梅州怀孕什么时候做人流好梅州胸部的整形手术,梅州20周做人流大概费用,梅州做流产一般花多少钱,梅州怀孕几周做流产比较好,梅州引起女性宫颈炎的原因,梅州多长时间做超导可视人流手术,梅州热玛吉的价位是多少

The organization that runs the Bronx Zoo in New York has apologized for the racist history in the zoo's past.In a news release, the Wildlife Conservation Society apologized for two incidents of "unconscionable racial intolerance" that occurred in the past. The first incident the zoo is "condemning" is the treatment Ota Benga, a young central African man from the Mbuti people of the present-day Democratic Republic of Congo, experienced.For several days in September 1906, the zoo put Benga on display in its Monkey House. Outrage from local Black ministers "brought the disgraceful incident to an end.""In the name of equality, transparency, and accountability, we must confront our organization’s historic role in promoting racial injustice as we advance our mission to save wildlife and wild places," officials said.After leaving the zoo, officials say Benga stayed at an orphanage in Brooklyn. He died by suicide a decade later, the organization said.The second incident officials condemned was the "eugenics-based, pseudoscientific racism, writings, and philosophies" by founders Madison Grant and Henry Fairfield Osborn Sr.Zoo officials said an excerpt from Grant’s book “The Passing of the Great Race” was included in a defense exhibit for one of the defendants in the Nuremberg trials."We deeply regret that many people and generations have been hurt by these actions or by our failure previously to publicly condemn and denounce them," officials said in the statement. "We recognize that overt and systemic racism persists, and our institution must play a greater role to confront it. As the United States addresses its legacy of anti-Black racism and the brutal killings that have led to mass protests around the world, we reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that social, racial, and environmental justice are deep-rooted in our conservation mission." 1871

The jurors who convicted James Fields of murder could soon decide whether they think he should spend the rest of his life behind bars.Fields, 21, was attending last year's "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, when counterprotesters demonstrated against the white nationalists. That afternoon, Fields got in his Dodge Challenger and plowed into the counterprotesters at about 28 mph, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer.The Charlottesville jury found Fields guilty of first-degree murder Friday. Fields was also found guilty of eight counts of malicious wounding and one count of failing to stop at an accident involving a death.On Monday, jurors will begin the sentencing phase of Fields' trial. Ultimately, Judge Richard Moore will decide Fields' sentence, but will consider the jury's recommendation.Jurors are expected to hear victim impact statements, possibly from Heyer's family or surviving victims from the August 2017 attack.Heyer, a 32-year-old paralegal, was devoted to helping people and had a passion for justice, her family said.Heyer's friend Marissa Blair attended the counterprotest with her and said Heyer fought against bigotry."If you knew Heather, you would know that she loves everyone and all she wants is equality for everyone, no matter who you love, no matter what color you are," Blair said.It's not clear when the judge will formally sentence Fields for the murder of Heyer.But in addition to the state charges, Fields also faces 30 federal hate crimes charges. The next step in his federal case is a status conference on January 31.The-CNN-Wire 1596

The National Rifle Association insisted it did not use foreign funds for election-related purposes, even as the group acknowledged it accepts money from foreign donors, new letters from the group show.The NRA has faced a swirl of questions about whether foreign money could have been funneled through the group and used to boost the Trump campaign. The scrutiny has largely focused on the role of Alexander Torshin, a prominent Russian banker who is close to Putin and has spent years cultivating a relationship with the upper ranks of the NRA.The NRA went all in for Trump in 2016, spending more than million to back his candidacy. That's more than the NRA spent on all of its races combined -- presidential, House and Senate -- in the 2008 and 2012 election cycles, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.There were a number of reports about efforts on Torshin's behalf to connect with Trump's team in 2016, in some instances via the NRA. McClatchy also reported in January that the FBI was investigating whether Torshin used the NRA to illegally provide funds to boost Trump.The NRA has denied any contact from the FBI, but Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, has been pressing the gun rights group for additional information about its finances."Can you categorically state that your organizations have never, wittingly or unwittingly, received any contributions from individuals or entities acting as conduits for foreign entities or interests?" Wyden asked in a letter in early March.The NRA's secretary and general counsel John Frazer insisted in a mid-March response that the NRA takes pains to ensure money from foreign nationals isn't injected into political spending."While we do receive some contributions from foreign individuals and entities, those contributions are made directly to the NRA for lawful purposes," Frazer wrote. "Our review of our records has found no foreign donations in connection with a United States election, either directly or through a conduit."While it's not illegal for the NRA to accept contributions from foreign donors, the group would run afoul of the law if that money were used for electioneering purposes. The NRA's political action committee, the NRA Political Victory Fund, is required to report its spending to the Federal Election Commission, but the group houses a number of other accounts that aren't bound by such transparency.While their political arm supports candidates and lobbying efforts, the NRA also spends money on other programming, such as security assessments for schools and firearms training for NRA members.In the letter to Wyden, the NRA notes that it's legal for the organization to move money between those accounts in many instances. That makes it all the more difficult to track whether foreign funds could have ultimately been used for a political purpose.In the letter, the NRA's general counsel said from 2015 to 2016 the NRA did not receive any significant contributions from a foreign address or drawn from a foreign financial institution.The NRA did, however, receive donations from US subsidiaries of foreign entities and from US companies with foreign nationals at the helm. "However, none of those entities or individuals is connected with Russia, and none of their contributions were made in connection with US elections," Frazer wrote.The NRA's latest reply, part of an ongoing back-and-forth with Wyden, invited another round of questions from the Senator.Wyden is pressing for additional information about how the NRA spent foreign contributions and whether that money could have been aimed at influencing American audiences. He also requested information on whether any foreign individuals, including Russians, were members of the NRA's elite donor programs. 3833

The National Weather Service is projecting Southern Arizona's fire season to be more active than normal."There's leftover dry fuels from last year, and there's newly formed fine fuels," Warning Coordination Meteorologist Ken Drozd said.Above average daytime high temperatures, combined with storm systems bringing wind but no rain, and very dry conditions, are some of the reasons why the NWS projects May and June to have the more fire activity than normal.Due to a wet February, there is now more dry fuel in the region, according to Drozd. Sometimes, significant rain events leading into fire season can delay or shorten it, but that wasn't the case this year."Those new grasses that greened up from that precipitation event have now dried out again, due to the warm temperatures we've experienced lately," Drozd said."The hotter you get, the more you're going to dry things out. It just keeps things dried out unless you get some intermediate rain that'll come in, and again, there's none in the forecast right now."Last year, fires ripped through Southern Arizona from April to July, blackening landscapes and destroying homes in their paths. People from communities all through the region were forced to evacuate, sometimes on multiple occasions.The American Red Cross is urging people prepare ahead of time. Some of their tips include: 1355

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