How black girls die in America: The outrage of the Renisha McBride shooting

SALON, FRIDAY, NOV 8, 2013 01:40 PM EST

How black girls die in America: The outrage of the Renisha McBride shooting

In the wake of senseless deaths, do we raise a generation of black children to be paranoid? Do we dare not to?

ROXANE GAY

Demonstrators protest the killing of 19-year-old Renisha McBride outside Dearborn Heights Police Station in Dearborn Heights, Michigan November 7, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Joshua Lott)

Seven-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones was shot and killed during a police raid in Detroit in May 2010. In an article about the incident, Charlie LeDuff spoke to Chief Medical Examiner Cal Schmidt who said, “You might say that the homicide of Aiyana is the natural conclusion to the disease from which she suffered … The psychopathology of growing up in Detroit. Some people are doomed from birth because their environment is so toxic.”

This is how we think about Detroit, the once grand city that has fallen into urban decay, abandoned and given over to violence, a city so toxic that even when a 7-year-old girl dies from a gunshot wound, her cause of death is not the bullet.

Renisha McBride was 19. She was involved in a car accident and went to a house, seeking help. It was the middle of the night. She was shot in the head by a white man with a 12-gauge shotgun. He has not been arrested because, like Florida, Michigan is a “stand your ground” state.

Meanwhile, in Florida, Marissa Alexander is awaiting a new trial. During the original prosecution, Alexander was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a shot as a warning to her abusive husband. Florida is a “stand your ground” state. Marissa Alexander was standing her ground but the rules were different for her.

Meanwhile, in Florida, George Zimmerman was acquitted for the murder of Trayvon Martin, who was 17. Zimmerman’s defense team successfully used the “stand your ground” law to absolve their client in the eyes of the law.

Apparently “stand your ground” is only successfully invoked when people stand their ground against unarmed black teenagers.

Increasingly, we are faced with a horrifying truth. The environment in the United States is toxic for black people. There are exceptions, certainly, but Aiyana Stanley-Jones was murdered in her own home, by law enforcement. Trayvon Martin was murdered while walking home from a convenience store. Renisha McBride thought, like any reasonable person, that she could ask a stranger for help.

I want to be able to say something meaningful about all this but these are circumstances beyond words. These incidents, and so many others, are painful reminders about the value of black life. How do we bring black children into this world? How do we prepare them for a reality where they are in danger in their own homes, and when walking home from the store, and when driving, and when walking through the streets of New York, and when trying to ask for help? Do we raise a generation of children to be fearful and paranoid? Do we dare not to?

Last night, near midnight, I was driving out of the airport in South Florida when I came upon two cars — a minivan flipped over, mangled, and a truck on the median, the hood crushed, smoke filling the cab interior — the immediate aftermath of an accident. There was gas pooling in front of the minivan. A young black man in the car ahead of me pulled over and ran to help. He started shouting, “Help me. I need help to get this man out of this car.” I paused for a moment, trying to make sense of the scene, then pulled my rental car over. There was an older white man trapped, bleeding, talking — clearly in shock but lucid enough. He kept saying, “It wasn’t my fault.” The other driver stood, mutely, next to his truck. I think he was in shock, too. Three other cars stopped. Two of the young women who came to help were nurses — one white and one Latina. We needed a knife because the trapped man couldn’t unbuckle his seat belt. One of the young women asked her boyfriend, a tall, rangy guy sporting a mullet if he had his knife and he did. He ran to his truck to get it.

Several of us had called 911 and most of us were put on hold. Having watched a great deal of televised medical drama, I offered that perhaps we shouldn’t move the guy because of potential neck and spinal injuries, but one of the nurses explained something about all the blood rushing to the guy’s head and said other smart-sounding medical things. Before long, the tall, rangy guy was using his knife to cut through the seat belt. One of the nurses was telling the trapped guy, “Just breathe, honey.” A couple of us were holding the guy in place so he wouldn’t fall in on himself when he was finally cut free. A police officer finally showed up and took the lead. A group of us pulled the guy free and helped him to the curb. He said, “I’m fine, I’m fine.” He wasn’t. There was a huge gash on his forearm. His head was bleeding. The officer said, “I believe you are but why don’t you just sit here until the paramedics get here?” The nurses tended to him as best they could while we waited.

