The only positive thing that resulted from my wonderful mother’s addiction to cigarettes was that I grew up hating them.
To me, smoking was and is dirty, smelly, expensive, stupid and disgusting. A smoker’s mouth, hair, clothes, car, and house usually smell of stale smoke, and the idea that smoking makes young people look older and more mature is deeply laughable. But even with that being the case, I am embarrassed to say that each of my three adult children smokes “occasionally,” as does our current president.
I know that smoking is attractive to some people, and once begun, can be quite difficult to put aside. Tobacco is at least as addictive as cocaine. Mark Twain best set the stage for quitting when he said: “Giving up smoking is easy, I’ve done it lots of times.”
But in today’s world, we have large amounts of verified scientific information showing how smoking harms one’s health; it killed my mother. So there simply can be no good reason for all smokers, occasional or regular, not to do their best to give up smoking. And, although it can be a delicate subject, I think it is the duty of all of us to encourage our friends and family members who are smokers to quit. Just try not be too judgmental or heavy-handed when you do so.
How can this be done? Focus on the proven facts: Smoking causes lung cancer and, it also contributes to many other health problems, including breathlessness, heart disease, and other cancers. It also can cause poor skin quality, bad breath, and yellow teeth. So quitting smoking may be the most important thing you can do to improve both your health as well as your appearance.
Happily enough, the human body has remarkable powers of recovery. So no matter how many years you have smoked, or how many cigarettes you smoke each day, your health and appearance can benefit enormously from quitting. One of the most encouraging things about quitting is that you can literally see your health getting better each day, each month, and each year.
Here are some of the benefits smokers can look forward to by quitting: After only 20 minutes from your last smoke, your blood pressure and pulse will approach normal, and circulation will improve in your hands and feet. After 12 hours, the nicotine and poisonous carbon monoxide levels in your blood will be reduced by half, and your blood oxygen levels will return to normal.
After 24 hours, carbon monoxide will be eliminated from your body, which will allow your lungs to begin to clear out mucus and other smoking debris. Within 48 hours, there should be no nicotine left in your body. This will greatly improve your senses of taste and smell. Within 72 hours, your breathing will become easier because your airways will start to relax. This will result in increased energy levels.
Within two weeks, your heart will be pumping more oxygen-rich blood around your body, which means you will be putting less strain upon your heart. And the longer you go without smoking, the better your heart and blood vessels will become. In four weeks, the damage that occurs to your skin from smoking, which actually gives you more wrinkles, will have stopped.
Within six weeks, your heart, circulation, lungs, skin, teeth, and senses of taste and smell will have materially improved. Within eight weeks, your bones will be stronger, more dense, and less brittle. This will materially reduce the risk of fractures. Within 10 weeks, your skin will be getting smoother, your hair healthier, and your smile whiter.
In about four months, your coughing, wheezing, and breathing will be improved, as your lung functions will have increased by up to 10%. In about one year, your risk of heart attack will have nearly fallen to about half that of a smoker. In about 10 years, your risk of lung cancer will have fallen to about half that of a smoker. In about 15 years, your risk of heart attack will now be about the same as someone who has never smoked.
But quitting smoking can be difficult, and you must remember that you will experience some ups and downs along the way. Probably the best approach is to set a “quit date,” and announce it to your family and friends. This will allow you to plan ahead and be better prepared and supported. Then before the appointed day, throw out all your cigarettes, empty packs, and lighters – and remember to check all of your clothes, purses, drawers, cars, etc. for any of these. Then clean and put away all ashtrays and other reminders of smoking, and wash all of your clothes, towels, and other items that smell of smoke, clean your home and car thoroughly, and open all the windows to clear the air.
It also helps to keep a “Quit Smoking Calendar,” and circle the days you have not smoked in blue. If you slip and have a cigarette, don’t despair, feel like a failure, or stop trying, but simply circle that date in red. If you think positively throughout, eat a balanced diet, increase your physical exercise, and, of course, consult with medical professionals if you think they can help you, you will strongly increase your chances of permanent success.
But you will also have to learn to deal with cravings for a cigarette. Some ways of counteracting these are to include the “4D’s.” These are: delay at least three minutes before you smoke, and often the urge will pass; drink a glass of water or juice; distract yourself by moving away from the situation that is encouraging you to light up; and take deep breaths, because breathing fully and slowly will help you to relax.
Finally, for additional positive reinforcement, test yourself concerning your progress. For example, test your endurance by walking up stairs after the first week, and on each succeeding week for the first three months, and then keep a chart about the “difficulty level” from one to 10. Test your senses by smelling some flowers or eating something sweet, and keep a similar chart about how strong those senses were. You will be amazed by the results, and this will energize you to continue. Besides, think of the money you will save.
And for pregnant women, the benefits for your developing baby if you stop smoking are stark. Much of the tar and nicotine you breathe in when smoking goes directly from your system into your baby’s, and this cannot help but cause health problems for this developing little person. For example, babies born to women who smoke are twice as likely to develop asthma and other lung problems, such as wheezing and chest infections. They are also much more prone to ear infections, colic, and meningitis, among other things.
There are also new and exciting developments to help people eliminate nicotine cravings and to quit smoking, such as the ML830 Laser treatments, which stimulate oxygen flow in tissues. In only three treatments with this “cold” laser to your ear, hands, wrists, and feet, some physical therapists have had a 70% success rate in curing the craving for cigarettes. For more information, contact Sue Hale, who is an occupational therapist in Florida, at JHale2@cfl.rr.com.
So OK, quitting smoking can be difficult, but the benefits can be enormous. And it is never too late to quit. Your family, your friends, your unborn children, and, most of all, you, yourself, will always be grateful that you did.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Celebrating and preserving our heritage - By Judge Jim Gray
What was life like in Orange County the early 1900s? It was almost completely agricultural, but how did those people live? Well, the answers to these questions can still be found at the Heritage Museum at 3101 West Harvard St. in Santa Ana – which is just off Fairview between Warner and Edinger. Unfortunately, few people seem to be aware of the existence of this museum, but you should take your children and grandchildren and experience it. It really is a gem.
On this 12-acre site is the Kellogg House, which was built like a ship in 1898, the Maag House from the same time period, a blacksmith shop, a water tower, a gold mine, a gazebo, an herb and flower garden, and lots of citrus trees. It also has the highest point in Santa Ana (which is about 65 feet), and the only remaining freshwater marsh in the city. The Kellogg family founded an agricultural supplies business in Orange County that is still in existence, and the Maag family was instrumental in founding the Sunkist Growers Cooperative.
As its mission statement says, the Heritage Museum of Orange County is a cultural and natural history center dedicated to preserving, promoting, and restoring the heritage of Orange County and the surrounding region through quality hands-on educational programs for students and visitors of all ages. And the more you become familiar with what they do, the more you will agree that they are accomplishing that mission.
When you take a tour of the Kellogg House, you and your children will see life as it was 100 years ago by making butter, looking through a stereoscope viewer, doing laundry on a washboard, tasting home-grown citrus fruit, playing the pump organ just like your great grandfather did, dressing (and having your picture taken) in period clothes, and playing with old-fashioned toys.
The museum has many innovative hands-on programs for children and also hosts many other instructional activities. For example, third- to fifth-graders can build their own covered wagon, and “travel” from Independence, Mo. to the California Gold Fields, encountering many hardships along the way. They can also pan for gold in the museum’s rustic stream, remembering to yell “Eureka” when they find their first nugget.
The Heritage Museum also hosts a “First Californians” class for third- to fifth-graders that allows the children to touch and use native “artifacts,” participate in a traditional round dance, and make a ceremonial rattle to take home. Another class teaches children the importance of proper manners, including the formalities of setting a table, making introductions, and speaking on the telephone. Then they can practice their best manners at an old-fashioned tea party in the beautiful oval-shaped dining room of the Kellogg House, and finish the occasion with the preparation of a lovely thank-you note.
For older children, the Orange County Blacksmith Guild now holds beginning “smithy” classes on Saturday mornings, and makes hand-wrought iron goods for display and sale at the gift shop. In addition, the Orange County Astronomers conduct beginning astronomy courses on the site as well.
But this is not only a wonderful place for children and adults to have fun by learning, it is also a great and unique place for weddings and for private and corporate meetings, parties and picnics. When you see it, I know you will agree.
As you can imagine, there are numbers of exceptional opportunities for adults, scouts, and students to contribute as volunteers to the museum. These include docent tours of the facility, and people to help with the gardens and nature center. It also includes helping to expand the mine and water tower exhibits, continuing the decorating and electrical wiring of the Maag House, and much more.
In fact, at this moment the museum is attempting to complete two projects that will add immeasurably to its facility. The first is to move two late 19th Century houses from downtown Santa Ana, where they are scheduled to be demolished, to their site. Then they will be used, among other things, for job skills training for some of our youth. The second is to dig out the pond in the freshwater marsh area, and then also dig a well both to supply water to keep the pond full year-round, and also to provide water for their citrus trees. This would both allow native fish, turtles, frogs and migrating water birds again to be found in Santa Ana, and also materially reduce the museum’s irrigation expenses. If you or any of your friends have any thoughts or expertise about how to bring either or both of these projects to fruition, please let me know.
So often we all hear people say that they wish we could have preserved more of our past. Well here in Orange County, the Heritage Museum is doing just that. We should each embrace that effort, and help the museum to build upon it. So I wanted to pass along this information to you with the hope and expectation that you would take this challenge personally and help. For more information, please visit www.heritagemuseumoc.org, or contact Colleen Mensel at (714) 540-0404.
On this 12-acre site is the Kellogg House, which was built like a ship in 1898, the Maag House from the same time period, a blacksmith shop, a water tower, a gold mine, a gazebo, an herb and flower garden, and lots of citrus trees. It also has the highest point in Santa Ana (which is about 65 feet), and the only remaining freshwater marsh in the city. The Kellogg family founded an agricultural supplies business in Orange County that is still in existence, and the Maag family was instrumental in founding the Sunkist Growers Cooperative.
As its mission statement says, the Heritage Museum of Orange County is a cultural and natural history center dedicated to preserving, promoting, and restoring the heritage of Orange County and the surrounding region through quality hands-on educational programs for students and visitors of all ages. And the more you become familiar with what they do, the more you will agree that they are accomplishing that mission.
When you take a tour of the Kellogg House, you and your children will see life as it was 100 years ago by making butter, looking through a stereoscope viewer, doing laundry on a washboard, tasting home-grown citrus fruit, playing the pump organ just like your great grandfather did, dressing (and having your picture taken) in period clothes, and playing with old-fashioned toys.
The museum has many innovative hands-on programs for children and also hosts many other instructional activities. For example, third- to fifth-graders can build their own covered wagon, and “travel” from Independence, Mo. to the California Gold Fields, encountering many hardships along the way. They can also pan for gold in the museum’s rustic stream, remembering to yell “Eureka” when they find their first nugget.
The Heritage Museum also hosts a “First Californians” class for third- to fifth-graders that allows the children to touch and use native “artifacts,” participate in a traditional round dance, and make a ceremonial rattle to take home. Another class teaches children the importance of proper manners, including the formalities of setting a table, making introductions, and speaking on the telephone. Then they can practice their best manners at an old-fashioned tea party in the beautiful oval-shaped dining room of the Kellogg House, and finish the occasion with the preparation of a lovely thank-you note.
For older children, the Orange County Blacksmith Guild now holds beginning “smithy” classes on Saturday mornings, and makes hand-wrought iron goods for display and sale at the gift shop. In addition, the Orange County Astronomers conduct beginning astronomy courses on the site as well.
But this is not only a wonderful place for children and adults to have fun by learning, it is also a great and unique place for weddings and for private and corporate meetings, parties and picnics. When you see it, I know you will agree.
As you can imagine, there are numbers of exceptional opportunities for adults, scouts, and students to contribute as volunteers to the museum. These include docent tours of the facility, and people to help with the gardens and nature center. It also includes helping to expand the mine and water tower exhibits, continuing the decorating and electrical wiring of the Maag House, and much more.
In fact, at this moment the museum is attempting to complete two projects that will add immeasurably to its facility. The first is to move two late 19th Century houses from downtown Santa Ana, where they are scheduled to be demolished, to their site. Then they will be used, among other things, for job skills training for some of our youth. The second is to dig out the pond in the freshwater marsh area, and then also dig a well both to supply water to keep the pond full year-round, and also to provide water for their citrus trees. This would both allow native fish, turtles, frogs and migrating water birds again to be found in Santa Ana, and also materially reduce the museum’s irrigation expenses. If you or any of your friends have any thoughts or expertise about how to bring either or both of these projects to fruition, please let me know.
So often we all hear people say that they wish we could have preserved more of our past. Well here in Orange County, the Heritage Museum is doing just that. We should each embrace that effort, and help the museum to build upon it. So I wanted to pass along this information to you with the hope and expectation that you would take this challenge personally and help. For more information, please visit www.heritagemuseumoc.org, or contact Colleen Mensel at (714) 540-0404.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Exploring an existing school of thought - by Judge Jim Gray
Since I wrote the column about the transcendental meditation program (“To a mind that is still,” Dec. 13), I have learned so many exciting things about how the technique is now being used both in schools and the criminal justice system.
For example, there is a K-12 school in Fairfield, Iowa, that has incorporated meditation into the regular schedule every day for students, teachers and staff. Everyone swears by the program, and the results support their enthusiasm. The Maharishi School Pioneers, which has only 300 students, requires its students, teachers and staff each morning and afternoon to meditate for 15 to 20 minutes. Basically that is the only difference that sets this open-enrollment and racially integrated school apart from any other (of course it also wisely requires the students to wear uniforms).
But using meditation works. The school has won state championships in drama, golf, history, math, a program called “Odyssey of the Mind,” photography and art, poetry and writing, science, spelling bees, tennis, and track, among other things. Why does meditation work? Because, as the staff says, the simple act of meditating on a regular basis settles and calms the mind and reduces stress, and when stress is reduced, children are happier and more productive.
So, as one student told me in an interview, meditation lets anger and stress simply “fly out of your body.”
Many of the older graduates continue to live in Fairfield expressly so that their children can profit from the same experience they had, and other parents who have heard about the school have moved their families to Fairfield for the same reason. In fact, some of these parents actually came from Laguna Beach.
The school is not religious based and does not pursue any particular beliefs or dogma. But the administrators of the school believe that meditation helps the electrical activity of the human brain to slow down. This makes thinking itself more clear and focused, and also allows the brain to develop more fully. And this, in turn, naturally promotes a higher state of interest and wellness in the students.
Once the technique is learned, meditation puts the students’ minds into a position of complete silence where thoughts do not happen. Soon the students are more aware of their mind settling down, and, eventually, of consciousness itself. This, in turn, increasingly allows the mind to become more clear and to experience more subtle thoughts, so everything around them more readily falls into place and becomes understandable.
The more scientific explanation is that when under stress, the pre-frontal cortex of the brain shuts down, and the primitive part of the brain with the protective “fight or flight” reaction is engaged. This also causes the brain to become flooded with adrenaline, so it is consequently not able to do such things as “analyze a five-year plan,” or even be rational. So stress is one reason why teenagers are more combative and resistant to learning. Then later, when the pre-frontal cortex kicks back in, the brain again gets back into the “I’m sorry” mode and other more calm states of analysis.
But transcendental meditation is successful by increasing the pathways of the brain, which, in turn, improves focus, attention, anger management and positive social behavior. This also makes transcendental meditation extremely effective for people who have ADHD, high-functioning autism, and adults who are bi-polar, and have post-traumatic stress disorders from military service.
The students from Fairfield that I spoke to in telephone interviews confirm these positive results.
For example, Essa said she watches the news and sees people in fights.
“But not here,” she said. “In our school we intermingle and are all supportive.”
In addition, she said that meditation not only helped her to be more athletic, it also gave her both the confidence and initiative to try something new. So she went into theater, and was successful.
Mickey’s family came from Knoxville. He is in the school’s Destination Imagination Club that has won national honors, and is now competing in a worldwide competition. In addition, the school also recently won the statewide science fair, three of its students won state honors in engineering, and one student is a finalist in an international creative arts competition (not bad results for a school of 300).
The school was partially founded with the assistance of the David Lynch Foundation. Lynch is probably known to many of you as the Academy Award-nominated director of “Elephant Man” and “Twin Peaks.” It is the mission of this foundation to eliminate violence and life-threatening stress in schools across the planet, and it already is responsible for the establishment of schools in the United States, Israel and Europe.
One of those schools is the Ideal Academy Public Charter School in northwest Washington, D.C. I spoke to its principal, Dr. George H. Rutherford, who told me that the David Lynch Foundation had sponsored three trainers about three years ago to come to his school and teach transcendental meditation to some of his students, teachers and staff.
And soon things really started changing — for the better! Now they have involved the entire school, and everyone’s attitudes have changed. The students are calmer, more disciplined, more interested in learning and their grades have improved.
Transcendental meditation programs have also been offered in San Quentin and Folsom State prisons in California. Like everywhere else, those programs are taught in seven classes, with the first two being lectures that focus upon the benefits, research and techniques of the method. The third is a personal interview, and the fourth provides one-on-one training. Then the last three are consecutive days of group follow-up. Pretty simple and straightforward, and the programs are not expensive.
But the results show that 90% of the graduates have not returned to prison. There even is a program of criminal sentencing in Missouri in which young adults have the option of using transcendental meditation which has seen similar excellent results with increased schooling, employment and lower recidivism rates.
So that is a further part of the story. Recently, former Beatles Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, along with several other pop stars, raised more than $1 million in a benefit concert at the New York’s Radio City Music Hall to help establish more transcendental meditation programs around the world. They believe that meditation works for our children and for all of the rest of us. And if you learn more about it, I think you will too.
For more information about the sentencing program visit www.EnlightenedSentencing.org, and for the David Lynch Foundation and the transcendental meditation movement in general, visit www.TM.org or www.DavidLynchFoundation.org. Then tell me what you think.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
For example, there is a K-12 school in Fairfield, Iowa, that has incorporated meditation into the regular schedule every day for students, teachers and staff. Everyone swears by the program, and the results support their enthusiasm. The Maharishi School Pioneers, which has only 300 students, requires its students, teachers and staff each morning and afternoon to meditate for 15 to 20 minutes. Basically that is the only difference that sets this open-enrollment and racially integrated school apart from any other (of course it also wisely requires the students to wear uniforms).
But using meditation works. The school has won state championships in drama, golf, history, math, a program called “Odyssey of the Mind,” photography and art, poetry and writing, science, spelling bees, tennis, and track, among other things. Why does meditation work? Because, as the staff says, the simple act of meditating on a regular basis settles and calms the mind and reduces stress, and when stress is reduced, children are happier and more productive.
So, as one student told me in an interview, meditation lets anger and stress simply “fly out of your body.”
Many of the older graduates continue to live in Fairfield expressly so that their children can profit from the same experience they had, and other parents who have heard about the school have moved their families to Fairfield for the same reason. In fact, some of these parents actually came from Laguna Beach.
The school is not religious based and does not pursue any particular beliefs or dogma. But the administrators of the school believe that meditation helps the electrical activity of the human brain to slow down. This makes thinking itself more clear and focused, and also allows the brain to develop more fully. And this, in turn, naturally promotes a higher state of interest and wellness in the students.
Once the technique is learned, meditation puts the students’ minds into a position of complete silence where thoughts do not happen. Soon the students are more aware of their mind settling down, and, eventually, of consciousness itself. This, in turn, increasingly allows the mind to become more clear and to experience more subtle thoughts, so everything around them more readily falls into place and becomes understandable.
The more scientific explanation is that when under stress, the pre-frontal cortex of the brain shuts down, and the primitive part of the brain with the protective “fight or flight” reaction is engaged. This also causes the brain to become flooded with adrenaline, so it is consequently not able to do such things as “analyze a five-year plan,” or even be rational. So stress is one reason why teenagers are more combative and resistant to learning. Then later, when the pre-frontal cortex kicks back in, the brain again gets back into the “I’m sorry” mode and other more calm states of analysis.
But transcendental meditation is successful by increasing the pathways of the brain, which, in turn, improves focus, attention, anger management and positive social behavior. This also makes transcendental meditation extremely effective for people who have ADHD, high-functioning autism, and adults who are bi-polar, and have post-traumatic stress disorders from military service.
The students from Fairfield that I spoke to in telephone interviews confirm these positive results.
For example, Essa said she watches the news and sees people in fights.
“But not here,” she said. “In our school we intermingle and are all supportive.”
In addition, she said that meditation not only helped her to be more athletic, it also gave her both the confidence and initiative to try something new. So she went into theater, and was successful.
Mickey’s family came from Knoxville. He is in the school’s Destination Imagination Club that has won national honors, and is now competing in a worldwide competition. In addition, the school also recently won the statewide science fair, three of its students won state honors in engineering, and one student is a finalist in an international creative arts competition (not bad results for a school of 300).
The school was partially founded with the assistance of the David Lynch Foundation. Lynch is probably known to many of you as the Academy Award-nominated director of “Elephant Man” and “Twin Peaks.” It is the mission of this foundation to eliminate violence and life-threatening stress in schools across the planet, and it already is responsible for the establishment of schools in the United States, Israel and Europe.
One of those schools is the Ideal Academy Public Charter School in northwest Washington, D.C. I spoke to its principal, Dr. George H. Rutherford, who told me that the David Lynch Foundation had sponsored three trainers about three years ago to come to his school and teach transcendental meditation to some of his students, teachers and staff.
And soon things really started changing — for the better! Now they have involved the entire school, and everyone’s attitudes have changed. The students are calmer, more disciplined, more interested in learning and their grades have improved.
Transcendental meditation programs have also been offered in San Quentin and Folsom State prisons in California. Like everywhere else, those programs are taught in seven classes, with the first two being lectures that focus upon the benefits, research and techniques of the method. The third is a personal interview, and the fourth provides one-on-one training. Then the last three are consecutive days of group follow-up. Pretty simple and straightforward, and the programs are not expensive.
But the results show that 90% of the graduates have not returned to prison. There even is a program of criminal sentencing in Missouri in which young adults have the option of using transcendental meditation which has seen similar excellent results with increased schooling, employment and lower recidivism rates.
So that is a further part of the story. Recently, former Beatles Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, along with several other pop stars, raised more than $1 million in a benefit concert at the New York’s Radio City Music Hall to help establish more transcendental meditation programs around the world. They believe that meditation works for our children and for all of the rest of us. And if you learn more about it, I think you will too.
For more information about the sentencing program visit www.EnlightenedSentencing.org, and for the David Lynch Foundation and the transcendental meditation movement in general, visit www.TM.org or www.DavidLynchFoundation.org. Then tell me what you think.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Join me in celebrating our country’s flag - by Judge Jim Gray
Our country’s flag is the symbol of our country and our freedoms, and in many ways it is a large part of our daily lives. On June 14, 1777, Congress passed an act adopting a flag with 13 horizontal stripes, alternating red and white, with red on the top and bottom, and 13 white stars on a field of blue, to be our country’s standard. And so every year on June 14, which happens to be today, we celebrate Flag Day.
Our “Stars and Stripes” is one of the oldest national flags in the world, even older than the Union Jack of Great Britain or the Tricolor of France. It was designed by a committee chaired by Ben Franklin, after consultations with George Washington as the head of the Army, and first unfurled publicly by Washington himself Jan. 2, 1776.
The colors of the flag are frequently seen as representing the very character of our nation. The white in the flag is said to be a living symbol of our country being the “land of liberty.” The red signifies the courage and sacrifices of the nation’s defenders, and the blue represents the loyalty and unity of our citizens.
As new states were added to the union, the number of both the stars and the stripes was increased accordingly. But in April 1818, Congress passed an act providing that the flag should revert to the original 13 stripes, but that a star should be added the next July 4 after the admittance of any new state into the Union.
The guidelines about how to display and use the flag were haphazard all the way until July 7, 1976, when Congress passed the Federal Flag Code. This contains eight sections and multiple subsections describing how, when, and where the flag should be displayed, honored, handled and eventually disposed.
Some of the most interesting regulations for the flag are that it can only be displayed between sunrise and sunset, unless it is properly illuminated during all of hours of darkness, and not displayed at all during inclement weather unless it is an all-weather flag. It should also be raised briskly, but lowered ceremoniously, and should be displayed on the main administration building of every public institution, and on every schoolhouse.
With the extremely limited exception of when church pennants are flown during religious services conducted aboard our naval vessels while at sea, no other flag or pennant may be placed above our flag at any time. If any flags are flown on the same level, our flag must be to the right side of all the others. And our flag may not be dipped to any person or thing under any circumstances, with the limited exception of when a vessel from a foreign country that is recognized by our government dips its flag to a vessel of the U.S. Navy, our naval ship may return the compliment.
The flag is never to be flown with the stars at the bottom, unless there is a circumstance of dire emergency, such as a ship sinking, and it is not supposed to be left on a grave for more than one day. It is also never to be allowed to touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, floor, water or merchandise.
Our national banner is also not to be used for advertising for any purposes, or as a table cover, wearing apparel or articles such as cushions, handkerchiefs or napkins, or as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying or delivering anything. But it is permissible for the flag to be worn as a button or pin.
Even though we have those recommendations, no federal statutes exist that set forth any penalties for any misuse or mistreatment of our flag, which leaves the enforcement of these provisions, if at all, up to the individual states.
Ironically enough, because our nation’s flag is a symbol for liberty and freedom, it actually stands as a principle to allow its own desecration or destruction.
This was the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Texas v. Johnson, which involved the burning of the flag by some protesters. The court held that our liberties actually allow a person to burn, mutilate or even spit upon our flag as a matter of free speech.
This legitimately upsets lots of people. But upon reflection, people usually understand that we can’t have freedom only for speech and symbolic acts that we agree with. That would soon result in protections only for speech that the government allows, and that would take us in a direction that we do not want to go.
F.A. (Baldy) Harper, the founder of the Institute for Humane Studies, once said “The man who knows what freedom means will find a way to be free.”
Join me in honoring the Stars and Stripes, especially today on its special day. Among other things, that means that we stand, if we are able, when the flag goes by, put our hands over our hearts both when the flag is presented and when we sing our national anthem, and fly it often but appropriately, with the full understanding that this flag is our chief symbol of the freedoms that are the very soul of our country.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Our “Stars and Stripes” is one of the oldest national flags in the world, even older than the Union Jack of Great Britain or the Tricolor of France. It was designed by a committee chaired by Ben Franklin, after consultations with George Washington as the head of the Army, and first unfurled publicly by Washington himself Jan. 2, 1776.
The colors of the flag are frequently seen as representing the very character of our nation. The white in the flag is said to be a living symbol of our country being the “land of liberty.” The red signifies the courage and sacrifices of the nation’s defenders, and the blue represents the loyalty and unity of our citizens.
As new states were added to the union, the number of both the stars and the stripes was increased accordingly. But in April 1818, Congress passed an act providing that the flag should revert to the original 13 stripes, but that a star should be added the next July 4 after the admittance of any new state into the Union.
The guidelines about how to display and use the flag were haphazard all the way until July 7, 1976, when Congress passed the Federal Flag Code. This contains eight sections and multiple subsections describing how, when, and where the flag should be displayed, honored, handled and eventually disposed.
Some of the most interesting regulations for the flag are that it can only be displayed between sunrise and sunset, unless it is properly illuminated during all of hours of darkness, and not displayed at all during inclement weather unless it is an all-weather flag. It should also be raised briskly, but lowered ceremoniously, and should be displayed on the main administration building of every public institution, and on every schoolhouse.
With the extremely limited exception of when church pennants are flown during religious services conducted aboard our naval vessels while at sea, no other flag or pennant may be placed above our flag at any time. If any flags are flown on the same level, our flag must be to the right side of all the others. And our flag may not be dipped to any person or thing under any circumstances, with the limited exception of when a vessel from a foreign country that is recognized by our government dips its flag to a vessel of the U.S. Navy, our naval ship may return the compliment.
The flag is never to be flown with the stars at the bottom, unless there is a circumstance of dire emergency, such as a ship sinking, and it is not supposed to be left on a grave for more than one day. It is also never to be allowed to touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, floor, water or merchandise.
Our national banner is also not to be used for advertising for any purposes, or as a table cover, wearing apparel or articles such as cushions, handkerchiefs or napkins, or as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying or delivering anything. But it is permissible for the flag to be worn as a button or pin.
Even though we have those recommendations, no federal statutes exist that set forth any penalties for any misuse or mistreatment of our flag, which leaves the enforcement of these provisions, if at all, up to the individual states.
Ironically enough, because our nation’s flag is a symbol for liberty and freedom, it actually stands as a principle to allow its own desecration or destruction.
This was the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Texas v. Johnson, which involved the burning of the flag by some protesters. The court held that our liberties actually allow a person to burn, mutilate or even spit upon our flag as a matter of free speech.
This legitimately upsets lots of people. But upon reflection, people usually understand that we can’t have freedom only for speech and symbolic acts that we agree with. That would soon result in protections only for speech that the government allows, and that would take us in a direction that we do not want to go.
F.A. (Baldy) Harper, the founder of the Institute for Humane Studies, once said “The man who knows what freedom means will find a way to be free.”
Join me in honoring the Stars and Stripes, especially today on its special day. Among other things, that means that we stand, if we are able, when the flag goes by, put our hands over our hearts both when the flag is presented and when we sing our national anthem, and fly it often but appropriately, with the full understanding that this flag is our chief symbol of the freedoms that are the very soul of our country.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, May 31, 2009
To the people of Russia: Thank you - by Judge Jim Gray
Just like most of you, I get lots of unsolicited e-mail messages. Some of them I look at, and some of them I don’t. But I received one recently that really caught my attention about something called the “Monument to the Struggle Against World Terrorism.”
The monument is titled “Tear Drop,” and it is located on a peninsula at Bayonne Harbor, N.J., in full view of the Statue of Liberty and the former site of the World Trade Center. It was created to honor those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedies, as well as the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Furthermore, it was a gift to the United States of America by the people of Russia!
Snopes verifies the story, and my other research confirms it. But before I received that message, I had not heard anything about it. Had you?
The idea for the monument came from Zurab Tsereteli, who is one of Russia’s most prominent and prolific sculptors, designers and architects, and his works are found all over the world. One of them, titled “Good Defeats Evil,” is a sculpture created from scrapped American and Soviet missiles, and it resides on the grounds of the United Nations building in New York.
The “Tear Drop” monument is more than 100 feet tall, and weighs 175 tons. It was shipped here from Russia in six sections, assembled by a group of Russian artisans, and dedicated to the American people as a symbol of solidarity in the fight against world terrorism. Inscribed on the 11-sided base of the monument are the names of the 3,000 people who lost their lives in the 1993 and 9/11 terrorist acts. The dedication ceremony took place on Sept. 11, 2006.
Tsereteli said that he was struck by the outpouring of grief on the streets of Moscow when word came of the 9/11 tragedies, and this caused the image of a tear to form in his mind.
The nickel-plated teardrop itself weighs 4 tons, and is about 40 feet high.
The remainder of the monument is of granite. But the lasting message, in addition to the sadness and grief over the senseless loss of life, is a hope for the future that is free from terror.
I know all Americans join together with Russians and much of the rest of the world in the sharing of this hope. But why has this wonderful gift not been more heavily publicized? The people of France rightfully continue to receive credit and appreciation for their gift of the Statue of Liberty so long ago, why not the people of Russia? Could it be that since we have a history of conflict with the government of the former Soviet Union, and still have some disagreements with the present government of Russia, we do not wish to publicize anything good and generous about their people?
Unfortunately, that is the way our politics has evolved today. If one political party has a good idea, the other tends to oppose it just so that the first will not receive any credit. Has politics made us sink so low here with the people of Russia as well? I hope not, but I’m having difficulty coming up with an alternative explanation.
But since so few of us seem to have been aware of this monument, I am going to send a long overdue note of thanks on behalf of our country to President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, expressing our heartfelt thanks to the people of Russia for this marvelous gesture of solidarity. In fact, this was such a noteworthy gift and message by the Russian people, maybe you will want to join me and send your own letters of appreciation as well.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
The monument is titled “Tear Drop,” and it is located on a peninsula at Bayonne Harbor, N.J., in full view of the Statue of Liberty and the former site of the World Trade Center. It was created to honor those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedies, as well as the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Furthermore, it was a gift to the United States of America by the people of Russia!
Snopes verifies the story, and my other research confirms it. But before I received that message, I had not heard anything about it. Had you?
The idea for the monument came from Zurab Tsereteli, who is one of Russia’s most prominent and prolific sculptors, designers and architects, and his works are found all over the world. One of them, titled “Good Defeats Evil,” is a sculpture created from scrapped American and Soviet missiles, and it resides on the grounds of the United Nations building in New York.
The “Tear Drop” monument is more than 100 feet tall, and weighs 175 tons. It was shipped here from Russia in six sections, assembled by a group of Russian artisans, and dedicated to the American people as a symbol of solidarity in the fight against world terrorism. Inscribed on the 11-sided base of the monument are the names of the 3,000 people who lost their lives in the 1993 and 9/11 terrorist acts. The dedication ceremony took place on Sept. 11, 2006.
Tsereteli said that he was struck by the outpouring of grief on the streets of Moscow when word came of the 9/11 tragedies, and this caused the image of a tear to form in his mind.
The nickel-plated teardrop itself weighs 4 tons, and is about 40 feet high.
The remainder of the monument is of granite. But the lasting message, in addition to the sadness and grief over the senseless loss of life, is a hope for the future that is free from terror.
I know all Americans join together with Russians and much of the rest of the world in the sharing of this hope. But why has this wonderful gift not been more heavily publicized? The people of France rightfully continue to receive credit and appreciation for their gift of the Statue of Liberty so long ago, why not the people of Russia? Could it be that since we have a history of conflict with the government of the former Soviet Union, and still have some disagreements with the present government of Russia, we do not wish to publicize anything good and generous about their people?
Unfortunately, that is the way our politics has evolved today. If one political party has a good idea, the other tends to oppose it just so that the first will not receive any credit. Has politics made us sink so low here with the people of Russia as well? I hope not, but I’m having difficulty coming up with an alternative explanation.
But since so few of us seem to have been aware of this monument, I am going to send a long overdue note of thanks on behalf of our country to President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, expressing our heartfelt thanks to the people of Russia for this marvelous gesture of solidarity. In fact, this was such a noteworthy gift and message by the Russian people, maybe you will want to join me and send your own letters of appreciation as well.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Reworking prison system could save us - by Judge Jim Gray
OK, now that the voters have told the politicians in Sacramento in the recent election that they oppose the continual raising of their taxes, and also disapprove of the way government has handled our finances, where we should go from here?
