iftttwall – Page 21642

In Arizona, Parents Could Go to Jail for Changing Their Kids’ Diapers

Baby What’s the difference between a parent changing his baby’s diaper and a child molester fondling a 12-year-old’s breasts?

In Arizona, that’s a trick question—because, legally, there is no difference. In a state Supreme Court ruling that came out last week, the justices determined that intentionally or knowingly touch the private parts of a child under age 15 is automatically a felony.

Okay, but what if there was no sexual intent? What if, say, dad was giving the baby a bath, or the babysitter was taking the kid’s clothes off to get him ready for bed?

Well, according to the decision in State v. Holle, if defendants can prove that they were “not motivated by sexual interest,” then they can avoid being deemed sex offenders. But this places the burden of proof on the accused to prove their innocence, not the state to prove their guilt. The state no longer has to demonstrate that the contact was non-sexual—the accused party has to prove that.

What’s more, noted Matt Brown in Mimesis Law, quoting the two dissenting justices:

Such a defense…does not mean that a crime has not occurred, but instead that the miscreant may avoid “culpability” by persuading the factfinder that the “criminal conduct” should be excused.

Criminal conduct? The conduct of helping a kid into her bathing suit?

The Arizona law that triggered this decision deliberately keeps the tripwires vague. And the state Supreme Court had no problem with that, relying on what it believes will be the impeccable restraint of all prosecutors throughout the state:

We cannot and will not assume that the state will improperly prosecute persons who, though perhaps technically violating the terms of broad statutes [], clearly engaged in reasonable, acceptable, and commonly permitted activities involving children.

And yet, notes Brown, since 90 percent of all cases never go to trial and are determined by plea bargain, this gives prosecutors a giant scythe to dangle over any citizen: Are you going to go to court to prove you’re not a sex offender? Or are you going to take a plea?

It’s a scythe that can be used as a new threat to defendants facing other, unrelated charges, too. Are you now or have you ever changed a diaper? Then we’ve got you.

These fears may seem paranoid, says Fordham Law Professor John Pfaff, and “obviously, if hundreds of these cases came down the line, the legislature would have to change the law. But,” he points out, “we’ll never see those cases. Because even if you can prove yourself innocent, by the time you’re charged with child molesting it’s going to ruin your life. So prosecutors [can] use these tools in ways that are very hard to see.”

Yes they can. And that stinks more than a day-old Pampers.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2ci75Gt
via IFTTT

Are Civil Liberties and Military Force a ‘Single Issue’?

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones thinks it’s odd that Gary Johnson has supporters on the left, an argument he elaborates by listing a bunch of Johnson’s positions that liberals are unlikely to like. I’m not sure he has described all those stances accurately—Johnson has rejected the use of eminent domain to build the Keystone pipeline, and he recently surprised me by telling Politico that he opposes the Citizens United decision—but that’s beside the point; I’m not writing this to convince progressives that they really should vote for the Libertarian Party’s candidate after all.

I’m writing it because of something Drum says after the list:

Unless you’re basically a single-issue voter on civil liberties and military force, it’s hard to see why any lefty of any stripe would even think of supporting Johnson.

Not to state the obvious or anything, but “civil liberties and military force” are not a single issue. They aren’t even just two issues. Suppose a left-leaning Johnson supporter were to print a long litany of places where Johnson agrees with the ACLU, with additional entries for each war where the candidate has said the U.S. should not be involved. If she were to wrap her post up with a dismissive reference to Johnson’s liberal critics as “single-issue voters on regulation and spending,” Drum would surely think that silly. The same principle applies here.

This is particularly vexing when it comes to foreign policy. The candidates’ positions there arguably matter more than how they feel about any other group of issues, because that’s where a modern president has the greatest power to act autonomously. Big economic bills don’t get passed without lots of logrolling and horse-trading, but the White House enters wars without even bothering to ask Congress for permission—no, pretending that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force covers virtually everything doesn’t count—and most legislators have no interest in seriously challenging that. We have reached a point where the president is most powerful in precisely the area where it’s possible to do the most damage.

