Some Observations about the Zimmerman Case

1. Rhetoric can only make assertions regarding the probable

Rhetoric, that is the art of public communication, cannot establish the truth 100% of the time. In fact, at its best rhetoric can demonstrate that one scenario is highly likely and that another is less likely. Many people are upset about the fact that the defense made its case seem more probable and thus won the trial; others have complained that the burden of proof is so high for prosecutors in Florida that it would have been impossible to definitively prove that Zimmerman was guilty. In the end, we have to realize that a high degree of certainty is all that can be achieved (even with forensic evidence). I also think it is a good thing that the prosecution has a higher burden of proof than the defense; after all, the prosecution has the power of the state whereas the defense has only the resources of the defendant. But regardless of what you think of the legal standard of proof, or even the outcome of the trial, you shouldn’t be upset that they were unable to come up with more definitive evidence either way – to some extent that is the nature of forensic and rhetorical investigation. 

2. I would not want to be tried by a jury of my peers

Some of you scare me. I mean, I’m worried that if some of you served on a jury and I was the defendant that you would pay less attention to the material of the case and more attention to how the whole affair made you feel. Are we really so caught up in identifying with Zimmerman and Martin that we cannot step back and take a more objective view of the case at hand? And honestly, this applies to some of you who were happy that Zimmerman got off as well as those who are seething with rage. Jury members, indeed all of us, have an obligation to look past the color of another person’s skin, look at the evidence and try to make a decision about what is most probable based on the facts we know, not what we hypothesize. 

3. This trial would not have happened fifty to one-hundred years ago

If and when a “white” man killed a “black” man in Florida circa 1920, 1930 or 1940 and it wouldn’t even have made the news much less made it to trial. For those of you who are yelling about justice, some historical perspective is wanting. It’s true; we must be ever vigilant that our justice system does not become corrupt, but we should also be happy that there was a trial, that the system processed the case without bias, corruption or bloodshed. 

4. This is not the civil rights moment of the twenty-first century

So many people are comparing this situation to the clearly racially motivated killings of Emit Till and Medgar Evers. Whatever the character of Martin, the intent in this case seems much less clear. Even if you believe Zimmerman profiled Martin, he clearly associated Martin with crime and intended to stop him from committing it in his community. No matter how wrong-headed such a motivation may have been it’s nothing like the killings of Evers and Till who were both killed simply because they were black. At the very least, it’s one step out from outright racism to make the association between black kid in a hoodie and criminal and to kill someone because of their political beliefs or because they whistled at a member of the opposite race. In the cases of Till and Evers, it was about the white majority disciplining the minority. I think it’s really hard to say that Zimmerman was similarly motivated. After all, criminals should be punished, regardless of their race, and the desire to stop crime is clearly a positive motivation, even if it is misdirected at the wrong target. 

5. Some people suffer from moral cowardice

I’ve seen so many people posting about how they don’t want to hear about the Martin/Zimmerman case. These people probably have an opinion but they don’t want to get caught up in controversy – probably because (I hypothesize) they aren’t prepared to defend it. That’s ok, you don’t have to say anything let those of us who can think talk about it and stop moaning about how your newsfeed is out of control. An alternative solution would be for you to mature a little, try to become informed and participate – that’s the nature of citizenship in a democracy. 

6. No one wins

It makes me really sad that I see this issue inflaming race relations in this country. When people on both sides can’t look past race and look at individual people, it says to me that we really haven’t come far enough as a nation. It says even more to me that our leaders can't or aren't willing to do this. My ‘whiteness’ no more defines me than another person’s ‘blackness’ or ‘yellowness’ and until we accept that each individual person is unique and not best identified by their race or gender, we will never really be able to have a rational society.

Edward Snowden Is Not A Very Bad Man

In the wake of the revelation concerning the N.S.A.’s massive data gathering program, acute observers in our nation’s capital will have noted the presence of a bird which, though it once flew majestically along the northeastern shores of the Potomac, has long since been thought extinct: bipartisanship.