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Reworking prison system could save us - by Judge Jim Gray
OK, now that the voters have told the politicians in Sacramento in the recent election that they oppose the continual raising of their taxes, and also disapprove of the way government has handled our finances, where we should go from here?
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, May 18, 2009
We have art all around us in Newport - by Judge Jim Gray
Do you agree with me that being surrounded with art and cultural opportunities enhances and stimulates our daily lives? Well, the good news is that, living in and near Newport Beach, we have those things all around us. But the less than good news is that many people are not aware of that fact, other than seeing the bushes on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar that have been shaped into the form of dolphins.
Much of the credit for the art around us goes to the Newport Beach City Arts Commission, which was formed in 1974. It is composed of seven volunteers who are appointed by the City Council, and serve up to two four-year terms.
Their formal function is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council on all matters pertaining to artistic, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the city. Therefore, the commission recommends the adoption of such ordinances, rules and regulations as it deems necessary for the administration and preservation of fine arts and performing arts, and all of the historical, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the community. The group’s meetings are at 5 p.m. the second Thursday of each month at the Newport Beach Central Library Conference Room.
The commission also oversees the providing of grant money from the city to art organizations that have a connection to the city. Some of the recipients have been the Newport Beach Film Festival, Opera Pacific, local ballet companies, Pacific Symphony and Stop Gap Theatre.
Those are the formal functions. But that’s really just the beginning, because the commission also puts on Summer Concerts in the Parks, arts educational programs, Shakespeare by the Sea, and art exhibitions in the City Hall and the Central Library. And it also worked closely with local volunteers on the design and installation of the McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument near the Newport Pier.
So when it comes down to it, the commission really represents genuine community spirit in action, and demonstrates a passion to bring an art element into our public lives. And it is successful in its efforts. In fact, it is unusual to have so much activity in the arts in such a relatively small city.
For example, Summer Concerts in the Park has been going on for nine years, admission is free and the concerts are family friendly. This summer the concerts are scheduled at Mariners Park on July 19 with “Night & Days with Kevin Spirtas,” and at Bonita Canyon Sports Park on Aug. 23 with the Susie Hansen Latin Band. Both concerts are on Sundays, and begin at 6 p.m. This year’s Shakespeare productions are scheduled to be “Love’s Labour’s Lost” on Aug. 1, and “As You Like It” on Aug. 2, and both will also be at Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and begin at 7 p.m. But you will probably want to arrive early for each event and enjoy a picnic dinner — and don’t forget to bring your children and some friends!
In addition to the performing arts, the commission every year sponsors a “Juried Art Show.” This event accepts work from any artists who reside within about 50 miles of Newport. The commission volunteers set up the artwork, and then it is judged by two art professionals. Thereafter all of the artwork is for sale to the general public, with portions going both to the artists and to the Newport Beach Arts Foundation, which is a local nonprofit dedicated to enhancing arts in our city. And at the end of the event there is a ceremony with prizes awarded.
Before I inquired into the work of the arts commission I was simply unaware of the existence of the wonderful McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument. So I went to the Newport Pier, right in front of the dory fishermen’s market, and took a look.
It made me feel proud, and I’m sure you will feel the same.
The motto of the monument is “Remembering the Past; Acknowledging the Present; Looking Toward the Future,” and it is made up of a sea-green sphere that depicts some of the most important aspects of the city’s history.
In fact, you can follow the city’s “footsteps through time,” beginning with its founding by the four McFadden brothers as the “new port,” its incorporation in 1906, and all the way up to the present.
The institutions that are featured are the red cars, Rendezvous Ballroom, dory fishermen, Fun Zone, Balboa and Newport piers, surfing, the McFadden brothers and John Wayne.
As the commission Chairwoman Robyn Grant told me, our city cannot be just made up of beautiful beaches and parks, and world-class shopping and restaurants, it also needs to be immersed in art, because art entertains, enriches and enhances our lives. She is right, and she and her fellow volunteers have truly increased the quality of life for everyone in our area.
So take advantage of their efforts. Go to a summer concert or one of the nights of Shakespeare, devote a few minutes next time you are at the Central Library or City Hall to view the work of the local artists on display, or take a walk down by the Newport Pier and experience the history of our great city at McFadden Square.
And join me in giving each of the members of the City Arts Commission a hearty, well-deserved, and continual chorus of appreciation.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Much of the credit for the art around us goes to the Newport Beach City Arts Commission, which was formed in 1974. It is composed of seven volunteers who are appointed by the City Council, and serve up to two four-year terms.
Their formal function is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council on all matters pertaining to artistic, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the city. Therefore, the commission recommends the adoption of such ordinances, rules and regulations as it deems necessary for the administration and preservation of fine arts and performing arts, and all of the historical, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the community. The group’s meetings are at 5 p.m. the second Thursday of each month at the Newport Beach Central Library Conference Room.
The commission also oversees the providing of grant money from the city to art organizations that have a connection to the city. Some of the recipients have been the Newport Beach Film Festival, Opera Pacific, local ballet companies, Pacific Symphony and Stop Gap Theatre.
Those are the formal functions. But that’s really just the beginning, because the commission also puts on Summer Concerts in the Parks, arts educational programs, Shakespeare by the Sea, and art exhibitions in the City Hall and the Central Library. And it also worked closely with local volunteers on the design and installation of the McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument near the Newport Pier.
So when it comes down to it, the commission really represents genuine community spirit in action, and demonstrates a passion to bring an art element into our public lives. And it is successful in its efforts. In fact, it is unusual to have so much activity in the arts in such a relatively small city.
For example, Summer Concerts in the Park has been going on for nine years, admission is free and the concerts are family friendly. This summer the concerts are scheduled at Mariners Park on July 19 with “Night & Days with Kevin Spirtas,” and at Bonita Canyon Sports Park on Aug. 23 with the Susie Hansen Latin Band. Both concerts are on Sundays, and begin at 6 p.m. This year’s Shakespeare productions are scheduled to be “Love’s Labour’s Lost” on Aug. 1, and “As You Like It” on Aug. 2, and both will also be at Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and begin at 7 p.m. But you will probably want to arrive early for each event and enjoy a picnic dinner — and don’t forget to bring your children and some friends!
In addition to the performing arts, the commission every year sponsors a “Juried Art Show.” This event accepts work from any artists who reside within about 50 miles of Newport. The commission volunteers set up the artwork, and then it is judged by two art professionals. Thereafter all of the artwork is for sale to the general public, with portions going both to the artists and to the Newport Beach Arts Foundation, which is a local nonprofit dedicated to enhancing arts in our city. And at the end of the event there is a ceremony with prizes awarded.
Before I inquired into the work of the arts commission I was simply unaware of the existence of the wonderful McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument. So I went to the Newport Pier, right in front of the dory fishermen’s market, and took a look.
It made me feel proud, and I’m sure you will feel the same.
The motto of the monument is “Remembering the Past; Acknowledging the Present; Looking Toward the Future,” and it is made up of a sea-green sphere that depicts some of the most important aspects of the city’s history.
In fact, you can follow the city’s “footsteps through time,” beginning with its founding by the four McFadden brothers as the “new port,” its incorporation in 1906, and all the way up to the present.
The institutions that are featured are the red cars, Rendezvous Ballroom, dory fishermen, Fun Zone, Balboa and Newport piers, surfing, the McFadden brothers and John Wayne.
As the commission Chairwoman Robyn Grant told me, our city cannot be just made up of beautiful beaches and parks, and world-class shopping and restaurants, it also needs to be immersed in art, because art entertains, enriches and enhances our lives. She is right, and she and her fellow volunteers have truly increased the quality of life for everyone in our area.
So take advantage of their efforts. Go to a summer concert or one of the nights of Shakespeare, devote a few minutes next time you are at the Central Library or City Hall to view the work of the local artists on display, or take a walk down by the Newport Pier and experience the history of our great city at McFadden Square.
And join me in giving each of the members of the City Arts Commission a hearty, well-deserved, and continual chorus of appreciation.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, May 3, 2009
‘The meaning is in the shadows’ - by Judge Jim Gray
The receptionist where I work recently loaned me a book about homelessness titled “The Meaning is in the Shadows,” by Peter McVerry, who is a Jesuit priest in Ireland.
Although as a judge I have dealt for a long time with issues of homeless people, I never before saw them in as realistic a light as presented in this book. But now I see that McVerry is right, society mostly sweeps the entire homelessness issue out of our view, which leaves it hidden in the shadows.
Revealingly, McVerry argues that the hardest part of homelessness is actually not sleeping without a bed, or being cold at night, or even being completely bored with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Instead, the hardest part is having the fact pushed upon them continually that if they were to die right now, no one would care — or even really notice. And that fundamental fact defines their lives, and takes away their dignity and their hope.
This situation often leads people to try to escape the pain of their everyday lives by using illicit drugs. Doing that enables them to feel miserable only some of the time, instead of all of the time. But unfortunately it often also leads them to getting hooked on the drugs, which brings on many added problems.
In addition, 25% of the people nationwide who are homeless are generally diagnosed with severe mental health problems, and probably another 25% have similar problems that are undiagnosed. Of course, the largest mental health facility in Orange County, and almost all other counties, is the county jail. But this is the most expensive way to deal with mental illness, and it does untold damage to these mentally fragile people.
Obviously, it is hard to obtain consistent statistics on the subject of homelessness. But a study was conducted showing that on Jan. 25, 2007, there were 3,649 people in homeless shelters in Orange County, and that the average homeless person enters into a shelter about seven times per year.
Of those studied, 56% were female and 44% male, and about 370 were diagnosed as being severely mentally ill, 150 had the AIDS virus, 675 were veterans, 330 were chronic substance abusers, and 250 were chronically homeless.
Of course, those numbers have probably increased with these recent problems in our economy, and this also does not include those people who had no shelter at all.
Our county’s Housing and Community Services Department reports that the homeless are often wrongly portrayed just as panhandlers asking for money. On the contrary, the homeless population here mostly consists of working families and individuals. Nevertheless, many live in cars, parks, motels, under bridges, and in homeless shelters, trying to maintain their dignity while they struggle to survive. And, just like in Ireland, they mostly remain hidden.
But the most notable problem we are facing today which we have not seen before in our history is the number of children who are homeless. In the time period of 2007 to 2008, our county Department of Education identified a total of 16,422 children and youth (pre-K to 12th grade) who were homeless. Their definition of homelessness was different from Housing and Community Services because it included 15,175 who were in doubled or tripled-up housing due to economic hardship.
But it also included 388 children living in homeless shelters, 60 living in cars, parks or campgrounds, and 787 in motels. Not surprisingly, the school districts in Santa Ana and Anaheim had the most homeless children, with 6,731 and 3,259, respectively, but the Newport-Mesa district had 115.
So what should be done about this situation? As a Libertarian, the first thing I want to make clear is that we should not be required to do anything.
But we will respond to the needs of these people voluntarily because we want to, not because we have to. Why? Because that is the type of people we are. So we should provide them with a safety net below which they should not be allowed to fall.
But having said that, the answer is also not to reward panhandling. I confess that I am not always able to stop myself, particularly for down-and-out women (I know this is sexist), but I try. Basically, it does not serve anyone’s best interest to support begging on the streets. Instead, I tell these people that I make donations to the Orange County Rescue Mission, and this great organization can provide them with food boxes and groceries, as well as more long-term care and assistance. So they should go there (They are located at One Hope Drive, Tustin, CA 92782). Nevertheless, when I make that comment, I try to greet the people pleasantly, look them in the eye, and treat them like the human beings they are. And I recommend you do the same. We cannot expect to breed or maintain respect for our society from the homeless unless society also shows respect for them.
Traditionally when the American people are confronted by a problem there is an outpouring of support. But today, American charitable giving is under attack because the federal government is reducing the tax deductions for those gifts, and at the same time is increasing its own funding in these same charitable areas. That means that we are sending our tax dollars to Washington, where they are then “magnanimously” distributed by politicians. No one gains by this system except the politicians, and this practice should be curtailed.
Homelessness is not an issue that should stay in the shadows. Yes, Orange County has 68 emergency and transitional shelters that currently offer 3,400 beds, as well as another 1,875 supportive housing beds in other facilities, so some of the temporary needs of these people are being met. But whether for humane, religious, or even practical reasons, we should keep ourselves aware of the homelessness issue by keeping it out in the open. And as caring Americans we should be sure that the fundamental needs of homeless people are met, especially in these difficult economic times.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe: The Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website, www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Although as a judge I have dealt for a long time with issues of homeless people, I never before saw them in as realistic a light as presented in this book. But now I see that McVerry is right, society mostly sweeps the entire homelessness issue out of our view, which leaves it hidden in the shadows.
Revealingly, McVerry argues that the hardest part of homelessness is actually not sleeping without a bed, or being cold at night, or even being completely bored with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Instead, the hardest part is having the fact pushed upon them continually that if they were to die right now, no one would care — or even really notice. And that fundamental fact defines their lives, and takes away their dignity and their hope.
This situation often leads people to try to escape the pain of their everyday lives by using illicit drugs. Doing that enables them to feel miserable only some of the time, instead of all of the time. But unfortunately it often also leads them to getting hooked on the drugs, which brings on many added problems.
In addition, 25% of the people nationwide who are homeless are generally diagnosed with severe mental health problems, and probably another 25% have similar problems that are undiagnosed. Of course, the largest mental health facility in Orange County, and almost all other counties, is the county jail. But this is the most expensive way to deal with mental illness, and it does untold damage to these mentally fragile people.
Obviously, it is hard to obtain consistent statistics on the subject of homelessness. But a study was conducted showing that on Jan. 25, 2007, there were 3,649 people in homeless shelters in Orange County, and that the average homeless person enters into a shelter about seven times per year.
Of those studied, 56% were female and 44% male, and about 370 were diagnosed as being severely mentally ill, 150 had the AIDS virus, 675 were veterans, 330 were chronic substance abusers, and 250 were chronically homeless.
Of course, those numbers have probably increased with these recent problems in our economy, and this also does not include those people who had no shelter at all.
Our county’s Housing and Community Services Department reports that the homeless are often wrongly portrayed just as panhandlers asking for money. On the contrary, the homeless population here mostly consists of working families and individuals. Nevertheless, many live in cars, parks, motels, under bridges, and in homeless shelters, trying to maintain their dignity while they struggle to survive. And, just like in Ireland, they mostly remain hidden.
But the most notable problem we are facing today which we have not seen before in our history is the number of children who are homeless. In the time period of 2007 to 2008, our county Department of Education identified a total of 16,422 children and youth (pre-K to 12th grade) who were homeless. Their definition of homelessness was different from Housing and Community Services because it included 15,175 who were in doubled or tripled-up housing due to economic hardship.
But it also included 388 children living in homeless shelters, 60 living in cars, parks or campgrounds, and 787 in motels. Not surprisingly, the school districts in Santa Ana and Anaheim had the most homeless children, with 6,731 and 3,259, respectively, but the Newport-Mesa district had 115.
So what should be done about this situation? As a Libertarian, the first thing I want to make clear is that we should not be required to do anything.
But we will respond to the needs of these people voluntarily because we want to, not because we have to. Why? Because that is the type of people we are. So we should provide them with a safety net below which they should not be allowed to fall.
But having said that, the answer is also not to reward panhandling. I confess that I am not always able to stop myself, particularly for down-and-out women (I know this is sexist), but I try. Basically, it does not serve anyone’s best interest to support begging on the streets. Instead, I tell these people that I make donations to the Orange County Rescue Mission, and this great organization can provide them with food boxes and groceries, as well as more long-term care and assistance. So they should go there (They are located at One Hope Drive, Tustin, CA 92782). Nevertheless, when I make that comment, I try to greet the people pleasantly, look them in the eye, and treat them like the human beings they are. And I recommend you do the same. We cannot expect to breed or maintain respect for our society from the homeless unless society also shows respect for them.
Traditionally when the American people are confronted by a problem there is an outpouring of support. But today, American charitable giving is under attack because the federal government is reducing the tax deductions for those gifts, and at the same time is increasing its own funding in these same charitable areas. That means that we are sending our tax dollars to Washington, where they are then “magnanimously” distributed by politicians. No one gains by this system except the politicians, and this practice should be curtailed.
Homelessness is not an issue that should stay in the shadows. Yes, Orange County has 68 emergency and transitional shelters that currently offer 3,400 beds, as well as another 1,875 supportive housing beds in other facilities, so some of the temporary needs of these people are being met. But whether for humane, religious, or even practical reasons, we should keep ourselves aware of the homelessness issue by keeping it out in the open. And as caring Americans we should be sure that the fundamental needs of homeless people are met, especially in these difficult economic times.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe: The Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website, www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Choices at twilight time - Judge Jim Gray
A few years before my wonderful mother died, she first told me a story, and then followed it up with a strong request.
The story concerned my nephew, who had lived most of his life until the age of about 16 in the frequent company of his grandmother. But as time went along, his grandmother began to show the symptoms of Alzheimer’s, and that awful disease eventually took her away from us about five years later.
Some time after that, my nephew happened to mention to my mother that he only really remembered his grandmother during the time when she was afflicted with Alzheimer’s, and he did not really recall the good times before that. This affected my mother so much that she made me vow to her that when it appeared that she would be at the end of her life, I was not to allow any of her grandchildren to see her. She deeply wanted them only to remember her as she was, during the good times.
So when that time eventually came, we respected her wishes, and didn’t allow her grandchildren to see her.
This caused me to reflect upon my own experience. When I was about 12 years old my father took me to see one of his aunts who was in bed and dying of cancer. I had previously seen his aunt on several prior occasions, but the only visual memory I have of her to this day was that last visit, when she was weak, pale, and wasting away.
Obviously these are deeply personal matters. But personally, I think my mother was right. I want the lasting memories of me by my grandchildren to be of the good times. Think about it, because you might want the same thing, and want to make the same request my mother did.
Even treading further into private issues, I have personally decided that at the end of my life I wish to have the body I leave behind to be cremated. Therefore, I have pre-arranged and paid for this to be done with the Trident Society, and I carry a card in my wallet setting forth my chosen plan. It even includes an added provision that if I die more than 75 miles from my residence, the program will cause my body to be cremated wherever I left it, and the ashes returned to my family for disposal according to my wishes, which I have already made known to them.
Among other things, this course of action complies with my mother’s belief that “the land is for the living,” so the dead shouldn’t take up space. It also would have the additional benefit of relieving my surviving family and friends from the guilt of not going “often enough” to my gravesite to pay their respects. And it would also take away the situation of having withering and dead flowers on my grave, which I have always seen as sad and depressing. So for all of these reasons, I believe that cremation is the way to go.
And then there is the time that life is drawing to a close. My mother, based upon what she had seen and thought about, also made me promise her that no extraordinary measures would be taken to keep her heart beating, if by doing so she would lose her dignity and quality of life.
This evolved into her view that she didn’t want me to allow any tubes to be used to prolong her life under those conditions. And — bless her heart forever — at the end she was true to her convictions.
Without pressing the case too strongly, because these are some of the most personal things a person can discuss, it is important for all of us to think about and plan for all of these inevitabilities.
Not only is it not morbid to make these plans, it is actually being thoughtful and considerate of your surviving friends and family. Why? Because when the time comes, your loved ones will almost uniformly want to carry out your wishes.
So don’t increase their pain and grief by making them guess what your wishes are. Tell them — but not in your will, because by the time your will is read the decisions will have been made and the actions already taken. Instead, write them out in a “living will” (you can get the forms at stores like Staples), discuss them at the appropriate time with the right people, and even make some of the arrangements yourself. This really is an act of thoughtfulness and kindness.
Finally, I was talking with my wife and children recently about one of my wishes after I have left this earth. That wish is that the first time a good production of “Rigoletto,” “Carmen,” or “Les Miserables” comes to Southern California after my death, I want my estate to purchase good seats for anyone in my family who wants to attend, and also, either before or after the show, I want to host a nice meal at a good restaurant with some nice wine. Then maybe my family might have a good time, and drink a toast in memory of my life.
In response, my wife and others suggested that I should not wait. Instead I should purchase the tickets myself, and I should participate in the happy occasion right along with them. Why? Because life is for the living. They are right, and that is what I am going to do.
So that is my final thought to you in today’s column. Don’t wait until it’s too late. Be sure to make special plans to spend some of your remaining time on this earth enjoying nice occasions with your family and friends.
Because not only is the land for the living, so is life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
The story concerned my nephew, who had lived most of his life until the age of about 16 in the frequent company of his grandmother. But as time went along, his grandmother began to show the symptoms of Alzheimer’s, and that awful disease eventually took her away from us about five years later.
Some time after that, my nephew happened to mention to my mother that he only really remembered his grandmother during the time when she was afflicted with Alzheimer’s, and he did not really recall the good times before that. This affected my mother so much that she made me vow to her that when it appeared that she would be at the end of her life, I was not to allow any of her grandchildren to see her. She deeply wanted them only to remember her as she was, during the good times.
So when that time eventually came, we respected her wishes, and didn’t allow her grandchildren to see her.
This caused me to reflect upon my own experience. When I was about 12 years old my father took me to see one of his aunts who was in bed and dying of cancer. I had previously seen his aunt on several prior occasions, but the only visual memory I have of her to this day was that last visit, when she was weak, pale, and wasting away.
Obviously these are deeply personal matters. But personally, I think my mother was right. I want the lasting memories of me by my grandchildren to be of the good times. Think about it, because you might want the same thing, and want to make the same request my mother did.
Even treading further into private issues, I have personally decided that at the end of my life I wish to have the body I leave behind to be cremated. Therefore, I have pre-arranged and paid for this to be done with the Trident Society, and I carry a card in my wallet setting forth my chosen plan. It even includes an added provision that if I die more than 75 miles from my residence, the program will cause my body to be cremated wherever I left it, and the ashes returned to my family for disposal according to my wishes, which I have already made known to them.
Among other things, this course of action complies with my mother’s belief that “the land is for the living,” so the dead shouldn’t take up space. It also would have the additional benefit of relieving my surviving family and friends from the guilt of not going “often enough” to my gravesite to pay their respects. And it would also take away the situation of having withering and dead flowers on my grave, which I have always seen as sad and depressing. So for all of these reasons, I believe that cremation is the way to go.
And then there is the time that life is drawing to a close. My mother, based upon what she had seen and thought about, also made me promise her that no extraordinary measures would be taken to keep her heart beating, if by doing so she would lose her dignity and quality of life.
This evolved into her view that she didn’t want me to allow any tubes to be used to prolong her life under those conditions. And — bless her heart forever — at the end she was true to her convictions.
Without pressing the case too strongly, because these are some of the most personal things a person can discuss, it is important for all of us to think about and plan for all of these inevitabilities.
Not only is it not morbid to make these plans, it is actually being thoughtful and considerate of your surviving friends and family. Why? Because when the time comes, your loved ones will almost uniformly want to carry out your wishes.
So don’t increase their pain and grief by making them guess what your wishes are. Tell them — but not in your will, because by the time your will is read the decisions will have been made and the actions already taken. Instead, write them out in a “living will” (you can get the forms at stores like Staples), discuss them at the appropriate time with the right people, and even make some of the arrangements yourself. This really is an act of thoughtfulness and kindness.
Finally, I was talking with my wife and children recently about one of my wishes after I have left this earth. That wish is that the first time a good production of “Rigoletto,” “Carmen,” or “Les Miserables” comes to Southern California after my death, I want my estate to purchase good seats for anyone in my family who wants to attend, and also, either before or after the show, I want to host a nice meal at a good restaurant with some nice wine. Then maybe my family might have a good time, and drink a toast in memory of my life.
In response, my wife and others suggested that I should not wait. Instead I should purchase the tickets myself, and I should participate in the happy occasion right along with them. Why? Because life is for the living. They are right, and that is what I am going to do.
So that is my final thought to you in today’s column. Don’t wait until it’s too late. Be sure to make special plans to spend some of your remaining time on this earth enjoying nice occasions with your family and friends.
Because not only is the land for the living, so is life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Canyon Acres story - by Judge Jim Gray
Last St. Patrick’s Day, while waiting at Promelis Market for my take-out order of corned beef and cabbage, I began making light conversation with a distinguished- looking man who was waiting for a similar order to take home to enjoy with his family, including several grandchildren. After expressing my jealousy that he had grandchildren and I didn’t, we began talking about other things.
It turns out that this man was Patrick Dirk, a name that was familiar to me, and he was soon discussing his involvement and commitment to an organization called Canyon Acres Children and Family Services. Surprisingly enough, even though I had sat as a judge on a juvenile court assignment for several years, I was not familiar with this group. So I asked him about it.
At this point, Dirk lit up with infectious enthusiasm. He told me that Canyon Acres is a private/public partnership composed of about 95 paid staff and 300 volunteers that work with the Orange County Health Care Agency, the probation department, and other parties to provide homes, care, treatment, and supportive services for abused, neglected, and emotionally troubled children and their families in Orange County.
What began in 1980 as a home for 12 young children has grown into a model child-welfare agency. It assists with foster care, adoptions, creating family connections, a daytime treatment center, “wraparound” services, mental health services, and in-home crisis services.
In doing this, they have found that their timely intervention both helps to keep children in their homes, and also reduces the chances that the children will later have to be placed into a higher level of care.
Sadly enough, many abused and neglected children in the child dependency system have family members and friends all around the country who are unaware of their plight. So Canyon Acres makes a concerted effort to find them.
Through a unique process of “high-tech” searching, these potential support systems are found and, if they are interested, introduced to the children. Then they are assisted through an “engagement process” to stimulate ongoing contacts and relationships. This action alone provides the children with a sense of stability, hope, guidance, and a brighter hope for the future.
Today most people who are involved with the court system realize that it is frequently in the best interest of the child, parents, and society in general to keep children in their homes as much as possible. So Canyon Acres coordinates the services of mentors, therapists, therapeutic behavior services coaches, and school teachers into a team to individualize a program for each child and family. That is what is known as Canyon Acres’ wraparound services, and they have gratifyingly large numbers of success stories to show for their efforts.
For example, Amanda had been in the foster care system since she was 3 years old, when she was removed from the home of her abusive father. Her mother was known to be on the streets, hooked on drugs, and prostituting herself, and the child welfare agency case workers had written off any further attempts for Amanda to live with her mother because they couldn’t find her.
Enter Canyon Acres’ wraparound services, which found the mother, assisted her in finding a six-month detox program, and then found a home for her that would assist her to reunify with Amanda. Then the team, along with the therapists, helped the mother to discover her own strengths and weaknesses, and helped her further to cultivate her ability to overcome the challenges connected with them.
In addition, the team discovered that Amanda liked to play the guitar, and encouraged and facilitated that interest. The team also assisted in the creation of a family photo album that helped to create in Amanda a much-needed sense of belonging. Over time, all of these efforts worked, and the Canyon Acres team helped a damaged mother and wounded daughter to reunite. Now Amanda is living back with her mother, going to school, and learning to play the guitar, and both of them have regained their health, self-confidence, and self-respect.
Canyon Acres also has a highly trained staff to provide, on a moment’s notice, some in-home intervention to help stabilize families in crisis, with the goal of preventing a child’s placement into Orangewood Children’s Home or psychiatric hospitalization. Orangewood is a fabulous institution, and people in our county have every right to be proud of it and its accomplishments. But the better result is not to have to use their services in the first place, if reasonably possible. And Canyon Acres often realizes that goal.
Then there is the treatment center itself. This is composed of a 4.6-acre ranch in Anaheim Hills, where severely emotionally disturbed children are brought for two to three hours after school, or all day during the summer, for specialized programs including recreational therapy, art, therapeutic horseback riding, and other mental health-based activities.
Mental health professionals have discovered that, among other things, where children will not originally open up to other people, they will often “confide” to a horse. So they have four horses on site, all of which have been privately donated. Canyon Acres specializes in dealing with hard-to-treat children, and it advertises itself as a “wonderful place for children to heal.” Well, based upon my good fortune to meet several of the key players in the Canyon Acres story, and also to take a tour of their ranch, I am here to tell you that they are right!
That was what inspired me to write this column, so that you could also be aware of this wonderful organization. And if you would like to learn more about what they do, please come to their Annual Blue Ribbon Gala, which will be on Saturday, May 16 at the Balboa Bay Club. Not only will you meet some of these marvelous, dedicated, and effective people, you will also be able to contribute your support to one of the most dynamically successful organizations I have ever encountered.
For more information, contact me at the e-mail address given below, or contact Canyon Acres directly at (714) 385-5272. These people are doing great work, and I know you will want to join me in giving them your full congratulations and support.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
It turns out that this man was Patrick Dirk, a name that was familiar to me, and he was soon discussing his involvement and commitment to an organization called Canyon Acres Children and Family Services. Surprisingly enough, even though I had sat as a judge on a juvenile court assignment for several years, I was not familiar with this group. So I asked him about it.
At this point, Dirk lit up with infectious enthusiasm. He told me that Canyon Acres is a private/public partnership composed of about 95 paid staff and 300 volunteers that work with the Orange County Health Care Agency, the probation department, and other parties to provide homes, care, treatment, and supportive services for abused, neglected, and emotionally troubled children and their families in Orange County.
What began in 1980 as a home for 12 young children has grown into a model child-welfare agency. It assists with foster care, adoptions, creating family connections, a daytime treatment center, “wraparound” services, mental health services, and in-home crisis services.
In doing this, they have found that their timely intervention both helps to keep children in their homes, and also reduces the chances that the children will later have to be placed into a higher level of care.
Sadly enough, many abused and neglected children in the child dependency system have family members and friends all around the country who are unaware of their plight. So Canyon Acres makes a concerted effort to find them.
Through a unique process of “high-tech” searching, these potential support systems are found and, if they are interested, introduced to the children. Then they are assisted through an “engagement process” to stimulate ongoing contacts and relationships. This action alone provides the children with a sense of stability, hope, guidance, and a brighter hope for the future.
Today most people who are involved with the court system realize that it is frequently in the best interest of the child, parents, and society in general to keep children in their homes as much as possible. So Canyon Acres coordinates the services of mentors, therapists, therapeutic behavior services coaches, and school teachers into a team to individualize a program for each child and family. That is what is known as Canyon Acres’ wraparound services, and they have gratifyingly large numbers of success stories to show for their efforts.
For example, Amanda had been in the foster care system since she was 3 years old, when she was removed from the home of her abusive father. Her mother was known to be on the streets, hooked on drugs, and prostituting herself, and the child welfare agency case workers had written off any further attempts for Amanda to live with her mother because they couldn’t find her.
Enter Canyon Acres’ wraparound services, which found the mother, assisted her in finding a six-month detox program, and then found a home for her that would assist her to reunify with Amanda. Then the team, along with the therapists, helped the mother to discover her own strengths and weaknesses, and helped her further to cultivate her ability to overcome the challenges connected with them.
In addition, the team discovered that Amanda liked to play the guitar, and encouraged and facilitated that interest. The team also assisted in the creation of a family photo album that helped to create in Amanda a much-needed sense of belonging. Over time, all of these efforts worked, and the Canyon Acres team helped a damaged mother and wounded daughter to reunite. Now Amanda is living back with her mother, going to school, and learning to play the guitar, and both of them have regained their health, self-confidence, and self-respect.
Canyon Acres also has a highly trained staff to provide, on a moment’s notice, some in-home intervention to help stabilize families in crisis, with the goal of preventing a child’s placement into Orangewood Children’s Home or psychiatric hospitalization. Orangewood is a fabulous institution, and people in our county have every right to be proud of it and its accomplishments. But the better result is not to have to use their services in the first place, if reasonably possible. And Canyon Acres often realizes that goal.
Then there is the treatment center itself. This is composed of a 4.6-acre ranch in Anaheim Hills, where severely emotionally disturbed children are brought for two to three hours after school, or all day during the summer, for specialized programs including recreational therapy, art, therapeutic horseback riding, and other mental health-based activities.
Mental health professionals have discovered that, among other things, where children will not originally open up to other people, they will often “confide” to a horse. So they have four horses on site, all of which have been privately donated. Canyon Acres specializes in dealing with hard-to-treat children, and it advertises itself as a “wonderful place for children to heal.” Well, based upon my good fortune to meet several of the key players in the Canyon Acres story, and also to take a tour of their ranch, I am here to tell you that they are right!
That was what inspired me to write this column, so that you could also be aware of this wonderful organization. And if you would like to learn more about what they do, please come to their Annual Blue Ribbon Gala, which will be on Saturday, May 16 at the Balboa Bay Club. Not only will you meet some of these marvelous, dedicated, and effective people, you will also be able to contribute your support to one of the most dynamically successful organizations I have ever encountered.
For more information, contact me at the e-mail address given below, or contact Canyon Acres directly at (714) 385-5272. These people are doing great work, and I know you will want to join me in giving them your full congratulations and support.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Lowering costs of health care - by Judge Jim Gray
I will get this fact out of the way at the beginning: My wife is a physical therapist, and she owns and manages her own physical therapy practice in the City of Orange. So maybe I have a bias.
Having said that, I want to call your attention to a change that should be made that will reduce the costs of effective health care and increase the general fairness of the health-care system. What is that change? Allow “direct access” for physical therapy in California.
What does that mean? Today patients who are covered by health insurance can go for evaluation and treatment to their chosen chiropractor, acupuncturist, marriage and family counselor, or psychologist and have those visits reimbursed by their health insurers without being first required to obtain a prescription from a physician. But to go to see a physical therapist, patients must first obtain that prescription. This, of course, requires patients to spend extra time and money before they can obtain their physical therapy.
How did this disparity occur? Probably, it has been perpetuated because the physical therapists simply have not had as strong a political lobby as the other health-care professions. But it originated in 1965, when then-State Attorney General Thomas Lynch issued an opinion that interpreted the Legislative intent of the Physical Therapy Practice Act to require access to a physical therapist only after a prescription from a physician. And this opinion was rendered even though it was and still is contrary to the protocol of Medicare and many managed health-care plans.
Currently, 44 states allow some form of direct access for the patients/consumers to physical therapists without a prescription. But California does not. That means that, on the average, the costs to patients in California are 123% higher than those in other states. And that hurts everybody, except the physicians.
In addition, the Wall Street Journal cited a study by Seattle’s Virginia Mason Medical Center that found that putting “physical therapy in front” when treating patients with back pain generally resulted in less time waiting for appointments, fewer MRIs, and a decrease in time lost from work for the patients.
Why do these positive results occur? Recently Consumer Reports published a survey of more than 14,000 patients that showed physical therapist and other “hands on” therapies outranked treatment by other medical specialists for back pain.
So, conservative physical therapy treatment not only is less invasive and less expensive, but often works better than other approaches.
