山西痔疮内痔的症状太原肛裂是如何的,太原每次大便都滴血,太原痔疮与便秘,山西怎么治疗得了痔疮,太原得痔疮看什么科,太原肛门脓肿严重吗,肛肠太原哪家好

A co-author of a criminal justice textbook that included convicted sexual assailant Brock Turner’s photo next to the section titled “Rape” is standing by their decision.Last week, a student at Washington State University posted a photo of the book page on Facebook, and it has since been shared over 100,000 times.Callie Rennison, a University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs professor and co-author of “Introduction to Criminal Justice: Systems, Diversity and Change,” said that the vast majority of reaction she’s received has been positive. However, critics have said that even though Turner’s crimes may fit the FBI definition of rape, he was not convicted of rape as defined by California law—instead he was convicted of sexual assault.Currently, the federal definition states that if there’s penetration “with any object, any body part, that’s not consensual, then that’s rape,” Rennison said. “Brock Turner was convicted of a penetration offense and under these definitions that’s rape.”Rennison also points out that critics may not have read the entire section of the book and missed some key context.“That particular section is about how definitions change over time,” Rennison said.In fact, California did alter their definition of rape, in part due to Turner's case.She says they will still add even more context in upcoming editions of the book, a fact the publisher confirmed, as well.She contends that the reason Turner’s image was used in the first place was to keep the curriculum current and thus relatable to students in 2017.“This is who students know and students talk about,” she said. “Contemporary references are a must. Looking at older books students aren’t engaged. They don’t think it applies to them in their world.”She also hopes it starts a larger conversation about punishment. Turner’s six-month sentence—of which he served three months—was widely covered in the media.“This allows us to have the discussion about what is the time most people serve for this, and students are shocked to learn that often it's nothing.”Rennison said she and her co-author, Mary Dodge, are the first all-female team of authors to pen a criminal justice textbook.Turner’s attorney, Mike Armstrong, declined to comment for the story, and attempts to reach Turner’s parents were unsuccessful. 2332

A CNN analysis has found that embattled Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt paid himself nearly ,000 in reimbursements from his two campaigns for Oklahoma attorney general, a move at least one election watchdog has sharply criticized as being recorded so vaguely that there was no way to tell if such payments were lawful.The reimbursement method, which Pruitt used in his 2010 and 2014 campaigns, effectively scuttled two key pillars of campaign finance: transparency about how campaign funds are spent and ensuring campaign funds are not used for personal purchases, according to a former top elections attorney and a CNN review of the documents.Some of the reporting may also violate Oklahoma campaign finance rules, according to research done by the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group.At EPA, Pruitt is under scrutiny for questionable spending and ethical decisions that have landed him in hot water with investigators and on Capitol Hill. Ethics watchdogs, federal auditors and congressional committees are conducting nearly a dozen inquiries into Pruitt's actions at the agency.During his attorney general bids, records show Pruitt made purchases and then received reimbursement from his campaign -- sometimes thousands of dollars apiece -- rather than having the campaign pay directly for expenses like renting a vehicle or purchasing a meal. When purchases are made directly, the campaign filings would show more details about who received the payments.Instead, dozens of entries on Pruitt's 2010 and 2014 campaign finance filings show payments to him but don't have the same level of detail, making it difficult to tell if the purchases were legitimate.The reimbursements are vaguely stated as being for meals, travel, office supplies, phone service, internet access and office decorations, and in some cases do not list the the vendors.A spokesman for Pruitt, Jahan Wilcox, described the payments to CNN as "standard reimbursements.""This is useless reporting," said Larry Noble, the former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission. He is now at the Campaign Legal Center and is a CNN contributor. "There's no way of telling if this is a personal expense. ... You couldn't do this on the federal (level) -- it's illegal."Noble said Oklahoma rules require campaigns to "show the ultimate vendor and an adequate description so you know what the item was for." Because some of the payments to Pruitt do not do that, "It was not at all clear that these were all lawful," Noble said.Noble noted that the campaigns, however, still made direct payments of more than .6 million."So he's not running the campaign through his credit card," Noble said.All of the payments were made when Pruitt was a candidate for attorney