THE ROCKFORD UNDERSTANDING
Jim Rockford, well-known television private detective, sits with his female client at his favorite taco stand. A mother and her daughter have died violently in separate incidents within six months of each other. They both died in the same jurisdiction in which only two autopsy surgeons manage the medical examiner’s office. Rockford’s patron, a newspaper reporter, suspects corruption at the office for several reasons but needs Rockford’s investigative skills to help her discover the truth.
Rockford muses to his customer, “What’s the chance both autopsies were done by the same surgeon – 50/50?” “No”, she says. “It’s 50/50 that he does the mother. It’s only 25% probable that he does both mother and daughter.” Rockford straightens with the insight this provides. “Right!” he says.
WITHIN IMPROBABILITY, PROBABLY LIES RACISM
With the nomination of Ms. Loretta Lynch, Mr. Obama has apparently confined his choices of candidates for Attorney General (AG) to certain offices within the Department of Justice (DOJ). Out of the 10,592 employees of the Executive Office of US Attorneys and US Attorneys (DOJ), 58% are female and 14.3% are black. Employing the Rockford Understanding, these statistics can be used to compute the probabilities associated with picking two Attorneys General (AGs) from this DOJ pool, or any subset thereof (e.g., only US District Attorneys), that is chosen without consideration of either gender or race. The underlying presumption of such computations is that talent is not confined by, or to, either race or gender. Our president should have also abided by this presumption.
It should be obvious to the most casual observer that Mr. Obama’s selection of Mr. Holder, followed by his selection of Ms. Lynch, is a case so rare that it would, under unbiased circumstances, occur less often than 5 times in every 1,000 similar scenarios. The only selections more rare would have been for our president to have chosen two black men from these offices of the DOJ as his AGs. If the president’s plan was to further certify his concern for minorities, then he could have easily chosen more probable cases and still have been viewed as a man for women and for blacks. For example, compared to the rare event associated with the demographics of his actual picks, it would have been 50 times more likely that two non-black women would have been selected, and more than 10 times more likely that, having chosen Mr. Holder, he would have then selected a non-black, in race and gender neutral searches within these portions of the DOJ.
WHAT RACISM IS . . . .
The essence of racism is the unjustifiable assignment of characteristics to humans on the basis of their . . . . errrr . . . . . . ahhhhhhh . . . . . skin color.
What is now abundantly clear is that being black is no bar to either incompetent or unethical behavior as AG. Further, one may now correctly claim that all of America’s black AGs have been held in contempt by Congress, while none of America’s non-black AGs has ever been held in contempt by Congress. In addition, being black has not prevented Mr. Holder from displaying an inappropriate personal ethnic and cultural agenda during his six years as a Cabinet Member in this administration. Thus, beyond the establishment of a black legacy of AGs, Mr. Obama’s preference for higher quantities of epidermal melanin in his Department of Justice (DOJ) Cabinet Members does not seem to qualify one in any exceptional way to be a competent, much less ethical or impartial, AG. Then again, neither does being white, brown, red, yellow, etc., – a message the emotionally oversensitive, along with our president, will probably have missed up to this point.
THE CURIOSITY THAT IMPROBABILITY INSPIRES
Mr. Obama’s improbable nomination of Loretta Lynch for AG generates a curiosity regarding Barack’s racial corruption. This interest is closely related to, and as benign as, questioning the nepotistic corruption of a president who nominated his brother for AG.
There is certainly nothing wrong with being a brother (no pun intended). However, in the absence of other curricula vitae, one might legitimately examine what qualifications a sibling might possess in order to be a good AG. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with being black; and there is nothing wrong with being simultaneously black and female. However, in the absence of other curricula vitae, one might legitimately examine what qualifications representatives of two national minorities might possess to be good AGs.
WHY WOULD THE PRESIDENT BE RACIST?
Why, then, would our black president express his apparent preference for black AGs? Practical people will understand that any president would want to ensure that his secrets are kept, his policies are followed, and his opinions are supported by any nominee for whom he seeks Senate approval. However, this only begs the question whether Mr. Obama believes that he must rely on skin pigmentation similar to his own in order to acquire and hold such allegiances. Alternatively, Mr. Obama may have wished that his black AG foster further discussion on race in America, under his presumption that blacks have more credibility in these discussions. Unfortunately, he knew the results of this tactic long before he selected his second black AG.
First, of course, no president should employ selection criteria relative to their Cabinet-level nominees that consider anything other than leadership, ability, and ethical standards. This excludes race and gender as such standards. Second, Congress, in its constitutionally ordained Advice and Consent role, should ensure that candidates who are incompetent, agenda driven, or ethically challenged are not approved for appointment. It’s unlikely that we’ll get highly qualified nominees for AG from a president who is as unable and as unwilling to select competence and ethical behavior over race or gender as this chief executive is. Nevertheless, hope springs enternal that Loretta will be better than Eric. Perhaps, she can learn from recent history. We should all be buoyed, however, by the nincompoop-in-chief’s reaction to Bibi’s lecture to him during the Prime Minister’s speech before Congress this morning. Obama apparently can be shamed as evidenced by his immature reaction to pull his “JV” executive branch team members from the audience today. Perhaps such shame will motivate the president to do a better job at negotiating Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Perhaps such common sense criticism should have been whispered in BO’s ear before he indulged in nation building within Libya, believed the propaganda about ObamaCare being a “big fucking deal”, or thought that another $8 trillion in national debt was acceptable. ` `