paano mag withdraw sa super

Josh Allen makes his final MVP case — or at least it should be

NAMI Lorain County announces accomplishments, plans for 2025Holiday Travel Alert: Airports with Highest Percentage of Delays and Cancellations in 20243 Dividend Stocks to Double Up on Right NowKinkead Dent and diverse ground game powers UT Martin past New Hampshire, 41-10 in FCS 1st round

By BILL BARROW, Associated Press PLAINS, Ga. (AP) — Newly married and sworn as a Naval officer, Jimmy Carter left his tiny hometown in 1946 hoping to climb the ranks and see the world. Less than a decade later, the death of his father and namesake, a merchant farmer and local politician who went by “Mr. Earl,” prompted the submariner and his wife, Rosalynn, to return to the rural life of Plains, Georgia, they thought they’d escaped. The lieutenant never would be an admiral. Instead, he became commander in chief. Years after his presidency ended in humbling defeat, he would add a Nobel Peace Prize, awarded not for his White House accomplishments but “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” The life of James Earl Carter Jr., the 39th and longest-lived U.S. president, ended Sunday at the age of 100 where it began: Plains, the town of 600 that fueled his political rise, welcomed him after his fall and sustained him during 40 years of service that redefined what it means to be a former president. With the stubborn confidence of an engineer and an optimism rooted in his Baptist faith, Carter described his motivations in politics and beyond in the same way: an almost missionary zeal to solve problems and improve lives. Carter was raised amid racism, abject poverty and hard rural living — realities that shaped both his deliberate politics and emphasis on human rights. “He always felt a responsibility to help people,” said Jill Stuckey, a longtime friend of Carter’s in Plains. “And when he couldn’t make change wherever he was, he decided he had to go higher.” Carter’s path, a mix of happenstance and calculation , pitted moral imperatives against political pragmatism; and it defied typical labels of American politics, especially caricatures of one-term presidents as failures. “We shouldn’t judge presidents by how popular they are in their day. That’s a very narrow way of assessing them,” Carter biographer Jonathan Alter told the Associated Press. “We should judge them by how they changed the country and the world for the better. On that score, Jimmy Carter is not in the first rank of American presidents, but he stands up quite well.” Later in life, Carter conceded that many Americans, even those too young to remember his tenure, judged him ineffective for failing to contain inflation or interest rates, end the energy crisis or quickly bring home American hostages in Iran. He gained admirers instead for his work at The Carter Center — advocating globally for public health, human rights and democracy since 1982 — and the decades he and Rosalynn wore hardhats and swung hammers with Habitat for Humanity. Yet the common view that he was better after the Oval Office than in it annoyed Carter, and his allies relished him living long enough to see historians reassess his presidency. “He doesn’t quite fit in today’s terms” of a left-right, red-blue scoreboard, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who visited the former president multiple times during his own White House bid. At various points in his political career, Carter labeled himself “progressive” or “conservative” — sometimes both at once. His most ambitious health care bill failed — perhaps one of his biggest legislative disappointments — because it didn’t go far enough to suit liberals. Republicans, especially after his 1980 defeat, cast him as a left-wing cartoon. It would be easiest to classify Carter as a centrist, Buttigieg said, “but there’s also something radical about the depth of his commitment to looking after those who are left out of society and out of the economy.” Indeed, Carter’s legacy is stitched with complexities, contradictions and evolutions — personal and political. The self-styled peacemaker was a war-trained Naval Academy graduate who promised Democratic challenger Ted Kennedy that he’d “kick his ass.” But he campaigned with a call to treat everyone with “respect and compassion and with love.” Carter vowed to restore America’s virtue after the shame of Vietnam and Watergate, and his technocratic, good-government approach didn’t suit Republicans who tagged government itself as the problem. It also sometimes put Carter at odds with fellow Democrats. The result still was a notable legislative record, with wins on the environment, education, and mental health care. He dramatically expanded federally protected lands, began deregulating air travel, railroads and trucking, and he put human rights at the center of U.S. foreign policy. As a fiscal hawk, Carter added a relative pittance to the national debt, unlike successors from both parties. Carter nonetheless struggled to make his achievements resonate with the electorate he charmed in 1976. Quoting Bob Dylan