Under such a system, it is folly to think of military force as a mere “single issue.” Yet Drum somehow goes further than that: In his accounting, it’s just half the issue, sharing the space with the whole Bill of Rights. I can see why that formulation might appeal to Clintonites trying to shore up her support on the left, given that she’s a consistent hawk who is frequently hostile to civil liberties. But for people who care deeply about those topics, they’re not minimized so easily.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2cNuDTZ
via IFTTT

Dallas Cops Get Wise to Impending Public Pension Catastrophe, Start Yanking Their Money Out of the System

With their pension fund teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, Dallas police officers are grabbing what they can before the whole thing crashes down.

Panic has set in and dozens of officers are pulling their retirement money out of the system as quickly as possible, WFAA reported over the weekend. One assistant police chief recently pulled $1 million out of the retirement fund and more than $300 million has been withdrawn in recent years, the Dallas ABC affiliate reported, citing unnamed sources.

Like most public pensions systems, the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System gives members the option to withdraw a lump sum when they retire or to collect an annual payment for the rest of their lives. Think of it as the difference between taking the payout or the annuity in a lottery—the lump sum is probably less than what you’d get with the installment plan (depending on how long you live, of course) but at least you know how much money you’re getting.

It seems that many newly retired officers believe that its better to get some money today instead of being promised more money tomorrow. That’s because tomorrow might not come for a pension system that has been badly managed for decades and is now $5 billion in the red. According to Moody’s, the system will be completely broke in about 20 years.

Things look even worse now, after the horrific sniper attack that left five Dallas police officers dead spurred a wave of retirements, placing additional stress on the already nearly bankrupt system.

Through the first two weeks of September, 21 police officers have filed for retirement, NBC’s Dallas affiliate reported this weekend. Retirees will be eligible to start drawing a pension on October 1, but it looks like many new retirees are planning to pull all their cash out of the city’s pension fund as quickly as possible, leaving officials scrambling to figure out how to deal with the loss of assets.

The city poured $29.3 million into the fund this year, but members of the pension board told the city council in May that an immediate infusion of $600 million—equal to 20 cents of every dollar the city spends this year—would be required to keep the fund solvent.

The pension fund expects to earn 7.5 percent annually—a figure that many experts say is too high a target in the current investment environment—but the bigger problem for Dallas is it’s Deferred Retirement Option Plan. The DROP system allows retired officers to reinvest their pension checks in the system and comes with a guaranteed return of 8 percent to 10 percent. Though the city has now closed the DROP program to new members, it continues to accumulate more than $300 million in annual losses, the Dallas Observer reported earlier this year.

More than 200 retired Dallas police officers have collected more than $1 million from the DROP program, the Observer found.

After making millionaires out of former cops, it looks like the pension fund is about to run out of other peoples’ money. Things are getting so desperate that the pension board is considering whether it should block retirees from withdrawing their own money out of the system, forcing them to take the long-term payout instead.

“This may be the only way the pension can limit the cash outflow because we are in a bad situation that right now the existence of the system is at stake,” the board said in a letter to members informing them of the potential change, WFAA reported.

That leaves the pension board with a philosophical dilemmna: do they act in the best interest of the pension system, or the best interest of the people who have invested their retirements in it?

Clearly, it would be in the best interest of the members—not just the new retirees, but all the people invested in the collapsing system—to let them have their money back (or as much of it as possible) so they can invest it on their own.

If the board decides to stop retirees from getting their money out of the system, it means they are prioritizing the continued existence of the system (something that’s very much in doubt no matter what the board does) above the welfare of their members.

That’s hardly surprising. Government agencies do this all the time, as whatever reason once existed for their creation gives way to bureaucratic inertia. It does, however, expose the lie that police officers in Dallas and public employees around the rest of the country have been told for a long time about the sanctity of their retirement plans. The money is running out.

Meanwhile, Dallas is planning to hand out 10 percent pay raises to cops and firefighters.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2d2zv8X
via IFTTT

Post-Brexit Cash Hoarding Is “Worrying Signal” For UK Economy

Critics warn that "the Monetary Policy Committee made a serious policy error in August when it cut rates and restarted QE," according to Pantheon's Samuel Tombs, as the massive spike in UK narrow money-supply – which we first noted here – reflects "uncertainty, not income growth." Pantheon warns that they doubt the biggest surge in cash-hoarding since Lehman "signals that an economic renaissance is on the way. On the contrary, the pick-up in the desire of households and firms to hold money, as opposed to other assets, is a worrying signal."

