太原肛门有疼痛太原痔疮不出血,太原内痔大便软,太原电子肛门镜要多少钱,太原大便拉稀带血,山西女人有痔疮吗,太原市肛肠医院专家介绍,太原肛泰医生

West Jordan, UT (KSL) -- Police say two Salt Lake men took a teenage girl "partying" before taking turns raping her in the back seat of a car while she was passed out, all while a third man recorded it on a cellphone.Richard Djassera, 21, and Leclair Dodjim, 24, were arrested Tuesday by West Jordan police for investigation of aggravating kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, aggravated sexual assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.A 14-year-old girl met one of the men on Snapchat and struck up a conversation with him, said West Jordan Police Sgt. Joe Monson. That man originally represented himself as a 17-year-old, he said.On Sept. 8, the girl slept over at a friend's house and then sneaked out of the house to meet up with the man and two others, according to a Salt Lake County Jail report.The three men then drove the girl around, "partying, drinking," Monson said. The report says the men provided her with alcohol, then took her to a hookah bar and finally a house party.At some point, between 1 a.m. and 4:30 a.m., the girl — who was in and out of consciousness after drinking — was raped in the back seat of the men's car, Monson said.The report says two of the men assaulted her while the third recorded it."It appears (the girl) is passed out and/or unconscious throughout most of the video and clearly cannot give consent to anything that is happening to her," the report states."She woke up next morning, didn't remember much, was told by a friend that something had happened and called her parents," Monson said.The girl woke up in one of the men's homes and called a friend to come get her, he said.When the man who allegedly recorded the video was interviewed by detectives, he told them he saw what was happening and "thought it was funny so he recorded them having sex on his phone," the report states.As of Thursday, the investigation into the third man was continuing, according to police.The case is another reminder for parents to "be aware what your kids are doing on social media," Monson said. "Don't be afraid to check their phones."  2139

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Since the start of his presidency, President Donald Trump and his administration have talked about getting manufacturing companies to come back to the United States, a process known as reshoring.Now, with unemployment at a historic high, another 1.5 million people filing jobless claims last week and still 19.5 million continued claims or people unemployed, the idea of reshoring is being revisited by Congress.Some on Capitol Hill are proposing reshoring incentives for companies in the next stimulus package.“There are a lot of potential ways that the administration and Congress could come up with tax subsidies and tax breaks for companies that produces here,” said Ed Yardeni, an economist and the president of Yardeni Research.While believes there could be some jobs created by companies reshoring in the U.S., it’s hard to say how many. That’s partly because, many companies that would consider reshoring would also consider using artificial intelligence at their production plants.“Clearly bringing back jobs would be great, but I don’t think we go back to the 70s and 80s, where we had a lot more people employed,” Yardeni added. “I would think that if you are reshoring and bring production back to the U.S., you are going to use state of the art technology to do that, so I’m not sure it is going to be a huge win-win in terms of jobs.”Experts, including Yardeni, believe companies that would most likely consider reshoring would be those in the pharmaceutical and technology sector. Their reason for the move is likely less for job creation and more because of national security concerns.Either way, the way to get more jobs out of reshoring may be by doing more than just incentivizing companies to come back to the U.S.“Maybe what we need is to combine reshoring with really focusing on reeducating a lot of the labor force so that they can manage the robots, build the robots, program the robots, as opposed to doing the job the robots are doing,” said Yardeni. 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. — After millions upon millions of Americans cast their ballots on Election Day, the final vote for president – the one that really counts – comes down to 538 people who make up the Electoral College.Marla Blunt-Carter is one of them.“That thought of our ancestor who couldn't even write his name signing his voter registration card, at a time where really their vote didn't count, to being someone that is now voting in this electoral process,” she said. “It's indescribable.”Blunt-Carter is one of the three electors from Delaware. All three of them are Democrats because President-elect Joe Biden won his home state.“To be one of three that represents the Delaware voter that calls him their own is just huge,” Blunt-Carter said. “And then you look at the fact that the Vice president-elect is a woman of color - that is doubly amazing for me.”While she was selected by Delaware Democratic party officials to be an elector, in other states, you have to run for the privilege.“In our long history as a country, there have been very few people that have actually served in this role,” said Jonathan Fletcher, who is an elector from North Carolina.Fletcher ran to be an elector at the Republican State Convention, when it was held in North Carolina. He cast his vote for President Donald Trump, who carried the state.“It's kind of a lifelong dream,” he said. “I joke that it's a short lifelong dream – I'm only 28 – but it is a lifelong dream of mine.”The Electoral College and the popular vote don’t always match up. It’s happened five times in the country’s history, including twice in the 21st century, in 2000 and 2016. Some say that’s unfair and are calling for the Electoral College to be abolished.So, how do these electors feel about it?“It gives states like North Carolina, who are kind of middle of the pack in the electoral shuffle, it gives us a lot more equal standing with the rest of the country,” Fletcher said.Blunt-Carter said she sees why people would have some issues with the Electoral College.“I understand that people think that it is far past the time where we start to look at doing this differently,” she said. “But that's not the job of the elector. That's the job of the legislators.”For now, it’s the system in place, when it comes to choosing who gets to call the people’s house ‘home.’ 2340