and grinning enthusiastically, he had promised voters he would “never tell a lie.” Once in Washington, though, he led like a joyless engineer, insisting his ideas would become reality and he’d be rewarded politically if only he could convince enough people with facts and logic. This served him well at Camp David, where he brokered peace between Israel’s Menachem Begin and Epypt’s Anwar Sadat, an experience that later sparked the idea of The Carter Center in Atlanta. Carter’s tenacity helped the center grow to a global force that monitored elections across five continents, enabled his freelance diplomacy and sent public health experts across the developing world. The center’s wins were personal for Carter, who hoped to outlive the last Guinea worm parasite, and nearly did. As president, though, the approach fell short when he urged consumers beleaguered by energy costs to turn down their thermostats. Or when he tried to be the nation’s cheerleader, beseeching Americans to overcome a collective “crisis of confidence.” Republican Ronald Reagan exploited Carter’s lecturing tone with a belittling quip in their lone 1980 debate. “There you go again,” the former Hollywood actor said in response to a wonky answer from the sitting president. “The Great Communicator” outpaced Carter in all but six states. Carter later suggested he “tried to do too much, too soon” and mused that he was incompatible with Washington culture: media figures, lobbyists and Georgetown social elites who looked down on the Georgians and their inner circle as “country come to town.” Carter carefully navigated divides on race and class on his way to the Oval Office. Born Oct. 1, 1924 , Carter was raised in the mostly Black community of Archery, just outside Plains, by a progressive mother and white supremacist father. Their home had no running water or electricity but the future president still grew up with the relative advantages of a locally prominent, land-owning family in a system of Jim Crow segregation. He wrote of President Franklin Roosevelt’s towering presence and his family’s Democratic Party roots, but his father soured on FDR, and Jimmy Carter never campaigned or governed as a New Deal liberal. He offered himself as a small-town peanut farmer with an understated style, carrying his own luggage, bunking with supporters during his first presidential campaign and always using his nickname. And he began his political career in a whites-only Democratic Party. As private citizens, he and Rosalynn supported integration as early as the 1950s and believed it inevitable. Carter refused to join the White Citizens Council in Plains and spoke out in his Baptist church against denying Black people access to worship services. “This is not my house; this is not your house,” he said in a churchwide meeting, reminding fellow parishioners their sanctuary belonged to God. Yet as the appointed chairman of Sumter County schools he never pushed to desegregate, thinking it impractical after the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board decision. And while presidential candidate Carter would hail the 1965 Voting Rights Act, signed by fellow Democrat Lyndon Johnson when Carter was a state senator, there is no record of Carter publicly supporting it at the time. Carter overcame a ballot-stuffing opponent to win his legislative seat, then lost the 1966 governor’s race to an arch-segregationist. He won four years later by avoiding explicit mentions of race and campaigning to the right of his rival, who he mocked as “Cufflinks Carl” — the insult of an ascendant politician who never saw himself as part the establishment. Carter’s rural and small-town coalition in 1970 would match any victorious Republican electoral map in 2024. Once elected, though, Carter shocked his white conservative supporters — and landed on the cover of Time magazine — by declaring that “the time for racial discrimination is over.” Before making the jump to Washington, Carter befriended the family of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., whom he’d never sought out as he eyed the governor’s office. Carter lamented his foot-dragging on school integration as a “mistake.” But he also met, conspicuously, with Alabama’s segregationist Gov. George Wallace to accept his primary rival’s endorsement ahead of the 1976 Democratic convention. “He very shrewdly took advantage of his own Southerness,” said Amber Roessner, a University of Tennessee professor and expert on Carter’s campaigns. A coalition of Black voters and white moderate Democrats ultimately made Carter the last Democratic presidential nominee to sweep the Deep South. Then, just as he did in Georgia, he used his power in office to appoint more non-whites than all his predecessors had, combined. He once acknowledged “the secret shame” of white Americans who didn’t fight segregation. But he also told Alter that doing more would have sacrificed his political viability – and thus everything he accomplished in office and after. King’s daughter, Bernice King, described Carter as wisely “strategic” in winning higher offices to