On the heels of Japan, Switzerland, and Germany, the UK's biggest surge in cash-hoarding since Lehman has been suggested by some as sign – along with better than expected economic data – that the British economy is faring well. However, as we noted previously, this is almost certainly wrong and Pantheon agrees…

"As our chart below shows, narrow money accelerated as the economy entered recession in 2008. Growth in narrow money also picked up at the turn of the millennium, when fears abounded that electronic payment systems would stop working because of the “Y2K” bug. In short, uncertainty, not income growth, drives money demand.

"It is unlikely to be a coincidence that strong money growth has occurred alongside a collapse in business and consumer confidence and pessimism about the U.K.’s economic outlook since the Brexit vote in June. Note that the pick-up in narrow money growth has tracked the plunge in sterling, which has been a barometer of investors’ confidence in the U.K.’s economic outlook."

By contrast, people actually tend to have less desire to hold money in times of confidence… And in fact, sudden accelerations in the money-supply usually mislead…

Pantheon ends on a Carney-hope-crushing note…

"Accordingly, we doubt that strong growth in the money supply signals that an economic renaissance is on the way. On the contrary, the pick-up in the desire of households and firms to hold money, as opposed to other assets, is a worrying signal."

Of course, as we have heard many mainstream economist complain recently, “Cash hoarding is a problem for monetary policy,” which can only mean more repression and a more aggressive war on cash. Simon Ward, economist at Henderson Global Investors, said:

"People may be hoarding notes not for safety reasons but because the Bank of England is expected to cut interest rates significantly, possibly even imposing a negative rate on bank reserves, forcing banks to start charging for operating current accounts."

"Hoarding may also reflect increased demand for £50 notes due to uncertainty about their future supply,"

"(BOE) Governor Carney confirmed in June that there are no plans to introduce a plastic version of the £50 note, fuelling fears raised by Mr (BOE chief economist) Haldane's earlier speech that the Bank intends to restrict the future supply of cash in order to create scope for interest rates to fall further below zero."

via http://ift.tt/2d5ZGA8 Tyler Durden

How Low Oil Prices Failed To Stimulate The Economy

Submitted by Oil & Gas 360, via OilPrice.com,

The 2014 plunge in oil prices was initially hoped to provide stimulus to the U.S. economy, with the Fed arguing that the average household would save $700 in fuel costs. A new paper from the Brookings Institution suggests otherwise.

While higher discretionary income due to lower oil prices boosted consumer spending by 0.61 percent, the collapse in oil drilling reduced total investment by 0.62 percent, almost perfectly offsetting the benefits, according to the report.

Other trends, including an increasing propensity to buy automobiles and a positive change in the U.S. trade balance, had small impacts on the economy while non-oil producing segments of the economy failed to step up their investment levels, according to the report. On the other hand, it also states that there has been no evidence that banks have been forced to tighten credit due to bad loans to oil and gas producers.

Shale Industry Still Critical to U.S. Economy

While this may sound gloomy initially, it also highlights the important role the oil industry plays in the U.S. economy and the positive benefits the shale boom has provided.

“It is readily apparent that without the shale oil boom, the response of the U.S. economy to the recent oil price decline would have been different, if only because of the lower share of oil and gas extraction in GDP. Going forward, one question of obvious policy interest is whether higher investment in the oil sector could help offset the contractionary effect on private consumption of a future recovery of the real price of oil,” reads the report’s conclusion.

In short, the key question is whether the effects of higher investment in the industry will outweigh the negative effects on the economy under an environment of higher prices.

The paper further mentions that in the current environment, persistently higher forecasted oil prices are not required in order for new investments in shale oil to be made, specifically citing the speediness with which unconventional shale oil producers are able to respond to price changes when compared with conventional oil production. More and more companies are attaining 18-month payoff periods and able to hedge significant parts of their production due to steeper decline curves.

The willingness of financial institutions to finance these investments is the big if, of course, although choice assets such in the Permian have had no trouble getting financing from banks or private equity.

Echoes of ’86?

