吉林哪里割包皮手术好(吉林睾丸痛是怎么回事) (今日更新中)

RICHMOND, Va. - RICHMOND, Va. -- The tools of learning vary widely from textbooks and laptops to pen and paper. But listen closely to Paul Reisler's music class, all you need is a smile and a wild imagination."I’m always surprised what comes out," said Paul. "When you’re creating a song with children it really is an incredible group process."The singer and educator is the founder of "Kid Pan Alley." Paul and partner Cheryl Toth immerse themselves in classrooms with students of all ages and abilities.The assignment in every class is songwriting no matter the talent level."There are no bad ideas in Kid Pan Alley," said Paul. "It is so important to impress upon them that every idea is a good idea.""For the children, they’ve written it, so it is their voice," said Cheryl. "So music has a way of capturing our emotion and voice together."The duo says sparking a child's creativity ranks as high as the three R's."I think it touches every aspect of their education," said Cheryl.For 20 years, Paul an accomplished composer has been taking his non-profit and guitar on the road."We’ve worked with about 65,000 kids and written about 2,700 songs," said Paul.In schools from coast to coast, every far-fetched lyric and theme are embraced.“They would say things an adult wouldn’t say. A kindergartner said the wind blew me a pony. I don’t have any adult co-writers that would say anything like that,” said Paul."All of a sudden they come to life because they have something to share and contribute," Cheryl explained.Lyrics written in this classroom go deeper than "Wheels on the Bus.""These songs are very complex and emotional because they reflect what the children are thinking of the time," said Cheryl.Some tunes strike a chord with professionals. Singer Amy Grant recorded one class' collaboration. Another song was even nominated for a Grammy.“We treat the kids to work at the highest professional level. We want them to know they’ve done something of real value,” said Paul.From titles like “Sister for Sale" to "My shadow leads a double life."“It is this beautiful Pandora's box that opens. And you’re never quite sure what you’re going to get,” said Cheryl.Paul and Cheryl lament that music and art have taken a backseat to standardized testing.“They say we live in a creative economy. But there is precious little training for children being creative,” says Paul.The singers from Rappahannock County say their goal isn't to encourage students to pursue a career in music. “That is not the important part. The important part is that they take what they’re doing and doing it in a creative way,” said Paul.During these days of remote learning, "Kid Pan Alley" is adapting to the new norm.“This is a time they need it the most. They really need connection,” said Paul.Paul, Cheryl, and other artists write and perform with students virtually.“It is very joyful especially when I see these kids calling their parents in to listen to my song. Such great pride. (tighten) It is wonderful,” said Cheryl.“That is what I feel we do. When we go work with the kids we make a whole bunch of new best friends,” Paul added.Paul Reisler, a teacher helping his students write their way to a Grade "A" education with a lot of rhythms that touches the soul.“Because music brings people together. It brings community together. It brings children together. I think it creates a better world.”Paul will hold a virtual concert with his adult singer/songwriters on September 27. Kid Pan Alley’s next virtual concert for children will be October 4. For more information, click here.This story was first reported by Greg McQuade at WTVR in Richmond, Virginia. 3673

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Two major law enforcement organizations have dropped their opposition to California legislation that strengthens standards for when officers can use of deadly force, a shift that comes after supporters made changes to the measure.Spokesmen for organizations representing California police chiefs and rank-and-file officers told The Associated Press on Thursday that they won't fight the measure, which was prompted by public outrage over fatal police shootings.As originally written, the measure would bar police from using lethal force unless it is "necessary" to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or bystanders.That's a change from the current standard, which lets officers kill if they have "reasonable" fear they or others are in imminent danger. The threshold made it rare for officers to be charged following a shooting and rarer still for them to be convicted."With so many unnecessary deaths, I think everyone agrees that we need to change how deadly force is used in California," said Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber of San Diego, who wrote the measure. "We can now move a policy forward that will save lives and change the culture of policing in California."Law enforcement officials did not immediately explain their decision. But a revised version of the bill filed Thursday drops an explicit definition of "necessary" that was in the original version. The deleted language provided that officers could act when there is "no reasonable alternative."The amended measure also makes it clear that officers are not required to retreat or back down in the face of a suspect's resistance and officers don't lose their right to self-defense if they use "objectively reasonable force."Amendments also strip out a specific requirement that officers try to de-escalate confrontations before using deadly force but allows the courts to consider officers' actions leading up to fatal shootings, said Peter Bibring, police practices director for the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which proposed the bill and negotiated the changes."By requiring that officers use force only when necessary and examining their conduct leading up to use of force, the courts can still consider whether officers needlessly escalated a situation or failed to use de-escalation tactics that could have avoided a shooting," he said.Even with the changes, the ACLU considers the bill to have the strongest language of any in the country.Democratic leaders in the Legislature signed on to the revised version, which is set for a key Assembly vote next week. 2634

