濮阳东方医院男科价格正规濮阳东方医院做人流口碑怎么样,濮阳东方妇科医院口碑,濮阳东方男科医院技术权威,濮阳东方医院看男科病咨询,濮阳东方看妇科非常便宜,濮阳东方医院治疗阳痿评价非常好,濮阳东方看妇科技术很专业

DEL MAR, Calif. (KGTV) - The timeline to reopen Jimmy Durante Boulevard in Del Mar has been pushed back to June 4 at the earliest. At Monday’s City Council meeting, city officials said they planned to meet with San Diego County Fair officials on Tuesday. They will discuss a traffic plan as Jimmy Durante Boulevard is a main artery into the fairgrounds. The fair opens May 31 before the road is expected to reopen. The northbound lanes of Jimmy Durante Boulevard, north of Luzon Avenue, closed in late April following a bluff collapse. Del Mar city leaders were hoping to get it reopened by Memorial Day, but a series of complications pushed the timeline back. The schedule could get further delayed due to weather and the Memorial Day holiday. The cost of cleanup and stabilizing the cliff is expected to cost close to million. The city council voted to declare a local emergency which would allow the city to qualify for federal emergency funds to supplement the cost. The cause of the bluff collapse is still under investigation. 1053

YouTube star Brooke Houts is the subject of a police investigation over a video that appears to show her abusing her Doberman.Los Angeles Police Officer Rosario Cervantes said the department's animal cruelty task force is looking into the matter but didn't offer further details.Houts posted the video to her YouTube channel, which has more than 330,000 subscribers. The video has since been taken down, though it's unclear whether that was done by her or by YouTube.However, viewers shared the video on social media, where it drew widespread criticism.In the 50-second video, Houts says she is attempting to prank her dog. "I put plastic wrap on the door. I'm gonna have him run out," she says. "We're just gonna see what he does."The video cuts, and Houts is then heard asking, "it doesn't faze you?" The dog jumps on her chest, and she responds by slapping him across the face.Later, Houts gets closer to the camera and engages in another altercation with the dog. She can be heard yelling "stop" and then appears to spit on the dog.Toward the end of the video, the dog attempts to get close to Houts' face, and she appears to lunge toward him, pushing him across the room.On Tuesday, Houts tweeted that she apologizes to anyone who has been affected negatively by the footage."Anything I say isn't going to make those who believe I'm a bad person stop believing that," she wrote. "And I'm aware of this."Houts adds that the way she appeared in the video is out of character for her."I want to clarify that I am NOT a dog abuser or animal abuser in any way, shape, or form," she wrote. "Anyone who has witnessed or heard true animal abuse will be able to clearly see that."She also denied spitting on the dog but said "I understand how it could look like I did."Houts said that her dog, Sphinx, is in need of costly one-on-one training and that she and her family are getting him a trainer.Neither Houts nor YouTube has responded to requests for comment about the incident or for details on whether there will be any repercussions on Houts' channel.According to YouTube's 2087

(AP) — The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would grant legal marijuana businesses access to banking, a measure that would clear up a longstanding headache for the industry.The bill, called the SAFE Banking Act, passed 321-103 on the strength of near-unanimous support from Democrats and nearly half of Republicans. Its prospects in the Senate are uncertain, but supporters said the amount of Republican support in the House was a good omen."This is a sign the time has come for comprehensive cannabis reform," said Morgan Fox, a spokesman for the National Cannabis Industry Association. "The fact that we got almost half the Republicans is a huge sign we're moving in the right direction toward sensible policies."Thirty-three states have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational use, but the federal prohibition on the drug has made it difficult for businesses in the multibillion-dollar industry to get bank accounts, loans and other financial services.The bill would allow businesses legitimately operating under state laws to access loans, lines of credit and other banking services, while sheltering financial institutions from prosecution for handling marijuana-linked money.More financial institutions began banking with the industry as legalization spread and as the Obama administration instituted policies that allowed them to do so, with some important caveats, but the Trump administration rescinded those guidelines under former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.Many pot businesses have had to conduct sales and pay vendors or taxes in cash, making them potential robbery targets.Supporters of the banking bill, including Democratic Reps. Denny Heck of Washington and Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, characterized it as a public safety measure. In urging lawmakers to vote yes, Heck relayed the story of a 24-year-old Marine veteran, Travis Mason, who was shot and killed during a robbery of a dispensary in suburban Denver in 2016."Because the federal law did not allow for that business to be banked, to be within the guardrails of the financial system, an evil person walked in that night and shot Travis dead," Heck said. "That does not have to happen. It is not hypothetical."Opponents said it would facilitate the spread of marijuana. In a written statement, Kevin Sabet of the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, noted that hundreds of people have been sickened and several have died after using marijuana vaping products."Surely this is not the time to reward Big Marijuana with investment opportunities," Sabet said. "Granting this industry access to banks will bring billions of dollars of institutional investment from the titans of addiction and vastly expand the harms we are already witnessing." 2775

"Black Bear" is a proudly weird film that shakes up the formula to the point that it explodes like a soda left in the fridge.The experimental film's fortunes rise and fall around the dryly comic talents of Aubrey Plaza, who delivers in a major way, exploring the playful cruelty she's subtly hinted at in many of her comedic roles.Plaza explores her dark side as Allison, a manipulative actress, and filmmaker who rents a home from Blair (Sarah Gordon) and her husband, Gabe (Christopher Abbott) to shoot a mysterious new project. She quickly inserts herself into their personal disputes, taking a sadistic pleasure in driving a wedge between the couple with subtle insults and provocations.Allison sees people as her playthings, and freely spins lies, half-truths, and seductive inferences, slithering in and out of suspicion, trust, hostility, and feigned kindness toward her mysterious goals. The interplay between Allison, Gabe, and Blair was enough to carry the movie, which would have been better suited had it stuck with the theme to its bitter end.Instead, the script flips just as the intensity level simmers.Writer/director Lawrence Michael Levine divides the film into two parts. The first is a captivating psychological game, but the second seems like a slew of barely-connected outtakes in which actors have swapped roles.While the scenes are often fascinating as they stand alone, they don't coalesce into much of a unified purpose. If the goal was to satirize the art of filmmaking or play with the quirks of the actor-director-writer dynamic, the result is a convoluted mess. Whatever inside jokes or buried subtext Levine were going for just doesn't translate.The title, which is no doubt some sort of opaque metaphor, also refers to a literal bear who just shows up, because, well, why not? Once Levine has stripped his project of any sense of cohesion, just about anything goes. If his goal was to show how a promising artistic project can derail, he succeeds too mightily.RATING: 2.5 stars out of 4.Phil Villarreal TwitterPhil Villarreal FacebookPhil Villarreal Amazon Author PagePhil Villarreal Rotten Tomatoes 2143

"Mr. Latson made a grave error in judgment in the verbiage he wrote... In addition to being offensive, the principal's statement is not supported by either the School District Administration or the School Board." 220