阜阳治青春痘那家好阜阳治寻常尤的医院哪家比较好,安徽阜阳皮肤科 医院,阜阳皮肤白斑怎么治疗好,阜阳皮肤病医院在哪位置,阜阳治疗皮炎的哪家医院好,阜阳治疗日光性皮炎哪家医院好,阜阳疣正规医院

Stroll your local mall and you may spot some empty storefronts where mannequins once stood draped in the latest fashions — possible casualties of what some have dubbed the “retail apocalypse.”Not everyone agrees it’s all doom and gloom for brick-and-mortar stores, but challenges certainly exist. Major retailers have announced plans to close thousands of locations in the U.S., and the final tally for 2017 could number around 9,500 stores, according to projections from Fung Global Retail & Technology, an industry think tank.But just because a store turns out its lights doesn’t mean the end is also nigh for your store credit card. Its fate depends on the retailer’s business plans and decisions made by the bank that issues the card. The better you understand the process, the better you can manage your credit and keep it in good standing. 857

TEMECULA, Calif. (KGTV) - A three-alarm fire injured two people and prompted the evacuation of Pechanga Resort Casino in Temecula Monday. The fire broke out in an elevator shaft in the main resort complex just after 11 a.m., Riverside County Fire Department officials said. Pechanga spokeswoman Ciara Green told City News Service that the flames were confined to an elevator portal "in the original tower," which underwent a major expansion two years ago. One person suffered from burns and another suffered smoke inhalation. The burn victim was taken to Temecula Valley Hospital in stable condition, according to reports from the scene. "Out of an abundance of caution, team members and guests in the hotel tower were evacuated," Green said. "The incident was not near the casino." The fire was contained by 1 p.m. The cause of the flames is unknown. City News Service contributed to this report. 905

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has released the body camera video from the search executed at the Tallahassee home of fired Florida COVID-19 data curator Rebekah Jones.The footage was publicly released Thursday afternoon after Jones shared her own clip of the search on social media on Monday. Jones helped create Florida's COVID-19 dashboard before being terminated for insubordination in May."The actions of FDLE agents have been vilified over the past few days regarding the legal search warrant executed at the residence of Ms. Rebekah Jones. Because of inaccurate and incomplete statements given by certain individuals, the body camera video taken from outside the home is being made available," FDLE wrote in their statement.According to FDLE, the body camera video starts at 8:25 a.m., when a Tallahassee Police Department officer and an FDLE agent walk up to the door. At 8:26 a.m., FDLE said they began ringing the doorbell and knocking on the door. "During the initial approach, agents tried to minimize disruption to the children, attempting to speak with Ms. Jones at the door to explain the search warrant," FDLE wrote.Around 8:31 a.m., agents went to the back of the house and saw Jones’ husband going upstairs. They said that the situation continued for 23 minutes as Jones refused to cooperate even as agents called her multiple times.When they went inside the home, agents saw a video camera pointed in the direction of the front door, which seemed to be recording the entire time the agents were inside the home.Jones' video was not seized during the search warrant. Neither were electronic devices belonging to Jones’ children and husband after being "forensically examined."“I am proud of the way these FDLE agents performed. I can only hope those same individuals who criticized these public safety heroes will now apologize and condemn the actions of Ms. Jones," FDLE Commissioner Swearingen stated. "The media should also demand Ms. Jones release the entirety of the video she recorded while agents were present in her home.”To watch the first part of the video, click here: https://vimeo.com/489556079.To watch the second part of the video, click here: https://vimeo.com/489554493.This story originally reported on WTXL.com. 2288

The beloved 1990 classic "The Witches" gets a star-studded and charming rebirth on HBO Max, which adds diversity that the original movie lacked.Jahzir Kadeem Bruno plays an orphaned child who uncovers a secret society of witches who specialize in tormenting kids -- either eating them or transforming them into animals. Consistently funny and loaded with cheeky dialogue and stunning visuals, the film nails a storybook feel, and will no doubt cast a spell over families looking for something new to watch together amid the pandemic.A turbo mode Anne Hathaway guzzles an overacting potion for her role as the Grand High Witch, which is exactly the right approach. Allowing no restraint or nuance to taint her performance, she relishes her character's cartoonishly evil ways and commands every scene.Octavia Spencer serves as the emotional core as Agatha, a tough love-dealing, home remedy-loving grandmother. Stanley Tucci and Kristin Chenoweth cut it up in supporting roles, and Chris Rock serves as the disarming narrator.Remaking a beloved 1990 family film is a task lined with pitfalls, but director Robert Zemeckis uses the skills he developed in the likes of "Back to the Future," "Forrest Gump" and "Cast Away" to tiptoe the fine line between reinvention and paying tribute to the classic. In some ways, he stays truer to the 1983 Roald Dahl book than the original film, while taking enough creative license to make the story his own.While there's no budging the original out of the hearts and minds of those who grew up with it, this new version of "The Witches" is a skilled, welcome change-up that is as well built to last as its predecessor. RATING: 3 stars out of 4.Phil Villarreal TwitterPhil Villarreal FacebookPhil Villarreal Amazon Author PagePhil Villarreal Rotten Tomatoes 1798

