打掉孩子去昌吉哪个医院好(昌吉手术包皮要多少费用) (今日更新中)

The growing list of sexual harassment allegations against well-known powerful men has Congress taking steps to protect against misconduct in its own offices.Both the House and Senate have now agreed to require anti-harassment training for lawmakers and staff. That’s in addition to legislation just introduced that aims to provide more protections and resources for congressional staff members who file complaints."I think we're at a tipping point culturally in this country," said Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif. "I want to make sure Congress turns over a new leaf."The new effort to combat sexual abuse on Capitol Hill responds to staffers who say Congress has long been a breeding ground for misconduct.Aides have reported being sexually harassed by at least two unnamed sitting members of Congress, according to Speier, who recently revealed she was sexually assaulted in the 1970s when she was a Capitol Hill staffer.More than 1,500 former Capitol Hill staffers signed a petition this week urging the House and Senate to update decades-old sexual harassment policies they called “inadequate and in need of reform.”Speier introduced a bill Wednesday that would dramatically overhaul procedures for how sexual harassment claims are handled at the Office of Compliance, which is responsible for carrying out the unique procedures lawmakers established in 1995 to resolve sexual misconduct claims.Unlike most workplaces, employees in Congress who file harassment claims must first go through a months-long process. It includes up to 30 days of counseling, then a month of mediation where workers discuss their complaints with their employers, sometimes the same people accused of wrongdoing. Much of the system is blanketed in secrecy, with victims signing non-disclosure agreements and no reporting of which congressional offices eventually pay out settlements.The Office of Compliance won’t even say how many sexual harassment complaints it receives. The most recent numbers from the office showed only eight claims filed relating to any workplace issue last year out of 15,000 House and Senate employees. Speier said it's a sign employees are not comfortable reporting sexual misconduct."It's really no wonder staffers don't use this system," Speier said.Her bill would shorten how long employees must wait for resolution, allowing them to waive the requirement for counseling and mediation and go straight to court or to an administrative hearing at the Office of Compliance. It also would eliminate the requirement of a non-disclosure agreement up front and identify which lawmaker offices have complaints and settlements.The legislation would set up a victims’ counsel office to represent people who file claims. Right now, lawmakers have their own in-house lawyers able to represent them with staffers left to find their own advocates.Employees who file claims also would be allowed to work remotely, if requested, during the complaint process, rather than having to work in the offices where they allege wrongdoing occurred.It also would require a report every two years looking at sexual harassment on Capitol Hill.The protections would for the first time extend to interns, fellows and congressional pages.Similar legislation is being introduced in the Senate. Republican leaders who control the fate of legislation have not yet commented on Speier’s bill.House Administration Committee Chairman Gregg Harper, R-Miss., held a hearing Tuesday on sexual harassment in Congress. He called it a first step toward making sure staffers are protected from misconduct."We're talking thousands and thousands of staffers that are impacted by this, so we're going to do whatever we've got to do to make sure this doesn't happen," Harper said.On Tuesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced that anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training would become mandatory for all House members and staff.The Senate passed its own bill to require similar in-person training last week. 3981

The NFL has revealed some of its plans regarding Super Bowl LV in Tampa. The league is now planning for 20% capacity at the stadium, ESPN reports.Crowds at football games this year have been mixed, with some teams allowing limited fans and some not allowing any guests.ESPN's Adam Schefter also reports if a Week 18 is added to this regular season, the off week would be eliminated and Super Bowl LV would stay on February 7.Tampa is set to host the Super Bowl, and just last month the NFL said it was preparing for a full house.Thousands are also expected to attend events that week along the Riverwalk downtown.Tampa's Mayor Jane Castor said she had a meeting on Tuesday related to the Super Bowl and plans are in place for 16,000 to 70,000 fans and it will take more time to determine how many people will be allowed to attend."We’re going to put on the most spectacular Super Bowl ever under probably the most different circumstances ever, but this is Tampa and we do things big here so it will be safe and it will be spectacular," she added.The President and CEO of the South Tampa Chamber of Commerce Kelly Flannery said in a statement, "The Super Bowl provides for a considerable economic boost for host cities and our local businesses will benefit from having Super Bowl 55 in Tampa in an incredible way."Rob Higgins with Tampa Bay Sports Commission said they are working closely with the NFL and local public health officials to determine what the capacity will be for the Super Bowl."It is not known at this time. We know that the numbers will evolve over the next few months. We'll be following conditions in the county and the state, and the NFL will make a determination based on approvals locally. Clubs across the league-including the Bucks- are starting to include more fans into stadiums, but are not currently at full capacity," he said in a statement.This article was written by Dan Trujillo for WFTS. 1928

