高级肠外营养护理模型多少钱齐齐哈尔灌肠训练仿真模型,济南人体头颈部横断断层解剖模型(12片),上肢带肩胛骨锁骨模型哪里有,宁夏高级儿童心肺复苏模拟人,中心静脉注射穿刺躯干训练模型购买,太原腰骶椎与脊神经模型（3个腰椎）,辽源深部感觉传导路模型

DALLAS (KTNV) — Charley Pride, whose rich baritone voice and impeccable song-sense altered American culture, died Dec. 12 in Dallas of complications from COVID-19 at age 86.Born a sharecropper’s son in Sledge, Mississippi, on March 18, 1934, Pride emerged from Southern cotton fields to become country music’s first Black superstar and the first Black member of the Country Music Hall of Fame.“No person of color had ever done what he has done,” said Darius Rucker in the PBS American Masters film Charley Pride: I’m Just Me.Pride was a gifted athlete who at first thought baseball would be his path from poverty, labor, and strife.But his musical acumen was more impressive than his pitching arm or his hitting skills, and he emerged as one of the most significant artists at RCA Records, with chart-topping hits including “Kiss An Angel Good Mornin’,” “Is Anybody Goin’ to San Antone,” and “Mountain of Love.”He won the Country Music Association’s Entertainer of the Year award in 1971, its top male vocalist prize in 1971 and 1972, and a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2020.His final performance came on November 11, 2020, when he sang “Kiss An Angel Good Mornin’” during the CMA Awards show at Nashville’s Music City Center with Jimmie Allen, a modern-day hitmaker who counts Pride among his heroes. 1310

DENVER, Colo. – Living outside, having no place to rest your head, can take a toll.Having to worry about if you might get hassled or arrested for sleeping makes it even worse.“Frequently we see that through camping bans, through move along orders, or other ways that local law enforcement is able to enforce this type of policing on this community,” said Marisa Westbrook, a PhD student at the University of Colorado Denver.She published research on the human costs of criminalizing homelessness.“People are achieving very little sleep and only sleeping in short bursts and they’re particularly stressed about the potential encounters with law enforcement, not just the repercussions of actual encounters with law enforcement. People are then seeking out less visible areas and moving along towards areas were the maybe more vulnerable to assault or physical bodily threat,” Westbrook said.On one street in Denver, more than a dozen tents were lined up. No one wanted to talk or even be recorded on camera, but some told us they felt abandoned by the system and that they’d had bad interactions with the police.“Criminalizing homelessness, it generally means that police are arresting people who are sleeping outside or sitting outside or living outside for offenses that they have to commit because they have nowhere else to live,” said Nan Roman, the president of the National Alliance to End Homelessness.Roman says on any given night, there are more than half a million homeless people in the United States.There are not enough shelter beds in the U.S. to meet the homeless population, no matter where you are. From Los Angeles to North Carolina, North Dakota to Chicago, there is simply nowhere for the homeless to go.The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty has been tracking the laws that criminalize homelessness since 2006. The most recent data says 33% of those cities prohibit camping in public citywide, 18% prohibit sleeping, 47% ban lying down and 39% ban living in vehicles.“Criminalizing homelessness is not an effective strategy. It doesn’t solve the problem because you give someone a citation or you put them in jail overnight, but they leave the next day, they’re still homeless,” said Roman.So, what can be done?“The solutions that people need are long-term, stable, adequate housing,” said Westbrook.It might seem obvious, but many groups say building more affordable housing is the most effective way to end homelessness.According to the Coalition for the Homeless federal programs like Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as Section 8 housing, are the most cost-effective way to get people into homes.“Provide people who are eligible by income and need it with rental assistance so that the market could address the affordable housing shortage,” said Roman.And provide mental health services. Many mental health issues are exacerbated by homelessness.“Folks are sleeping less because of their anxiety, waking up in the middle of the night, sleeping short bursts so that they can move along or move camp to make sure they aren’t exposing themselves to interactions with law enforcement,” said Westbrook.Solutions can be complicated, expensive and not as simple as making arrests. 3223

DENVER -- Nearly 70 percent of marijuana dispensaries contacted during a health study in 2017 recommended that expectant moms suffering from morning sickness use marijuana.The alarming statistic was part of a study conducted by Denver Health, with help from the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Colorado School of Public Health and the University of Utah, which was published in the peer-reviewed Obstetrics & Gynecology."It was surprising and concerning to us, because there are data results that cannabis can be harmful to the developing fetus," said Dr. Torri Metz, a high risk obstetrician at Denver Health.Metz said the study used a "mystery caller approach," with the caller reaching out to 465 Colorado dispensaries. Four-hundred responded.A researcher, claiming to be eight weeks pregnant, told an employee answering the phone at one dispensary that she was feeling nauseated, and