enact change. “He was a leader of conscience,” she said in an interview. Rosalynn Carter, who died on Nov. 19 at the age of 96, was identified by both husband and wife as the “more political” of the pair; she sat in on Cabinet meetings and urged him to postpone certain priorities, like pressing the Senate to relinquish control of the Panama Canal. “Let that go until the second term,” she would sometimes say. The president, recalled her former aide Kathy Cade, retorted that he was “going to do what’s right” even if “it might cut short the time I have.” Rosalynn held firm, Cade said: “She’d remind him you have to win to govern.” Carter also was the first president to appoint multiple women as Cabinet officers. Yet by his own telling, his career sprouted from chauvinism in the Carters’ early marriage: He did not consult Rosalynn when deciding to move back to Plains in 1953 or before launching his state Senate bid a decade later. Many years later, he called it “inconceivable” that he didn’t confer with the woman he described as his “full partner,” at home, in government and at The Carter Center. “We developed a partnership when we were working in the farm supply business, and it continued when Jimmy got involved in politics,” Rosalynn Carter told AP in 2021. So deep was their trust that when Carter remained tethered to the White House in 1980 as 52 Americans were held hostage in Tehran, it was Rosalynn who campaigned on her husband’s behalf. “I just loved it,” she said, despite the bitterness of defeat. Fair or not, the label of a disastrous presidency had leading Democrats keep their distance, at least publicly, for many years, but Carter managed to remain relevant, writing books and weighing in on societal challenges. He lamented widening wealth gaps and the influence of money in politics. He voted for democratic socialist Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in 2016, and later declared that America had devolved from fully functioning democracy to “oligarchy.” Yet looking ahead to 2020, with Sanders running again, Carter warned Democrats not to “move to a very liberal program,” lest they help re-elect President Donald Trump. Carter scolded the Republican for his serial lies and threats to democracy, and chided the U.S. establishment for misunderstanding Trump’s populist appeal. He delighted in yearly convocations with Emory University freshmen, often asking them to guess how much he’d raised in his two general election campaigns. “Zero,” he’d gesture with a smile, explaining the public financing system candidates now avoid so they can raise billions. Carter still remained quite practical in partnering with wealthy corporations and foundations to advance Carter Center programs. Carter recognized that economic woes and the Iran crisis doomed his presidency, but offered no apologies for appointing Paul Volcker as the Federal Reserve chairman whose interest rate hikes would not curb inflation until Reagan’s presidency. He was proud of getting all the hostages home without starting a shooting war, even though Tehran would not free them until Reagan’s Inauguration Day. “Carter didn’t look at it” as a failure, Alter emphasized. “He said, ‘They came home safely.’ And that’s what he wanted.” Well into their 90s, the Carters greeted visitors at Plains’ Maranatha Baptist Church, where he taught Sunday School and where he will have his last funeral before being buried on family property alongside Rosalynn . Carter, who made the congregation’s collection plates in his woodworking shop, still garnered headlines there, calling for women’s rights within religious institutions, many of which, he said, “subjugate” women in church and society. Carter was not one to dwell on regrets. “I am at peace with the accomplishments, regret the unrealized goals and utilize my former political position to enhance everything we do,” he wrote around his 90th birthday. The politician who had supposedly hated Washington politics also enjoyed hosting Democratic presidential contenders as public pilgrimages to Plains became advantageous again. Carter sat with Buttigieg for the final time March 1, 2020, hours before the Indiana mayor ended his campaign and endorsed eventual winner Joe Biden. “He asked me how I thought the campaign was going,” Buttigieg said, recalling that Carter flashed his signature grin and nodded along as the young candidate, born a year after Carter left office, “put the best face” on the walloping he endured the day before in South Carolina. Never breaking his smile, the 95-year-old host fired back, “I think you ought to drop out.” “So matter of fact,” Buttigieg said with a laugh. “It was somehow encouraging.” Carter had lived enough, won plenty and lost enough to take the long view. “He talked a lot about coming from nowhere,” Buttigieg said, not just to attain the presidency but to leverage “all of the instruments you have in life” and “make the world more peaceful.” In his farewell address as president, Carter said as much to the country that had embraced and rejected him. “The struggle for human rights overrides all differences of color, nation or language,” he declared. “Those who hunger for freedom, who thirst for human dignity and who suffer for the sake of justice — they are the patriots of this cause.” Carter pledged to remain engaged with and for them as he returned “home to the South where I was born and raised,” home to Plains, where that young lieutenant had indeed become “a fellow citizen of the world.” —- Bill Barrow, based in Atlanta, has covered national politics including multiple presidential campaigns for the AP since 2012.'Animal Crossing: New Horizons' video game tour to stop by Adventure Aquarium next month

