南昌市哪个医院的心理咨询师好南昌市躁狂症医院那好,南昌那个专治精神障症,南昌市什么地方可以治幻幻症,南昌哪家治恐惧症的医院比较好,幻幻症那个医院好南昌,南昌听幻那的好,南昌癫痫病老年癫痫怎么治

For years, the incredible discovery of the Titanic's wreckage at the bottom of the ocean in 1985 was thought to have been a purely scientific effort.But that was a ruse.Speaking to CNN on Thursday about now-declassified events, Robert Ballard, who discovered the Titanic, said that the expedition was part of a secret US military mission to recover two sunken nuclear submarines on the bottom of the ocean."They did not want the world to know that, so I had to have a cover story," Ballard said.The true story of what happened now serves as a museum exhibit at The National Geographic Museum in Washington, which is open through the end of the year.Ballard was a commander in the US Navy and a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The Navy offered him the funding and opportunity to search for the Titanic, but only if he first explored the USS Thresher and the USS Scorpion, two American nuclear subs that sank in the 1960s."We knew where the subs were," Ballard said. "What they wanted me to do was go back and not have the Russians follow me, because we were interested in the nuclear weapons that were on the Scorpion and also what the nuclear reactors (were) doing to the environment."The search for the Titanic served as a great cover story, and the press was "totally oblivious to what I was doing," he said.When his team finished exploring the Scorpion and Thresher, they had just 12 days left in their trip to search for the Titanic.The famed ship that sank on its maiden voyage was found on the ocean floor at a depth of more than 12,000 feet in the North Atlantic Ocean."When we found the Titanic, we naturally were very excited, because it was a tough job. We got it, scoring the winning goal at the buzzer," Ballard said.The famous discovery set off major press attention, but the expedition's true purpose was kept under wraps. A New York Times story from the days after the discovery features a series of denials from officials about the project.Navy spokesman Capt. Brent Baker said at the time that the project was simply to test if the oceanographic system worked, and a scientist denied a military involvement.''There was nothing classified,'' Dr. Robert Spindel, the head of the Woods Hole Ocean Engineering Department, told the Times.Not so, Ballard admitted, and that wasn't the only one."I cannot talk about my other Navy missions, no," he said. "They have yet to be declassified." 2450

First Lady-elect Dr. Jill Biden took to Twitter to respond to a Wall Street Journal opinion-editorial column in which the author called on the incoming First Lady to drop "Dr." before her name."Together, we will build a world where the accomplishments of our daughters will be celebrated, rather than diminished," Dr. Biden tweeted Sunday. 347

Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who served as sheriff of Arizona's Maricopa County’s from 1993 to 2017, filed a libel lawsuit against The New York Times and a member of its editorial board Tuesday evening. Court documents obtained by show Arpaio is suing The Times and Michelle Cottle for the publication of Cottle’s August 2018 op-ed titled, “Well, at Least Sheriff Joe Isn’t Going to Congress - Arpaio’s loss in Arizona’s Senate Republican primary is a fitting end to the public life of a truly sadistic man.” In the opinion piece, Cottle calls Arpaio’s “24-year reign of terror” “medieval in its brutality,” and makes reference to the former Sheriff’s controversial practices, which include the creation of Tent City, the implementation of chain gangs, and forcing prisoners to wear pink underwear. The Times published Cottle’s op-ed after Arpaio was defeated by Martha McSally in the primary race for Jeff Flake's Senate seat.In the complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Arpaio’s team noted,  “While the Defamatory Article is strategically titled as an opinion piece, it contains several false, defamatory factual assertions concerning Plaintiff Arpaio.”A complaint within the lawsuit states Arpaio plans to run for Senate in 2020. The publication of Cottle's op-ed may prevent a successful run for Arpaio, according to court documents. "Plaintiff Arpaio’s chances and prospects of election to the U.S. Senate in 2020 have been severely harmed by the publication of false and fraudulent facts in the Defamatory Article," the lawsuit notes. "This also harms Plaintiff financially, as his chances of obtaining funding from the Republican establishment and donors for the 2020 election have been damaged by the publication of false and fraudulent representations in the Defamatory Article."Arpaio is seeking 7,500,000 in damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. He is being represented by Larry Klayman, the chairman and general counsel for Freedom Watch, a conservative watchdog group.  2088

Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell gave investors reason to cheer on Wednesday when he suggested that the Fed may slow down its interest rate hikes.The Dow surged on the news and closed up 600 points, or more than 2%, in midday trading. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq each rose about 2% as well.Powell reassured investors that the Fed wouldn't risk killing off economic growth by continuing to aggressively raise rates next year."Our gradual pace of raising interest rates has been an exercise in balancing risks," Powell said during a speech at the Economic Club of New York. "We know that moving too fast would risk shortening the expansion. We also know that moving too slowly -- keeping interest rates too low for too long -- could risk other distortions in the form of higher inflation."Powell noted that rates remain relatively low and that they are just below what many economists consider "neutral for the economy -- that is, neither speeding up nor slowing down growth."Investors seemed to interpret Powell's comments as a sign that the Fed, which is widely expected to raise rates again at a meeting next month, may now only hike rates once or maybe twice at most in 2019 as opposed to earlier forecasts of three or four hikes.The Dow's most cyclical stocks were among the biggest gainers. Shares of Boeing (BA), Caterpillar (CAT), Microsoft (MSFT) and Apple (AAPL) helping to lead the rally.In fact, only four Dow stocks -- Verizon (VZ), United Technologies (UTX), DowDupont (DWDP) and Procter & Gamble (PG) -- were trading lower Wednesday afternoon.Matthew Cheslock, a trader at Virtu Financial, told CNNMoney editor-at-large Richard Quest on "Markets Now" Wednesday that the market interpreted Powell's comments as meaning that we are "closer to normal rates. I think that was what really sparked the market to go higher."Cheslock added that some of Powell's remarks about the market not being in a bubble were reassuring as well.Powell's comments may assuage concerns about the Fed possibly going too far with rate increases, a criticism leveled by President Donald Trump.But Tobias Levkovich, Citigroup chief US equity strategist, told Quest that the market may be overreacting."I'm not dancing or partying right at the moment," he said, adding that the Fed has talked about gradual rate hikes "for a very long time." "Maybe [the markets] were just worried it would be worse," Levkovich said.To that end, Trump, who chose Powell to replace former Fed chief Janet Yellen, has often bashed him and the Fed on Twitter and in interviews for the rate hikes.In fact, Trump attacked Powell again in a Washington Post interview Tuesday, saying he was "not even a little bit happy" with Powell and that the Fed was making a mistake with so many rate hikes.Trump even added that sometimes decisions he makes with his "gut" matter more than what other people's brains tell him.Whether or not investors were using their guts or brains when deciding to jump back into stocks Wednesday remains to be seen. But it's clear that the bulls were back in charge on Wednesday."Markets Now" streams live from the New York Stock Exchange every Wednesday at 12:45 p.m. ET. Hosted by Quest and CNNMoney's business correspondents, the 15-minute program features incisive commentary from experts.You can watch "Markets Now" at CNNMoney.com/MarketsNow from your desk or on your phone or tablet. If you can't catch the show live, check out highlights online and through the Markets Now newsletter, delivered to your inbox every afternoon.The-CNN-Wire 3545

