割双眼皮宜宾哪家好宜宾双眼皮切割术哪家好,宜宾内双可以割双眼皮,宜宾哪些做双眼皮医院好,宜宾激光眼部除皱效果好不好,宜宾一般丰胸需要多少钱,宜宾脱毛多少钱,宜宾在整双眼皮手术后眼睛闭不严

Election season may be over, but two weeks after polls have closed, campaign signs still fill yards and roadways in much of the country.It's not uncommon to see political signs stand for a year after Election Day. And while the placards create plenty of visual litter, what's more concerning is the physical litter they can cause.Judith Enck, the President of Beyond Plastics says candidates need to take responsibility for their political signs."Lots of people who run for office run more than once," she said. "If they were in a two-year term, they're going to need signs in another two years, so they really should go out and collect the signs and store them somewhere and reuse them."Enck also says that because a candidate's campaign is already responsible for putting up the signs, they should also be responsible for taking them down after the election.She adds that most campaign signs aren't recyclable. While most signs used to be made entirely of cardboard, newer signs often now include a plastic coating. The coating protects the ink from sun, rain and snow, but also means candidates can't recycle signs after the election.Enck argues that in most cases, the plastic coating on a cardboard campaign is unnecessary."They pop up like mushrooms in the month of October, so I'm not sure that all that plastic coating is necessary," she said. "I would recommend to just go back to regular cardboard, and then you could actually recycle the signs."Enck adds that the metal posts that hold up campaign signs can be recycled, but they need to be separated from the signs and taken to scrap metal recycling centers. 1628

ENCINITAS (CNS) - The family of three women killed last summer when a multi-ton section of sandstone collapsed onto them at Grandview Surf Beach have a filed a lawsuit against the city of Encinitas, the state of California, and a local homeowners' association, while also calling Wednesday on legislators to support a bill aimed at preventing future coastal bluff collapses.Family members of Julie Davis, 65; her 35-year-old daughter, Anne Clave; both of Encinitas, and Davis' 62-year-old sister, Elizabeth Charles of San Francisco, said little has been done to improve conditions or beachgoer safety more than a year after their loved ones were killed.Moreover, during Wednesday's news conference announcing the lawsuit, attorneys alleged that the city knew of the dangers regarding the cliff's instability for decades, but did not take the necessary measures to prevent the erosion that contributed to the fatal bluff collapse on Aug. 2, 2019, nor do enough to warn beachgoers of the hazards.Encinitas officials did not immediately return a request for comment.In an email, a spokesperson for the California State Parks said: California State Parks is not able to comment on pending litigation.The three victims and other family members gathered at the beach for a celebratory occasion, as Charles had recently recovered from breast cancer. A portion of the cliff collapsed on top of them just before 3 p.m., "crushing the decedents in front of their loved ones and family members," according to the complaint filed Tuesday alleging wrongful death and negligence.Attorneys say several factors contributed to hazardous groundwater seepage in the area, including increased urban development, poor storm drain and irrigation management, and the continued growth of non-native plants along the bluff.Deborah Chang, one of the attorneys representing the family, said those conditions made the bluff a "ticking time bomb" for a collapse like the one that killed the three women."It wasn't a question of if something was going to happen, but when," Chang said.Development in the area diverted groundwater into other areas of the bluff, weakening its stability, according to the lawsuit.An irrigation system that was to be removed remains in place Wednesday, while non-native plants allowed to flourish in the area have accelerated the erosion and instability of the cliffs, the complaint states.Additionally, the complaint alleges that a defective drainage system used by the Leucadia-Seabluffe Village Community Association and Seabreeze Management Company has contributed to the accumulation of water atop the cliffs.Bibi Fell, another of the family's attorneys, said, "This was not an unknown, natural occurrence. It was decades in the making."Chang said that in addition to compensatory damages, they are hoping the spotlight brought onto the issue by the lawsuit will effectuate some kind of change to prevent further tragedies.The family also threw their support behind SB 1090, introduced earlier this year by Sen. Patricia Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, which would obligate public agencies and private owners of seafront property in San Diego and Orange counties to mitigate coastal erosion.The women's family members said safety measures that could have prevented last year's fatal collapse have still not been enacted, yet people continue to visit Grandview Surf Beach on a daily basis.Curtis Clave, Anne Clave's husband, said despite ongoing bluff collapses in the area, he continues to see people at the beach, including "dozens of families" resting up against the bluffs on Tuesday."We're standing here today calling on local and state officials to finally stand up and do something. This issue needs to be addressed immediately. These bluffs continue to fall and we can't stand to see another family go through what we did, and are still and will always be going through," Clave said. 3895

