东营看癫痫病哪家医院好(山东省癫痫医院哪儿有) (今日更新中)

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has responded to the investigation into Breonna Taylor's death and the shooting of two Louisville police officers Wednesday night.In a speech on the Senate floor Thursday, McConnell says Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron "conducted exactly the kind of thorough, impartial investigation that justice demands."McConnell also addressed protests in Louisville following the decision as "more of the lawlessness, riots, and violence that has plagued American cities too often this year."Read his full speech on the Senate floor below:"I've spoken repeatedly in recent months about the tragic killing of Breonna Taylor in my hometown of Louisville, the need for justice, and the healing work ahead for our community."Kentucky's Attorney General, Daniel Cameron, conducted exactly the kind of thorough, impartial investigation that justice demands. Yesterday, that chapter concluded, and the grand jury conducted the handoff to criminal prosecution. I have full confidence in the Attorney General's painstaking pursuit of facts and justice."Many Kentuckians have channeled their continuing grief and anger into a peaceful exercise of their First Amendment rights. But in Louisville last night, we saw more of the lawlessness, riots, and violence that has plagued American cities too often this year."Citizens' businesses were vandalized. Fires were set in streets."And two officers of the Metro Police Department were shot and wounded while protecting public safety downtown."As of last night, one officer was still undergoing surgery, but both were in stable condition. We are praying that both will make full recoveries. And one suspect is in custody."Peaceful protests honor the memory of Breonna Taylor. Peaceful protests move us toward justice."Smashing windows does not. Setting fires does not. Rioting in the streets does not."And trying to gun down law enforcement officers who are bravely serving their community is the kind of despicable cowardice that must be met with the full force of the law."I want to sincerely thank all the Kentucky peace officers who continue to put their lives on the line every day."I hope and expect that our Governor and Mayor will take every necessary step to secure the justice, peace, law, and order that every Kentuckian deserves."This story was originally published by staff at WLEX. 2394

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration's proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.The excerpts also show the administration plans to challenge California's long-standing authority to enact its own, tougher pollution and fuel standards.Revisions to the mileage requirements for 2021 through 2026 are still being worked on, the administration says, and changes could be made before the proposal is released as soon as this week.RELATED: California sues over plan to scrap car emission standardsThe Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.Overall, "improvements over time have better longer-term effects simply by not alienating consumers, as compared to great leaps forward" in fuel efficiency and other technology, the administration argues. It contends that freezing the mileage requirements at 2020 levels would save up to 1,000 lives per year.New vehicles would be cheaper — and heavier — if they don't have to meet more stringent fuel requirements and more people would buy them, the draft says, and that would put more drivers in safer, newer vehicles that pollute less.RELATED: EPA moves to weaken Obama-era fuel efficiency standardsAt the same time, the draft says that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes.David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said he's doubtful about the administration's estimate of lives saved because other factors could affect traffic deaths, such as automakers agreeing to make automatic emergency braking standard on all models before 2022. "They're making assumptions about stuff that may or may not be the same," he said.Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn't hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issues"Allow me to be skeptical," said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that's a stretch."Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It's engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. "You want to be in the newer vehicle," he said.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalAn April draft from the Trump administration said freezing the requirements at 2020 levels would save people ,900 per new vehicle. But the later draft raises that to ,100 and even as high as ,700 by 2025.Environmental groups questioned the justification for freezing the standards. Luke Tonachel, director of the clean-vehicle program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the risk from people driving more due to higher mileage is "tiny and maybe even negligible."Under the Trump administration proposal, the fleet of new vehicles would have to average roughly 30 mpg in real-world driving, and that wouldn't change through 2026.California has had the authority under the half-century-old Clean Air Act to set its own mileage under a special rule allowing the state to curb its chronic smog problem. More than a dozen states follow California's standards, amounting to about 40 percent of the country's new-vehicle market.Asked if he thinks a freeze in U.S. mileage standards is warranted, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told a small group of reporters at EPA headquarters last week, "I think we need to go where the technology takes us" on fuel standards.Wheeler did not elaborate. Agency spokespeople did not respond when asked specifically if the EPA acting chief was making the case that modern cars could be both fuel efficient and safe.Wheeler also spoke out for what he called "a 50-state solution" that would keep the U.S car and truck market from splitting between two different mileage standards.The Department of Transportation said in a statement that the final fuel economy standards would be based on sound science. The department cautioned that a draft doesn't capture the whole picture of the proposed regulation.The draft said a 2012 analysis of fuel economy standards under the Obama administration deliberately limited the amount of mass reduction necessary under the standards. This was done "in order to avoid the appearance of adverse safety effects," the draft stated.___Krisher reported from Detroit. 5642