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Two major law enforcement organizations have dropped their opposition to California legislation that strengthens standards for when officers can use of deadly force, a shift that comes after supporters made changes to the measure.Spokesmen for organizations representing California police chiefs and rank-and-file officers told The Associated Press on Thursday that they won't fight the measure, which was prompted by public outrage over fatal police shootings.As originally written, the measure would bar police from using lethal force unless it is "necessary" to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or bystanders.That's a change from the current standard, which lets officers kill if they have "reasonable" fear they or others are in imminent danger. The threshold made it rare for officers to be charged following a shooting and rarer still for them to be convicted."With so many unnecessary deaths, I think everyone agrees that we need to change how deadly force is used in California," said Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber of San Diego, who wrote the measure. "We can now move a policy forward that will save lives and change the culture of policing in California."Law enforcement officials did not immediately explain their decision. But a revised version of the bill filed Thursday drops an explicit definition of "necessary" that was in the original version. The deleted language provided that officers could act when there is "no reasonable alternative."The amended measure also makes it clear that officers are not required to retreat or back down in the face of a suspect's resistance and officers don't lose their right to self-defense if they use "objectively reasonable force."Amendments also strip out a specific requirement that officers try to de-escalate confrontations before using deadly force but allows the courts to consider officers' actions leading up to fatal shootings, said Peter Bibring, police practices director for the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which proposed the bill and negotiated the changes."By requiring that officers use force only when necessary and examining their conduct leading up to use of force, the courts can still consider whether officers needlessly escalated a situation or failed to use de-escalation tactics that could have avoided a shooting," he said.Even with the changes, the ACLU considers the bill to have the strongest language of any in the country.Democratic leaders in the Legislature signed on to the revised version, which is set for a key Assembly vote next week. 2634

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Californians who lost their home insurance because of the threat of wildfires will be able to buy comprehensive policies next year through a state-mandated plan under an order issued Thursday by the state insurance commissioner.As wildfires threaten the state, insurance companies have been dropping many homeowners who live in fire-prone areas.Most of those people turn to the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan, an insurance pool mandated by state law that is required to issue policies to people who can’t buy them through no fault of their own.But FAIR Plan policies are limited, offering coverage for fires, explosions and limited smoke damage.California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara on Thursday ordered the plan to begin selling comprehensive policies by June 1 to cover lots of other problems, including theft, water damage, falling objects and liability.Lara also ordered the plan to double homeowners’ coverage limits to million by April 1.“You have people that now are being sent to the FAIR Plan and they have no other alternative. They won’t even get a call back from an insurance company to offer them a quote,” Lara said.The FAIR Plan has been around since 1968. It is not funded by tax dollars. Instead, all property and casualty insurance companies doing business in California must contribute to the plan.Known as the “insurer of last resort,” the plan has been growing in recent years as wildfires have become bigger and more frequent because of climate change. FAIR Plan policies in fire-prone areas have grown an average of nearly 8% each year since 2016, according to the Department of Insurance.Likewise, since 2015 insurance companies have declined to renew nearly 350,000 policies in areas at high risk for wildfires. That data comes from the state, and it does not include information on how many people were able to find coverage elsewhere or at what price.The FAIR Plan is governed by a board of directors appointed by various government officials. Lara says he has the authority to reject its operating plan. On Thursday, he ordered it to submit a new plan within 30 days that includes an option for comprehensive policies and other changes.California FAIR Plan Association President Anneliese Jivan did not respond to an email seeking comment.It’s unknown how much the plan’s new policies will cost. But rates for FAIR Plan policies are supposed to break even. The insurance industry must cover any losses. And if the plan generates a profit, that money is given back to insurance companies.FAIR Plan policies have been limited because, in general, the insurance industry doesn’t want state-mandated plans to compete with private insurance plans. But Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders — a nonprofit advocating for consumers in the insurance industry — says her group is “hearing from panicked consumers daily.”“If (insurance companies) don’t like it, the solution really is to start doing their job and selling insurance again,” she said. “This is an untenable situation.” 3083

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California may join many other states in allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections, if they will turn 18 before the following general election, under a proposed amendment to the state constitution approved Thursday by the state Assembly.If two-thirds of senators agree, the measure would to go to voters for their consideration in California's March primary election, but it would not affect next year's elections.The measure passed, 57-13, over objections from Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher of Nicolaus that it's a ploy to lure more Democratic-leaning young voters.RELATED: California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs bill on presidential tax returnsThe measure "is being veiled as something that helps expand the franchise" but "has mostly a more political ulterior motive in the long term," Gallagher said. "That's what is really going on here."Democratic Assemblyman Kevin Mullin of San Francisco said the practice has been adopted in other states that lean Republican, and the goal of his measure is to "empower California's youngest voters" and encourage a habit of life-long voting."The time has come for California to join in pursuing what so many other states have done," Mullin said.The National Conference of State Legislatures says the practice is permitted in at least 17 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. Some states that use caucuses also allow 17-year-olds to participate, though the rules are generally set by each political party."It's not driven by a Democratic idea in California," said Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez of San Diego, listing some of the more conservative states. "To suggest that there's some political play going on I think is disingenuous. ... It's good for the process, it's good for them, and it's our way to develop lifelong voters."The measure is supported by groups including the League of Women Voters of California. It's opposed by the Election Integrity Project California Inc., which noted that 17-year-olds are still considered children, mostly in high school, who may be easily influenced by their parents and teachers.The measure is separate from another proposed amendment to the California constitution that would lower the voting age from 18 to 17 even in general elections. That measure is awaiting an Assembly vote.California is among 14 states that allow 16-year-olds to pre-register to vote, but they can't currently vote until they turn 18. Nine other states set different pre-registration ages.Berkeley voters in 2016 allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local school board elections, but a similar measure failed in nearby San Francisco. 2861

来源：资阳报