内容摘要：“When they all refused, they were each put in a separate room and cuffed in (basically, solitary) in order to get them to sign it,” the lawyers wrote.

“When they all refused, they were each put in a separate room and cuffed in (basically, solitary) in order to get them to sign it,” the lawyers wrote.

The 26 countries competing Saturday, in order of performance, are: Norway, Luxembourg, Estonia, Israel, Lithuania, Spain, Ukraine, the U.K, Austria, Iceland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Finland, Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Armenia, Switzerland, Malta, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, France, San Marino and Albania.Favorites, according to oddsmakers, are

, representing Sweden with “Bara Bada Bastu,” a jaunty serenade to the sauna. Dutch singer Claude is also highly rated with soulful ballad “C’est La Vie.” Other favorites include classically trained Austrian countertenor JJ with his pop-opera song “Wasted Love,” and, with her anthemic “New Day Will Rise.”Eurovision has a reputation for campy europop with nonsense lyrics — past winners include “La, La, La” and “Boom Bang-a-Bang.” But It has also produced some enduring pop classics. And it helped make stars of performers including ABBA — winners in 1974 with “Waterloo” — Celine Dion, Austrian drag performer

and Italian rock bandThis year’s finalists range from Lithuanian emo rockers Katarsis to a power ballad Spanish diva Melody and

Campiness, humor and double entendres abound. “Espresso Macchiato” is a comic ode to Italian stereotypes performed by Estonia’s Tommy Cash. Miriana Conte sings for Malta with the double entendre-filled “Serving” -- performed on a set including a glitter ball and giant lips, it is classic Eurovision.

It was once widely accepted that the most successful Eurovision songs were in English, but that is changing. This year’s contest features songs in a record 20 languages, including Ukrainian, Icelandic, Latvian, Maltese and Armenian., alleging that it would decimate public health infrastructure across the country. The money, allocated by Congress during the pandemic, supported COVID-19 initiatives and

The federal government argued that because the pandemic is over, the states no longer need the money. But McElroy, who granted a temporary restraining order last month in the case, wrote in her decision that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services doesn’t have the power to decide that money isn’t necessary anymore.She went on to say that the agency ignored multiple requirements that govern how block grant programs are terminated, calling the federal government’s argument for how it handled the situation “puzzling.”

McElroy wrote that the federal government’s decision to rescind the money isn’t just an economic loss — “ample evidence” provided by the states shows that it will decimate “key mental health, substance abuse, and other healthcare programs ... worsening public health outcomes and placing their residents at risk.”She pointed to several instances of what the money funded, like vaccination efforts and building up disease surveillance and labs for “future health threats,” before writing, “The Court could go on.”