重庆肾结石在哪里疼有什么症状重庆胆结石手术费用多少钱,肝内胆管结石怎样治疗重庆,重庆肾结石会不会引起腰痛,重庆碎石医院哪里好,重庆经皮肾镜碎石取石术全过程,重庆6mm肾结石治疗最佳方案,肾结石在哪个部位重庆

The University of Notre Dame has withdrawn as the host site of the first presidential debate, the university announced on Monday.Notre Dame had been set to host the first presidential debate on Sept. 29.In a statement, the university said it made the decision to withdraw after consultation with the St. Joseph County Health Department and with the unanimous support of the executive committee of the university's board of trustees.The Rev. John Jenkins, president of the University of Notre Dame, made what he called "this difficult decision because the necessary health precautions would have greatly diminished the educational value of hosting the debate on our campus."Notre Dame follows the University of Michigan in opting not to host a debate. The Oct. 15 debate that was originally scheduled to be held in Ann Arbor, Michigan, will be held in Miami instead.In a letter to the campus community, Jenkins said that "the inevitable reduction in student attendance in the debate hall, volunteer opportunities and ancillary educational events undermined the primary benefit of hosting — to provide our students with a meaningful opportunity to engage in the American political process."The Commission on Presidential Debates on Monday announced that the first presidential debate will now be co-hosted by Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic and held at the Health Education Campus in Cleveland.It will be the second CPD-sponsored debate hosted by Case Western Reserve University. In 2004, the university was the site of the Vice Presidential Debate."We are honored to host this presidential debate at our shared Health Education Campus,” Cleveland Clinic CEO and President Tom Mihaljevic, M.D., and Case Western Reserve University President Barbara R. Snyder said in a joint statement. “This pandemic has highlighted the critical importance of health care and scientific discovery in unprecedented ways. To have the presidential candidates discuss these issues in our innovative learning space represents a tremendous opportunity for both institutions – and our entire region.”Notre Dame has hosted six presidents at commencement ceremonies through the years — more than any university in the nation other than the military academies — but this would have been the university's first presidential debate, the university said in a statement."I am grateful to the many members of the university community who have devoted countless hours planning this event, and to the Commission on Presidential Debates leadership for their professionalism and understanding," Jenkins said. "But in the end, the constraints the coronavirus pandemic put on the event — as understandable and necessary as they are — have led us to withdraw."This year's debates, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, are:Tuesday, Sept. 29 — Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic, ClevelandWednesday, Oct. 7 — Vice presidential debate at the University of Utah, Salt Lake CityThursday, Oct. 15 — Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, Miami, Fla.Thursday, Oct. 22 — Belmont University, Nashville, Tenn.This article was written by WRTV in Indianapolis and WEWS in Cleveland. 3201

The US believes that Ibrahim al-Asiri, a master al Qaeda bombmaker, is dead.The Saudi Arabian native was the mastermind behind the "underwear bomb" attempt to detonate a flight above the skies of Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009.A senior US official expressed "confidence that he was killed."Two US officials told CNN al-Asiri was killed by a CIA drone last year. The CIA is not commenting on his fate.CNN reported last week that al-Asiri may have been killed in Yemen last year, according to a UN team that tracks terrorist groups.Counterterrorism analysts say there should be significant skepticism over al-Asiri's possible demise for one major reason: His group, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has not released any statement acknowledging his death, nor a eulogy celebrating his martyrdom.Al-Asiri is widely credited with perfecting miniaturized bombs with little or no metal content that could make it past some airport security screening. That ability made him a direct threat to the US, and some of his plots had come close to reaching their targets in the US.In addition to the "underwear bomb" attempt, al-Asiri was behind the so-called "printer bomb" plot. That plan saw him send explosive devices inside printers to the US. The two packages were being shipped from Yemen through Dubai and the UK in October 2010.Both were addressed to synagogues in Chicago.Al-Asiri appeared to have taken on a more public-facing role within al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in recent years, including purportedly recording a speech the group released in 2016.The most recent public statement attributed to him was a written speech released by the group on September 12, 2017, to coincide with the 16th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The speech promised an ongoing war against the United States.CNN cannot independently verify he authored these statements.Few expect al-Asiri's expertise to die with him. Officials believe he trained a number of apprentices. And since 2014, US officials have been concerned that bomb-making expertise built up by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has migrated to other groups, including al Qaeda operatives in Syria.Meanwhile, ISIS is among the terrorist groups that have worked to develop laptop bombs, prompting large electronics to be temporarily banned in the cabin on certain flights to the United States and the UK from the Middle East last year. 2414

