广东足骨模型(口腔外科综合模型厂家直销) (今日更新中)

The government’s leading infectious disease expert told CNN on Thursday that the NFL will need to take significant steps in order to conduct a season this fall.During an interview with CNN, Dr. Anthony Fauci said that the NFL will need to consider playing games in a “bubble,” much like how the NBA and MLS plan on resuming their seasons later this summer."Unless players are essentially in a bubble -- insulated from the community and they are tested nearly every day -- it would be very hard to see how football is able to be played this fall," Dr. Fauci told CNN. "If there is a second wave, which is certainly a possibility and which would be complicated by the predictable flu season, football may not happen this year."Dr. Fauci's comments come as several states, including Arizona and Florida have seen a jump in coronavirus cases. As of now, the NFL continues to plan on playing games in home stadiums.But decisions on moving forward will need to be made in the coming weeks, with training camp starting in a month, and preseason games in August.NFL chief medical officer Dr. Allen Sills told the NFL Network that placing NFL players in a “bubble” was not realistic. The number of players and coaches employed by the NFL is considerably higher than the MLS and NBA."Dr. Fauci has identified the important health and safety issues we and the NFL Players Association, together with our joint medical advisors, are addressing to mitigate the health risk to players, coaches and other essential personnel," Sills said in a statement to the NFL Network."We are developing a comprehensive and rapid-result testing program and rigorous protocols that call for a shared responsibility from everyone inside our football ecosystem. This is based on the collective guidance of public health officials, including the White House task force, the CDC, infectious disease experts, and other sports leagues."Make no mistake, this is no easy task. We will make adjustments as necessary to meet the public health environment as we prepare to play the 2020 season as scheduled with increased protocols and safety measures for all players, personnel and attendees. We will be flexible and adaptable in this environment to adjust to the virus as needed." 2249

The Pennsylvania Academy of the Arts, or PAFA, is the nation’s oldest art school and museum but it’s facing a new dilemma: what to do with an artist’s work when the artist is accused of sexual misconduct.                                                                                                                                                                       The artist in question is portraitist Chuck Close. He may not be a household name to you and I, but in the art community he’s huge. He’s considered a pioneer of portrait work who rose to prominence in the 1960s who made a name for himself in the way he incorporated photography within the world of painting.But this past December, four female models accused the artist of sexual harassment, claims the Close denied in an interview with the New York Times. Close, through a rep, declined our request comment.Brooke Davis Anderson, PAFA’s museum director, had a tough call to make: what to do with a high-profile exhibit, on view in one of their most prominent galleries, filled with Close’s work.“I’m very hesitant to censor artwork,” Anderson said. She and the museum executive leadership convened their art community of students, staff, and patrons to gauge the reactions to try to fiigure out ho to handle the exhibit.“We really asked everybody what they were feeling, thinking, how they were responding,” Anderson said. “How they felt we should respond as an institution, and collectively what this meant for us.”The broader discussion is not all that new. You may recall that a few years back, “The Cosby Show” was pulled from syndication following allegations made by a slew of women against its star and creator Bill Cosby. It’s since made a slow re-emergence on small cable networks.In the past year, we’ve had to ask ourselves whether we as a society are comfortable enjoying re-runs of “Louie” on FX in the wake of comedian Louis C.K.’s admitted mistreatment of women. Or what about previous seasons of “House of Cards” now that allegations regarding Kevin Spacey have come to light?Even Pablo Picasso was known to have mistreated the opposite sex.The obvious question becomes: can an artist’s work be separated completely form the artist and their personal decisions?[,We asked Melissa Joseph and Candace Jensen, both students at PAFA who took part in the museum’s forum on what to do with the Close exhibit. “That’s like the zinger question!” Jensen said, through laughter.“Many students did want the [Chuck Close] show to come down,” Joseph added. “You just want it to go away, you know? You don’t want to have to look at it anymore.”But, she says, over a few weeks’ time her views evolved.“If you think about what’s going to be most productive for this movement, what’s going to actually move things forward, your initial emotional reaction isn’t always the right one.”Jensen interjected.“Well yeah but don’t diminish emotional responses. Emotional responses are really tied up with moral responses,” Jensen said, adding that understanding the context in which art was made is key.“Being willing to value the aesthetic decisions that were made and also be critical of the maker,” Jensen said. “So it’s not a black and white.”PAFA is not the only institution having to navigate this gray area.Seattle University recently removed a Chuck Close self-portrait hanging in a campus library.The National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC indefinitely postponed its Chuck Close exhibit that was set to open in May. A museum spokesperson declined an interview but told us in an email that “all parties involved” agreed that it was “not the appropriate time” to present the installation. Anderson made the final call for PAFA: keep the Close exhibit, but with a caveat in the adjoining gallery right next door.“The site of an exhibition isn’t where you respond by censorship or changing the project. I rather felt that what we could do because of our real estate here. We had an opportunity to have a dialogue with another project.”That other project is what they’re calling a “response exhibit,” a gallery created to force a conversation that explores gender and equality in the art community.“There are no longer town halls and town squares,” Anderson said. “So what if a museum was a site where we could say we don’t agree, and lets unpack how we don’t agree. And let’s understand how we don’t agree, and maybe that advances us a little bit.”Anderson pointed out some of the highlights of the responsive exhibit, including a timeline regarding how and when the art world can become “an equitable space.”“How do we get more women in leadership positions? Women artists and collections, people of color, trans people, how do we create that balance?” 5181