With regards to economic impact, the paper further argues that the current downturn in oil-prices is highly reminiscent of the 1986 decline, which also saw a boost to consumption offset by a decline in oil investment. Of course, oil prices didn’t fall as much in ‘86, meaning E&Ps took less of a hit, and people spent a larger share of their income on gas, meaning consumers had more room to benefit.

via http://ift.tt/2ddWGQZ Tyler Durden

Obama’s Anti-Profit Crusade Targets Colleges: New at Reason

The Obama administration is targeting for-profit colleges for problems not exclusive to them.

A. Barton Hinkle writes:

There’s no doubt that some for-profit colleges exploit naïve, sometimes poor students who rack up lots of debt with the false promise of a clear flight path to a solid career. But then, why should they be any different? You can say exactly the same about many public and nonprofit private universities—some of whose graduation rates are downright atrocious.

Here in Virginia, Norfolk State University’s is a mere 34 percent. What’s more, scarcely more than half of those students who do graduate end up making more than a high-school graduate does, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s college scorecard. That’s slightly worse than the record for the now-shuttered ITT Technical Institute in Norfolk.

Indeed, according to a recent report from Third Way, “Too Many Public Colleges Are Dropout Factories,” the typical four-year public college has a graduation rate of lower than 50 percent; 36 percent of students make less than $25,000 six years after enrollment; and less than one-sixth of schools with higher-than-average Pell Grant rates have six-year graduation rates over 50 percent.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2cNpdbQ
via IFTTT

The ‘Emerging Art Bubble’ Has Burst

screen-shot-2016-09-19-at-9-42-16-am

Earlier today, Bloomberg published a fascinating article on the collapse of what is known as the “emerging art market.” Namely, a slice of the art world where spraying a canvas with paint from a fire extinguisher had been commanding six figures a pop. Well all of that is now over, and the space has experienced a stunning collapse.

Bloomberg reports:

Art dealer and collector Niels Kantor paid $100,000 two years ago for an abstract canvas by Hugh Scott-Douglas with the idea of quickly reselling it for a tidy profit. Instead, he is returning the 28-year-old artist’s work to the market this week at an 80 percent discount.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/2cpgqQ9
via IFTTT

Anti-Israel Speech on Campus Shouldn’t Be Banned, According to CUNY Investigation

Don't ban the sign. The City University of New York (CUNY) released a report earlier this month, detailing an independent investigation conducted by former federal judge Barbara Jones and former federal prosecutor Paul Schechtman into whether the actions of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) had contributed to an intimidating atmosphere of anti-Semitism and violence on CUNY campuses.

The extensive investigation—spurred by a letter written by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) that claimed SJP’s actions had left Jewish students feeling “harassed, threatened, and even physically unsafe”—has led the authors of the report to conclude that it would be a “mistake” to “blame SJP for any act of anti-Semitism on any CUNY campus,” and rejected calls to ban the pro-Palestinian group.

Noting that many of SJP’s theatrical protest tactics such as “die-ins,” mock checkpoints, and its annual “Israel apartheid week,” constitute protected speech, the authors wrote, “Political speech is often provocative and challenging, but that is why it is vital to university life. If college students are not exposed to views with which they may disagree, their college has short-changed them.”

This is precisely correct, and also leaves room for the university to take a stand against “hate speech,” in the form of condemnation, but not officially sanctioned punishment. Also from the report:

As a public university, CUNY is limited in the ways that it can respond to hate speech, whether the words are anti-Semitic, racist, anti-Muslim, or anti-LGBT. CUNY cannot punish such speech unless it is part of a course of conduct so pervasive or severe that it denies a person’s ability to pursue an education or participate in University life. It cannot mandate civility or sanction isolated derogatory comments. But what CUNY cannot punish, it can still condemn. As a general rule, CUNY’s Administrators and College Presidents have spoken out against anti-Semitic comments. That practice must continue; hate speech must be challenged promptly and forcefully lest it breed.

Earlier this year, the University of California Board of Regents moved to ban “anti-Zionism” as a form of hate speech, and the New York State Senate voted to pass a bill that would defund student groups that so much as encouraged boycotts of certain countries (Israel among them). The bill died, but only because the New York State Assembly failed to vote on it before the legislative session ended.

