The case of the Trayvon Martin shooting has been a fascinating litmus test of the true commitment of the American public to justice.

Virtually the day after the shooting, the shooter, 28 year old George Zimmerman, was convicted not only of first-degree murder, but of a hate crime motivated by racial hostility and profiling.  His charge, trial and conviction proceeded in the ever infallible court of public opinion, which of course did not grant him the opportunity to defend himself.  Yes, you may remember this incisive judicial body from its past exploits.  It is the same court which supported the hapless invasion and destruction of two countries in the last decade; which supports the death penalty, the Israeli Occupation, and is "equally divided" on marriage apartheid; and which, in its most heinous crime, made Twilight one of the highest grossing films and novels of all time.  This list of course abbreviates the fine accomplishments of the court of public opinion, which are far too many to expound upon fully.  Still, the point is well made: the court of American public opinion always gets it right.

One of the greatest strengths of this court is that it does not bother itself to require "evidence" to support its judgments.  "Evidence" is, after all, generally a buzz-kill; it takes far more effort to analyze and then judge than it does to simply judge right off the bat.  It is thus very unsurprising that the public generally prefers the latter course.  This preference was well demonstrated in the Trayvon Martin shooting.  When George Zimmerman was convicted by the court of public opinion on the charge of racially motivated murder, the court offered no serious evidence to support its judgment.  In fact, the court completely disregarded the most reliable source of all.  The Florida police, who were on the scene in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, let Zimmerman go, concluding that his story of self-defense was plausible after documenting his broken nose and the other injuries he had sustained which were obviously the result of a scuffle.  Now, one may say "that's because the police are racist," but this infantile allegation hardly needs rebuttal, since those making it present no evidence that any cops on the scene were racist whatsoever.  The fact is that Zimmerman was released--perhaps mistakenly--because it did not seem to the Florida police, nor would it to any sensible observer, that the story of unprovoked, racially motivated, cold-blooded murder was supportable when the alleged psychopathic killer is covered in his own blood as a result of what clearly was mutual combat.  

Martin's supporters, led by his grieving mother,  insisted--and continue to insist--that the Martin shooting was racially motivated, cold-blooded murder.  These claims did not need support because the court of public opinion did not demand them, it having already sided with the prosecution.  Zimmerman's claim of having his head smashed by Martin was dismissed as absurd--until a security camera tape clearly showed a  grotesque looking wound on his head when he arrived at the police station the night of the shooting.  Zimmerman's claims of a broken nose were chided--until, on May 16, 2012, evidence reports were released including a doctor's report that Zimmerman's nose was, in fact, broken, and that he sustained other injuries consistent with his story of self-defense.  At every juncture thus far, Zimmerman's claims, and those of his supportive family, have been dismissed by the public, despite the emergence of evidence that may be confirmatory of at least some of his story.

What is truly despicable about all this?  In the United States, criminal justice is supposed to grant a presumption of truth to the claims of defendants, not deride them outright.  The ideals to which Americans claim to be committed--freedom, human rights--are embedded in the American criminal justice system, which requires an extremely high burden of proof be met before any defendant is convicted of a crime and punished by the State.  This system is designed to prevent the abuse of power by governments against their constituencies. 

So, what gives?  In the United States, those accused of crimes should be vociferously defended against all charges, by all people, until such time as evidence is presented in a serious court, presided over by a serious judge, with serious lawyers and a serious jury, that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Is this not what any American would expect upon being accused of a crime?  Ask yourself: would you want to be George Zimmerman--a man who, based on the evidence of his broken nose, head wound and other injuries, may actually have been acting in justifiable self-defense when he shot Trayvon Martin, yet who nonetheless faces the ire of a public that is almost universally persuaded of his guilt?  The answer is obviously no.  Any innocent person accused would expect a fair trial in advance of a judgment of culpability.  Sadly, it seems such expectations would go unheeded in this nation, so long as intellectual infants like Al Sharpton can make the issue about race-relations, absent any evidence to support such categorization.

The point of this tirade is not to suggest that George Zimmerman is innocent.  He may in fact be guilty--he was charged with second-degree murder, which is the most serious charge that could have fairly been brought against him.  The point is this: our criminal justice system is designed to subjectively favor those accused of crimes and not their accusers.  Zimmerman became a despised figure in the eyes of a public that deemed him a racist and a cold-blooded murderer without any compelling evidence for such a judgment and far in advance of a trial where he could adequately defend himself.  This represents a travesty of justice--not only because it will prejudice Zimmerman's right to a fair trial, but because the values Americans tend to stand for were discarded entirely in the process.

Now that more and more evidence is emerging that makes Zimmerman's self-defense claims more plausible, those who were so quick to convict him, posting fatuous diatribes on social media and ranting about race-relations in the press, should apologize.  Zimmerman may not be innocent, but based on the weight of the evidence so far available, he is far from definitely guilty. 

The President Supports Gay Marriage

Voila!  As if anyone did not already know, President Obama supports marriage equality.  There is nothing surprising about a relatively young, brilliant progressive who holds such a basic moral view.  And it is fitting that the first African-American president would also be the first to openly condemn marriage apartheid.  But sadly, as is so often the case in this nation, this positive step forward--and it is an important one--is overshadowed by the realities it reveals.

First, the president's announcement reminds us just how dishonest our political system is.  Obama would have us believe that his views on marriage equality have "evolved."  Yes, a brilliant constitutional law scholar with a deeply personal connection to the scarred legacy of "separate but equal" is trying to convince us that he only recently had an epiphany: "separate but equal" is wrong.  Sure.  If you believe that, I have a timeshare in Key West for you.  It is pretty obvious that the president has always held this view, and was just afraid to come out and say so.

Some may say: well, that's just politics.  To those voices I reply: no, that's cowardice.  It is true that in the current state of affairs one must transform into a Bible-thumping, flag-lapel wearing, military cheer-leading buffoon to get elected.  But  those who are willing to make such a transformation to secure a grip on the throat of power are neither entitled to, nor deserving of, respect.  Morally serious people object to such camouflage of conviction; so should the president.  After all, if no one was willing to wear a disguise to get elected, there might be honesty in politics.  Rather than vie for this--albeit lofty--objective, we content ourselves with lauding the president for revealing to us that, during his campaign and for four years after, he persistently lied about his views on a fundamental issue as a measure of political expediency.  And why?  Because he announced that he supports basic human rights?  It seems striking that such applause should greet such a substantively trivial thing as expression of support for human dignity.  But I suppose that any support for basic human rights is a triumph in an administration which has previously assassinated an American citizen, and which occupies two countries with zero moral or legal justification.

And that leads me to number two.  The second reason the president's announcement is not a cause for celebration: it reminds us just how backwards we are as a society.  That fifty percent of the country is opposed, without a semblance of a rational reason for so being, to the right of people to participate in the most sacred of all social traditions is astonishing.  This same half of the nation will, out of one side of its collective mouth, support the invasion of a country no matter how fatuous the justification, even when it leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of that country's indigenous people--casualties which, unbelievably, go unmentioned in the mainstream press, which typically prefers to note only American casualties.  But gays can't get married.  That's unspeakable.  We have to protect the "definition of marriage."  Whatever that means.  I wonder if the original definition of marriage--the creation of a property right in a woman's body for the use of the property-owner husband--is worthy of protection too?  And while we are protecting definitions, let us address "morality."  The definition of that term is certainly under attack.

So, yes.  It is a historic day.  And Barack Obama deserves credit for having basic moral courage--but not much.  If we are willing to heap praise merely for acting in alignment with basic moral truisms, only one conclusion can follow: we truly are morally bankrupt.