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory reports an eruption at the Halemaumau Crater of the Kilauea Volcano. Trade winds will push any embedded ash toward the Southwest. Fallout is likely in the Kau District in Wood Valley, Pahala, Naalehu and Ocean View. Stay indoors to avoid Exposu— COH Civil Defense (@CivilDefenseHI) December 21, 2020 349

The neon lights of Broadway’s Honky Tonk bars are still shining brightly each night in downtown Nashville, Tennessee. But across this city that's soul heavily beats to the pulse of local musicians’ songs, many independent music venues are in danger of going dark for good.Since 1971, Exit/In near the city’s west end neighborhood has long been a beacon for smaller artists looking to make it big. Over the years, everyone from Billy Joel to Cheryl Crow to Jimmy Buffet has graced the stage here. But it’s the smaller, less well-known artists who truly rely on a black box venue like this one.“It’s a purist’s room. It’s just a great old school style place,” explained owner Chris Cobb.Since March though, Exit/In and thousands of other venues like it across the country have been shut down--forced to close their doors because of the coronavirus.“It’s just not safe. It’s not safe to do what we do right now, unfortunately, and there’s no pivot option. We can’t curbside a concert, we can’t to-go a concert,” Cobb lamented.It’s that kind of daunting reality facing owners of clubs, venues and smaller music halls across the country. Many have already run out of money and most are out of time. Aside from the 57 employees that Cobb had to lay off, there are also closed signs now popping up on businesses around the neighborhood who rely on live shows to bring customers in.“We’re on the edge of a cliff with a huge number of venues right there at the edge and about to go over, and they won’t come back,” he added.While it’s not a giant stadium, venues like Exit/In are the kind of spaces where smaller artists get their start. In cities across the country, independent venues are deeply engrained in the culture of the communities they operate in.For musician Daniel Donato, not having a stage like Exit/In to play on has been difficult.“I want to create memories that people can go back to. I want to be somebody’s Friday night. And the first thing a musician plays is the venue, they don’t play their instrument, they play the venue they’re in,” Donato said.In addition to the income he’s lost, the 25-year-old musician is also missing out on a chance to refine his craft. There are countless musicians like him across the country stuck in a kind of painful limbo.“I have to have the energy of the people in the room, take that, put it in a guitar and make it something great,” he added.By the end of the year, live performance venues are expected to lose about billion on ticket sales alone. Because of the impending crisis facing smaller venues, nearly 2,800 have banded together to form the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA).A stunning 90 percent of venues in the organization say they will close by the end of the year without any federal assistance.“It’s happening and every day that goes by is a risk that it happens more, people have run out of money,” explained Audrey Fix Schaefer, who serves as the director of communication for the group.In recent months, NIVA has created the "Save Our Stages Act." It’s a billion grant program for independent venues with bi-partisan support. Now, all they need is a vote in Congress.“People have run out of money and they’re running out of hope,” she added.As for Cobb, it's not just about the jobs that have been lost, it's about the music that the country may never hear if independent venues go silent forever.“It’s hard to think about American music without this network of independent music venues that have existed in this country for decades now. American music, as we know it, would not exist. I’m afraid that’s what we’re about to learn the hard way is it can’t exist the way we know it if these venues go away,” Cobb said.But for now, that's a song Cobb is trying not to write, hoping that the sun doesn't permanently set on some of the nation's most beloved stages. 3854