WASHINGTON, D.C. — It’s easily one of the most visible of the celestial bodies: the moon. Next year, the journey to get humans back there will get underway again.“Ultimately, it fulfills our need to explore,” said Dr. Kjell Lindgren, a NASA astronaut, who is one of the 18 recently chosen for NASA’s Artemis program.Artemis aims to get humans, including the first woman, to the lunar surface by 2024. Humans have not been back to the moon since the Apollo 17 mission back in 1972.“All of us in the astronaut office are, in one way or another, influenced by those iconic images of our Apollo astronauts exploring the moon,” Dr. Lindgren said.Returning to the moon is seen as a necessary stepping-stone to getting humans to Mars in the 2030s. The Artemis team will be working on lunar-related projects, both in orbit and on the surface of the moon, that can eventually be applied to a future Martian mission.“The moon offers a wealth of scientific discovery still,” Dr. Lindgren said. “It also offers a wealth of operational discovery helping us to refine the procedures the equipment and the skills that are needed to be able to land, to explore successfully on a rocky surface and then to come back to the earth.”The missions also have the potential to create technological advancements for everyone on Earth.“The whole world benefits from those things and the benefits from Apollo are innumerable. You know, from the computers, the miniaturization of computers and on, you can count all those,” he said. “That was really a turning point in history for technology.”NASA’s Artemis program hopes to eventually create a permanent human presence on the moon’s surface, similar to the current full-time human presence on the International Space Station, and Dr. Lindgren could be among them.“It's such a privilege to be a part of this,” he said.The new lunar program was named “Artemis,” after the Greek goddess, who was the twin sister of Apollo. 1950

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new Gallup poll found Americans are increasingly willing to be immunized against the novel coronavirus.With two COVID-19 vaccines now in the final stages of approval in the United States, 63% of Americans told Gallup they are willing to be vaccinated.The latest findings come from a survey conducted in the last two weeks of November, which was around the time Pfizer announced their vaccine had proved to be better than 90% effective in its Phase III clinical trials.Since then, Moderna has made a similar announcement and both are seeking emergency use authorization from the FDA for their vaccines. If approved, some Americans could begin to receive vaccines before the end of the year.At 63%, the public’s willingness to be vaccinated has nearly rebounded to the previous high of 66% in July. It hit a low point of 50% in September.Gallup says reports of adverse reactions and statements from politicians may have contributed to the change in American views on vaccines.Specifically, Gallup points to President Donald Trump saying in early September that a vaccine could be available before Election Day, raising questions about pressure being put on the FDA to expedite approval.They also point to Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, who said she wouldn’t get a vaccine on Trump’s advice alone and expressed concern about the potential for political interference in the vaccine approval process.“The public's willingness to receive a vaccine in September suggests that public confidence in a vaccine can be significantly influenced by events or political messaging that cast doubt on vaccines' safety,” said Gallup. 1649

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has vetoed the annual defense policy bill.Trump followed through on threats to veto the measure that has broad bipartisan support in Congress and it potentially sets up the first override vote of his presidency.The bill would affirm 3% pay raises for U.S. troops and authorize more than 0 billion in military programs and construction.Trump has offered a series of rationales for vetoing the bill, including his calls for lawmakers to include limits on social media companies he claimed are biased against him.The bill, which was approved earlier this month by overwhelming majorities in both legislative chambers, had enough votes to override Trump’s veto. The House approved the bill by a 335-78 margin, while the Senate approved it 84-13.Part of Trump’s grievance with the act was due to Section 230 not being repealed, which is a code that protects websites and social media companies from litigation for materials published by users. Trump has called on the repeal of Section 230.Trump has aired his frustration at major social media organizations such as Twitter for tagging tweets that contain misinformation.“The Act fails even to make any meaningful changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, despite bipartisan calls for repealing that provision,” Trump alleges in a letter returning the bill to the House. “Section 230 facilitates the spread of foreign disinformation online, which is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity. It must be repealed.”House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she is in favor of amending the code, but not repealing it entirely. Pelosi said there is bipartisan support for revising the code.“I don’t like 230, I think it needs to be revised,” Pelosi said. “You cannot repeal it or you will destroy protections for small businesses and entrepreneurs.”Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, a close ally of the president's, said that Trump would approve defense spending and the stimulus package if Congress agreed to repeal Section 230. On Tuesday, Trump said he was not supportive of the stimulus bill passed by overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate earlier this week. The bills would have provided 0 direct payments to most Americans. Trump, however, did not outright say he would veto the pandemic stimulus package. "I hope Speaker Pelosi will agree with President Trump that Big Tech needs to be reined in by winding down Section 230 liability protections," Graham tweeted. "I have reason to believe this combination will lead to President Trump supporting the NDAA and COVID19 omnibus bills." 2620

来源：资阳报