To become licensed, physical therapists must graduate from a physical therapy program accredited through the Commission on Accreditation for Physical Therapy Education.
And, since January of 2003, only physical therapists who have obtained a master’s or doctor’s degree can even be considered for that accreditation.
Of course, if any health-care professionals determine that a patient has symptoms or conditions that are outside their field of expertise, they must refer the patient to the appropriate health-care professional.
But otherwise, just as in any other profession, the patient and consumer should be able to choose which health-care professional to see and trust for evaluation and treatment. And this is particularly true today, when the health-care industry is in such a crisis.
In an earlier column we discussed the benefits of allowing pharmacists to dispense to patients all non-addictive drugs except antibiotics without a prescription, and that not allowing this result affirmatively wasted the patients’ time and money.
The reasons are the same for physical therapists. Direct access would allow these educated and skilled health-care professionals to practice their profession and, along the way, would also reduce the costs and waiting time for treatment.
What can be done about this situation? At the moment, there is a bill that will be voted upon in the California Legislature in the next two weeks to provide direct and equal access for patients to physical therapy. It is Assembly Bill 721, and it merits your support. All it would take is for you to spend a few minutes to contact your representative in Sacramento and voice your support for this measure.
Direct access is a common-sense approach to health-care delivery that will save you time and bother, eliminate the burdens and costs of unnecessary visits to physicians, and often lead to quicker pain relief and recovery from injuries when you need them most. And along the way it will also provide for more basic fairness in the health-care field in general.
To me, that is a win-win situation for everybody. But it won’t be implemented without your help.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court. He be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net. www.judgejimgray.com
Having said that, I want to call your attention to a change that should be made that will reduce the costs of effective health care and increase the general fairness of the health-care system. What is that change? Allow “direct access” for physical therapy in California.
What does that mean? Today patients who are covered by health insurance can go for evaluation and treatment to their chosen chiropractor, acupuncturist, marriage and family counselor, or psychologist and have those visits reimbursed by their health insurers without being first required to obtain a prescription from a physician. But to go to see a physical therapist, patients must first obtain that prescription. This, of course, requires patients to spend extra time and money before they can obtain their physical therapy.
How did this disparity occur? Probably, it has been perpetuated because the physical therapists simply have not had as strong a political lobby as the other health-care professions. But it originated in 1965, when then-State Attorney General Thomas Lynch issued an opinion that interpreted the Legislative intent of the Physical Therapy Practice Act to require access to a physical therapist only after a prescription from a physician. And this opinion was rendered even though it was and still is contrary to the protocol of Medicare and many managed health-care plans.
Currently, 44 states allow some form of direct access for the patients/consumers to physical therapists without a prescription. But California does not. That means that, on the average, the costs to patients in California are 123% higher than those in other states. And that hurts everybody, except the physicians.
In addition, the Wall Street Journal cited a study by Seattle’s Virginia Mason Medical Center that found that putting “physical therapy in front” when treating patients with back pain generally resulted in less time waiting for appointments, fewer MRIs, and a decrease in time lost from work for the patients.
Why do these positive results occur? Recently Consumer Reports published a survey of more than 14,000 patients that showed physical therapist and other “hands on” therapies outranked treatment by other medical specialists for back pain.
So, conservative physical therapy treatment not only is less invasive and less expensive, but often works better than other approaches.
To become licensed, physical therapists must graduate from a physical therapy program accredited through the Commission on Accreditation for Physical Therapy Education.
And, since January of 2003, only physical therapists who have obtained a master’s or doctor’s degree can even be considered for that accreditation.
Of course, if any health-care professionals determine that a patient has symptoms or conditions that are outside their field of expertise, they must refer the patient to the appropriate health-care professional.
But otherwise, just as in any other profession, the patient and consumer should be able to choose which health-care professional to see and trust for evaluation and treatment. And this is particularly true today, when the health-care industry is in such a crisis.
In an earlier column we discussed the benefits of allowing pharmacists to dispense to patients all non-addictive drugs except antibiotics without a prescription, and that not allowing this result affirmatively wasted the patients’ time and money.
The reasons are the same for physical therapists. Direct access would allow these educated and skilled health-care professionals to practice their profession and, along the way, would also reduce the costs and waiting time for treatment.
What can be done about this situation? At the moment, there is a bill that will be voted upon in the California Legislature in the next two weeks to provide direct and equal access for patients to physical therapy. It is Assembly Bill 721, and it merits your support. All it would take is for you to spend a few minutes to contact your representative in Sacramento and voice your support for this measure.
Direct access is a common-sense approach to health-care delivery that will save you time and bother, eliminate the burdens and costs of unnecessary visits to physicians, and often lead to quicker pain relief and recovery from injuries when you need them most. And along the way it will also provide for more basic fairness in the health-care field in general.
To me, that is a win-win situation for everybody. But it won’t be implemented without your help.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court. He be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net. www.judgejimgray.com
Saturday, April 11, 2009
WE TRIED A WAR LIKE THIS ONCE BEFORE - Mike Gray
Dear family and friends,
Enclosed is a copy of an op-ed piece written by my friend Mike Gray that will appear tomorrow in the Washington Post. It is as incisive as anything I have seen, and deserves maximum distribution.
Please help us do so. This bus is moving, and Drug Probition's days of inflicting misery upon us and the rest of the world are numbered.
Good luck to us all.
Judge Jim
THE WASHINGTON POST
Sun, 12 Apr 2009
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
WE TRIED A WAR LIKE THIS ONCE BEFORE
by Mike Gray
In 1932, Alphonse Capone, an influential businessman then living in Chicago, used to drive through the city in a caravan of armor-plated limos built to his specifications by General Motors.
Submachine-gun-toting associates led the motorcade and brought up the rear.
It is a measure of how thoroughly the mob mentality had permeated everyday life that this was considered normal.
Capone and his boys were agents of misguided policy. Ninety years ago, the United States tried to cure the national thirst for alcohol, and it led to an explosion of violence unlike anything we'd ever seen. Today, it's hard to ignore the echoes of Prohibition in the drug-related mayhem along our southern border. Over the past 15 months, there have been 7,200 drug-war deaths in Mexico alone, as the government there battles an army of killers that would scare the pants off Al Capone.
Now U.S. officials are warning that the vandals may be headed in this direction. Too late: They're already here. And they're in a good position to take over organized crime in this country as well.
After decades of trying to stem the influx of illegal narcotics into the United States, it's clear that the drug war, like Prohibition, has led us into a gruesome blind alley. Drugs are cheaper than ever before and you can buy them anywhere. As Mexico's cash-starved government struggles to keep up the good fight, the drug barons rake in more than enough to buy political protection and military power while still maintaining profit margins beyond imagining. And what's driving this desperate struggle may be the ubiquitous
weed:
Southwestern lawmen say that marijuana accounts for two-thirds of the cartels' income.
At last, the spectacular violence in Mexico has captured everybody's attention, and in an eerie replay of the end of alcohol prohibition, we may at last be witnessing the final act in the war on drugs.
One hint of a shifting wind came in February, when a state legislator from San Francisco introduced a bill to tax, regulate and legalize adult use of cannabis. This sort of grandstanding is always met with derision, and this was no exception. But then something strange
happened: California's chief tax collector said that the measure would bring in $1.3 billion a year and save another $1 billion on enforcement and incarceration. In a state facing an $18 billion deficit, suddenly nobody was laughing.
Four days later Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who's no legalizer, said that he, too, thinks we should take another look at marijuana prohibition. "The most effective way to establish a virtual barrier against the criminal activities is to take the profit out of it," he told a U.S.
Senate subcommittee.
The next day, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced a minor policy shift with enormous implications: The federal government would no longer go after groups that supply medical marijuana in the
13 states where it is legal. The Drug Enforcement Administration had been raiding dispensaries routinely, and dozens of patients and growers are behind bars today despite their legal status in California's eyes. Now that threat has vanished for those who comply with state law. For California, this amounts to de facto legalization.
At his recent cyberspace town hall meeting, President Obama fielded a question about whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy. "No,"
he replied as the audience giggled. But that answer sheds no light on his actual thinking. Obama has already called the drug war an "utter failure."
And since he himself is an admitted ex-toker, it's hard to believe that he'd cancel some kid's college education over a crime he got away with.
Of course, resistance to marijuana legalization remains rock solid in Washington among those who can't face the failure of prohibition. But that has more to do with politics than science. The Department of Health and Human Services says that there are 32 million drug abusers in the country, but that includes 25 million marijuana smokers. If you strike them from the list, how do you justify spending $60 billion a year in this economy trying to stop 2 percent of the population from being self-destructive? It would be dramatically cheaper to follow the Swiss example: Provide treatment for all who want it, and supply the rest with pure drugs under medical supervision.
When we erected an artificial barrier between alcohol producers and consumers in 1920, we created a bonanza more lucrative than the Gold Rush.
The staggering profits from illegal booze gave mobsters the financial power to take over legitimate businesses and expand into casinos, loan sharking, labor racketeering and extortion. Thus we created the major crime syndicates
-- and the U.S. murder rate jumped tenfold.
Fortunately, the Roaring '20s were interrupted by the Crash of '29, and when the money ran out, the battle against booze was a luxury we could no longer afford. Prohibition was repealed in 1933, and over the next decade the U.S.
murder rate was cut in half.
Today it's back up where it was at the peak of Prohibition -- 10 per 100,000
-- a jump clearly connected to the war on drugs. And anyone who's watching what's going on south of the border can see that we're headed for an era of mayhem that would make Meyer Lansky and Frank Costello weak in the knees.
Profits from the Mexican drug trade are estimated at about $35 billion a year. And since the cartels spend half to two-thirds of their income on bribery, that would be around $20 billion going into the pockets of police officers, army generals, judges, prosecutors and politicians. Last fall, Mexico's attorney general announced that his former top drug enforcer, chief prosecutor Noe Ramirez Mandujano, was getting $450,000 a month under the table from the Sinaloa cartel.
The cartel can of course afford to be generous -- Sinaloa chief Joaquin Guzman recently made the Forbes List of Billionaires.
The depth of Guzman's penetration into the United States was revealed a few weeks ago, when the DEA proudly announced hundreds of arrests all over the country in a major operation against the "dangerously powerful" Sinaloa cartel. One jarring detail was the admission that Mexican cartels are now operating in 230 cities inside the United States.
This disaster has been slowly unfolding since the early 1980s, when Vice President George H.W. Bush shut down the Caribbean cocaine pipeline between Colombia and Miami. The Colombians switched to the land route and began hiring Mexicans to deliver the goods across the U.S. border. But when the Mexicans got a glimpse of the truckloads of cash headed south, they decided that they didn't need the Colombians at all. Today the Mexican cartels are full-service commercial organizations with their own suppliers, refineries and a distribution network that covers all of North America.
As we awaken to the threat spilling over our southern border, the reactions are predictable. In addition to walling off the border, Congress wants to send helicopters, military hardware and unmanned reconnaissance drones into the fray -- and it wants the Pentagon to train Mexican troops in counterinsurgency tactics.
Our anti-drug warriors have apparently learned nothing from the past two decades. A few years ago we trained several units of the Mexican army in counterinsurgency warfare. They studied their lessons, then promptly deserted to form the Zetas, a thoroughly professional narco hit squad for the Gulf cartel, which offered considerably better pay.
Over the past eight years, the Mexican army has had more than 100,000 deserters.
The president of Mexico rightly points out that U.S. policy is at the root of this nightmare. Not only did we invent the war on drugs, but we are the primary consumers.
The obvious solution is cutting the demand for drugs in the United States.
Clearly, it would be the death of the cartels if we could simply dry up the market. Unfortunately, every effort to do this has met with resounding failure. But now that the Roaring '00s have hit the Crash of '09, the money has vanished once again, and we can no longer ignore the collateral damage of Prohibition II.
Writing last month in the Wall Street Journal, three former Latin American presidents -- Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico -- declared the war on drugs a failure.
Responding to a situation they say is "urgent in light of the rising levels of violence and corruption," they are demanding a reexamination of U.S.-inspired drug policies.
Two weeks ago, a conservative former superior court judge in Orange County told the Los Angeles Times that legalization was the only answer, and of 4,400 readers who responded immediately, the Times reported that "a staggering 94 percent" agreed with him.
This is another pivotal moment in U.S. history, strangely resonant with 1933. The war on drugs has been a riveting drama: It has given us great television, filled our prisons and employed hundreds of thousands as guards, police, prosecutors and probation officers. But the party's over.
Here is a glimpse of what lies ahead if we fail to end our second attempt to control the personal habits of private citizens. Listen to Enrique Gomez Hurtado, a former high court judge from Colombia who still has shrapnel in his leg from a bomb sent to kill him by the infamous drug lord Pablo Escobar. In 1993, his country was a free-fire zone not unlike Mexico today, and Gomez issued this chilling -- and prescient -- warning to an international drug policy conference in Baltimore:
"The income of the drug barons is greater than the American defense budget.
With this financial power they can suborn the institutions of the State, and if the State resists . . . they can purchase the firepower to outgun it. We are threatened with a return to the Dark Ages."
Ending prohibition won't solve our drug problem. But it will save us from something far worse. And it will put drug addiction back in the hands of the medical profession, where it was being dealt with successfully -- until we called in the cops.
Enclosed is a copy of an op-ed piece written by my friend Mike Gray that will appear tomorrow in the Washington Post. It is as incisive as anything I have seen, and deserves maximum distribution.
Please help us do so. This bus is moving, and Drug Probition's days of inflicting misery upon us and the rest of the world are numbered.
Good luck to us all.
Judge Jim
**************************************
THE WASHINGTON POST
Sun, 12 Apr 2009
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
WE TRIED A WAR LIKE THIS ONCE BEFORE
by Mike Gray
In 1932, Alphonse Capone, an influential businessman then living in Chicago, used to drive through the city in a caravan of armor-plated limos built to his specifications by General Motors.
Submachine-gun-toting associates led the motorcade and brought up the rear.
It is a measure of how thoroughly the mob mentality had permeated everyday life that this was considered normal.
Capone and his boys were agents of misguided policy. Ninety years ago, the United States tried to cure the national thirst for alcohol, and it led to an explosion of violence unlike anything we'd ever seen. Today, it's hard to ignore the echoes of Prohibition in the drug-related mayhem along our southern border. Over the past 15 months, there have been 7,200 drug-war deaths in Mexico alone, as the government there battles an army of killers that would scare the pants off Al Capone.
Now U.S. officials are warning that the vandals may be headed in this direction. Too late: They're already here. And they're in a good position to take over organized crime in this country as well.
After decades of trying to stem the influx of illegal narcotics into the United States, it's clear that the drug war, like Prohibition, has led us into a gruesome blind alley. Drugs are cheaper than ever before and you can buy them anywhere. As Mexico's cash-starved government struggles to keep up the good fight, the drug barons rake in more than enough to buy political protection and military power while still maintaining profit margins beyond imagining. And what's driving this desperate struggle may be the ubiquitous
weed:
Southwestern lawmen say that marijuana accounts for two-thirds of the cartels' income.
At last, the spectacular violence in Mexico has captured everybody's attention, and in an eerie replay of the end of alcohol prohibition, we may at last be witnessing the final act in the war on drugs.
One hint of a shifting wind came in February, when a state legislator from San Francisco introduced a bill to tax, regulate and legalize adult use of cannabis. This sort of grandstanding is always met with derision, and this was no exception. But then something strange
happened: California's chief tax collector said that the measure would bring in $1.3 billion a year and save another $1 billion on enforcement and incarceration. In a state facing an $18 billion deficit, suddenly nobody was laughing.
Four days later Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who's no legalizer, said that he, too, thinks we should take another look at marijuana prohibition. "The most effective way to establish a virtual barrier against the criminal activities is to take the profit out of it," he told a U.S.
Senate subcommittee.
The next day, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced a minor policy shift with enormous implications: The federal government would no longer go after groups that supply medical marijuana in the
13 states where it is legal. The Drug Enforcement Administration had been raiding dispensaries routinely, and dozens of patients and growers are behind bars today despite their legal status in California's eyes. Now that threat has vanished for those who comply with state law. For California, this amounts to de facto legalization.
At his recent cyberspace town hall meeting, President Obama fielded a question about whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy. "No,"
he replied as the audience giggled. But that answer sheds no light on his actual thinking. Obama has already called the drug war an "utter failure."
And since he himself is an admitted ex-toker, it's hard to believe that he'd cancel some kid's college education over a crime he got away with.
Of course, resistance to marijuana legalization remains rock solid in Washington among those who can't face the failure of prohibition. But that has more to do with politics than science. The Department of Health and Human Services says that there are 32 million drug abusers in the country, but that includes 25 million marijuana smokers. If you strike them from the list, how do you justify spending $60 billion a year in this economy trying to stop 2 percent of the population from being self-destructive? It would be dramatically cheaper to follow the Swiss example: Provide treatment for all who want it, and supply the rest with pure drugs under medical supervision.
When we erected an artificial barrier between alcohol producers and consumers in 1920, we created a bonanza more lucrative than the Gold Rush.
The staggering profits from illegal booze gave mobsters the financial power to take over legitimate businesses and expand into casinos, loan sharking, labor racketeering and extortion. Thus we created the major crime syndicates
-- and the U.S. murder rate jumped tenfold.
Fortunately, the Roaring '20s were interrupted by the Crash of '29, and when the money ran out, the battle against booze was a luxury we could no longer afford. Prohibition was repealed in 1933, and over the next decade the U.S.
murder rate was cut in half.
Today it's back up where it was at the peak of Prohibition -- 10 per 100,000
-- a jump clearly connected to the war on drugs. And anyone who's watching what's going on south of the border can see that we're headed for an era of mayhem that would make Meyer Lansky and Frank Costello weak in the knees.
Profits from the Mexican drug trade are estimated at about $35 billion a year. And since the cartels spend half to two-thirds of their income on bribery, that would be around $20 billion going into the pockets of police officers, army generals, judges, prosecutors and politicians. Last fall, Mexico's attorney general announced that his former top drug enforcer, chief prosecutor Noe Ramirez Mandujano, was getting $450,000 a month under the table from the Sinaloa cartel.
The cartel can of course afford to be generous -- Sinaloa chief Joaquin Guzman recently made the Forbes List of Billionaires.
The depth of Guzman's penetration into the United States was revealed a few weeks ago, when the DEA proudly announced hundreds of arrests all over the country in a major operation against the "dangerously powerful" Sinaloa cartel. One jarring detail was the admission that Mexican cartels are now operating in 230 cities inside the United States.
This disaster has been slowly unfolding since the early 1980s, when Vice President George H.W. Bush shut down the Caribbean cocaine pipeline between Colombia and Miami. The Colombians switched to the land route and began hiring Mexicans to deliver the goods across the U.S. border. But when the Mexicans got a glimpse of the truckloads of cash headed south, they decided that they didn't need the Colombians at all. Today the Mexican cartels are full-service commercial organizations with their own suppliers, refineries and a distribution network that covers all of North America.
As we awaken to the threat spilling over our southern border, the reactions are predictable. In addition to walling off the border, Congress wants to send helicopters, military hardware and unmanned reconnaissance drones into the fray -- and it wants the Pentagon to train Mexican troops in counterinsurgency tactics.
Our anti-drug warriors have apparently learned nothing from the past two decades. A few years ago we trained several units of the Mexican army in counterinsurgency warfare. They studied their lessons, then promptly deserted to form the Zetas, a thoroughly professional narco hit squad for the Gulf cartel, which offered considerably better pay.
Over the past eight years, the Mexican army has had more than 100,000 deserters.
The president of Mexico rightly points out that U.S. policy is at the root of this nightmare. Not only did we invent the war on drugs, but we are the primary consumers.
The obvious solution is cutting the demand for drugs in the United States.
Clearly, it would be the death of the cartels if we could simply dry up the market. Unfortunately, every effort to do this has met with resounding failure. But now that the Roaring '00s have hit the Crash of '09, the money has vanished once again, and we can no longer ignore the collateral damage of Prohibition II.
Writing last month in the Wall Street Journal, three former Latin American presidents -- Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico -- declared the war on drugs a failure.
Responding to a situation they say is "urgent in light of the rising levels of violence and corruption," they are demanding a reexamination of U.S.-inspired drug policies.
Two weeks ago, a conservative former superior court judge in Orange County told the Los Angeles Times that legalization was the only answer, and of 4,400 readers who responded immediately, the Times reported that "a staggering 94 percent" agreed with him.
This is another pivotal moment in U.S. history, strangely resonant with 1933. The war on drugs has been a riveting drama: It has given us great television, filled our prisons and employed hundreds of thousands as guards, police, prosecutors and probation officers. But the party's over.
Here is a glimpse of what lies ahead if we fail to end our second attempt to control the personal habits of private citizens. Listen to Enrique Gomez Hurtado, a former high court judge from Colombia who still has shrapnel in his leg from a bomb sent to kill him by the infamous drug lord Pablo Escobar. In 1993, his country was a free-fire zone not unlike Mexico today, and Gomez issued this chilling -- and prescient -- warning to an international drug policy conference in Baltimore:
"The income of the drug barons is greater than the American defense budget.
With this financial power they can suborn the institutions of the State, and if the State resists . . . they can purchase the firepower to outgun it. We are threatened with a return to the Dark Ages."
Ending prohibition won't solve our drug problem. But it will save us from something far worse. And it will put drug addiction back in the hands of the medical profession, where it was being dealt with successfully -- until we called in the cops.
Mike Gray, the chairman of Common Sense for Drug Policy, is the author of "Drug Crazy: How We Got Into This Mess and How We Can Get Out."
Monday, April 6, 2009
That’s the short and long of it - Judge Jim Gray
There is an old saying that being in a rut is like being in a grave without end. Of course, in some ways it is, simply and purely, beneficial to have a set routine. Why? Because it helps to conserve effort and also helps to get some things done efficiently.
But sometimes it is also productive to look around and be able, willing, and ready to change your routine.
Upon reflection, there really is no fast and hard way we should live our lives. Of course, there will always be a difference between wrong and right, and some guidelines will be written down inexorably in white and black (although that still leaves lots of things in our “gray area”).
But surprisingly enough, a change in our perspective will sometimes enable us to roll and rock around the clock with unimagined vigor.
So are you caught in a rut that tends to make you tired and sick of your daily life? Could you decrease your strain and stress, and at the same time increase your take and give?
Think about this, because I’ll bet you can quickly come up with some insights that will allow you to deal and wheel in your rejuvenated life like you have never dealt and whelt before.
One change that could re-invigorate your life would be to do something you have never even thought about doing before. For example, how about regularly going on hikes with your family? I use a guide titled “Best Easy Day Hikes” by Randy Vogel to make my selections here in Orange County, and my favorite is the 2.7-mile round-trip hike to Holy Jim Falls, which begins just off Live Oak Canyon Road. But there are lots of guide books to easy and fun hikes everywhere.
Or take a trip to somewhere really different that you have never even thought about going to. Why always be on the narrow and straight?
For example, expose yourself to a different world by going to a Bluegrass Festival. Google tells me that there will be festivals this year in Harlan, Ky., on June 25 to 27; Gettysburg, Penn., on May 14 to 17 and Aug. 20 to 23; and Luray, Va., on July 30 to Aug. 1. Or go to the National Storytelling Festival in Jonesborough, Tenn., on Oct. 2 through 4.
Go to one of these festivals, by crook or hook. They are just the balanced and fair things to help you take off the chain and ball of boredom, and reduce the tuck and nip of your mundane world.
The same approach to considering different options can also be used effectively in your business. It only makes sense and dollars. Because businesses can also have a tendency unthinkingly to use the same old forth and back, instead of using a balanced and fair consideration of different and new ideas. In fact this new open-minded approach could give your business a new easy and free path to more productivity. Some people may fight you nail and tooth along the way, but try to persist.
For example, how about considering the use of an alternative work schedule for your employees? For some companies, having employees work 10 hours per day for four days per week, instead of the traditional eight hours for five days per week, would increase productivity. And that change can often make your employees happier, while at the same time reducing overtime costs. So this could be a truly final and smart approach for your company, and just because “we have never done that before,” does not mean that it will not work.
Or what about employing a system of bonuses based upon increased net sales per month? As we see throughout the world, incentives matter, and often the way to find justice and truth in the workplace for employees and employers alike is to institute such a system of incentives. Most times it will work, and you will probably receive lots of appreciative ahs and oohs from your employees along the way. Spread the word clear and loud for everyone to be imaginative, because the list of possibilities is endless.
So that is the short and long of it. Rosencrantz does not always have to be mentioned before Guildenstern, or Mutt before Jeff, or sweet before sour. Instead, look right and left to see if you have fallen into a dried and cut rut in your personal or professional life. It’s not a question of evil and good.
In fact, you will find that many people have willingly come from far and near to adopt this true and tried approach to help them get past the halls of mirrors and smoke to find a more balanced and fair way to live in the now and here.
And you can too.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court. He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
But sometimes it is also productive to look around and be able, willing, and ready to change your routine.
Upon reflection, there really is no fast and hard way we should live our lives. Of course, there will always be a difference between wrong and right, and some guidelines will be written down inexorably in white and black (although that still leaves lots of things in our “gray area”).
But surprisingly enough, a change in our perspective will sometimes enable us to roll and rock around the clock with unimagined vigor.
So are you caught in a rut that tends to make you tired and sick of your daily life? Could you decrease your strain and stress, and at the same time increase your take and give?
Think about this, because I’ll bet you can quickly come up with some insights that will allow you to deal and wheel in your rejuvenated life like you have never dealt and whelt before.
One change that could re-invigorate your life would be to do something you have never even thought about doing before. For example, how about regularly going on hikes with your family? I use a guide titled “Best Easy Day Hikes” by Randy Vogel to make my selections here in Orange County, and my favorite is the 2.7-mile round-trip hike to Holy Jim Falls, which begins just off Live Oak Canyon Road. But there are lots of guide books to easy and fun hikes everywhere.
Or take a trip to somewhere really different that you have never even thought about going to. Why always be on the narrow and straight?
For example, expose yourself to a different world by going to a Bluegrass Festival. Google tells me that there will be festivals this year in Harlan, Ky., on June 25 to 27; Gettysburg, Penn., on May 14 to 17 and Aug. 20 to 23; and Luray, Va., on July 30 to Aug. 1. Or go to the National Storytelling Festival in Jonesborough, Tenn., on Oct. 2 through 4.
Go to one of these festivals, by crook or hook. They are just the balanced and fair things to help you take off the chain and ball of boredom, and reduce the tuck and nip of your mundane world.
The same approach to considering different options can also be used effectively in your business. It only makes sense and dollars. Because businesses can also have a tendency unthinkingly to use the same old forth and back, instead of using a balanced and fair consideration of different and new ideas. In fact this new open-minded approach could give your business a new easy and free path to more productivity. Some people may fight you nail and tooth along the way, but try to persist.
For example, how about considering the use of an alternative work schedule for your employees? For some companies, having employees work 10 hours per day for four days per week, instead of the traditional eight hours for five days per week, would increase productivity. And that change can often make your employees happier, while at the same time reducing overtime costs. So this could be a truly final and smart approach for your company, and just because “we have never done that before,” does not mean that it will not work.
Or what about employing a system of bonuses based upon increased net sales per month? As we see throughout the world, incentives matter, and often the way to find justice and truth in the workplace for employees and employers alike is to institute such a system of incentives. Most times it will work, and you will probably receive lots of appreciative ahs and oohs from your employees along the way. Spread the word clear and loud for everyone to be imaginative, because the list of possibilities is endless.
So that is the short and long of it. Rosencrantz does not always have to be mentioned before Guildenstern, or Mutt before Jeff, or sweet before sour. Instead, look right and left to see if you have fallen into a dried and cut rut in your personal or professional life. It’s not a question of evil and good.
In fact, you will find that many people have willingly come from far and near to adopt this true and tried approach to help them get past the halls of mirrors and smoke to find a more balanced and fair way to live in the now and here.
And you can too.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court. He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Quiet conscience makes one strong - by Judge Jim Gray
Last week we discussed the importance of returning to American values. This is truly important because, in many ways, our great country is now at a crossroads. Will we continue to build upon the values that helped to make us great, including a reliance upon our native ingenuity, creativity, and work ethic? Or will we get soft and look evermore toward bigger government to take care of us?
Today we are facing daunting challenges to our economic way of life. So it’s naturally important for our general feelings of economic confidence to believe that government is “doing something” positive about the situation. But this also brings upon us the risk that we, and the government, will see government as the solution to our problems. And that is a dangerous course to take for our future, and for the future of our children.
Alexis de Tocqueville, after his famous tour of the United States in 1831, drew attention to this problem when he said that people are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. So people strive to satisfy them both at once, and that leads to irresolvable problems. Then de Tocqueville went on to anticipate the time that democracy would eventually collapse. He said that would occur when the people’s elected officials finally learned that they could bribe the people into voting for them with the people’s own money.
We are close to that situation today. It is time for us both to be aware of this fact, and to take action to assure it doesn’t happen. How can this be done? First by understanding that government is not the answer to our problems. In fact, as stated by President Ronald Reagan, in many ways government really is the problem because it tends to destroy private initiative.
Second, we must not accept mediocrity or laziness — in any one or any thing, beginning with ourselves. I once had a clerk who had a hand-written sign on her desk that said “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.” This means, among other things, that if a system, or a government program, is not working, it is up to us to fix it.
For example, if a television program is harmful for our children because it shows too much violence or sexual content, don’t rely upon government to act: Monitor what your children watch, and turn off the television if the program is unsuitable. If there is no money in making television programs that cater to violence or sex, Hollywood will make different types of shows.
In addition, each of us can help to change our social morays. That means, among other things, that if a male, regardless of age, fathers a child, that male is responsible for the child’s support and upbringing. Every time! Our mores should be that a real man supports his family. But somehow society has allowed our social mores to be accepting of out-of-wedlock births and single motherhood. So, since it is our country, it is our responsibility to change away from that acceptance.
As a trial judge with 25 years of experience on the bench, I can also tell you that today we have many too many of our young people locked up. These are our children, so what is the matter with us?
Most of the problems are caused by a failure to have positive mentors and other role models for our children. We must realize that someone will always mentor our children.
And if it is not from their parents, debate teachers, basketball coaches, or YMCA instructors, children will get their mentoring from gang leaders, drug dealers, or even people like Charles Manson. Say what you will, Manson was brilliant at “mentoring” his “family,” and there are many people in our world today just like him. But give our children another vision, and the children will discover another way.
Let’s also help more to get government and its never-ending laws more out of our lives. For example, no employers hire people so they can discriminate against and harass them for racial, gender, or sexual-preference reasons, and then fire them. That makes no sense in real life. In fact, in almost every case, the employers have already “passed the test” by hiring those employees. So we should change our laws to allow an employer to fire any employee within the first year of two – for any reason at all.
What would be the result of changing this employment law? More of these protected classes of people would have jobs. Today, if an employer gets sued for discrimination, that employer, whether found liable or not, is likely to think: “Who needs it? Why should I take a risk in the future by hiring such a person?” But if there were this period of immunity to see if the employee was able to be productive, even if the original employee didn’t work out, the employer would not be deterred from hiring someone similar in the future. So this law actually works against equality in employment.
There is a story that, at the close of our Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government the delegates had agreed upon for our country. He responded: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Our Founding Fathers established for us a government ruled by law, but based upon the individual “We the People” as the sovereign.
But each of us must do our part. If we don’t vote and oversee government, some special interest will. If we don’t monitor and mentor our children, and provide them with productive visions of the future, they will be more likely to become unproductive and antisocial. And if we are not vigilant, even in these turbulent economic times, we will lose our cherished Republic.
As Anne Frank wrote in her diary, which became a literary classic: “A quiet conscience makes one strong.” She is right. We need that quiet conscience now. We must rely on ourselves and our innate abilities and ethics to overcome our problems of today. And we must not give in to the false but seductive allure that the answer lies with the all-knowing and all-protective government.
If it’s to be, it’s up to me.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Today we are facing daunting challenges to our economic way of life. So it’s naturally important for our general feelings of economic confidence to believe that government is “doing something” positive about the situation. But this also brings upon us the risk that we, and the government, will see government as the solution to our problems. And that is a dangerous course to take for our future, and for the future of our children.
Alexis de Tocqueville, after his famous tour of the United States in 1831, drew attention to this problem when he said that people are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. So people strive to satisfy them both at once, and that leads to irresolvable problems. Then de Tocqueville went on to anticipate the time that democracy would eventually collapse. He said that would occur when the people’s elected officials finally learned that they could bribe the people into voting for them with the people’s own money.
We are close to that situation today. It is time for us both to be aware of this fact, and to take action to assure it doesn’t happen. How can this be done? First by understanding that government is not the answer to our problems. In fact, as stated by President Ronald Reagan, in many ways government really is the problem because it tends to destroy private initiative.
Second, we must not accept mediocrity or laziness — in any one or any thing, beginning with ourselves. I once had a clerk who had a hand-written sign on her desk that said “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.” This means, among other things, that if a system, or a government program, is not working, it is up to us to fix it.
For example, if a television program is harmful for our children because it shows too much violence or sexual content, don’t rely upon government to act: Monitor what your children watch, and turn off the television if the program is unsuitable. If there is no money in making television programs that cater to violence or sex, Hollywood will make different types of shows.
In addition, each of us can help to change our social morays. That means, among other things, that if a male, regardless of age, fathers a child, that male is responsible for the child’s support and upbringing. Every time! Our mores should be that a real man supports his family. But somehow society has allowed our social mores to be accepting of out-of-wedlock births and single motherhood. So, since it is our country, it is our responsibility to change away from that acceptance.
As a trial judge with 25 years of experience on the bench, I can also tell you that today we have many too many of our young people locked up. These are our children, so what is the matter with us?
Most of the problems are caused by a failure to have positive mentors and other role models for our children. We must realize that someone will always mentor our children.
And if it is not from their parents, debate teachers, basketball coaches, or YMCA instructors, children will get their mentoring from gang leaders, drug dealers, or even people like Charles Manson. Say what you will, Manson was brilliant at “mentoring” his “family,” and there are many people in our world today just like him. But give our children another vision, and the children will discover another way.
Let’s also help more to get government and its never-ending laws more out of our lives. For example, no employers hire people so they can discriminate against and harass them for racial, gender, or sexual-preference reasons, and then fire them. That makes no sense in real life. In fact, in almost every case, the employers have already “passed the test” by hiring those employees. So we should change our laws to allow an employer to fire any employee within the first year of two – for any reason at all.
What would be the result of changing this employment law? More of these protected classes of people would have jobs. Today, if an employer gets sued for discrimination, that employer, whether found liable or not, is likely to think: “Who needs it? Why should I take a risk in the future by hiring such a person?” But if there were this period of immunity to see if the employee was able to be productive, even if the original employee didn’t work out, the employer would not be deterred from hiring someone similar in the future. So this law actually works against equality in employment.
