宜宾失败的双眼皮手术(宜宾现在的隆鼻有哪些) (今日更新中)

A group of lucky dogs dodged cars and stopped traffic as they made their way across the lanes of Interstate 17 in Phoenix Monday morning.Video from Arizona Department of Transportation cameras showed the pack of six small dogs around 9:55 a.m. local time wandering from the shoulder near Thomas Road across several lanes as cars and trucks slowed to a stop.Department of Public Safety motorcycle troopers could be seen approaching the dogs from behind and ushering them off the freeway at McDowell Road.Luckily, DPS said all six of the pups were taken off the roadway safely. 583

A locked-down pandemic-struck world cut its carbon dioxide emissions this year by 7%, the biggest drop ever, new preliminary figures show.The Global Carbon Project, an authoritative group of dozens of international scientists who track emissions, calculated that the world will have put 37 billion U.S. tons (34 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide in the air in 2020. That’s down from 40.1 billion US tons (36.4 billion metric tons) in 2019, according a study published Thursday in the journal Earth System Science Data.Scientists say this drop is chiefly because people are staying home, traveling less by car and plane, and that emissions are expected to jump back up after the pandemic ends. Ground transportation makes up about one-fifth of emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief man-made heat-trapping gas.“Of course, lockdown is absolutely not the way to tackle climate change,” said study co-author Corinne LeQuere, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia.The same group of scientists months ago predicted emission drops of 4% to 7%, depending on the progression of COVID-19. A second coronavirus wave and continued travel reductions pushed the decrease to 7%, LeQuere said.Emissions dropped 12% in the United States and 11% in Europe, but only 1.7% in China. That’s because China had an earlier lockdown with less of a second wave. Also China’s emissions are more industrial based than other countries and its industry was less affected than transportation, LeQuere said.The calculations — based on reports detailing energy use, industrial production and daily mobility counts — were praised as accurate by outside scientists.Even with the drop in 2020, the world on average put 1,185 tons (1,075 metric tons) of carbon dioxide into the air every second.Final figures for 2019 published in the same study show that from 2018 to 2019 emissions of the main man-made heat-trapping gas increased only 0.1%, much smaller than annual jumps of around 3% a decade or two ago. Even with emissions expected to rise after the pandemic, scientists are wondering if 2019 be the peak of carbon pollution, LeQuere said.“We are certainly very close to an emissions peak, if we can keep the global community together,” said United Nations Development Director Achim Steiner.Chris Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, thinks emissions will increase after the pandemic, but said “I am optimistic that we have, as a society learned some lessons that may help decrease emissions in the future.”“For example,” he added, “as people get good at telecommuting a couple of days a week or realize they don’t need quite so many business trips, we might see behavior-related future emissions decreases.”___Follow AP’s climate coverage at https://www.apnews.com/Climate___Follow Seth Borenstein on Twitter at @borenbears .___The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. 3048

A day after Judge Amy Coney Barrett mostly sidestepped questions on her judicial views of politically-charged topics, Barrett returned to the Capitol on Wednesday for another marathon session of questioning in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.On Tuesday, Democrats continued their attempt to pry Barrett into sharing her judicial views on topics like abortion, public healthcare, LGBTQ+ rights and gun control — topics which Barrett is considered to take a conservative slant. However, Barrett continued to repeatedly invoke the "Ginsburg rule.""Justice Ginsburg, with her characteristic pithiness, used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. No hints, no previews, no forecasts," Barrett said on Tuesday.Ginsburg — whose seat Barrett seeks to fill following the longtime justice's death in September — coined the phrase during her confirmation hearings 27 years ago. While she did not set that precedent, she's credited with the concise phrasing that has been recited by many prospective justices in the decades since.But The Associated Press notes that Ginsburg was open on her views of at least one hotly-debated topic — abortion."The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity," Ginsburg said in 1993 during her confirmation hearing, according to the AP. "It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices."As Democrats lobbed questions at Barrett regarding her judicial views, the judge offered few insights. Here's how she answered on the following topics:AbortionLike she did on Tuesday, Barrett attempted to avoid answering specific questions regarding her personal views on abortion. However, Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Barrett specifically about legislation he introduced that would prevent a woman from receiving an abortion after 20 weeks. When asked if Barrett would listen to both sides of that case, Barrett said she would.Graham went on to say that if Barrett were to be confirmed, it would punch through a "reinforced concrete barrier" facing conservative women, adding it would be the first time in history that a woman who is "unashamedly pro-life" would be appointed to the Supreme Court.Affordable Care ActBarrett mostly stuck to the "Ginsburg Rule" by attempting not to tip her hand when it came to sharing judicial views. However, questioning from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, forced Barrett to admit that while she had written negatively about the Affordable Care Act and some Supreme Court rulings upholding it in the past, she had not ever written favorably about the law.Cameras in the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has famously been one of the most secretive branches of government. Cameras and recording devices weren't allowed in high court hearings until this year when arguments were forced to be held via teleconference due to the COVID-19. In fact, it wasn't until 2018 that the court published case filings online.However, Barrett said Wednesday that she would "keep an open mind" about allowing cameras in the courtroom moving forward.Climate changeSen. Richard Blumenthal asked Barrett directly if she believed if humans are causing climate change. She declined to answer the question directly and added that she didn't think it was relevant to her job.Her comments come a day after she said during the first day of questioning that she has "no firm views" on climate change and added that she's "not a scientist."COVID-19 lockdownsFeinstein also asked Barrett about a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year in which the court said Wisconsin could not extend mail-in voting during its primary elections. The primary took place on April 7 — in the throes of pandemic-related lockdowns.Feinstein asked Barrett specifically about her view of the case. Barrett declined to give one, again citing the fact that she did not want to provide a judicial view.PolygamyWhen asked by Graham if a group of Americans had a right to polygamous marriage, Barrett declined to give a direct answer, keeping in line with avoiding direct judicial answers.Presidential powersLeahy asked Barrett specifically if a president had a right to pardon himself for any crimes he may have committed. Barrett responded that such a hypothetical was not settled law and that she did not want to speculate lest a similar case come before the courts.ImmigrationSen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat who ran for the party's presidential nomination, question Barrett on her views on separating children at the border. "Do you think it is wrong to separate a child from their parent, not for the safety of the child or parent, but to send a message? As a human being, do you believe that that is wrong?"Booker asked. "That's been a matter of policy debate and that's a matter of hot political debate in which I can't express a view or be drawn into as a judge," Barrett responded. What's nextSenators will meet privately to review Barrett's FBI file and background check. On Thursday, witnesses for and against Barrett's confirmation will go before the committee. _____Tuesday's hearings were also beset by technical issues. During Blumenthal's questioning, the committee was forced to take a brief recess when microphones in the room stopped working. Upon the committee's return, microphones again went dead as Blumenthal was wrapping up his time, forcing another brief recess.On Tuesday, Barrett also often invoked the "Ginsburg Rule" when discussing abortion, an upcoming case that could decide the legality of the Affordable Care Act, gun control and voting rights.Barrett was also asked about comments from President Donald Trump, who has hinted in the past that Ginsburg's seat must be filled prior to the election in the event the Supreme Court needs to make a crucial ruling. Barrett did not commit to recusing herself should such a case arise, but said she would consider the case and the recommendations of other justices.Barrett's thorniest stretch on Tuesday came in a denouncement of discrimination of LGBTQ+ people when she used the term "sexual preference." The term, generally deemed to be outdated, is classified as "offensive" by GLAAD because it implies that sexuality is a "choice" that can be "cured." Barrett later apologized for using the term when confronted by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.The 22 Senators on the committee were each given 30 minutes to question Barrett on Tuesday. Senators will each be given 20 minutes for questioning on Wednesday. Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, says he hopes to wrap up the confirmation hearing Thursday, and that Barrett is on track to be confirmed later this month, about a week before the 2020 election.Several swing-vote Republicans have already indicated that they will vote to confirm Barrett, suggesting that she will likely be confirmed. 6963