asked if there were any products that are recommended for morning sickness.The employee replied: "Let me call my daughter, she just had a baby, call me back in five minutes."When asked why a product was or was not recommended, an employee at another dispensary responded: "Technically with you being pregnant, I do not think you are supposed to be consuming that, but if I were to suggest something, I suggest something high in THC."When a researcher asked an employee at another dispensary about recommendations on frequency, the employee replied: "In the context of edibles, start with a low dose and see how it works out for you because those types of things would, um, not cross the blood-brain barrier so even if you have got the CBDs and the other good parts of the plant would get in your baby's blood system but the psychotropic properties, the THC molecule, would not get near your baby, so basically would not be getting your baby stoned."The head of the Marijuana Industry Group said she was surprised by the study results.Kristi Kelly, the group's executive director said, "What this tells us as an industry is that we have a gap in our 'onboarding process,' in terms of training our dispensary workers to provide not just a good conversation on products, usage and dosing... but it's very important that employees clarify they are not medical professionals and that they also redirect that patient or customers to also have a conversation with their health care professional." 2451

DENVER – The Facebook data of 136,000 Coloradans obtained by British data firm Cambridge Analytica is still floating around despite claims it was destroyed, according to a Wednesday report from U.K.-based Channel 4 News. But the man who was in charge of the Colorado group that used the firm during the 2014 election says neither he nor the group possesses the data.Channel 4 News says its reporters had reviewed the data, which its report said came from a Cambridge Analytica source. The report says the data confirms details on the thousands of Colorado residents affected, as well as “each person’s personality and psychological profile.”The reporter who presented the story spoke with several Colorado residents whose data was contained within the list, which was in possession of Channel 4’s source, according to a Channel 4 employee who agreed to speak with Scripps station KMGH in Denver about the story on the condition they not be named.“The data is also known to have been passed around using generic, non-corporate email systems, outside of the servers of Cambridge Analytica, and linked company SCL,” the report states.The Channel 4 employee says the data appears to have been widely shared in the past.Channel 4 verified that the 2014 data it reviewed is authentic and came, in part, from a Cambridge University researcher, Dr. Aleksandr Kogan. Kogan built an app in which he used the data in accordance with Facebook’s rules at the time, but he originally said he was using the data only for academic purposes before teaming up with Cambridge Analytica. Facebook claims that by additionally using it for political purposes, Cambridge Analytica violated the social networking site's terms of service.Both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica claimed that the British data firm deleted the data in 2015, but the Channel 4 report calls that claim into question.A Cambridge spokesperson told Channel 4 that it “deleted all GSR data and took appropriate steps to ensure that any copies of the data were deleted…It is untrue that we failed to take appropriate measures to ensure that GSR data were deleted.”Facebook has since launched an investigation to determine whether or not Cambridge indeed deleted the data and has suspended the company. The Channel 4 employee KMGH spoke with said Colorado was one of 11 U.S. states Cambridge Analytica scraped data from in attempts to profile prospective voters.Former Senate Majority Fund leader says Cambridge kept data closely guardedKMGH reported over the past week and a half that the Republican-backed Senate Majority Fund used two Colorado political nonprofits, Concerned Citizens for Colorado and Centennial Coalition, to pay Cambridge Analytica about 0,000 total in 2014 and 2015 for various political consulting and campaign materials. Republicans were successful in regaining the majority of the state Senate in 2014, when most of the spending on Cambridge Analytica took place.Colorado Democratic Party Chair Morgan Carroll on Wednesday called for Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman to investigate Cambridge Analytica’s role in the state’s 2014 elections, suggesting Colorado was “the guinea pig” in the company’s “experiment” involving U.S. elections.Coffman responded by saying her office was looking into Cambridge Analytica and other third-party organizations to see if Colorado laws were violated, and said she was working to pass a bill relating to data privacy in the state’s General Assembly.After the Channel 4 report came out Wednesday, Andy George, who ran the Senate Majority Fund when it used Cambridge Analytica, told KMGH that neither he, nor anyone on his team, had access to the Cambridge Analytica data.“They were very secretive and guarded when it came to their database,” George said. “It is one of the reasons we were skeptical of their product to begin with.”He also questioned who in Colorado, or elsewhere, might be in possession of the data if Cambridge Analytica claims it deleted the data and if no one connected to the Senate Majority Fund had access.