For a while after the man was free, we just stood around, the adrenaline ebbing. More police showed up, as did the paramedics. I noticed that we were a group of people of different races and ethnicities but we were also human. Individually, we saw someone who needed help and individually we stopped and together we helped. In the wake of so much terrible news, I needed that reminder that people can be as good as they are terrible. And still, all I know today is that a young woman is dead. Her name is Renisha McBride. May her name forever be on our lips. May outrage over her senseless death be forever in our hearts.

Roxane Gay's writing has appeared in Best American Short Stories 2012, Oxford American, the Rumpus, the Wall Street Journal and many other publications

MORE ROXANE GAY.

Manhattan Institute pundit vouches for Sotomayor's position on appeals courts

MANHATTAN INSTITUTE CONSULTANT VOUCHES FOR CONTEXT IN SOTOMAYOR'S STATEMENT ON PBS NEWS HOUR, May 26, 2009

Perhaps the leading talking point that the right wing pundits are using against Judge Sonia Sotomayor, is the charge that her statement on federal appeals courts and policy. The right, whom we can suspect will include Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News in general, have been calling attention to a YouTube video in which Judge Sotomayor, at an academic conference, says that appeals courts are where "policy is made."

Yet, James Copland of the conservative, economic libertarian-minded New York City-based think tank, the Manhattan Institute, demonstrated intellectual integrity in properly putting the appeal court role in perspective.
From PBS News Hour, May 26, 2009:

JAMES COPLAND: Well, I'm largely satisfied with the answer on the sort of the Second Circuit or the Circuit Courts make policy answer. I think it was a bit of a misstatement, but I do think that it's, in fact, the case that the law of the land is largely determined by the appellate courts.

The Supreme Court takes a very small number of cases, and the Circuit Courts actually sort of set the law out there that's followed by all the trial court judges in the country. So I don't find that particularly objectionable.

Another point that Copland made, as well as the readily-posed to strike conservative opinion molders on cable TV and talk radio is the charge that President Barack Obama nominated her for justice, on the basis of her gender and her ethnicity.

Copland said that this nomination was "demographic selection." But Judge Sotomayor has a stellar resume. She had high honors in college and in law school. While studying at Yale Law School she was the editor of the Yale Law Journal.
In addition to serving in federal court she has recently also served as a part-time law lecturer and Columbia Law School since 1999. She has also performed similar law instruction work at New York University Law School.

Think of the numerous white male nominees that have successfully made their way into the Supreme Court. --nominees that often had less stellar credentials than Sotomayor. Where was the outcry when the Court was entirely white male (save for Marshall, O'Connor or Thomas)? When we have a top notch nominee, why not have a nominee whose selection is a corrective measure, diluting the dominance of males? Women are half of society; so shouldn't it be fitting that the Court have women as at least two of its nine members? Latinos are the second largest minority. Where is the outrage in choosing a highly qualified judge that happens to be a Latina?

Justices Scalia and Alito have Italian-American heritage and are Roman Catholic in their religious orientation. Thus they come from two groups that are heavily sought after group by the two political parties. If people are going to have outrage over Sotomayor and her Latina background, they are being disingenuous if they do not express the same outrage in Republican presidents' selecting two Italian-American Catholics for justice.