general or after he had been first elected to the office in 2010. The records do not show any payments since Pruitt became administrator of the EPA last year.As EPA chief, Pruitt has faced allegations he took advantage of increased security and made travel arrangements for his own benefit -- demanding to fly Delta in order to get frequent-flyer points and staying at posh hotels more expensive than government limits for reimbursement (which also placed an undue burden on his staff who have to pay out of pocket). He's also been accused of excessive spending on his office, like an ornate restored desk and a soundproof booth. In some cases, he blamed the expenditures on his staff.The reimbursements to Pruitt when he was AG totaled ,204.87 from the 2010 campaign account and ,665.73 from his 2014 re-election account, according to the filings.The filings show Pruitt was frequently reimbursed for dining expenses at The Beacon Club, which was described by a local newspaper as "Oklahoma City's oldest private downtown dining" establishment when it closed last year. "The Beacon Club was where deals got done," The Oklahoman newspaper reported.Some of Pruitt's reimbursements were for "officeholder expenses" -- meaning items needed for his role as attorney general -- after he was elected in 2010 and re-elected in 2014.More than ,000 is for items that appear to be office supplies and decorations. Around ,600 is described as "Artwork/Decorations" from retailers like Pier 1 Imports, an Oklahoma florist and a local picture framing shop. Records also show Pruitt purchased a ,400 Apple computer.Because of the limited information and lack of transparency, it's impossible to determine whether the purchases were appropriate and for official purposes, Noble said."Do we know how the campaign spent its money? No," Noble said. "How do you enforce a personal use prohibition unless you know how the money is being used? ... This is not any way you want to have a campaign finance log."The office purchases were made a mere 10 days after the Bank of America skyscraper in downtown Tulsa agreed to lease office space to the attorney general's office, headed by Pruitt. The move expanded the Tulsa AG's offices and placed them in the same building as Pruitt's campaign offices, raising the rent from about ,000 per month to ,000 per month.The office of current Attorney General Mike Hunter told CNN that around the same time, the AG's office was required to expand and hire more staff.One Republican source said Pruitt would sometimes leave the AG's office to work from the campaign office in the same building.His move to Tulsa was seen publicly as a convenience, since he lived in Tulsa and not Oklahoma City, where the AG is headquartered.Wilcox, the Pruitt spokesman, did not address detailed questions from CNN about the expenditures and decision to relocate his government offices to the same building as his campaign office.This week, Democratic lawmakers requested more information about a similar request Pruitt made of the EPA. A letter from three members of the House alleged that Pruitt, through his chief of staff, asked the agency to find a secure facility in Tulsa, where Pruitt lives when not in Washington, where he could work and make phone calls. The EPA says that didn't end up happening.  6121

A body found in Costa Rica has been identified as a Florida woman who went missing while she was on vacation, according to her family. The father and brother of Carla Stefaniak identified the body as the 36-year-old Tuesday night.During an exclusive interview with WFTS, Stefaniak's father, Carlos, said his heart shattered when he saw her body.Costa Rica's Judicial Investigation Agency (OIJ) said an autopsy performed on her body showed that she had stab wounds around the neck and extremities and blunt-force trauma to the head.Family friend, Greg Zwolinsky, who is with them in Costa Rica, said he wants everyone to remember Stefaniak based on the radiance of her personality that is portrayed in pictures of her smiling. 783

A lawsuit against Harvard brought on behalf of Asian-American students who failed to gain admission goes to trial on Monday in one of the most consequential race cases in decades, with affirmative action policies across the country at stake.The lawsuit was crafted by conservative advocates who have long fought racial admissions practices that traditionally benefited African-American and Latino students. Their ultimate goal is to reverse the 1978 Supreme Court case that upheld admissions policies that consider the race of students for campus diversity.Parties on both sides expect the Supreme Court to eventually resolve the issue. And with President Donald Trump's two appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the high court now has five conservative justices who may be inclined to reverse the landmark ruling.The challengers are led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has devised a series of claims against racial policies, including an earlier affirmative action lawsuit on behalf of Abigail Fisher against the University of Texas and several challenges to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key