Abortions up slightly in United StatesRodgers Silicon Valley Acquisition Corp. ( OTCMKTS:RSVAU – Get Free Report ) dropped 5.3% during trading on Friday . The company traded as low as $24.18 and last traded at $24.22. Approximately 17,000 shares were traded during mid-day trading, a decline of 75% from the average daily volume of 67,461 shares. The stock had previously closed at $25.58. Rodgers Silicon Valley Acquisition Trading Down 5.3 % The company’s fifty day simple moving average is $24.22 and its two-hundred day simple moving average is $24.22. Rodgers Silicon Valley Acquisition Company Profile ( Get Free Report ) Rodgers Silicon Valley Acquisition Corp. intends to enter into a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination with one or more businesses. The company was founded in 2020 and is based in Woodside, California. Read More Receive News & Ratings for Rodgers Silicon Valley Acquisition Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Rodgers Silicon Valley Acquisition and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .

DENVER, Dec. 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Medicine Man Technologies, Inc., operating as Schwazze, (OTC: SHWZ) (Cboe CA: SHWZ) ("Schwazze" or the "Company"), is providing an update on its previously announced delayed filings. On November 29, 2024, the Audit Committee of the Company determined, following discussions with Baker Tilly and the Company's management, that the Company's previously issued audited consolidated financial statements for the two fiscal years ended December 31, 2023, audited by BF Borgers, and the Company's unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto as of and for the fiscal periods ended March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023, and September 30, 2023 included in the Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the fiscal periods ended March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023, and September 30, 2023 that were filed with the SEC (collectively the "Subject Periods”) will be restated due to the identification of certain accounting adjustments needed primarily relating to technical accounting areas. The Company has concluded that the impact of these corrections is material and as a result, the Subject Periods should no longer be relied upon. Similarly, any previously issued or filed reports, press releases, earnings releases, investor presentations or other communications of the Company describing the Company's financial results or other financial information should no longer be relied upon to the extent that they are related to the Subject Periods. Schwazze does not currently believe that the foregoing corrections will have any negative material impact on the Company's revenue, adjusted EBITDA, cash from operations or cash position. Additional details on the impact of these adjustments can be found in the Company's related Form 8-K filed earlier today. About Schwazze Schwazze (OTC: SHWZ) (Cboe CA: SHWZ) is building a premier vertically integrated regional cannabis company with assets in Colorado and New Mexico and will continue to explore taking its operating system to other states where it can develop a differentiated regional leadership position. Schwazze is the parent company of a portfolio of leading cannabis businesses and brands spanning seed to sale. Schwazze is anchored by a high-performance culture that combines customer-centric thinking and data science to test, measure, and drive decisions and outcomes. The Company's leadership team has deep expertise in retailing, wholesaling, and building consumer brands at Fortune 500 companies as well as in the cannabis sector. Medicine Man Technologies, Inc. was Schwazze's former operating trade name. The corporate entity continues to be named Medicine Man Technologies, Inc. Schwazze derives its name from the pruning technique of a cannabis plant to enhance plant structure and promote healthy growth. To learn more about Schwazze, visit https://schwazze.com/ . Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These forward-looking statements include financial outlooks; statements regarding the expected impact of the restatements and change in accounting treatment, including on the Company's overall business operations, previously reported cash and cash equivalent balances, and strategic outlook; statements regarding the Company's internal controls over financial reporting and ongoing internal reviews and assessments; any projections of net sales, earnings, or other financial items; any statements of the strategies, plans and objectives of our management team for future operations; expectations in connection with the Company's previously announced business plans; any statements regarding future economic conditions or performance; and statements regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of our management team. Such statements may be preceded by the words "may," "will," "could," "would," "should," "expect," "intends," "plans," "strategy," "prospects," "anticipate," "believe," "approximately," "estimate," "predict," "project," "potential," "continue," "ongoing," or the negative of these terms or other words of similar meaning in connection with a discussion of future events or future operating or financial performance, although the absence of these words does not necessarily mean that a statement is not forward-looking. We have based our forward-looking statements on management's current expectations and assumptions about future events and trends affecting our business and industry. Although we do not make forward-looking statements unless we believe we have a reasonable basis for doing so, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. Therefore, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future events or performance, are based on certain assumptions, and are subject to various known and unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company's control and cannot be predicted or quantified. Consequently, actual events and results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, without limitation, that the Company has underestimated the scope and impact of the restatements, risks and uncertainties around the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting, the risk that the Company's restated financial statements may take longer to complete than expected, as well as those risks and uncertainties risks and uncertainties associated with (i) regulatory limitations on our products and services and the uncertainty in the application of federal, state, and local laws to our business, and any changes in such laws; (ii) our ability to manufacture our products and product candidates on a commercial scale on our own or in collaboration with third parties; (iii) our ability to identify, consummate, and integrate anticipated acquisitions; (iv) general industry and economic conditions; (v) our ability to access adequate capital upon terms and conditions that are acceptable to us; (vi) our ability to pay interest and principal on outstanding debt when due; (vii) volatility in credit and market conditions; (viii) the loss of one or more key executives or other key employees; and (ix) other risks and uncertainties related to the cannabis market and our business strategy. Any such risks and uncertainties could materially and adversely affect the Company's results of operations, its profitability and its cash flows, which would, in turn, have a significant and adverse impact on the Company's stock price. The Company cautions you not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. More detailed information about the Company and the risk factors that may affect the realization of forward-looking statements is set forth in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Investors and security holders are urged to read these documents free of charge on the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov . The Company assumes no obligation to publicly update or revise its forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events or otherwise except as required by law. As noted above, investors are cautioned that the Subject Periods, and related investor communications, should no longer be relied upon; such communications include earnings releases, press releases, shareholder communications, investor presentations and other communications describing relevant portions of the Subject Periods. Investor Relations Contact Sean Mansouri, CFA or Aaron D'Souza Elevate IR (720) 330-2829 [email protected]

BEIRUT (AP) — Thousands of people fled the central Syrian city of Homs, the country’s third largest, as insurgents seized two towns on the outskirts Friday, positioning themselves for an assault on a potentially major prize in their march against President Bashar Assad. The move, reported by pro-government media and an opposition war monitor, was the latest in the stunning advances by opposition fighters over the past week that have so far met little resistance from Assad’s forces. A day earlier, fighters captured the central city of Hama , Syria’s fourth largest, after the army said it withdrew to avoid fighting inside the city and spare the lives of civilians. The insurgents, led by the jihadi Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group, or HTS, have vowed to march to Homs and the capital, Damascus, Assad’s seat of power. Videos circulating online showed a highway jammed with cars full of people fleeing Homs, a city with a large population belonging to Assad’s Alawite sect, seen as his core supporters. If Assad’s military loses Homs, it could be a crippling blow. The city, parts of which were controlled by insurgents until 2014, stands at an important intersection between Damascus and Syria’s coastal provinces of Latakia and Tartus, where Assad enjoys wide support. Homs province is Syria’s largest in size and borders Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. The city is also home to one of Syria’s two state-run oil refineries. Pressure on the government intensified from multiple directions. Opposition protesters stormed security posts and army positions in the southern province of Sweida, opposition activists said. U.S.-backed Kurdish forces who control eastern and northeastern Syria began to encroach on government-held territory. Offensive leaves Assad reliant on Russia After years of largely being bottled up in a northwest corner of the country, the insurgents burst out a week ago, captured the northern city of Aleppo, Syria’s largest , and have kept advancing since. Government troops have repeatedly fallen back. The sudden offensive has flipped the tables on a long-entrenched stalemate in Syria’s nearly 14-year-old civil war. Along with HTS, the fighters include forces of an umbrella group of Turkish-backed Syrian militias called the Syrian National Army. Turkey has denied backing the offensive , though experts say insurgents would not have launched it without the country's consent. HTS’s leader, Abu Mohammad al-Golani, told CNN in an exclusive interview Thursday from Syria that Assad’s government was on the path to falling, propped up only by Russia and Iran. “The seeds of the regime’s defeat have always been within it,” he said. “But the truth remains, this regime is dead.” A key question about Assad’s ability to fight back is how much top ally Russia — whose troops back Assad’s forces — will throw support his way at a time when it is tied up in the war in Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he planned to discuss the developments in Syria with his Turkish and Iranian counterparts at a meeting Friday in the Qatari capital, Doha. In an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, he said international actors were backing the insurgents’ advances and that he would discuss “the way to cut the channels of financing and arming them.” Meanwhile, Russia’s embassy in Syria issued a notice reminding Russian citizens that they may use commercial flights to leave the country “in view of the difficult military-political situation.” The foreign ministers of Iran, Iraq and Syria — three close allies — gathered Friday in Baghdad to consult on the rapidly changing war. Syrian Foreign Minister Bassam Sabbagh said the current developments may pose “a serious threat to the security of the region as a whole.” Assad opponents move in center, south and east The insurgent fighters on Friday took over the central towns of Rastan and Talbiseh, putting them 5 kilometers (3 miles) from Homs, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition war monitor. “The battle of Homs is the mother of all battles and will decide who will rule Syria,” said Rami Abdurrahman, the Observatory’s chief. Pro-government Sham FM said the insurgents entered Rastan and Talbiseh without facing any resistance. There was no immediate comment from the Syrian military. The Observatory said Syrian troops had left Homs. But the military denied that in comments reported by the state news agency SANA, saying troops were reinforcing their positions in the city and were “ready to repel” any assault. In eastern Syria, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces coalition said it had moved into the government-held half of the city of Deir el-Zour, apparently without resistance. One of the main cities in the east, Deir el-Zour had long been split between the government on the western side of the Euphrates River and the SDF on the eastern side. The SDF also said it took control of further parts of the border with Iraq. That appeared to bring it closer to the government-held Boukamal border crossing. The crossing is a vital for the government because it is the gateway to the corridor to Iran, a supply line for Iran-backed fighters, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah. At the same time, insurgents seized Syria’s sole crossing to Jordan, according to opposition activists. Jordan announced it was closing its side of the crossing. Lebanon also closed all but one of its border crossings with Syria. Worsening economy could hurt Assad’s war effort The opposition assault has struck a blow to Syria’s already decrepit economy. On Friday, the U.S. dollar was selling on Syria’s parallel market for about 18,000 pounds, a 25% drop from a week ago. When Syria’s conflict erupted in March 2011, a dollar was valued at 47 pounds. The drop further undermines the purchasing power of Syrians at a time when the U.N. has warned that 90% of the population is below the poverty line. Syria’s economy has been hammered for years by the war, Western sanctions, corruption and an economic meltdown in neighboring