濮阳东方医院割包皮价格偏低(濮阳东方医院看男科怎么走) (今日更新中)

The coronavirus is shaking up America’s liquor laws.At least 33 states and the District of Columbia are temporarily allowing cocktails to-go during the pandemic. Only two — Florida and Mississippi — allowed them on a limited basis before coronavirus struck, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.Struggling restaurants say it’s a lifeline, letting them rehire bartenders, pay rent and reestablish relationships with customers. But others want states to slow down, saying the decades-old laws help ensure public safety.Julia Momose closed Kumiko, her Japanese-style cocktail bar in Chicago, on March 16. The next day, Illinois allowed bars and restaurants to start selling unopened bottles of beer, wine and liquor, but mixed drinks were excluded.Momose spent the next three months collecting petition signatures and pressing lawmakers to allow carryout cocktails. It worked. On June 17, she poured her first to-go drink: a Seaflower, made with gin, vermouth, Japanese citrus fruit and fermented chili paste. A carryout bottle, which serves two, costs .Momose has been able to hire back four of her furloughed employees. A group she co-founded, Cocktails for Hope, is now helping restaurants buy glass bottles in bulk for carryout.“Part of getting cocktails to go approved was embracing the fact that this isn’t going to fix everything, but it is going to fix something,” Momose said. “All these little things that we do will keep us open and keep our staff employed.”U.S. liquor laws — many of which date to the end of Prohibition in 1933 —are a confusing jumble that vary by state, city and county.Carryout cocktail regulations — which were passed starting in March — only deepen that confusion. Lawmakers approved carryout cocktails in some states; governors approved them in others. Nevada passed no statewide measure, but individual cities like Las Vegas and Reno allow them. In Pennsylvania, only restaurants and bars that lost 25% of average monthly total sales can sell cocktails to go.Most carryout cocktail regulations require customers to buy food with their mixed drinks. Lids or seals are generally required, but some states say drinks also need to be transported in the trunk. Marbet Lewis, a founding partner at Spiritus Law in Miami who specializes in the alcohol industry, says IDs should be checked — online or in person — by restaurants and bars as well as by delivery drivers.Some states, like Arizona, allow third party delivery companies like DoorDash to deliver cocktails; Kansas only allows delivery within a 50-foot radius.The laws also have different sunset dates. Alabama is only allowing carryout cocktails through Sept. 15, while Colorado and Massachusetts have extended them into next year. Michigan is allowing them through 2025.Last month, Iowa became the first state to permanently allow carryout and delivery of cocktails. Lawmakers in Ohio and Oklahoma are considering a similar measure, and the governors of Texas and Florida have expressed support for the change.There is overwhelming public support for making cocktails to go permanent, says Mike Whatley, vice president of state and local affairs for the National Restaurant Association. Between 75% and 80% of respondents have said they support carryout cocktails in numerous state polls, Whatley said.U.S. restaurants and bars have lost an estimated 5 billion since March due to lockdowns and social distancing requirements, the association said. In a May survey of 3,800 restaurants, the association found that 78% of operators who were selling alcohol to go had brought back laid-off employees, compared to 62% of operators overall.But some are urging states not to be too hasty. Mothers Against Drunk Driving worries that permanent carryout cocktails will lead to an increase in drunken driving unless laws make clear that the drinks can’t be consumed until the buyer is in a safe location.The U.S. government hasn’t released preliminary drunk driving data for 2020. But Jonathan Adkins, the executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said there’s no anecdotal evidence that drunk driving has spiked during the pandemic.Patrick Maroney, a former liquor control officer in Colorado who is now a consultant, said carryout beer and wine — which was allowed in around 15 states prior to the pandemic — are different from cocktails because the containers are sealed by the manufacturer and the alcohol content is lower. Cocktails are mixed at the bar, so the alcohol content can vary and they may not be properly sealed, he said.Maroney said states need to make sure police and health officials are consulted before changing laws that have worked for decades. He noted that California reported a spike in reports of alcohol delivery to minors in April.“Are law enforcement officials worried about an ‘open air’ type atmosphere?” he said. “Is the law restricted to at-home consumption? How do they enforce it?”Maroney received funding from the Center for Alcohol Policy — which is funded by beer wholesalers — for a recent research paper raising concerns about carryout cocktails.Even before the coronavirus hit, there was a push to modernize alcohol laws to reflect the growing popularity of food delivery, Lewis said. She thinks lawmakers will have a hard time reinstating bans on carryout cocktails once the pandemic eases.“Once you get the genie out of the bottle and there hasn’t been a problem, how do you get it back in?” she said.Still, restaurant and bar owners say they’re not worried that patrons will get so used to carryout that they’ll stop going out even after the coronavirus has passed.“I think that people are social. People enjoy the bar experience and like being waited on,” said Dave Kwiatkowski, who owns the Sugar House cocktail bar in Detroit, which closed March 15 but was able to reopen July 10 for carryout service.Kwiatkowski normally employs a staff of 16. For now, it’s just him at the door and a bartender making drinks.“It’s enough to pay the electricity and the insurance, and it’s nice to give at least a couple of people some jobs,” he said.Kwiatkowski does wonder how he’ll handle carryout demand once the pandemic has ended and there’s a crowd in the bar on a Saturday night. But that will be a good problem to have, he said. He wants carryout cocktails to be permanently legalized.“I think this is probably going to change how we do business forever,” he said. 6446