There is a story that, at the close of our Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government the delegates had agreed upon for our country. He responded: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Our Founding Fathers established for us a government ruled by law, but based upon the individual “We the People” as the sovereign.
But each of us must do our part. If we don’t vote and oversee government, some special interest will. If we don’t monitor and mentor our children, and provide them with productive visions of the future, they will be more likely to become unproductive and antisocial. And if we are not vigilant, even in these turbulent economic times, we will lose our cherished Republic.
As Anne Frank wrote in her diary, which became a literary classic: “A quiet conscience makes one strong.” She is right. We need that quiet conscience now. We must rely on ourselves and our innate abilities and ethics to overcome our problems of today. And we must not give in to the false but seductive allure that the answer lies with the all-knowing and all-protective government.
If it’s to be, it’s up to me.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Former judge fired up on making pot legal - Steve Lopez
All right, tell me this doesn't sound a little strange:
I'm sitting in Costa Mesa with a silver-haired gent who once ran for Congress as a Republican and used to lock up drug dealers as a federal prosecutor, a man who served as an Orange County judge for 25 years. And what are we talking about? He's begging me to tell you we need to legalize drugs in America.
DISCUSS: Should drugs be legal?"Please quote me," says Jim Gray, insisting the war on drugs is hopeless. "What we are doing has failed."
As far as I can tell, Gray is not off his rocker. He's not promoting drug use, he says for clarification. Anything but. If he had his way, half the revenue we would generate from taxing and regulating drugs would be plowed back into drug prevention education, and there'd be rehab on demand.
So here he is in coat and tie -- with a U.S. flag lapel pin -- eating his oatmeal and making perfect sense, even when talking about the way President Obama flippantly dismissed a question about legalizing marijuana last week during a White House news conference.
"Politicians get reelected talking tough regarding the war on drugs," says Gray. "Do you want to hear the speech? Vote for Gray. I will put drug dealers in jail and save your children."
I had gone to visit Gray in part to discuss his support for a bill introduced last month by Democratic San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, who is calling for marijuana to be regulated and taxed much like alcohol.
Does the bill have a chance?
I wouldn't bet a pack of Zig-Zag rolling paper. It's a provocative idea that gets dusted off now and again, but the usual reaction is either ridicule or sober concern about sending the wrong message to youths, among others, and making substance abuse a greater problem than it already is.
But take a look at the world, people.
Mexican drug lords are better armed than police and killing thousands who don't buy into the corruption -- with the violence crashing our borders -- and American enemies abroad are financed by the opium trade.
Ten days ago I visited a Los Angeles elementary school where students practice dropping to the floor and making themselves as flat as pancakes to avoid stray bullets from the gang-infested neighborhood, and drugs play a role in that violence. On Wednesday I strolled through downtown Los Angeles and marijuana smoke filled the air, a mocking reminder of the impossible task of eradicating drugs, despite the trillions spent and the thousands of people we've locked away in our jails and prisons.
Bravo to Hillary Rodham Clinton, says Gray, for admitting last week that American demand for drugs is responsible for the bloodshed in Mexico.
"But she got the facts right and the solution wrong," he says, just as everyone else has in a war that's been escalating for decades.
Gray was on the Municipal Court bench in the 1980s when he took his first hit from the reform pipe. The vast majority of the cases coming before him were alcohol-related, he said, and he was able to divert defendants into screening and recovery. But he couldn't do the same in drug cases, and he was frustrated, both in Municipal Court bench and later on the Superior Court bench.
"Our jails are filled with low-level users who sold to support the habit," says Gray, who believes that the tougher the criminal justice system gets on drug offenders, the fewer resources it has to go after rapists, robbers and other criminals.
In 1992 he called a news conference in Santa Ana and stated his case for legalized drugs. In Orange County, that was like coming out in favor of communism and nose rings, but Gray never flinched from insisting that the drug war was a waste of tax dollars and that it was putting too many citizens and police in harm's way. He became a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and wrote the book "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It." "His book drives a stake through the heart of the failed war on drugs," says a back-cover blurb from Walter Cronkite.
Gray, by the way, is a former Peace Corps volunteer and Navy lawyer who now counts himself a Libertarian, all of which reminds us why we love California. He says his conservative roots make him the best man for the campaign to legalize drugs.
"Who better than a conservative judge in a conservative county who's never used any form of illicit drugs?" he asks.
When Ammiano's bill was introduced, Gray was invited to the news conference by the openly gay Democrat.
"I have received standing ovations from the ACLU and the Young Republicans of Orange County," says Gray. "It crosses all political lines."
Not everyone thinks he's citizen of the year, though. Gray says he's often asked about sending the wrong message, and he responds with a reality check. Anyone who wants illegal drugs can easily get them, but doing so may put them in harm's way. Wouldn't it be smarter to sell the drugs at government stores, so advertising could be outlawed, taxes collected on one of California's biggest cash crops and drug gangs eradicated?
If Gray had his way, no one under 21 could buy drugs. But anyone older than that could legally buy marijuana -- which, he says, causes nowhere near the amount of death and disease as alcohol. The state would need to see how that works, he said, before moving on to legalizing the sale of harder drugs. Sure, he says, legalization might lead to more toking at first, but he believes drug use would wane when it was no longer forbidden and the novelty wore off.
I'm not sure I agree with that point, but I say we give it a try, and I do buy into Gray's argument about who the winners are in the current system.
First, there are the drug lords in Mexico and beyond. Then the drug gangs that peddle the stuff here. Next come the law enforcement agencies, prison contractors and prison guards, which use the war on drugs to demand more resources. And finally, there are the politicians who have wooed voters since the Nixon administration by pledging to support the war on drugs.
"My personal opinion," says Gray, "is that we couldn't have done worse if we tried."
steve.lopez@latimes.com
I'm sitting in Costa Mesa with a silver-haired gent who once ran for Congress as a Republican and used to lock up drug dealers as a federal prosecutor, a man who served as an Orange County judge for 25 years. And what are we talking about? He's begging me to tell you we need to legalize drugs in America.
DISCUSS: Should drugs be legal?"Please quote me," says Jim Gray, insisting the war on drugs is hopeless. "What we are doing has failed."
As far as I can tell, Gray is not off his rocker. He's not promoting drug use, he says for clarification. Anything but. If he had his way, half the revenue we would generate from taxing and regulating drugs would be plowed back into drug prevention education, and there'd be rehab on demand.
So here he is in coat and tie -- with a U.S. flag lapel pin -- eating his oatmeal and making perfect sense, even when talking about the way President Obama flippantly dismissed a question about legalizing marijuana last week during a White House news conference.
"Politicians get reelected talking tough regarding the war on drugs," says Gray. "Do you want to hear the speech? Vote for Gray. I will put drug dealers in jail and save your children."
I had gone to visit Gray in part to discuss his support for a bill introduced last month by Democratic San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, who is calling for marijuana to be regulated and taxed much like alcohol.
Does the bill have a chance?
I wouldn't bet a pack of Zig-Zag rolling paper. It's a provocative idea that gets dusted off now and again, but the usual reaction is either ridicule or sober concern about sending the wrong message to youths, among others, and making substance abuse a greater problem than it already is.
But take a look at the world, people.
Mexican drug lords are better armed than police and killing thousands who don't buy into the corruption -- with the violence crashing our borders -- and American enemies abroad are financed by the opium trade.
Ten days ago I visited a Los Angeles elementary school where students practice dropping to the floor and making themselves as flat as pancakes to avoid stray bullets from the gang-infested neighborhood, and drugs play a role in that violence. On Wednesday I strolled through downtown Los Angeles and marijuana smoke filled the air, a mocking reminder of the impossible task of eradicating drugs, despite the trillions spent and the thousands of people we've locked away in our jails and prisons.
Bravo to Hillary Rodham Clinton, says Gray, for admitting last week that American demand for drugs is responsible for the bloodshed in Mexico.
"But she got the facts right and the solution wrong," he says, just as everyone else has in a war that's been escalating for decades.
Gray was on the Municipal Court bench in the 1980s when he took his first hit from the reform pipe. The vast majority of the cases coming before him were alcohol-related, he said, and he was able to divert defendants into screening and recovery. But he couldn't do the same in drug cases, and he was frustrated, both in Municipal Court bench and later on the Superior Court bench.
"Our jails are filled with low-level users who sold to support the habit," says Gray, who believes that the tougher the criminal justice system gets on drug offenders, the fewer resources it has to go after rapists, robbers and other criminals.
In 1992 he called a news conference in Santa Ana and stated his case for legalized drugs. In Orange County, that was like coming out in favor of communism and nose rings, but Gray never flinched from insisting that the drug war was a waste of tax dollars and that it was putting too many citizens and police in harm's way. He became a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and wrote the book "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It." "His book drives a stake through the heart of the failed war on drugs," says a back-cover blurb from Walter Cronkite.
Gray, by the way, is a former Peace Corps volunteer and Navy lawyer who now counts himself a Libertarian, all of which reminds us why we love California. He says his conservative roots make him the best man for the campaign to legalize drugs.
"Who better than a conservative judge in a conservative county who's never used any form of illicit drugs?" he asks.
When Ammiano's bill was introduced, Gray was invited to the news conference by the openly gay Democrat.
"I have received standing ovations from the ACLU and the Young Republicans of Orange County," says Gray. "It crosses all political lines."
Not everyone thinks he's citizen of the year, though. Gray says he's often asked about sending the wrong message, and he responds with a reality check. Anyone who wants illegal drugs can easily get them, but doing so may put them in harm's way. Wouldn't it be smarter to sell the drugs at government stores, so advertising could be outlawed, taxes collected on one of California's biggest cash crops and drug gangs eradicated?
If Gray had his way, no one under 21 could buy drugs. But anyone older than that could legally buy marijuana -- which, he says, causes nowhere near the amount of death and disease as alcohol. The state would need to see how that works, he said, before moving on to legalizing the sale of harder drugs. Sure, he says, legalization might lead to more toking at first, but he believes drug use would wane when it was no longer forbidden and the novelty wore off.
I'm not sure I agree with that point, but I say we give it a try, and I do buy into Gray's argument about who the winners are in the current system.
First, there are the drug lords in Mexico and beyond. Then the drug gangs that peddle the stuff here. Next come the law enforcement agencies, prison contractors and prison guards, which use the war on drugs to demand more resources. And finally, there are the politicians who have wooed voters since the Nixon administration by pledging to support the war on drugs.
"My personal opinion," says Gray, "is that we couldn't have done worse if we tried."
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Judge Jim Gray supports Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s proposed AB 390
Assemblyman Jose Solario
State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Support for AB 390
Dear Jose:
As a trial court judge in the Orange County Superior Court with more than 23 years of active service, I support Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s proposed AB 390.
The objections that the opponents of this forward-thinking bill generally cite are, first, that marijuana causes harm to the user and to society, and second, that the bill would “send the wrong message to our children.” But the reality of the situation is that, first, marijuana is already abundant in California, and the rest of the country as well, so whatever harm it would cause is basically already upon us, and that, second, society would no more be encouraging or condoning children or anyone else to use marijuana by instituting these changes than it now encourages or condones anyone to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes.
But many other harms directly caused by our present system would be materially reduced by the program that would be established by AB 390, once federal law were to be changed to allow it to be implemented. These include the fact, as stated by the Honorable Betty Yee, chair of the State Board of Equalization, that the strictly regulated and controlled distribution of marijuana to adults over the age of 21 would bring in about $1.3 billion in additional tax revenue to our state.
Government estimates that presently illicit marijuana today is a $14 billion per year business in California alone, and, of course, that is untaxed revenue. Since AB 390 would undercut the present retail price of marijuana by about 50 percent, even with the $50 surcharge per ounce and applicable sales taxes, it would still generate this much-needed tax revenue. But in addition it would also save our taxpayers at least $1 billion that now we spend in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana and prosecute and incarcerate non-violent marijuana users.
In 2008, California authorities seized about 2.9 million marijuana plants with an estimated wholesale value of $11.6 billion in 542 raids. (In spite of this “success,” marijuana was still our state’s largest cash crop.) But the money that we spent on these raids could be saved, because by undercutting the price, AB 390 will do what the eradication efforts could not: come close to putting the Al Capones of the marijuana world out of business.
In addition, today there are literally thousands of people in our state prisons because they did nothing but smoke marijuana. These were people who were on parole, with the condition that they use no form of illicit substance. But if they smoked marijuana at all they would either fail to appear for the drug testing or be tested positive. So either way they would be re-incarcerated. And often this has caused their families to go back onto welfare. Holding people accountable for their actions instead of punishing the mere smoking of marijuana would save taxpayers a sizeable amount of money.
But even more importantly, AB 390 will make marijuana less available for our children! Today it is easier for our children to get marijuana, if they want to, than it is a six-pack of beer. Why is that? Because the alcohol is controlled and regulated by the government, and marijuana is controlled and “regulated” by illegal drug dealers, and they don’t ask for i.d.! As a consequence, no alcohol is offered for sale on high school campuses, but marijuana, including free samples to get them started, is offered to our children consistently.
Furthermore, today children are not being recruited to sell Coors beer or Jack Daniels bourbon, but they are routinely being recruited by adults to sell marijuana. Why would anyone do such a thing? Because then everyone makes more money! And to whom do these children sell their drugs? To people like us? No, they unfailingly sell the marijuana to their peers, thus recruiting more children to a lifestyle of marijuana usage and marijuana selling. As a trial court judge, I have seen this happen time and time again. It is not a pretty sight, and it is all caused directly by our present system.
Children are solicited to join juvenile street gangs for the same reason. And it works! Why? Because they want to be a “part of the action” in making money off the sale of illicit marijuana. So if passed and put into operation, AB 390 would probably be the most effective anti-gang legislation to have been enacted in a decade.
Finally, I believe AB 390 should be amended to allow hemp, which is the stalk and seeds of the marijuana plant, and which can be manipulated so that they have no mind-altering properties whatsoever, to be treated like cotton or any other industrial crop. The industrial history of hemp goes back thousands of years, and the crops to be manufactured from it are another story in themselves. But today California’s merchants are required to import their raw hemp materials from countries like Canada and England, to the disadvantage of all of us in California. So that hindrance to competition for our industries must be addressed and changed.
Certainly no system is perfect, but AB 390 is a major step in the right direction. That is why I so strongly support its passage, and also why I recommend that you and your colleagues give it your fullest favorable consideration and assistance.
Naturally if I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me either on my cell phone at xxx-xxx-xxxx, or by e-mail at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net.
Best personal regards,
James P. Gray
Judge of the Superior Court (Ret.)
www.judgejimgray.com
State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Support for AB 390
Dear Jose:
As a trial court judge in the Orange County Superior Court with more than 23 years of active service, I support Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s proposed AB 390.
The objections that the opponents of this forward-thinking bill generally cite are, first, that marijuana causes harm to the user and to society, and second, that the bill would “send the wrong message to our children.” But the reality of the situation is that, first, marijuana is already abundant in California, and the rest of the country as well, so whatever harm it would cause is basically already upon us, and that, second, society would no more be encouraging or condoning children or anyone else to use marijuana by instituting these changes than it now encourages or condones anyone to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes.
But many other harms directly caused by our present system would be materially reduced by the program that would be established by AB 390, once federal law were to be changed to allow it to be implemented. These include the fact, as stated by the Honorable Betty Yee, chair of the State Board of Equalization, that the strictly regulated and controlled distribution of marijuana to adults over the age of 21 would bring in about $1.3 billion in additional tax revenue to our state.
Government estimates that presently illicit marijuana today is a $14 billion per year business in California alone, and, of course, that is untaxed revenue. Since AB 390 would undercut the present retail price of marijuana by about 50 percent, even with the $50 surcharge per ounce and applicable sales taxes, it would still generate this much-needed tax revenue. But in addition it would also save our taxpayers at least $1 billion that now we spend in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana and prosecute and incarcerate non-violent marijuana users.
In 2008, California authorities seized about 2.9 million marijuana plants with an estimated wholesale value of $11.6 billion in 542 raids. (In spite of this “success,” marijuana was still our state’s largest cash crop.) But the money that we spent on these raids could be saved, because by undercutting the price, AB 390 will do what the eradication efforts could not: come close to putting the Al Capones of the marijuana world out of business.
In addition, today there are literally thousands of people in our state prisons because they did nothing but smoke marijuana. These were people who were on parole, with the condition that they use no form of illicit substance. But if they smoked marijuana at all they would either fail to appear for the drug testing or be tested positive. So either way they would be re-incarcerated. And often this has caused their families to go back onto welfare. Holding people accountable for their actions instead of punishing the mere smoking of marijuana would save taxpayers a sizeable amount of money.
But even more importantly, AB 390 will make marijuana less available for our children! Today it is easier for our children to get marijuana, if they want to, than it is a six-pack of beer. Why is that? Because the alcohol is controlled and regulated by the government, and marijuana is controlled and “regulated” by illegal drug dealers, and they don’t ask for i.d.! As a consequence, no alcohol is offered for sale on high school campuses, but marijuana, including free samples to get them started, is offered to our children consistently.
Furthermore, today children are not being recruited to sell Coors beer or Jack Daniels bourbon, but they are routinely being recruited by adults to sell marijuana. Why would anyone do such a thing? Because then everyone makes more money! And to whom do these children sell their drugs? To people like us? No, they unfailingly sell the marijuana to their peers, thus recruiting more children to a lifestyle of marijuana usage and marijuana selling. As a trial court judge, I have seen this happen time and time again. It is not a pretty sight, and it is all caused directly by our present system.
Children are solicited to join juvenile street gangs for the same reason. And it works! Why? Because they want to be a “part of the action” in making money off the sale of illicit marijuana. So if passed and put into operation, AB 390 would probably be the most effective anti-gang legislation to have been enacted in a decade.
Finally, I believe AB 390 should be amended to allow hemp, which is the stalk and seeds of the marijuana plant, and which can be manipulated so that they have no mind-altering properties whatsoever, to be treated like cotton or any other industrial crop. The industrial history of hemp goes back thousands of years, and the crops to be manufactured from it are another story in themselves. But today California’s merchants are required to import their raw hemp materials from countries like Canada and England, to the disadvantage of all of us in California. So that hindrance to competition for our industries must be addressed and changed.
Certainly no system is perfect, but AB 390 is a major step in the right direction. That is why I so strongly support its passage, and also why I recommend that you and your colleagues give it your fullest favorable consideration and assistance.
Naturally if I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me either on my cell phone at xxx-xxx-xxxx, or by e-mail at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net.
Best personal regards,
James P. Gray
Judge of the Superior Court (Ret.)
www.judgejimgray.com
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Back to American fundamentals - by Judge Jim Gray
My friend Louis E. Carabini said in his book “Inclined to Liberty” that “There are those inclined to liberty, and those inclined to mastery.” Among other things, he explains that the answer to most of our economic problems today is more freedom and liberty, instead of less. Why? Because they work, and these are the fundamentals that have helped to make our country great. And for the good of our children, and our grandchildren, we must go back to them!
Contrary to the arguments of many detractors, this does not mean that “anything goes.” Absolutely to the contrary. Instead it means that we have reasonable laws, and that we enforce those laws — for everybody. That includes anti-trust and other anti-competitive laws, as well as truth in advertising and lending, and the enforcement of contracts and warranties. And it also means that we must enforce reasonable regulations to guard against some people’s innate proclivity illegally to cut corners and even engage in fraud.
But otherwise, we simply must go back to the time when we put into practice the traditional American values of self-reliance, which meant that people had to find creative ways to support themselves.
This will be facilitated by such things as relaxing some of the regulations against street vendors, allowing people to cut hair without encumbering license requirements, allowing more competition in taxicab businesses (even at airports and other lucrative locations), and allowing parents to decide whether their neighbors or others can perform child care activities. And this should be done without undue government interference, other than requiring the purveyors to be bonded or insured.
Why would these things be helpful? For two reasons. First, many more goods and services would become available at a much lower cost, and more people would be employed in providing them.
Second, some of these goods and services are being provided now, but through the “underground” economy. This means that presently there is no insurance available when things go wrong, and no sales or income taxes being paid to the government.
This approach would also result in government being much less intrusive, and, all importantly, much less expensive. That would be a good thing, because governments do not produce wealth. Instead, governments take wealth from some people, keep a good deal of it for themselves, and then redistribute the rest to others. As a result, those from whom wealth is taken spend large resources trying to figure out a way to keep more of it, and those who receive it have more incentives to appear to be more “deserving” for a handout by being unable to take care of themselves. So overall today there are fewer incentives to produce goods and services, and fewer incentives for people to get into productive activities.
Had this suggested approach been in effect for the past decade, our country would not have our present economic difficulties. Think of it this way: Even today, our consumer prices are not that high. In the 1950s, a silver dollar that weighed one ounce purchased about 5 gallons of gasoline. And it still does today: One ounce of silver is worth about $12.80 on the open market, and will still purchase about 5 gallons of gasoline. So the price of gasoline has not increased — only the inflation that has been overseen by government intrusion and mismanagement has.
Furthermore, this ethic of being “deserving” has pitted lots of different classes of people against each other, which results in the unproductive “them” versus “us,” or “villains” versus “victims” mentality. This situation is, of course, promoted by politicians in their desire to find and use scapegoats in their appeal for votes. Start listening for this typecasting in your everyday life, such as the “poor,” on the one hand, as opposed to the “filthy rich,” “selfish rich,” or “greedy rich,” on the other. Supporting these appeals leads us down the road to large government, economic stagnation, and socialism.
Is that where we want to go? I answer that question by passing along to you two different stories. The first was from a friend of mine who experienced the Soviet Union’s brand of socialism. He said in that world it was not at all unusual to see a mile-long freight train loaded with logs passing another mile-long freight train also loaded with logs but going in the opposite direction. I suppose this also happens in a free-market as well, but certainly not as often.
The second story was told to me by one of the justices on our courts of appeal. He said that before the fall of the Soviet Union he had traveled to Moscow and stayed in the nicest hotel in the city. At that time everyone had a job; that was not a problem. And it was the job of one of the men in the hotel to plug in his vacuum cleaner and vacuum the rug in the lobby. So that is what he did, every morning. Unfortunately, the vacuum cleaner had broken down months before, and there were no spare parts. Nevertheless, he would plug it in every morning and “vacuum” the rug. In short, governments do not perform well in running an economy, and we want to stay as far away from our government running ours as we can.
In this time of economic trouble, I agree that it is important for the general population to see and believe that our federal government is doing something positive. That will help to restore confidence. But otherwise, the answer is not for the government to procure even more of a mastery over us, spend even more of our money, or take over more of our economy. Instead, we must go in the other direction and revert to the fundamentals that made us strong in the first place. This thought was well summed up by a cowboy poem that I read this past week in the Los Angeles Times, and which ends as follows:
So in essence what I’m saying,
“I’ve a plan to bail us out,
of all the troubles we are in,”
I hope you’ll hear me out.
When we have the next election,
it is time to take a stand.
Let’s send Washington some leaders
who make their living off the land.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe — the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Contrary to the arguments of many detractors, this does not mean that “anything goes.” Absolutely to the contrary. Instead it means that we have reasonable laws, and that we enforce those laws — for everybody. That includes anti-trust and other anti-competitive laws, as well as truth in advertising and lending, and the enforcement of contracts and warranties. And it also means that we must enforce reasonable regulations to guard against some people’s innate proclivity illegally to cut corners and even engage in fraud.
But otherwise, we simply must go back to the time when we put into practice the traditional American values of self-reliance, which meant that people had to find creative ways to support themselves.
This will be facilitated by such things as relaxing some of the regulations against street vendors, allowing people to cut hair without encumbering license requirements, allowing more competition in taxicab businesses (even at airports and other lucrative locations), and allowing parents to decide whether their neighbors or others can perform child care activities. And this should be done without undue government interference, other than requiring the purveyors to be bonded or insured.
Why would these things be helpful? For two reasons. First, many more goods and services would become available at a much lower cost, and more people would be employed in providing them.
Second, some of these goods and services are being provided now, but through the “underground” economy. This means that presently there is no insurance available when things go wrong, and no sales or income taxes being paid to the government.
This approach would also result in government being much less intrusive, and, all importantly, much less expensive. That would be a good thing, because governments do not produce wealth. Instead, governments take wealth from some people, keep a good deal of it for themselves, and then redistribute the rest to others. As a result, those from whom wealth is taken spend large resources trying to figure out a way to keep more of it, and those who receive it have more incentives to appear to be more “deserving” for a handout by being unable to take care of themselves. So overall today there are fewer incentives to produce goods and services, and fewer incentives for people to get into productive activities.
Had this suggested approach been in effect for the past decade, our country would not have our present economic difficulties. Think of it this way: Even today, our consumer prices are not that high. In the 1950s, a silver dollar that weighed one ounce purchased about 5 gallons of gasoline. And it still does today: One ounce of silver is worth about $12.80 on the open market, and will still purchase about 5 gallons of gasoline. So the price of gasoline has not increased — only the inflation that has been overseen by government intrusion and mismanagement has.
Furthermore, this ethic of being “deserving” has pitted lots of different classes of people against each other, which results in the unproductive “them” versus “us,” or “villains” versus “victims” mentality. This situation is, of course, promoted by politicians in their desire to find and use scapegoats in their appeal for votes. Start listening for this typecasting in your everyday life, such as the “poor,” on the one hand, as opposed to the “filthy rich,” “selfish rich,” or “greedy rich,” on the other. Supporting these appeals leads us down the road to large government, economic stagnation, and socialism.
Is that where we want to go? I answer that question by passing along to you two different stories. The first was from a friend of mine who experienced the Soviet Union’s brand of socialism. He said in that world it was not at all unusual to see a mile-long freight train loaded with logs passing another mile-long freight train also loaded with logs but going in the opposite direction. I suppose this also happens in a free-market as well, but certainly not as often.
The second story was told to me by one of the justices on our courts of appeal. He said that before the fall of the Soviet Union he had traveled to Moscow and stayed in the nicest hotel in the city. At that time everyone had a job; that was not a problem. And it was the job of one of the men in the hotel to plug in his vacuum cleaner and vacuum the rug in the lobby. So that is what he did, every morning. Unfortunately, the vacuum cleaner had broken down months before, and there were no spare parts. Nevertheless, he would plug it in every morning and “vacuum” the rug. In short, governments do not perform well in running an economy, and we want to stay as far away from our government running ours as we can.
In this time of economic trouble, I agree that it is important for the general population to see and believe that our federal government is doing something positive. That will help to restore confidence. But otherwise, the answer is not for the government to procure even more of a mastery over us, spend even more of our money, or take over more of our economy. Instead, we must go in the other direction and revert to the fundamentals that made us strong in the first place. This thought was well summed up by a cowboy poem that I read this past week in the Los Angeles Times, and which ends as follows:
So in essence what I’m saying,
“I’ve a plan to bail us out,
of all the troubles we are in,”
I hope you’ll hear me out.
When we have the next election,
it is time to take a stand.
Let’s send Washington some leaders
who make their living off the land.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe — the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Exploring new worlds: winemaking - by Judge Jim Gray
It’s easy to have a small fortune in the winemaking business, I’m told. All you have to do is to start with a large fortune.
But for years I have wondered about this seemingly mysterious process in the world of winemaking that begins with cultivation, and ends in gratification. So I asked my good friend Ron Kohut, who had moved to Santa Rosa a few years ago and is now the winemaker of his own Renegade Winery, about some of the things on my mind. My first question was about wine pricing.
What is the difference between an expensive bottle of wine and one that is more moderately priced?
“Paying a lot of money for a bottle of wine is usually a waste of money,” he said. “Personally I am reluctant to spend more than $30 for a bottle of wine, and then only if it’s a Cabernet Sauvignon or Pinot Noir that I know.
The futility of selecting wines by price can easily be demonstrated with what is known as a “blind tasting.” In a gathering of friends — and be sure to include those self-appointed wine “experts,” who are the people who nod gravely, with faces pensive, when sipping wine — set up the tasting.
Have four bottles of California Chardonnays and one French Chablis in the $7, $11, $15, $25, and $35 price ranges. Then cover the bottles, and have everyone try to rank the wines by price. For extra fun, ask if they can identify the French wine, as well as the “Reserve” wine, especially since the term “Reserve” has no controlled or legal meaning in the United States.
Most people can identify the $7 bottle of wine. But after that, all bets are off. Most of your friends will confidently conclude that the “best” tasting wine is both French and the most expensive. But when the bags are removed, the best-tasting wine is usually the $15 wine from California. And the dedicated wine snob will not perform any better in this tasting than anyone else.
Skeptical? Give it a try.
And while you’re at it, ask your friends about the “aromas” of wine. Buy a copy of the Wine Spectator, or similar wine magazine, and also several of the wines mentioned in the “reviews” section that list several aroma components for the wines. Then, at the same party, ask your friends to list the aromas they experience when they swirl and then sip their wines.
The listing, of course, should be done on a piece of paper, and not aloud. Afterwards, collect the papers. Normally, no two descriptions or aromas will be alike, and none will match those identified in the review.
But that is not surprising. Ron says that he has often sent his wines out to several reviewers and received back their aroma listings. And he has yet to receive back the same, or even similar, listings by these professionals for the same wine.
So is all of this aroma business a lot of hoopla? Actually not. Anne Noble, of the University of California at Davis, has created an “aroma wheel” for wines that can be purchased online. And Anne can, in fact, accurately identify many aroma components in a wine.
But for the casual wine consumer, much of the pricing and discussions of aroma are mostly just marketing. A good bottle of wine in a friendly or romantic setting is a hard experience to beat. And when it comes down to it, selecting a wine should be no more complicated than finding a wine you like at a price you are comfortable paying.
So, how are the wines priced? Most likely, the wines in the $11 and $15 price ranges are produced by large commercial wineries that must consistently deliver an easily drinkable wine. That is why, for example, the Kendal-Jackson Chardonnay is the most widely sold wine-by-the-glass in the United States.
In the higher price ranges, there are certainly some exceptional wines. But you have to know what you are buying. And that means doing some research. Furthermore, it also means that consumers are not hitting the search functions on their iPhones when standing in front of an array of wines at the supermarket to help them select their wines. So, unless you know something about wine, paying more than $15 to $20 for a bottle of wine is likely to be a disappointment. In fact, in many instances, you will only be paying for successful marketing.
Finally, I asked him about the glamour of winemaking. “It’s not exactly glamorous!” Ron laughed. “It’s a long arduous journey that just begins with the harvesting of the very best grapes. Then there’s the crush, fermentation, filtering, and, finally, bottling. There are a lot of mistakes that can be made during each stage of the process.”
Yes, it is a labor of passion, my good friend said, but it also can be unexpectedly fun. He recalled a time when he had a mobile bottling unit set up at his winery, but no workers to operate the eight-person system.
“I called my friends,” Ron said, “and they all came.” Why not? Who would turn down an opportunity to participate in the birth of a great wine. “It took a long time,” he continued, “but we bottled a great Zinfandel, and had some good cheese and music while we worked. And we turned it into a big party.”
The bottom line is that winemaking itself is not as glamorous as wine drinking. The folks in the vineyards and wineries work hard and take many risks in order to deliver that bottle of wine that serves as the centerpiece for most celebrations. Wine marketing is even harder. But we all can enjoy those people’s labors by grabbing our special someones and a nice bottle of wine, and heading out for a picnic. And we can let the wine’s aromas take us where they will.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
But for years I have wondered about this seemingly mysterious process in the world of winemaking that begins with cultivation, and ends in gratification. So I asked my good friend Ron Kohut, who had moved to Santa Rosa a few years ago and is now the winemaker of his own Renegade Winery, about some of the things on my mind. My first question was about wine pricing.
What is the difference between an expensive bottle of wine and one that is more moderately priced?
“Paying a lot of money for a bottle of wine is usually a waste of money,” he said. “Personally I am reluctant to spend more than $30 for a bottle of wine, and then only if it’s a Cabernet Sauvignon or Pinot Noir that I know.
The futility of selecting wines by price can easily be demonstrated with what is known as a “blind tasting.” In a gathering of friends — and be sure to include those self-appointed wine “experts,” who are the people who nod gravely, with faces pensive, when sipping wine — set up the tasting.
Have four bottles of California Chardonnays and one French Chablis in the $7, $11, $15, $25, and $35 price ranges. Then cover the bottles, and have everyone try to rank the wines by price. For extra fun, ask if they can identify the French wine, as well as the “Reserve” wine, especially since the term “Reserve” has no controlled or legal meaning in the United States.
Most people can identify the $7 bottle of wine. But after that, all bets are off. Most of your friends will confidently conclude that the “best” tasting wine is both French and the most expensive. But when the bags are removed, the best-tasting wine is usually the $15 wine from California. And the dedicated wine snob will not perform any better in this tasting than anyone else.
Skeptical? Give it a try.
And while you’re at it, ask your friends about the “aromas” of wine. Buy a copy of the Wine Spectator, or similar wine magazine, and also several of the wines mentioned in the “reviews” section that list several aroma components for the wines. Then, at the same party, ask your friends to list the aromas they experience when they swirl and then sip their wines.
The listing, of course, should be done on a piece of paper, and not aloud. Afterwards, collect the papers. Normally, no two descriptions or aromas will be alike, and none will match those identified in the review.
But that is not surprising. Ron says that he has often sent his wines out to several reviewers and received back their aroma listings. And he has yet to receive back the same, or even similar, listings by these professionals for the same wine.
So is all of this aroma business a lot of hoopla? Actually not. Anne Noble, of the University of California at Davis, has created an “aroma wheel” for wines that can be purchased online. And Anne can, in fact, accurately identify many aroma components in a wine.
But for the casual wine consumer, much of the pricing and discussions of aroma are mostly just marketing. A good bottle of wine in a friendly or romantic setting is a hard experience to beat. And when it comes down to it, selecting a wine should be no more complicated than finding a wine you like at a price you are comfortable paying.
So, how are the wines priced? Most likely, the wines in the $11 and $15 price ranges are produced by large commercial wineries that must consistently deliver an easily drinkable wine. That is why, for example, the Kendal-Jackson Chardonnay is the most widely sold wine-by-the-glass in the United States.
In the higher price ranges, there are certainly some exceptional wines. But you have to know what you are buying. And that means doing some research. Furthermore, it also means that consumers are not hitting the search functions on their iPhones when standing in front of an array of wines at the supermarket to help them select their wines. So, unless you know something about wine, paying more than $15 to $20 for a bottle of wine is likely to be a disappointment. In fact, in many instances, you will only be paying for successful marketing.