Leaders of both parties, from the sun-burnt orange John Boehner to pasty pale Dianne Feinstein, have come out in the defense of the program and consequently in condemnation of the snitch, Edward Snowden. His revelation has variously been labeled ‘an act of treason’ and ‘an act of war,’ among other epithets for actions that are politically inconvenient. Only the venerable Ron Paul, of late political memory, has come out in praise of Snowden (see 5 below).

I write here not to bury the larger issue, but to praise Edward Snowden. 

Snowden’s act was not only necessary, but morally upright for three reasons:

1) Snowden was asked to conceal illegal (or certainly unjust) activity by his employer, breaching his confidentiality agreement.

2) His action was necessary in order for a test case to be brought before the courts

3) His action attempted to return to the people some measure of their sovereignty, which had been usurped by an unjust government. 

 First, it is a well-established principle of our justice system that a confidentiality agreement cannot be enforced in order to require a signatory to conceal illegal activity. While the legality of the N.S.A.’s activity may be in question for some, it seems clear that Snowden acted in good faith to reveal what he believed was an illegal activity making argument which claim that he violated some sort of societal bond of trust less than believable (see 1 below).

Second, it was necessary for Snowden to reveal the existence of the program in order for a test case to be brought before the courts or even for our representatives to take action. Our judiciary (which is beginning to resemble the Court of the Star Chamber circa 1640) has become the toady of the executive branch in many similar cases where judges have agreed to dismiss lawsuits against the government on the grounds that they would endanger “national security” that byword used to justify tyranny. In order to prosecute a case before the court system, it was therefore necessary for Snowden to reveal what he did in order for there to be prima facie evidence so that the case could move forward. The N.S.A.’s subsequent declassification could not have been predicted by Snowden but has helped move such lawsuits forward - see the excellent article (2) about the A.C.L.U.’s lawsuit below.

It also seems apparent that our representatives have been kept in the dark about the N.S.A.'s program despite the judicious questions of some senators (see 3 below). If this is truly the case, this represents an unjustified usurpation of executive prerogative by our government which upsets the balancing power of our legislature. Snowden's revelation then serves as a crucial means of repairing that broken balance of power (see 4 below).

Third, even if we allow that the government’s activity was technically legal (though never just), Snowden’s actions represent the first steps of the process of restoring to the people their natural rights to privacy.  It will not shock anyone to learn that all of the best revolutionaries were accounted traitors from the perspectives of the established governments of their time. I could be obnoxious and give you a long list, but I will confine myself to asking you to find a one-dollar bill. 

Here we come to the meat of the issue: when is it morally appropriate to take action against the established government? I myself prefer the answer given by a physician of the late seventeenth century named John Locke. Locke firmly concludes in his second treatise on government that when “they universally have a persuasion, grounded upon manifest evidence, that designs are carrying on against their liberties, and the general course and tendency of things cannot but give them strong suspicions of the evil intention of their governors” the people are not morally culpable for resisting their government (230). Locke further argues that in such a case, it is not the people who resist illegitimate government that have violated the social contract, but the government which has usurped from the people their rights which is morally culpable.

It seems greatly preferable to me to have resistance carried out in the press than on the battlefield of a civil war. 

Snowden acted in a morally upright fashion. And even if what he did was technically illegal, his is the moral high ground and it is the law that is at fault. 