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration can end census field operations early, in a blow to efforts to make sure minorities and hard-to-enumerate communities are properly counted in the crucial once-a-decade tally.The decision was not a total loss for plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the administration’s decision to end the count early. They managed to get nearly two extra weeks of counting people as the case made its way through the courts.However, the ruling increased the chances of the Trump administration retaining control of the process that decides how many congressional seats each state gets — and by extension how much voting power each state has.The Supreme Court justices’ ruling came as the nation’s largest association of statisticians, and even the U.S. Census Bureau’s own census takers and partners, have been raising questions about the quality of the data being gathered — numbers that are used to determine how much federal funding and how many congressional seats are allotted to states.After the Supreme Court’s decision, the Census Bureau said field operations would end on Thursday.At issue was a request by the Trump administration that the Supreme Court suspend a lower court’s order extending the 2020 census through the end of October following delays caused by the pandemic. The Trump administration argued that the head count needed to end immediately to give the bureau time to meet a year-end deadline. Congress requires the bureau to turn in by Dec. 31 the figures used to decide the states’ congressional seats — a process known as apportionment.By sticking to the deadline, the Trump administration would end up controlling the numbers used for the apportionment, no matter who wins next month’s presidential election.In a statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the Supreme Court’s decision “regrettable and disappointing,” and said the administration’s actions “threaten to politically and financially exclude many in America’s most vulnerable communities from our democracy.”Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high court’s decision, saying “respondents will suffer substantial injury if the Bureau is permitted to sacrifice accuracy for expediency.”The Supreme Court ruling came in response to a lawsuit by a coalition of local governments and civil rights groups, arguing that minorities and others in hard-to-count communities would be missed if the census ended early. They said the schedule was cut short to accommodate a July order from President Donald Trump that would exclude people in the country illegally from being counted in the numbers used for apportionment.Opponents of the order said it followed the strategy of the late Republican redistricting guru, Thomas Hofeller, who had advocated using voting-age citizens instead of the total population when it came to drawing legislative seats since that would favor Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.Last month, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California sided with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction suspending a Sept. 30 deadline for finishing the 2020 census and a Dec. 31 deadline for submitting the apportionment numbers. That caused the deadlines to revert back to a previous Census Bureau plan that had field operations ending Oct. 31 and the reporting of apportionment figures at the end of April 2021.When the Census Bureau, and the Commerce Department, which oversees the statistical agency, picked an Oct. 5 end date, Koh struck that down too, accusing officials of “lurching from one hasty, unexplained plan to the next ... and undermining the credibility of the Census Bureau and the 2020 Census.”An appellate court panel upheld Koh’s order allowing the census to continue through October but struck down the part that suspended the Dec. 31 deadline for turning in apportionment numbers. The panel of three appellate judges said that just because the year-end deadline is impossible to meet doesn’t mean the court should require the Census Bureau to miss it.The plaintiffs said the ruling against them was not a total loss, as millions more people were counted during the extra two weeks.“Every day has mattered, and the Supreme Court’s order staying the preliminary injunction does not erase the tremendous progress that has been made as a result of the district court’s rulings,” said Melissa Sherry, one of the attorneys for the coalition.Besides deciding how many congressional seats each state gets, the census helps determine how .5 trillion in federal funding is distributed each year.San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said that his city lost 0 million in federal funding over the decade following the 2010 census, and he feared it would lose more this time around. The California city was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.“A census count delayed is justice denied,” Liccardo said.With plans for the count hampered by the pandemic, the Census Bureau in April had proposed extending the deadline for finishing the count from the end of July to the end of October, and pushing the apportionment deadline from Dec. 31 to next April. The proposal to extend the apportionment deadline passed the Democratic-controlled House, but the Republican-controlled Senate didn’t take up the request. Then, in late July and early August, bureau officials shortened the count schedule by a month so that it would finish at the end of September.The Senate Republicans’ inaction coincided with Trump’s order directing the Census Bureau to have the apportionment count exclude people who are in the country illegally. The order was later ruled unlawful by a panel of three district judges in New York, but the Trump administration appealed that case to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court decision comes as a report by the the American Statistical Association has found that a shortened schedule, dropped quality control procedures, pending lawsuits and the outside politicization of some parts of the 2020 census have raised questions about the quality of the nation’s head count that need to be answered if the final numbers are going to be trusted.The Census Bureau says it has counted 99.9% of households nationwide, though some regions of the country such as parts of Mississippi and hurricane-battered Louisiana fall well below that.As the Census Bureau winds down field operations over the next several days, there will be a push to get communities in those two states counted, said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, one of the litigants in the lawsuit.“That said, the Supreme Court’s order will result in irreversible damage to the 2020 Census,” Clarke said.___Follow Mike Schneider on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeSchneiderAP 6792

