be careful what you vote for

ABC News and Garance Franke-Ruta of the Atlantic have made a useful discovery: the resolution passed by the Senate condemning the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans was worded to suggest that demonstrations led to the attacks. The measure also failed to label the attackers terrorists or extremists. Since the resolution passed unanimously, perhaps those Senators who have been sharply criticizing the comments of Ambassador Susan Rice should revise and extend their own remarks.

treaty defeat

For only the fourth time since before World War II,the Senate today defeated a treaty, the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, by a vote of 61-38, five votes short of the required 2/3 vote. Opponents claimed that the measure would somehow interfere with home schooling of disabled children, while supporters argued that the agreement created no rules beyond current U.S. law.

It's a shame that Tea Party know-nothingism has infected so many Senators.

crime and punishment on Capitol Hill

Until now Speaker John Boehner has refused to punish Republican dissenters from the party line. This week, however, he exiled several members from key committees, apparently because they had voted the wrong way too often.  One consequence, I suspect, is that this strengthens Boehner's hand in passing whatever he might agree to with Obama on fiscal policy.

the story behind the Benghazi talking points

The Wall Street Journal has a long story -- the hour-by-hour account that journalists call the "tick tock" -- describing how the CIA and later other organizations coordinated and ultimately agreed on unclassified talking points regarding the Benghazi attacks. Its most significant conclusion is:

No evidence has so far emerged that the White House interfered to tone down the public intelligence assessment, despite the attention the charge has received.

The story is a typical one illustrating bureaucratic politics, the way each agency has different perspectives on common problems and how they act to defend and protect their own interests. There are no bad guys in the story, no coverups, just different people trying to do their jobs.

China's interagency tangle

Whatever problems the U.S. government has in getting its act together, China has even greater ones.

Consider these facts from the Economist:

• There has been no foreign affairs specialist in the 25-member Politburo since 2002.
• The Ministry of Defense lacks command authority over China's armed forces.
• There is a profound lack of coordination between the foreign ministry and the military.
• Eleven government agencies assert various authorities over matters related to the disputed islands in the South China Sea.
• Many heads of State Owned Enterprises outrank local party and government leaders and thus can ignore their orders.

If China is going to play a responsible role in world affairs, and especially if it is going to avoid stupid mistakes and avoidable escalation into military confrontations, it needs to develop mechanisms and processes to coordinate decisions and monitor government actions. 

post-partisanship

American politics remains caught in a hyperpartisan gridlock. We keep fighting many of the same old fights while the new problems and issues get ignored.

There's real wisdom in a quote from Republican campaign operative Ken Mehlman resurrected by Joshua Green:

“If you look back over the last few decades, an era of politics has run its course,” Mehlman told me at the time. “Both parties achieved some of their highest goals. Democrats got civil rights, women’s rights, the New Deal, and recognition of the need for a cleaner environment. Republicans got the defeat of the Soviet Union, less violent crime, lower tax rates, and welfare reform. The public agrees on this. So the issues now become: How do you deal with the terrorist threat? How do you deal with the retirement of the baby boomers? How do you deliver health care with people changing jobs? How do you make sure America retains its economic strength with the rise of China and India? How that plays out is something we don’t know yet.”

Mehlman's questions are the ones the politicians should be dealing with, and their answers need to go beyond the shopworn formulas of "tax the rich," "slash government spending," and "let the market decide."

pedants' revolt

English teachers across America are resisting the new Common Core Standards for elementary and secondary schools because they require half the readings to be nonfiction. I like the new standards. I think students should read more and write more, but they need to go beyond "literature" if they are to develop critical thinking skills. I also like it when students have to memorize poems and recite then aloud. But that doesn't help them to dissect an argument for a new environmental regulation or comprehend instructions for filling out a government form.

Nonfiction doesn't have to be boring. There are exciting history books, biographies, travel and science books, even policy books advocating different approaches to deal with poverty or climate change or internet technology. Even speeches in Congress now score at the junior high school level. Read 'em and weep.

UPDATE: Here is more information on those standards and a sample reading list. Any objections?