Roughly six years ago, I attended the release of the seventh Harry Potter book and I recall that there were then two camps wearing slogans about a certain character from those novels named Severus Snape. One group said “Snape is a very bad man” and the other sported stickers declaring “trust snape.” I’m not sure I would apply the latter to anyone whom I didn’t know very much about, but judging by his actions, it seems obvious to me that Edward Snowden is not a “very bad man” but is in fact a brave, courageous and noble one.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitary-leaker.html

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/aclu-files-suit-over-phone-surveillance-program.html?pagewanted=1&smid=fb-nytimes&_r=0

3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/no-plans-to-end-broad-us-surveillance-despite-sharp-backlash-from-foreign-allies-congress/2013/06/10/125a4190-d242-11e2-9577-df9f1c3348f5_story_3.html

4. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/11/in-nsa-leak-case-a-whistle-blower-or-a-criminal/prosecuting-edward-snowden-is-not-the-top-priority

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmt9Y2T5_ow

Casual Sex in a College Town

As my own schedule has loosened up, I have come out from my corner of the library and made my way into the establishments of this city that cater to the more jovial side of human nature. For someone who is naturally reserved, and absolutely devoid of what his contemporaries often refer to as ‘game,’ my sojourn in these establishments has been both informative and disturbing. 

I usually enter these establishments to meet with a group of friends who play chess, but I am not unaware of the real purpose of their existence. I refer of course to the role of bars in enabling young people to negotiate decisions about sex. In using the terms “negotiate” and “decision,” I am really going too far. The process by which most students in this town decide to have sex does not seem to be a carefully thought out one that involves any sort of serious deliberative thinking. 

What, after all, are these things that we walk around in worth? Most of the undergraduate students I encounter treat their bodies as a means to pleasure. Certainly the body is such a means; sex after all is quite enjoyable. But I have always thought that the student body (no pun intended) must be more than a means to pleasure, it must be the instrument of a mind. 

The human body, so conceived, is a means of implementing the decisions of the mind, but so many students treat their bodies (and sex) as a means of escaping the mind. Witness the extent to which sexual escapism is paired with alcoholic escapism.  

I recently encountered a gentleman (to stretch the term) who referred to a woman passing by on the street as his “reserve parachute” by which he meant that if he was unable to secure another ‘fuck’ for the evening, he could always count on her. He would, no doubt, be devastated if he had to spend a night alone.  

Such an attitude toward the sexual function of the human body, on the part of men or women, is entirely wrong. I must hasten to add that men are not the only ones who take this attitude; I have often heard women conspiring to hookup with someone or celebrating their hookups after the fact.

And yet, the functions of the body are not a thing of shame. To revert to some kind of celibacy or abstinence is to deny the body one of its proper functions. But to leave the mind out of the workings of the body is to behave like an animal. 

A proper view of the body, and of sex, begins by viewing the actions of the body (including sex) as an expression of one’s values. When sex is understood in this manner, it is conceived to be a part of a relationship that is built on mutual trust and shared values – not a whimsical thing that one does to avoid being bored of an evening or a game one plays in order to see what one can ‘win.’

Perhaps then, someone would suggest, that one can simply enjoy casual sex in the interim until it will be more convenient to have an involved relationship. 

Leaving aside the question of whether you want to behave like a dignified human being or an elevated species of primate, one cannot continually abuse the mind-body relationship and expect there to be no consequences. 

The consequences are that as long as one is engaged in these casual encounters, one is not really learning anything about one’s mind or that of another person. During this period, the mind becomes stagnated while the individual learns something about their body, which could be learned in a proper context that involved the mind as well.

Let me briefly insert my complaint that so many women play along with this game.* There is nothing less attractive about an encounter to me than the idea of it being over with the next morning. How depressing! I want nothing to do with a single-episode TV show, but with a series that runs into its ninth season. Give me not a thirty second sample on iTunes but a symphony on vinyl. 

I don’t want to moralize too extensively, because I do understand that my personal mission is (in part) to educate minds not scold them, but I will add this small thing. This post grows out of my increasing frustration with the modern university, which I am realizing is not a place for students to develop their minds but is instead a place for them to enjoy their bodies.

If UA is like other universities, college graduates will be conditioned to do the following: 1) Scream their football motto 2) Consume copious amounts of alcohol and 3) To have value-free sex that means nothing in the long run. 

I do not want to live in a world with such people; it is my idea of hell.  I want to live in a world where people make intelligent decisions and where every mind is developed to its fullest capacity.

