山东痛风石溃烂怎么办(济南急性痛风打什么点滴) (今日更新中)

The three wildfires currently burning in California are moving across land with a terrifying speed.At its fastest, the Camp Fire in Northern California spread at more than a football field a second, or around 80 football fields per minute. It burned through 20,000 acres in less than 14 hours on Thursday. By Friday, it had reached 90,000 acres.PHOTOS: 3 wildfires rage in CaliforniaThe Woolsey Fire in Ventura and Los Angeles counties doubled in size in a 90-minute period Friday morning, to 8,000 acres -- by Friday evening, it was up to 35,000 acres.The Hill Fire in Ventura County torched 10,000 acres in six hours Thursday.Why are the fires moving so quickly?The combination of strong offshore winds that have been gusting as high as 70 mph, humidity values in the single digits and extremely dry conditions are leading to the perfect conditions for wildfires 872

The U.S. decline in cigarette smoking could be stalling while the adult vaping rate appears to be rising, according to a government report released Thursday.About 14% of U.S adults were cigarette smokers last year, the third year in a row the annual survey found that rate. But health officials said a change in the methodology make it hard to compare that to the same 14% reported for 2017 and 2018.The adult smoking rate last saw a substantial drop in 2017, when it fell from 16% the year before.The new figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mean there are more than 34 million adult smokers in the U.S.Meanwhile, about 4.5% of adults were counted as current e-cigarette users last year — about 11 million people.That rate appears to be up from 3.2% in 2018 and 2.8% in 2017. But again, officials said that comparing 2019 with earlier years is difficult because of the survey change.The CDC figures are based on responses from about 32,000 people.Health officials have long called tobacco use the nation’s leading cause of preventable disease and death.___The Associated Press Health & Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. 1279

The U.S. women’s national team wants the U.S. Soccer Federation to repeal the anthem policy it instituted after Megan Rapinoe started kneeling during the “The Star-Spangled Banner.”The U.S. women’s team also wants the federation to state publicly that the policy was wrong and issue an apology to the team’s black players and supporters.“Further, we believe the Federation should lay out its plans on how it will now support the message and movement that it tried to silence four years ago,” the U.S. women’s team said in a statement posted on the Twitter feed of its players association Monday night.Rapinoe took a knee during the anthem at a pair of national team matches in 2016. She said she wanted to express solidarity with San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who silently took a knee during the national anthem before NFL games to raise awareness of police brutality and racial injustice.The U.S. Soccer Federation then approved a policy in February 2017 that stated players “shall stand respectfully” during national anthems. The policy remains in place, though the unions for the men’s and women’s teams believe it doesn’t apply to their players because of their collective bargaining agreements.Kaepernick and Rapinoe each faced sharp criticism for the protest for years. But public sentiment has changed since George Floyd’s death last month.Floyd, a black man, died after a white Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into Floyd’s neck while Floyd was handcuffed and saying that he couldn’t breathe. His death sparked protests in Minneapolis and around the country, some of which became violent.A lawyer for the men’s team union also called for the repeal of the policy and an apology in a statement provided to BuzzFeed News, which was the first to report on the U.S. women’s statement.A message was left by the AP seeking comment from the federation.___More AP soccer: https://apnews.com/Soccer and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports 1970

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

The White House National Security Council is ending the role of cyber coordinator, according to an internal announcement obtained by CNN on Tuesday.The internal announcement said the elimination of the cyber role, just weeks into the tenure of national security adviser John Bolton, was part of an effort to "streamline authority for National Security Council Senior Directors."The announcement said the cyber coordinator job would end as Rob Joyce, the latest to hold the post, returned to the National Security Agency."With our two Senior Directors for Cybersecurity, cyber coordination is already a core capability," the announcement read. "Eliminating another layer of bureaucracy delivers greater 'decision, activity, secrecy and despatch (sic)' as Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist Number 70."The elimination of the cyber coordinator job marked the latest of several changes to the National Security Council since President Donald Trump named Bolton his national security adviser.CNN reported last month Bolton pushed out Tom Bossert as homeland security adviser to make room for his own team, as several other officials left the National Security Council, including deputy national security adviser Nadia Schadlow and Joyce, who served as Bossert's deputy.Politico?first reported?on the elimination of the post.Asked about the position at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said she had not discussed the decision with Bolton."I have not had a conversation with Ambassador Bolton about that particular issue," Nielsen told Michigan Democratic Sen. Gary Peters.Nielsen said DHS has "strengthened all of our relationships with the silos" in government that Peters mentioned in his question, and said she is in regular contact with Bolton on cybersecurity, the previous statement notwithstanding."Since Ambassador Bolton has come onto the job, he and I speak regularly," she said, describing cybersecurity strategy work between herself and Bolton as "hand in glove."She added the cybersecurity strategy released by her department on Tuesday was done in "close coordination" with NSC.During his first year in office, then-President Barack Obama?announced he was establishing the role of cybersecurity coordinator and warned at the time the nation needed to bolster its online security efforts.Mississippi Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, issued a statement responding to the news and accusing Bolton of "wreaking havoc" on the NSC."With cyber threats ever-changing and growing more sophisticated by the day, there is no logical reason to eliminate this senior position and reduce the already degraded level of cyber expertise at the White House," the statement read.Democratic Rep. Jim Langevin, of Rhode Island, said Tuesday he feels the decision was the "first major step backward" on cybersecurity by the Trump administration. He added the Trump administration had mostly followed in the footsteps of the Obama administration before this move."Bad move, big mistake, and just shows how out of touch and uninformed John Bolton is," Langevin said. 3227

来源：资阳报