The CEOs for auto giants Kia and Hyundai have refused to attend a congressional hearing to explain why hundreds of their vehicles have spontaneously burst into flames.Both carmakers and a spokesman for Democrats on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation have confirmed the companies’ refusal to send representatives to the hearing, which has been scheduled for next week.A Kia spokesman said the company is working with the committee to “analyze all relevant information associated with any fire or other safety-related matters and will take any necessary corrective action in a timely manner.”A Hyundai spokesman said, “Hyundai takes this matter very seriously, and fully appreciates the concerns of the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee including those of the Chairman and Ranking Member.”It was not immediately clear whether the U.S. Senate committee would postpone or cancel its Nov. 14 hearing on Kia and Hyundai fires.The call for the hearing came six months after Consumer Investigator Jackie Callaway, of WFTS television station in Tampa, Florida, first reported on the unexplained car fires.Since April, the WFTS I-team has exposed hundreds of Kia and Hyundai models manufactured since 2011 that caught fire across the country.“The hearing will focus on motor vehicle safety issues involving vehicle fires,” stated the identical letters – dated Oct. 16 – and sent to Kia Motors America President and CEO Seungkyu “Sean” Yoon and Hyundai Motor America's Kyung Soo “Kenny” Lee.The CEOs were asked to “promptly identify and respond to defects that may pose a fire risk” at the Nov. 14 hearing in front of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.In September, an Ohio mother spoke out and called for a federal investigation after watching her son burn alive in her 2014 Kia Soul parked at her apartment complex just outside of Cincinnati last year. 1926

The cold open of "Saturday Night Live" usually belongs to politics, but on Saturday night it belonged to moms.The mothers of cast members from the NBC variety show took over the beginning of Saturday's episode with many taking jabs at the show's political jokes.Kenan Thompson asked his mother if she liked the show and she responded, "I do, except for all the political stuff. We get it!"Mikey Day introduced his mother and reminded her of the time he was in a production of "The Crucible" in high school."You know, 'The Crucible' is a lot like that witch hunt against President Trump," Day's mother said before Day quickly ushered her off.The mother of the newcomer Luke Null asked, "Why doesn't 'SNL' talk about 'Crooked Hillary'?""Mom, I'm so new here," he said. "Please don't do this to me."As for Chris Redd's mother, she wondered why everyone is focused on Trump rather than "focusing on Jesus.""Okay, well, Jesus isn't president," Redd said."And that's the problem," his mother said back.And "Weekend Update" host Colin Jost asked his mom if she likes the political stuff on the show."I think Alec Baldwin does a great Trump impression," she said. "But why does it have to be so mean? Who writes that stuff?"Jost, who is also one of the show's head writers, hesitated and responded saying he didn't know blaming his "Weekend Update" co-host, Michael Che, who is also a head writer, for the jokes. 1412

The end of July is expected to be a busy time for courts where eviction cases are handled across the country.As the funding from the CARES Act is closing in on its end so is reprieve for renters, who have had difficulty making their monthly rent payments.“There’s a lot of fear,” said attorney Zach Neumann. “People are really concerned about where they’re going to go when that [eviction] demand is placed on their door.”According to the U.S. Census Bureau Pulse Survey, approximately 30 percent of renters have little to no confidence that they can make their next housing payment.CBS News reported during the month of May, 20 percent of renters failed to pay rent on time.“I think you have people who are behind on their rent right now, who haven’t been able to make full payment,” said Neumann. “I think the bigger source of [eviction] filings is going to be in early September when we are definitively out of the CARES Act money window.”To help renters and homeowners with mortgages in Colorado, Neumann started the COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project in late March. He said after seeing people post on Facebook that they were worried about their payments, he put up a post saying he would help them free of charge. Overnight, he says he got more than 500 direct messages asking for his services.“I think the reason that this is going to lead to so many more evictions is because it’s longer-lasting,” said Neumann. “Also, the financial hit is uniform across groups of people.”To give renters more time, the CARES Act instituted a 60-day moratorium on evictions for people living in federally financed rentals, which covers 25 percent of all rentals in the United States, according to the Urban Institute. That moratorium is set to expire on July 26.Cities across the country also put their own eviction moratoriums into place, but many of those are set to expire at the end of July as well.Nine thousand evictions cases resumed in Memphis, once its moratorium ended last month. In Virginia, 12,000 eviction cases were filed when its moratorium was lifted.“There are people in serious crisis and our neighbors are suffering,” said Tammy Morales, who serves as a city commissioner in Seattle.In May, Morales introduced legislation banning landlords from using eviction history as grounds to deny tenancy to renters for up to six months after the pandemic. The bill passed in with all but one commissioner voting yes.“There are cascading effects of this crisis, and this is one piece that we are able to do at the local level to help people,” said Morales.“It’s harder to hold onto your job. It’s harder to keep your kids in school. It’s harder to maintain a workable level of health,” said Neumann about evictions. “What you see is after an eviction folks spend months and months unsuccessfully looking for housing.” 2826

