济南检查勃起功能(济南阳痿的中医医治) (今日更新中)

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota investigators say that Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg reported hitting a deer with his car on Saturday night but actually killed a pedestrian whose body was not found until the next day. Ravnsborg's office has said he immediately called 911 after the accident. The Department of Public Safety said Monday only that he told the Hyde County Sheriff's Office that he had hit a deer and did not say whether he reported the crash in a 911 call. The man was identified as 55-year-old Joseph Boever.He was not found until Sunday morning.According to the DPS, the incident happened one mile west of Highmore, South Dakota at 10:30 p.m. CT.Ravnsborg was not injured, DPS said. 715

Spain and Portugal faced another exceptionally hot day Saturday as a heat wave that has killed three people in Spain threatened to raise temperatures to record levels.Large areas of Portugal are on red alert for heat, including the capital, Lisbon. Temperatures will reach 45 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit) in parts of the south-central Alentejo region, according to the country's weather agency, IPMA.Forecasters at the UK Met Office have said temperatures in the Iberian Peninsula this weekend "could beat the all-time continental European record of 48C," which is a little over 118 degrees Fahrenheit, before the mercury starts to dip.That record was set in the Greek capital, Athens, in July 1977. The record for Spain is 47.3 Celsius, while for Portugal it's 47.4 Celsius, according to the World Meteorological Organization. 847

SPARTA, Tenn. — A Distract Attorney has asked the FBI to investigating after body camera footage allegedly shows a Tennessee sheriff's deputy repeatedly ordering a dog to attack a suspect that had already surrendered.Tonya Qualls, 40, suffered wounds to her arms and legs.After District Attorney Bryant Dunaway viewed body camera video of the arrest, he asked the FBI to investigate, and his office withdrew the resisting arrest guilty plea Qualls made days after her arrest.Body camera footage shows the moment deputies with the White County Sheriff's Department entered the apartment where Qualls ran to hide on April 3. Qualls has a history of non-violent drug offenses and was wanted on a probation violation.Video shows that Deputy Brandon Young warned Qualls that his dog would bite her if she didn't come out.When Young released the dog, it began searching each room in the apartment. They eventually found Qualls hunched down in a bathroom closet, unarmed.Qualls eventually told Young that she would come out of the bathroom closet.The next few violent moments became the focus of an Internal Affairs Report by the White County Sheriff's Department.The report stated that the deputy told his dog to "engage Qualls 12 times."Richard Brooks, an attorney, who has sued White County in the past, but is not involved in this case, said he believes Young was egging the dog on."That's what he kept saying. Get her buddy. Get her buddy. Get her buddy," Brooks said.The video shows Qualls screaming as Young ordered the dogs to keep attacking. The dog continued biting Qualls' leg, even as officers placed her in handcuffs.Young kept demanding to see Qualls' hands.In his report, Young claimed Qualls "began to resist the dog by trying to shove him away."Young also wrote that it was "unknown if Qualls had any weapons" — even though Qualls was unarmed.Young charged Qualls with resisting arrest, and days later, Qualls pleaded guilty. Brooks disagreed with the charge."She's not resisting. What's she done to resist? How is she going to resist that dog?" he said.The body cam video later shows Qualls in an ambulance after her arrest with wounds to her arms and legs."She's going to have scars, and plastic surgery is going to have to be done," Brooks said.In court documents dated May 27, District Attorney Bryant Dunaway said that after viewing the body camera footage, he would drop the drop Qualls' conviction."The State of Tennessee does not believe that all elements of the offense of Resisting Arrest were committed by Defendant Tonya Qualls," Dunaway wrote.He further stated it would be an "injustice for that conviction to stand."Other charges against Qualls remained, but the resisting arrest conviction was withdrawn.Dunaway said he then asked the FBI to investigate."I think that was definitely an excessive use of force," Brooks said.That's what White County's own Internal Affairs investigation found. It stated, "possible criminal charges could arise against the deputies."But according to the Internal Affairs report, White County Sheriff Steve Page did not want the case to go outside his department."(Young) is getting suspended for four days, being sent for more training and is getting a write up in his file and that's the end of it!" Page said, according to investigators. "It is not going any further! Does everyone understand?"White County investigators pushed back against Page and "suggested if we do not involve another agency in the investigation, it may give the appearance the Sheriff's Department is not willing or able to police itself."Captain John Ford, the man who oversaw the Internal Affairs report, was fired shortly after it came out. Ford, an 18 year veteran of the White County Sheriff's Department, says he believes he was fired because he wanted to take the case to the District Attorney.Ford has hired an attorney and declined to comment.In a statement, Page called the Internal Affairs investigation "incomplete.""The case file did not obtain significant material information that pertained to allegations of misconduct," his statement read. He later added that he did not want to "subject an employee to an external investigation without first gathering critical evidence."Page said Ford was terminated because he was "habitually insubordinate.""Any interpretation of his termination that suggests otherwise is inaccurate," his statement continued.Page said that Young resigned from his position on July 1. Dunaway said in a statement that he would dismiss an additional 25 cases brought by Young from the month of June.Below is the entire statement from the White County Sheriff's Office: This story was originally published by Ben Hall on WTVF in Nashville, Tennessee. 4768

