郑州眼睛可以激光吗(郑州治疗近视最新消息) (今日更新中)

Retailers want you to shop early this holiday season. However, the pandemic has caused delivery service companies to work overtime and that strain is only expected to get worse during the holidays.Shipmatrix is a shipping consulting company. Experts there tell us that starting Thanksgiving, 56 million packages are expected to be shipped per day, including weekends.That's an excess of 7 million packages that delivery services will have to deal with, resulting in a delay if you're opting for free shipping.Experts say this season, it may be worth paying for shipping, even if you qualify for the free option.“Retailers are trying to use the cheapest form of transportation, which is the ground service that can take up to five, six days. And during this holiday season, it may take an extra day or two,” said Satish Jindal, President of ShipMatrix.If you're shipping gifts to loved ones and are a little bit of a procrastinator, it’s advised that you pay for express shipping this year. You'll also want to get that package in the mail before December 18.At the end of the day, all carriers, including UPS, FedEx and USPS all have similar shipping times. 1165

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Gov. Gavin Newsom for the first time is using his new powers to withhold money from two cities in California's Central Valley that are defying state health orders by allowing all businesses to open.The state is withholding nearly ,000 from Atwater and more than ,000 from Coalinga. It's just the first part of .5 billion that cities and counties risk losing if they don't toe the line on coronavirus safeguards.Atwater's mayor says the governor is abandoning the small city even as he devotes more resources and federal money to combat a virus surge in the Central Valley. 615

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — For decades, California and the federal government have had a co-parenting agreement when it comes to the state's diverse population of endangered species and the scarce water that keeps them alive.Now, it appears the sides could be headed for a divorce.State lawmakers sent to the governor early Saturday morning a bill aimed at stopping the Trump administration from weakening oversight of longstanding federal environmental laws in California. The lawmakers want to make it easier for state regulators to issue emergency regulations when that happens."The feds are taking away significant pieces of water protection law, of air protection law, and California has to step into the void," Democratic Assemblyman Mark Stone said.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to decide whether to veto the bill, sign it into law or allow it to become law without his signature.The bill survived a furious lobbying effort on the Legislature's final day, withstanding opposition from the state's water contractors and Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein."We can't really have a California system and a federal system," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water to nearly 19 million people. "We're all in the same country here, so we need to find a way to make this work."California has a history of blunting Republican efforts at the federal level to roll back environmental protections. In 2003, shortly after the George W. Bush administration lowered federal Clean Air Act standards, the Legislature passed a law banning California air quality management districts from revising rules and regulations to match.More recently, after the Trump administration announced plans to roll back auto mileage and emission standards, Newsom used the state's regulatory authority to broker a deal with four major automakers to toughen the standards anyway.State lawmakers tried this last year, but a similar proposal failed to pass the state Assembly. But advocates say several recent announcements by the Trump administration — including plans to weaken application of the federal Endangered Species Act — have strengthened support for the bill.The bill would potentially play out most prominently in the management of the state's water, which mostly comes from snowmelt and rain that rushes through a complex system of aqueducts to provide drinking water for nearly 40 million people and irrigation to the state's billion agricultural industry.The bill would make it easier for state regulators to add animals protected under California's Endangered Species Act — animals that have historically been protected under federal law. It would then apply the state's Endangered Species Act to the Central Valley Project, a federally operated system of aqueducts and reservoirs that control flooding and supply irrigation to farmers.But it's not clear if a state law would apply to a federal project, "which could generate years of litigation and uncertainty over which environmental standards apply," according to a letter by Feinstein and four members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation.Plus, Kightlinger warns the proposal would disrupt complex negotiations among state and federal entities and water agencies over the Water Quality Control Plan. If all sides can sign these voluntary agreements, it would avert costly litigation that would delay environmental protections for fish and other species impacted by the water projects."We're pretty close. We believe we can get to completion by December. If (this bill) passes, half of the water districts pull out and go to litigation instead," Kightlinger said. "That's something that would be terrible for our ecosystem and what we're trying to achieve here."Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, the bill's author, insisted early Saturday the bill would not impact those voluntary agreements."We really and truly did work in good faith to try to address those concerns," she said. 4049