The CEOs of Twitter, Facebook and Google are facing a grilling by Republican senators making unfounded allegations that the tech giants show anti-conservative bias.The Senate Commerce Committee has summoned Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Sundar Pichai to testify for a hearing Wednesday. The executives agreed to appear remotely after being threatened with subpoenas.With the presidential election looming, Republicans led by President Donald Trump have thrown a barrage of grievances at Big Tech’s social media platforms, which they accuse without evidence of deliberately suppressing conservative, religious and anti-abortion views.The chorus of protest rose this month after Facebook and Twitter acted to limit dissemination of an unverified political story from the conservative-leaning New York Post about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, an unprecedented action against a major media outlet. The story, which was not confirmed by other publications, cited unverified emails from Biden’s son Hunter that were reportedly disclosed by Trump allies.Beyond questioning the CEOs, senators are expected to examine proposals to revise long-held legal protections for online speech, an immunity that critics in both parties say enables the companies to abdicate their responsibility to impartially moderate content.The Justice Department has asked Congress to strip some of the bedrock protections that have generally shielded the tech companies from legal responsibility for what people post on their platforms. Trump signed an executive order challenging the protections from lawsuits under the 1996 telecommunications law.“For too long, social media platforms have hidden behind Section 230 protections to censor content that deviates from their beliefs,” Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Commerce Committee chairman, said recently.In their opening statements prepared for the hearing, Dorsey, Zuckerberg and Pichai addressed the proposals for changes to so-called Section 230, a provision of a 1996 law that has served as the foundation for unfettered speech on the internet. Zuckerberg said Congress “should update the law to make sure it’s working as intended.”“We don’t think tech companies should be making so many decisions about these important issues alone,” he said, approving an active role for government regulators.Dorsey and Pichai, however, urged caution in making any changes. “Undermining Section 230 will result in far more removal of online speech and impose severe limitations on our collective ability to address harmful content and protect people online,” Dorsey said.Pichai urged lawmakers “to be very thoughtful about any changes to Section 230 and to be very aware of the consequences those changes might have on businesses and consumers.”Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd told congressional leaders in a letter Tuesday that recent events have made the changes more urgent. He cited the action by Twitter and Facebook regarding the New York Post story, calling the companies’ limitations “quite concerning.”The head of the Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency, recently announced plans to reexamine the legal protections, potentially putting meat on the bones of Trump’s order by opening the way to new rules. The move by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Trump appointee, marked an about-face from the agency’s previous position.Social media giants are also under heavy scrutiny for their efforts to police misinformation about the election. Twitter and Facebook have slapped a misinformation label on content from the president, who has around 80 million followers. Trump has raised the baseless prospect of mass fraud in the vote-by-mail process.Starting Tuesday, Facebook was not accepting any new political advertising. Previously booked political ads will be able to run until the polls close next Tuesday, when all political advertising will temporarily be banned. Google, which owns YouTube, also is halting political ads after the polls close. Twitter banned all political ads last year.Democrats have focused their criticism of social media mainly on hate speech, misinformation and other content that can incite violence or keep people from voting. They have criticized Big Tech CEOs for failing to police content, homing in on the platforms’ role in hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism in the U.S.Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have scrambled to stem the tide of material that incites violence and spreads lies and baseless conspiracy theories.The companies reject accusations of bias but have wrestled with how strongly they should intervene. They have often gone out of their way not to appear biased against conservative views — a posture that some say effectively tilts them toward those viewpoints. The effort has been especially strained for Facebook, which was caught off-guard in 2016, when it was used as a conduit by Russian agents to spread misinformation benefiting Trump’s presidential campaign.The unwelcome attention to the three companies piles onto the anxieties in the tech industry, which also faces scrutiny from the Justice Department, federal regulators, Congress and state attorneys general around the country.Last week, the Justice Department sued Google for abusing its dominance in online search and advertising — the government’s most significant attempt to protect competition since its groundbreaking case against Microsoft more than 20 years ago.With antitrust in the spotlight, Facebook, Apple and Amazon also are under investigation at the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.___Follow Gordon at https://twitter.com/mgordonap. 5687

来源：资阳报