We're counting down to the Oscars!How many of the nine "Best Picture" nominees have you seen? View the nominees.Just in case you can't make it to the movies to see all of them, take a few minutes and watch the film trailers for a general idea of what each one is about.Call Me By Your NameDarkest HourDunkirkGet OutLady BirdPhantom ThreadThe PostThe Shape of WaterThree Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri 413

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has laid down rules aimed at preventing residents in high-tax states from avoiding a new cap on widely popular state and local tax deductions. The action over the new Republican tax law pits the government against high-tax, heavily Democratic states in an election-year showdown.The Treasury Department's rules released Thursday target moves by states like New York, New Jersey and California — where residents could see substantial increases in their federal tax bills next spring because of the ,000 cap on state and local deductions. Experts say the issue likely will have to be resolved by the federal courts.Four states — Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and New York — already have sued the federal government over the deduction cap, asserting it's aimed at hurting a group of Democratic states and tramples on their constitutional budget-making authority.A dozen states have taken or are considering measures to get around the cap. Most of the workarounds take advantage of federal deductions for charitable contributions — which aren't capped — in place of the old deductions for paying state and local income taxes. So people's state and local taxes exceeding ,000, which can't be deducted, are turned into deductible charitable donations.The new rules' "dollar-for-dollar" limit also applies to many other states that already have charitable funds offering tax breaks, senior Treasury officials said. Those states include solidly Republican ones and others with relatively low taxes. In those programs, donors to schools, hospitals or land conservation programs can get their state taxes reduced in return — plus a charitable deduction on their federal tax returns.The limit means taxpayers only can deduct as a charitable contribution the portion of their donation for which they don't also get a state tax credit.But some experts said the Treasury rules seem to be designed to protect those existing charitable programs in some states. An exception to the "dollar-for-dollar" requirement "plainly appears to be designed to protect certain ... pre-existing state regimes," said Daniel Rosen, a tax lawyer at Baker McKenzie who is a former IRS official.Treasury said it expects that only about 1 percent of all U.S. taxpayers would see a reduction of their tax credits for donations to private-school voucher fund. Several states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana and South Carolina — allow taxpayers who donate to private-school funds to get a 100 percent credit against their state taxes, according to data compiled by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.___HOW DO THE LIMITS WORK UNDER THE NEW RULES?Dollar-for-dollar: When a taxpayer receives a benefit in return for donating to charity, the taxpayer should only be able to deduct the net value of the donation as a charitable contribution, Treasury says.An example: You donate ,000 to a charity in a state that offers a 70 percent tax credit, so 0 in this case. You would only be able to claim a 0 charitable deduction on your federal return.There is an exception. If the state tax credits don't exceed 15 percent of the amount donated, so up to a 0 state tax credit on a ,000 donation, the taxpayer could claim the full amount as a charitable deduction.___WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?Taxpayers could have less incentive to donate without getting a deduction or having the deduction reduced.All states rely on property and income taxes to fund an array of services such as education, health care and public safety. Advocates for restoring the full state and local deductions say that the reduced property tax deduction brings a decrease in the value of taxpayers' homes, possibly spurring residents of high-tax states to move elsewhere and crimping funding for local programs.___WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE HIGH-TAX STATES?Measures designed to work around the ,000 cap have been adopted in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Oregon, and introduced or explored publicly by officials in California, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia.New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, has called the state-local deduction cap an "assault" on New York by Trump and Republican lawmakers in Washington.In some key "blue" states:—Connecticut has a new law establishing a state charitable fund; donors can get tax credits in exchange for giving.—In New Jersey, where high local property taxes are the major issue, the state is allowing local schools and governments to use the charitable workaround. But so far, no towns have notified authorities that they've set up funds to receive contributions — because state regulators haven't issued the necessary rules, experts say.—New York is offering three options: One like Connecticut's, one like New Jersey's and another to let employers pay payroll taxes for employees, who would receive credits to cancel out the income taxes they would have paid otherwise.—In Maryland, about 500,000 residents — over 18 percent of state taxpayers — will together lose .5 billion in state and local deductions, according to state estimates.___Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Associated Press writer Michael Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey, contributed to this report. 5305