濮阳市东方医院线上预约(濮阳东方男科技术可靠) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- As Californias head out to vote, many important propositions and measures are on the ballot this November.One of those initiatives is Proposition 16.If approved, Prop 16 would repeal Proposition 209 from the state constitution which, according to BallotPedia, banned the use of affirmative action involving sex or race-based preferences.Those in support of Proposition 16 argue that it takes a step toward “dismantling structural racism and sexism.”Meanwhile, those opposed to the proposition point to Prop 209 as to why voters should mark "no" on the ballot. “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting,” the website states in reference to a passage from Prop 209.See what a vote for or against Proposition means below, according to the state's voter guide:YES: A YES vote on this measure means: State and local entities could consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting to the extent allowed under federal and state law.NO: A NO vote on this measure means: The current ban on the consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting would remain in effect. 1452

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Athletes at California colleges could hire agents and sign endorsement deals under a bill the state Legislature sent to the governor on Wednesday, setting up a potential confrontation with the NCAA that could jeopardize the athletic futures of powerhouse programs like USC, UCLA and Stanford.Gov. Gavin Newsom has not said whether he will sign it. But the NCAA Board Of Governors is already urging him not to, sending him a letter Wednesday saying the bill "would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics" and would have drastic consequences for California's colleges and universities."Because it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage, (it) would result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions," the letter said. "These outcomes are untenable and would negatively impact more than 24,000 California student-athletes across three divisions."Newsom has 30 days to either sign the bill, veto it or let it become law without his signature.The bill would allow student-athletes to hire agents and be paid for the use of their names, images or likenesses. It would stop California universities and the NCAA from banning athletes that take the money. If it becomes law, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2023."I'm sick of being leveraged by the NCAA on the backs of athletes who have the right to their own likeness and image, this is about fairness," Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Los Angeles Democrat, said Monday.The Senate voted 39-0 to pass the bill, which has the endorsement of NBA superstar LeBron James, who skipped college and went directly to the NBA before the league changed its rules to require players to be at least one year removed from high school before entering the draft. But the bill could impact James' 14-year-old son, who is a closely watched basketball prospect in Los Angeles.The NCAA is the governing body for college sports. But membership is voluntary. Athletes can get valuable scholarships, but the NCAA has long banned paying athletes to preserve the academic missions of colleges and universities. But college sports have since morphed into a multibillion-dollar industry, igniting a debate over the fairness of not paying the industry's most visible labor force.Earlier this year, NCAA President Mark Emmert told lawmakers that passing the bill would be premature, noting the NCAA has a committee — led by Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith and Big East Commissioner Val Ackerman — that is exploring the issue. Their report is due in October.The NCAA committee has already said it won't endorse a plan to pay athletes as if they were employees, but they could ease limits on endorsement deals for athletes. The NCAA already lets athletes accept money in some instances. Tennis players can accept up to ,000 in prize money and Olympians can accept winnings from their competitions.The bill still puts some restrictions on athletes, such as forbidding them from signing endorsement deals that conflict with their school's existing contracts.Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno was the only lawmaker to speak against the bill, though he did not cast a vote. He said allowing athletes to make money could make universities in rural areas less competitive because there could be fewer sponsorship opportunities in the area.But other lawmakers argued banning college athletes from being paid was a violation of their freedoms."Playing college sports should not have to come at the cost of personal liberty, dignity, self-expression or any other value this legislature is charged with protecting," said Republican Assemblyman Kevin Kiley of Rocklin. "Let's send a loud and clear message to the NCAA."But in and around California, schools and conferences believe this legislation might not be the best solution.The Pac-12, which includes Southern California, UCLA, Stanford and Cal, issued a statement Wednesday reiterating its previous stance — asking the California Legislature to delay the debate until the NCAA announces formal proposals."We all want to protect and support our student-athletes, and the Pac-12 has played a leadership role in national reforms for student-athletes over the past years," the statement said. "The question is what's the best way to continue to support our student-athletes. We think having more information and informed views will be helpful."J.D. Wicker, the athletic director at San Diego State, a Mountain West Conference member, agreed, saying "California weighing in on this complicates that.""I think the frustration for me is that they probably don't truly understand the NCAA and how we work as a governing body," Wicker said. "Again, it's schools across 50 states and it's all of us working together, whereas the state of California will only harm California schools." 4858

