揭阳哪里治疗白癜风厉害(潮州看白癜风在哪最好) (今日更新中)

SAN DIEGO — Corinne Lam didn't waste anytime once she learned she wouldn't be allowed to cut hair indoors anymore.She spent Monday afternoon gathering tents, misters, and rugs to make it somewhat bearable to move Rancho Bernardo’s Salotto Salon’s operations into its parking lot."We were essentially ready to start operating tomorrow outdoors,” she said Tuesday.Governor Newsom on Monday ordered salons, gyms and malls to cease indoor operations to slow the increasing spread of Covid-19.Lam didn't think moving outside would be a problem. After all, the County of San Diego said businesses could shift operations outside under tents, canopies or sun shelters if the sides are not closed and there is sufficient air movement.Lam, who owns the salon with her husband, was planning to do just that until she learned the California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology won’t allow it.“The law - in the Business and Professions Code - states that all barbering and cosmetology services must be performed IN a licensed establishment,” said Cheri Gyuro, spokeswoman for the state Department of Consumer Affairs. “Therefore, these types of business in the required counties must be closed immediately.”It's a devastating blow to Salotto Salon and those like it across the county - because unlike last shutdown, they've exhausted all of their stimulus funds through the paycheck protection program.“We're not just hairstylists,” Lam said. “We are professionals and business owners and mothers, and all we want is to be able to do what we do.” 1540

SAN CLEMENTE, Calif. (KGTV) - New legal action is being taken over the transfer of nuclear waste at the embattled San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). A lawsuit and motion for a temporary restraining order have been filed in federal court.Public Watchdogs is the nonprofit advocacy group pursuing action against Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, Sempra Energy, Holtec International and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Public Watchdogs is asking the courts to order a halt to the storage of nuclear waste at the decommissioned power plant. The nonprofit is alleging, in part, that the storage canisters are defective and could fail, which could cause a deadly nuclear disaster. According to court records, the defendants are creating a major threat by burying nuclear waste next to the ocean, in a tsunami inundation zone, near a fault line and in heavily populated area. The restraining order request claims that once a defective canister is buried, there's no existing method to inspect it unearth it or transfer it. “We're not saying, ‘Stop the decommissioning process.’ We're saying, ‘Put the decommissioning process in perspective and give us a good plan and by the way, protect the environment, too, because this is all we have and we don't get a second chance.’ If there's a Chernobyl here, there's no second chance,” says Public Watchdogs’ attorney, Chuck La Bella.10News contacted all of the defendants on Friday.SDG&E responded with “no comment”.Southern California Edison sent 10News the following statement: “This latest effort by Public Watchdogs runs counter to the expressed interest of the communities adjacent to the San Onofre nuclear plant by potentially stranding spent fuel on site, even when options for transport and off-site storage or disposal become available. Placing spent nuclear fuel into approved canisters that meet all technical, safety and regulatory requirements for on-site storage is the first step to relocating the fuel to an off-site, federally licensed facility. The local communities near San Onofre have made it abundantly clear that storing the fuel safely on site and then moving the fuel to such a facility as soon as possible is their strong desire and in their best interest. SCE shares these objectives and is working diligently towards achieving them. By 2021, more than 80 percent of the spent fuel stored at San Onofre will be eligible for transport off-site. Being ready means having all fuel safely in dry storage and in transportable canisters.” 2553

SAN DIEGO (AP) — The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday released documents detailing widespread allegations of misconduct by U.S. border authorities toward children, including kicking one in the ribs, denying medical attention to a pregnant teen who complained of pain and threatening others with sexual abuse.Its report is based on more than 30,000 pages of government documents in response to Freedom of Information Act requests and a subsequent lawsuit. The allegations date from 2009 to 2014 and, according to its authors, number in the hundreds.Customs and Border Protection strongly denied the claims, as it has rejected similar accusations of widespread excessive use of force in recent years. The documents compiled by the Homeland Security Department's Office of Civil Litigation and Civil Rights for the ACLU are partially redacted, making it more difficult to assess the allegations and findings.TEAM 10 INVESTIGATES: Increase in arrests of immigrants smuggled into San Diego by seaHomeland Security's internal watchdog agency has reviewed the claims and found them unsubstantiated, said Customs and Border Protection spokesman Dan Hetlage. In 2014, the department's inspector general investigated 16 cases of alleged child neglect and abuse — out of 116 that advocacy groups had compiled — and reported that federal prosecutors declined to file charges because there was no evidence of crimes."The false accusations made by the ACLU against the previous administration are unfounded and baseless," said Hetlage.Mitra Ebadolahi, an attorney for the ACLU's border litigation project, said the quantity of the allegations as well as their consistency — spanning several years and several states and coming from children with differing backgrounds — indicates some level of truth.RELATED: Customs and Border Protection details reasons for San Diego border wall testing"These records document a pattern of intimidation, harassment, physical abuse, refusal of medical services, and improper deportation between 2009 and 2014. These records also reveal the absence of meaningful internal or external agency oversight and accountability," says the report, which was co-authored by the University of Chicago Law School's International Human Rights Clinic.The ACLU began publishing the government documents online Wednesday and plans to post material, including audio recordings. Among the cases described in the initial release of documents: 2466

