成都婴儿血管瘤手术好吗(成都怎么样治疗海绵状血管瘤) (今日更新中)

The Justice Department has dropped its case against a woman who laughed out loud during the confirmation hearing for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, ending months of legal wrangling.The woman, Desiree Fairooz, was protesting with Code Pink, a progressive group whose activists are regularly seen around Washington. She was arrested by a Capitol Police officer after audibly laughing during Sessions' confirmation hearing in January.But prosecutors filed a "nolle prosequi," or notice that it would no longer pursue charges, with the DC Superior Court on Monday.She had been prosecuted by the DC US Attorney's Office and had been convicted of a misdemeanor before a judge threw out the conviction in July and ordered a new trial. The government had decided to retry the case after Fairooz rejected a plea deal, and a trial date had been set for next week.Fairooz tweeted the notice was a "relief" Monday night."Just received this, "Governments Notice of Nolle Prosequi" What a relief! Guess they've got enough "laughing" matters to deal with!" she tweeted.The US Attorney's Office declined to explain what had changed."The US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia yesterday filed a notice dismissing the case involving Desiree Ali-Fairooz," said spokesman Bill Miller. "The US Attorney's Office typically does not discuss charging decisions, and has no comment on the decision to dismiss this particular case."The original arrest happened after Fairooz laughed after Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby told senators at Sessions' confirmation hearing that his former colleague had a record of "treating all Americans equally under the law."Her laughter lasted a few seconds and Shelby continued with his speech without acknowledging the disturbance.Fairooz's attorney said in a statement his client is "relieved and happy" about the result."Yesterday the government dismissed the case for reasons I can only speculate about. And which I may never fully know (though I have various theories)," Samuel Bogash said in an email. "Though as her lawyer I would have preferred a 'not guilty' at the first trial, I'm happy for Ms. Fairooz." 2156

The millions of people who were unemployed this year may want to start planning now for tax season. Unemployment income is taxable.If you didn't already choose to have those taxes taken out, a CPA tells us there are other options.You could get ahead of it and make an estimated tax payment for the fourth quarter.The drop in income may also mean you're eligible for other deductions and credits, like the earned income tax credit or the child and dependent care credit.“That's an income-based one that's based on a sliding scale, depending on how much you make. So, if you made less money, you could see more of that,” said Lisa Greene-Lewis, CPA and tax expert at TurboTax.Questions on stimulus payments will also be part of your tax return. That money is not taxable.If you got too much, you do not have to pay it back. But if you didn't get the amount that you're eligible for, you can get it as a recovery tax rebate.While working from home, some people stayed in other states. That could potentially put you on the hook for two state tax returns, depending on how long you stayed there.Because of the 2017 tax law, deductions for working from home will mostly only apply to those who are self-employed.Self-employed workers could also be eligible for new credits. You can claim them when you file or estimate those credits and keep them in your pocket now.“If you were sick or you took care of someone that was sick or took care of a family member, there's a qualified sick and family leave credit, and they can be worth thousands of dollars,” said Greene-Lewis.The IRS hasn't said when the tax filing season will open, but it's usually in early January. 1667

The number of people still unaccounted for after the devastating Camp Fire in Northern California has dropped to 11, the Butte County Sheriff's Office said.The latest count is down from a one-time high of more than 1,000 people.The death toll dropped from 88 to 85 after DNA testing revealed the remains of three victims were accidentally separated into different bags during the process of recovery, Butte County Sheriff and Coroner Kory Honea said Monday night.The Camp Fire burned through more than 153,000 acres in Butte County after it broke out November 8. It was contained November 25 after becoming the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history.The blaze decimated much of the town of Paradise and destroyed nearly 14,000 homes and more than 4,800 other buildings. 810

The mayor of Compton, California, has told the Los Angeles Times that she is launching a pilot program with a local non-profit that will give 800 residents a "guaranteed income" over the next two years.Compton Mayor Aja Brown told the Times that a non-profit called the Compton Pledge would select 800 low-income residents and distribute a "guaranteed income" to them for the next two years.According to the Times, the participants will be selected from a "pre-verified" list of low-income families in the area. Over the span of two years, the Compton Pledge plans to provide the families with "at least a few hundred dollars on a recurring basis" without any strings attached. The program will also provide families with financial guidance and track their spending and well-being throughout the process.While the Compton Pledge has not said where it is getting its funding or how much participants would receive, The Los Angeles Times reports that the program hopes to include a "representative sample" of the city's racial makeup in its participants.Once considered a fringe concept, the idea of a "universal basic income" has gained traction among left-wing politicians in recent years. Such a policy would provide all Americans with a monthly stipend which recipients would be free to spend as they see fit. Businessman Andrew Yang ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination based on the idea.The concept gained further traction amid the COVID-19 pandemic when lawmakers agreed to provide most Americans with a ,200 check as the government shut down businesses to prevent the spread of the virus.While critics of a universal basic income claim such a policy would lead to high unemployment numbers and lead to spending on non-essential goods, some studies have shown that's not always the case. A similar program being conducted in Stockton, California, shows that recipients of basic income funds were mostly spent on food, clothes, and utility bills. 1975

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

来源：资阳报