山东痛风经常发作怎么办(济南什么是痛风?有什么症状?如何治疗?) (今日更新中)

The line of well-dressed celebrities waiting to chat with E! on the Oscars red carpet might be a little shorter this year.As Ryan Seacrest continues to defend himself against an allegation of sexual harassment, E! has chosen to stand by its longtime host, saying this week that he will occupy his usual post front and center of the action on the red carpet during Hollywood's biggest night.The decision will leave E!, its hosts, and the celebrities set to walk the red carpet in a difficult position on an occasion that marks both the culmination of Hollywood's award season and the first Academy Awards since the #MeToo and Time's Up movements forced the entertainment industry to address its issues with sexual harassment and gender-related inequity."I don't think [Seacrest is] going to have a great time on the carpet," one longtime Hollywood publicist tells CNN.News that Seacrest was facing workplace misconduct allegations first came to light in November, when Seacrest released a preemptive statement denying the accusations and revealing that E! was conducting an investigation.E! concluded its probe in early February, saying in a statement at the time that outside counsel "found insufficient evidence to substantiate allegations against Seacrest."The allegations received new steam on Monday, when in an interview with Variety, Seacrest's former stylist, Suzie Hardy, detailed instances where she said he groped and sexually harassed her.NBC's "Today" show aired a report on Wednesday in which a former co-worker of Hardy's, who NBC did not identify at the source's request, corroborated her story.In response, Seacrest's attorney, Andrew Baum, claimed the witness who spoke with "Today" had also participated in E!'s third-party investigation."He was interviewed and his claims were fully evaluated," Baum said in a statement to CNN.On Tuesday, Seacrest again denied Hardy's allegations in a statement to CNN, saying in part, "I don't want to accuse anyone of not telling the truth but in this case, I have no choice but to again deny the claims against me, remind people that I was recused of any wrongdoing, and put the matter to rest."Insistent as Seacrest is about his innocence, it may not be enough to clear the air before Sunday."It's probably easiest for some [celebrities] to avoid E!," the veteran publicist added.When asked whether executives at E! were concerned Seacrest's presence could deter celebrities from participating in the network's Oscars coverage, an E! spokesperson told CNN, "It's business as usual. Ryan will be hosting as scheduled on Sunday."At January's Golden Globes, which took place after the allegations were first known but before E! had concluded its investigation, Seacrest seemingly had no trouble getting famous faces to join him on air.However, Seacrest and co-host Giuliana Rancic were criticized on social media for not placing what some felt was sufficient focus on the activist guests who accompanied several nominees involved with the Time's Up movement.The E! hosts also had to contend with a few awkward encounters in which they were questioned about the network's handling of a pay dispute with former on-air personality Catt Sadler.Sadler left E! in December after she says the network declined to close a pay gap she'd discovered between her and a male colleague of similar standing.In a statement at the time, a spokesperson for E! said the network "compensates employees fairly and appropriately based on their roles, regardless of gender."Eva Longoria, Debra Messing and Laura Dern were among those who called out E! while being interviewed at the Golden Globes."I'm sure a few will still stop and talk to Ryan, but I would assume that there are several celebrities that will confront him based on this and/or build on the E! situation with Catt [Sadler]," the veteran publicist added. "Some will avoid [speaking with E!] all together. There are a lot of cameras on the carpet and one isn't going to make that big of a difference."E! is arguably the most visible -- and therefore popular among publicists -- red carpet broadcaster.Last year, E! averaged 2.03 million viewers during the first three hours of its Oscars red carpet coverage and 1.74 million in the last half hour, per Nielsen data.Though a fraction of ABC's preshow numbers (15.9 million viewers from 7-8:30 p.m.), it's a solid ratings result for E!, whose top-rated program, "Keeping Up with the Kardashians," pulls in about 1.5 million viewers per episode.With hours of preshow programming to fill, E! is one of the few entertainment-focused outlets that pay exorbitant fees to broadcast live. Competitors like Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood record interviews on the red carpet to air on their syndicated shows the following day.E! places correspondents in multiple positions around the site, including a bridge that overlooks the scene at the Dolby Theater.On the red carpet, few hosts can compete with the weight Seacrest's name carries among influential circles in the entertainment industry, the sector that controls where celebrities make stops during promotional tours and appearances. In addition to contributing to E!'s red carpet coverage for more than a decade, his gigs as host of a syndicated radio program, host of "American Idol," and co-host of "Live with Kelly and Ryan" have left him with plenty of goodwill and friends in the industry.Two former colleagues of Seacrest who worked with him at E! News told CNN they never witnessed any harassment and described him as a "consummate professional."Another top film publicist calls the accusation against Seacrest "a bit of a witch hunt," acknowledging too that they were "definitely sympathetic to every woman's horrific experience.""There has to be a better way to deal with past transgressions and make sure they don't happen again without destroying so many careers."  5892