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom moved Friday to bypass environmental regulations to prepare for the next wildfire season, a move he said was necessary to prevent further loss of life even as it frustrated activists in a state viewed as a national environmental leader."The increasing wildfire risks we face as a state mean we simply can't wait until a fire starts in order to start deploying emergency resources," Newsom said in a statement ahead of declaring a state of emergency.California experienced two of its most destructive and deadly wildfire seasons in 2017 and 2018 and experts say climate change increases the risks. Newsom said clearing dead trees at a quick pace is essential to diminishing future threats. President Donald Trump has blamed California fires on poor forest management, though experts say climate change caused by people is more of a factor.Newsom is taking recommendations from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, but one environmental group likened it to actions by Trump."Gov. Newsom should reject the Trump approach of logging and rolling back critical environmental protections," said Shaye Wolf, climate science director for the Center for Biological Diversity.Newsom also pledged million for fire preparedness in low-income communities and asked the private sector to bring forward innovative proposals.The center and other environmental groups said focusing on retrofitting and creating defensible space around homes is more effective than thinning forests. Sierra Club California said clearing trees might create more danger by loosening soil that could lead to mudslides.Newsom's order will apply only to 35 projects covering nearly 141 square miles (365 square kilometers) of land, allowing state fire officials to go around multiple state regulations. They include provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, one of the nation's strictest state-level regulations. Administration officials would need to give the go ahead to each individual project and it's unclear exactly which regulations each individual project would forego.Newsom said moving through the normal process would drastically slow down the state's ability to act."Some of these projects quite literally, not figuratively, could take two years to get done, or we could get them done in the next two months," he told an audience in Lake County, the site of several massive wildfires in recent years.The union representing state firefighters praised Newsom's plan."These circumstances are unusual, unpredictable, unseen in our lifetime, and courageous decisions that sometimes go against the political winds need to be made," said Tim Edwards, president of CAL Fire Local 2881.Republican state Sen. Pat Bates also praised Newsom for acting with urgency ahead of the wildfire season."I stand ready to assist the Governor with any legislative action to eliminate bureaucratic roadblocks that could slow these projects," she said in a statement.While environmental groups bristled at Newsom's plan, they still align with him on a wide range of issues. Newsom's predecessor, fellow Democrat Jerry Brown, was known globally for his fight against climate change but still clashed with environmental groups at home on some issues.California has set a goal, for example, of getting 100 percent of its energy from carbon-free sources by 2045, and passed a landmark cap-and-trade law to decrease emissions."On the whole we see (Newsom) as an ally on environmental issues. I think what we're disagreeing with here is an approach to a problem that we all recognize," said Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California.The state's environmental laws are designed to protect California's soil stability, watershed and wildlife habitats, she said, and waiving environmental reviews could have unintended consequences."For some suspension of oversight now, what's the consequence going to be later?" she said. "Are we going to end up having huge silt floods and mudslides?"Beyond accelerating tree clearing, Newsom put out a "request for innovative ideas" from the private sector to help fight California fires. He said he wants to tap into Silicon Valley and California's spirit of creativity to come up with solutions to reduce wildfire threats. 4312

Right in the middle of America's opioid crisis, there’s a new wave of drug overdoses. This time it’s linked to synthetic marijuana, also known as K2.Joyce Grady has seen the impact the drug is having in D.C. Living in shelters and on the streets has given her a front row seat to the problem.“It's gotten to the point if you hear an ambulance, or police, you automatically put that together with a K2 overdose,” Grady said.The drug is often made to look like marijuana. A mix of chemicals is usually sprayed onto herb or plants, that is then smoked.It can be cheaper and more powerful than marijuana, which is part of its appeal. However, it comes with a high risk.“With marijuana, you can still take a puff and get a smile,” Grady said. “With this K2, you can take a puff and die.” 790

ROME — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's diplomatic trip to the Vatican will end without an audience with Pope Francis.The Vatican declined his request to see Pope Francis, citing a routine policy to not grant papal audiences during election campaigns.Pompeo spent 45 minutes in the Apostolic Palace with his Vatican counterpart, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, and the Vatican foreign minister a day after tensions over the Holy See’s outreach to Beijing spilled out in public.Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said both sides “presented their respective positions” about relations with China in a climate of “respect, openness and cordiality.”The State Department said they discussed defending religious freedom. Pompeo has criticized the Vatican's 2018 agreement with Beijing on nominating bishops. 803

来源：资阳报