The impact of the Latino vote, the issues that are front and center and the effort to get out the vote. The 2020 election marks the first time that Latinos will be the largest racial or ethnic minority in the electorate, with 32 million eligible voters. – Source Pew Research Institute.Join us on Wednesday, Oct. 14, at 9:30 a.m. as we discuss the impact Latino voters will have on upcoming election. Nancy Maldonado, CEO of the Chicano Federation of San Diego will join our “Ask the Experts Series.” You can join us at 9:30 a.m. for the conversation on our ABC 10News Facebook page. 591

The mother of mail bomb suspect Cesar Sayoc writes that she is estranged from her son but hurt by his alleged attacks, and she calls on the country -- specifically, President Donald Trump -- to tone down the nasty rhetoric.She further warned that the political vitriol -- particularly talk of "war" against the media and political parties — could resonate with the mentally ill, like her son, and inspire them to "violently act out in our country," Madeline Sayoc wrote in an open letter to television network ABC, which published the correspondence Sunday night.Madeline Sayoc also said that her 56-year-old son's relatives had tried, to no avail, to get him help, and that American families need better laws to allow families to "compel and require" treatment, when necessary.Here is the full text of the letter: 822

The political and judicial world were turned upside down on Friday following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. While many questions remain in Washington, like whether President Donald Trump has the votes to replace Ginsburg before the election, one thing is clear: issues will come before the Supreme Court very soon.HEALTH CARE ARGUMENTS IN NOVEMBERWhile election issues are expected, the future of the Affordable Care Act is an issue guaranteed to come up before the Supreme Court soon. A hearing is set to take place one week after the election regarding whether the law can be struck down. Essentially, Republicans from around the country believe that the only reason the Supreme Court upheld the law in 2012 was because the opinion said Congress has the power to tax. Since that time, however, Trump has removed the tax penalty for not having health insurance. The thinking from some conservatives is that since the tax penalty is gone, the entire law can be struck down now, too. WHERE THE COURT STANDS Prior to Ginsburg's death, the general thinking was that the law would still stand. It faced a challenged in 2012, but Chief Justice John Roberts sided with four liberal justices to uphold it. With Ginsburg's passing, there are only three liberal justices on the court. If Roberts joins the liberal justices it would create a 4-4 tie. "If there is a 4-4 split on the court, then no precedent is set and whatever the lower court decided stands," Professor Paul Schiff Berman with George Washington University said. That would mean parts of the Affordable Care Act can be struck down since lower courts have already ruled in that way. If Trump is able to get another nominee on the court before the hearing, it would only make the court more conservative. Berman cautioned though that other conservatives could potentially join the liberals on this case since the lawsuit's legal standing is murky. Still, the future of the Affordable Care Act is in more jeopardy today than it was last Thursday. 2020

来源：资阳报