濮阳东方医院收费濮阳东方看男科病收费公开,濮阳东方妇科口碑好收费低,濮阳东方妇科治病不贵,濮阳东方医院治病专业,濮阳东方医院治早泄咨询,濮阳东方妇科医院做人流口碑怎么样,濮阳东方医院看男科价格非常低

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Kamala Harris is sure to come up a lot in conversation now that she’s been announced as Joe Biden’s running mate.Although Harris has been a prominent figure in the Democratic party for several years now, some Americans still may not be familiar with her and may struggle to pronounce the U.S. senator’s first name correctly.Even people in the media struggle to get the pronunciation right some times. Just Tuesday night, Fox News host Tucker Carlson pronounced her name incorrectly and lashed out at a guest who corrected him.Tucker Carlson loses it when a guest corrects his pronunciation of Kamala Harris's name pic.twitter.com/1fHIrPGuwN— nikki mccann ramírez (@NikkiMcR) August 12, 2020 Harris is no stranger to people mispronouncing her name, though. In fact, when she was running for her California Senate seat in 2016, she released a video with kids explaining how to say it.People pronounce my name many different ways. Let #KidsForKamala show you how it’s done. pic.twitter.com/7QoQGN0B4k— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) May 24, 2016 And during an interview on “The View” in January 2019, Harris provided a mnemonic device when Whoopi Goldberg asked her how to pronounce her name correctly.“It’s Kamala,” she said. “Just think like ‘comma,’ and add a ‘la.’”The name Kamala is actually derived from the Sanskrit word for “lotus.” The vice presidential nominee explained the symbolism behind the name at a book event last year.“The symbolism is that the lotus flower sits on water, but never really gets wet,” Harris said, according to The Washington Post. “Its roots are in the mud, meaning it is grounded. One must always know where they come from.” 1684

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's sharing of misinformation about the coronavirus and removal of the material by social media platforms have sparked claims of censorship by some doctors and others. The fight is over hydroxychloroquine, a drug long used to treat malaria that Trump has promoted as a coronavirus treatment even though scientific studies are at odds with his stance. But a group of doctors who believe the drug is an effective coronavirus treatment argued for its use at an event Monday in Washington. The doctors complained about censorship after Trump shared a video of that event and the social media companies removed it.A group of people who claimed to be doctors was talking in the video about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. The video also discouraged the use of masks. 816

WAVERLY, Ohio -- One of the four suspects charged in the murder of the Rhoden family pleaded not guilty during his arraignment in court today.Edward “Jake” Wagner was arraigned on aggravated murder charges in Pike County court.It’s not clear what role Jake Wagner is suspected of playing in the 2016 murders of eight members of the Rhoden family. Investigators believe Jake Wagner was in a custody dispute with one of the victims, 19-year-old Hanna Rhoden.Authorities arrested Jake Wagner, his brother, George Wagner IV, and parents, George “Billy” Wagner III and Angela Wagner on Nov. 13. Jake Wagner faces additional charges for having sexual contact with Hanna Rhoden when she was 15 years old and he was 20.Officials set the following court dates: 774

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Miles Taylor, a former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, revealed Wednesday that he's the anonymous senior Trump administration official who wrote a scathing book last year that criticizes the president."Donald Trump is a man without character. It’s why I wrote “A Warning”...and it’s why me & my colleagues have spoken out against him (in our own names) for months," Taylor announced on Twitter. "It’s time for everyone to step out of the shadows."Read Taylor's full statement here.Taylor's anonymously written book “A Warning” paints a chilling portrait of President Donald Trump as cruel, inept and a danger to the nation he was elected to lead, The Washington Post reports.The book’s description on Amazon says it was meant to motivate readers to “consider how we judge our nation's leaders, and illuminate the consequences of re-electing a commander in chief unfit for the role.”The book was published in November 2019, more than a year after The New York Times published a bombshell op-ed essay by the same anonymous author.In the op-ed, the author claimed to be among a group of people in the White House who were working to keep Trump’s reckless impulses in check for the good of the country.As “part of the resistance inside the Trump administration,” the article’s author said the group believed Trump acts in a manner that is “detrimental to the health of our democracy” and that they vowed to do what they can to “preserve our democratic institutions.”The book and article have been criticized by the president and members of his administration. It also sparked a long guessing game in Washington to figure out who the author was.The Times reports that Taylor resigned from DHS in June 2019 and then went public with his criticism of Trump this past summer. He has since endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president. 1890

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration's proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.The excerpts also show the administration plans to challenge California's long-standing authority to enact its own, tougher pollution and fuel standards.Revisions to the mileage requirements for 2021 through 2026 are still being worked on, the administration says, and changes could be made before the proposal is released as soon as this week.RELATED: California sues over plan to scrap car emission standardsThe Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.Overall, "improvements over time have better longer-term effects simply by not alienating consumers, as compared to great leaps forward" in fuel efficiency and other technology, the administration argues. It contends that freezing the mileage requirements at 2020 levels would save up to 1,000 lives per year.New vehicles would be cheaper — and heavier — if they don't have to meet more stringent fuel requirements and more people would buy them, the draft says, and that would put more drivers in safer, newer vehicles that pollute less.RELATED: EPA moves to weaken Obama-era fuel efficiency standardsAt the same time, the draft says that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes.David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said he's doubtful about the administration's estimate of lives saved because other factors could affect traffic deaths, such as automakers agreeing to make automatic emergency braking standard on all models before 2022. "They're making assumptions about stuff that may or may not be the same," he said.Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn't hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issues"Allow me to be skeptical," said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that's a stretch."Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It's engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. "You want to be in the newer vehicle," he said.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalAn April draft from the Trump administration said freezing the requirements at 2020 levels would save people ,900 per new vehicle. But the later draft raises that to ,100 and even as high as ,700 by 2025.Environmental groups questioned the justification for freezing the standards. Luke Tonachel, director of the clean-vehicle program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the risk from people driving more due to higher mileage is "tiny and maybe even negligible."Under the Trump administration proposal, the fleet of new vehicles would have to average roughly 30 mpg in real-world driving, and that wouldn't change through 2026.California has had the authority under the half-century-old Clean Air Act to set its own mileage under a special rule allowing the state to curb its chronic smog problem. More than a dozen states follow California's standards, amounting to about 40 percent of the country's new-vehicle market.Asked if he thinks a freeze in U.S. mileage standards is warranted, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told a small group of reporters at EPA headquarters last week, "I think we need to go where the technology takes us" on fuel standards.Wheeler did not elaborate. Agency spokespeople did not respond when asked specifically if the EPA acting chief was making the case that modern cars could be both fuel efficient and safe.Wheeler also spoke out for what he called "a 50-state solution" that would keep the U.S car and truck market from splitting between two different mileage standards.The Department of Transportation said in a statement that the final fuel economy standards would be based on sound science. The department cautioned that a draft doesn't capture the whole picture of the proposed regulation.The draft said a 2012 analysis of fuel economy standards under the Obama administration deliberately limited the amount of mass reduction necessary under the standards. This was done "in order to avoid the appearance of adverse safety effects," the draft stated.___Krisher reported from Detroit. 5642