梅州有关盆腔炎的检查(梅州无痛人流注意事) (今日更新中)

The Iran nuclear deal may be doomed, at least if you believe the global oil market.Oil prices have surged?partly because of mounting expectations that President Trump will kill the 2015 agreement, which allowed Iran to export more crude. Trump must decide by May 12 whether to re-impose sanctions on the OPEC nation.Brent crude, the global benchmark, briefly soared above a barrel on Monday after Israel leveled new nuclear allegations against Iran.Bringing back sanctions on Iran could knock out as much as 1 million barrels per day of crude supply, dealing a blow to increasingly fragile energy markets."There will be a significant disruption," said Michael Wittner, global head of oil research at Societe Generale."The market is assuming that oil sanctions will snap back onto Iran," he said.Trump said on Monday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech on Iran helps show he's "100% right" about the Iranian nuclear agreement, which was signed by former President Barack Obama."We'll see what happens," Trump said about his decision on the Iran deal. "I'm not telling you what I'm doing, but a lot of people think they know."The oil market certainly thinks it knows. The price of Brent crude has soared 7% this year, and the US benchmark has soared 8% to nearly a barrel for the first time since late 2014. Oil prices have been lifted by concerns about the fate of the Iran deal as well as strong demand and supply cuts by OPEC and Russia."The Iranian nuclear deal is dead in the water and a Trump torpedo is fast approaching," Stephen Brennock, oil analyst at brokerage firm PVM Oil Associates, wrote to clients late last week.Under the deal, Iran agreed to limits on its nuclear activities, including bans on enrichment at key facilities. In exchange, sanctions were lifted in early 2016, freeing Iran to quickly boost its oil production by about 1 million barrels per day. Iran found eager customers for its crude in Europe, Japan, India and South Korea.It's "now looking increasingly likely" that Trump will not renew the waiver on Iranian sanctions by May 12, according to energy research firm FGE. 2153

The NFL is planning on playing “Lift Every Voice and Sing” before all Week 1 football games this fall, a source familiar with the league’s discussions confirmed with EW Scripps on Thursday.USA Today and ESPN first reported that the NFL is in the process of finalizing plans to play the song considered a “Black Anthem.” The source said the song would be performed before the Star Spangled Banner before Week 1 games in September.The source said the league is working collaboratively with players to recognize victims of systemic racism throughout the season through a variety of in-game and programs. Among the items being discussed with players are: on-uniform elements, which could include the names of victims police brutality on helmet decals or jerseys patches and educational programs. The league is also considering public service announcements. The NFL is said to be in discussions with the NFLPA to finalize the plans. Earlier this week, NASCAR played “Lift Every Voice and Sing” before the Pocono 350. The song has also been performed at other various sporting events, including a Georgetown men's basketball game.The lyrics to the song were written as a poem in 1900 and set to music five years later. Last month, amid a nationwide protests in response to the death of George Floyd, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, who faced blame for not standing behind players who participated in protests, conceded he was wrong about players kneeling during the national anthem in response to police brutality.Goodell stated his support for Black Lives Matter in a video released on social media."We the National Football League, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of black people," Goodell said. "We, the National Football League, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest," Goodell said. 1879

The mayor of Compton, California, has told the Los Angeles Times that she is launching a pilot program with a local non-profit that will give 800 residents a "guaranteed income" over the next two years.Compton Mayor Aja Brown told the Times that a non-profit called the Compton Pledge would select 800 low-income residents and distribute a "guaranteed income" to them for the next two years.According to the Times, the participants will be selected from a "pre-verified" list of low-income families in the area. Over the span of two years, the Compton Pledge plans to provide the families with "at least a few hundred dollars on a recurring basis" without any strings attached. The program will also provide families with financial guidance and track their spending and well-being throughout the process.While the Compton Pledge has not said where it is getting its funding or how much participants would receive, The Los Angeles Times reports that the program hopes to include a "representative sample" of the city's racial makeup in its participants.Once considered a fringe concept, the idea of a "universal basic income" has gained traction among left-wing politicians in recent years. Such a policy would provide all Americans with a monthly stipend which recipients would be free to spend as they see fit. Businessman Andrew Yang ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination based on the idea.The concept gained further traction amid the COVID-19 pandemic when lawmakers agreed to provide most Americans with a ,200 check as the government shut down businesses to prevent the spread of the virus.While critics of a universal basic income claim such a policy would lead to high unemployment numbers and lead to spending on non-essential goods, some studies have shown that's not always the case. A similar program being conducted in Stockton, California, shows that recipients of basic income funds were mostly spent on food, clothes, and utility bills. 1975

The political ramifications of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Friday will likely ripple into November and beyond.Her death coming in the final two months of the 2020 presidential election will bring up considerable questions on who will replace her, especially given the divided nature of the Supreme Court.The court, which has seen its share of 5-4 decisions in recent years, could become a reliably conservative court for years to come if President Donald Trump is able to push through a nominee leading up to the election.Currently the court holds five Republican-appointed justices and three Democratic-appointed justice, but Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, has sometimes been a swing vote, siding with the liberals.But one person who is opposing a last-minute appointment to the bench was apparently Ginsburg herself.Dictating a statement to family that was released to NPR, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”In 2016, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's death came nine months before the presidential election, and became a focal point of that year's election. President Barack Obama attempted to fill the seat, but Republicans in the Senate blocked the appointment.Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reminded Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday of that fact.“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” Schumer tweeted, which were the exact words used by McConnell in 2016.On Friday, McConnell confirmed that a potential nominee would get a vote in the Senate, but there are questions on whether a potential nominee would have enough support to be confirmed. "President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate," McConnell said. McConnell said this situation is different because Republicans control the White House. "Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise," McConnell said.Just last week, Trump released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees. That list can be seen here.Joe Biden agreed with Schumer. "The voters should pick a President, and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg," Biden said. "This was the position that the Republican Senate took in 2016, when there were nearly nine months before the election. That is the position the United States Senate must take now, when the election is less than two months away. We are talking about the Constitution and the Supreme Court. That institution should not be subject to politics."HOW A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IS CONFIRMED- The president nominates a replacement to be vetted by the Supreme Court.- After vetting the nominee, the Senate may take a vote to accept the nomination. The vote nomination must have 51 votes in order to pass. If there is a tie, the vice president can vote to break a tie.- There are 53 Republicans in the US Senate. It would take four Republicans to vote in opposition in order for a potential nominee not to be approved. 3322

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

来源：资阳报