四川血管瘤治疗医院排名成都哪里有治下肢动脉硬化,成都脉管畸形怎样治疗好,成都治疗腿部血管炎医院,成都静脉血栓中医怎么治疗,成都脉管炎病的治疗,成都婴幼儿血管瘤哪个医院治疗好,成都 前列腺肥大 医院

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California movie theaters can begin opening later this week if they limit theater capacity to 25% or no more than 100 attendees. State guidance released Monday adds movie theaters to a long list of entertainment and other businesses that can start reopening as the nation’s most populous state relaxes its stay-at-home order. Counties that meet certain metrics can start reopening movie theaters, bowling alleys, gyms, day camps, and a handful of other businesses starting Friday. RELATED:San Diego County announces reopening of day camps, campgrounds, and RV parksCalifornia officials releases guidelines on safely reopening schoolsGyms, other businesses begin preparing for California's June 12 reopening dateThe state recommends movie theaters implement reservation systems and limit seating and suggests moviegoers wear masks. Film and TV production may also resume subject to labor agreements. 932

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Californians soundly rejected a costly ballot measure Tuesday that would have allowed more rent control as a way to alleviate the state's housing crisis.Proposition 10 trailed by a roughly 30-point margin with nearly 4 million votes counted.It was one of the most expensive and contentious items on the ballot, attracting more than 0 million in campaign contributions.Opponents said the measure would have lowered real estate values and further decreased the state's already limited housing supply by discouraging building. Supporters argued more rent control would protect low-income people from being priced out of their homes.The failure of the measure preserves restrictions on rent control on apartments built after 1995, single-family homes and condominiums. It also preserves rules preventing cities and counties from telling landlords what they can charge new tenants.California has a disproportionately high rate of homelessness, and nearly a third of California renters spend more than half their income on rent, according to the state's housing agency.In light of their defeat, supporters called on Gov.-Elect Gavin Newsom to freeze rent increases and pressure lawmakers to repeal the restrictions Proposition 10 sought to end."The burden to act returns to the governor and the Legislature, who should work to represent Californians, not Wall Street landlords," said Christina Livingston, one of the leaders of the Proposition 10 campaign.Newsom opposed the measure, but said he would work to address the housing crisis.The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office predicted the initiative would have lowered the value of rental properties. Economic research generally shows that rent control benefits some individual renters but it limits supply overall and raises rents because it decreases incentives to build.RELATED CONTENT 1876

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A group of Democratic California lawmakers called Monday for the state to invest 0 billion to drastically reduce its carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels by 2030.A resolution proposed by Democratic Sen. Henry Stern would set the non-binding goal and also declare a climate emergency, citing recent devastating wildfires and the impacts of air pollution on child asthma. It comes as Democrats in Congress advocate for the passage of the Green New Deal, a massive investment in rebuilding the nation's infrastructure and workforce to fight climate change."We have to live in California, hopefully for the rest of our lives, and hopefully in a way that doesn't burn down our homes, that doesn't make our kids sick (and) allows us to get to work without losing our minds in traffic," Stern said on the steps of the state Capitol with students from eight different University of California schools behind him.The 0 billion would be spent over 12 years and come from existing pots of money, including the state's carbon emissions auction program and a gas tax increase to fund transportation projects. The resolution would say all of that money should be spent toward projects that reduce, sequester or remove greenhouse gas emissions.While Stern's resolution would not be binding, Democratic state Assemblyman Todd Gloria has introduced legislation to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The state's current goal is eliminating fossil fuel use for electricity by 2045 and to achieve carbon neutrality by that year, meaning the state takes as much carbon out of the atmosphere as it puts in.The goals are aggressive and ambitious even for California, a state viewed as a global leader on confronting climate change. The 2045 clean energy goal passed the 80-member state Assembly last year by just four votes, with some Democrats voting against it.Gloria's proposal would require an "immediate phase out of fossil fuels.""The emergency facing our state, our nation, our world is climate change, and don't let anybody tell you anything different," Gloria said.Stern's proposal, meanwhile, would call for the elimination of fossil fuels in the energy sector by 2030. He does not propose eliminating fossil fuel use in transportation, but drastically diminishing it. 2313

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California moved Friday to eliminate climate-changing fossil fuels from its fleet of 12,000 transit buses, enacting a first-in-the-nation mandate that will vastly increase the number of electric buses on the road.The California Air Resources Board voted unanimously to require that all new buses be carbon-free by 2029. Environmental advocates project that the last buses emitting greenhouse gases will be phased out by 2040.While clean buses cost more than the diesel and natural gas vehicles they will replace, say they have lower maintenance and fuel costs. Supporters hope creating demand for thousands of clean buses will bring down their price and eventually other heavy-duty vehicles like trucks.California has 153 zero-emission buses on the road now with hundreds more on order. Most of them are electric, though technology also exists for buses powered by hydrogen fuel cells."Every state could do a strategy like this," said Adrian Martinez, an attorney for Earthjustice, an environmental legal group that supports the rule. "This is something that California did first because we have major air quality and pollution problems, but this is something other states could pursue."Existing state and federal subsidies are available to help transit agencies absorb some of the higher costs of carbon-free buses, along with money from the state's settlement with Volkswagen over the German automaker's emission-cheating software.In approving the mandate, air board members cited both a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality along heavily trafficked transit corridors in smog-polluted cities.The transportation sector accounts for 40 percent of California's greenhouse gases, and those emissions are rising even as electrical emissions have fallen substantially.California needs to drastically reduce transportation emissions to meet its aggressive climate change goals.The California Transit Association, a lobbying group, does not oppose electrifying the fleet but is concerned that zero-emission buses can't match the performance of the existing fleet and that there isn't enough money available for the transition, said Michael Pimentel, who is leading the organization's work on the issue."We do want to work alongside the Air Resources Board and our partners at the state and federal level to address these concerns and to ultimately achieve the goal of fully electrified fleets by 2040," Pimentel said. 2471

Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies.The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day. 3303