Finally, I asked him about the glamour of winemaking. “It’s not exactly glamorous!” Ron laughed. “It’s a long arduous journey that just begins with the harvesting of the very best grapes. Then there’s the crush, fermentation, filtering, and, finally, bottling. There are a lot of mistakes that can be made during each stage of the process.”
Yes, it is a labor of passion, my good friend said, but it also can be unexpectedly fun. He recalled a time when he had a mobile bottling unit set up at his winery, but no workers to operate the eight-person system.
“I called my friends,” Ron said, “and they all came.” Why not? Who would turn down an opportunity to participate in the birth of a great wine. “It took a long time,” he continued, “but we bottled a great Zinfandel, and had some good cheese and music while we worked. And we turned it into a big party.”
The bottom line is that winemaking itself is not as glamorous as wine drinking. The folks in the vineyards and wineries work hard and take many risks in order to deliver that bottle of wine that serves as the centerpiece for most celebrations. Wine marketing is even harder. But we all can enjoy those people’s labors by grabbing our special someones and a nice bottle of wine, and heading out for a picnic. And we can let the wine’s aromas take us where they will.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The way government should be - by Judge Jim Gray
Recently I was able to meet Orange County Treasurer and Tax Collector Chriss Street and take a tour of his offices. I was genuinely impressed with what he is doing, and wanted to pass along my findings to you as an example of the way I believe government should be.
Chriss was sworn in to these positions on Dec. 5, 2006. The first time I heard of Chriss Street was when he and John Moorlach sounded the alarms about former Treasurer Bob Citron and his speculative investments. Moorlach originally ran against Citron for treasurer and lost, and then successfully ran for a seat on the Board of Supervisors. Then Street ran for Citron’s former position, and won.
The Offices of the Treasurer and Tax Collector are authorized to have a total staff of 120 employees and send out about 880,000 property tax bills each year. They are also required to collect the tax money, invest it prudently, and make it available for county agencies partially to finance their budgets. In other words, this is the life blood of the county government and a big operation.
When he came on board, Street utilized a totally new management style in his new office, thereby taking a slow, impersonal and even dull office to one that is now vibrant, cost-effective, and service-oriented. He did this by turning his employees into a team, and incorporating other practical incentives into their work life.
For example, everyone is on a first-name basis, starting with Chriss himself. He also removed all of the private offices where managers and other workers were shielded from their fellow workers and installed nice, semi-private cubicles. He also updated their computers and computer programs to make accurate information more readably available. In addition, all workers have a laptop and a Blackberry, so that they can carry out some of their functions from home. And if the staff can reduce the amount of time that it takes to answer 99% of the telephone calls from their clients (which is the public) down below 7 seconds, everyone can enjoy casual clothing days at work.
Have his efforts been successful? Here is the good part. Secured tax collection, which is revenue that is secured by deeds of trust on real property, has increased by $317 million, and unsecured revenue for this year increased by $6.3 million and for the past year by $3.6 million. All of that has allowed an additional $161 million to be allocated to the county’s schools, and an additional $37.6 million to various county agencies. By comparison, Orange County now has a 96.5% property tax collection rate, compared to 92% for San Bernardino and 91% for Riverside Counties.
Additional good news is that between fiscal years 2006/2007 and 2008/2009, his office has actually returned $4 million of its own budget back to the county. Name me any other governmental agency anywhere that has done anything close to that. And even though he is allotted 120 workers, without firing anybody, Chriss’ offices now only employ 92 workers.
And has his staff been able to wear casual clothing to work? Recently yes, almost all of the time, because the telephone wait time that averaged 50 seconds in fiscal year 2005/2006 was reduced to 7 seconds in fiscal year 2007/2008.
By the way, since the phones are answered more efficiently and the callers’ questions responded to more accurately, the number of calls has been reduced. This means that the staff required to answer those calls has accordingly been reduced from 29 to about 16.
During the time Chriss Street has been there, his office has been forced to increase fees or “cost recoveries” in 14 different areas, such as delinquent taxes and Mello Roos. But it has also been successful in reducing two others. And where it took about 105 days to refund overpayments of taxes when he began, which was a violation of state laws, this is now accomplished within three weeks.
Finally, the office is functioning so well now that it is actually “hiring out” to do work for other county agencies. For example, the Orange County Health Care Agency has delegated the task of collecting money for animal licenses to the Office of the Treasurer.
And Chriss is also now in negotiations with the county probation office as well as four different cities to do some of their billing and remittance work.
Chriss Street’s approach to government has worked so well that he is trying to share it in a new book he is writing titled “The Third Way,” which is scheduled to be published by Seven Locks Press. The book focuses on the successful approach of using leadership and cooperation instead of confrontation to stop turmoil and in-fighting and to become a team. Personally, I hope that all managers in government get a copy.
So in this time of so many failures of government, I am overjoyed to report that there is one county agency that is working like government should. And this comment comes from a Libertarian!
If you want to learn more for yourself, call Chriss Street at (714) 834-3411 and make arrangements to take your own tour. Like any good public servant, Street enjoys being open and encourages honest feedback.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author or Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2009), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or through his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Chriss was sworn in to these positions on Dec. 5, 2006. The first time I heard of Chriss Street was when he and John Moorlach sounded the alarms about former Treasurer Bob Citron and his speculative investments. Moorlach originally ran against Citron for treasurer and lost, and then successfully ran for a seat on the Board of Supervisors. Then Street ran for Citron’s former position, and won.
The Offices of the Treasurer and Tax Collector are authorized to have a total staff of 120 employees and send out about 880,000 property tax bills each year. They are also required to collect the tax money, invest it prudently, and make it available for county agencies partially to finance their budgets. In other words, this is the life blood of the county government and a big operation.
When he came on board, Street utilized a totally new management style in his new office, thereby taking a slow, impersonal and even dull office to one that is now vibrant, cost-effective, and service-oriented. He did this by turning his employees into a team, and incorporating other practical incentives into their work life.
For example, everyone is on a first-name basis, starting with Chriss himself. He also removed all of the private offices where managers and other workers were shielded from their fellow workers and installed nice, semi-private cubicles. He also updated their computers and computer programs to make accurate information more readably available. In addition, all workers have a laptop and a Blackberry, so that they can carry out some of their functions from home. And if the staff can reduce the amount of time that it takes to answer 99% of the telephone calls from their clients (which is the public) down below 7 seconds, everyone can enjoy casual clothing days at work.
Have his efforts been successful? Here is the good part. Secured tax collection, which is revenue that is secured by deeds of trust on real property, has increased by $317 million, and unsecured revenue for this year increased by $6.3 million and for the past year by $3.6 million. All of that has allowed an additional $161 million to be allocated to the county’s schools, and an additional $37.6 million to various county agencies. By comparison, Orange County now has a 96.5% property tax collection rate, compared to 92% for San Bernardino and 91% for Riverside Counties.
Additional good news is that between fiscal years 2006/2007 and 2008/2009, his office has actually returned $4 million of its own budget back to the county. Name me any other governmental agency anywhere that has done anything close to that. And even though he is allotted 120 workers, without firing anybody, Chriss’ offices now only employ 92 workers.
And has his staff been able to wear casual clothing to work? Recently yes, almost all of the time, because the telephone wait time that averaged 50 seconds in fiscal year 2005/2006 was reduced to 7 seconds in fiscal year 2007/2008.
By the way, since the phones are answered more efficiently and the callers’ questions responded to more accurately, the number of calls has been reduced. This means that the staff required to answer those calls has accordingly been reduced from 29 to about 16.
During the time Chriss Street has been there, his office has been forced to increase fees or “cost recoveries” in 14 different areas, such as delinquent taxes and Mello Roos. But it has also been successful in reducing two others. And where it took about 105 days to refund overpayments of taxes when he began, which was a violation of state laws, this is now accomplished within three weeks.
Finally, the office is functioning so well now that it is actually “hiring out” to do work for other county agencies. For example, the Orange County Health Care Agency has delegated the task of collecting money for animal licenses to the Office of the Treasurer.
And Chriss is also now in negotiations with the county probation office as well as four different cities to do some of their billing and remittance work.
Chriss Street’s approach to government has worked so well that he is trying to share it in a new book he is writing titled “The Third Way,” which is scheduled to be published by Seven Locks Press. The book focuses on the successful approach of using leadership and cooperation instead of confrontation to stop turmoil and in-fighting and to become a team. Personally, I hope that all managers in government get a copy.
So in this time of so many failures of government, I am overjoyed to report that there is one county agency that is working like government should. And this comment comes from a Libertarian!
If you want to learn more for yourself, call Chriss Street at (714) 834-3411 and make arrangements to take your own tour. Like any good public servant, Street enjoys being open and encourages honest feedback.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author or Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2009), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or through his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Treating pot like alcohol - by Judge Jim Gray
I recently participated in a news conference in San Francisco with Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Chairwoman Betty Yee of the State Board of Equalization, and Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan to support Assembly Bill 390, which would treat marijuana like alcohol in California. San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey also supports the bill.
AB 390 would allow adults older than 21 to buy, own and use marijuana sold in accordance with a specified state plan. The bill would also require the product to be subject to a tax surcharge of $50 an ounce, in addition to normal sales taxes.
Importantly, the bill further strengthens the penalties for anyone selling, possessing, or using marijuana near a school, and continues to hold people accountable for their actions, such as driving under its influence.
Today, even though it is still illegal, marijuana is the largest cash crop in California. In fact, marijuana is estimated today to be a $14-billion yearly crop; the No. 2 crop in our state is grapes. Further, it is easier today for our children to get marijuana, if they want to, than a six-pack of beer.
How do I know that? Because I ask them — and you should too! — Because today’s sellers of marijuana don’t ask for ID.
As we have discussed in this column before, treating marijuana like alcohol would have five results, and all of them would be beneficial.
First, we taxpayers would save about $1 billion that we now spend each year in a transparently futile effort to eradicate marijuana, and to prosecute and incarcerate non-violent marijuana users.
Second, we could tax the stuff, and, according to the estimate of the State Board of Equalization, could generate at least $1.33 billion in revenue each year.
But the third result would dwarf the first two because, as we have discussed, this program would make marijuana less available for our children than it is today.
Fourth, any ambiguity about medical marijuana dispensaries would be eliminated.
And fifth, we would be able to revitalize the hemp industry. This is not a minor result because hemp, which is the stalk and seeds of the marijuana plant and which can be manipulated to have no mind-altering properties whatsoever, has a multitude of practical usages.
For example, farmers can produce four times the amount of paper pulp from an acre of hemp as they can from an acre of trees. Other products such as plywood, lacquer, rope, gunny sacks, mulch, and fuel more efficient than corn are also made from hemp. Furthermore, today you can go to stores like Trader Joe’s and buy a lip balm made from hemp, as well as hemp-seed granola, which is quite nutritious and flavorful. But under our present policy, our merchants are required to import their raw material from radical countries like Canada and England, where their farmers have been allowed to grow hemp for years.
There would probably also be two additional results.
The first would be a tendency to increase the usage of marijuana for adults. This would probably last for six months to a year, until the novelty wore off. For example, in Holland, where anyone 16 or older can use marijuana and hashish, the minister of health reported that his country has only half the marijuana usage per capita than we do here — both for adults and for teenagers.
Then he went on to explain why, when he said that “We have succeeded in making pot boring.” Of course, we glamorize it, and set up a huge profit motive for others to get us to use it.
Finally, it is clear that the laws of a society are an indication of its values. So changing our laws might indicate to some people that the usage of marijuana was “no big deal.” But as a practical matter, just because we repealed alcohol prohibition did not mean that society recommended people go out and drink a martini, or even a beer. It simply was understood as a statement that society was going to address the issue of alcohol distribution and usage in a different manner. In fact, just because cigarettes are not illegal for adults does not mean that society condones their usage. The same would be true for marijuana.
Surveys show that, despite its illegality, about 25 million people in our country use marijuana regularly today, and about 100 million Americans have tried it at one point in their lives. That includes former President Clinton, and also President Obama who, when asked while on the campaign trail if he had ever inhaled, responded by saying “I thought that was the whole idea.” It also includes about half of the top 10% of the students in my 1971 graduating class at USC Law School, and to my knowledge all of them have been successful in life.
AB 390 expressly acknowledges that this program would still be a violation of federal law, so it would not go into effect until 30 days after those federal laws had been changed. But if the voters of California were to approve this bill, it could not help but influence a change at the federal level.
How can we as a state and a country continue to be so blind to reality? The entire country of Mexico is now being terrorized by violence and corruption from drug lords. But this is not caused by drugs: It is instead caused by drug money. Worse yet, it is our drug money that is causing the harm! And that same violence and corruption are increasingly spilling over the border into our country.
Under our present system of marijuana prohibition, we could not achieve more harmful results if we tried. The availability of marijuana both to us and to our children is up; the presence of violence and corruption is up and rising; the number of people’s lives that are being ruined by them or their parents being sent to jail and prison is up; and none of the vast profits that are made by the sale of marijuana are being taxed. In addition, since we only have limited criminal justice resources, getting “tough” on marijuana prosecutions means that we have gotten “soft” on all other prosecutions, including robbery, rape and murder.
In that regard, you should also be aware that at this moment there are thousands of people filling up our jails and prisons who have done nothing but smoke marijuana. The reason is that it is always a condition of probation or parole for the subject not to use any form of illicit substances. Therefore, if people on probation or parole smoke even one marijuana cigarette, that substance will stay in their systems and be detectable by urinalysis for up to 30 days. Then if they either fail to report for drug testing, or if they test positive, they are almost automatically taken back into custody. That not only costs us taxpayers about $30,000 per inmate per year, it also frequently places that inmate’s family back on the welfare roles.
So now is the time for you to help. Please contact your representatives, such as Assemblyman Chuck DeVore at (916) 319-2070, Assemblyman Van Tran at (916) 319-2068, Sen. Tom Harman at (916) 651-4035 or Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at (916) 445-2841, and tell them that they should support AB 390. And please contact your family and friends and ask them to do the same.
I have never used marijuana. Furthermore, I never intend to do so, unless it would be recommended to me by my physician to relieve some form of harmful medical condition. You probably feel the same way. But if you don’t and you, like millions of others in our country, would use marijuana, you are probably doing so already. So in that event at least you will not be required to associate with criminals to obtain the stuff, and will not automatically be a criminal yourself. And along the way, you can help us to balance our state budget.
JAMES P. GRAY can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
AB 390 would allow adults older than 21 to buy, own and use marijuana sold in accordance with a specified state plan. The bill would also require the product to be subject to a tax surcharge of $50 an ounce, in addition to normal sales taxes.
Importantly, the bill further strengthens the penalties for anyone selling, possessing, or using marijuana near a school, and continues to hold people accountable for their actions, such as driving under its influence.
Today, even though it is still illegal, marijuana is the largest cash crop in California. In fact, marijuana is estimated today to be a $14-billion yearly crop; the No. 2 crop in our state is grapes. Further, it is easier today for our children to get marijuana, if they want to, than a six-pack of beer.
How do I know that? Because I ask them — and you should too! — Because today’s sellers of marijuana don’t ask for ID.
As we have discussed in this column before, treating marijuana like alcohol would have five results, and all of them would be beneficial.
First, we taxpayers would save about $1 billion that we now spend each year in a transparently futile effort to eradicate marijuana, and to prosecute and incarcerate non-violent marijuana users.
Second, we could tax the stuff, and, according to the estimate of the State Board of Equalization, could generate at least $1.33 billion in revenue each year.
But the third result would dwarf the first two because, as we have discussed, this program would make marijuana less available for our children than it is today.
Fourth, any ambiguity about medical marijuana dispensaries would be eliminated.
And fifth, we would be able to revitalize the hemp industry. This is not a minor result because hemp, which is the stalk and seeds of the marijuana plant and which can be manipulated to have no mind-altering properties whatsoever, has a multitude of practical usages.
For example, farmers can produce four times the amount of paper pulp from an acre of hemp as they can from an acre of trees. Other products such as plywood, lacquer, rope, gunny sacks, mulch, and fuel more efficient than corn are also made from hemp. Furthermore, today you can go to stores like Trader Joe’s and buy a lip balm made from hemp, as well as hemp-seed granola, which is quite nutritious and flavorful. But under our present policy, our merchants are required to import their raw material from radical countries like Canada and England, where their farmers have been allowed to grow hemp for years.
There would probably also be two additional results.
The first would be a tendency to increase the usage of marijuana for adults. This would probably last for six months to a year, until the novelty wore off. For example, in Holland, where anyone 16 or older can use marijuana and hashish, the minister of health reported that his country has only half the marijuana usage per capita than we do here — both for adults and for teenagers.
Then he went on to explain why, when he said that “We have succeeded in making pot boring.” Of course, we glamorize it, and set up a huge profit motive for others to get us to use it.
Finally, it is clear that the laws of a society are an indication of its values. So changing our laws might indicate to some people that the usage of marijuana was “no big deal.” But as a practical matter, just because we repealed alcohol prohibition did not mean that society recommended people go out and drink a martini, or even a beer. It simply was understood as a statement that society was going to address the issue of alcohol distribution and usage in a different manner. In fact, just because cigarettes are not illegal for adults does not mean that society condones their usage. The same would be true for marijuana.
Surveys show that, despite its illegality, about 25 million people in our country use marijuana regularly today, and about 100 million Americans have tried it at one point in their lives. That includes former President Clinton, and also President Obama who, when asked while on the campaign trail if he had ever inhaled, responded by saying “I thought that was the whole idea.” It also includes about half of the top 10% of the students in my 1971 graduating class at USC Law School, and to my knowledge all of them have been successful in life.
AB 390 expressly acknowledges that this program would still be a violation of federal law, so it would not go into effect until 30 days after those federal laws had been changed. But if the voters of California were to approve this bill, it could not help but influence a change at the federal level.
How can we as a state and a country continue to be so blind to reality? The entire country of Mexico is now being terrorized by violence and corruption from drug lords. But this is not caused by drugs: It is instead caused by drug money. Worse yet, it is our drug money that is causing the harm! And that same violence and corruption are increasingly spilling over the border into our country.
Under our present system of marijuana prohibition, we could not achieve more harmful results if we tried. The availability of marijuana both to us and to our children is up; the presence of violence and corruption is up and rising; the number of people’s lives that are being ruined by them or their parents being sent to jail and prison is up; and none of the vast profits that are made by the sale of marijuana are being taxed. In addition, since we only have limited criminal justice resources, getting “tough” on marijuana prosecutions means that we have gotten “soft” on all other prosecutions, including robbery, rape and murder.
In that regard, you should also be aware that at this moment there are thousands of people filling up our jails and prisons who have done nothing but smoke marijuana. The reason is that it is always a condition of probation or parole for the subject not to use any form of illicit substances. Therefore, if people on probation or parole smoke even one marijuana cigarette, that substance will stay in their systems and be detectable by urinalysis for up to 30 days. Then if they either fail to report for drug testing, or if they test positive, they are almost automatically taken back into custody. That not only costs us taxpayers about $30,000 per inmate per year, it also frequently places that inmate’s family back on the welfare roles.
So now is the time for you to help. Please contact your representatives, such as Assemblyman Chuck DeVore at (916) 319-2070, Assemblyman Van Tran at (916) 319-2068, Sen. Tom Harman at (916) 651-4035 or Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at (916) 445-2841, and tell them that they should support AB 390. And please contact your family and friends and ask them to do the same.
I have never used marijuana. Furthermore, I never intend to do so, unless it would be recommended to me by my physician to relieve some form of harmful medical condition. You probably feel the same way. But if you don’t and you, like millions of others in our country, would use marijuana, you are probably doing so already. So in that event at least you will not be required to associate with criminals to obtain the stuff, and will not automatically be a criminal yourself. And along the way, you can help us to balance our state budget.
JAMES P. GRAY can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
My Movitation - Judge Jim Gray's response to a letter
Dear Mark,
Thank you for the note. I worked hard on the book with the hope that it would increase a full, open and honest discussion of this critical area.
When I became a trial court judge at the end of 1983, I had no particular thoughts about drug laws one way or the other, except to enforce them. That is what I had done as a Navy JAG attorney, and that is what I did as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.
Then the thing that struck me first in this area when I was on the bench was that alcohol-related offenses were the largest problem area that we faced, and we were doing almost nothing about it. So I helped to establish what was probably the first Drug Court in the country. We screened every drinking driver that came into our
courts to determine who were the alcoholics (We called them "High Risk Problem Drinkers," but they knew what we meant.), and then placed them onto a program
that required total abstinance from alcohol. We were successful in keeping 65 % of these people off alcohol for 8 months, which was as long as I was able to keep
statistics. We also received letters from, for example, wives that told us they were going to divorce their husbands because of their drinking. But now that they were
on our program, thank you, because you have given me my husband back. We didn't need to receive too many of these letters to know that we were on to something
good.
So with this experience, it did not take me long to realize that we were facing similar problems with the other mind-altering, sometimes addicting drugs. And that jail and prison was not the answer. What worked was four things: education, prevention and treatment, positive economic incentives to do what was socially acceptable, and individual responsibility for one's actions. But trying to control what people put into their bodies was not working. And along the way, the drug money problems were dwarfing the actual drug problems.
So, being a fairly clean-cut, conservative judge in a conservative county who had never used any form of illicit drug, I decided that few people could cause others to listen to the message more than I could. (It certainly was not a "career-enhancing" thing to do.) So in April of 2001, I actually held a press conference, and I spoke out about my conclusions as publicly as I could. And I continue to do so today.
So please use whatever your personal experiences and observations are, and help us to discuss this critically important issue. The beheadings in Mexico have almost nothing to do with drugs: they are all about drug money. And so are a large number of other problems with violence, corruption, disregard for the law, supporting terrorism, and directly leading our children into a lifestyle of drug usage and drug selling. Drug money is the major problem, and still we refuse even to discuss the issue.
And I would be interested in your thoughts, both in general, and about my book.
Thank you again for the note, and Good Luck to us all.
Thank you for the note. I worked hard on the book with the hope that it would increase a full, open and honest discussion of this critical area.
When I became a trial court judge at the end of 1983, I had no particular thoughts about drug laws one way or the other, except to enforce them. That is what I had done as a Navy JAG attorney, and that is what I did as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.
Then the thing that struck me first in this area when I was on the bench was that alcohol-related offenses were the largest problem area that we faced, and we were doing almost nothing about it. So I helped to establish what was probably the first Drug Court in the country. We screened every drinking driver that came into our
courts to determine who were the alcoholics (We called them "High Risk Problem Drinkers," but they knew what we meant.), and then placed them onto a program
that required total abstinance from alcohol. We were successful in keeping 65 % of these people off alcohol for 8 months, which was as long as I was able to keep
statistics. We also received letters from, for example, wives that told us they were going to divorce their husbands because of their drinking. But now that they were
on our program, thank you, because you have given me my husband back. We didn't need to receive too many of these letters to know that we were on to something
good.
So with this experience, it did not take me long to realize that we were facing similar problems with the other mind-altering, sometimes addicting drugs. And that jail and prison was not the answer. What worked was four things: education, prevention and treatment, positive economic incentives to do what was socially acceptable, and individual responsibility for one's actions. But trying to control what people put into their bodies was not working. And along the way, the drug money problems were dwarfing the actual drug problems.
So, being a fairly clean-cut, conservative judge in a conservative county who had never used any form of illicit drug, I decided that few people could cause others to listen to the message more than I could. (It certainly was not a "career-enhancing" thing to do.) So in April of 2001, I actually held a press conference, and I spoke out about my conclusions as publicly as I could. And I continue to do so today.
So please use whatever your personal experiences and observations are, and help us to discuss this critically important issue. The beheadings in Mexico have almost nothing to do with drugs: they are all about drug money. And so are a large number of other problems with violence, corruption, disregard for the law, supporting terrorism, and directly leading our children into a lifestyle of drug usage and drug selling. Drug money is the major problem, and still we refuse even to discuss the issue.
And I would be interested in your thoughts, both in general, and about my book.
Thank you again for the note, and Good Luck to us all.
Judge Jim Gray
Exploring new worlds: cooking - By Judge Jim Gray
This past Valentine’s Day I decided to offer to do what I had not done for about 30 years — cook a nice meal for my wife. The idea was well received. So I went to some of the finer markets around and purchased some sea scallops, and fresh vegetables, and lemons, garlic and flat parsley for a nice sauce. I also pulled out a nice “saved” bottle of wine, and then, with my wife’s patient guidance, prepared our dinner.
The whole evening was a success. And, enlightened by that experience, I realized that cooking fits all the criteria that we have been discussing about exploring new worlds, because it is a unique experience, and a complete world unto itself.
The first lesson in my life on the subject was taught to me by my father. He used to say that the most important ingredient in the make-up of a good cook was to have an appreciative audience. I cannot think of any people who are good cooks that only cook for themselves, and I’ll bet that you can’t either. So if you want to experience good cooking you should be genuinely appreciative of the cook.
Cooking is really divided into two categories: commercial and domestic. Commercial covers people being paid to cook for others, and includes those who work in restaurants and catering services, and are hired to cook in other people’s homes. In that regard, there is a real difference between being a cook and being a chef.
A cook is basically a technician, while a chef is more of an artist. And at its most aesthetic, cooking is an art that stimulates a sensual experience involving taste, smell, sight and mouth feel. Therefore, by combining skill, experience, imagination and a caring of choosing fresh ingredients and different cooking techniques, being a chef can be a highly creative process.
Nevertheless, there can be problems in commercial cooking, because often it is the desire of many chefs only to have a good presentation and taste in the final product. But too often that can omit a concern about nutrition, additives like MSG and other flavor enhancers, and the amount of butter, cream and fats in the meals. So for the most part, health-conscious people should either limit their exposure to this type of meal or be really selective.
The benefits of domestic good cooking are enormous. Of course, everyone likes to eat, and cooking with fresh ingredients tastes better (once you allow your taste buds to recover from an excess of salt and other flavor enhancers), and it is certainly healthier. Buying local also means that the foods will likely be fresher, greener and exposed to fewer pollutants from transportation.
My wonderful mother was a great cook. Not gourmet, but she used fresh ingredients, and always added her special touches and garnishes that eternally demonstrated her love and caring for us. In addition, we would always sit down together for breakfast and dinner, and have formal candlelight dinners in the dining room on Sundays. After dinner, we would often wash the dishes together (this was before dishwashers), and frequently would sing together while we worked. This furnished us with great togetherness, great bonding, and great memories!
Probably each of us has special recollections of favorite recipes that we associate with particular holidays and other good times. And all of these times were directly made possible by the efforts of the cooks. In addition, communal efforts, such as picnics and potluck dinners where everyone has a stake (steak?) in the success of the event, materially add to the happy socializing both during the preparation and the consumption of the food. And it is not an accident that many good things in life are centered on a good meal.
Each summer my family picked fresh peaches from our tree, and then worked together to make hand-churned peach ice cream. In my mind, this is the best ice cream I will ever have because of the wonderful memories. Other families make preserves, tamales, canned fruit and many other foods together, with the same resulting memories. And all are made possible by the caring cook.
Other additional benefits are that food cooked at home is almost always less expensive than the ready-to-eat products. And, with an appreciative audience, it is much more fulfilling for the preparers. In fact, it also gives a new spouse something extra to brag about to both parents and in-laws. (And caring family members always overlook the times the new bride roasts the neck and giblets in the oven alongside the chicken while still in the plastic bag.)
A friend of mine who is a gourmet cook has told me about his procedure in food preparation. He first finds a new recipe, either in a cookbook or, increasingly, on the Internet. Then he sits down and visualizes from start to finish how he will do the job, including which pans to use, which oil, which ingredients and from where, etc. Then he will get everything out, and do all measurements as appropriate before he even starts to cook. Finally, as he progresses he will wash all of his cooking implements immediately after he has finished with them. This means that when his gourmet meal is completed, he and his wife are only facing a wonderful meal, and not a messy kitchen.
This procedure sounds good to me, and I recommend it to you.
Some recent and positive developments in cooking are that general education about nutrition is increasing in our society, as represented by the Food Network on television and the increased availability of cooking classes, with the result that things such as sodas, potato chips and doughnuts are more often being replaced by vitamin waters, fresh fruits and granola bars; aluminum pans, which often leach out harmful metals into our foods, are increasingly being replaced by ceramic and iron ones, which do not; more farmers’ markets and other stores featuring fresh fruits and vegetables are being found everywhere; and becoming a chef is increasingly being considered to be an honorable profession.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
The whole evening was a success. And, enlightened by that experience, I realized that cooking fits all the criteria that we have been discussing about exploring new worlds, because it is a unique experience, and a complete world unto itself.
The first lesson in my life on the subject was taught to me by my father. He used to say that the most important ingredient in the make-up of a good cook was to have an appreciative audience. I cannot think of any people who are good cooks that only cook for themselves, and I’ll bet that you can’t either. So if you want to experience good cooking you should be genuinely appreciative of the cook.
Cooking is really divided into two categories: commercial and domestic. Commercial covers people being paid to cook for others, and includes those who work in restaurants and catering services, and are hired to cook in other people’s homes. In that regard, there is a real difference between being a cook and being a chef.
A cook is basically a technician, while a chef is more of an artist. And at its most aesthetic, cooking is an art that stimulates a sensual experience involving taste, smell, sight and mouth feel. Therefore, by combining skill, experience, imagination and a caring of choosing fresh ingredients and different cooking techniques, being a chef can be a highly creative process.
Nevertheless, there can be problems in commercial cooking, because often it is the desire of many chefs only to have a good presentation and taste in the final product. But too often that can omit a concern about nutrition, additives like MSG and other flavor enhancers, and the amount of butter, cream and fats in the meals. So for the most part, health-conscious people should either limit their exposure to this type of meal or be really selective.
The benefits of domestic good cooking are enormous. Of course, everyone likes to eat, and cooking with fresh ingredients tastes better (once you allow your taste buds to recover from an excess of salt and other flavor enhancers), and it is certainly healthier. Buying local also means that the foods will likely be fresher, greener and exposed to fewer pollutants from transportation.
My wonderful mother was a great cook. Not gourmet, but she used fresh ingredients, and always added her special touches and garnishes that eternally demonstrated her love and caring for us. In addition, we would always sit down together for breakfast and dinner, and have formal candlelight dinners in the dining room on Sundays. After dinner, we would often wash the dishes together (this was before dishwashers), and frequently would sing together while we worked. This furnished us with great togetherness, great bonding, and great memories!
Probably each of us has special recollections of favorite recipes that we associate with particular holidays and other good times. And all of these times were directly made possible by the efforts of the cooks. In addition, communal efforts, such as picnics and potluck dinners where everyone has a stake (steak?) in the success of the event, materially add to the happy socializing both during the preparation and the consumption of the food. And it is not an accident that many good things in life are centered on a good meal.
Each summer my family picked fresh peaches from our tree, and then worked together to make hand-churned peach ice cream. In my mind, this is the best ice cream I will ever have because of the wonderful memories. Other families make preserves, tamales, canned fruit and many other foods together, with the same resulting memories. And all are made possible by the caring cook.
Other additional benefits are that food cooked at home is almost always less expensive than the ready-to-eat products. And, with an appreciative audience, it is much more fulfilling for the preparers. In fact, it also gives a new spouse something extra to brag about to both parents and in-laws. (And caring family members always overlook the times the new bride roasts the neck and giblets in the oven alongside the chicken while still in the plastic bag.)
A friend of mine who is a gourmet cook has told me about his procedure in food preparation. He first finds a new recipe, either in a cookbook or, increasingly, on the Internet. Then he sits down and visualizes from start to finish how he will do the job, including which pans to use, which oil, which ingredients and from where, etc. Then he will get everything out, and do all measurements as appropriate before he even starts to cook. Finally, as he progresses he will wash all of his cooking implements immediately after he has finished with them. This means that when his gourmet meal is completed, he and his wife are only facing a wonderful meal, and not a messy kitchen.
This procedure sounds good to me, and I recommend it to you.
Some recent and positive developments in cooking are that general education about nutrition is increasing in our society, as represented by the Food Network on television and the increased availability of cooking classes, with the result that things such as sodas, potato chips and doughnuts are more often being replaced by vitamin waters, fresh fruits and granola bars; aluminum pans, which often leach out harmful metals into our foods, are increasingly being replaced by ceramic and iron ones, which do not; more farmers’ markets and other stores featuring fresh fruits and vegetables are being found everywhere; and becoming a chef is increasingly being considered to be an honorable profession.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Different worlds: scuba diving - by Judge Jim Gray
If you want to visit a truly different, fascinating, varied and colorful world, try scuba diving. Yes, it can be dangerous, so you should not venture below the surface with a tank of air unless you get certified. But once this is done, you will be entering a wonderful if not magical new world.
Scuba stands for self-contained underwater breathing apparatus, and consists of a tank of compressed air, which is strapped to your back, air hoses and a regulator for breathing. The original “aqua lung” scuba gear was co-discovered by Jacques Cousteau in 1943, and he went on to study all forms of life in the water and to become a pioneer in marine conservation and photography.
My first duty station when I was in the Navy was the U.S. Naval Air Station in Guam, and it was there that I became certified in scuba diving. In fact, I quickly formed the belief that the best part of Guam was under water. We could dive — always with a partner — on coral reefs, and a World War I freighter that sank in the harbor. And, because most of the “action” occurs at night, we also took underwater flashlights and made some night dives.
At that time, I hunted for shells and retrieved coral from the reefs that I still display on my shelves at home. I wouldn’t do that anymore because of the increased fragility of the reefs. At that time I knew some divers who would actually take a crow bar to large coral heads and pry them up while looking for shells, because the critters housed in the shells tended to hide under the coral. But it was tremendously destructive of the coral reefs, and in most places that practice has long since been prohibited.
I was also able to dive in the best spot in the world for scuba, which is the Truk (or Chuuk) Lagoon, in the Caroline Islands. This 50-by-30-mile lagoon surrounded by coral reefs was the base of naval operations for the Japanese in the South Pacific during World War II. But in 1944 the Allies attacked and sank about 12 Japanese warships, 32 merchant ships, and hundreds of aircraft, and people can now dive on them. And since the government has prohibited the removal of anything from the area, the ships and airplanes are mostly still the way they were back then. It is a fascinating thing to do!
We dove down to the Fujikawa Maru, which is a six-hold armed freighter. Still found in one of the holds was an actual Zero, which is a Japanese fighter airplane that was being transported intact. So we were actually able to sit in the cockpit of this plane, and that was an experience I will never forget. There also was lots of machinery in the hold of the ship, including an old outboard motor that I will always remember.
I also vividly remember diving in about 30 feet of water around the large guns on the bow of the same ship. But the guns had large coral heads growing on them, and several colorful fish were lazily swimming all around them. So to see this ship of war with all of its guns surrounded by such an idyllic and peaceful situation was something that will always be burned in my memory as the most ironic scene of my life.