Since opening our doors in West Bloomfield more than 21 years ago, J. Alexander’s Restaurant has offered the highest quality food and professional service in a safe, respectful and welcoming environment. We have always adhered to a strict non-discrimination policy for all our restaurant staff and guests to ensure the best possible working and dining environment. This includes treating every customer with the same non-discriminatory service. We do not tolerate any diversion from this policy and likewise do not tolerate any inappropriate behavior from either guests or employees.On June 20, our staff and many of our guests experienced an unfortunate incident that disrupted the otherwise pleasant dining environment in our West Bloomfield restaurant. Our staff made every responsible effort to safely diffuse this incident in the face of profanity and acts of misbehavior directed at them. None of our employees used profanity, made racial remarks or threw food but certain guests did. Ironically, two of those guests involved in this incident have falsely accused our staff of racial discrimination.The West Bloomfield police were called in during this incident to assist with the unruly behavior of certain guests. Any guest who threw food or was otherwise disruptive was asked to leave. Working with police, our staff made certain that every guest left the restaurant through the front door of the restaurant. We have turned the security surveillance video over to the West Bloomfield police. We will remain in close contact with the police department as we await a report on their investigation and their determination as to whether any formal charges related to this behavior are warranted.We are grateful to have been a part of West Bloomfield for more than two decades, and we look forward to continuing to serve our guests with a pleasant dining experience. 1878