NYT's silence on McCain's Ayers: G. Gordon Liddy, John Singlaub

Yesterday "The New York Times" gave front page coverage to Barack Obama's association with 1960s radical William Ayers.
(This is a shaky accusation. As Obama this Times story says, "[T]he two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'")
Yet, the Times story did not reveal anything new, neither did the Wall Street Journal in a similar editorial last week, as "The Washington Monthly" online edition noted yesterday.
So, to stress the point again: Obama had no friendship with Ayers. Unfortunately, the net effect in the last 24 hours has been to lend renewed credence to this smear story. Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has cited the story in an effort to link Obama to Ayers and Ayers' radical Weatherman politics.

Why doesn't "The New York Times" give attention to the truly friendly relationship with the disgusting right-wing extremist G. Gordon Liddy?
To refresh your memory, Liddy was a burglar in the Watergate scandal, breaking into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's office.
John McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show and has expressed friendly comments to him.
These points are succinctly addressed by Cenk Uygur of Young Turks [a daily youtube Internet TV show], discussing McCain’s association with Liddy.
Back to Liddy, MediaMatters issued the equivalent of an online press release yesterday:

“Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis.”

MediaMatters went on to appeal readers to send letters asking "The New York Times" to give attention to McCain's relationship with Liddy.

Back in 1994, in the milieu of the early 1990s far-right Militiamen opposition to the federal government (remember, the people that feared "black helicopters"?), Liddy fed into the anti-federal-government hate with the following comment after the raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches." --courtesy of Steve Chapman of "The Chicago Tribune"
But let's get to the core of the McCain-Liddy relationship, clearly deeper than that between Obama and Ayers, again citing Chapman's column:

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?

A DEMOCRATIC RAPID RESPONSE ON MCCAIN'S EXTREMIST ASSOCIATIONS
Let's be frank: When pushed in a corner, with presidential candidates having bad policies and weak poll ratings, the Republican campaign machines routinely pull an October smear. Ayles did this in 1988 with the Willie Horton smear against Michael Dukakis.
We cannot afford to let the Republicans off the hook with the Ayers smear. The Democrats' rapid response to the McCain campaign's use of Ayers should involve close scrutiny of McCain's associations with politically disreputable people.
On "Meet the Press" Paul Begala gave us a tip to more extremist association trouble for McCain,

And I think Governor Palin here is making a strategic mistake [in citing Ayers]. This guilt by association path is going to be trouble ultimately for the McCain campaign. You know, you can go back, I have written a book about McCain, I had a dozen researchers go through him, I didn’t even put this in the book. But John McCain sat on the board of a very right-wing organization, it was the U.S. Council for World Freedom, it was chaired by a guy named John Singlaub, who wound up involved in the Iran contra scandal. It was an ultra conservative, right-wing group. The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981 when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League – the parent organization – which ADL said “has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.”

Now, that's not John McCain, I don't think he is that. But you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain’s record better than Governor Palin. And he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face.

The Republicans will use the Ayers connection in crucial swing states. Expect powerful, late October television ads in select states. Bloggers and viral video makers at YouTube should broadcast the McCain connections to Liddy, the U.S. Council for Freedom and John K. Singlaub. McCain sat on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom as indicated at this site. (The U.S. Council for World Freedom was the U.S. affiliate of the World Anti-Communist League. The Council was founded by John Singlaub, who was an army general, highly decorated for his actions in World War II. He was famous for his public criticism of President Jimmy Carter's 1977 proposal to gradually withdraw 32,000 U.S. troops from South Korea. Carter dismissed Singlaub from duty for his public opposition to the withdrawal proposal.)
"Time" magazine reported on October 27, 1986 that the Council supplied funds for the Contras. (The Contras waged a civil war against the Sandanista government of Nicaragua throughout the 1980s.)
Now, as Begala counseled, I am not suggesting that McCain is of the same stripe as those with whom he associated. Yet there are questions that progressives and journalists should ask: How else did the Council (or "USCWF" for short) support military and civilian efforts at destabilizing governments in the 1980s? Were illegal or unethical actions being planned or discussed at the Council when McCain present for those meetings? Did McCain oppose or otherwise respond to unethical plans of action? As these questions bear on McCain's attitude toward policy and his possible knowledge of illegal or unethical doings, this are substantive questions to pose, as contrasted the the sheer guilt-by-association quality of the Ayers canard.
As Singlaub was the founder and one-time president of the Council, it is plausible that the organization took stands or actions encouraging destabilization of governments during meetings at which McCain attended. He is on record as supporting the low intensity warfare in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s.
He spoke publicly on his desire to actively wage an anti-Communist crusade:

"I am convinced that our struggle with Communism is not a spectator sport. as a result of that view, we have opted for the court of action which calls for the provision of support and assistance to those who are actively resisting the Soviet supported intrusion into Africa, Asia and North America. The geographic regions of WACL must not only provide support to the freedom fighters who are engaged in combat in their own region, but they must develop plans of action to support the resistance movements in other regions of the world."

Furthermore, we should ask, what are the range of actions that McCain suggests his proposed League of Democracies take? Is this League putting a euphemism on more government destabilization in the mold of the Contras and the Iraq invasion?

Again, why don't "The New York Times" or other major media outlets give attention to McCain and his connections to Liddy, USCWF and Singlaub? If Ayers is reappearing in the news, it is only fair that the Liddy and USCWF/Singlaub connections receive media attention. If Palin, Karl Rove, and company are exploiting the Ayers issue, then Democrats ought to at least publicize McCain's controversial political affiliations.

Superb skewering of media double standards against Obama's candidacy and qualifications

As we are in the age of e-mailed political broadsides, here's one for the campaign. It cogently addresses the gross partisan media biases for John McCain / Sarah Palin and against Barack Obama. He has been bearing a cross of double standards and tough scrutiny that is unbalanced in comparison to the media's treatment of his opponents.
The media is uncanny in repeating the positive spin on Palin's quirkier points. This piece deserves broad dissemination in e-mails.

If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."
Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers: a quintessential American story.

If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
Name your kids Willow, Trig, and Track: you're a maverick.

Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating: you're well grounded.

If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
If your total resume is: local weatherwoman (sportscaster), 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with fewer than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DUI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
OK, much clearer now.

There you go. Fire away on your email messages.

The unbearably light qualifications of Sarah Palin

Sarah who? Let's see how the right wingers and their pundit friends in the mainstream media make excuses or other justifications for John McCain's vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska.

The core of their critique against Obama has been his age and his experience. the choice of Palin is acutely hypocritical, as she is 44 years of age, compared to Obama's 47 years. Her experience at major levels of government is thinner than that of Obama's. He had been in the Illinois Senate for eight years and by the end of this year will have been in the U.S. Senate for four years, specifically, since January, 2005. Again, by contrast, Palin's government resume, before assuming the Alaska governorship in December, 2006, consisted of being mayor of Wasilla, what wikipedia contributors gushingly called Alaska's "fastest growing community," population, 8,000. It is a galling double standard for anyone to criticize Obama for his experience and at the same time tout the qualifications of Palin, who just entered the governor's office less than two years ago.

Of course, Democrats cannot become too sanguine over McCain's disastrously clumsy choice. Recall Dan Quayle; his verbal gaffes and his calamitous debate face-off with Lloyd Bentsen led many Democrats to think that he would surely sink George H.W. Bush's 1988 candidacy. We should think again, and not let up on underscoring how the Obama-Biden ticket is more mature, more contemplative and more responsible than this cynical McCain-Palin pairing.

UPDATE: SARAH PALIN, BUCHANANITE
Christopher Hayes of the Nation reminds us today that the Associated Press reported that Sarah Palin was a Pat Buchanan supporter in his presidential bid. The AP reported that she was among Buchanan supporters in a 1999 campaign gathering in Alaska:

"Pat Buchanan brought his conservative message of a smaller government and an America First foreign policy to Fairbanks and Wasilla on Friday as he continued a campaign swing through Alaska. Buchanan's strong message championing states rights resonated with the roughly 85 people gathered for an Interior Republican luncheon in Fairbanks. … Among those sporting Buchanan buttons were Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin and state Sen. Jerry Ward, R-Anchorage."