Starting Social Security early typically means getting a smaller benefit for the rest of your life. The penalty is steep: Someone who applies this year at age 62 would see their monthly benefit check reduced by nearly 30%.Many Americans have little choice but to accept the diminished payments. Even before the pandemic, about half of retirees said they quit working earlier than they’d planned, often due to job loss or health issues. Some have enough retirement savings to delay claiming Social Security, but many don’t. And now, with unemployment approaching Depression-era levels, claiming early may be the best of bad options for older people who can’t find a job.But the penalty for early filing, and the bonus for delaying your application, are based on old formulas that don’t reflect gains in life expectancy, says economist Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The result is a system that unfairly penalizes early filers, unjustly benefits late filers — and hurts lower-income people the most.“Low-income people disproportionately collect benefits at 62 and their benefits are cut too much, and high-income people disproportionately delay claiming till 70 and their benefits are increased too much,” Munnell says. “So you penalize the low-income and you benefit the high-income.”The problem started off as a solutionOriginally, Social Security had one retirement age: 65. In 1956, Congress authorized a reduced benefit for women, to allow them to retire at the same time as their typically older husbands. The reduced benefit option was extended to men in 1961.The amount of the reduction was meant to be “actuarially neutral,” so that the cost to Social Security would be the same whether those with average life expectancies claimed the smaller check earlier or the larger check later.As life expectancies rose, though, early filers wound up living with the penalty for longer. In 1956, a 65-year-old woman had an average life expectancy of 16.9 years. Today, it’s 21.6 years, Munnell says. Instead of being actuarially neutral, in other words, the current system results in early filers with average life expectancies getting less.On top of that, Social Security offers a bonus for those who can afford to wait. A 1% delayed retirement credit was introduced in 1972, and the amount was increased over the years to the current 8%. So each year you put off claiming Social Security past your full retirement age adds 8% to your payment. Full retirement age varies according to birth year and is 67 for people born in 1960 or later.Let’s say your full retirement age is 67 and your benefit, if started then, would be ,000 a month. Starting at 62 would shrink the benefit to 0, while waiting until 70 to begin would boost the amount to ,240.The longer you live, the more you can benefit from a delayed filing — and the higher your income, the longer you’re likely to live. In fact, most of the gains in life expectancy in recent years have accrued to higher-income people.Between 2001 and 2014, for example, life expectancy rose by more than two years for men and nearly three years for women with incomes in the top 5%, according to a study for the Social Security Administration. During the same period, life expectancies for those in the bottom 5% of incomes rose a little less than four months for men and about two weeks for women.How benefits could change to be fairerTo restore actuarial fairness, the penalty for early filing should be lower, Munnell says. Someone who retires at 62 instead of 67 should get 22.5% less, rather than 30% less. Similarly, the bonus for waiting should be reduced to just below 7% per year.“The way it’s set up now, people will get 124% of their full benefit if they wait till 70 and they really should only get 120%,” Munnell says.Obviously, Social Security has bigger problems. Once its trust fund is depleted, as projected in 15 years or so, the system will be able to pay only 79% of promised benefits in 2035. That proportion is estimated to drop to 73% by 2094.When Congress finally gets around to fixing the system, Munnell says, it should consider making the payouts more fair.“I think there’ll be some grand bargain on Social Security at some point because I don’t think anybody’s really going to allow benefits to be cut 25%,” Munnell says. “This [actuarial fairness] probably should be put on the agenda.”This article was written by NerdWallet and was originally published by the Associated Press.More From NerdWalletHow to Renegotiate Your Bills to Save MoneyFeeling Out of Control? These Money Moves Could HelpRenters at Risk: Ways to Cope in the Financial CrisisLiz Weston is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: lweston@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @lizweston. 4771