碑林高考提分怎么办(高陵区高三学校哪里有多少钱) (今日更新中)

The mystery of what happened to Jimmy Hoffa plays a starring role in the new movie, “The Irishman.” The film tells the tale of alleged hit man Frank Sheeran - pulling the trigger on the legendary Teamsters boss.But Hoffa experts say the story is not based in fact. Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith has a very unique connection to the case, to help determine the truth from the tale.It’s been hailed for the amazing acting, and epic directing, but “The Irishman” truly is a work of fiction when it comes to the storyline about Jimmy Hoffa.The legendary Teamsters leader vanished on July 30, 1975. He was last seen in the parking lot of the Machus Red Fox restaurant in Bloomfield Hills. Hoffa thought he was going to a reconciliation meeting with two mob bosses – New Jersey Teamsters official Tony Provenzano and Detroit mafia captain Tony Giacalone.“The Irishman” glorifies the late Teamster and alleged hit man Frank Sheeran. Sheeran’s so-called confession that he killed Hoffa at the mob’s request was made public in 2003 when author Charles Brandt released the book “I Heard You Paint Houses.” The movie brings that story to life on the big screen – but Hoffa experts say it’s historically just plain wrong."Good art, bad history," says Goldsmith. Goldsmith used to work at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. He’s also the stepson of Chuckie O’Brien – Hoffa’s foster son who was once thought to have driven Hoffa to his death.Goldsmith’s recent book “In Hoffa’s Shadow” reveals what the FBI case agents really think happened to Hoffa."Sheeran was not involved in killing Hoffa," he says. "And he wasn’t actually nearly as close to Hoffa as he was portrayed in the film."Goldsmith says the feds watched a video of Sheeran’s alleged confession—and call it a lie. "They all think it’s preposterous," he says.Goldsmith says Sheeran was caught on FBI surveillance tape telling close friends he wasn’t even in Detroit on the day Hoffa vanished."He had gas receipts, he was at dinner that evening," Goldsmith says. "Nowhere near Detroit, there were 18 people who saw him and he even said in a letter soon thereafter that he gave the FBI all of that evidence why he wasn’t in Detroit."In the movie, Sheeran shoots Hoffa in the vestibule of this home on Beaverland St. on Detroit’s west side.Investigators removed some of the floorboards where blood was found back in 2004 – but the blood did not belong to Hoffa."There’s zero evidence – none at all – that connects Hoffa or Sheeran being there," Goldsmith says.Goldsmith says his stepfather, Chuckie O’Brien hasn’t watched the movie – but he suspects O’Brien would be upset that he’s still being portrayed as the driver who picked Hoffa up at the restaurant. Goldsmith says the feds believe the known whereabouts of O’Brien that day make that impossible- and they no longer consider O’Brien a suspect."He would not have had time to have gone to the Machus Red Fox, picked up Hoffa, and taken him somewhere else," Goldsmith says. Goldsmith also says Sheeran’s claim that they picked Hoffa up at 2:45 contradicts the 3:30pm phone call Hoffa made to his wife from a pay phone in the parking lot."There’s evidence he called his wife Josephine out at the lake where they lived," Goldmisth says. "At 3:30 in the afternoon, that he was tired of waiting for Anthony Giacolone, and that he was going to come home And then that’s the last thing we know about Hoffa. WE literally don’t have any evidence about what happened other than he disappeared."The U.S. Attorney in Detroit recently told us there’s more to come on the Jimmy Hoffa case.This summer marks the 45th anniversary of Hoffa’s disappearance. As for The Irishman, 3694

The cake was supposed to read “Happy Birthday Lizard,” instead, a 3-year-old’s cake read “Happy Birthday Loser.”The incident took place last year, but the girl's mother, Melin Jones, just made the 209

The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to remove "virtual caucusing" from Iowa's and Nevada's 2020 caucus plans on Friday, giving the states about two weeks to form an alternative proposal.The move leaves Iowa -- which had planned to use only the vote-by-phone method to comply with the Democratic Party's rules to expand voting access in the caucus states -- in a particularly tough position.Nevada's plans included in-person early voting, meaning the committee could find the state's plan in compliance without that element.Last week, DNC Chairman Tom Perez issued a statement with the committee's co-chairs saying the vote-by-phone method didn't meet security standards set to avoid hacking or tampering."While today's decision is not unexpected, we are still disappointed," Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Troy Price said in a statement after the vote. "We continue to have confidence in the abilities of our vendors to enact this process, but if the DNC does not believe the virtual caucus can be secure, then we cannot go forward. With less than five months to go, we are continuing to explore as quickly as possible what alternatives may exist in order to securely expand accessibility for the 2020 caucuses."Price, who's in New Hampshire for that state's Democratic Party convention, has been meeting with officials to find a way to include early voting in the caucus process.At issue is the use of paper ballots for Iowa, which is firmly opposed by New Hampshire, as that could seem too much like a primary to officials intent on keeping the New England state as the first in the nation primary. Should Iowa institute paper ballots in 2020, there is a possibility that New Hampshire will move its primary date before Iowa's caucuses.The DNC established new rules for caucuses last year, which included requiring an absentee option for voters who couldn't attend the regular caucus. Seven states that used party-run caucuses in 2016 will instead hold primaries in 2020."It is unfortunate the DNC won't allow us to go forward with the virtual caucus in 2020," Nevada State Democratic Party Chair William McCurdy II said in a statement. "Despite this change with less than six months to go before our February caucus, NV Dems is committed to continuing engaging new Democrats, bringing more voices into this critically important process and hosting multiple options to participate in our caucus."Rules committee members lamented their vote against virtual caucusing, citing their desire to expand voting in the primary process."I want to applaud both our state Democratic parties -- both Iowa and Nevada -- for getting as far as they did without any real, tangible guidance from either this committee or the DNC," Artie Blanco, a Nevada member of the rules committee, said ahead of the decision.Accusing Republicans of failing to protect voting from adversaries, Blanco said that "it is impossible to find a technology secure enough for our virtual caucus to protect against hacking attempts."Multiple rules committee members echoed the accusation against the Republican Party of failing to protect voting. While no member mentioned the 2016 Russian hacks of the DNC at this meeting, the issue has reverberated throughout their deliberations over these plans."These states are working hard with the assistance of DHS and the FBI. Frankly, they're not getting a lot of help from President Trump or from Senator Mitch McConnell, who are in fact trying to impede this," former Clinton White House official and committee member Elaine Kamarck said. "Nevertheless, the federal government has civil servants that are still working to try and help the state officials in those states make a safer process."Rules committee Chairman James Roosevelt Jr., recognizing the difficult position the caucus states were in, announced that Chairman Perez endorsed his plan to work with DNC leadership to find a way to make virtual caucusing work in the future."This time the effort was left to the states because that's the way the plans are normally developed," Roosevelt said. "I think we recognize now that this is bigger than any one state's problem. I'm going to urge the DNC leadership to lead this effort following the general election, so that we have three years to deal with it."The committee will meet again within two weeks to vote on final proposals from each state. Should Iowa not be able to come up with a plan in compliance, the committee could issue a waiver of the rules in 2020, which is considered a last resort. 4562