In an August 29, 2008 appearance on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" Buchanan confirmed that she supported him for president.

Other veteran Republican elected officials must feel insulted by McCain's choice of Palin. Couldn't he have selected a Republican woman who was not a Buchanan supporter? She has zero foreign policy credentials. Couldn't he have selected a Republican woman who has experience and an education in foreign policy? As several pundits and blogs have opined, McCain's choice of Palin is shallow, rank tokenism.

With much of the nation fixated on foreign policy issues, perhaps we should reconsider the tendency to so quickly gravitate towards emphasizing presidential and vice-presidential candidates with gubernatorial experience. An exclusively state level-oriented resume usually indicates far less foreign policy expertise than Senate or U.S. House experience does.

Obama and America's racial integrity; On Obama's age

That is, our electorate's integrity on race will be tested on race.

So far, we have much cause to worry when it comes down to how American voters will treat race. Michele Norris, on PBS' analytical discussions late Monday night of Barack Obama and race, squarely identified a key factor in voters' minds: Obama's race. She squarely noted that many voters are using code words and phrases as foils to express their discomfort with his race. All of this talk about "not knowing him well enough" is bunk; many voters are, frankly, racist. That is, they will not vote for Obama because he is part black. Connie Schultz, of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, also on PBS's convention discussion panels, followed up on Norris' point Monday night, noting her blue collar background, emphasized her conversations with working class voters and many blue collar voters' saying that they will not vote for Obama because of his race. For decades, race has been the great cleavage in American society, dividing the working class. As Schultz pointed out, this great divide has persisted into the current election.

Phrases such as "I don't know him well enough," "I don't feel comfortable enough with him" are mere foils, mere cover for voters' racial anxiety. It is sad that pundits reiterate these phrases, without recognizing the deeper, the essential meaning of these phrases.

I am not arguing that to reject Obama indicates that a voter is racist. Rather, I am arguing that if the only thing that voters can produce is to not know him well enough is cause for not voting for him, then this suggests that it is quite likely that voters are racists and that they are using these phrases as excuses for their racism. There has been ample television coverage of Obama and his personal life. This litmus test of "knowing him personally" is unusual: Americans have known the same or far less about presidential candidates in the past and this did not prevent them from voting for them.

I feel a great uneasiness that this vote is the great litmus test for the American electorate's racial majority. Whether America has moved on, on the issue of race, will be tested on election day. Let's see how the votes come down; let's see what exit polls say and let's see what kinds of questions these exit polls ask.

Do voters want a fairer tax code for humbler classes? Do voters want out from this financial quagmire of a war? Then, they want Obama.
* * *
Here's Patricia Williams of the Nation, addressing the question of language and implicit narrative in the campaign, "Is It Racist to Say Obama's Untested?," in AlterNet, August 21, 2008.

Even Daivd Gergen suggested that McCain is using code words. See Sam Stein, August 3 in the Huffington Post: Gergen: McCain Using Code Words To Attack Obama As "Uppity"

ON OBAMA'S AGE
The issue of age is one of those double standards that Obama is facing. We are forgetting that other presidents have had the same youthful age when assuming office. How often is age cited negatively in assessing John Kennedy's performance? While Kennedy is often noted as the youngest person elected president, Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest person to assume the presidency. He was 42 years, 10 months when he assumed the presidency, following William McKinley's assassination in 1901. His youth was never held against him in analyses of his presidential performance. By contrast, Obama will be 47 years of age on election.

Now, as to government experience, Obama exceeds the experience of Abraham Lincoln. We often remember Lincoln for the Lincoln-Douglas debates for the Senate. Yet, we forget that he lost and did not serve in the Senate. He had served merely two years as a member of the Illinois delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives.