January 2016 – Abrams Dicta

The invoice for my spring Rotary club dues just arrived, which got me thinking about how odd it sometimes seems to me to be a Rotary member and how much I’ve come to enjoy and value my rotary membership. In case you are unfamiliar, Rotary is an international service organization made up of business and professional leaders who work on projects ranging from worldwide eradication of polio to providing backpacks for disadvantaged schoolchildren in the local community.

I sometimes see myself as a very unlikely Rotary club member, but that’s only when I allow my own preconceived ideas about people to influence my thoughts. Like many people, I get caught upon labels and reduce people to a single dimension. I see myself as a Jewish lefty consumer rights lawyer who comes from a working-class background. My earnings are often at the lowest end of the lawyer pay scale and I’m relatively unknown in the larger legal community. By contrast, many of my fellow Rotarians are quite accomplished and well known in their respective fields. In the legal profession, several come from leading law firms, have high level government jobs, or are sitting judges. We have a retired Air Force general and a Navy admiral. We also have members who are prominent business people who lead major institutions such as hospitals and universities. Some come from privileged backgrounds and were born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths while others, like me, come from very modest or even poor backgrounds. Politically, my fellow Rotarians span the gambit of persuasions from hard-core conservatives to lefty activists who make me look moderate.

Historically, Rotary clubs were male only and often segregated (Rotary has been open to all races since its earliest days, but some clubs were segregated at the local level). However, my club is diverse in terms of both gender and ethnicity. Sure, it’s Tallahassee, and mine is the oldest club in the city, so we’ve got an abundance of the white male old guard members, but I’ve found that whatever history may have existed, the club has evolved and grown into a very tolerant and diverse group of men and women who seek to have a positive impact upon the world and find fellowship within our club.

I’ve really come to appreciate and enjoy being a part of an organization made up of so many people who really do represent “the establishment” despite the fact that I see myself as an anti-establishment sort. It sometimes seems humorous to me that I’m a guy who sues banks and credit unions and I’m in a club with the people who run banks and credit unions. However, this is where I can see the true value of my Rotary membership.

In Rotary, I have the opportunity to see multiple dimensions of people whom I often have a tendency to view as one-dimensional. It’s very easy for me to view people of wealth and privilege through a very narrow lens. A one-dimensional perspective of any human being isn’t accurate, and it deprives all involved of the opportunity to find connection. Through my Rotary experiences I’ve learned that no matter the differences in our backgrounds, there is always common ground that is much larger than whatever distinguishes us. Such a view is at the very foundation of Rotary. Consider this quote from Rotary founder, Paul Harris, published in Rotary magazine nearly 80 years ago:

“Man has afﬁnity for his fellowman, regardless of race, creed, or politics, and the greater the variety, the more the zest. All friendliness needs is a sporting chance; it will take care of itself in any company.” — A Road I Have Travelled, THE ROTARIAN, February 1934.

It often occurs to me when I read the news, or watch the media report on some individual in the news, that we live in a world that so often reduces human beings to one-dimensional characters. For example, how many of us see Paris Hilton as anything more than a spoiled heiress, or Glen Beck as more than a right-wing propagandist? Do you love or hate the President? Either way, do you see him as having the same struggles and vulnerabilities that you and I do? Do you see him as the father of two daughters, as a husband, as the child of a single parent? Whatever your feelings about President Obama, or Glen Beck’s politics, or Paris Hilton’s latest tabloid story, there is more to each of them than the one-dimensional characters we are shown in a 15 second news story.

Philosopher Martin Buber, many years ago, considered the way our media reduces people to one dimension and wrote:

“there is a hierarchy of deceptions. Near the bottom of the ladder is journalism: a steady stream of irresponsible distortions that most people find refreshing although on the morning after, or at least within a week, it will be stale and flat.” ― Martin Buber, I and Thou

The truth is, we know nothing about these people other than what someone has chosen to tell us. Likewise, with most of the people whom we meet in our day to day lives, we often know very little about them, their struggles, their fears, their strengths, and weaknesses. Accurately seeing the person before us requires that we pause and take the time to listen and to see beyond our initial perception. Sometimes this is easy to do, but other times it requires patience and the willingness to look past the things that we judge as unfavorable.

Each of us is a complex collection of strengths, weaknesses, fears, bravery, cowardice, goodness, evil, selfishness, and generosity. We are not one-dimensional creatures. We’re dynamic beings, constantly evolving, becoming more than we were before and less than we will be at some point in the future. We experience the world and discover ourselves and each other in the process. To reduce any of us to one-dimension, no matter how unique or flattering that dimension may be, diminishes us all.