San Diegans already pay some of the nation's highest gas taxes, and they're about to fork over even more at the pump.On Wednesday, the state will raise the per-gallon tax by 12 cents to 41.7 cents per gallon. That's on top of existing state and federal taxes drivers pay on regular gasoline. Gov. Jerry Brown and the state legislature approved the increase earlier this year to help fund state and local transportation projects. There's an interactive project map here. The new tax is supposed to generate about billion over the next 10 years. "For us just regular people, we don't have the extra money to pay for gas, especially with the commute," said La Mesa resident Anneke Crowder, who was filling up Monday. But there is one force at play that could lessen the hit from the increase. The day the tax goes up, Wednesday, is also the day that gas stations can start selling the less expensive winter blend.Marie Montgomery, a spokeswoman for the Auto Club, says that should cut the gas price about 6 cents, offsetting half the increase.Diesel drivers will be hit harder on Wednesday, when the per-gallon tax increases 20 cents, and the sales tax goes up to 13 percent. On Monday, the average gallon of regular gas cost .05 in San Diego, and Diesel .14.  1308

SAN DIEGO (AP) — An appeals court on Wednesday upheld a freeze on Pentagon money to build a border wall with Mexico, casting doubt on President Donald Trump's ability to make good on a signature campaign promise before the 2020 election.A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with a lower court ruling that prevented the government from tapping Defense Department counterdrug money to build high-priority sections of wall in Arizona and New Mexico.The decision is a setback for Trump's ambitious plans. He ended a 35-day government shutdown in February after Congress gave him far less than he wanted. He then declared a national emergency that the White House said would free billions of dollars from the Pentagon.The case may still be considered, but the administration cannot build during the legal challenge.A freeze imposed by U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of Oakland in May prevented work on two Pentagon-funded wall contracts — one spanning 46 miles (74 kilometers) in New Mexico and another covering 5 miles (8 kilometers) in Yuma, Arizona.While the order applied only to those first-in-line projects, Gilliam made clear that he felt the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups were likely to prevail at trial in their argument that the president was ignoring Congress' wishes by diverting Defense Department money."Congress's 'absolute' control over federal expenditures — even when that control may frustrate the desires of the Executive Branch regarding initiatives it views as important — is not a bug in our constitutional system. It is a feature of that system, and an essential one," the judge wrote.Gilliam went a step further Friday by ruling definitively that the administration couldn't use Pentagon counterdrug money for the two projects covered in his May order or to replace 63 miles (101 kilometers) in the Border Patrol's Tucson, Arizona, sector and 15 miles (24 kilometers) in its El Centro, California, sector.Trump immediately vowed to appeal.At stake is billions of dollars that would allow Trump to make progress on a major 2016 campaign promise heading into his race for a second term.Trump declared a national emergency after losing a fight with the Democratic-led House that led to the 35-day shutdown. Congress agreed to spend nearly .4 billion on barriers in Texas' Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal crossings, which was well below the .7 billion the president requested.Trump grudgingly accepted the money but declared the emergency to siphon money from other government accounts, finding up to .1 billion for wall construction. The money includes .6 billion from military construction funds, .5 billion from Defense Department counterdrug activities and 0 million from the Treasury Department's asset forfeiture fund.Acting Defense Secretary Mark Esper has yet to approve transferring the military construction funds. The Treasury Department funds have so far survived legal challenges.The president's adversaries say the emergency declaration was an illegal attempt to ignore Congress. The ACLU sued on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition.The administration said the U.S. needed emergency protection to fight drug smuggling. Its arguments did not mention illegal immigration or unprecedented numbers of Central American families seeking asylum at the U.S. border, which have dominated public attention in recent months.Justice Department attorneys argued that the freeze on Pentagon funds showed a "fundamental misunderstanding of the federal appropriations process.""The real separation-of-powers concern is the district court's intrusion into the budgeting process," they wrote.The two sides argued before a three-judge panel in San Francisco on June 20, made up of Barack Obama appointee Michelle Friedland and George W. Bush appointees N. Randy Smith and Richard Clifton.The administration has awarded .8 billion in contracts for barriers covering 247 miles (390 kilometers), with all but 17 miles (27 kilometers) of that to replace existing barriers not expand coverage. It is preparing for a flurry of construction that the president is already celebrating at campaign-style rallies.Trump inherited barriers spanning 654 miles (1,046 kilometers), or about one-third of the border with Mexico. Of the miles covered under Trump-awarded contracts, more than half is with Pentagon money.The Army Corps of Engineers recently announced several large Pentagon-funded contacts.SLSCO Ltd. of Galveston, Texas, won a 9 million award to replace the New Mexico barrier. Southwest Valley Constructors of Albuquerque, New Mexico, won a 6 million award for the work in Tucson. Barnard Construction Co. of Bozeman, Montana, won a 1.8 million contract to replace barrier in Yuma and El Centro. 4877

来源：资阳报