The parent company for Gap and Banana Republic announced Friday that they would close more than 225 stores globally to "further advance its long-term strategic priority of a smaller healthier fleet."The closures are expected to occur this year with more stores closing in 2021, Gap Inc. said in its earnings report.According to the New York Post, many of the stores closing are located in malls.Also stated in its earnings report, the company closed 25 Old Navy's, 87 Gap's, 50 Banana Republic's, two Athleta's, one Intermix, and eight Janie and Jack stores in the quarter ending Aug. 1.Aug. 1 had 3,814 stores worldwide, which is 100 fewer stores that they had on Feb. 1, which was 3,919.Due to them temporarily closing their stores due to COVID-19, the company stated that they began the quarter with an 18% decline in net sales. 839

The polling industry has a lot on the line heading into Tuesday's midterm election.Critics blamed pollsters when voters were caught off guard by Donald Trump's election in 2016. Old cries of "don't believe the polls" became fevered shouts. And the president has encouraged distrust by calling certain polls "fake" and claiming they are used to "suppress" the vote.Although there is no evidence to suggest that is true, there is persistent and widespread suspicion about polling, according to, you guessed it, a McClatchy-Marist poll. And it exists on both sides, albeit in different forms."I think Democrats may have felt let down by the polls but don't think it was an intentional error. I think many Republicans believe the polling errors of 2016 were intentional," GOP pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights Kristen Soltis Anderson told CNN.So can the industry regain trust?Since 2016 there's been a whole lot of self-reflection in the polling world. Pollsters have tweaked their techniques; pundits have become more cautious when talking about polls; and news outlets have conducted some fascinating experiments.On Tuesday, all the efforts are being put to the test."Some pollsters would disagree with this, but the way that the public generally views whether or not polling is accurate is whether or not it gets the results of the election right," CNN analyst Harry Enten said on "Reliable Sources.""I'm not necessarily sure that's fair," Enten said, "but I do think that there is more pressure on pollsters this year to get it right given the president's rhetoric and given what happened in 2016."Many, though not all, 2016 polls underestimated support for Trump. This effect was particularly pronounced at the state level, where there were embarrassing "misses," showing Hillary Clinton with safe leads in states Trump actually carried.Most national polls accurately showed Clinton winning the popular vote. But reporters and commentators made lots of mistakes in their interpretations of the polls. Readers and viewers did, too. Many people discounted the margin and other factors and made faulty assumptions that Trump would lose to Clinton.There were other problems, too. Predictive features on websites gained lots of traffic before the election but caused lots of consternation afterward. HuffPost's model infamously showed Clinton with a 98 percent chance of winning. "We blew it," the site admitted afterward.But just as importantly, HuffPost's Natalie Jackson tried to explain why.Other news outlets have also tried to be more transparent and remind voters of what polls cannot convey.In special elections since 2016, Democrats have repeatedly outperformed polls of their races.The top example was the Virginia governors' race. "Ralph Northam was favored by three points. He ended up winning by nine," Enten said.But past outcomes are not an indicator of future results."I think many pollsters and forecasters have tried to be much more intentional about explaining uncertainty and being humble about what data can and can't tell us," Anderson said. "Because I think there was a big sense that in 2016, there was more certainty conveyed than may have been justified by the available data."So political pros and reporters are communicating poll results differently this time. Time magazine's Molly Ball, who has a no-predictions rule for herself, said that even people who do make predictions are adding more caveats: There's "less of the, 'Well, the needle shows this' and more of, 'Here's what it doesn't show, here's what we should always remember can happen about probabilities.'"Early voting has been explosive in the midterms, indicating above-average enthusiasm among both Democrats and Republicans. Pollsters have to make assumptions about turnout when contacting "likely voters," and this is a difficult election