濮阳东方妇科网上挂号濮阳东方医院治疗阳痿价格收费透明,濮阳东方医院看男科很正规,濮阳东方看妇科评价高专业,濮阳东方看妇科病评价好很专业,濮阳东方医院看男科价格不高,濮阳东方妇科医院需要预约吗,濮阳东方医院技术值得信赖

The coronavirus pandemic has already caused depleted toilet paper shelves and concerns about meat shortages, but now it’s also to blame for some other, maybe more surprising shortages across the country.Coca-Cola announced at the beginning of July that it was stopping production on Odwalla Juice at the end of the month. On a call with investors, James Quincey, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of The Coca-Cola Co. said of Odwalla, “In the case of a brand like Odwalla and its chilled direct store delivery, which has struggled over the last several years, we started to stop operations effective July 31. This gives us the flexibility to support our investments in brands like Minute Maid and Simply.”And if you thought you were imagining fewer types of Coke products on store shelves, there’s a good chance you weren’t. A representative from the soft drink giant said in an email, “We continue to see high demand for products consumed at home. We are implementing contingency plans as best we can to get the products people want to store shelves. We appreciate everyone’s patience as we work through these unprecedented times,” going on to say, “we are focusing on the availability of our most popular brands.”“Coke is facing is a different sort of thing right now; it's something that's a shift in demand, which is temporary, and they're not in position to respond to it other than to…put all of their eggs into the baskets that are going out the door fastest,” said William Dickens, University Distinguished Professor and chair of the economics department at Northeastern University.Another issue for Coke likely ties into another shortage – aluminum cans.According to Robert Budway, the president of the Can Manufacturers Institute, the aluminium can industry was seeing demand increase even before the pandemic began because cans are more environmentally friendly than plastic bottles, and the demand has only gone up.“Can manufacturers are fully focused on filling the extraordinary demand from all sectors of the industry’s customer base,” said Budway in a statement. He also said that although there is enough aluminum, can makers have announced the construction of several new plants in the United States and Canada, but they will take between 12 and 18 months to build.Chains like Taco Bell announced they’re trimming the menu too, removing things like the 7-Layer Burrito and Nachos Supreme. And Red Robin Gourmet Burgers ditched a third of its menu.The national burger chain cut 55 items, and a representative pointed to what they told their investors about the changes saying the cuts have resulted in “faster cook times, higher quality food” and say it’s reduced waste.“Sure,” said Dickens. “But why wouldn't they have done it before this, if it made such a big difference? The best explanation is that now they're in a different circumstance, and they just can't afford to produce the type of variety that they did before because they aren't having as many people coming in.”Dickens said everything, each menu item and each flavor of soda, has a specific cost to make. For a business to be profitable, it has to sell a certain number of each offering.So it makes sense that less popular items might hit the road right now.“As for menus and shortages…I think we may very well see more firms follow suit. I know my favorite restaurant is only offering a couple of items compared to what it used to. So I know it's a phenomenon that's out there,” said Dickens. “It's more profitable for [restaurants] to focus on a couple of items that they know that they're going to sell a lot of.”He went on to say what we can expect to see in the next month or year largely depends on how things go with COVID-19 and the subsequent handling of the economy.“I guess my biggest fear is that we're mishandling the economy,” said Dickens.He said that the United States’ economy hasn’t shrunk as much as it might have since the pandemic hit because Congress authorized an extra 0 per week for unemployment benefits. He said that the people who are getting those benefits are also then spending that money on things like food and drink.With the final unemployment supplements already distributed, Dickens predicts people will have less money to spend, which in turn will mean less money in the economy overall, more job layoffs – and a deeper recession. He said that could ultimately mean more shortages – and more businesses closing for good.“We should not let the smart things that were done fade away too early, and this is clearly too early since a large part of the country is still seeing growing numbers of cases,” said Dickens. “They're probably going to have to take action to pull back from re-opening and people are gonna need economic support.” 4769

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

The cost of the Justice Department's ongoing investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election is now roughly million, according to a new report filed Friday by the special counsel's office.Friday's accounting provided the latest figures covering only the period for April 2018 through September 2018, with special counsel Robert Mueller listing direct expenditures of nearly .6 million.Another roughly .9 million was reported as costs for the work of other Justice and FBI officials who have assisted the investigation but are not under Mueller's direct control. According to the report, those investigation costs would have been incurred "irrespective of the existence of the (special counsel's office)."The department previously reported .7 million in direct and indirect costs from May through September 2017, and  million from October 2017 through March 2018 -- bringing the total from all three reports over the life of the investigation to just over million. Of that amount, only .3 million is the special counsel's direct expenditures.Since taking control of the Russia probe in May 2017, Mueller has advanced on multiple fronts to investigate any links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, along with other crimes arising from the investigation.To date, the investigation has yielded charges against 36 people or entities. Seven people have pleaded guilty to various charges, including President Donald Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates and former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos.Meanwhile, Trump and his allies have relentlessly attacked Mueller and the probe as a waste of money.Trump took aim at the cost of the investigation last month, offering a grab-bag of different numbers Mueller had allegedly spent, untethered to the facts.On November 27, 2018 he tweeted: "now ,000,000 Witch Hunt continues and they've got nothing but ruined lives."Then 48 hours later, he tweeted criticizing the "witch hunt" for "wasting more than ,000,000." 2182