I really do pity the people who don’t understand that their minds and bodies should function together and engage in blind hedonism to escape the pain of loneliness.

But many more pretend to understand and call themselves ‘men’ and ‘women’ because they have managed to distance their mind’s preferences from their body’s desires and can avoid serious relationships while engaging in causal encounters. If you pretend to have evolved beyond the naïve state of thinking that sex is not meant to be a part of a relationship, you are not a man or a woman, but a boy or a girl, you are not progressing but regressing. Grow up please. 

*I don't want to suggest that women are playing along with a game made by men. All too often, everyone is quite willing, therefore I do not perceive this as a moment to point fingers at the patriarchy. My complaint is in regards to women because I am a heterosexual male of the species.

Compulsory Immunization Resurrects Philosophical Ghosts of the Past

I don’t write about my health, it seems like a very personal topic to me. But when I discovered that I would not be allowed to register for classes in the fall until I received “necessary” immunizations, I became irate.

Who, after all, should be able to decide if immunizations are necessary? Apparently, the University of Alabama thinks itself competent to make that judgment for me.

In a conversation with a senior official at the student Health Center, I was advised that the immunizations required by the University are “fairly common” and that our policy is not unlike the policies of other institutions around the country.

Roughly ninety years ago, the University was in lockstep with the world in requiring “mentally deficient” people to undergo sterilization. And nurses and doctors, like the ones I spoke to when I was coercively injected, were saying “we’re just doing what they tell us to.”

Now, there is a big difference between forced immunization and forced sterilization. Immunization is probably a lot more beneficial to the individual than sterilization is. But both practices are rooted in the same philosophical premises:  1) That a bureaucrat knows what’s best for an individual’s health and 2) That it is justifiable to force someone to undergo medical treatment for the sake of society.

When I spoke with the health official at the Student Health Center, she repeatedly stressed that the immunizations were for the “safety of you” and the “safety of those around you.”

Shouldn’t I be allowed to decide what is safe for me and you what is safe for you? The second issue is not so simple.

When should society be allowed to compel people to receive treatment for the benefit of society? I contend that there is no justification, even in times of emergency, for the use of force (or even coercive tactics) to compel an individual to undergo treatment.

Some of you will say, “but immunization is good for you and others around you.” No doubt that is true, but forcing (or coercing) someone to undergo treatment is inherently wrong. When society begins making decisions about individual people’s health, they are in essence forcing the individual’s conscience, forcing an individual to declare (whether they agree or not) that they need the treatment.

An individual is the only unit of justice or happiness. To declare that justice is being done for society or the overall happiness of society is being improved by forcing someone to undergo treatment is to say that it is the overall happiness that matters more, the overall amount of justice that is important.

When we begin to make such claims, it becomes justice for the dominant public that becomes important, the happiness of the dominant public that matters most. The individual who disagrees does not matter, their concerns can be marginalized in the name of ‘social justice’ or ‘overall happiness.’ 

And in the end, no one is happy and no one receives justice when the happiness of the individual and justice for the individual is not considered.  

When I asked about an exemption based on conscience, I was told I would have to have a “clergy person” write a letter. As an atheist, I found it incredibly demeaning that my conscience should be more or less declared invalid because I do not have a religious leader. This doesn’t just affect me, there are plenty of people out there who are clergy-less, some religions do not even have formal clergy.    

The medical official at the student health center was not prepared to comment on this issue.

All I ask of people in power is that they consider the philosophical basis for their policies. I’m fine getting immunized, I might have gone in willingly in any case. I am not fine with being forced to. And the claim that “those around me” are benefiting does not justify my oppression by dominant norms.

Today, I am not proud to be a student at the University of Alabama. We should have policies that encourage, not coerce, students to become immunized; we should be sensitive to alternate belief systems; and above all we should not use the same justifications for fairly routine immunizations that were once used to forcibly sterilize minorities on this campus.