“Since they never gave anyone on our team access to their database, I’m not sure how any data could still be out there,” George said.George previously told KMGH the fund wouldn’t have worked with Cambridge Analytica had it known the data it was using was questionably obtained, and told The Denver Post “their pitch was better than their performance.”But the internal company documents previously published by KMGH showed Cambridge believed its products and services “made a substantial contribution” to the election; that the company produced dozens of mailers for Senate GOP candidates; and that it made “446 lists of voters generated for targeted communications.”Cambridge said it was successful in helping the Senate Majority Fund flip three of the five seats they targeted to help Republicans regain the Senate that year.“Overall this a very positive result, and one of the victories gave the GOP control over the Colorado State Senate,” the internal documents said.Still, George maintained Wednesday that Cambridge Analytica and its parent company, SCL, was taking more credit than was due. And he took a shot at Carroll, too.“As much as SCL would like to take credit for the Senate Republicans’ victories in 2014, I think more credit should be given to Morgan Carroll for helping draw politically motivated maps that ousted an incumbent Democrat and gave us the opportunity to win the majority.” 5492

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has presented a broad—and expensive—set of housing policy prescriptions. Some commentators have called them a “comprehensive plan” for housing, while others say Biden is throwing big money at real problems without offering practical solutions.Either way, the Biden campaign’s housing plan is a wish list. If Biden wins, final passage of most of these proposals depends entirely on which party ends up controlling Congress.This article is based on known Biden proposals to:· Expand the housing choice voucher program· Require states receiving government money to plan for affordable housing units· Reinstate an Obama-era rule requiring communities to create a plan to mitigate discriminatory housing practicesForbes Advisor reached out to both the Trump and Biden campaigns, but neither responded for comment. To learn how the Trump administration might handle housing issues during a second term, see this story.Biden Housing Overview: Expand Affordable HousingBiden’s plans earmark billions of dollars to provide fair and affordable housing for middle-class families and the poorest Americans. All in all, Biden’s housing policy proposals would cost 0 billion over 10 years, although he has not detailed where any of this funding would come from.The Biden plan would put 0 billion into an “Affordable Housing Fund,” the bulk of which ( billion) would provide incentives to develop and rehabilitate low-cost housing where there’s a shortage.“These funds will be directed toward communities that are suffering from an affordability crisis and are willing to implement new zoning laws that encourage more affordable housing,” according to Biden’s plan.Biden’s Plans Would Boost Section 8 AvailabilityThe plan also calls to expand the Section 8 housing choice voucher program, the largest federal housing program for low-income renters. Biden would make Section 8 an entitlement, thus ensuring vouchers to all eligible people.Currently, only 1 in 5 eligible households receive assistance, with waiting times pushing two years in some places. Some 2 million households receive Section 8 vouchers, but that’s not enough to meet demand.“Expanding vouchers to all those eligible will need to be matched with a strong, national measure to include ‘source of income’ as a protected class under fair housing law,” says Miriam Axel-Lute, editor of Shelterforce, a nonprofit publication published by the National Housing Institute.In addition, Axel-Lute says, reducing exclusionary zoning policies, which ban construction of multi family homes, would expand the home selection for families with vouchers.Biden also would push for a law that would ban discrimination against tenants who use Section 8 vouchers or receive other federal housing benefits.Biden Would Restore Fair Housing RulesBiden has pledged to reinstate the Obama administration’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule. The Trump administration only recently terminated the rule, which required towns and cities that received HUD funding to create plans to eliminate housing descrimination in their localities.Critics of AFFH have said there were too many hoops to jump through in order to get funding, while proponents have defended the initiative as being an integral step in promoting fair housing policies.Maintaining the Obama-era rule would help push forward housing equity, says Bruce Dorpalen, executive director of the National Housing Resource Center.“Biden’s proposal shows that there is institutional racism and biases we need to change. If we want to reestablish the Black middle class in this country, homeownership has to be part of that,” Dorpalen says. ”The Biden housing platform has that built-in.”President Trump has falsely stated that the AFFH rule would have “required high-density zoning, eliminated single-family zoning, and destroyed our suburbs.” The rule does not mandate any particular solution to discrimination or unfair practices; it just requires that each community identify the problems and come up with a workable solution.Solomon Greene, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, says that AFFH holds municipalities accountable if they want to receive federal dollars, but doesn’t tell them how to do it.