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman was accused of inappropriate behavior on a campaign bus days before the Nov. 6 election, a Democratic official said Tuesday, a day after Bauman took a leave of absence.Bauman was among those aboard a bus during a statewide get-out-the-vote tour. Two young women on the bus reported alcohol was consumed and inappropriate sex talk occurred on Nov. 1, said David Campos, chairman of the San Francisco Democratic Party.The bus was scheduled to arrive in San Francisco the next day at an event with U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Her campaign team learned of the incidents aboard the bus and told state party officials that Bauman and the bus should stay away, Campos said.It appeared Bauman engaged in the misbehavior and did not intervene to stop others from acting inappropriately, Campos said.RELATED: Top California Democrat on leave amid sex misconduct inquiry"We felt, and I felt, it was important for us, given we had serious credible allegations, not to have Chair Bauman attend this get-out-the-vote event in San Francisco," said Campos, who first shared details of the allegations with the Bay Area Reporter, a publication serving the LGBT community. Bauman is the party's first openly gay chairman.Allegations of misbehavior by Bauman first surfaced last week in a letter by party Vice Chairman Daraka Larimore-Hall. It appeared on social media and accused Bauman of sexual harassment and assault against unidentified accusers.On Saturday, Bauman acknowledged the party had started an investigation and on Monday he announced he was taking a leave of absence. He provided no details on the allegations. Campos said he doesn't know if Larimore-Hall's letter relates to the alleged incident on the bus or something else, but he said he was not aware of any allegations of sexual assault on the bus."We did not hear anything about possible sexual assault," he said.Larimore-Hall did not respond to multiple emails and a phone message from The Associated Press Tuesday. Jorge Aguilar, executive director of Pelosi's campaign, and Bauman did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.In a statement Monday announcing Bauman's leave, party spokesman Mike Roth said "Bauman believes this decision is the best way to ensure the independence and integrity of the process. The Party is confident that the procedures in place will allow for all parties to come forward freely and provide for a thorough and complete review."Alex Gallardo-Rooker, another party vice chair, is serving as acting chairwoman during the investigation. 2627

SACRAMENTO (AP) — California on Thursday temporarily banned insurance companies from dropping customers in areas affected by more than a dozen recent blazes, invoking a new law for the first time as homeowners in the wildfire-plagued state struggle to find coverage while carriers seek to shed risk.The order from Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara will last for one year, and it only covers people who live inside or next to the perimeter of 16 different wildfires that burned across the state in October. The Department of Insurance estimates the moratorium will affect 800,000 policies covering millions of people in portions of Los Angeles and Riverside counties in Southern California and Sonoma County in the northern part of the state.The move comes as regulators are aggressively trying to assist homeowners in wildfire-prone areas who say they are being pushed out of the commercial insurance market as climate change makes fires larger and more frequent.RELATED: Cal Fire: Acres burned across the state is much lower in 2019 than 2018Seven of the 10 most destructive wildfires in California history have happened in the last five years — including 2018′s Camp Fire, which destroyed roughly 19,000 buildings and killed 85 people in and around the Northern California town of Paradise. That blaze alone generated more than billion in insurance claims, according to the Department of Insurance.Since 2015, state officials say insurance companies have declined to renew nearly 350,000 policies in areas at high risk for wildfires. That data does not include information on how many people were able to find coverage elsewhere or at what price.One of those homeowners is Sean Coffey, who said he and his wife have struggled to maintain fire insurance on their home in Oakland.“The pattern repeated itself almost every year since we bought our house. We would have (coverage) for 10 months. In the fall, we would get a notice we are being dropped,” he said.RELATED: Study: Alien grasses are making more frequent US wildfiresCoffey now buys fire insurance from the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan, an insurance pool mandated by state law that is required to sell policies to people who can’t buy them through no fault of their own. He must purchase a second policy to cover risks other than fire.FAIR Plan policies in wildfire-prone areas have grown an average of 8% each year since 2016, according to the Department of Insurance. Last month, Lara ordered the FAIR Plan to begin selling comprehensive policies next year that cover more than just fire damage. FAIR Plan Association President Anneliese Jivan called that order “a misguided approach,” saying it will make all of the plans more expensive.Lara has the authority to order the moratorium under a bill he authored while in the state Senate last year that was signed into law by former Gov. Jerry Brown. The law took effect in January, and this is the first time regulators have used it.In addition to ordering the moratorium, Lara called on insurance companies to voluntarily stop dropping customers solely because of wildfire risk.RELATED: Bigger, longer blackouts could lie ahead in California“I believe everyone in the state deserves this same breathing room,” Lara said.A spokeswoman for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment.While state officials rush to assist homeowners, a new report from California Auditor Elaine Howle said the state did not do enough to protect non-English speaking, elderly and other vulnerable residents during three of the state’s most devastating fires in recent years.The audit covered Butte County, site of 2018′s Camp fire, plus the 2017 Thomas Fire that burned more than 281,000 acres in Ventura County and 2017 fires in Sonoma County that killed 24 people. The audit found none of the three counties had assessed its residents to determine who might need extra help and whether resources were available to help such people, such as transportation, during a natural disaster.The audit also scolds the state oversight agency, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, for failing to assist counties in developing such plans and reviewing any plans in place.Howle says it was impossible to determine whether lives could have been saved “if the counties had planned differently or more fully implemented the best practices”her office recommends in the report.” But she noted that “inadequate plans and insufficient planning are proven contributors to failure.” 4561

来源：资阳报