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals provided tips on Tuesday on how to keep animals safe and healthy as the country deals with the spread of coronavirus. Here are the tips provided by ASPCA: Wash Your HandsAlthough there is no current evidence that suggests the coronavirus can be transmitted to or from companion animals, it's always a good idea to follow basic hygiene practices around animals. This includes washing your hands thoroughly throughout the day and before and after direct contact with your pets, their food or their supplies.Play it SafeWhile there have not been any reports of companion animals becoming sick from the virus, it is still recommended that people who are sick with COVID-19 limit contact with companion animals until more information is available. If you are sick or under medical attention for COVID-19, you should avoid close contact with your pets and have another member of your household care for your animals. If you must look after your pet, you should maintain good hygiene practices and wear a face mask, if possible.Stock Up on Pet SuppliesPrepare a kit with essential supplies to have on hand in the event of an emergency. Your emergency kit should include a 30-day supply of your pets' medications, as well as at least two weeks' worth of food and other supplies, like litter. Make sure all pets wear collars and tags with up-to-date identification information. Your pet's ID tag should contain his name, telephone number and any urgent medical needs. Be sure to also write your pet's name, your name and contact information on your pet's carrier.Designate an Emergency CaregiverProactively identify someone who could help with their short- or long-term care in the event you are unable to care for your pets. Consider a family member, friend, neighbor or a boarding facility.Create a Pet DossierIf your emergency caregiver's assistance is needed, make it easier for them by having all of your pets' information in one place. Consider including things like habits, food preferences, medical conditions and medications taken, veterinarian contact information, medical and vaccination records, and any behavioral tendencies. 2203

The opioid crisis cost the U.S. economy 1 billion from 2015 through last year — and it may keep getting more expensive, according to a study released Tuesday by the Society of Actuaries.The biggest driver of the cost over the four-year period is unrealized lifetime earnings of those who died from the drugs, followed by health care costs.While more than 2,000 state and local governments have sued the drug industry over the crisis, the report released Tuesday finds that governments bear less than one-third of the financial costs. The rest of it affects individuals and the private sector.The federal government is tracking how many lives are lost to the opioid crisis (more than 400,000 Americans since 2000), but pinning down the financial cost is less certain.A U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report from found the cost for 2013 at billion. That’s less than half the cost that the latest report has found in more recent years. The crisis also has deepened since 2013, with fentanyl and other strong synthetic opioids contributing to a higher number of deaths. Overall, opioid-related death numbers rose through 2017 before leveling off last year at about 47,000.A study published in 2017 by the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimated a far higher cost — just over 0 billion a year. The new study notes that the White House one used much higher figures for the value of lives lost to opioids — attempting to quantify their economic value rather than just future income.The actuaries’ report is intended partly to help the insurance industry figure out how to factor opioid use disorder into policy pricing.It found that the cost of the opioid crisis this year is likely to be between 1 billion and 4 billion. Even under the most optimistic scenario, the cost would be higher than it was in 2017.The study was released just ahead of the first federal trial on the opioid crisis, scheduled to start next week in Cleveland where a jury will hear claims from Ohio’s Cuyahoga and Summit counties against six companies. The counties claim the drug industry created a public nuisance and should pay.The report found that criminal justice and child-welfare system costs have been pushed up by the opioid epidemic.Most of the added health care costs for dealing with opioid addiction and overdoses were borne by Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs, according to the report. Still, the crisis rang up billion in commercial insurance costs last year. Lost productivity costs added another billion.Businesses have begun noticing. Last week, a small West Virginia home improvement company, Al Marino Inc., filed a class-action lawsuit against several companies, claiming the opioid crisis was a reason its health insurance costs were skyrocketing.Still, the biggest cost burden fell on families due to lost earnings of those who died. Those mortality costs alone came to more than billion last year, the report said.Members of a committee representing unsecured creditors helping guide opioid maker Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy process have been calling for money in any settlement to go toward to people affected by the crisis and not just governments. 3225

来源：资阳报