揭阳工业吸尘器(漳州大功率工业吸尘器) (今日更新中)

The risk of homelessness looms large for many across the country as people deal with job loss and economic uncertainty brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates, right now, there are 567,000 people who call the streets their home, a number that has only risen since March.There are shelters, soup kitchens, and myriad charities to help, but the group Foundations for Social Change, a charitable organization based in Vancouver, Canada, suggests one source of help trumps the rest: money.“Sometimes a little bit of a hand up can mean all the difference in whether or not someone is going to stabilize and get into housing or not,” said chief public policy officer for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Cathy Alderman.It might seem like an obvious solution, but it is challenged by the preconceived notion that people battling homelessness might squander the money or spend it on harmful habits like alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes.“I think it’s not surprising at all that people who are struggling with the cost of living and forced to sleep outside would use dollars given to them to get inside into a home,” said Alderman.In September, Foundations for Social Change wrapped up nearly two years of research that suggests those in less fortunate circumstances would use money to help secure food and housing, rather than illicit substances.Back in 2018, the group gave 50 people battling homelessness in Vancouver a lump sum of ,700, without restriction, to see what they would spend it on, and they compared the findings to a group of 60 homeless individuals who were not given any lump sum.Foundations for Social Change found that in the first month, the group that received the payment, 70 percent of them were able to access a sustainable food source that they maintained for the rest of the year. They also found stable housing at a rate that outpaced those who had not received the payments by 12 months.The researchers also found that spending on items like drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes decreased by 39 percent.“The key findings were phenomenal and were even well beyond my expectations,” said one of the head researchers, Dr. Jiaying Zhao. “This actually is counter to our common assumptions of how these folks will spend their money and cash, so that was very good to see.”“I would save a third, spend a third on things I know I needed, and then give a third away,” said Benjamin Dunning, who was homeless for nearly five years following the Great Recession in 2008. “There just wasn’t any work available and I was like, 'well, better dig in for the long haul.'"Dunning says following an injury that prevented him from working he was no longer able to afford rent in the Denver suburb where he lived. He says he moved from shelter to shelter, trying to weather the storm before he was able to find a community of other people in a similar situation that offered a little more stability and a consistent roof over his head.“One thing I found out is [the homeless people I was around] were just like my neighbors in the suburbs,” said Dunning. “Most of them were people who had gotten stuck on hard times and trying to figure out how to deal with it.”The study by Foundations for Social Change focused on people who had been homeless for a year or less and who had been screened for a low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse. So, Dr. Zhao says this is not a silver bullet, but an encouraging sign to help solve an issue that has several layers of complexity. 3546

The top U.S. public health agency stirred confusion by posting — and then taking down — an apparent change in its position on how easily the coronavirus can spread from person to person through the air.But officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say their position has not really changed and that the post last week on the agency’s website was an error that has been taken down.It was “an honest mistake” that happened when a draft update was posted before going through a full editing and approval process, said Dr. Jay Butler, the CDC’s deputy director for infectious diseases.The post suggested that the agency believes the virus can hang in the air and spread over an extended distance. But the agency continues to believe larger and heavier droplets that come from coughing or sneezing are the primary means of transmission, Butler said.Most CDC guidance about social distancing is built around that idea, saying that about 6 feet is a safe buffer between people who are not wearing masks.In interviews, CDC officials have acknowledged growing evidence that the virus can sometimes be transmitted on even smaller, aerosolized particles or droplets that spread over a wider area. Certain case clusters have been tied to events in which the virus appeared to have spread through the air in, for example, a choir practice. But such incidents did not appear to be common.Public health experts urge people to wear masks, which can stop or reduce contact with both larger droplets and aerosolized particles.But for months, agency officials said little about aerosolized particles. So when the CDC quietly posted an update Friday that discussed the particles in more detail, the agency’s position appeared to have changed. The post said the virus can remain suspended in the air and drift more than 6 feet. It also emphasized the importance of indoor ventilation and seemed to describe the coronavirus as the kind of germ that can spread widely through the air.The post caused widespread discussion in public health circles because of its implications. It could mean, for example, that hospitals might have to place infected people in rooms that are specially designed to prevent air from flowing to other parts of the hospital.But the CDC is not advising any changes in how far people stay away from each other, how they are housed at hospitals or other measures, Butler said.The CDC has come under attack for past revisions of guidance during the pandemic, some of which were driven by political pressure by the Trump administration.Butler said there was no external political pressure behind the change in this instance. “This was an internal issue,. And we’re working hard to address it and make sure it doesn’t happen again,” he said.In a statement released Monday, the CDC said the revisions to the “How COVID-19 Spreads” page happened “without appropriate in-house technical review.”“We are reviewing our process and tightening criteria for review of all guidance and updates before they are posted to the CDC website,” the statement said.At least one expert said the episode could further chip away at public confidence in the CDC.“The consistent inconsistency in this administration’s guidance on COVID-19 has severely compromised the nation’s trust in our public health agencies,” said Dr. Howard Koh, a Harvard University public health professor who was a high-ranking official in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration.“To rectify the latest challenge, the CDC must acknowledge that growing scientific evidence indicates the importance of airborne transmission through aerosols, making mask wearing even more critical as we head into the difficult fall and winter season,” Koh said in a statement.___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. 3964