Lebanon, Syria’s main gate to the outside world. Damascus residents told The Associated Press that people are rushing to markets to buy food, fearing further escalation. The worsening economy could be undermining the ability of Syria’s military to fight, as the value of soldiers’ salaries melts away while the insurgents are flush with cash. Syria’s military has not appeared to put up a cohesive counteroffensive against the opposition advances. SANA on Friday quoted an unnamed military official as saying the Syrian and Russian air forces were striking insurgents in Hama province, killing dozens of fighters. Syria’s defense minister said in a televised statement late Thursday that government forces withdrew from Hama as “a temporary tactical measure” and vowed to gain back lost areas. “We are in a good position on the ground,” Gen. Ali Mahmoud Abbas said, saying troops remained “at the gates of Hama.” He spoke before the opposition advanced further south toward Homs. He said the insurgents, whom he described as “takfiri” or Muslim extremists, are backed by foreign countries. He did not name the countries but appeared to be referring to Turkey and the United States. ___ Associated Press writers Albert Aji in Damascus, Syria, and Suzan Fraser in Ankara, Turkey, contributed to this report. Bassem Mroue, The Associated Press

News that President-elect Donald Trump’s team wants to hack away at the forbidding tangle of U.S. bank regulation is welcome in the abstract. In practice, though, much will depend on the details. The goal should be simplifying financial oversight more broadly — not just defanging a tough watchdog. No doubt, the current system is unwieldy. At the federal level — excluding an array of separate state regulators — three entities oversee banks, two supervise markets, one aims to protect consumers and another defends against financial crimes. Many large institutions must submit to all of them. Senior managers of an average bank today spend some 42 percent of their time on compliance-related tasks. Worse, such fragmentation at times allows risks to fall through the cracks. Much of this system was designed decades ago for a simpler world. One glaring example is the separation of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. One was established 90 years ago to protect investors in securities such as stocks and bonds; the other was created 50 years ago to oversee commodities markets and related futures and options contracts. Today, when many financial companies trade in both markets, the two supervisors often overlap and don’t always properly communicate. In 2011, after the chaotic bankruptcy of derivatives broker MF Global Holdings Ltd., a congressional postmortem detailed how the commissions failed to coordinate their approach to the company’s deteriorating finances and disagreed about where to safeguard its customers’ money. Such bifurcation is anomalous by global standards, and policymakers have been talking about combining the two for decades. In a familiar tale, however, politics has taken precedence over common sense: The House Committee on Agriculture has been loath to cede its oversight of the CFTC, which attracts hefty campaign donations from financial companies. (The SEC is under the House Financial Services Committee.) If Trump wants a relatively clear-cut reform, this would be a good place to start. Merging the two commissions would help streamline the rules, reduce compliance costs and ease cooperation with regulators overseas. It would be an ambitious change but not a radical one: Both a former CFTC commissioner and a current SEC commissioner have endorsed the idea. Reforming banking oversight would be less straightforward. It’s true that the U.S. has too many regulators — including the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. — in addition to state banking authorities. But this morass defies easy fixes; simply folding the FDIC into the Treasury Department, as the Trump team is considering, will likely create more problems than it solves. A better approach would be to create a single prudential authority charged with protecting the financial system. The new body could be overseen by a board that includes representatives from the Fed, the Treasury and the FDIC, while doing away with the OCC entirely. Ideally it would also oversee nonbank companies, such as asset managers, that play a significant role in the system. Such a regulator could focus more on essential risks than on box-checking exercises or turf wars. It would be less susceptible to influence by the companies it oversees and could (in theory) allow for streamlined compliance. It would also make clear where the buck stops when things go wrong. Such far-reaching reforms would require political skill and sustained effort, which were not hallmarks of Trump’s previous term. The ambition is laudable all the same. In regulation as in life, simplicity is a virtue. — Bloomberg NewsBlame it on the food and drink?

Jimmy Carter: Many evolutions for a centenarian ‘citizen of the world’Colorado Springs area literary events starting Dec. 29