Fifty thousand well-paid jobs, a billion investment, winning the affection of perhaps America's most dynamic and fast-growing company: Why wouldn't a city go all out to win Amazon's second headquarters?A few reasons, actually. And as a fight over taxes in Amazon's home city of Seattle comes to a head, some of the contenders are starting to worry about the potential side effects that could come with it.The dispute in Seattle has arisen from the rapid escalation in housing prices and a resulting surge in homelessness, due in no small part to the influx of highly paid workers employed by Amazon and other area tech companies. To help alleviate its shortage of affordable housing, several city council members proposed a?26-cent tax for each working hour at companies with more than million in annual revenue — the largest impact of which would fall on Amazon, with its 45,000 local employees.Amazon took exception to the proposal, saying that it would pause construction planning on a new skyscraper downtown and might sublease space in another that's already being built.Although Amazon has taken some steps to help ease the city's homelessness problem, such as donating space to shelter 200 homeless people in one of its new buildings and additional million to a city-managed fund for affordable housing, the measure's backers took Amazon's move as an ominous sign."Obviously Amazon can afford to pay the 26 cents," says Seattle Councilmember Mike O'Brien, who supports the tax. "It's really a question of, do they feel loved? And they're offended. They're like, 'you don't recognize all the good stuff we do in the community and we get blamed for all the bad stuff. We want to go somewhere that's more generous to us, and we're pissed.'"The council members' vote on the tax is scheduled for Monday.Amazon declined to comment for this story.Now, Amazon's resistance has others wondering how the company could help blunt a Seattle-style affordability problem in the city it chooses for its HQ2 — or whether it would.In the shortlisted city of Dallas, for example, a 50,000-person outpost would make Amazon by far the city's largest private-sector employer. The metro area is already expanding fast, having added 86,000 jobs in 2017, led by the energy and financial services industries. Housing prices have already been escalating rapidly, as builders struggle to keep up with a hot job market, and city council member Phil Kingston worries that pouring on more growth without proper planning could make life difficult for current residents."It is entirely possible to have booming economic development that fundamentally doesn't benefit its host city," Kingston says.To head off an even worse housing crunch, Kingston would like to see Amazon build a campus with space for both retail and housing, and invest its own money in affordable housing in other parts of the city. The company has been meeting with nonprofits in its potential HQ2 host cities to discuss how it could help avoid displacing longtime residents.However, the spat in Seattle makes Kingston worry about Amazon's willingness to play cities off one another in order to avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of its rapid growth in the future."If you sleep with someone who's cheating on a spouse," Kingston jokes, "you already know for a fact that person is capable of cheating."Cities do have many tools at their disposal to cushion the impact of an influx of high-income newcomers on lower-income residents.Barry Bluestone, a professor specializing in urban economic development at Northeastern University in Boston, cautions against imposing per-employee taxes, like Seattle is proposing. Instead, he says, cities should rely on personal income and property taxes, which are less likely to repel businesses or keep them from growing."Seattle and Boston share a lot in common because we've been able to take advantage of new industries," Bluestone says. "The downside is, if you don't build more housing, prices go through the roof. The answer is not to constrain demand, but increase the supply of housing."In Boston, another Amazon HQ2 contender, Bluestone is pitching high-density developments aimed at millennials and empty-nesters who are downsizing. Large employers and educational institutions, he says, would then jointly hold the master lease to these buildings with the developers and sublease the units to employees or students. Absorbing those newer residents into apartment or condo buildings could take the pressure off the city's older housing stock that's more suitable for families.That type of development would be easier in many cities — particularly places like San Francisco and Washington D.C. — if they eased zoning restrictions on building height, unit size, and parking.But still, building low-income housing may never be profitable without subsidies, and extra tax revenue to finance it can be hard to find. Many cities, including Seattle and HQ2 hopefuls Dallas, Austin and Miami, are forbidden by state law from imposing any income taxes. Others have capped property or sales taxes.That's why some groups have taken the position that their cities shouldn't be pursuing Amazon at all, whether it asks for tax breaks or not. Monica Kamen, co-director of the 60-organization Fair Budget Coalition in Washington, D.C., thinks the city should prioritize smaller businesses and community-based entrepreneurship instead."The kind of development we're hoping to see is hyper-local, looking at the folks who need jobs most in our community," Kamen says. "We don't really need more giant corporations coming here to jump-start economic development."The hesitance among some to welcome Amazon comes from a recognition that for cities, growth is not an absolute win. It comes with challenges that, if not met, can decrease the quality of life for those who live there.That's why some backers of the Seattle measure say it might not be a bad thing if Amazon sent some of its jobs elsewhere, as it's already been doing. To Mike O'Brien, Seattle could slow down a bit and still have an incredibly healthy economy — maybe even one that allows other businesses to grow faster, if Amazon weren't sucking up all the available tech talent and downtown office space.But he has one warning for Amazon's prospective new hometowns: Don't wait until homeless encampments crowd the underpasses before doing something about housing."When they start growing at thousands of jobs a month, it's too late," O'Brien says. "So you need to tell Amazon, we need to know exactly what you're going to do, and we need a commitment up front."  6710