The polling industry has a lot on the line heading into Tuesday's midterm election.Critics blamed pollsters when voters were caught off guard by Donald Trump's election in 2016. Old cries of "don't believe the polls" became fevered shouts. And the president has encouraged distrust by calling certain polls "fake" and claiming they are used to "suppress" the vote.Although there is no evidence to suggest that is true, there is persistent and widespread suspicion about polling, according to, you guessed it, a McClatchy-Marist poll. And it exists on both sides, albeit in different forms."I think Democrats may have felt let down by the polls but don't think it was an intentional error. I think many Republicans believe the polling errors of 2016 were intentional," GOP pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights Kristen Soltis Anderson told CNN.So can the industry regain trust?Since 2016 there's been a whole lot of self-reflection in the polling world. Pollsters have tweaked their techniques; pundits have become more cautious when talking about polls; and news outlets have conducted some fascinating experiments.On Tuesday, all the efforts are being put to the test."Some pollsters would disagree with this, but the way that the public generally views whether or not polling is accurate is whether or not it gets the results of the election right," CNN analyst Harry Enten said on "Reliable Sources.""I'm not necessarily sure that's fair," Enten said, "but I do think that there is more pressure on pollsters this year to get it right given the president's rhetoric and given what happened in 2016."Many, though not all, 2016 polls underestimated support for Trump. This effect was particularly pronounced at the state level, where there were embarrassing "misses," showing Hillary Clinton with safe leads in states Trump actually carried.Most national polls accurately showed Clinton winning the popular vote. But reporters and commentators made lots of mistakes in their interpretations of the polls. Readers and viewers did, too. Many people discounted the margin and other factors and made faulty assumptions that Trump would lose to Clinton.There were other problems, too. Predictive features on websites gained lots of traffic before the election but caused lots of consternation afterward. HuffPost's model infamously showed Clinton with a 98 percent chance of winning. "We blew it," the site admitted afterward.But just as importantly, HuffPost's Natalie Jackson tried to explain why.Other news outlets have also tried to be more transparent and remind voters of what polls cannot convey.In special elections since 2016, Democrats have repeatedly outperformed polls of their races.The top example was the Virginia governors' race. "Ralph Northam was favored by three points. He ended up winning by nine," Enten said.But past outcomes are not an indicator of future results."I think many pollsters and forecasters have tried to be much more intentional about explaining uncertainty and being humble about what data can and can't tell us," Anderson said. "Because I think there was a big sense that in 2016, there was more certainty conveyed than may have been justified by the available data."So political pros and reporters are communicating poll results differently this time. Time magazine's Molly Ball, who has a no-predictions rule for herself, said that even people who do make predictions are adding more caveats: There's "less of the, 'Well, the needle shows this' and more of, 'Here's what it doesn't show, here's what we should always remember can happen about probabilities.'"Early voting has been explosive in the midterms, indicating above-average enthusiasm among both Democrats and Republicans. Pollsters have to make assumptions about turnout when contacting "likely voters," and this is a difficult election to forecast.The 2018 electorate is "a universe that doesn't exist yet," Democratic pollster Margie Omero said. "I mean, people don't know whether they're going to vote, some people."They may tell a pollster that they're sure to vote, but never make it to the ballot box. Or they might change who they're voting for.Conversely, certain subsets of voters may have a big impact on the final results without really showing up in the pre-election polling. If pollsters assume relatively low youth turnout, but lots of young people vote for the first time, that could cause big surprises in certain races.The vast majority of people who are called by pollsters decline to participate, so the researchers have to make a huge number of phone calls, bend over backwards to reach a representative sample of people, and weight their results accordingly.Some polls are higher quality than others. Most news outlets tend to favor live interviewers, as opposed to computerized systems, and a mix of landline and cell phone calls. But some outlets are wading into web-based polling. CNN's polling standards preclude reporting on web polls.This fall The New York Times pulled back the curtain by conducting "live polling" and publishing the results in real time, call by call. Working with Siena College, the surveyors made 2,822,889 calls and completed 96 polls of House and Senate races."We wanted to demystify polling for people," said Nate Cohn of The Times' Upshot blog."From our point of view, it's almost a miracle how accurate polls usually are, given all the challenges," Cohn said in an interview with CNN.He emphasized that polls are "very fuzzy things." And the real-time polling showed this to the public. The researchers sought to interview about 500 people for each race that was examined.In Iowa's fourth congressional district, for example, 14,636 calls resulted in 423 interviews.The results showed the incumbent, far-right congressman Steve King, with 47% support, and his Democratic challenger J.D. Scholten with 42%.The Times characterized this as a "slight edge" for King, with lots of room for error. "The margin of sampling error on the overall lead is 10 points, roughly twice as large as the margin for a single candidate's vote share," the Times explained on its website.Cohn's final pre-election story noted that "even modest late shifts among undecided voters or a slightly unexpected turnout could significantly affect results."That's the kind of language that lots of polling experts are incorporating into their stories and live shots, especially in the wake of the 2016 election."With polling, you never actually get to the truth," Cohn said. "You inch towards it, and you think you end up within plus or minus 5 points of it at the end."As Enten put it, "polls are tools," not meant to be perfect. But that message needs to be reinforced through the news media. 6753

来源：资阳报