Pointing out the absurdity and seemingly arbitrary nature of a law that would ban college students from expressing themselves politically about some countries but not others, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) created the handy info-graphic below. FIRE’s Adam Steinbaugh notes that because of the language of the bill, the Vatican, Sweden, India, all of Africa, and most of Asia would have been subject to calls for boycotts on-campus, but not Cuba, Pakistan, Venezuela, or Turkey.

Three cheers for unproductive government, because had this bill made it into the Assembly, it would have very likely passed, and free speech on campus would have suffered a staggering defeat.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2cCTGyY
via IFTTT

President Obama Adresses ‘Possible Terrorist’ Bombings In NYC, NJ Allegedly By Man With Muslim Name – Live Feed

Having witnessed Hillary Clinton agreeing with Donald Trump’s call for “tough vetting,” before softball questions throwing him (and the Russians, somehow?) under the bus as responsible for inciting the bombings this weekend, we cannot wait to hear from President Obama as he desperately skirts the facts that someone created and set off numerous IEDs in populated areas (define terrorism) and that someone with a Muslim-sound name may (or may not) be responsible.

Clinton’s earlier comments…

*CLINTON SAYS SHE SUPPORTS ‘TOUGH VETTING’
*CLINTON: U.S. HAS MILLIONS OF PEACEFUL LAW-ABIDING MUSLIMS
*CLINTON SAYS ‘WE WILL NOT TURN ON EACH OTHER’ FIGHTING TERROR
*CLINTON SAYS LONE-WOLF PROBLEM DESERVES MORE TIME, RESOURCES

And finally, Hillary Clinton’s earlier jabs included her noting that Trump has been used online in ISIS recruting ads (so it’s his fault), and “Trump’s secret ISIS plan is that he has no plan;” which seems ironic since her and Obama’s ‘non-secret’ ISIS plan is bringing terrorism home at its fastest pace in history…

Live Feed (due to speak at 11:30ET):

via http://ift.tt/2d5VDDQ Tyler Durden

Syrian Ceasefire Near Collapse After Assad Slams “Naked American Aggression”

Barely a week into the latest “hard fought” Syrian ceasefire brokered by the United States and Russia last weekend, the deal seemed on the verge of collapse on Monday as a rebel official said it had practically failed and signaled insurgents were preparing for a full resumption of fighting. Already widely violated since it took effect a week ago, the ceasefire came under added strain at the weekend when Russia said jets from the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State killed at least 62 Syrian soldiers in eastern Syria.

Then, adding fuel to the fire, moments ago, the Assad administration again lashed out at the US-coalition when Assad said the “confused” American attack on Syrian soldiers which killed 62 as previously reported, was a “naked American aggression.”

“Increased state support for terrorists hostile to Syria has recently presented itself in the form of naked American aggression against one of the Syrian army positions in Deir ez-Zor in favor of the interests of the [Daesh jihadist group],” Assad said, as quoted by the Syrian presidency’s Twitter account, hosting a senior Iranian diplomat. He added that “countries hostile to Syria increase their support for terrorism as Syria succeeds in liberating territories and signing ceasefire agreements.”

As previously reported on Saturday, the US Central Command said that the Syrian forces were mistaken for Daesh terrorists, in response to which Russia accused the US of “defending ISIS.” Australia, Denmark and the United Kingdom have confirmed their participation in the airstrikes in Deir ez-Zor. Assad emphasized the importance of support provided by Russia and Iran during Syria’s war against terrorism.

The United States relayed “regret” about the unintentional loss of life. The Danish defense minister said on Monday “more credible sources” were needed before he could draw conclusions. “I don’t want to explore different scenarios until we are certain, that we have even hit Syrian soldiers,” Minister of Defense Peter Christensen told local news agency Ritzau. “So far it’s only a Russian report. I think we need others and more credible sources, before I conclude anything.”

Going back to the ceasefire agreement that was triumphantly announced by John Kerry last Friday night in Geneva, Reuters notes that while the agreement has led to a significant reduction in fighting over the past week, violence has been increasing in recent days, and a planned delivery of humanitarian aid to besieged rebel-held districts of eastern Aleppo – one of the first steps in the deal – has been repeatedly postponed.

Plans to evacuate several hundred rebels from the last opposition-held district of Homs city have also overshadowed the agreement, with rebels saying it would amount to the government declaring the ceasefire over. The Homs governor said the plan had been postponed from Monday to Tuesday.