The restaurant industry has been reshaped in the past six months. We’ve seen more pivots to take-out and outdoor dining, but could we see a more drastic shift.New data from Bank of America shows sales at independent chains are still down about 15%."Right now, it is just sad. People are exhausting their personal savings. They are shutting their businesses and they just don’t know what to do,” said Andrew Rigie.Rigie is with the New York City Hospitality Alliance. In NYC alone, at least 1,289 restaurants have closed since March, according to the Office of New York Comptroller. Across the country, Yelp has gathered data from its platform that show that number is around 16,000.“It’s a really dire situation,” added Rigie.The situation is the direst for independent restaurants, because the same Bank of America study that showed sales still down 15% at mom and pop restaurants, shows chain restaurant sales are now up 2% higher than they were pre-pandemic.Industry experts believe a continuing trend of these numbers could reshape the industry.Chains restaurants are now in a better position to replace space occupied by folded restaurants or struggling ones, potentially shifting the flavor of the restaurant industry toward chain food.“I’m not knocking or saying there is anything bad about a chain, but we really want our beloved mom and pop businesses,” said Rigie. "We really need support from the federal, state and local governments to ensure these places are able to recover.”Legislation was presented to Congress in June, the Restaurants Act, to help struggling independent restaurants with grant money. However, there has been no vote on the bill or any signs it could pass.Without additional help, the latest estimate by the Independent Restaurant Coalition is that upwards of 85% of independent restaurants could fold by the end of the pandemic. 1870

The US Postal Service is asking for the biggest price jump on stamps in its history.Facing pressure from the Trump administration to address a revenue shortfall, the Postal Service on Wednesday proposed raising the price of 1-oz. letters from 50 cents to 55 cents, which would be a record nominal increase if approved. The price of each additional ounce would go down slightly.The request was made by the USPS' board of governors, which has been operating on an emergency basis?because of a lack of confirmed members. It will have to be approved by the Postal Regulatory Commission."The Governors believe these new rates will keep the Postal Service competitive while providing the agency with needed revenue," the USPS said in a press release. "The Postal Service has some of the lowest letter mail postage rates in the industrialized world and also continues to offer a great value in shipping."Rates for mailing services -- which includes catalogs and magazines as well as letters -- are pegged to consumer prices. Those have been rising faster this year, but still limited the price hike for that category to 2.5 percent.Prices for packages, however, can float with market rates. The USPS wants to boost Priority Mail prices by an average of 5.9%. A small flat-rate box that costs .20 to ship, for example, would next year cost .90.The steep price increases come at a time when the USPS' losses have been mounting, dragged down in part by a requirement that the quasi-public agency pre-fund the cost of retiree health benefits.As letters and advertising mailers have been replaced by e-mail and online ads, the USPS has been making less and less money. Revenue from first-class mail declined from .4 billion in fiscal year 2015 to .6 billion in 2017.Package revenues fueled by the rise in e-commerce have been a bright spot, bringing in .5 billion in 2017, up from billion in 2015. But it hasn't made much of a dent in the .7 billion net deficit that the Post Office has accumulated over the years.The White House has proposed privatizing the Post Office, a plan that postal unions protested in nationwide demonstrations on Monday.President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the terms of USPS' contract to deliver Amazon packages, the details of which are confidential. The Postal Service says it makes a profit through the arrangement."Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer?" Trump tweeted last December. "Should be charging MUCH MORE!"In April, Trump ordered a review of the Postal Service's business model by a task force led by the Treasury Department. Postal Service spokesman Carl Walton says the review has been completed, but that the agency hasn't seen it yet."I think they're waiting until after the elections," Walton said. "We're waiting just like everybody else." 3041