济南男人硬起来后怎么很快就软了济南肥大前列腺,济南坐的时候睾丸隐隐作疼,济南感染前列腺怎么办,济南该怎么治疗阳痿早泄好,济南医院排名男科,济南的比较好的男子医院,济南检查性疾病多少钱

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California has recorded a half-million coronavirus cases in the last two weeks, overwhelming hospitals in urban centers and rural areas. Gov. Gavin Newsom says a projection model shows California could have 100,000 hospitalizations in the next month. Mobile field hospitals are being set up outside facilities to supplement available bed space. At least three are being set up in the Los Angeles and Orange County area, which hit 0% ICU bed availability last week. Other "alternative care" facilities, as the governor refers to them, have been set up near Sacramento and along the Mexican border about 50 miles east of San Diego.“The ICU is at 105% capacity,” Orange County Supervisor Doug Chaffee said of St. Jude. “They’re using every available bed. The emergency department has an overflow ... All the Orange County hospitals are in the same situation. It is dire, so they’ll soon be erecting a tent in the parking lot, probably for triage. I think what we’re seeing is not a surge, but a tsunami.”The governor says he’s likely to extend his stay-at-home order for much of the state. He acknowledged the orders for the Southern California and San Joaquin Valley regions will probably be extended. The orders remain in place for three weeks, and are triggered when a region's available ICU bed capacity dips below 15%. Both of those regions, which combined cover 23 of 58 counties and the lower half of the state, have an ICU bed availability level of 0% according to the California Department of Public Health. The San Francisco Bay area has an ICU bed availability of 13.7%, it's at 16.2% in the Sacramento region and 28.7% in Northern California. 1686

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A staunchly conservative political party in deep-blue California will get to keep its name after the governor vetoed a bill aimed at banning what state lawmakers say are misleading monikers.Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday he had vetoed a bill that would have banned political parties from using "no party preference," ''decline to state" or "independent" in their official names.The bill would have applied to all political parties. But it was aimed at the American Independent Party, which has been an option for California voters since 1968.More California voters are registering with no party preference, now accounting for 28.3% of all registered voters. If "no party preference" were a political party, it would be the second largest in the state behind the Democrats.Critics say the American Independent Party has benefited from this trend because its name confuses voters into believing they are registering as independents. The party makes up 2.59% of California's registered voters, making it the third largest political party in the state after the Democratic Party at 43.1% and the Republican Party at 23.6%.In 2016, the Los Angeles Times surveyed the party's registered members and found most did not know they had registered to vote with the party. But Newsom said he vetoed the bill because he worried it was unconstitutional."By requiring one existing political party to change its current name, this bill could be interpreted as a violation of the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution," Newsom wrote in his veto message.Representatives for the American Independent Party did not respond to an email and phone call seeking comment. The party's website says it nominated Donald Trump for president in 2016 and "God willing, 2020."Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg, the bill's author, warned the mistaken registration could have electoral consequences. People registered with another political party would not be allowed to vote in the state's pivotal Democratic presidential primary in March.But Newsom signed another bill by Umberg that could help people rectify any registration mistakes. The law, signed Tuesday, allows voters to register to vote or update their registration at all polling places on election day.If people show up to vote in the Democratic presidential primary and are ineligible because they are registered with the American Independent Party, they can change their registration on the spot and cast a ballot. The ballot would be conditional, meaning it would not be counted until after the person's registration could be verified. 2676

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets."Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets.California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them.In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group's argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.Benitez had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect with a 2017 ruling.Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said the judge's latest ruling may go much farther by striking down the entire ban, allowing individuals to legally acquire high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades."We're still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he struck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one," Michel said.Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that his office is "committed to defending California's common sense gun laws" and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps.The goal of the California law is to deter mass-shootings, with Becerra previously listing as an example the terrorist assault that killed 14 and injured 22 in San Bernardino.Benitez, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, called such shootings "exceedingly rare" while emphasizing the everyday robberies, rapes and murders he said might be countered with firearms.The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after a former congresswoman who survived a mass shooting, is also still evaluating whether the decision applies more broadly, said staff attorney Ari Freilich.But Freilich predicted the "extreme outlier decision" will be overturned on appeal and criticized a judge "so deeply out of touch that he believes mass shootings are a 'very small' problem in this country."Becerra previously said similar Second Amendment challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts, with at least seven other states and 11 local governments already restricting the possession or sale of large-capacity magazines. The conflicting decisions may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state."Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets.In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone."She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped.The magazine ban was included in 2016 legislation that voters strengthened with their approval of Proposition 63, which was championed by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.In a statement, Newsom criticized the judge's ruling."This District Court Judge's failure to uphold a ban on high-capacity magazines is indefensible, dangerous for our communities and contradicts well-established case law," the governor said. "I strongly disagree with the court's assessment that 'the problem of mass shootings is very small.' Our commitment to public safety and defending common sense gun safety laws remains steadfast." 4228

Ronald “Khalis” Bell, a co-founder and singer of the group Kool & the Gang, has died. He was 68. Publicist Sujata Murthy says Bell died Wednesday morning at his home in the U.S. Virgin Islands with his wife by his side. The cause of death has not been released. Kool & the Gang grew from jazz roots in the 1960s to become one of the major groups of the 1970s, blending jazz, funk, R&B and pop. After a brief downturn, the group enjoyed a return to stardom in the ’80s. The group won a Grammy in 1978 for their work on the soundtrack for “Saturday Night Fever.”In addition to vocals, Bell also played the sax for the band. Like most bands, Kool and the Gang stopped touring in March due to the coronavirus pandemic. 735

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The Trump administration will not immediately give billion it revoked from California's high-speed rail project to another project, according to a legal agreement reached Wednesday between the two.The Federal Railroad Administration announced last week it was revoking the money, prompting California to sue on Tuesday. Beyond the lawsuit, the state planned to seek a temporary restraining order halting the federal government from giving the money to a different rail project.The new agreement means the state won't file the restraining order, but it does not change the status of the lawsuit.California is trying to build a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco, a venture expected to cost upward of billion. The 9 million is for a segment of track already under construction in the Central Valley that must be completed by 2022.The Federal Railroad Administration has argued California hasn't made progress and can't meet that deadline. California, meanwhile, has faulted the federal government for cutting off the partnership with the project and says it has no basis for revoking the money several years ahead of the deadline.The agreement signed Wednesday says the money won't be awarded elsewhere unless the federal government goes through its typical process for awarding grant money. It says the Trump administration has no current plans to start that process, which would take at least four months. 1473