* * *

Making matters worse, the Russian General Staff said Monday that US-backed Syrian rebels have not separated from terrorists, but united with al-Nusra Front and are preparing for an offensive. According to the Russian military, the only parties adhering to the truce are Moscow and the Syrian government forces, while the United States and opposition groups it controls have not fulfilled a single obligation according to the Russia-US agreement, the General Staff said.

“The United States and so-called moderate opposition groups under its control have not fulfilled a single commitment taken on under the Geneva agreements. Above all, the moderate opposition has not been separated from al-Nusra Front [also known as Jabhat Fatah al Sham],” Lt. Gen. Sergei Rudskoy said at a briefing.

Syrian opposition forces violated the truce more than 300 times since the ceasefire came into force, killing 153 Syrian personnel and 63 civilians, the Russian General Staff said.

“In the provinces of Aleppo and Hama, opposition units used the ceasefire to regroup, get more ammunition and prepare for an offensive to capture more territories, while the Syrian troops have ceased combat operations,” Lt. Gen. Vladimir Savchenko said.

“The joint US-Russian statement on the cessation of hostilities in Syria reached on February 22, 2016 says that our states ‘will also work together…to delineate the territory held by Daesh, al-Nusra Front and other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council.’ Unfortunately, our US colleagues still have not made any real steps in this direction,” the Russian Defense Ministry said.

“In the past 24 hours alone, the number of shelling attacks by militant groups reached 53 episodes. The cessation of hostilities regime has been violated a total of 302 times since it came into effect. During this period, 63 civilians died and 252 were injured, Syrian armed forces lost 153 service members,” Lt. Gen. Sergei Rudskoy, the head of the Russian Chief of the General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate, said.

As a reminder, several months ago, in a loudly ridiculed development, the US said it would boost its support for the “moderate Syrian opposition” when it announced, rather comically, that it would sever its ties with the al-Qaeda linked al-Nusra front.

The Russian General Staff also added that it suspects the US of attempts to create such a situation in Syria to accuse Moscow and Damascus of disrupting the delivery of humanitarian aid. The issue of providing humanitarian access to besieged areas of Aleppo has also not been resolved, Rudskoy added, stressing that opposition fighters have failed to adhere to the agreement and to set up a checkpoint to allow aid convoys to pass through safely. “Armed groups under US control have not set up a checkpoint in the eastern part of the Castello road [north of Aleppo] and have not handed it over to the Syrian Arab Red Crescent. Fighters, weapons and equipment have not been withdrawn from Castello.”

Meanwhile, U.N. officials have blamed Damascus for blocking aid deliveries to other besieged, rebel-held areas.

Perhaps as a result of the deteriorating “deal” conditions, the Syrian army had yet to announce any extension of the seven-day ceasefire it declared on Sept. 12, which was due to expire at 11:59 p.m. (2059 GMT) on Sunday, according to the statement issued by the army command when the truce was announced.

* * *

As Reuters adds, the Syrian government and its allies have mostly focused their firepower on western areas of the country that are of greatest significance to Assad, including the main cities of Damascus, Homs, Hama, Latakia, Tartous and Aleppo.

The planned evacuation of several hundred rebels from the last opposition-held district of Homs, al-Waer, has also endangered the deal. Rebels said that plan would amount to the government declaring the truce over.

The Homs governor Talal Barazi said the evacuation had been postponed due to “logistical obstacles”, and negotiating committees were completing the preparations, state TV reported. He told journalists it would take place on Tuesday morning. Barazi said on Sunday that between 250 to 300 rebels were due to be evacuated from Waer, on Monday. The opposition say such evacuations are part of a government strategy to forcibly displace its opponents after years of siege and bombardment. The government has been seeking to conclude local agreements with rebels in besieged areas to give them safe passage to the insurgent stronghold of Idlib in northwestern Syria.

In any case, absent some dramatic change in the negative sentiment to have emerged between the fighting factions and their proxy supporters, the deal appears to be largely finished. A collapse of the ceasefire, a major project of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, could doom any chance of the administration of President Barack Obama negotiating a breakthrough on Syria before it leaves office in January.

via http://ift.tt/2cyaAct Tyler Durden