Ugh. This was a good weekend to spend away from politics -- from the typically forced laughter at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, to a gay man apologizing for co-hosting a dinner for Ted Cruz, to the sudden expectation that we have an opinion about Bruce Jenner. Let's clear all of that off the desk and focus on what's new this morning . . . Americans Want an Iran Deal . . . that They Don't Believe Will Work The most interesting numbers in the Quinnipiac national poll this morning: When asked, "Do you think President Obama is a strong supporter of Israel or not?" the survey found 38 percent of registered voters said yes, 48 percent said no. Quinnipiac asked, "As you may know a preliminary agreement was reached in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons. Do you support or oppose this agreement?" The survey found 58 percent of respondents support, 33 percent oppose. At first glance, that's good news for the administration's proposed Iran deal -- er, to the extent the Iranians agree what's actually in the deal, since they're denouncing the White House "fact sheet" summarizing the terms. But the following questions told a different story. The survey asked, "How confident are you that this agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident, or not confident at all?" Quinnipiac found only 4 percent say "very confident," 31 percent say "somewhat confident", 23 percent "not so confident," 39 percent say "not confident at all." So 58 percent of registered voters want the deal, and 62 percent of registered voters aren't so confident about it, meaning some chunk of the electorate is both. What's more, when the pollster asked, "Do you think that [the Cotton] letter will help or hurt White House efforts to peacefully reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities, or won't it make a difference?" only 8 percent said "help," 37 percent said "hurt," 48 percent said "no difference." Unsurprisingly, Americans want to avoid war with Iran. The survey found 13 percent prefer military intervention against Iran's nuclear program; 77 percent prefer a negotiated settlement to reduce its nuclear potential. Asked whether they support or oppose legislation that would make any Iran agreement subject to congressional approval, 65 percent said they supported the legislation, 24 percent opposed it. The Sunni–Shia War, Now Featuring 20-Second Time-Outs The New York Times, Tuesday: Saudi Arabia said Tuesday that it was halting a nearly month-old bombing campaign against a rebel group in neighboring Yemen that has touched off a devastating humanitarian crisis and threatened to ignite a broader regional conflict. The announcement followed what American officials said was pressure applied by the Obama administration for the Saudis and other Sunni Arab nations to end the airstrikes. Look at that! The administration applied pressure, and some countries complied! A diplomatic victory, right? Eh, not really. The New York Times, late Sunday: Warplanes of the Saudi-led military coalition bombed targets in the Yemeni capital on Sunday for the first time since Saudi officials said they were shifting the focus of their campaign against a Yemeni rebel group toward political negotiations and humanitarian relief. In addition to the bombings in Sana, the capital, which struck a military base and the presidential palace, the coalition carried out airstrikes in several other provinces, suggesting a broadening, rather than a scaling back, of the monthlong Saudi air offensive against Houthi rebels. Why are we telling the Saudis to ease up on Iranian-backed rebels again? In This Week's 'Russia Is Not Our Friend' News . . . Also in the Times, Saturday, a story easily overlooked: Some of President Obama's email correspondence was swept up by Russian hackers last year in a breach of the White House's unclassified computer system that was far more intrusive and worrisome than has been publicly acknowledged, according to senior American officials briefed on the investigation . . . While Chinese hacking groups are known for sweeping up vast amounts of commercial and design information, the best Russian hackers tend to hide their tracks better and focus on specific, often political targets. And the hacking happened at a moment of renewed tension with Russia — over its annexation of Crimea, the presence of its forces in Ukraine and its renewed military patrols in Europe, reminiscent of the Cold War. I'm just going to leave this image here:
Meanwhile, in today's Wall Street Journal, we learn that the Export-Import Bank -- you know, funded by U.S. taxpayers, has been giving loan guarantees to a Russian bank: The most egregious example: Ex-Im has given hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed guarantees to the state-owned Russian bank Vnesheconombank (VEB). Ex-Im only recently suspended new deals after the bank was targeted by American sanctions in the past year. VEB has a long and sordid history. Known until 2007 as the Bank for Foreign Economic Affairs of the U.S.S.R., VEB maintains an operating agreement with Russian arms exporter Rosoboronexport "to promote exports of Russian military products and boost their competitive edge in the world market." Rosoboronexport also handles more than 80 percent of Russia's weapon exports. In this capacity, it has become a chief weapons supplier to Bashar Assad's regime in Syria and has supplied advanced missile systems to Iran, according to reporting last year in this newspaper. VEB has said that its practices fully comply with European Union and United Nations sanctions. Americans probably assume that Washington wouldn't use taxpayer money to help a company that supports these regimes. Yet the bank's records indicate that VEB received a $497 million loan guarantee in 2012 and a further $703 million in 2014. Stop funding the Export-Import Bank? Does that go far enough? How we about fire everyone there, empty the offices, demolish the building, and salt the earth? Seattle's War on Non-Composters Hits a Snag Remember Seattle's "Green Police" idea of going through residents' trash and fining them for not composting? Residents are off the hook . . . for now: Residents of Seattle don't have to worry about being fined for not properly recycling. The city announced it is suspending its program to fine people and businesses that do not properly dispose of food waste and compostable products. "Because of the amazing success of this program where we have reached half our goal in just four months, I am suspending . . . all fines," Mayor Ed Murray said Wednesday. The fines were scheduled to begin July 1. Residents would have had to pay $1 if garbage collectors found significant amounts of recyclable and compostable material in containers. Businesses and residential buildings would have faced a $50 fine. The reason for the suspended fines stems from a 71-percent awareness of the new composting law, according to the city. The city has a long-term goal of recycling 60 percent of its waste. In 2013, Seattle diverted 56 percent of its waste away from landfills. That equals more than 407,000 tons of material. The city will continue to educate Seattleites and business owners on how to properly recycle food waste. It will consider implementing fines next year. 
"We're off the clock until next year!" ADDENDA: Our Michael Potemra asks whether Christians should watch Game of Thrones and concludes he "could envision, e.g., someone of a deep Christian faith viewing Game of Thrones as an excellent drama that expresses a fundamental Christian insight into the state of mankind in the absence of divine grace -- and being grateful to God that humanity does not, in actuality, live in such a world." | 
Comments
Post a Comment