for kneeling for the anthem.  413

The Carr Fire raging in Northern California is so large and hot that it is actually creating its own localized weather system with variable strong winds, making it difficult for experts to predict which way the blaze will spread.At least seven people were still missing in Shasta County, California, as shifting winds, dry fuel and steep terrain helped the monstrous fire engulf almost 100,000 acres by Sunday night, authorities said.The fire has claimed six lives, including a firefighter and bulldozer operator working to extinguish the blaze.Sixteen people had been reported missing, but nine of those have been found safe, according to Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, who spoke at a Sunday news conference.The fire, which started a week ago, has burned 98,724 acres and is just 20 percent contained, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as Cal Fire.Flames have destroyed at least 966 structures in the area, making it one of the top 10 most destructive wildfires in California history. In fact, 7 of the 12 most destructive fires have happened since 2015.PHOTOS: See damage done by Carr Fire in California"We are seeing more destructive, larger fires burning at rates that we have historically never seen," said Jonathan Cox, Cal Fire regional Battalion Chief. 1321

The fine print of newly released federal guidelines for reopening schools raises serious questions about whether in-person classes should resume at a time when COVID-19 rages around much of the country.Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under pressure from the White House, released a position paper highlighting “the importance of reopening America’s schools this fall.”But separate guidelines issued for K-12 school administrators, which drew less public attention, are much more cautious.“It is important to consider community transmission risk as schools reopen,” those CDC guidelines state.“Computer simulations from Europe have suggested the school reopenings may further increase transmission risk in communities where transmission is already high.”Buried at the bottom of the new CDC recommendation to re-open schools is a HUGE caveat! #COVID19 poses a low risk to kids “at least in areas with low community transmission.” That’s not where much of the country stands right now. 4/ pic.twitter.com/0D5CPxhlIb— Phil Williams (@NC5PhilWilliams) July 25, 2020 The new CDC guidelines suggest, “If community transmission levels cannot be decreased, school closure is an important consideration.”“Plans for virtual learning should be in place in the event of a school closure.”In Tennessee, several public and private schools are preparing to reopen even as almost every county in the state is showing what the Department of Health considers to be unacceptable rates of transmission of the coronavirus.Last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a dramatic clarification of its statement back in June that "all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.""This does not mean that we recommend that all schools open five days a week from the start of the school year," the academy’s Dr. Sean O'Leary told a congressional committee.“Many parts of the country are currently experiencing uncontrolled spread of COVID-19. While the AAP urges those areas to make in-person learning as the goal, we recognize that many jurisdictions will need to utilize distance learning strategies until cases decline."The vice chair of the academy's committee on infectious diseases, O'Leary told the subcommittee that, where there is uncontrolled community transmission, "it's inevitable that the virus is going to get into the schools, and schools are going to have to shut down."U.S. Surgeon General Jerome M. Adams also told CBS This Morning last week that a community's COVID-19 transmission rate is the single most important determinant of whether schools can safely reopen.School reopening advocates point to the emotional, psychological and educational importance of children being in the classroom – a position that the CDC guidelines reaffirm.“Schools provide safe and supportive environments, structure and routines for children, as well as other needed support services to children and families,” the CDC notes.Children are less likely to become ill when infected with the virus, and younger children are less likely to transmit the virus to others, the report adds.But a large-scale study out of South Korea recently reported that children ages 10-19 -- middle- and high-school ages -- can spread the virus as easily as adults.Also, in searching citations in the new CDC recommendation to re-open schools, it appears to completely leave out the large-scale South Korea study that found teens are likely to spread #COVID19 as readily as adults 5/ https://t.co/ABLPvpKQU5— Phil Williams (@NC5PhilWilliams) July 25, 2020 In addition, a new study – shared by the Tennessee Department of Health last week on Twitter – concluded that “young, previously healthy adults can take a long time to recover from COVID-19.” 3828

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