After being discharged from the Navy I have only been diving one time in my life, and that was in Laguna Beach. Even though it was August, we still had to wear a wet suit because the water below about 10 feet was cold. And the water was not nearly as clear, or the fish as colorful, or the scenery as interesting as in the other areas I had been. We did explore the world of the kelp beds, and that was interesting. But not interesting enough to bring me back.
I do understand that the diving on the other side of Catalina Island is fun, and more colorful. In addition, divers can also go spear fishing or hunting for lobsters, so maybe some day.
Basically, the only dangerous things about scuba diving are getting panicked from lack of experience in unusual situations, or diving too deep for too long without taking proper steps for decompression. Both of these underscore the need to get certified, so that you can enjoy this wonderful activity safely.
But otherwise, experiencing the wonders of life beneath the seas is one of life’s most interesting adventures. So even if scuba diving itself is not in your future, please treat yourself by going to a warm-water climate, putting on a mask and snorkel, resting on the top of the water, and just quietly observing what is going on below. You will be able to see almost as much as a diver, because below 30 feet the sunlight begins to fade and so do the colors. Or at the very least go on one of the glass-bottomed boat excursions (and not just at Disneyland) and experience these wonders first hand. You will never be sorry.
Finally, if you want to learn more about underwater conservation, please visit the Nature Conservancy at www.nature.org, the Cousteau Society at www.Cousteau.org, or other similar websites. We all need to do what we can to protect and preserve these amazing, fascinating and diverse underwater lands.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Scuba stands for self-contained underwater breathing apparatus, and consists of a tank of compressed air, which is strapped to your back, air hoses and a regulator for breathing. The original “aqua lung” scuba gear was co-discovered by Jacques Cousteau in 1943, and he went on to study all forms of life in the water and to become a pioneer in marine conservation and photography.
My first duty station when I was in the Navy was the U.S. Naval Air Station in Guam, and it was there that I became certified in scuba diving. In fact, I quickly formed the belief that the best part of Guam was under water. We could dive — always with a partner — on coral reefs, and a World War I freighter that sank in the harbor. And, because most of the “action” occurs at night, we also took underwater flashlights and made some night dives.
At that time, I hunted for shells and retrieved coral from the reefs that I still display on my shelves at home. I wouldn’t do that anymore because of the increased fragility of the reefs. At that time I knew some divers who would actually take a crow bar to large coral heads and pry them up while looking for shells, because the critters housed in the shells tended to hide under the coral. But it was tremendously destructive of the coral reefs, and in most places that practice has long since been prohibited.
I was also able to dive in the best spot in the world for scuba, which is the Truk (or Chuuk) Lagoon, in the Caroline Islands. This 50-by-30-mile lagoon surrounded by coral reefs was the base of naval operations for the Japanese in the South Pacific during World War II. But in 1944 the Allies attacked and sank about 12 Japanese warships, 32 merchant ships, and hundreds of aircraft, and people can now dive on them. And since the government has prohibited the removal of anything from the area, the ships and airplanes are mostly still the way they were back then. It is a fascinating thing to do!
We dove down to the Fujikawa Maru, which is a six-hold armed freighter. Still found in one of the holds was an actual Zero, which is a Japanese fighter airplane that was being transported intact. So we were actually able to sit in the cockpit of this plane, and that was an experience I will never forget. There also was lots of machinery in the hold of the ship, including an old outboard motor that I will always remember.
I also vividly remember diving in about 30 feet of water around the large guns on the bow of the same ship. But the guns had large coral heads growing on them, and several colorful fish were lazily swimming all around them. So to see this ship of war with all of its guns surrounded by such an idyllic and peaceful situation was something that will always be burned in my memory as the most ironic scene of my life.
After being discharged from the Navy I have only been diving one time in my life, and that was in Laguna Beach. Even though it was August, we still had to wear a wet suit because the water below about 10 feet was cold. And the water was not nearly as clear, or the fish as colorful, or the scenery as interesting as in the other areas I had been. We did explore the world of the kelp beds, and that was interesting. But not interesting enough to bring me back.
I do understand that the diving on the other side of Catalina Island is fun, and more colorful. In addition, divers can also go spear fishing or hunting for lobsters, so maybe some day.
Basically, the only dangerous things about scuba diving are getting panicked from lack of experience in unusual situations, or diving too deep for too long without taking proper steps for decompression. Both of these underscore the need to get certified, so that you can enjoy this wonderful activity safely.
But otherwise, experiencing the wonders of life beneath the seas is one of life’s most interesting adventures. So even if scuba diving itself is not in your future, please treat yourself by going to a warm-water climate, putting on a mask and snorkel, resting on the top of the water, and just quietly observing what is going on below. You will be able to see almost as much as a diver, because below 30 feet the sunlight begins to fade and so do the colors. Or at the very least go on one of the glass-bottomed boat excursions (and not just at Disneyland) and experience these wonders first hand. You will never be sorry.
Finally, if you want to learn more about underwater conservation, please visit the Nature Conservancy at www.nature.org, the Cousteau Society at www.Cousteau.org, or other similar websites. We all need to do what we can to protect and preserve these amazing, fascinating and diverse underwater lands.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Different worlds: white water rafting - by Judge Jim Gray
My all-time favorite vacation activity is white water rafting. If you are not afraid of the water, or of getting wet, and you love the out-of-doors, you should try it!
White water rafting combines many good things, such as natural beauty, tranquillity, marvelous scenery, experiencing “the wild,” companionship, history — and moments of genuine excitement.
The rapids on rivers are generally classified in order of danger from 1 to 5, with Level 1 being the most tame. Level 6 and above are considered too dangerous to be navigated. Level 1 and below rapids are considered to be “float trips.” Level 2 and 3 rapids are relatively mild, but enough to give you some exhilaration. These trips are perfect for the novice, younger children and “people who don’t want to get their hair wet.” I have been on some of those as one- or two-day trips on the San Juan River near Durango, the Lower Kern River, which is below Lake Isabella and east of Bakersfield, the Snake River south of the Grand Tetons, and the American River right above Folsom Lake near Sacramento. They were all fun, but the best was the American River.
The most spectacular river-rafting trip I have taken was through the Grand Canyon on the Colorado River. This trip had lots of Level 4 and 5 rapids, and, not surprisingly, some of the most beautiful scenery imaginable. But in addition, you can take side trips to wonderful waterfalls, abandoned mines, hot springs, and other notable and interesting locations. And excitement? We were on a “J-Rig” inflatable boat, which the Army Seabees use as temporary bridges. They were equipped with 35-horsepower outboard motors and would handle about 18 to 20 people. But when we hit some of the rapids, it would really “get our attention,” to the extent that it would move the boat almost 45 degrees in the air. In short, we had a great time.
Other longer trips I have taken that I would strongly recommend to you are the Middle Fork and the Main Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho, the Selway River in Idaho, and the Upper Kern River, which is above Lake Isabella. I have also heard that there are great trips on the Rogue River in Oregon and the Green River in Utah, and of course there are many others as well.
But the fun is not just on the river. Every company I have traveled with has been people-oriented and has cooked wonderful meals. An added plus is that you will have time to yourself in camp to fish, take a nap, go hiking in wildlife areas, or just joke and converse with good people.
The boats you will take will vary. By far the largest I have seen are the J-Rigs on the Colorado. Otherwise you will usually choose either to be on an oar boat, where one guide sits in the middle and does all the work with two long oars, or a paddle boat, which is usually smaller and each of the six to eight passengers and the one guide in the back must paddle. I much prefer to be paddling, since it allows me to be much more a part of the river and the trip. Of course, some people take their own individual kayaks, but they should either stay in milder water or be quite a bit more experienced.
In most of the trips you will sleep on the ground, either in a tent or out in the open. You will have a pad beneath you, and if you have a sandy beach, it can be soft. Or you can take a fold-up cot with you to get off the ground. That is what I do because at this point in my life I don’t feel I should have to continue to prove my masculinity by sleeping on the ground. But don’t let that deter you.
I will end this column with a story that was passed along to me by the owner of the rafting company that took us through the Main Fork of the Salmon River. On the last evening of our trip while by the camp fire, we asked the owner who his all-time favorite customer had been on the river. He said that this was an easy question to answer.
Once he received a letter from a woman from back East who told him that she was then 85 years old, but had always wanted to go river rafting, and she asked if she could be included. He responded that if she would provide a letter from her doctor that it was all right, he would take her along. Almost by return mail he received another note from the woman telling him for the first time that she was also blind, but enclosing the appropriate doctor’s note. In addition, she said that she had an 81-year-old friend with her own doctor’s approval that wanted to come along as well.
So they both came on the trip. As you can imagine, everyone rallied to help her on the boat and in camp, and to explain what was happening. In short, this nice woman and everyone else had a great time. But finally the owner asked her why if she had always wanted to go river rafting she had waited until she was 85. She responded that for the last 40 years her husband and all of her children had been against the idea. But they were all dead now, so she decided to give it a try. For many people like me and maybe like you, river rafting is a different world, and one of life’s most fun things to do. So try it this summer. Don’t wait until you are 85 and blind.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Superior Court in Orange County, the composer of the high school musical “Americans All,” that will soon be playing in Hawkinsville, Georgia and Greenville, South Carolina, and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or through his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
White water rafting combines many good things, such as natural beauty, tranquillity, marvelous scenery, experiencing “the wild,” companionship, history — and moments of genuine excitement.
The rapids on rivers are generally classified in order of danger from 1 to 5, with Level 1 being the most tame. Level 6 and above are considered too dangerous to be navigated. Level 1 and below rapids are considered to be “float trips.” Level 2 and 3 rapids are relatively mild, but enough to give you some exhilaration. These trips are perfect for the novice, younger children and “people who don’t want to get their hair wet.” I have been on some of those as one- or two-day trips on the San Juan River near Durango, the Lower Kern River, which is below Lake Isabella and east of Bakersfield, the Snake River south of the Grand Tetons, and the American River right above Folsom Lake near Sacramento. They were all fun, but the best was the American River.
The most spectacular river-rafting trip I have taken was through the Grand Canyon on the Colorado River. This trip had lots of Level 4 and 5 rapids, and, not surprisingly, some of the most beautiful scenery imaginable. But in addition, you can take side trips to wonderful waterfalls, abandoned mines, hot springs, and other notable and interesting locations. And excitement? We were on a “J-Rig” inflatable boat, which the Army Seabees use as temporary bridges. They were equipped with 35-horsepower outboard motors and would handle about 18 to 20 people. But when we hit some of the rapids, it would really “get our attention,” to the extent that it would move the boat almost 45 degrees in the air. In short, we had a great time.
Other longer trips I have taken that I would strongly recommend to you are the Middle Fork and the Main Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho, the Selway River in Idaho, and the Upper Kern River, which is above Lake Isabella. I have also heard that there are great trips on the Rogue River in Oregon and the Green River in Utah, and of course there are many others as well.
But the fun is not just on the river. Every company I have traveled with has been people-oriented and has cooked wonderful meals. An added plus is that you will have time to yourself in camp to fish, take a nap, go hiking in wildlife areas, or just joke and converse with good people.
The boats you will take will vary. By far the largest I have seen are the J-Rigs on the Colorado. Otherwise you will usually choose either to be on an oar boat, where one guide sits in the middle and does all the work with two long oars, or a paddle boat, which is usually smaller and each of the six to eight passengers and the one guide in the back must paddle. I much prefer to be paddling, since it allows me to be much more a part of the river and the trip. Of course, some people take their own individual kayaks, but they should either stay in milder water or be quite a bit more experienced.
In most of the trips you will sleep on the ground, either in a tent or out in the open. You will have a pad beneath you, and if you have a sandy beach, it can be soft. Or you can take a fold-up cot with you to get off the ground. That is what I do because at this point in my life I don’t feel I should have to continue to prove my masculinity by sleeping on the ground. But don’t let that deter you.
I will end this column with a story that was passed along to me by the owner of the rafting company that took us through the Main Fork of the Salmon River. On the last evening of our trip while by the camp fire, we asked the owner who his all-time favorite customer had been on the river. He said that this was an easy question to answer.
Once he received a letter from a woman from back East who told him that she was then 85 years old, but had always wanted to go river rafting, and she asked if she could be included. He responded that if she would provide a letter from her doctor that it was all right, he would take her along. Almost by return mail he received another note from the woman telling him for the first time that she was also blind, but enclosing the appropriate doctor’s note. In addition, she said that she had an 81-year-old friend with her own doctor’s approval that wanted to come along as well.
So they both came on the trip. As you can imagine, everyone rallied to help her on the boat and in camp, and to explain what was happening. In short, this nice woman and everyone else had a great time. But finally the owner asked her why if she had always wanted to go river rafting she had waited until she was 85. She responded that for the last 40 years her husband and all of her children had been against the idea. But they were all dead now, so she decided to give it a try. For many people like me and maybe like you, river rafting is a different world, and one of life’s most fun things to do. So try it this summer. Don’t wait until you are 85 and blind.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Superior Court in Orange County, the composer of the high school musical “Americans All,” that will soon be playing in Hawkinsville, Georgia and Greenville, South Carolina, and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or through his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Discovering new worlds: fly fishing - by Judge Jim Gray
If you stop and think about it, there are many separate and complete worlds all around us that are just waiting to be discovered.
So in the next few weeks I will share with you some of the worlds that I have discovered, with the hope that you will be sufficiently interested to discover them for yourself. And I also request that you share some of the worlds you have discovered with the rest of us as well.
Some of my discovered worlds are fly fishing, scuba diving, different forms of music, traveling, white-water rafting, and reading. In the weeks to come, we will be discussing each of those worlds and maybe more. But first on the list is fly fishing.
I consider myself to be an “advanced novice” fly fisherman. Before I got into it, I considered this to be an “elitist” activity that was more trouble than it was worth. But after learning a little bit about it and taking a few fly fishing trips, now I consider it to be one of the most enjoyable and satisfying pastimes I have ever encountered.
The purpose of fly fishing is, of course, to fool the fish into thinking that your offering with a hook hidden in it is their lunch. “Dry” flies are imitations of insects that are found around a body of water searching for food, sometimes crawling on the water or dipping or falling into it. “Wet” flies usually imitate water-born insects as they swim to the surface to emerge as adults before they fly away.
But fish are not dumb. They can see your offering and often detect if it has any flaws. They can also see and hear you and, depending upon the water conditions, they can see your line as well. So you must sneak up on the fish, make your lure look realistic, and make your line inconspicuous.
In addition, fish are generally lazy. They want to gather as much food as they can without expending too much energy along the way. Face the facts, there are not too many calories to be found for a fish in eating a mayfly or caddisfly. So if your fly is too far away, or the fish have to swim too far against the current to get to it, the strike probably will not be made.
So there is a real challenge to fly fishing — and that is just to get the original strike. You will probably be fishing with a barbless hook, so you will be forced to keep some tension on the line or the fish will easily throw the hook. Barbless hooks are used because most good fly fishing is “catch and release,” due to the conviction that “fish are too valuable just to be caught once.” In addition, you will also probably be fishing with low test line, so if you put too much pressure upon it, the line or leader (the tippet) will break.
Furthermore there is a real technique to casting, controlling and positioning your fly. Everything you use is lightweight, so you cannot “force” the fly into the right spot. Instead you must work up to it by a series of practice or “false” casts. But as we have seen, placement is critical. For example, in a river the fish will often be found behind some rocks that will give them relief from the current, but still keep them close enough to the current to see and strike at food as the current washes it by. So the people fishing want to drift their flies in the current, but close to the slower water where the fish are. Similarly, fish will hide under trees or fallen branches to be in cooler water. But it can be hard to cast your lightweight fly into such places. In fact, there have been many times in which I have “caught” more trees on my fishing expeditions than fish.
But in addition to the challenges and excitement, there is also a genuine peace to be found in fly fishing. By definition, when I am standing by or in a river in Colorado, Idaho, the Eastern Sierras, or almost any other venue, I am in a wonderful place.
Furthermore, when I fish I am quiet and left alone with my thoughts, and often at these times I have felt more in harmony and at one with my surroundings than I have ever felt anywhere else. Just the give and take with the river, the trees, the rocks and, yes, the fish can bring a tranquillity that is unmatched.
If you are interested in expanding your horizons to include fly fishing, there are numbers of instructors available almost anywhere, and there are also lots of books to assist you as well. The book I used was “Essential Fly Fishing” by Tom Meade, but there are many others.
In addition, do yourself a favor and read “The River Why,” which is a novel by David James Duncan. This is actually one of the funniest books I have ever read, and it will also give you a good understanding and appreciation of fly fishing.
So I hope you open your thoughts to fly fishing, and I invite you to share your experiences with the rest of us. It really is a separate world that is different, exciting, challenging, tranquil and satisfying. And it is one that I am deeply blessed and grateful to have encountered.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
So in the next few weeks I will share with you some of the worlds that I have discovered, with the hope that you will be sufficiently interested to discover them for yourself. And I also request that you share some of the worlds you have discovered with the rest of us as well.
Some of my discovered worlds are fly fishing, scuba diving, different forms of music, traveling, white-water rafting, and reading. In the weeks to come, we will be discussing each of those worlds and maybe more. But first on the list is fly fishing.
I consider myself to be an “advanced novice” fly fisherman. Before I got into it, I considered this to be an “elitist” activity that was more trouble than it was worth. But after learning a little bit about it and taking a few fly fishing trips, now I consider it to be one of the most enjoyable and satisfying pastimes I have ever encountered.
The purpose of fly fishing is, of course, to fool the fish into thinking that your offering with a hook hidden in it is their lunch. “Dry” flies are imitations of insects that are found around a body of water searching for food, sometimes crawling on the water or dipping or falling into it. “Wet” flies usually imitate water-born insects as they swim to the surface to emerge as adults before they fly away.
But fish are not dumb. They can see your offering and often detect if it has any flaws. They can also see and hear you and, depending upon the water conditions, they can see your line as well. So you must sneak up on the fish, make your lure look realistic, and make your line inconspicuous.
In addition, fish are generally lazy. They want to gather as much food as they can without expending too much energy along the way. Face the facts, there are not too many calories to be found for a fish in eating a mayfly or caddisfly. So if your fly is too far away, or the fish have to swim too far against the current to get to it, the strike probably will not be made.
So there is a real challenge to fly fishing — and that is just to get the original strike. You will probably be fishing with a barbless hook, so you will be forced to keep some tension on the line or the fish will easily throw the hook. Barbless hooks are used because most good fly fishing is “catch and release,” due to the conviction that “fish are too valuable just to be caught once.” In addition, you will also probably be fishing with low test line, so if you put too much pressure upon it, the line or leader (the tippet) will break.
Furthermore there is a real technique to casting, controlling and positioning your fly. Everything you use is lightweight, so you cannot “force” the fly into the right spot. Instead you must work up to it by a series of practice or “false” casts. But as we have seen, placement is critical. For example, in a river the fish will often be found behind some rocks that will give them relief from the current, but still keep them close enough to the current to see and strike at food as the current washes it by. So the people fishing want to drift their flies in the current, but close to the slower water where the fish are. Similarly, fish will hide under trees or fallen branches to be in cooler water. But it can be hard to cast your lightweight fly into such places. In fact, there have been many times in which I have “caught” more trees on my fishing expeditions than fish.
But in addition to the challenges and excitement, there is also a genuine peace to be found in fly fishing. By definition, when I am standing by or in a river in Colorado, Idaho, the Eastern Sierras, or almost any other venue, I am in a wonderful place.
Furthermore, when I fish I am quiet and left alone with my thoughts, and often at these times I have felt more in harmony and at one with my surroundings than I have ever felt anywhere else. Just the give and take with the river, the trees, the rocks and, yes, the fish can bring a tranquillity that is unmatched.
If you are interested in expanding your horizons to include fly fishing, there are numbers of instructors available almost anywhere, and there are also lots of books to assist you as well. The book I used was “Essential Fly Fishing” by Tom Meade, but there are many others.
In addition, do yourself a favor and read “The River Why,” which is a novel by David James Duncan. This is actually one of the funniest books I have ever read, and it will also give you a good understanding and appreciation of fly fishing.
So I hope you open your thoughts to fly fishing, and I invite you to share your experiences with the rest of us. It really is a separate world that is different, exciting, challenging, tranquil and satisfying. And it is one that I am deeply blessed and grateful to have encountered.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Shingles: the avoidable disease - by Judge Jim Gray
Recently I went up to San Luis Obispo to visit my aunt. One basic rule in life is that family is first, and I try to gauge my actions accordingly. My aunt is experiencing some medical problems, including Parkinson’s disease and the maladies of old age, because she is blessed to be 90 years old. But she also has shingles.
Before she got this disease, I did not know much about it. Now I find that it can be a truly debilitating illness that involves mild-to-severe tingling, itching, burning, or even shooting pain. My aunt is one of those who is experiencing severe pain from it, which she equates to a strong elastic band that is stretched too tightly around her waist. And it hurts her to do everything, including just lying in bed.
Technically this is known as the varicella zoster virus, and it comes from the herpes family. It is the same virus that caused our chicken pox when we were children. In fact, only those who earlier had chicken pox can get shingles. That same virus stays dormant in humans for many years, but can become active again, usually after we turn 50 years old. Medical science’s best estimate of the reason for the flare-up is increased tension and stress.
Fortunately the disease can be avoidable, because now there is a vaccination for it. At the end of 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officially recommended that all adults ages 60 and older get that vaccination. I was told that people under 60 can obtain the shot only with a prescription, but for those over 60 a prescription is not required.
People who are most at risk to contract the disease are those over 60, and those who have medical problems that affect the immune system, like HIV or cancer, and those who take drugs that suppress the immune system, such as steroids and medications given after organ transplants. People who never contracted chicken pox will not get shingles, but of course they are still at risk for the chicken pox.
Shingles is usually first evident as a rash or blisters on the skin, typically on just one side of the body. It can rarely lead to really severe complications like blindness and death, and about one in five people who contract the disease will experience severe pain. According to the CDC, about 1 million people in the United States contract the disease each year, and the vaccination is about 50% effective. Once contracted, the disease is treatable, but the earlier it is detected and treated, the better.
Just to be sure about whether I should get the shot myself, I contacted both my family doctor and another medical doctor who is a personal friend and asked them for their recommendations. Both of them told me that they recommended that I get the shot, and the one who is over 60 said he himself had already been vaccinated. So I got it too.
The problem is that the vaccination is expensive. I heard that it was being offered at the pharmacy at a Vons grocery store, so that was where I went. But even that cost me $210. My doctor told me it would have cost $250 at his office. Both doctors told me that my insurance wouldn’t cover it, but the pharmacist gave me the forms to submit anyway.
Given my aunt’s experience, I believe the vaccination is a deal even at four times the price. But why are vaccinations like this so expensive? Well, the simple reason is that it costs a pharmaceutical company hundreds of millions of dollars to perform the required studies before the FDA will certify almost any new drug. And it almost always takes more than a decade for that process to be completed. Often other countries have new medications available to the public many years sooner than we do, and those medications are reducing pain, curing diseases and even saving lives. But our FDA basically justifies the delay and expense by saying that “we can’t be too careful.” My explanation is that “the bureaucracy must be served.”
It may be true in some cases that some new medications could cause harm to the users. But, like anything else in life, there should be a balance. Yes some new medications could cause harm, but waiting those long extra years will also bring harms of their own. Why? Because many of the new medications will themselves save lives and alleviate suffering.
So how can we strike the best balance? Hold the pharmaceutical companies responsible for putting any medications on the market without sufficient research and study by allowing the person harmed to bring a lawsuit for negligence. That is the best way to maximize the benefits and reduce the harms. And this will also significantly reduce the cost of all medications, such as the vaccination for shingles.
Although I am not a medical doctor, based upon what I have learned, I recommend that anyone older than 60 who has had chicken pox get the vaccination. I also suggest people younger than 60 with health problems that put them into any of the categories of greater risk expressly consult with their doctors about getting the vaccination as well. I have passed this information on to you because this disease can be so painful and debilitating that I thought you would want to join me in taking all reasonable steps to avoid it.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Before she got this disease, I did not know much about it. Now I find that it can be a truly debilitating illness that involves mild-to-severe tingling, itching, burning, or even shooting pain. My aunt is one of those who is experiencing severe pain from it, which she equates to a strong elastic band that is stretched too tightly around her waist. And it hurts her to do everything, including just lying in bed.
Technically this is known as the varicella zoster virus, and it comes from the herpes family. It is the same virus that caused our chicken pox when we were children. In fact, only those who earlier had chicken pox can get shingles. That same virus stays dormant in humans for many years, but can become active again, usually after we turn 50 years old. Medical science’s best estimate of the reason for the flare-up is increased tension and stress.
Fortunately the disease can be avoidable, because now there is a vaccination for it. At the end of 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officially recommended that all adults ages 60 and older get that vaccination. I was told that people under 60 can obtain the shot only with a prescription, but for those over 60 a prescription is not required.
People who are most at risk to contract the disease are those over 60, and those who have medical problems that affect the immune system, like HIV or cancer, and those who take drugs that suppress the immune system, such as steroids and medications given after organ transplants. People who never contracted chicken pox will not get shingles, but of course they are still at risk for the chicken pox.
Shingles is usually first evident as a rash or blisters on the skin, typically on just one side of the body. It can rarely lead to really severe complications like blindness and death, and about one in five people who contract the disease will experience severe pain. According to the CDC, about 1 million people in the United States contract the disease each year, and the vaccination is about 50% effective. Once contracted, the disease is treatable, but the earlier it is detected and treated, the better.
Just to be sure about whether I should get the shot myself, I contacted both my family doctor and another medical doctor who is a personal friend and asked them for their recommendations. Both of them told me that they recommended that I get the shot, and the one who is over 60 said he himself had already been vaccinated. So I got it too.
The problem is that the vaccination is expensive. I heard that it was being offered at the pharmacy at a Vons grocery store, so that was where I went. But even that cost me $210. My doctor told me it would have cost $250 at his office. Both doctors told me that my insurance wouldn’t cover it, but the pharmacist gave me the forms to submit anyway.
Given my aunt’s experience, I believe the vaccination is a deal even at four times the price. But why are vaccinations like this so expensive? Well, the simple reason is that it costs a pharmaceutical company hundreds of millions of dollars to perform the required studies before the FDA will certify almost any new drug. And it almost always takes more than a decade for that process to be completed. Often other countries have new medications available to the public many years sooner than we do, and those medications are reducing pain, curing diseases and even saving lives. But our FDA basically justifies the delay and expense by saying that “we can’t be too careful.” My explanation is that “the bureaucracy must be served.”
It may be true in some cases that some new medications could cause harm to the users. But, like anything else in life, there should be a balance. Yes some new medications could cause harm, but waiting those long extra years will also bring harms of their own. Why? Because many of the new medications will themselves save lives and alleviate suffering.
So how can we strike the best balance? Hold the pharmaceutical companies responsible for putting any medications on the market without sufficient research and study by allowing the person harmed to bring a lawsuit for negligence. That is the best way to maximize the benefits and reduce the harms. And this will also significantly reduce the cost of all medications, such as the vaccination for shingles.
Although I am not a medical doctor, based upon what I have learned, I recommend that anyone older than 60 who has had chicken pox get the vaccination. I also suggest people younger than 60 with health problems that put them into any of the categories of greater risk expressly consult with their doctors about getting the vaccination as well. I have passed this information on to you because this disease can be so painful and debilitating that I thought you would want to join me in taking all reasonable steps to avoid it.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Books for the ‘resistant reader’ - by Judge Jim Gray
In an earlier column we discussed one of the best ways for young people to expand their horizons and become more sophisticated in the world — and that is by reading. Improved reading skills will also, of course, increase their ability to do well in school, perform well on the SAT, and obtain and hold good jobs in the future. But, unfortunately, there are many young people who have still not learned or even been exposed to the joys and benefits of this wonderful pastime. Recently I spoke to a county librarian about this problem, and she told me that she had prepared a list of books for “resistant readers” with this in mind. I will share it with you so you can assist the resistant readers in your lives.
But first I will give you my own list. It begins with “Fox in Sox” by Dr. Seuss. Picture young children sitting on their parents’ laps and reading together a “story” composed of tongue twisters with crazy characters. This book is fun, challenging, endearing — and silly! When I presided over the Abused and Neglected Children’s calendar in Juvenile Court, I bought numbers of copies of this book and gave them to parents and temporary guardians so that “my” children could enjoy and learn from this reading experience — and bond with the parents and guardians along the way. I strongly recommend that you use this book to do the same!
My other all-time favorite books that will excite and interest children in reading are “White Fang” by Jack London, “Where the Red Fern Grows” by Wilson Rawls, “The Giver” by Lois Lowry, and “The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey” by Ken Schoolland.
As you either know or will discover, both “White Fang” and “Where the Red Fern Grows” are stories about the lives of some dogs, and involve real-life problems, relationships with humans and other animals, unfairness, warmth, dedication, emotion and tears that will endure for a long time. “The Giver” and “The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible” involve simplified but not simplistic discussions about principles and choices that will help to confront young (and not-so-young) minds with the real world, and how we all can live our lives more fully and completely.
My librarian friend began her list by recommending that our children read any books by Chris Crutcher, Walter Dean Myers or Gary Paulsen. Then she listed some specific books, which were: “Monster” by Walter Dean Myers, “White Fox Chronicle” by Gary Paulsen, “Touching Spirit Bear” by Ben Mikaelsen, and “Stuck in Neutral” by Terry Trueman.
“Monster” is a story about a 16-year-old boy who is charged criminally with the offense of being a lookout while a murder was taking place. During his trial the boy chronicles the ongoing proceedings in his head in a movie script format, and thereby provides insights into his life before the murder and his feelings about being locked up. Whether he was involved in the murder or was simply in the “wrong place at the wrong time” is constantly on the reader’s mind. “White Fox Chronicle” describes a 14-year-old boy, aka “White Fox,” as he carries out an ingenious escape in the year 2057 from a prison camp run by evil and brutal outsiders who have taken over our country. Then the reader transfers the execution of his plan to liberate the remaining prisoners and punish the evildoers into a formula that gives hope and a chance for all downtrodden Americans to live more successful and productive lives.
“Touching Spirit Bear” tells the story of a teenage bully whose anger resulted in him beating up and severely injuring a ninth-grade classmate. But then a Tlingit Indian parole officer comes into his life and offers an alternative called “Circle Justice,” based upon Native American traditions, in which victim, offender and community all work together to find a healing resolution for what has happened.
With “Stuck in Neutral” we are exposed to a 14-year-old boy who has lost all of his muscle control from cerebral palsy, including the ability to walk, talk or even focus his eyes. Nevertheless, the gentle hugs from his mother, tasting of different foods, and things he thinks about in his head result in an inward happiness. But the boy becomes frantic when he determines that his father, who believes his son’s life is nothing but an endless torment, is thinking of killing him. And the boy has no way of telling his father that he is wrong.
What better way to encourage our young people to turn off the television than learning about the magical world of reading? Of course, many adults could also learn the same lesson. As a personal example, when the Los Angeles Rams moved away from Orange County, I stopped watching or even caring about professional football. The amount of time I saved by not watching these interminable games on television enabled me to write two books and a musical, and to be able to read lots of other books as well. So do the young people in your lives one of the biggest favors you can, and expose them to the wonders and benefits of reading. And I suggest to you that the books listed here are a good place to start.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the composer of the high school musical “Americans All” (Heuer Publishing), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
But first I will give you my own list. It begins with “Fox in Sox” by Dr. Seuss. Picture young children sitting on their parents’ laps and reading together a “story” composed of tongue twisters with crazy characters. This book is fun, challenging, endearing — and silly! When I presided over the Abused and Neglected Children’s calendar in Juvenile Court, I bought numbers of copies of this book and gave them to parents and temporary guardians so that “my” children could enjoy and learn from this reading experience — and bond with the parents and guardians along the way. I strongly recommend that you use this book to do the same!
My other all-time favorite books that will excite and interest children in reading are “White Fang” by Jack London, “Where the Red Fern Grows” by Wilson Rawls, “The Giver” by Lois Lowry, and “The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey” by Ken Schoolland.
As you either know or will discover, both “White Fang” and “Where the Red Fern Grows” are stories about the lives of some dogs, and involve real-life problems, relationships with humans and other animals, unfairness, warmth, dedication, emotion and tears that will endure for a long time. “The Giver” and “The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible” involve simplified but not simplistic discussions about principles and choices that will help to confront young (and not-so-young) minds with the real world, and how we all can live our lives more fully and completely.
My librarian friend began her list by recommending that our children read any books by Chris Crutcher, Walter Dean Myers or Gary Paulsen. Then she listed some specific books, which were: “Monster” by Walter Dean Myers, “White Fox Chronicle” by Gary Paulsen, “Touching Spirit Bear” by Ben Mikaelsen, and “Stuck in Neutral” by Terry Trueman.
“Monster” is a story about a 16-year-old boy who is charged criminally with the offense of being a lookout while a murder was taking place. During his trial the boy chronicles the ongoing proceedings in his head in a movie script format, and thereby provides insights into his life before the murder and his feelings about being locked up. Whether he was involved in the murder or was simply in the “wrong place at the wrong time” is constantly on the reader’s mind. “White Fox Chronicle” describes a 14-year-old boy, aka “White Fox,” as he carries out an ingenious escape in the year 2057 from a prison camp run by evil and brutal outsiders who have taken over our country. Then the reader transfers the execution of his plan to liberate the remaining prisoners and punish the evildoers into a formula that gives hope and a chance for all downtrodden Americans to live more successful and productive lives.
“Touching Spirit Bear” tells the story of a teenage bully whose anger resulted in him beating up and severely injuring a ninth-grade classmate. But then a Tlingit Indian parole officer comes into his life and offers an alternative called “Circle Justice,” based upon Native American traditions, in which victim, offender and community all work together to find a healing resolution for what has happened.
With “Stuck in Neutral” we are exposed to a 14-year-old boy who has lost all of his muscle control from cerebral palsy, including the ability to walk, talk or even focus his eyes. Nevertheless, the gentle hugs from his mother, tasting of different foods, and things he thinks about in his head result in an inward happiness. But the boy becomes frantic when he determines that his father, who believes his son’s life is nothing but an endless torment, is thinking of killing him. And the boy has no way of telling his father that he is wrong.