I recently heard a sermon by Sharon Brous, one of my favorite Rabbis, in which she discussed the Aspen tree as a metaphor for the connection between human beings. I didn’t know this, but aspen trees aren’t really individual trees, but part of a larger colony with a common root system. The trees themselves might only live 150 years, but the root systems can live for thousands of years. In fact, one root system is estimated to be approximately 80,000 years old, making it one of the oldest living organisms on the planet. Like human beings, the single individual aspect of the aspen tree is what is first apparent, but if you look a little closer, take some time to examine the aspen tree, or the human, you’ll see that there is a much larger and longer-lasting connection just below the surface.

The latest news in the oddball social and political American landscape is the occupation of a National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon by a group of militants led by the son of nutso criminal cattle rancher Cliven Bundy. This news story rivals the Trump campaign for its absolute weirdness and its appeal to disaffected people in search of a cause.

I find very little of their cause to be the least bit appealing or convincing. I don’t buy their claims of an over-reaching federal government stealing land or that they have some sort of divine or Constitutional right to private possession of public lands which they are free to utilize or extract resources from without restraint. Perhaps more significantly, I completely reject the notion that they have a Constitutional right to engage in armed resistance or rebellion against the United States Government. In numerous places the Constitution rejects the concept of sanctioning armed rebellion. For example, with regarding to Congressional powers, the Constitution says that Congress has the power:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15

The Constitution explicitly prohibits armed rebellion and defines it as treason when it states:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 3, cl.

It is clear that our founding fathers did not contemplate armed resistance and rebellion as a protected political right.

However, there is an issue in this fiasco which does interest me. That is, the sentencing of the two ranchers, a father and son, Dwight and Steven Hammond, for setting fire to public land. A statement by the prosecutor recounting the history of case and the law violations of the Hammands can be found here and is worth taking the time to read. The trial Court judge, following their convictions after a two-week jury trial, imposed relatively short sentences of a year or less upon the two defendants. The government appealed and the Appellate Court found the Judge lacked discretion to impose less than the minimum mandatory sentence. It’s this issue of removing sentencing discretion from the trial Court judge that I find disturbing. I recognize that sentencing guidelines are designed to encourage uniformity in sentencing, but the reality is that not all crimes are the same. Especially in the federal justice system, the mandatory sentences for drug related offenses have resulted in extremely long sentences being imposed upon defendants who may have only had a minor role in the crime. This becomes even more unfair when the low level players often have little valuable information to bargain with prosecutors for a reduced sentence whereas the kingpins often are able to work deals to plea to lesser crimes in exchange for providing information to the government. As a result of these minimum mandatory sentences we now have the world’s largest prison population and the sentences our nation imposes are far more severe than those imposed in the rest of the developed world.

A few years ago I attended a week at the Chautauqua Institution where the theme of the week was Crime and Punishment. One of the speakers I heard was former Federal Judge Nancy Gertner, who is now an outspoken opponent to the federal mandatory minimum sentences that judges are required to impose. Here is what she wrote in a recent publication:

Mandatory minimum sentences distort our criminal justice system. In effect, the legislature is sentencing, when it knows little or nothing about the individual or what may work to deter him in the future. Or the prosecutor is sentencing, when he or she sees only one side — the offense — and rarely knows much about the defendant’s life. The judge is effectively a bystander. And while the judge’s decisions must be transparent, and are subject to appeal and public scrutiny, the prosecutor’s are not.

Our system of government contemplates three equal branches: The Executive (President); The Legislative (Congress); and the Judiciary. I can’t help but feel that the American judiciary has not only been weakened in the past generation, but is quickly on pathway towards being irrelevant. We now are faced with a super legislature, fueled by massive corporate donations, that is rapidly consolidating its power and intruding into and successfully limiting the function of both the Executive and Judicial branches. Our judges no longer have authority to hear the vast majority of civil contract claims due to the Federal Arbitration Act. These claims are now decided by corporate-run arbitration where the records are private and there is no right to appeal. Due to legislatively imposed mandatory minimum sentences we have lost the right as people to have a judge hear our case and determine a fair sentence based upon the facts presented at trial, including mitigating circumstances. Instead, our sentence was predetermined by politicians, who never heard our story and who may be getting campaign contributions from the for-profit prison industry.

If you think I’m over-exaggerating consider this: The leader of the group in Oregon is the son of Cliven Bundy, the man who after two trials was found to owe the United States government in excess of $1 million dollars in fees. A federal judge twice permanently prohibited Mr. Bundy from grazing his cattle on federal lands, but he continued to ignore the order with impunity. When the judge ordered seizure of Mr. Bundy’s cattle to pay the debt owed to the government, Mr. Bundy basically took up arms against the government. Two years later, neither the Executive branch nor the Legislative branches have done anything to enforce the Judge’s order. Be aware, Courts do not control the police or law enforcement, they must rely upon the executive branch of government to enforce the law. In this case, due to the lack of action by the other branches of government, the judiciary is rendered absolutely impotent. This is something that should frighten us all and is much more of a threat to American democracy than some nut jobs inhabiting a bird sanctuary.

The Dimensions of Rotary

The Real Constitutional Threat In The Oregon Militia Takeover