to forecast.The 2018 electorate is "a universe that doesn't exist yet," Democratic pollster Margie Omero said. "I mean, people don't know whether they're going to vote, some people."They may tell a pollster that they're sure to vote, but never make it to the ballot box. Or they might change who they're voting for.Conversely, certain subsets of voters may have a big impact on the final results without really showing up in the pre-election polling. If pollsters assume relatively low youth turnout, but lots of young people vote for the first time, that could cause big surprises in certain races.The vast majority of people who are called by pollsters decline to participate, so the researchers have to make a huge number of phone calls, bend over backwards to reach a representative sample of people, and weight their results accordingly.Some polls are higher quality than others. Most news outlets tend to favor live interviewers, as opposed to computerized systems, and a mix of landline and cell phone calls. But some outlets are wading into web-based polling. CNN's polling standards preclude reporting on web polls.This fall The New York Times pulled back the curtain by conducting "live polling" and publishing the results in real time, call by call. Working with Siena College, the surveyors made 2,822,889 calls and completed 96 polls of House and Senate races."We wanted to demystify polling for people," said Nate Cohn of The Times' Upshot blog."From our point of view, it's almost a miracle how accurate polls usually are, given all the challenges," Cohn said in an interview with CNN.He emphasized that polls are "very fuzzy things." And the real-time polling showed this to the public. The researchers sought to interview about 500 people for each race that was examined.In Iowa's fourth congressional district, for example, 14,636 calls resulted in 423 interviews.The results showed the incumbent, far-right congressman Steve King, with 47% support, and his Democratic challenger J.D. Scholten with 42%.The Times characterized this as a "slight edge" for King, with lots of room for error. "The margin of sampling error on the overall lead is 10 points, roughly twice as large as the margin for a single candidate's vote share," the Times explained on its website.Cohn's final pre-election story noted that "even modest late shifts among undecided voters or a slightly unexpected turnout could significantly affect results."That's the kind of language that lots of polling experts are incorporating into their stories and live shots, especially in the wake of the 2016 election."With polling, you never actually get to the truth," Cohn said. "You inch towards it, and you think you end up within plus or minus 5 points of it at the end."As Enten put it, "polls are tools," not meant to be perfect. But that message needs to be reinforced through the news media. 6753

The missing person at Lake Puru has been identified as Naya Rivera, 33, of Los Angeles. SAR operation will continue at first light. @VCAirUnit @fillmoresheriff @Cal_OES pic.twitter.com/bC3qaZS3Ra— Ventura Co. Sheriff (@VENTURASHERIFF) July 9, 2020 255

The House Intelligence Committee on Friday released a redacted version of the Republican report on the committee's year-long Russia investigation, in which, GOP members say, they found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and disputed the intelligence community's findings that Vladimir Putin tried to help elect Donald Trump President.The committee released the report with redactions from the intelligence community, along with a redacted Democratic dissent disputing the Republican conclusions.Rep. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican who led the committee's Russia probe, said in a statement that the intelligence community made "overzealous redactions" to the report, and the committee plans to challenge them to get more of the report declassified."Many of the redactions include information that is publicly available, such as witness names and information previously declassified," Conaway said.Republicans ended their investigation into Russia's 2016 election meddling last month, concluding they found no evidence that Trump's team had colluded with Russians."We found no evidence of collusion, and so we found perhaps some bad judgment, inappropriate meetings," Conaway said when they submitted their report for declassification.But Democrats say Republicans failed to interview key witnesses and issue subpoenas to obtain necessary information, and were not interested in uncovering collusion. They are now continuing their own investigation without Republicans into Russia's election meddling.  1545

来源：资阳报