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) says it has identified some of the seeds that were mysteriously mailed to Americans from China.Osama El-Lissy, with the Plant Protection program of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, says 14 different species of seeds have been identified.The identified seeds include mustard, cabbage, morning glory, mint, sage, rosemary, lavender, hibiscus and roses, according to El-Lissy.Over the past few months, people across the country have received the seeds in unsolicited packages that appear to be coming from China.Officials are concerned that some of the seeds received in the U.S. could be invasive plant species, but the seeds identified so far appear to be harmless.Still, if you get unsolicited seeds in the mail, the USDA says you should not open the packets or plant the seeds. You’re asked to save the seeds and the package they came in, place everything in a mailing envelope, and contact your state plant regulatory official or APHIS State plant health director for instructions on where to send the package.The USDA says it’s important to evaluate the seed packages because they could carry seed born viruses or other diseases, posing a significant risk for U.S. agriculture and natural resources.“Imported vegetable or agricultural seed must meet labeling and phytosanitary requirements and be inspected by APHIS and CBP at the port of entry,” wrote the USDA in a release. “Some seeds, including citrus, corn, cotton, okra, tomato, and pepper seed, are restricted and may require an import permit, phytosanitary certificate, inspection at a USDA Plant Inspection Station, or testing to ensure any potential risks are mitigated.”While the USDA is still investigating why the seeds are being sent, officials say they don’t have any evidence that it’s anything other than an internet “brushing scam,” where sellers send unsolicited items to unsuspecting consumers and the post false reviews to boost sales.“Brushing scams involving seed packets in international mail shipments are not uncommon,” wrote the USDA in a release. “U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has intercepted similar seed shipments in recent years.” 2194

The Trump campaign has officially filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin's Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn election results in the state.The Wisconsin Elections Commission confirmed Joe Biden's victory Monday in the battleground state following a partial recount. Milwaukee and Dane counties finished their recounts over the weekend and results added to Biden's 20,600 vote margin over President Donald Trump.The president's campaign has repeatedly alleged fraud in the state's election, though it has not presented any proof. The election officials for both counties who did recounts said there was no fraud uncovered in the process.The WEC confirmation of the results opened a five-day window for the president's campaign to file a lawsuit.The campaign filed a lawsuit Tuesday morning, in an attempt to overturn results by disqualifying as many as 200,000 ballots."What we had is an abuse of the absentee process, dramatically in Dane and Milwaukee County,” said Jim Troupis, attorney for the Trump Campaign.The suit is specifically seeking to dismiss absentee ballots where the clerks' offices "inserted missing information,” people cast ballots "claiming Indefinite Confinement status" even If they "no longer qualified,” and absentee ballots "improperly cast or received at ‘Democracy in the Park’ events,” which were held in Madison.The lawsuit also targets many in-person absentee voters who the Trump campaign claims did not follow Wisconsin law which requires "voters submit a written application.""We introduce evidence in the proceeding we introduced evidence that they in fact followed the law. They in fact required appropriate application in advance of the in-person voting,” said Troupis.In a filing late Tuesday evening, Gov. Evers and his legal team issued a forceful rebuttal against the lawsuit: "President Trump’s Petition seeks nothing less than to overturn the will of nearly 3.3 million Wisconsin voters. It is a shocking and outrageous assault on our democracy. The relief he seeks is wrong as a matter of law, incorrect as a matter of fact, and mistaken as a matter of procedure. Indeed, he has sought relief in the wrong court and has refused to follow the proper steps under the statute that he himself acknowledges governs the appeal of recounts. And by focusing on alleged technical violations in only two counties, he has made plain 7 that his intent is not to fairly determine who Wisconsinites voted for to lead our country. He is simply trying to seize Wisconsin’s electoral votes, even though he lost the statewide election."Mayor Tom Barrett says Milwaukee conducted in-person absentee voting exactly like all the other counties in the state. Barrett addressed the Wisconsin Elections Commission meeting on Tuesday to voice his opposition to the Trump campaign's attempt to throw out those votes."They are challenging the entire election system in Wisconsin claiming entire groups of absentee by mail and absentee in person were not legitimate. And I would add they are only doing it in select counties. These claims are obviously an egregious attempt to discredit this fair election,” said Barrett.Wisconsin Election Commissioner and Republican Dean Knudson spoke out Tuesday afternoon in the commission meeting that he believes this lawsuit still proves Wisconsin has safe elections.“I am in a position to look at fraud in Wisconsin and I have yet to see a credible claim of fraudulent activity in this election. The Trump campaign has not made any claims of fraud in this election. The filing in, there is some disputes over matters of law,” said Knudson.The WEC has debunked previous claims for the campaign about fraud in the election process.The president's campaign lawsuit included four instances where it claims votes were counted illegally:Lawsuit claims municipal clerks were instructed to fill in missing information on returned absentee ballots based on their "personal knowledge" or "lists or databases."Lawsuit claims municipal clerks issued absentee ballots to voters without requiring written absentee ballot applications.Lawsuit claims election officials permitted voters who claimed to be indefinitely confined to "circumvent voter ID laws" without "meeting the requirements for that status."Lawsuit claims the city of Madison created "unlawful polling locations at over 200 parks and city locations" through its Democracy in the Park voting events. The suit claims that these locations were outside of the county's approved polling locationsRead the full petition below:2020AP1971 Pet for Orig Action (12!1!20) by TODAY'S TMJ4 on ScribdRead the supporting memo below:2020AP1971 Memo in Supp Pet. Orig Action (12!1!20) by TODAY'S TMJ4 on ScribdThis story was originally published by WTMJ in Milwaukee. 4761

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026

来源：资阳报