Some presidential campaign promises are guaranteed to affect the lives and finances of everyday Americans. Banking industry reforms may not seem like one of them.After all, banking regulations can appear to be pretty remote from your day-to-day financial transactions. You may be surprised to learn that bank reforms implemented by past presidents and their cabinets have had material impacts on regular folks, and there’s no reason to believe that any regulatory changes brought about by a second Trump term or a Biden presidency would be any different.Here’s what you need to know about how presidential politics have affected your bank accounts in the past, and how the outcome of the 2020 election could affect your banking experience in the future.Historical Banking Changes That Continue to Affect ConsumersPresidential administrations of the past have implemented a number of different banking regulations and rule changes that continue to impact the consumer experience in 2020. It’s important to remember that the following banking changes were decided, in part, by the voters’ choosing the president who implemented the changes.Creation of the Federal ReserveInaugurated in 1913, President Woodrow Wilson signed The Federal Reserve Act into law later that same year. Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, banks could not count on any emergency reserves if customers all withdrew their funds at once.Such panic withdrawals were relatively common in response to widespread financial crises. The country plunged into a depression in 1907 after a big panic run on the banks led to the failure of several institutions.The Federal Reserve Act established the Federal Reserve System as the U.S. central bank, which not only serves as a lender of last resort to commercial banks that would otherwise go under during an economic crisis, but also supervises and regulates banks to provide a level of safety and soundness. The Fed also sets monetary policy to help ensure full employment and price stability.We’re still feeling the effects of Wilson’s policy every day. Due to the stability offered by the Federal Reserve, only two banks have failed in 2020, despite this year’s pandemic-related economic troubles. Compare this to the more than 600 bank failures per year between 1921 and 1929, prior to the Great Depression.Even more importantly, the Fed sets the federal funds rate, which is the benchmark interest rate for the entire U.S. economy. (It’s also the amount of interest banks charge each other for loaning money overnight to maintain their reserve requirements.) The federal funds rate is currently set at 0% to 0.25%.Financial institutions use the federal funds rate to set the interest rates they offer on interest-bearing accounts, such as savings accounts, CDs and money market accounts. When rates on these accounts are raised or lowered, it’s in part because of how the Fed has set the federal funds rate.The federal funds rate also may affect the rates financial institutions charge on loans, such as mortgages, auto loans, credit cards and the like. However, individual credit history and other factors also can affect these rates.Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Banking Act of 1933 into law within his first 100 days of taking office. This legislation, which is often referred to as the Glass-Steagall Act after its sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D-Va.) and Representative Henry B. Steagall (D-Al.), set up the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), among other provisions.The FDIC insures deposits at an individual bank for up to 0,000 per depositor, for each account ownership category. If your bank were to fail, the FDIC ensures that you would not lose your deposits, up to the applicable limits. As the FDIC proudly states on its website, “No depositor has ever lost a penny of insured deposits since the FDIC was created in 1933.”Few people spend much time thinking about FDIC deposit insurance, but it has had a stabilizing effect on consumer behavior. Prior to the passage of Glass-Steagall, banking customers did not feel confident that their money was safe in the bank, and so they would withdraw their deposits when concerned about an economic downturn.In fact, a rumor that Roosevelt would devalue the dollar caused panic and mass withdrawals in January and February of 1933, leading to the failure of 4,000 banks by the time his March inauguration arrived. Such panicked withdrawals feel unthinkable in 2020 because of the assurance provided by the FDIC coverage.Federal (and many state-chartered) credit unions enjoy similar protection through the National Credit Union Administration, or NCUA.Regulation CCIn 1987, under Ronald Reagan’s administration, Congress passed the Expedited Funds Availability Act to establish the maximum length of holds that banking institutions can place on deposits by their customers.This federal law established Regulation CC, which sets specific rules as to when various types of deposits will be made available to banking customers and provides guidelines to financial institutions for how to disclose their funds availability policies to their customers.Regulation CC specifies that banks can hold their customers’ deposits for a “reasonable” amount of time. The definition of reasonable depends partially on the size of the deposit and the origin of the funds. Still, checks written from an account within the same bank may be held up to two business days, while checks drawn on other banks may be held up to five business days.Banks also may impose longer holds, but they have the burden of proving that the longer hold is necessary and reasonable.Prior to the implementation of Regulation CC, there was concern about the length of time that banks held onto their customers’ deposits before the money appeared in their accounts. With these regulations in place, customers know what to expect from their deposits, making it far easier to handle their cash flow.Proposed Banking Policies in the 2020 ElectionBoth President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden have proposed policies that could alter your banking habits. Here’s what to expect from each candidate’s proposed banking policies.Continued Deregulation Under Donald TrumpThroughout his first term, the incumbent has made bank deregulation a major part of his legislative agenda, with the rollback of some Dodd-Frank regulations in 2018 being his signature achievement in banking. Among other loosened rules, the Dodd-Frank rollback also raised the threshold under which banks are considered “too big to fail” from billion to 0 billion.While the president has not made his proposed banking policies a significant part of his reelection platform, he did propose major changes to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) as of January 2020. The CRA is legislation that prevents banks from discriminating against low-income or under-represented borrowers.As of June 2020, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) put the Trump administration’s proposals into effect. These proposals broaden the definition of what constitutes a bank and expand what types of loans offered to low-income borrowers qualify for improved CRA ratings.Specifically, it now includes credit cards and personal loans. In addition, the new rules give financial institutions credit for community reinvestment for loans for things like stadiums and hospitals. Should the president win his reelection bid, we can expect these new rules to take effect. (However, even if he wins and there is a change in leadership in the Senate, it is possible Democrats will work to reverse these rule changes.)The average bank customer may not notice the changes to the CRA on a day-to-day basis. However, lower-income borrowers may find it more difficult to qualify for a mortgage once these rules take effect.Updates to Older Legislation Under Joe BidenThe former vice president has plans to spruce up several pieces of old banking legislation. The specific items on his agenda include actions to:“Strengthen and enforce” the Dodd-Frank Act to help ensure equal access to banking. He specifically plans to back criminal penalties for reckless actions by bank executives.Protect consumers from predatory lending practices. Biden plans to strengthen consumer lending oversight, enforce remedies for abusive lending practices and pursue legislation to prevent predatory lending.Expand the CRA to include mortgage and insurance companies.Presuming it can enact all the plans it promises, a Biden presidency may provide banking customers with more reassurance that banks will handle their finances with care. Consumers may pay less for their personal loans, credit cards and mortgages if Biden is successful in ending predatory lending practices and if he is able to expand the CRA, thereby improving access to credit for under-represented communities.These rule changes also may place more of a regulatory burden on financial institutions, which could have ripple effects on banking customers. For instance, some consumers with a poor credit history may find that they cannot qualify for loans under a Biden-led crackdown on usurious interest rates, although they did previously qualify for loans that are now considered predatory.Election Costs and ConsequencesPolicy changes from our government’s executive branch can have enormous consequences for the banking industry and the consumers who rely on that industry. Although it may feel as if voting in a presidential election has little to do with how you bank, your vote can help to set policies that will affect banking consumers like yourself for decades to come.Protecting your own and your fellow Americans’ financial health is yet another reason why voting is so important. 9828

来源：资阳报