济南勃起不硬早射怎么办济南恢复早泄的好办法,济南阴茎神经过于敏感,济南男人五十岁性功能没有怎么办,济南前列腺治疗仪多少钱,济南早泄有得治疗,济南阳痿早泄方法治,济南生殖器医院

The Broadway League, the trade association that regulates theater performances in New York City, said Monday that all Broadway shows would be canceled through the end of 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic.The group says that those who have purchased tickets to shows before Jan. 3, 2021 will automatically receive an email detailing refund and exchange information."Every single member of our community is eager to get back to work sharing stories that inspire our audience through the transformative power of a shared live experience," Thomas Schumacher, the Broadway League's Chairman of the Board, said in a statement released Monday. "The safety of our cast, crew, orchestra and audience is our highest priority and we look forward to returning to our stages only when it’s safe to do so. One thing is for sure, when we return we will be stronger and more needed than ever.”“Our membership is working closely with the theatrical unions and in concert with key experts and some of the greatest minds inside and outside of the industry to explore protocols for all aspects of reopening. We are focused on identifying and implementing necessary measures that will enable us to resume performances safely for Broadway audiences and employees,” Charlotte St. Martin, the president of the Broadway League, said in a statement. “We are determined to bring back the people who rely on this industry for their livelihood, and to welcome back all those who love this vital part of New York City, as soon as it is safe to do so. "Broadway performances in New York shut down on March 12, the day before President Donald Trump declared the pandemic a national emergency. Last month, the Broadway League said it was canceling all performances through Sept. 6. 1759

The fog hangs heavy over Great Bay along the New Hampshire seacoast on a raw as Josh Carloni and his wife, Jessica, emerge through the mist on their fishing boat.They are the owners of Rising Tide Oyster Company, a family-owned business that typically sells thousands of oysters a year to restaurants across New England. But when the novel coronavirus hit back in March, their sales disappeared overnight as restaurants were forced to closed.“Every time you turn on the news, there’s just more bad news out there,” said Carloni. “Our business is down maybe 20 percent.”The Carlonis and oyster fisherman across the country were finding themselves in similar positions. They suddenly had thousands of perfectly healthy oysters that needed to be harvested, but there was no place for them to go.“Oyster farmers had been growing these oysters for three years, and suddenly, they didn’t have a market at all. The pandemic hit oyster farmers across the country hard,” explained Alix Laferriere, who serves as the Marine and Coastal Director for the Nature Conservancy of New Hampshire.Laferriere and her team thought there was little they could do to help struggling oyster farmers until a few months ago when an anonymous donor gifted a million donation.With that sudden infusion of cash, Laferriere and her team got to work. With help from the Pew Charitable Trust, they developed the Supporting Oyster Aquaculture and Restoration (SOAR) initiative to buy back five million oysters that needed to be harvested. The program is being deployed in seven states: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Washington state.But it’s not just helping fisherman’s bottom line, it’s also helping estuaries and reefs at the bottom of the ocean.Turns out oysters don't just taste good; they can do good for the environment. That grant bought back 10,000 of Josh Carloni's oysters. And he isn't just throwing them into the ocean. Laferriere and her team have strategically told him where they should be deployed across the Great Bay Estuary along New Hampshire's coast. Eventually, the oysters will latch on to reefs below and help restore the damage done by decades of overharvesting, pollution and disease.“It’s this win-win opportunity where we get to put oysters back in the bay and help our local oyster farmers,” explained Briana Group, who also works with the Nature Conservancy of New Hampshire.One adult oyster can filter up to 30 gallons of water a day, and when they’re filtering that water, they’re removing nitrogen from the ecosystem.While the program is giving fisherman an infusion of cash, it’s also giving reefs and estuaries across the country an infusion of clean water, courtesy of a 3-inch mollusk.“There’s nothing bad about this situation; it’s only good,” Laferriere said as she looked out over the ocean.For fisherman like Josh Carloni, the program means he gets to keep his business afloat for another year, while at the same time, giving back to the environment. And it’s all because of COVID-19.“It makes us feel really good about doing something good for the environment,” he said. 3134

The former Louisville Metro Police Officer charged with wanton endangerment for firing his gun into Breonna Taylor's apartment pleaded not guilty during a Monday arraignment. Brett Hankison and his lawyer participated in the arraignment remotely. The former officer pleaded not guilty to the charges he faces. The judge made two stipulations during Monday's arraignment: Hankison has to attend every court hearing, even if it is remotely, and second, Hankison cannot have any firearms. His attorney pushed back, arguing Hankison might need a weapon to protect himself after recent threats. The judge declined the objection. Hankison was charged by a grand jury with three counts of wanton endangerment last week. Of the three officers who fired their weapons that night in March when Taylor was killed, Hankison was the only one charged as a result of the grand jury investigation. Officers were at Taylor's apartment in the early morning hours of March 13 to serve a narcotics warrant in connection with an investigation into an ex-boyfriend. Taylor's current boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, says he did not hear police announce themselves, and says he fired a "warning shot" toward the front door as police broke down the door. Police returned fire. Taylor was shot several times and later died. An autopsy recently released reveals more details about the deadly shot. Hankison is charged with firing several rounds into the building following the initial shootout, allegedly putting Taylor's neighbors in danger. Hankison faces a maximum of 5 years in prison if found guilty. He was fired from the police department in June. In a press conference following the grand jury's announcement, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said two other officers, Jonathan Mattingly and Myles Cosgrove, were "justified" in using lethal force because they had been fired upon first. The two officers and Hankison are also facing an internal police investigation into the shooting. Mattingly and Cosgrove remain on administrative duty.The decision not charge officers with Taylor's homicide has prompted protests in Louisville and throughout the country. 2148

The full program for Aretha Franklin's funeral service has been released. The Queen of Soul will be laid to rest following a four-day "homegoing" celebration. View the full program below: FINAL Program for Service by WXYZ-TV Channel 7 Detroit on Scribd 275

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