A California man allegedly made a series of threats to Boston Globe employees in which he echoed President Trump's anti-press language.Robert D. Chain of Encino, California has been charged with one count of making threatening communications in interstate commerce, the US Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts said in a press release Thursday. Chain, 68, is due to appear in federal court in Los Angeles Thursday afternoon.The US Attorney's Office said Chain will be transferred to Boston "at a later date."Chain is accused of making several threatening phone calls to the Globe beginning almost immediately after the paper announced on August 10 that it was calling on newspapers across the country to publish editorials the following week standing up to Trump for referring to the press as "fake news" and "enemies of the people."According to court documents, on August 16, the day the editorial campaign was published in newspapers around the country, Chain made a call to the Globe's newsroom in which he said, "You're the enemy of the people, and we're going to kill every f***ing one of you. Hey, why don't you call the F, why don't you call Mueller, maybe he can help you out buddy. ... I'm going to shoot you in the f***ing head later today, at 4 o'clock."In another call allegedly made on August 22, Chain was asked why he was calling. According to court documents, he responded, "Because you are the enemy of the people, and I want you to go f*** yourself. As long as you keep attacking the President, the duly elected President of the United States, in the continuation of your treasonous and seditious acts, I will continue to threats, harass, and annoy the Boston Globe."More than 300 newspapers joined the Globe's initiative, with editorials running from coast-to-coast. In courting the other papers, the Globe proposed running the editorials to sound the alarm "on the dangers of the administration's assault on the press."Chain allegedly made at least 14 threatening phone calls to the Globe between August 10 and 22. He faces a charge that "provides for a sentence of no greater than five years, one year of supervised release, and a fine of 0,000," the US Attorney's Office said in its press release."Everyone has a right to express their opinion, but threatening to kill people, takes it over the line and will not be tolerated," said Harold H. Shaw, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Division, said in a statement. "Today's arrest of Robert Chain should serve a warning to others, that making threats is not a prank, it's a federal crime. All threats are taken seriously, as we never know if the subject behind the threat intends to follow through with their actions. Whether potentially hoax or not, each and every threat will be aggressively run to ground."The-CNN-Wire 2854

A couple reportedly tried to sneak into an iconic church in San Francisco to get married with dozens of their closest friends and family, and now several in the wedding party have Covid-19.The couple originally planned to marry earlier this year, and rescheduled for early July, multiple media outlets report. The couple planned to marry at Saints Peter and Paul Church, with roughly 100 invited guests.The guests were instructed to enter the church from an underground parking structure. Some of the pews were roped off, presumably to allow for social distancing.Representatives from the San Francisco City Attorney's Office were able to stop many of the guests from going inside the church after spotting them, and told them the event had to be held outside. San Francisco’s coronavirus health guidelines allow up to 12 people to gather outdoors if there's no food or drink.After being told to hold the ceremony outside, a large group moved to a nearby basketball court for the ceremony. Some guests watched the wedding on a video conferencing service from their cars, according to the Chronicle.However, now some are reportedly sick. The bride and groom, as well as at least eight other members of the wedding party tested positive for the coronavirus, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on Sunday, citing information from two guests.The San Francisco Archdiocese has already been warned about hosting large events and weddings, according to emails obtained by NBC Bay Area. 1487

来源：资阳报