Evacuees who fled the Camp Fire in California are facing norovirus outbreaks in shelters. The Butte County Public Health Department said that 145 people have been sick with vomiting and/or diarrhea since the shelters opened to evacuees and 41 people were experiencing symptoms at four different shelters as of Wednesday evening.Twenty-five people have been to the hospital for medical support, the health department said in a statement."The number of sick people is increasing every day," the statement said.About 9,700 homes were destroyed and 141,000 acres burned in the fire. Seventy-one people have died due to the fire, and more than 1,000 are missing. The Butte County health department is working with the Red Cross, state and federal partners to reduce the spread of the illness at the evacuation shelters, according to the statement released Thursday.Some of the actions being taken include establishing separate shelters for sick evacuees, active monitoring of shelter residents and protective equipment for medical staff. 1045

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) - Large crowds filled up Escondido's Grape Day Park to see Franklin Graham and hear his message Sunday night.  158

Federal judge Timothy J. Kelly sided with CNN on Friday, ordering the White House to reinstate chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta's press pass.The ruling was an initial victory for CNN in its lawsuit against President Trump and several top aides.The lawsuit alleges that CNN and Acosta's First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the suspension of Acosta's press pass.Kelly did not rule on the underlying case on Friday. But he granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order.This result means that Acosta will have his access to the White House restored for at least a short period of time. The judge said while explaining his decision that he believes that CNN and Acosta are likely to prevail in the case overall.Kelly made his ruling on the basis of CNN and Acosta's Fifth Amendment claims, saying the White House did not provide Acosta with the due process required to legally revoke his press pass.He left open the possibility, however, that the White House could seek to revoke it again if it provided that due process, emphasizing the "very limited" nature of his ruling and saying he was not making a judgment on the First Amendment claims that CNN and Acosta have made.Kelly was appointed to the bench by Trump last year, and confirmed with bipartisan support in the Senate.CNN has also asked for "permanent relief," meaning a declaration from the judge that Trump's revocation of Acosta's press pass was unconstitutional. This legal conclusion could protect other reporters from retaliation by the administration."The revocation of Acosta's credentials is only the beginning," CNN's lawsuit alleged, pointing out that Trump has threatened to strip others' press passes too.That is one of the reasons why most of the country's major news organizations have backed CNN's lawsuit, turning this into an important test of press freedom.But the judge will rule on all of that later. Further hearings are likely to take place in the next few weeks, according to CNN's lawyers.The White House took the unprecedented step of suspending Acosta's access after he had a combative exchange with Trump at last week's post-midterms press conference. CNN privately sought a resolution for several days before filing suit on Tuesday.The defendants include Trump, press secretary Sarah Sanders, and chief of staff John Kelly.Kelly heard oral arguments from both sides on Wednesday afternoon.Kelly, a Trump appointee who has been on the federal bench just more than a year now, was very inquisitive at Wednesday's hearing, asking tough questions of both sides, drilling particularly deep into some of CNN's arguments.Then he said he would issue a ruling Thursday afternoon. He later postponed it until Friday morning, leaving both sides wondering about the reason for the delay.In public, the White House continued to argue that Acosta deserves to be blacklisted because he was too aggressive at the press conference.Speaking with Robert Costa at a Washington Post Live event on Thursday, White House communications official Mercedes Schlapp said press conferences have a "certain decorum," and suggested that Acosta violated that. "In that particular incident, we weren't going to tolerate the bad behavior of this one reporter," she said. Schlapp repeated the "bad behavior" claim several times.When Costa asked if the White House is considering yanking other press passes. Schlapp said "I'm not going to get into any internal deliberations that are happening."In court on Wednesday, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham argued that the Trump White House has the legal right to kick out any reporter at any time for any reason -- a position that is a dramatic break from decades of tradition.While responding to a hypothetical from Kelly, Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's press pass if it didn't agree with their reporting. "As a matter of law... yes," he said.The White House Correspondents' Association -- which represents reporters from scores of different outlets -- said the government's stance is "wrong" and "dangerous.""Simply stated," the association's lawyers wrote in a brief on Thursday, "if the President were to have the absolute discretion to strip a correspondent of a hard pass, the chilling effect would be severe and the First Amendment protections afforded journalists to gather and report news on the activities on the President would be largely eviscerated."The-CNN-Wire 4484