郑州治近视眼郑州150度到100度之间的近视眼可以治疗吗,郑州眼睛近视如何矫正视力,郑州近视眼手术哪家好,郑州全飞秒做完多久能玩电脑,郑州smart全激光手术多少钱,郑州斜视矫正,郑州我的眼睛近视400多度做手术能灰复吗

SACRAMENTO (AP) — California is seeking to join the Justice Department in its antitrust lawsuit against Google parent Alphabet Inc. The Justice Department sued Google in October, saying it has abused its dominance in online search and advertising. The case, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleges that Google uses billions of dollars collected from advertisers to pay phone manufacturers to ensure Google is the default search engine on browsers. Eleven states, all with Republican attorneys general, joined the federal government in the lawsuit at the time. California is the first Democratic state announcing its intent to join the Justice Department’s case. 681

Retailers pulled some name brand dog food from store shelves after a euthanasia drug was found in several products."I was a little surprised, but at the same time you hear all sorts of stuff about what is and what isn't in dog food," said Sam Porach, pet owner.The FDA started an investigation after a TV station tested several cans of Gravy Train dog food and found 60 percent contained pentobarbital, a drug used to euthanize animals, found in some products."It's a tranquilizing drug that is sometimes used by veterinarians in animal shelters to reduce anxiety in animals and ultimately put them to sleep," said Jackie Bowen, the executive director of Clean Label Project.The Clean Label Project is a non-profit aimed at educating people about toxins in products, including pet food."This industry needs to do a lot more testing and be a lot more critical of the ingredients used in its products," said Bowen.The J.M. Smucker Co. owns the brands in question including Gravy Train, Kibble 'N Bits, Skippy and Ol' Roy.  The company is investigating how pentobarbital got into the supply chain."One possible way is through contaminated ingredients," Bowen said.Between recalls and reading labels, pet owners are left trying to navigate what's really safe."Try to go all natural type yah know baked treats and stuff," pet owner Ryan Searle said."I feel like there's been a pretty big movement lately on knowing what's in your dogs' food and having higher quality foods," Porach said.Smucker's said the low level of the drug found in the food does not pose a threat to pets, but admit it's not acceptable. However, the study that triggered all this started because a woman believed the food killed her dog. The Clean Label?Project has information about pentobarbital in pet food and safe products on its website.  1849

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Assembly voted Thursday to cap the interest lenders may charge on loans that can carry rates spiraling into the triple digits.Backed by civil rights groups, religious organizations and some trade associations, the proposed law would cap annual rates at around 38% for loans between ,500 and ,000.The bill comes as legislators across the country seek to reign in a storefront lending industry critics accuse of preying on low-income consumers in need of cash and trapping them under mounds of debt for years.But even as the bill advanced, some California lawmakers expressed concern that it will limit choices for consumers with bad credit or little access to banks and other financial products. And the lending industry, which wields significant influence in legislatures as well as in Washington, has launched an advertising campaign in California attacking the bill as it heads to the state Senate, where observers expect a tougher fight.Proponents of capping interest rates point to an explosion in high-interest consumer loans around the state over the last decade.The state already caps interest rates on consumer loans under ,500 but not for amounts over that threshold. In 2009, 8,468 loans for amounts between ,500 and ,000 came with interest rates over 100%, according to data from state regulators. Lenders now issue more than 350,000 loans each year with interest rates in the triple digits. A legislative analysis said at least one out of three borrowers is unable to pay their loans.But proposals to cap interest rates in recent years have faltered at California's Legislature. Several lawmakers still expressed concern about the latest proposal, suggesting it could drive lenders out of the market, pushing consumers with low incomes toward unregulated lenders or cutting off their easy access to capital."Without these alternative financial service providers, those folks would have nowhere else to go," said Democratic Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove of Los Angeles.Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon dismissed arguments the bill would ultimately harm low-income residents."Those are merely talking points of an industry that has repeatedly lied to members of this chamber," he said.Casting the bill as a moral issue, the Democrat said the legislation can be considered as important as any other lawmakers will vote on this year in the country's most populous state.The bill ended up passing with bipartisan support as one Republican legislator cited religious prohibitions on usury."I'm a free-market capitalist and I'm unashamed of it but we need to stand up and protect people who are being preyed upon," said Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham of San Luis Obispo.The support of the financial industry this year, too, may also signal that the sector foresees a reckoning in the state or at least further political uncertainty if lawmakers do not approve limits for loans between ,500 and ,000.The California Supreme Court cast a legal question mark last year over the lending industry's practices, deciding in one class action lawsuit that some interest rates can be so high as to be deemed unconscionable under financial laws.Democratic Assemblywoman Monique Limon of Santa Barbara, the bill's author, also suggested that an interest rate cap could end up on the ballot if the Legislature does not act.If passed, California would join 38 states and the District of Columbia in capping interest rates for these types of loans, according to a legislative analysis. The level proposed in California would be on the higher end.Observers expect a bigger political fight when the bill heads to the state Senate, however.Opponents of the bill have launched an advertising campaign aimed at stopping it.The trade group Online Lenders Alliance has bought ads on Sacramento television stations, according to Federal Communication Commission filings.A group calling itself Don't Lock Me Out California has also bought online ads attacking the bill. 4018

RICHMOND, Va. -- The governor of Virginia is calling on the state's school districts to change school names and mascots that honor Confederate leaders.In a July 6 letter addressed to Virginia School Board Chairs, Gov. Ralph Northam compared the Confederate school names to Confederate statues, saying they have a traumatizing impact on students, families, teachers and staff of all backgrounds."When our public schools are named after individuals who advanced slavery and systemic racism, and we allow those names to remain on school property, we tacitly endorse their values as our own. This is no longer acceptable," Northam wrote.The governor said the names also perpetuate the hurt woven into a past of slavery and racism and sends students a clear message on "what we value the most.""Recognizing the harmful impact these school names have on our children, I am calling on school boards to evaluate the history behind your school names," Northam wrote."The financial costs of changing school names are minimal compared to the generations that suffered through American slavery, the Confederacy, the Jim-Crow era, massive resistance, and contemporary manifestation of systemic racism, like the school to prison pipeline," he added.Northam says he is looking forward to working with the school leaders to create a Commonwealth reflective of the values Virginians hold most true today."Now is the time to change them to reflect the inclusive, diverse, and welcoming school community every child deserves, and that we as leaders of the Commonwealth, have a civic duty to foster."State Superintendent James Lane echoed the governor's sentiment in a statement Tuesday.“Our schools should be welcoming to all students, and the names and mascots of our schools should not promote a history of racism,” Lane said. “I believe that the governor’s letter will prompt overdue conversations about inclusiveness in the few divisions that still have buildings with Confederate names.”There is currently a lawsuit, filed by the Hanover County NAACP chapter, challenging the use of Confederate names and imagery at Lee-Davis High School and Stonewall Jackson Middle School.The lawsuit argues the nicknames violates students' first amendment rights.A hearing in that lawsuit is scheduled for March of 2021.In Henrico County, Douglas freeman High School is asking for input from students, families, and alumni on potentially changing their nickname, the Rebels.This story was originally published by Vernon Freeman Jr. at WTVR. 2520

Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies.The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day. 3303