沈阳哪里可以治疗粉刺(沈阳肤康皮肤病医院专业吗正不正规) (今日更新中)

BALTIMORE, Md. – For 95-year-old Betty Cooke, her lifelong passion of turning metal into wearable works of art began in the 1940s. “I was always interested in making things, whether it's metal clay or whatever,” she said. “And I kind of took to this and I had a good feel for the simplicity of it.” It’s a simplicity celebrated not just at her Baltimore store, but also at the Baltimore Museum of Art. “They really stand out, they're really sculptural, they're really dimensional – they move on the body,” said Virginia Anderson, Baltimore Museum of Art Curator of American Art. Betty’s works are just one part of “2020 Vision,” a pledge by the museum in 2020 to only purchase art by female artists. “Of course, it was duly noted that this is this centennial of white women receiving the votes in the United States,” said Christopher Bedford, Director of the Baltimore Museum of Art. “So, we thought ‘well, this would be a great moment to analyze our collection, begin to understand some of our historical deficits.” How big are those gender deficits? A study last year published in the Public Library of Science looked at 18 major museums in the U.S. and found that 85 percent of the artists in their collections were white and 87 percent were men. This, despite the fact that half of the professional artists in the U.S. are women. At the Baltimore Museum of Art, the disparity is even more lopsided. “We have roughly four percent,” Bedford said. “Four percent of our collection is works by women.” Now, though, with 21 of their 23 curators being women, the Baltimore Museum of Art plans to spend at least .5 million this year, acquiring pieces by female artists – like those created by Betty Cooke. “This is a big moment for the women,” Cooke said. “I hope and I expect it to continue and I think it's pretty great.”Another recent study found that smaller museums seem to be doing better than larger ones, when it comes to buying works by female artists. Larger museums, though, point out that they often face not just financial constraints, but also by what art wealthy donors choose to offer the museums. 2126

PARADISE, Calif. – The struggle to emerge from rubble and ash now grips the town of Paradise, California. “We’ve all been through the same thing,” said Mayor Jody Jones. “So much trauma. Nobody else really knows what we’ve been through.” Last year, the Camp Fire, as it is called, destroyed 19,000 homes and killed more than 80 people killed. The recovery has been slow. Though the town issued 500 building permits after the fire, so far, only nine homes have been rebuilt. However, 3,000 people are back, along with nearly 200 small businesses that reopened, like Nic’s Restaurant. “The biggest challenge is timing,” said restaurant owner Nicky Jones, “because there’s so many people wanting to rebuild.” The challenges are staggering. Flames scorched hundreds of thousands of trees that now need to be removed because they’re in danger of falling. The fire also left behind something more ominous: contaminated soil. “For the burnt properties, more than half of them are contaminated,” Mayor Jones said. Evacuation routes there also remain woefully inadequate, potentially trapping people again, should another wildfire break out -- much like they are currently raging in other parts of California. “I think, right now, looking at the fires in California and people got to start asking those tough questions - at what point do I decide I don't want to move back out there?” said Robert Allen, an adjunct professor specializing in risk management at Tulane University. For some who call Paradise home, though, rebuilding is not so much a choice, but a calling. “My family lost 13 homes,” said April Kelly, “and for them to be able to have a place to come back to and to see me to be a part of the rebuild process personally, is just a really big accomplishment.”It’s one with many steps still to go.Correction: In a previous version of this story, we incorrectly identified the mayor of Paradise, CA as Judy Jones. The mayor of Paradise is Jody Jones. We apologize for the error. 1995