What better way to encourage our young people to turn off the television than learning about the magical world of reading? Of course, many adults could also learn the same lesson. As a personal example, when the Los Angeles Rams moved away from Orange County, I stopped watching or even caring about professional football. The amount of time I saved by not watching these interminable games on television enabled me to write two books and a musical, and to be able to read lots of other books as well. So do the young people in your lives one of the biggest favors you can, and expose them to the wonders and benefits of reading. And I suggest to you that the books listed here are a good place to start.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the composer of the high school musical “Americans All” (Heuer Publishing), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Governing human conduct - By Judge Jim Gray
On my second day of retirement, I went to my son’s high school to speak to his government class about laws and our judicial system in general. And I wanted to share some of those thoughts with you.
If you think about it, there are many ways to make decisions and resolve disputes other than to take them to courts of law as we know them.
Throughout the history of the world, many if not most of the critically important disputes were resolved unilaterally by individual people such as monarchs, chieftains, or family patriarchs. Disputes have also been decided by wars, gunfights, brawls, duels, and other forms of violence; by chance, such as the flip of a coin, drawing of lots, cutting of cards, or roll of the dice; or by hiring a surrogate so that whoever’s knights or thugs or “boys from the ranch” joust or fight successfully against their opponents win the dispute.
Of course, leaving the settlement of disputes up to the leader, luck, or local hero of the day has resulted in many disputes being resolved in an extremely arbitrary manner. But at least those approaches provided the benefit of deciding the issues quickly, decisively, and, in most cases, finally. Still, it is hard to argue that “justice for all” was procured very often.
Another thing that most people do not focus upon is the difficulty of writing laws that address human conduct. Today’s life is often complicated and complex. In fact sometimes life simply is not always what it seems, as witnessed by the fact that once Charlie Chaplin entered a “Charlie Chaplin Look-a-like” contest — and came in third. So addressing and governing human conduct and obtaining reasonable results from our laws are not easily done.
For example, consider crafting a law about one of the more straightforward issues in our society: our system of traffic control signal lights. So I ask you to stop reading this right now, and try yourself to draft such a law — and have your children join you. It will be fun, and instructive.
Such a law would be simple, right? A red light means stop, and a green light means go.
But wait. What about a blinking red light? That would mean that a law-abiding driver could never leave the intersection! OK, so we will make a modification for blinking red lights to allow the driver to progress when it is safe after making a complete stop.
But wait again, what about emergency vehicles? If you are in a life-threatening situation and are being taken to the hospital in an ambulance, will you want the driver to wait patiently at every red light for it to change to green? Or for every fire truck on the way to a fire? Or the police on their way to a robbery in progress? OK, so we must again modify our laws to make allowances for emergency vehicles in emergency situations.
But only for emergency vehicles? How about a husband driving his wife to the hospital when she is delivering her baby unexpectedly right at that moment, or other emergency situations? Or what about the exception in some states, including California, in which motorists are permitted to turn right on a red light after they have come to a complete stop and it is safe to proceed? Woody Allen memorialized this exception in one of his movies by calling it one of California’s only contributions to modern society.
So once again it is hard to foresee every situation in which a modification to the general rule is appropriate and desired. In other words and as we said before, life can be complicated. That is actually one reason why most of the propositions on our ballots are cumbersome and often ill-conceived. Why? Because they have not been subject to much screening or review in which more appropriate and effective language could be hammered out by people who are trained and experienced in this important area. So when problems with these shortsighted propositions are discovered, it is usually left to the courts to attempt to reach a resolution that both makes sense and is constitutional — much to the consternation of many people, particularly if the subject is emotional!
It is also critically important that the rules not be changed without appropriate notice to everyone concerned. Consider, for example, a game of basketball in which the referees decide that since the underdog team had tried so hard and almost caught up to the favored team, they would extend the game by an extra three minutes to give the underdog more of a chance. Or consider a football game in which the referees decide not to enforce the rules so strictly against the smaller and slower team in an effort to make the game more equal. Things like this can rightfully bring disdain for a system and therefore decrease its effectiveness — in sports events, or in any other activity of life. Instead the system must be — and must be seen to be — fair and neutral for all in order to be effective.
So beside fair and well-conceived laws, we need a system of dispute resolution that people will be confident in and will also get the job done. This is the system that keeps us safe, enforces our rights against excessive government intrusion into our lives, and enforces our contracts. Without such a system, civilized and organized life would be far less possible.
We are blessed to have such a system in place, one that applies neutral judicial rules and procedures that are administered by impartial and independent judges and juries. This system has taken a long time to develop. But as a direct result of this development, the Rule of Law has become the foundation of our modern social order and has materially lessened the rule of force and despotic whim — for the good of us all! I hope you join me in appreciating it.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe — the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2009), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Monday, January 5, 2009
The Libertarian philosophy - by Judge Jim Gray
I was a lifelong Republican until I realized my party couldn’t be counted on. Not to protect my freedom or my liberty, and not to be “fiscally conservative.”
So I realized I could not be a part of an organization that did not reflect my values, or the values I believe this country is based upon.
Therefore, I decided to change parties. Where to go? Once I started to check out my options, it took me about two minutes to decide that I was a natural Libertarian.
Since that time many people have asked me what are the differences between Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians. Well, using a little poetic license just to make a point, I will tell you.
Republicans basically act like your father. They will let you spend your own money, but they tell you what to do in your personal life. And if you don’t follow their directions, they will punish you.
Democrats, on the other hand, want to act as your mother. They want to keep most all of your money, but promise to take care of you and spend your money on things they think are good for you. And, of course, they will not trust you to make your own decisions. Why? Because “Mommy knows best.”
Libertarians are completely different. Libertarians treat adults as adults. Make your own decisions, but you are bound by the decisions you make. In other words, Libertarians think you are smarter than any politicians about how to run your financial and personal life.
When people first hear about Libertarian philosophy it seems unsettling. But when it comes down to it, the Libertarian philosophy works. Think about it. Had Libertarians been in control of our federal and/or state government for the last 10 years, we would not be in financial trouble today. Instead we would actually be prospering both economically and sociologically.
But putting attempts at humor aside, what is the Libertarian philosophy? It has its roots in the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson, John Locke and Adam Smith. Of course, it is hard to generalize about any group of people. But simply stated, Libertarians believe in freedom, the Rule of Law, limited government, self-defense and free markets. They also have a basic confidence in the ability of ordinary people to make wise decisions about their own lives.
As an example, Libertarians believe that parents are in a far better position than the government to decide where and how their children should be educated.
Think of it this way. Most of the important institutions in society developed without governmental involvement. Examples are the development of language, money and markets. That does not at all mean Libertarians believe “anything goes.”
To the contrary, Libertarians believe adults should make their own decisions and be free to act as they deem appropriate, but only as long as those acts do not interfere with the rights of others. As a result, Libertarians are actually quite law-and-order minded.
Regarding self-defense, Libertarians agree with Jefferson when he said that whoever beats his swords into plowshares will soon be plowing for somebody else.
But Libertarians rebel at attempts by government to legislate all risks out of existence. They also believe in the “forgotten” 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which say that all rights not expressly given to the government by the Constitution are retained by the people.
This might sound like “egghead” talk, but it is important.
For example, nowhere in the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination does it say that government can control things like our healthcare system.
When I was growing up, we probably had the best healthcare system in the world.
Back then no one even raised the issue of not having access to good quality doctors, hospitals and medicines. Emergency Rooms were fully available as needed, and healthcare was reasonably priced. But then government began to take control, and look where it has taken us.
Libertarians understand the answer is not to have more government involvement, it is instead to limit government as much as possible.
In fact, Libertarians will tell you that if you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s “free.”
To bring that point home even further, today there are two areas of medicine where we can still obtain top quality healthcare at reasonable and competitive prices. What are they? Cosmetic surgery and Lasik eye surgery. Everywhere you look you can see ads for these treatments at low prices, easy payments and many other nice benefits. Why? Because they are not controlled by government or insurance. These are places where the free market and individual choice are still in control.
Libertarians know we can reclaim what was once the best healthcare system in the world by bringing back that same free market choice.
Another program that has completely failed, especially for the poor, is our government’s welfare system. Government has trapped the poor on both sides with its bad policies.
On the one hand, minimum wage laws and licensing requirements make it harder for the poor to find that all-important first job.
On the other, it makes not working much more attractive by paying people not to work! (Then government looks at the problems it has created and naturally decides to do more and more of what has been shown not to work.)
In summary, Libertarians understand that a system of market incentives works better. Libertarians do not want to abandon people who are poor, downtrodden and disabled. But they want government “solutions” to be a last resort, instead of the first.
So I hope this has piqued your interest in America’s largest third party. If you would like to give it more thought, I recommend you read a book by David Boaz entitled “Libertarianism: A Primer” (The Free Press, 1997).
And about my new political party?
I believe the more you think about it, the more you will be favorably impressed.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2009), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or through his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
So I realized I could not be a part of an organization that did not reflect my values, or the values I believe this country is based upon.
Therefore, I decided to change parties. Where to go? Once I started to check out my options, it took me about two minutes to decide that I was a natural Libertarian.
Since that time many people have asked me what are the differences between Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians. Well, using a little poetic license just to make a point, I will tell you.
Republicans basically act like your father. They will let you spend your own money, but they tell you what to do in your personal life. And if you don’t follow their directions, they will punish you.
Democrats, on the other hand, want to act as your mother. They want to keep most all of your money, but promise to take care of you and spend your money on things they think are good for you. And, of course, they will not trust you to make your own decisions. Why? Because “Mommy knows best.”
Libertarians are completely different. Libertarians treat adults as adults. Make your own decisions, but you are bound by the decisions you make. In other words, Libertarians think you are smarter than any politicians about how to run your financial and personal life.
When people first hear about Libertarian philosophy it seems unsettling. But when it comes down to it, the Libertarian philosophy works. Think about it. Had Libertarians been in control of our federal and/or state government for the last 10 years, we would not be in financial trouble today. Instead we would actually be prospering both economically and sociologically.
But putting attempts at humor aside, what is the Libertarian philosophy? It has its roots in the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson, John Locke and Adam Smith. Of course, it is hard to generalize about any group of people. But simply stated, Libertarians believe in freedom, the Rule of Law, limited government, self-defense and free markets. They also have a basic confidence in the ability of ordinary people to make wise decisions about their own lives.
As an example, Libertarians believe that parents are in a far better position than the government to decide where and how their children should be educated.
Think of it this way. Most of the important institutions in society developed without governmental involvement. Examples are the development of language, money and markets. That does not at all mean Libertarians believe “anything goes.”
To the contrary, Libertarians believe adults should make their own decisions and be free to act as they deem appropriate, but only as long as those acts do not interfere with the rights of others. As a result, Libertarians are actually quite law-and-order minded.
Regarding self-defense, Libertarians agree with Jefferson when he said that whoever beats his swords into plowshares will soon be plowing for somebody else.
But Libertarians rebel at attempts by government to legislate all risks out of existence. They also believe in the “forgotten” 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which say that all rights not expressly given to the government by the Constitution are retained by the people.
This might sound like “egghead” talk, but it is important.
For example, nowhere in the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination does it say that government can control things like our healthcare system.
When I was growing up, we probably had the best healthcare system in the world.
Back then no one even raised the issue of not having access to good quality doctors, hospitals and medicines. Emergency Rooms were fully available as needed, and healthcare was reasonably priced. But then government began to take control, and look where it has taken us.
Libertarians understand the answer is not to have more government involvement, it is instead to limit government as much as possible.
In fact, Libertarians will tell you that if you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s “free.”
To bring that point home even further, today there are two areas of medicine where we can still obtain top quality healthcare at reasonable and competitive prices. What are they? Cosmetic surgery and Lasik eye surgery. Everywhere you look you can see ads for these treatments at low prices, easy payments and many other nice benefits. Why? Because they are not controlled by government or insurance. These are places where the free market and individual choice are still in control.
Libertarians know we can reclaim what was once the best healthcare system in the world by bringing back that same free market choice.
Another program that has completely failed, especially for the poor, is our government’s welfare system. Government has trapped the poor on both sides with its bad policies.
On the one hand, minimum wage laws and licensing requirements make it harder for the poor to find that all-important first job.
On the other, it makes not working much more attractive by paying people not to work! (Then government looks at the problems it has created and naturally decides to do more and more of what has been shown not to work.)
In summary, Libertarians understand that a system of market incentives works better. Libertarians do not want to abandon people who are poor, downtrodden and disabled. But they want government “solutions” to be a last resort, instead of the first.
So I hope this has piqued your interest in America’s largest third party. If you would like to give it more thought, I recommend you read a book by David Boaz entitled “Libertarianism: A Primer” (The Free Press, 1997).
And about my new political party?
I believe the more you think about it, the more you will be favorably impressed.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2009), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or through his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Classic liberal, conservative values - by Judge Jim Gray
While accompanying my wife shopping recently, I happened to see a friend of mine. This is a man who has been quite successful in his business career, and whom I met as one of the “powers that be” in the politically powerful Lincoln Club of Orange County. We began talking about the sorry state of our economy and several other matters when he made the comment: “I have harmed our formerly great system of public education.”
Many people have made the truthful comment that our system of public education is failing our children, but I had never heard anyone take personal responsibility for that failure. Even though he has no more control over this system than any other taxpayer or citizen, I told him that I agreed with him, and, of course, felt that I was equally to blame.
Why is that? Because almost literally it is our school system, and if it is not working well it is our responsibility to make it right. Of course, the same thing is true regarding government projects in general.
We both went on to say that this failure has occurred “on our watch.” In other words, it is our generation that has allowed our schools to become such an expensive failure. Similarly we have also allowed our government to borrow and spend itself into such enormous debt. But our generation will not be harmed particularly by what we have done. We will be fine. Instead it will be our children and grandchildren that will have to pay for our poor stewardship. In other words, shame on us!
So what should we do? My friend suggested that we should look back over our nation’s history and determine what has made us strong. What are the values that have helped us to achieve our greatness? What were the choices we made that have worked, and how can we refocus upon our strengths?
That started me to thinking — always a dangerous thing for me to do. In my opinion, two basic things have contributed materially to the rugged individualism and work ethic that have made us strong.
Those things are individual freedoms, and justly and fairly regulated competition in the marketplace, and a system that always encourages people to earn the extra dollar. And the way we can best promote them is to ensure public safety, enforce property rights, public and private contracts, and civil liberties, and hold all individuals, partnerships, corporations and governments accountable for their actions.
Of course, this does not mean that we should go back to the jungle concept of the “survival of the fittest.” But it does mean, all importantly, that we will provide for those who cannot provide for themselves because we want to, and not because we have to. We will still make appropriate provisions for the disabled, the uneducated, and the downtrodden, etc., because that is the type of people we are.
But in essence, we must get back to the fundamental concept that we are the ones that are responsible for our country, not the government. Governments at all levels are simply bureaucracies that will almost always attempt to get larger and more controlling. And in so doing they will increasingly become more expensive and inflexible. Furthermore, it is not an exaggeration to say that governments are driven by two rules. The first is that government is never wrong. The second is that if there is by chance an exception to the first rule, government was at least trying to do the right thing, so it is still right.
But we as adults do not need such overbearing and extremely protective parents. Let government provide for such things as police and a military to keep us safe, and a policy and means to deal and negotiate with other countries. Let it also set up a system of justice for all, and of a stable currency.
And let it also be a last resort to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for those who are unable to provide for themselves.
But otherwise have government get out of the way for those who will provide goods, services and employment for the betterment of us all, just as it has in the past. Remember in this regard that countries are only as strong as their economies. Yes, the civilized world does in fact need government, but government does not create wealth. It only takes it and spends it. As such, it is a drain upon us all.
Similarly, we as adults do not need, or want, government to be in our bedrooms or otherwise to be interfering unnecessarily with our private lives. Our Founding Fathers took elaborate steps to create our Bill of Rights to protect us from intrusive government. But government has been hard at work ever since that time in trying to take our rights away from us. And the more it is successful in that effort, the more our country loses what has made it great. Why? Because the soul of our country is its freedoms. And those freedoms have historically made us the envy of most of the rest of the world.
Actually, when you stop to think about it, what we have discussed here are the classic conservative values of free enterprise, and the classic liberal values of rugged individualism and freedom from the intrusion of government. In other words, what we have described is a Libertarian.
So I propose these ideas to you as food for thought as we enter the New Year. Our country has in many regards lost its way by straying from the values, ideals and responsibilities that have made it great. But, once again, it is our government, and if it isn’t working well it is no one’s fault but our own. In other words, we should adapt our thinking and actions in all regards to the slogan: “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.”
And with that, I sincerely wish each of you a Happy New Year, along with the hope and expectation, with your personal involvement, of much more success in 2009 than we saw in 2008.
JAMES P. GRAY is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe - the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com
Many people have made the truthful comment that our system of public education is failing our children, but I had never heard anyone take personal responsibility for that failure. Even though he has no more control over this system than any other taxpayer or citizen, I told him that I agreed with him, and, of course, felt that I was equally to blame.
Why is that? Because almost literally it is our school system, and if it is not working well it is our responsibility to make it right. Of course, the same thing is true regarding government projects in general.
We both went on to say that this failure has occurred “on our watch.” In other words, it is our generation that has allowed our schools to become such an expensive failure. Similarly we have also allowed our government to borrow and spend itself into such enormous debt. But our generation will not be harmed particularly by what we have done. We will be fine. Instead it will be our children and grandchildren that will have to pay for our poor stewardship. In other words, shame on us!
So what should we do? My friend suggested that we should look back over our nation’s history and determine what has made us strong. What are the values that have helped us to achieve our greatness? What were the choices we made that have worked, and how can we refocus upon our strengths?
That started me to thinking — always a dangerous thing for me to do. In my opinion, two basic things have contributed materially to the rugged individualism and work ethic that have made us strong.
Those things are individual freedoms, and justly and fairly regulated competition in the marketplace, and a system that always encourages people to earn the extra dollar. And the way we can best promote them is to ensure public safety, enforce property rights, public and private contracts, and civil liberties, and hold all individuals, partnerships, corporations and governments accountable for their actions.
Of course, this does not mean that we should go back to the jungle concept of the “survival of the fittest.” But it does mean, all importantly, that we will provide for those who cannot provide for themselves because we want to, and not because we have to. We will still make appropriate provisions for the disabled, the uneducated, and the downtrodden, etc., because that is the type of people we are.
But in essence, we must get back to the fundamental concept that we are the ones that are responsible for our country, not the government. Governments at all levels are simply bureaucracies that will almost always attempt to get larger and more controlling. And in so doing they will increasingly become more expensive and inflexible. Furthermore, it is not an exaggeration to say that governments are driven by two rules. The first is that government is never wrong. The second is that if there is by chance an exception to the first rule, government was at least trying to do the right thing, so it is still right.
But we as adults do not need such overbearing and extremely protective parents. Let government provide for such things as police and a military to keep us safe, and a policy and means to deal and negotiate with other countries. Let it also set up a system of justice for all, and of a stable currency.
And let it also be a last resort to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for those who are unable to provide for themselves.
But otherwise have government get out of the way for those who will provide goods, services and employment for the betterment of us all, just as it has in the past. Remember in this regard that countries are only as strong as their economies. Yes, the civilized world does in fact need government, but government does not create wealth. It only takes it and spends it. As such, it is a drain upon us all.
Similarly, we as adults do not need, or want, government to be in our bedrooms or otherwise to be interfering unnecessarily with our private lives. Our Founding Fathers took elaborate steps to create our Bill of Rights to protect us from intrusive government. But government has been hard at work ever since that time in trying to take our rights away from us. And the more it is successful in that effort, the more our country loses what has made it great. Why? Because the soul of our country is its freedoms. And those freedoms have historically made us the envy of most of the rest of the world.
Actually, when you stop to think about it, what we have discussed here are the classic conservative values of free enterprise, and the classic liberal values of rugged individualism and freedom from the intrusion of government. In other words, what we have described is a Libertarian.
So I propose these ideas to you as food for thought as we enter the New Year. Our country has in many regards lost its way by straying from the values, ideals and responsibilities that have made it great. But, once again, it is our government, and if it isn’t working well it is no one’s fault but our own. In other words, we should adapt our thinking and actions in all regards to the slogan: “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.”
And with that, I sincerely wish each of you a Happy New Year, along with the hope and expectation, with your personal involvement, of much more success in 2009 than we saw in 2008.
JAMES P. GRAY is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe - the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Job loss can happen to anyone - by Judge Jim Gray
Job loss can happen to anyone
Save/Share
By JAMES P. GRAY
Updated: Saturday, December 20, 2008 6:43 PM PST
I had the good fortune to meet Anthony George Dodero — known to his friends as Tony — when I inquired about the possibility of writing these weekly columns. He was the editor in chief of the Daily Pilot, and he and Brady Rhoades, who was the managing editor, took me to breakfast to discuss the possibilities. Since that time they have both become my friends.
Tony is an American success story. Prior to his graduation in 1989 from the journalism school at Long Beach State, Tony became an intern at the Daily Pilot. His professional goal was to cover national politics, so when he was offered the opportunity to travel with the national press corps and cover part of the 1988 Dukakis presidential campaign, he jumped at it.
After graduation, Tony accepted a full-time position as a reporter with the Daily Pilot. At that time it was an independent paper with 16 reporters that provided full-time political, sports, business and national news, as well as local area news and events coverage in an area including Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and Laguna Beach. He called this “the greatest job in the world.”
In 1991, since it was being squeezed by both the L.A. Times and the Orange County Register, the Daily Pilot changed its focus and became primarily a local paper for the Newport Beach and Costa Mesa area. In making that change, it tried to create a niche market and outdo its competitors in local coverage. The paper also reduced expenses by cutting out the Associated Press wire service, and reducing its staff down to five reporters.
When that happened, Tony moved to the Huntington Beach Independent. That turned out to be a great move because he was able to work under the direction of Bob Barker, who was a classic old-time reporter. Barker really knew how to get a story, and both taught Tony the ropes of being a good news reporter, and also “what the world was about.”
A few years thereafter, Tony accepted the “primo assignment” back at the Daily Pilot of covering City Hall in Newport Beach. With that he walked into a “gold mine” of stories, in that Newport Beach Chief of Police Art Campbell was being sued by several of his police officers, dispatchers and clerks for sexual harassment, and this provided a large amount of coverage for a full year. And with that exposure came a promotion to city editor.
So what does that mean? What is the hierarchy at a newspaper? For years I have heard these various positions mentioned, but have had almost no idea of what they actually meant. Well, the big boss at a newspaper is the publisher, who, in effect, is the chief executive. Usually that person is not a journalist, but instead deals with business matters, advertisers, labor issues, etc.
The editor in chief reports directly to the publisher and is basically considered to be the “mayor” of the newspaper. He or she is the head journalist and oversees the news operation and officially interacts with the public. But that person almost expressly stays out of the business part of the paper in order to ensure the paper’s integrity.
Why is that so important? Well if, for example, one of the paper’s large advertisers gets into trouble, there can be a tendency for that company to threaten to withdraw its advertising unless the paper “soft-peddles” the story. But in that case the publisher, who is the only one that deals with the advertiser, can rightfully say all of the coverage decisions are made by the editor in chief, and that is a completely separate division of the paper.
The person who oversees the day-to-day news operations of the paper is the managing editor. This is where the “rubber meets the road.” The managing editor decides what the main stories will be and where they will be placed, and also which stories will be the subject of more long-range news investigations.
Those who report to the managing editor are the city editor, who is the teacher or “coach” of the team, as well as the first one who edits the stories written by the reporters, the copy desk chief and the sports editor. Then there is the editorial staff, and they report directly to their middle managers.
The L.A. Times bought the Daily Pilot in 1993, and other local papers as well, with the idea of expanding their total circulation from 1 million up to 5 million. Soon, The Times had a network of 23 local newspapers from as far south as San Juan Capistrano to as far north as Ventura.
And the Daily Pilot was the model for this entire project. The goal was to be better at local community news reporting than the Orange County Register. To some degree, they were successful, because readership increased by 18%.
The problem was that the goal was to expand readership instead of turning a profit. So when The Times was sold to the Chicago Tribune, those bottom-line-oriented people saw that most of those newspapers were losing money. Not surprisingly, the new owner decided to shut many of them down.
This naturally resulted in massive layoffs, and many of those had to be enforced by Tony. He called the laying off of so many of his protégés and friends at the various papers the worst days of his life.
Unfortunately those layoffs have continued. And Tony Dodero, who has always been a star performer, was recently laid off by the Daily Pilot as well. So all of this goes to show that in these difficult financial times, losing a job can happen to anybody — and it has.
But, Tony, we wish you good luck, and I am sure that things will turn out fine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES P. GRAY is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Save/Share
By JAMES P. GRAY
Updated: Saturday, December 20, 2008 6:43 PM PST
I had the good fortune to meet Anthony George Dodero — known to his friends as Tony — when I inquired about the possibility of writing these weekly columns. He was the editor in chief of the Daily Pilot, and he and Brady Rhoades, who was the managing editor, took me to breakfast to discuss the possibilities. Since that time they have both become my friends.
Tony is an American success story. Prior to his graduation in 1989 from the journalism school at Long Beach State, Tony became an intern at the Daily Pilot. His professional goal was to cover national politics, so when he was offered the opportunity to travel with the national press corps and cover part of the 1988 Dukakis presidential campaign, he jumped at it.
After graduation, Tony accepted a full-time position as a reporter with the Daily Pilot. At that time it was an independent paper with 16 reporters that provided full-time political, sports, business and national news, as well as local area news and events coverage in an area including Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and Laguna Beach. He called this “the greatest job in the world.”
In 1991, since it was being squeezed by both the L.A. Times and the Orange County Register, the Daily Pilot changed its focus and became primarily a local paper for the Newport Beach and Costa Mesa area. In making that change, it tried to create a niche market and outdo its competitors in local coverage. The paper also reduced expenses by cutting out the Associated Press wire service, and reducing its staff down to five reporters.
When that happened, Tony moved to the Huntington Beach Independent. That turned out to be a great move because he was able to work under the direction of Bob Barker, who was a classic old-time reporter. Barker really knew how to get a story, and both taught Tony the ropes of being a good news reporter, and also “what the world was about.”
A few years thereafter, Tony accepted the “primo assignment” back at the Daily Pilot of covering City Hall in Newport Beach. With that he walked into a “gold mine” of stories, in that Newport Beach Chief of Police Art Campbell was being sued by several of his police officers, dispatchers and clerks for sexual harassment, and this provided a large amount of coverage for a full year. And with that exposure came a promotion to city editor.
So what does that mean? What is the hierarchy at a newspaper? For years I have heard these various positions mentioned, but have had almost no idea of what they actually meant. Well, the big boss at a newspaper is the publisher, who, in effect, is the chief executive. Usually that person is not a journalist, but instead deals with business matters, advertisers, labor issues, etc.
The editor in chief reports directly to the publisher and is basically considered to be the “mayor” of the newspaper. He or she is the head journalist and oversees the news operation and officially interacts with the public. But that person almost expressly stays out of the business part of the paper in order to ensure the paper’s integrity.
Why is that so important? Well if, for example, one of the paper’s large advertisers gets into trouble, there can be a tendency for that company to threaten to withdraw its advertising unless the paper “soft-peddles” the story. But in that case the publisher, who is the only one that deals with the advertiser, can rightfully say all of the coverage decisions are made by the editor in chief, and that is a completely separate division of the paper.
The person who oversees the day-to-day news operations of the paper is the managing editor. This is where the “rubber meets the road.” The managing editor decides what the main stories will be and where they will be placed, and also which stories will be the subject of more long-range news investigations.
Those who report to the managing editor are the city editor, who is the teacher or “coach” of the team, as well as the first one who edits the stories written by the reporters, the copy desk chief and the sports editor. Then there is the editorial staff, and they report directly to their middle managers.
The L.A. Times bought the Daily Pilot in 1993, and other local papers as well, with the idea of expanding their total circulation from 1 million up to 5 million. Soon, The Times had a network of 23 local newspapers from as far south as San Juan Capistrano to as far north as Ventura.
And the Daily Pilot was the model for this entire project. The goal was to be better at local community news reporting than the Orange County Register. To some degree, they were successful, because readership increased by 18%.
The problem was that the goal was to expand readership instead of turning a profit. So when The Times was sold to the Chicago Tribune, those bottom-line-oriented people saw that most of those newspapers were losing money. Not surprisingly, the new owner decided to shut many of them down.
This naturally resulted in massive layoffs, and many of those had to be enforced by Tony. He called the laying off of so many of his protégés and friends at the various papers the worst days of his life.
Unfortunately those layoffs have continued. And Tony Dodero, who has always been a star performer, was recently laid off by the Daily Pilot as well. So all of this goes to show that in these difficult financial times, losing a job can happen to anybody — and it has.
But, Tony, we wish you good luck, and I am sure that things will turn out fine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES P. GRAY is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
To a mind that is still - by Judge Jim Gray
The Taiwanese author Chang Tsu once said “To a mind that is still, the whole world surrenders.” The best way to obtain a still mind is through meditation. But, although most of us have heard about it, what exactly is meditation?
It’s a complicated question. The best definition is that the art of meditation is the practice of learning to contemplate, ponder, focus and reflect on one’s thoughts, with the understanding that our thoughts ultimately influence our decisions. But true meditation is actually the opposite of thinking. Instead, through mental discipline, it transports the “thinking mind” into a deeper state of awareness.
Meditation is a part of many of the world’s great religions. This includes the rich Western history of St. Ignatius Loyola, with his Spiritual Exercises, meditations, prayers and other mental practices, and San Juan de la Cruz and Saint Teresa de Jesus, with their work about the soul looking for the perfect union with God. And it also includes the Eastern history with its inherent involvement with Hinduism and Buddhism.
But meditation is not innately religious. Mostly, the Eastern approaches have also been used in martial arts, psychotherapy and other forms of counseling. More importantly, millions around the world use it effectively in their private lives.
There are at least five major and different types of Eastern meditation techniques. One of them is Mantra Meditation, or a branch of it called Transcendental Meditation, which is what my wife regularly and I sporadically practice. This involves the conscious repetition with the eyes closed of a mantra or word that is chosen by an instructor and is gentle to the mind. The constant repetition of this mantra word facilitates the removal of other sounds and thoughts from the practitioner’s mind. But it is repeated silently and is not to be confused with a religious chant.
Trataka Meditation is accomplished by a steady gaze or concentration upon one particular object, such as an icon, a picture of a restful scene, or the flame of a candle. This is used by many religious systems, and it is also an established yoga technique that sometimes takes the practitioners to the highest level of meditation.
Chakra Meditation is often used for the development of the self; Vipassana Meditation seeks an insight or process of self-observation; and Raja Yoga Meditation elevates the practitioners to reach for a “oneness” that will allow them to give up all worldly pleasures and devote all of their energies to the spiritual awakening of fellow beings.
The non-religious and practical benefits of meditation are numerous. Many people find that setting aside 15 to 20 minutes a day silently to meditate allows them to switch off their worries, develop a detachment from the minutia of their everyday lives, and be better able to keep things in perspective.
Not only does the reflection of meditation bring an inner peace, but it also allows people to spend time with themselves and focus upon the present moment. It can also be used to reduce stress, control thoughts, improve concentration, spontaneity and creativity, and take people beyond simply being free of disease to a condition of obtaining a more peaceful existence. And many people go further and discover a truer life purpose.
Most people report that the beauty of meditation cannot be expressed in words; that it can only be experienced. But it does require instruction and perseverance. I have used it in attempts to gain insights for some of these columns, as well as in other areas that are important to me in my life.
Meditation is adaptable to teenagers as they negotiate their way into adulthood. In fact, it was used in violence- prone and racially charged Hunter’s Point Middle School in Southern San Francisco — for students and teachers alike. Grades went up, and violence and discipline problems went down.
It is also tailor-made for people who are incarcerated. What other people are facing so many frustrations about their lives with so few resources to deal with them and have so much idle time on their hands? Accordingly, this is a perfect opportunity for prisoners. And, when prisoners learn to meditate, their level of aggression toward each other and their guards has been found to go down. For those reasons, more prisons are now encouraging classes on meditation to be conducted in their facilities.
I am not really competent to take anyone beyond this elementary discussion. There are many postures for sitting and techniques for breathing, focusing and chanting during meditation that are well beyond my level of expertise. In fact, some advanced practitioners have disciplined their bodies so completely that they are actually able to breathe in through one nostril and breathe out through the other. But if you are interested in learning more about meditation, I recommend you use the Internet, the Yellow Pages, or even word of mouth to find a competent instructor who fits your needs.
Meditation is an inexpensive but multifaceted technique that does not compete with religious beliefs, but which can be used effectively to transport most of us into a restful alertness that can result in a fuller, calmer, and more insightful, productive, and meaningful life. Or to put it into a different perspective, think of it this way: Anything that has been around for more than 5,000 years must have something special going for it. Try it, and I think that you will agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES P. GRAY is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe — the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
IT’S A GRAY AREA: Grappling with mental illness
IT’S A GRAY AREA: Grappling with mental illness - by Judge Jim Gray
Mental illness has been a part of the human experience for as long as mankind has walked the face of the earth. But within the last several years, medical and legal professionals have come a long way in understanding and being able to grapple successfully with these issues. In fact, there are some really good things that are happening in this area here in Orange County.
Today the largest mental health facility in most counties, including ours, is the local jail. This is mostly not intentional. But when mentally ill and often homeless people congregate and loiter in front of someone’s home or business playing their boom boxes too loudly, urinating in the flower beds or on the sidewalk, sleeping in doorways, or chasing people’s visitors and customers away, residents and business people have no recourse other than to call the police. On the first occasion the police usually take the offenders to a shelter or similar venue. If they keep returning, sometimes the police still drive these people to the city limits and tell them “not to come back.” It is illegal to do this, but it still happens. Otherwise, the police have no other viable choice than to take them to jail.
That is unfortunate because jail is not only the most expensive option, but also often inflicts untold damage upon these emotionally fragile people. But now when they are brought to jail in Orange County, they will be screened and, if the offenses are not particularly serious and they otherwise qualify, the mentally ill will be brought to the team at the Community Court.
Although Chief Justice George made the opening comments at the dedication ceremony at the new Community Court at 909 N. Main St. in Santa Ana on Friday, my dedicated and caring colleague Judge Wendy Lindley has been the leader behind this effort. She has gathered together people from the District Attorney’s Office, public defenders, Probation Department, Social Security, Health-care Agency, and Social Services, and they will work together to diagnose the problems of the homeless, mentally ill, and other people with a “dual diagnosis” of both mental disorders and illicit drug offenses who are generally “self-medicating” their symptoms. Then this team of professionals will pool their ideas and talents in putting together treatment plans backed by the powers of the courts, so that all of these defendants will have a chance to obtain and live at their highest performance level. This is a positive development that we can all be proud of! Thank you, Judge Lindley!