vote in 2016 when the court last endorsed race-based admissions in the University of Texas case, was replaced by Kavanaugh earlier this month. Gorsuch succeeded the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who had opposed all affirmative action and criticized the University of Texas program, but died before that case was completed.The Students for Fair Admissions group Blum founded when he filed the Harvard case in November 2014 contends the university engages in unlawful "racial balancing" as it boosts the chances of admissions for blacks and Hispanics and lowers the chances for Asian Americans.Harvard's practices, the group says, are "the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s."That assertion has deeply resonated with some Asian Americans who fear they are held to a higher standard than other applicants to prestigious universities. Yet Asian-American advocates, representing a wide swath of backgrounds and educational experiences, have come in on both sides of the case.Some who back the lawsuit seek to end all consideration of race in admissions, while others, siding with Harvard, argue that universities should be able to consider race for campus diversity and that some Asian Americans, particularly those with ties to Southeast Asian countries, may have had fewer educational opportunities before applying to college.The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a brief on behalf of 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations comprising blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and whites. The Legal Defense Fund calls the lawsuit an effort "to sow racial division" and emphasizes the Supreme Court's repeated endorsement of the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.Those subsequent rulings, however, turned on a single vote, either that of Kennedy or Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2006.The Trump administration, which is separately scrutinizing of race-based admissions practices at Harvard through its Education and Justice departments based on a complaint from more than 60 Asian American groups, has backed Students for Fair Admissions.Harvard, the country's oldest institution of higher education, denies that it engages in racial balancing or limits Asian-American admissions. It defends its longstanding effort for racial diversity as part of the education mission and says admissions officers undertake a "whole-person evaluation" that includes academics, extracurricular activities, talents and personal qualities, as well as socioeconomic background and race.Since the case was first filed, both sides have mined similar statistical evidence and testimony but with sharply contrasting conclusions -- all of which will now be presented before US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs."Each party relies on its own expert reports to show the presence or absence of a negative effect of being Asian American on the likelihood of admission ... and claims that there is substantial -- or zero -- documentary and testimonial evidence of discriminatory intent," Burroughs said in an order last month rejecting requests from both sides to rule for each, respectively, before trial.The case was brought under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibiting racial discrimination at private institutions that receive federal funds.Burroughs, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, has said she expects the trial to last about three weeks. Both sides will offer opening statements on Monday. 4719

A group of Republicans are making good on their threat to attempt to force an immigration floor vote in the House -- potentially paving the way for a showdown among proposals to save the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.The lawmakers on Tuesday signed what's known as a discharge petition -- a procedural maneuver that can bring legislation to the House floor if it is signed by a majority of House members regardless of whether it has moved through committee, as is traditionally the case for most legislation. If the petition were to pick up enough supporters, it would set up a floor debate on four different immigration measures as early as June.The move is unusual for members of the majority party, who are effectively going around House Speaker Paul Ryan to set up a vote on legislation that GOP leadership has refused to call to the floor for a vote. Still, the members insist they are making an effort to be deferential to leadership, by leaving one bill open to the speaker's choosing.The effort is being spearheaded by three moderate Republicans who have long been vocal about trying to save DACA, a program that protected young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children -- Reps. Will Hurd of Texas, Jeff Denham of California, and Carlos Curbelo of Florida. Curbelo officially introduced the petition Wednesday morning.In an exclusive interview with CNN, the three moderates said the goal was to have a long overdue immigration debate without a predetermined outcome."This institution should be driven by courage, not by cowardice, and the goal should