The fine print of newly released federal guidelines for reopening schools raises serious questions about whether in-person classes should resume at a time when COVID-19 rages around much of the country.Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under pressure from the White House, released a position paper highlighting “the importance of reopening America’s schools this fall.”But separate guidelines issued for K-12 school administrators, which drew less public attention, are much more cautious.“It is important to consider community transmission risk as schools reopen,” those CDC guidelines state.“Computer simulations from Europe have suggested the school reopenings may further increase transmission risk in communities where transmission is already high.”Buried at the bottom of the new CDC recommendation to re-open schools is a HUGE caveat! #COVID19 poses a low risk to kids “at least in areas with low community transmission.” That’s not where much of the country stands right now. 4/ pic.twitter.com/0D5CPxhlIb— Phil Williams (@NC5PhilWilliams) July 25, 2020 The new CDC guidelines suggest, “If community transmission levels cannot be decreased, school closure is an important consideration.”“Plans for virtual learning should be in place in the event of a school closure.”In Tennessee, several public and private schools are preparing to reopen even as almost every county in the state is showing what the Department of Health considers to be unacceptable rates of transmission of the coronavirus.Last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a dramatic clarification of its statement back in June that "all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.""This does not mean that we recommend that all schools open five days a week from the start of the school year," the academy’s Dr. Sean O'Leary told a congressional committee.“Many parts of the country are currently experiencing uncontrolled spread of COVID-19. While the AAP urges those areas to make in-person learning as the goal, we recognize that many jurisdictions will need to utilize distance learning strategies until cases decline."The vice chair of the academy's committee on infectious diseases, O'Leary told the subcommittee that, where there is uncontrolled community transmission, "it's inevitable that the virus is going to get into the schools, and schools are going to have to shut down."U.S. Surgeon General Jerome M. Adams also told CBS This Morning last week that a community's COVID-19 transmission rate is the single most important determinant of whether schools can safely reopen.School reopening advocates point to the emotional, psychological and educational importance of children being in the classroom – a position that the CDC guidelines reaffirm.“Schools provide safe and supportive environments, structure and routines for children, as well as other needed support services to children and families,” the CDC notes.Children are less likely to become ill when infected with the virus, and younger children are less likely to transmit the virus to others, the report adds.But a large-scale study out of South Korea recently reported that children ages 10-19 -- middle- and high-school ages -- can spread the virus as easily as adults.Also, in searching citations in the new CDC recommendation to re-open schools, it appears to completely leave out the large-scale South Korea study that found teens are likely to spread #COVID19 as readily as adults 5/ https://t.co/ABLPvpKQU5— Phil Williams (@NC5PhilWilliams) July 25, 2020 In addition, a new study – shared by the Tennessee Department of Health last week on Twitter – concluded that “young, previously healthy adults can take a long time to recover from COVID-19.” 3828

The city attorney is cracking down on independent living facilities that are posing a danger to their residents - and potentially neighbors.City Attorney Mara Elliott's office is investigating about two-dozen of these facilities and prosecuting the operators of six, the office announced Wednesday. The facilities, often inside single-family homes, are unregulated and unlicensed. They provide physically and mentally disabled persons a last chance to avoid homelessness. But Elliott said the operators often take advantage of residents. She said this came onto her radar after investigating a home last year. "It was a horrible situation where 11 individuals were essentially being held captive in this home and didn't have sanitary facilities," she said. "The shower facilities were covered in feces, they didn't have food they didn't have ventilation, they didn't have access to telephones."On Wednesday, Elliott's office announced charges against two more facilities, one on Parkbrook Lane in Skyline and another on Brandywood Street in North Bay Terraces. Operators and owners are charged with violations including vermin infestations, blocked exists, improper plumbing, and fire hazards. People who live near the Parkbrook Lane home described shouting in the middle of the night, verbal harassment, physical fighting and graffiti. "We moved because of it," said one neighbor, whose first name was Tammy. The home had trash and old mattresses on the property. The owner, Evelyn Louise Peters, said the issues identified were only one-time instances and the trash accumulated after the home was vacated. Sherry Lynn Bennett, who manages the home in North Bay Terraces, said the issues are being dealt with."The owners have been doing all the repairs, everything is done, everything's back to normal, we've done everything the city's said," Bennett said. Bennett and Peters are charged with 22 misdemeanor violations of the health, safety and municipal codes.There is no telling how many of these facilities exist in the county. In December, a man living in an El Cajon independent living home was beaten to death with a frying pan. El Cajon police had responded to calls at the home 78 times in the year leading up to the event. 2241