“The 2015 AFFH rule offers guidance, not a particular solution,” says Greene, who was part of the HUD team that wrote the rule in 2015. “Every plan I’ve reviewed has been incredibly diverse; there was a huge range of strategies depending on the area. This is very far from Trump’s assertion that the AFFH rule was requiring rezoning of suburbs or even to build affordable housing.”Fight Single-Family Zoning to Expand Housing and Curb DiscriminationThe U.S. faces a shortage of housing, running 19% below last year’s supply. Although new construction was up in July, the housing market needs more positive growth to reach balanced levels, says Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors (NAR).The housing shortage is the most pronounced in the West, according to data from NAR.Experts on both sides of the aisle have called for a ban on single-family zoning, which is said to drive up home prices and restrict new construction, contributing to the housing shortage.A story by Charles Marohn published in The New Conservative says about single-family zoning: “After all, there is no greater distortion of the market than local zoning codes, and there are few bureaucracies doing more harm to property rights and freedom than local zoning offices.”Biden addresses zoning issues several times in his housing plan when it concerns discrimination or where federal grant money is involved.The Biden plan would seek to “eliminate local and state housing regulations that perpetuate discrimination.” More specifically, a Biden administration would require states receiving community development or transportation block grants from the federal government dollars through Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to incorporate inclusionary zoning into their planning. Inclusionary zoning requires that a portion of new construction is set aside for affordable housing.Biden also would allocate billion for state housing authorities and the Indian Housing Block Grant program to build and restore housing in low-income areas. This money would go to communities “that are suffering from an affordability crisis and are willing to implement new zoning laws that encourage more affordable housing.”Ed Pinto, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, doesn’t believe that Biden’s plan goes far enough to eradicate single-family zoning. According to Pinto, single-family zoning promotes “NIMBYism,” an acronym for “not in my backyard.”“We have supply constraints because of terrible zoning policies,” Pinto says. “Single-family zoning promotes NIMBYism, which drives house prices up tremendously in low-cost areas. None of the things in Biden’s proposal would make things better. You still end up with a housing shortage, nowhere to build and federally guaranteed loans that increase demand against limited supply.”Eliminate Biased Housing Practices and Expanding AffordabilityThe Biden housing plan sets a goal to stamp out racially biased practices like redlining, which denies people services or charges more for those services based on race, religion or ethnicity. Furthermore, the Biden plan wants to ensure that Americans spend no more than 30% of their income on housing, which would help people in all income brackets. These ideas would be achieved by enacting legislation similar to the “Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Equity (HOME) Act.”The HOME Act would give a refundable tax credit to people who spend more than 30% of their income on rent. It also would require inclusionary zoning—a requirement that developers set aside a percentage of units that would be rented or sold at reduced prices—which would help increase affordable housing construction while also knocking out housing discrimination based on race and income.The Biden plan also would target unfair property appraisals, which values Black-owned homes at tens of thousands of dollars less than comparable white-owned homes. A study by the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institute found that homes of matching quality and amenities in predominantly Black neighborhoods were valued at 23% less than in those neighborhoods with fewer Black residents.“Anti-discrimination legislation, like ending redlining—which Biden proposes—in housing is crucial,” David Dworkin, CEO of the National Housing Conference, a nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition of national housing leaders from both the public and private sector, says. “What Biden is proposing would help millions of Americans. There’s a disturbing element of ‘I’ve got mine, too bad for you.’ Some people say, ‘I put 20% down on the house, why can’t you?’Bottom LineBiden’s housing plan aims to reduce or eliminate discriminatory practices in the housing industry through legislation and expanded funding, from reinstating Fair Housing Rules to broadening programs that would help low-income families.However, while Biden’s vision of fair and affordable housing is both admirable and needed, critics say that he’s doing little more than throwing money at big problems, such as the lack of affordable housing.“Biden has one solution to every problem: he’s going to spend more money on it. There’s very little thoughtful planning here; what there is is an open checkbook,” says Michael Tanner, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.More from Forbes Advisor:How Would A Second Trump Term Impact Major Housing Issues?No, Joe Biden Will Not Kill Your 401(k)Who’s Better For Your Retirement Portfolio: President Trump or President Biden? 9881