America's assistant principal

It is difficult to believe that President Obama rose from the ranks of the non-judgmental left. Like a high school assistant principal, he is constantly reminding America that there is only one adult here and we won't see his or her reflection in our bathroom mirror. Like selfish, inconsiderate and undisciplined children, we are screwing up his school /country.

In remarks about the oil disaster in the Gulf, the President made yet an another unnecessary foray into condescension. There were three CEO' s testifying in front of the latest congressional dog and pony show. Why these individuals were busy being flayed by Congress instead of guiding their companies at this critical moment is beyond me. Is the country somehow better served if they are all busy in Washington acting contrite.

To play devil's advocate for these CEO's, who are, in fact engineers; they may have a significant role to play in the repair effort going on in the Gulf. If the buck stops at their door, they may be needed somewhere other than the hot seat. Regarding their individual culpability, we don't actually yet know if anyone is guilty of negligence or recklessness. We don't know if we are dealing with human error, design flaw, criminal mischief, inept regulatory oversight or reckless disregard. If one or two or all of the parties are less than causally responsible, why should they not defend themselves.

Without evidence to the contrary, I think we can assume this much. None of the parties intentionally endangered the lives of their own employees or put the financial health of their companies, the livelihoods of their customers and the environment at risk by design. Bad decisions are a part of life. Even negligence can be benign or malicious.

The condescending tone President Obama adopts in his public statements occur too often to be anything other than calculated. A brief review of presidential highlights reminds us that no one has a lower opinion of the American people than their president. He finds the Tea party participants amusing and ungrateful. He admonished a Fox anchor twice in a single interview for interrupting him. He was tactless and arrogant during the health care summit.

He will not "abide" those who seek to misinform the public about health care. He thinks there is a point "when you have made enough money." His tendency to generalize has questioned the motives of mortgage lenders, Wall Street bankers, Arizona voters, Republicans and the Bush administration. And then there are those who "get bitter, cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Mind you, I am not defending anyone in particular. I do believe that much of the harm that is visited on our country occurs without design or intent. Much occurs because the citizens are no more skilled or compassionate or far-sighted than their counterparts in government. Private institutions recklessly carry inadequate capital reserves, much like Social Security, Medicare and federal housing lenders.

The president said in his first appearance before Congress that he was humbled by the responsibility. I believe that he meant it then. In the succeeding months, it seems that the president has overcome his humility and reached the limits of his patience with many of us. It would serve him well to remember that while he occupies a position of great responsibility, his stock in the country is the same as every other American.

I went to a Jesuit High School, a good training ground for living in Obama's America. Deep down inside, I knew that our crabby and taciturn assistant principal really liked us. I don't get the sense that the president likes many of us. It would make his job easier if he did.

In his leadership seminars and books, John Wooden notes that leaders say "Lets go" not "Get going" The point merits some presidential pondering.

Washington needs literacy initiative

Eric Holder made what should have been a remarkable admission on Thursday. He has not yet read the Arizona law that he has already publicly denounced. In addition, he had speculated on the record about a forthcoming legal challenge. Both actions could be construed as premature. Maybe he read the Cliffnotes.

Last year, several representatives acknowledged that they hadn't read the stimulus bill, then under consideration. Similar inferences can reasonably be drawn regarding congressional familiarity with the recent health care bill.

At recent hearings about financial reform, it was apparent that some legislators knew less about credit default swaps and synthetic CDO's than I know. It was equally clear that one member did not really understand elements of the very transaction that had provoked his outrage.

In the aftermath of last year's stimulus bill, Sen. Christopher Dodd had to publicly acknowledge that he, himself, inserted 'grandfather clause' language concerning bonuses. (The language was subsequently used to guarantee bonuses at AIG after the company's financial collapse and government rescue) Unlike officials who are unaware of detail because they haven't read the relevant material, Dodd had previously denied to CNN, knowledge of his involvement with material that he personally authored. In a curious aside, he was later able to remember precisely why he inserted the specific language that he denied authorship of.

How is it that that the Attorney General can take issue with and threaten legal action in response to legislation that he has not read? How does a legislator choose whether to vote for or against a bill that he or she has not read? Is it possible for a congressman to make a meaningful contribution to financial regulatory reform without being conversant in the most basic vocabulary attached to the issue? If an elected representative is going to contribute language to legislation, should he not demonstrate a clear understanding of the precipitating events.

These questions require either that the parties read, research and understand the issues or explain how their Edgar Cayce-like intuition steers them unerringly to to right conclusion without even a hint of study. At least Cayce justified his intuition. He acquired it in a trance. Where did Holder develop his strongly held convictions? Did his concern come to him in a dream or was it just issued to him?

Now, if I were a cynical person, I might think the explanation transcended the paranormal. I might think it was about politics.

Students, routinely, are assigned homework. Read pages 122-146 in the textbook. Their knowledge is subsequently measured with a test. The test measures familiarity with the content. Students do not just vote aye or nay on the assignment.

Here's a test that you might like to try on your legislator. All the questions can be answered yes or no. Did you read the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act?, or the Restoring American Financial Stability Act? If your legislator answers yes, feel free to ask followup questions.

Washington desperately needs a literacy initiative for elected officials and political appointees. Your assignment is to read the bill you are voting on this Wednesday or discussing on Meet the Press next Sunday. The mainstream media would have you believe that most citizens are typically uninformed and disinterested. I attended two of the health care townhalls. It was evident that many of the attendees had more than a passing familiarity with the current versions of the legislation. At one of those meetings, it was equally clear that the elected official did not.

I'm sure that Eric Holder is a busy guy. At the same time, it is clear that the anchors and legal analysts at CNN and Fox had tainted themselves with actual knowledge of the Arizona law's content. Public officials take advantage of the media forums afforded to them by virtue of their position. They should come armed with more than just a feeling.