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have issued statements following comments by President Donald Trump that indicated that he would consider sending federal agents into Detroit and other cities to curb "civil unrest."This comes after federal troops and protesters have clashed over the last week. He also mentioned sending federal law enforcement to other cities including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Oakland."It is deeply disturbing that President Trump is once again choosing to spread hateful rhetoric and attempting to suppress the voices of those he doesn't agree with," said Whitmer. "Quite frankly, the president doesn't know the first thing about Detroit. If he did, he would know that for nearly two months now, Detroiters have gathered to peacefully protest the systemic racism and discrimination that Black Americans face every day. There is no reason for the president to send federal troops into a city where people are demanding change peacefully and respectfully. If the president actually wants to help the people of Michigan, he can start by picking up the phone and telling Mitch McConnell to pass the HEROES Act, so we can provide immediate relief to Michigan's families, schools, and small businesses."“President Trump’s politically motivated threat to send ‘more federal law enforcement’ to Detroit, among other cities, has nothing to do with protecting public health or safety. It is about using the power of his office as a cudgel to punish those who use their constitutionally guaranteed rights to express views he disagrees with. Such threats undermine peace and stability in our communities by unnecessarily escalating tensions and encroaching on states’ rights,” said Attorney General Dana Nessel. “We are a nation of laws, and the President’s attempts to intimidate our communities with threats of violence could not be more un-American.” This article was written by WXYZ in Detroit. 1984

Dec. 10-14: 10 a.m.-9 p.m.Dec. 15: 10 a.m.-10 p.m.Dec. 16: 11 a.m.-8 p.m.Dec. 17-19: 10 a.m.-9 p.m.Dec. 20-21: 10 a.m.-10 p.m.Dec. 22: 9 a.m.-11 p.m.Dec. 23: 9 a.m.-10 p.m.Dec. 24 (Christmas Eve): 8 a.m.-6 p.m.Dec. 25 (Christmas Day): CLOSEDWestfield North County (272 E Via Rancho Parkway) 306

It’s two weeks after Election Day, and President Donald Trump still refuses to concede that he lost the battle for the White House. Recounts underway are not expected to change the result. Democrat Joe Biden captured enough electoral votes to become the next President of the United States at noon on Jan 20.But what if Donald Trump refuses to leave the White House and keeps fighting?Seem far-fetched? Perhaps. But Monday morning, Trump tweeted, “I won the election!” And then, a little later, “The Radical Left Democrats, working with their partner, the Fake News Media, are trying to STEAL this Election. We won’t let them!” The Radical Left Democrats, working with their partner, the Fake News Media, are trying to STEAL this Election. We won’t let them!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 16, 2020 So, what may have once been unthinkable seems like a valid question to ask.PIX11 put the question to five leading election law scholars. What would happen if President Trump refused to leave, assuming the electoral votes cast on Electoral College Day (Dec. 14) go as expected and Joe Biden gets more than half the 538 available.“The important thing is not whether he is physically in the White House,” said Michael Dimino of Widener University Commonwealth Law School in Harrisburg, PA. “The important thing is who is permitted to exercise the powers of the presidency. The Constitution establishes a procedure for deciding that question.”That means Donald Trump no longer would have any authority.Professor Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles told us, “The states will certify their results, the electors will cast their votes, Congress will count those votes … and then we’ve got a new President. And at noon on the 20th. … the only way that Donald Trump will be permitted on White House grounds is if he’s invited.”Richard Briffault, an authority on election law at Columbia Law School put it this way, “I also assume that at noon on January 20, he becomes a trespasser and possibly a security risk and could be removed.”Presumably, any forced removal would be handled by the same agency that protected President Trump during his term, the Secret Service.Rebecca Green, the co-director of the Election Law Program at William & Mary Law School, described what the new president could do to resolve any problem.“If Joe Biden is duly elected president and Trump refuses to leave the White House, Biden will order that Trump be escorted from White House grounds,” Green said.Another expert, whom we’re not naming because the professor is under contract as an election analyst with another media outlet, agreed that if Donald Trump stays in the White House, he’d be a trespasser and “he’d be escorted out if it came to that.”"Nobody can retain the powers of the presidency by refusing to leave,” Professor Dimono summed up. He underscored that the country is a nation of law. “It is the votes of the electors -- as counted by Congress -- that determine who can exercise the powers of the presidency," Dimono said.So, one way or the other, Donald Trump would have to vacate the premises. This story was first reported by Allen Levine at PIX11 in New York, New York. 3230

来源：资阳报