not be to suppress members from pursuing their legislative goals, it should be to empower each member, and that's what we're trying to do," Curbelo said. "The goal is to empower each member of the House, including the speaker, to advance the solution that each member believes is the best one for this challenge and to try to gain supporters for that solution. So this is not in defiance of anyone."A spokeswoman for Ryan didn't comment specifically on the petition, saying efforts to pass immigration legislation continue in general."We continue to work with our members to find a solution that can both pass the House and get the president's signature," AshLee Strong said.The three members who pitched the proposal held a news conference Wednesday afternoon announcing their move, and were joined by fellow Republican Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, of Florida, John Faso, of New York; Mia Love, of Utah; and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, of Florida.The petition has more than a dozen Republicans on it already, Denham said, and while the members would not reveal their list of supporters in advance, they did note the signatories come from across the ideological spectrum.As of mid-afternoon Wednesday, the petition had 15 signatories, mostly moderates.Some more conservative members of the House could back the effort because it would allow a vote on a hardline immigration measure they've supported, and circumvent what conservatives often complain is overly restrictive procedural controls by leadership."I think you'll see many different caucuses throughout the House that are engaged in this debate that are focused on different solutions," Denham said. "I think it's our job. Congress needs to do its job and be held accountable."President Donald Trump sought to end the executive program put in place under the Obama administration last September, but a collection of court rulings have found Trump's action likely does not pass legal muster, and kept the program largely in place. A group of red states recently sued in a different court to try to have the program itself declared unconstitutional.Lawmakers have sought to pass legislation that would enshrine the program in law, which would address critics who say it goes beyond the authority of the executive branch. But efforts to protect it in Congress have been unsuccessful.It remains unclear if the new effort will pick up enough support to force a House showdown. While it starts with a number of Republicans in support, it would still need to roughly double the number of GOP members signing on and pick up all Democrats in the House. Effective discharge petitions have been rare in House history, though not unheard of.Democrats have insisted on a path to citizenship for DACA recipients and have opposed measures that they say are too aggressive or punitive to immigrants in return, though they have agreed to billion in border security funding. Most Republicans have been split about a path to citizenship, and have insisted any such deal must include cuts to legal immigration and hardline measures to target illegal immigration, as well.The discharge petition would support what's known as a "queen-of-the-hill" rule, which would bring four competing immigration-related bills to the floor for debate and a vote. Denham and Hurd had previously announced the rule had the support of 50 Republicans and 190 Democrats, more than 20 members over the threshold for a majority of the House, but it's unclear if all of them will back the petition.Denham, Hurd and Curbelo's move Tuesday would pave the way for a floor vote on a hardline bill from Republican Reps. Bob Goodlatte, Mike McCaul and others that does not include a path to citizenship; a creation of a program like DACA without any border security measures from Democrats; a bill Ryan would offer; and a bipartisan bill?from Hurd and California Rep. Pete Aguilar that would pair a path to citizenship with a direction to the administration to gain "operational control" of the border by the best means available. The rule also allows for the authors of the bills to change them, and the members expected all of the proposals would evolve before a floor vote -- especially to include language that would appropriate billions for border security.GOP leadership has agreed to whip the Goodlatte bill, but it has failed to gain the support of enough Republicans to make it viable to pass the House. The President has backed Goodlatte's legislation and rejected all the other proposals put forth besides his own hardline plan. The reserved spot for the speaker could be any bill of his choosing.The "queen-of-the-hill" procedure would mimic an exercise in the Senate earlier this year, when votes on four competing immigration proposals ended with none reaching the number of votes necessary to move forward, including the President's plan."This debate is too important not to have," said Hurd, who has roughly one-third of the entire southern border as part of his district, more than any other single member. "Let's have this debate on the House floor and let everybody bring their ideas to the forefront." 6770