In addition, you should be aware of other resources in our county that are available to help with the problems of the mentally ill. If you need immediate help with a psychiatric emergency, you should call (714) 834-6900 and request assistance from the Centralized Assessment Team. Otherwise, if you need more generalized but non-emergency assistance, you should call Social Services’ Behavior Clinic at (714) 440-6767, or for dual-diagnosis patients you can call (714) 480-6660.
Studies show that only about one-third of the people with mental disorders in our country receive even “minimally adequate” care, and that percentage is far lower for those who are incarcerated or homeless. But it is not any more a crime to be mentally ill and need some psychotropic medication than it is to be diabetic and need insulin. It is often a chemical imbalance in a person’s brain that causes the problems, and medication can often be amazingly successful in helping people to live mostly normal lives.
That is not to say that there should not be safeguards to protect people from being forced unnecessarily to take psychotropic medications. Sometimes lazy medical doctors over-prescribe medications simply to keep their wards more “under control.” But in my years presiding over the Mental Health Calendar in the Superior Court, after hearing expert testimony and witnessing some truly unstable people, I have ordered that they take these medications, involuntarily if need be. And I have seen changes within seven to 10 days that were little short of amazing.
For example, the only time I have ever felt in physical danger as a judge was an occasion in which a man was testifying in my court in one of those hearings. And he was acting in such a truly bizarre and threatening fashion that I physically moved farther away from him. The experts said his records showed that he was a teaching tennis professional from another county who had stopped taking his “meds” while visiting relatives in Orange County. So I ordered that his medications be resumed, involuntarily if necessary.
Within about a week this man was back in my courtroom, and appeared to be perfectly fine. In his testimony he acknowledged that he had a mental disorder, and had forgotten to continue with his medications. And then once he had stopped, he fell into the mindset that he didn’t need them, and that led directly to his mental deterioration. But now that the meds were back in his system, things were fine, and we were joking about how I would never win Wimbledon, etc. And this instance was not at all unusual.
Without governmental and public support of programs like these, the mentally ill by default will hang out in public libraries, receive their medical treatment only in hospital emergency rooms, and be warehoused in county jails. So as you can see, ignoring mental health problems is much more expensive both in human as well as financial terms than addressing them directly. But we are doing pretty well here in Orange County, and I thought that you would like to know.
JAMES P. GRAY is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at http://www.judgejimgray.com/ or at his blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/
Monday, December 1, 2008
Government belongs to us - by Judge Jim Gray
IT’S A GRAY AREA: Government belongs to us - by Judge Jim Gray 11/09/08
No matter how you approach the issue, when all is said and done, it’s our government, and if it is not working, it is our own fault. In today’s large and complicated world, that is a difficult mantra to accept — but we are “the People” mentioned in our Constitution, and there is no alternative than to accept this as our ultimate responsibility in our democratic republic. Fortunately, the good news is that if we persist, we will often be successful in achieving results.
In that regard, let me tell you a story. As some of you may recall, on Oct. 14, 2007, this column addressed the fact that when a person donated a minimum of $5,000 to the California Highway Patrol’s 11-99 Foundation, the donor was given both a license plate frame and an identification card about his or her membership — that (coincidentally) could be placed next to that person’s driver’s license.
Of course, the strong implication by being sent these items was that the donor would receive favorable treatment from the CHP out on the state’s highways. And I cited in the column some occasions in which that favorable treatment had actually been given.
After the column was published, I sent a copy of it to Commissioner Mike Brown of the CHP, along with a handwritten letter requesting him to investigate the situation, and hopefully cause the 11-99 Foundation to discontinue this practice. The reason for that request, of course, was that our system of justice in traffic court and everywhere else should be entirely free from even the appearance of any favoritism whatsoever.
I received no response to my letter. So a few months later in another column I reported to you that I had not received a response from Brown, and then sent him a second letter, this time accompanied by a copy of both of the columns. Again my letter was met only by silence.
But about four months thereafter I learned that the CHP had a new commissioner named Joe Farrow, so I sent a letter to him, along with an explanation of my request and a copy of both prior columns. Within three weeks, I received a telephone call from his secretary inviting me to have lunch with the new commissioner.
We had that lunch Oct. 21, and at that time Farrow told me he had personally investigated the matter, and concluded that there could indeed be the perception of favoritism in this area. So he had taken action in two ways.
First, he had issued a strong statement to all of his troops that they were not to be influenced by 11-99 Foundation membership in exercising their sound discretion about whether to issue traffic citations or anything else.
Second, he had met with the officials of the 11-99 Foundation and was successful in obtaining their promise to cease the distribution of the license plate frames and identification cards by this coming January. In addition, he had also instigated a movement to recall the license plate frames and ID cards that have already been issued.
This is government at its best, and that was the laudatory message I gave to Farrow. Responsive, responsible, professional and based upon integrity.
I also passed along to the commissioner that in my opinion the CHP was the most professional law enforcement agency in the state, and that I had initiated my request for change so that this deserved stellar reputation would not in any way be tarnished.
In addition, I told him that I felt so strongly about the goals of the 11-99 Foundation, which is to provide support for the widows and orphans of fallen CHP officers, that I wanted to make a donation to it on the spot. And I did, and was proud to do so.
Why am I writing about this experience? Because it demonstrates the fact that we can and do have an influence in our government — at all levels. In fact, if we are persistent, there is little that we cannot accomplish, at least in the long run.
Why? Because in government, like many other situations in life, familiarity does not breed contempt; it breeds access. Another way of saying this is that government is a “contact sport.” So all of us should make advocacy a regular part of our everyday lives. Our form of government depends upon it.
And in that regard, and as we have seen, persistence frequently pays off. Many elected officials have told me that when they receive individually written letters, they attach great significance and weight to them. In fact, they actually have a formula that for every personalized letter they receive, they feel that at least 35 other people in their district probably have the same views. So don’t be bashful about writing those letters.
Of course, your letters will have a great deal more chance of influencing elected officials if you actually can vote for those same officials. This means that a letter you send to your own member of Congress will be much more likely to have influence than a letter you might send to another member outside of your district. In sending that letter you will probably be wasting both your time and postage stamp.
But to take this a step further, if you can get together a group of 10 to 15 voters or more in your elected official’s district who are united and vocal about a certain issue, that would probably be so influential that the odds are overwhelming that the elected officials not only would respond to you, but they would even actually meet with you on the subject at a place of your choosing.
So that is the way we can obtain government at its best. Relationships are power and, whatever your issues are, you can and should turn your passions into that power. Why? Because if we do not have government at its best, we only have ourselves to blame.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
A positive world revolution - by Judge Jim Gray
IT’S A GRAY AREA: A positive world revolution - by Judge Jim Gray 11/16/08
Recently while I was flying home from Houston, where I had been invited to speak about our nation’s failed drug policy, I had the good fortune to sit next to a Continental Airlines pilot who was going home to Ventura. And this interesting fellow had an idea that I want to pass along to you.
He suggested that our government offer a prize, or a “bounty,” for anyone who would develop a process or method that would be commercially viable to separate the hydrogen and oxygen elements from water. Then the pure hydrogen could be used as a fuel. Our government would pay anyone who would develop such a process $1 billion, or even $5 billion, and then we would donate the process to the public domain.
Imagine what would happen if something like this could be developed. I believe the more you think about it, the more you will agree that this would be one of the most profound and positive revolutions in the world since the invention of the printing press.
Of course, the separation of hydrogen and oxygen from water can be achieved now, but the cost prohibits it from being commercially viable at this point. Furthermore, it now takes more energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen molecules than is gained by eventually burning the hydrogen.
But the implications from this discovery would be far-reaching and even earthshaking. It could furnish cheap and viable energy that would come from an inexhaustible source. It would burn cleanly, with the only waste product being water vapor. Hydrogen-burning automobiles and other vehicles would soon be commonplace, with inestimable benefits to the environment. Electricity could be generated from this source of power, which would greatly reduce, or over time even eliminate, our reliance upon the burning of coal, with all of the pollutants that come with that process. And the list would go on and on.
Also, and most importantly, this development could change the face of local and world politics forever. Our country would no longer be reliant upon governments in the Middle East and other corrupt and unsavory governments around the world for their oil. The present status quo seriously strengthens them and weakens us, but this would be forever changed. Further positive results would be both to increase funds available for world trade, which would tend to strengthen both wealthy and poor countries alike, and to allow us to support world civil liberties and rights for the downtrodden without having politically to kowtow to so many repressive despots.
Hydrogen-burning plants could be installed all around the world that would convert seawater into fresh water, and this could allow presently arid regions to raise crops to feed their own people. So this new process in itself could seriously reduce tensions in many countries of the world. In fact, it could even have some beneficial influence on the “tinderbox of the world,” which is Israel and Palestine. Another result would be the reduced competition for water between farmers and migrating fish, etc.
Furthermore, consider the effect this development would have upon our balance-of-payments problem, since we would no longer be exporting billions of dollars per year to the Middle East and elsewhere for oil. This could help our country’s economy and those of most other nations to explode into unheard of productivity.
Now, I agree that this suggestion does some violence to my Libertarian principles of a smaller and less-dominant government, as well as the principle of simply allowing the marketplace to devote the necessary capital to meritorious projects.
In most circumstances, rewards in the marketplace are sufficient to promote needed advances. (”Necessity is the Mother of invention.”) But so far, even though the discovery of such a process would indisputably bring untold wealth to the discoverer, this viable process still remains elusive. So our government’s offering a large incentive or bounty might just do the trick. And providing this process for free to the world would allow new further developments and products to be generated more quickly. So I think a compromise in my personal philosophy would be acceptable.
Will our government put such a plan into operation? Maybe so; maybe not. But a private Manhattan Project-style program to develop plentiful, inexpensive and clean-burning fuel would be one of the best things that our government could do with our money. So I think we should give it a try. What do you think?
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
No, it’s just the beginning - by Judge Jim Gray
IT’S A GRAY AREA: No, it’s just the beginning - by Judge Jim Gray 11/23/08
Maybe some of you older types like me will remember watching the television police show “Dragnet,” starring Jack Webb. Then you might also recall that, after the crime was solved, they would tell us at the very end of the show that the perpetrator was convicted and sentenced to a large number of years in state prison.
But, as my father used to say, that was not the end. In actuality, when you consider the big picture, it was really only the beginning. But in so many ways in our society, we do not look at or even consider the whole picture.
For example, in the matter of the perpetrators of those offenses, what is the rest of the story? What will happen to them while they are in prison, and what will they be like once they are eventually released? And incarceration is expensive.
Will the taxpayers get their money’s worth by keeping them locked up? What will happen to the perpetrators’ families and other dependents both during the time of incarceration, and afterward? Will the crime victims be better off? As we have seen in earlier columns, all of these are appropriate questions that are seldom even asked, much less answered.
That is not at all to say that people should not be put into prison, and sometimes for long periods of time. Far from it. We certainly need jails and prisons both as a deterrent and as a place for appropriate people to be removed from society for long periods of time. But we must also recognize that about 95% of the people who are sent to prison are eventually released. So we should also do our best to provide opportunities for those people to learn some skills that will reduce the chances that they will return to the antisocial conduct that put them behind bars in the first place.
In other words, in many ways we have to change our way of thinking, and we also have to change our approach.
So as a part of this shift of analysis, we must more fully consider who the people are that we are dealing with. For example, the largest mental-health facility in most counties is the local jail. Imagine the psychological damage that is daily being inflicted upon these mentally fragile people by incarcerating them for minor offenses. Fortunately, and as we will discuss in this column next week, our courts in Orange County are doing something really promising in this area.
But unfortunately, there is little political impetus in most places for the needs of the people who are incarcerated to be addressed so that they can begin to overcome or even address their problems. Wouldn’t it be better for everybody if those imprisoned could be assisted, as appropriate, with drug treatment, anger management, parenting skills, job skills, accurate medical information, and a focus upon intelligent decision-making? We should take an overall approach to this issue. Why? Because the actual goal of the criminal justice system is not to punish; it is instead to reduce crime and increase safety for everyone.
We should also take the long-run approach in many other matters as well. For example, in so many ways when we throw an item into the trash, we think that is the end of the story. But, once again, it really is only the beginning, because we must consider the entirety of the issue. Putting toxic or any other materials into landfills may be a temporary fix (out of sight, out of mind), but as we are now beginning to understand, it brings on many more long-range complications. So when we put something into a Dumpster, flush something down the toilet, or throw something out of our car window, that does not end the story. It really is only the beginning, because there are costs involved with the disposal of virtually everything. And as the old effective advertisement said: “Pay me now, or pay me later.”
And this has now grown to be a worldwide problem, because increasingly everything is connected. China and India are seeing this firsthand. And you may not be aware of this, but the air pollution that is generated in China is now being blown across the ocean here to California and beyond. In addition, places that used to accept our trash are no longer doing so. For example, for many years we shipped our nuclear waste to the deserts of Nevada and buried it there, but people in that state have now closed the door on that activity. And remember that barge of trash that kept being hauled from one country to another because no one would take it? Now more than ever all countries will be forced to confront their own long-run consumption, environmental, trash disposal and recycling issues.
Similarly, we need to adopt the same total approach with issues like education and healthcare. Receiving a diploma from an institution of higher learning is not the goal, it is actually just the beginning. The end goal is not the piece of paper, it is instead being able to learn and apply a skill, and also to comprehend and deal effectively with the complexities of our lives. In the same fashion, the goal of healthcare is not really to get over whatever ailment you happen to have at the moment. Instead the goal is to be healthy.
So in most areas, we as individuals must start taking a holistic or long range approach in our everyday lives, and even more so in government. This means that as voters we should generally be skeptical of candidates who speak mostly in sound bites. Why? Because life is much more complicated than that, and we should consider most simple approaches not as the end of the discussion, but as only the beginning.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
Addiction is a medical problem - by Judge Jim Gray
Addiction is a medical problem - by Judge Jim Gray 10/05/08
I was gratified to see that the editorial board of the Daily Pilot endorsed Proposition 5, which is the Non-Violent Offender’s Rehabilitation Act, with the headline “Prison is for drug dealers, not customers.”
They are right, and I commend them for their insight and sophistication.
As I have said in previous columns, it makes as much sense to me to put the gifted actor Robert Downey Jr. in jail for his cocaine addiction, and he certainly seems to have one, as it would to have put Betty Ford in jail for her addiction to alcohol.
Drug addictions are medical problems, and they are better addressed by health-care professionals than by policemen.
But if Robert Downey Jr., Betty Ford, or you or I drive a motor vehicle while impaired by any of these drugs, or engage in any other offense while under the influence, bring them to the criminal justice system.
What’s the difference?
Because now by their actions these people are putting our safety at risk. So the answer is to hold people accountable for what they do, but not for what they put into their bodies.
In my mind, most of the people who support Proposition 5 on the ballot this November agree with that fundamental concept.
Face it: You or I could come home any evening and drink 10 martinis and, if we are 21 or older, we would not be violating the law.
Obviously this would not be a healthy thing for us to do, but as long as we are not putting anyone else’s safety at risk, society wisely has left those problems to be addressed by drug education and treatment.
Why have we not done the same thing with regard to people who use other mind-altering and sometimes addictive substances?
Our great country now leads the world in the incarceration of its people.
And a large number of them are in custody only because they either possessed or were under the influence of some illicit drug.
In fact, a ridiculously high number of people are put back into custody only because they were found to have been possessing or using drugs while on parole.
That is an enormous waste of time, tax money and lives.
And it doesn’t begin to address the many families who are placed onto welfare or children into foster care because their parents and breadwinners are taken away for such things as smoking marijuana or using other drugs.
Proposition 5 will go a long way in giving us judges more discretion to place these people into treatment programs instead of jail. Honestly, they should not be in court or jail in the first place simply for the usage of drugs.
Former arch-conservative Republican Assemblyman Pat Nolan from Glendale used to favor putting lots of people in prison for all kinds of reasons until he was himself convicted of an election fraud and sentenced to prison.
But now he is quoted as saying that there are many too many people in prison who should not be there.
And then he goes on to say that “We should reserve our prison space for people we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.”
Our jails and prisons are hugely expensive, and all are seriously overcrowded, so I suggest we listen to people like Nolan.
So who is opposed to Proposition 5?
Many good people who have been led to believe incarceration is the answer to these problems.
We all need to take it upon ourselves to spread the word that this approach simply doesn’t work.
Of course, people who are in the prison construction business, and people who are in the prison guard’s union are also against Proposition 5, but that opposition is logically governed by their own economic self-interest.
And I acknowledge that some of my fellow judges are also against Proposition 5 as well.
But for the most part they are still of the belief that drug abuse is a problem that should be first addressed by the police, and then the abusers should be forced into treatment after being placed into one of our drug courts.
So for various reasons they do not want to give up that power over non-violent offenders.
But since drug courts are really expensive to administer, wouldn’t it be better to spend these scarce resources on the drug-addicted people who are actually causing harm to others, and leave those who aren’t harming anybody else alone?
But there is another group that has formally expressed opposition that I hope will, upon reflection, reconsider its point of view. And that is the City Council of Newport Beach.
As best I understand it, the council members are fearful that if Proposition 5 passes then more non-violent drug offenders might possibly come to their city for treatment. I request them to look inward and see if they would really trade having people actually lose their liberty and be sent to prison on the off chance that they might otherwise wind up in a sober-living facility in Newport. That is not to say that there should not be a limit to the numbers of people in treatment in any particular location, but do they really feel that this is the right way to keep those numbers down?
So I encourage you to support Proposition 5. It provides additional funding and other resources for drug treatment. It will reduce the number of non-violent drug offenders in our jails and prisons, and it also give judges more discretion to “call the shots” in determining how these drug users should be handled. And, yes, it will reduce the penalties for the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.
But most importantly, it will also help judges and other health-care professionals to attack the disease of addiction head on, and thereby reduce crime and the expenses to the taxpayer. And along the way it will also allow us to devote more money and prosecutorial attention to address the actions of the violent offenders who are causing so much harm to us all.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
IT’S A GRAY AREA: The subtle nuances words have - by Judge Jim Gray
IT’S A GRAY AREA: The subtle nuances words have - by Judge Jim Gray 10/18/08
Consider this: When we think, we really think only in words or something else that can be written, like musical notes, or mathematical or chemical equations. That means that if some people do not understand the shades of meaning between one word and another, they will be limited in their ability to understand concepts and options in everyday life.
Does this make any difference? I think it makes a great deal of difference. For example, I heard that there are more dialects in the world that have no difference in their languages between the words for “stranger” and for “enemy.” That means as a practical matter that anyone who is a stranger to those people is automatically their enemy. This in turn has probably resulted in lots of needless waste, fighting and lost opportunities.
Even people who do seemingly understand the shades of meaning among words often get too lazy in selecting the most appropriate one for their situation. For example, in my courtroom in many of what we call auto v. auto cases, most attorneys lazily fall back on the tired word “accident” to describe what occurred. But maybe this wasn’t really an accident. What if one of the drivers had been driving under the influence of alcohol or another mind-altering substance, or maybe were involved in some form of reckless driving? Then it could be concluded that this was not accidental, but intentional.
Think about it. What other words could a plaintiff’s attorney use instead of the word “accident” to set the tone for his attempt for a more serious recovery? How about the words “impact,” “collision,” “striking,” “careening into,” “slamming together” or “smash up”? Or from a defendant’s perspective in trying more to downplay the incident, the attorney could, when appropriate, use words like “bump,” “touching,” “grazing,” “coming together” or “coming into contact.”
Another example that everyone should be aware of is that there is a world of difference between the words “solve” and “resolve.” Most of us in the court system realize that you can only find “solutions” for things like mathematical equations. But problems involving human conduct mostly do not have solutions, only resolutions.
Therefore, when people lose an arm because of a defective piece of equipment, nothing can be done to “solve” that problem. Nothing will bring back their arms. All we can do is try to “resolve” the problem, usually by paying them some amount of money. Would most people prefer to forgo the payment and have their arm back? Absolutely yes. That would solve the problem, but that is simply not an option. So all we are left with is a proposed resolution.
The same thing is true regarding almost all other problems we encounter in our everyday lives. There are no solutions, as such. Only resolutions. But if people cannot understand the difference, or shades of meaning, between the two words, those people will unnecessarily submit themselves to extra pressure and frustrations by trying to solve an unsolvable problem.
The same analysis can be utilized for virtually any problem you may be involved with. People with a strong vocabulary understand more nuances, concepts and options. And those are the people who usually get ahead in life.
Look at the issue this way. If you can only discern the colors red, green, blue, yellow and black, you are going to be genuinely at a disadvantage when confronted by a person who, in addition to your colors, can also see, understand, appreciate and describe vermilion, turquoise, cobalt blue and magenta.
So do not lose the opportunity to work to increase your and your child’s vocabularies. This can be done by using vocabulary flash cards, playing word games like “Scrabble” or by simply going through the dictionary with your child, looking at a descriptive picture of a word, and trying to figure out what the word is.
In addition, parents should lose no opportunities to discuss with their children the shades of meaning among different words. (I use the word “among” instead of “between” because the latter compares only two objects, and the former compares more than two.) As another example, there is a difference between the phrase “Mary may climb a tree” and “Mary can climb a tree.” The first discusses permission, and the second discusses ability. There are similar nuances between the words “infer” and “imply,” “courtesy” and “respect” and taking a “risk” as opposed to a “gamble.”
A big distinction to be discussed with children for many reasons is the definition of what a “friend” is. Someone who encourages your child to ditch school, shoplift a CD from a store, smoke marijuana or speak disrespectfully to a teacher, parent, or anyone else is not a friend. Why? Because a friend has your child’s best interest at heart. So someone who would encourage such antisocial behavior may be an acquaintance, or former friend, but not actually a friend.
So we think in words. That means that people’s vocabularies limit or broaden their ability to understand and deal with the world around them. Therefore, a strong vocabulary will not only be helpful for your children on the Scholastic Aptitude Test or on the high school debate team, it will also make a significant difference in how successful they will be in business, their social relationships and almost anything else.
And besides, when it comes down to it, becoming aware of the shades of meaning among words is actually fun. Try it and you’ll see.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
IT’S A GRAY AREA: Dear Mr. President - by James P. Gray
IT’S A GRAY AREA: Dear Mr. President - by James P. Gray 10/26/08
If you could have a dinner conversation with our next president, what would you want to discuss? I asked myself that question and, after some reflection, decided I would share the following thoughts with him.
Mr. President, all of us are naturally concerned about our economy, but we are optimistic at heart and know that eventually “This too shall pass.” But my deeper concern is that we will overreact to this financial crisis and stray from the economic framework that made us strong. That framework is based on the principles of the Free Market and the individual accountability that is inherently contained therein, as well as appropriate anti-trust laws and some regulating forces.
But please be mindful that government interference in the marketplace originally led to the problems we are facing. For example, the Savings and Loan Scandal was caused by the government’s FSLIC insuring bad loans, which meant that big mistakes and “oversights” would not result in big losses for the offenders. Why? Because the government could always be counted on to bail them out.
The same thing occurred with this present mortgage banking mess, which was made possible by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the government protections behind them. This situation shielded offenders from being forced to take responsibility for their own malfeasance. And this combined with multitudes of government “supervisors” who were lazy, sloppy and asleep at the switch to cause the problems.
So we don’t need more regulations. What we need is more diligence and accountability. So please guard against an overreaction to these recent problems and an over-correction that would take us to a more minute and all-encompassing bureaucracy, and a further suffocation of our entrepreneurial efforts.
Which, Mr. President, brings me to my next point. Please tell us that you will empower a nonpartisan agency like the General Accounting Office with sufficient investigative powers to supervise our government to detect small economic, ethical and human rights problems before they become large ones. Then mandate that organization to report its findings directly to you, and also to the news media. Being proactive instead of reactive in these areas will not only go a long way in ferreting out and blunting future problems, but also regenerate a faith and trust in government that has understandably been missing for decades.
Next, and all importantly, please tell Congress and the American people that you will veto all spending measures passed by Congress if they contain even one appropriation that you do not believe is appropriate, until such time as Congress delegates to you the power of the Line Item Veto. And then carry out that threat! This is one reform that President Reagan was unsuccessful in passing, but you can and must cause it to occur.
We now understand that, as a political reality, individual members of Congress are simply forced to show the voters back home that they are active in procuring federal funding for lots of pet projects in their districts. This was made abundantly clear when, even in the moment of dire economic crisis, members of Congress wouldn’t pass the so-called “bailout package” until they appropriated an extra $135 billion for their local projects. So let them continue to earn their “political points” back home by continuing this practice. You can be the “heavy” or the “bad guy” and veto this non-essential spending for the good of the country. Let Congress blame you - you can take it!
And then there is the difficult question of Iraq. Mr. President, I want to be clear. Before all of this happened, I took the public position that if we put ground troops in Iraq without the substantial assistance of the world community, it would be the biggest mistake of my lifetime. Nothing has happened since that time to change my mind. But we are now in Iraq, and we must address our present options and, for these purposes, put the past aside. So simply pulling out of Iraq at this point would for many reasons be another major mistake.
Instead, what we should do is two-fold. First, we should send as many private American contractors home as soon as we reasonably can. Then we should give their jobs to Iraqi contractors who should establish new contracts with and then be paid by the Iraqi government. Second, we should require the Iraqi government to pay a fairly small amount of money for each day that each American soldier remains on duty in that country.
That two-fold approach will accomplish three noteworthy benefits. First, it is a simple fact of life that people more appreciate and value the things that they pay for instead of the things that are given to them. Second, both economically and politically these small payments will encourage a reduction in our troops to the smallest levels that will still be sufficient to do the remaining tasks at hand. And third, of course, this will help in at least a small way with our balance of payments problems. Considering their resumed exportation of oil, the Iraqi government should be able to take on these financial obligations, and everyone, especially Iraq, will be better off if this occurs.
Thank you for your time, Mr. President. Regardless of the politics of this past election, all Americans wish you good health, wisdom and fortitude as you guide our fragile experiment in democracy forward for the next four years. And if you ever feel that there is anything I can do to help you in this effort, you can always count on me.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
“JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY” by Judge Jim Gray
“JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY” by Judge Jim Gray 09/07/08
When I completed a draft of this column I forwarded it to several people for their comments, including a local rabbi friend of mine. I want to share his response with you. He said: “I would really like you to talk about the essence of what it is to be a Jew. In ‘Jew,’ J stands for Justice, e for education, and w for worship. Judaism is based on this life and its focus is helping his fellow man. Christianity’s focus is more on the self and of getting to Heaven. They are like two different sports: baseball and football. Jews often get upset when Christians see (Christianity) as the fulfillment of Judaism. Most Jews feel that the two religions emphasize different things. Like Jews have no concept of salvation or grace and emphasize obedience to Jewish law. There are many other differences too, like God has no body in Judaism and there is no concept of hell or the devil. I would like to discuss more about this with you in person.”
I am fully going to accept the rabbi’s invitation, and plan to meet with him for a discussion in about two weeks. I have also invited several classes at Vanguard University to join us. If you would like to meet with us as well, please contact me by e-mail message and I will give you the time and place.
Otherwise, I have learned that a Jew is not a race of people, because race is determined by genetics and cannot be changed. Instead it is defined as either a person whose mother was a Jew, or someone who has gone through the formal process of conversion to the religion of Judaism. But Jews do see themselves as a “family,” and trace their descent from the Israelites of the Bible, or from others who were exiled from Babylon in the 6th Century, BC.
There is no specific dogma or formal set of beliefs that a person must have to be a Jew. To the contrary, it is mostly a religion of “good acts,” where a person must earn God’s forgiveness and favor. Nevertheless, Jews have and treat as holy the teachings of the Torah, which is a divinely-inspired and hand-written parchment scroll that is so sacred that it is only kept in a synagogue, which is the Jewish house of worship.
To Orthodox Jews the Torah consists of only the first 5 books of the Old Testament. This is “the Law,” and it must be strictly followed in every respect. Conservative Jews generally believe that the laws and traditions must be interpreted based upon the times, except that most observe some form of dietary rules (kosher) and other traditional practices. Jews who are a part of the Reform / Liberal / Progressive Movements generally believe that people can choose which particular traditions to follow. And many non-orthodox Jews believe that the Torah consists of the first 5 books of the Old Testament, which is “the Law,” as well as the next 8 books, which constitute “the Prophets,” as well as the last books, which constitute “the Writings.”
To this many Jews add the oral teachings of the Torah, which is the Talmud and other collections of writings about Jewish law and traditions. The Talmud contains the arguments, debates, agreements and disagreements of literally tens of thousands of Jewish scholars, who, over thousands of years, have studied each and every aspect of the biblical text in an attempt to distill the wisdom contained therein. One of the best known of these scholars is a 12th Century scholar named Rambam, who wrote the “13 Principles of Faith.”
This widely accepted document basically teaches that there is only one God, who is unique, eternal and incorporeal, which is to say that He is not a physical being; that prayer is to be directed to God alone and no other; that the words of the prophets are true, and Moses is the greatest of the prophets; that the Torah was given to Moses directly by God; that God knows the deeds as well as thoughts of human beings, and will reward the good and punish the wicked; and that the Messiah will come.
Of course in many significant ways the religion of Christianity evolved from Judaism, since Jesus Christ was a Jew. But Christians believe that Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God was sent down to earth by God to die for the sins of mankind. By this act, Christians would be forgiven, and could obtain everlasting life by giving themselves to Jesus.
Like Jews, Christians believe in only one God, but they describe God as “Three persons in One.” Therefore God is the Father and Creator; God also is Jesus; and God is also the Holy Spirit, whose being is present as guide, comforter, wisdom and sustainer.
Jesus on the cross unconditionally reaches out to everyone in an attempt to reconcile each person to God as well as to one another. The central theme that makes reconciliation possible is forgiveness. And when forgiveness is put into practice, it is life changing, and even world changing. Why? Because it can break the cycle of violence. At the same time, the contrary life of unforgiveness is a curse.
The three major historic divisions of Christianity are Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, and those have many, many subdivisions. The beliefs and practices of Christians come from the Holy Bible, which is a divinely-inspired combination of the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament), and Christian writings (or New Testament).
But Jesus as revealed in the Bible is understood by most Christians as fully divine, and also fully human. His divinity means that He is understood to part of “the Godhead,” which means that God is fully present. His humanity means that He was an historical figure who felt pain and joy. His teachings are given power by His willing death and His resurrection, which is a clear sign of God’s doing something new in the world. In fact, Jesus is often called “The New Adam” as a way of emphasizing the new beginning He signaled.
Most Christians believe that even though theirs is not a religion of “good acts,” “being Christian” also means that their faith should make a difference in their private as well as public lives. Some denominations go so far as to have lists of “dos and don’ts.” Others avoid lists, except for the Ten Commandments, and instead say to use the reason and intellect that God gave them to “be a little Christ” or to “follow the example of Christ.” Therefore, most Christians believe that their experience of God’s love means they should reflect that love to others through forgiveness and acts of charity and mercy - both individually and for society. This explains the many hospitals, orphanages and educational institutions that Christians have established.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
“COMPARING THE WORLD’S GREAT RELIGIONS” by Judge Jim Gray
“COMPARING THE WORLD’S GREAT RELIGIONS” by Judge Jim Gray 09/07/08
For a long time I have wanted to take a class about the comparative religions of the world, but it has never worked out. Nevertheless, and especially considering last week’s column about the dangerous situations all around the world due to the merging of church and state, I thought I would try to learn about and then discuss one or two of the world’s great religions in each of our upcoming columns for the next few weeks. Unfortunately, our public schools seem to have treated this fascinating and critical subject as taboo for many decades, but there is no logical reason for this situation to continue.
Please join me in this endeavor. Each day the world seems to become a smaller place, which means that all of our “neighbors” keep getting closer to us. So it would promote peace in the world for all of us to have a better understanding of each other’s religions, customs and points of view.
But as we begin, please understand that, although I will consult with knowledgeable people, I myself have no particular expertise or background in these subjects. That means I might at times misspeak or make other mistakes. Please do not take offense if I do, and please feel free to correct me. But if this will make us all a little less ignorant about our own and other people’s religions, it will be well worth the effort.
Of course, let us also not delude ourselves that simply by espousing universal education about each other’s religions, or engaging in interfaith dialogue we will somehow miraculously close the divide among Muslims, Christians, Jews and others. Throughout history, even a common religious background has not deterred significant difficulties among people of the same faith, such as Catholic and Protestant Christians, Orthodox and Reformed Jews, and Sunni and Shiite Muslims. But such efforts will at least allow us to focus upon real differences instead of false or even imagined ones.
Let us begin by making the point that each of the world’s great religions has similar values of peace, justice and respect for our parents and elders. Of course all of them are quite different from each other in many ways, but their basic values are similar. In addition, it is also true that each of the holy books of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths contain some “problematic” passages that can be interpreted as asserting superiority of its particular faith over all of the others.
For example, a passage in the Gospel of Mark in the Bible says: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Similarly a verse from Deuteronomy in the Hebrew Scriptures says: “(O)f all the peoples of the earth the Lord your God chose you to be his treasured people.” And also chapter 5, verse 51 of the Koran says: “Anyone who takes (Jews and Christians) as an ally becomes one of them - God does not guide such wrongdoers.” As we have seen, some people in each of these religions have used their interpretations of these passages for their own radical ends.
But despite these problems, let us try to move toward a mindset of “respect” for the religions, values and beliefs of others, as long as they do not profess or condone violence or subjugation over others, as opposed to a “tolerance” for those beliefs. The former connotes that all people who worship sincerely in their communities are entitled to be respected. The latter basically implies that other people’s beliefs are really mistaken or even silly, but we who have the “true faith” will patronize and humor those people by allowing them to persist in their deluded conditions.
Actually, the seeds of these articles were planted when I heard Dr. John Huffman include in his sermon at St. Andrew’s Church in Newport Beach a reference to a book written by Charles Colson and Harold Fickett entitled “The Faith: What Christians Believe, Why They Believe It, and Why It Matters.” So I decided that if this book had Dr. Huffman’s “seal of approval,” I would read it.
I did so, and thus discovered many things I did not know about my own protestant religion. This led to further reading adventures about other religions, which disclosed much additional interesting information. For example, Jews have between 4 and 7 “expressions” or denominations of their religion, depending upon how you count them. Moslems have a score or more, and Buddhists even a greater number. Hindus, Mormons, and other faith groups also have quite a few divisions as well.
But Christians take the cake. They have literally thousands of denominations or expressions around the world. In fact there are somewhere around 470 denominations in the United States alone. Generally, most Christians see this diversity as both good and bad. It is “good” in that it speaks to how many ways there are to approach God and to worship and follow Him, and it also allows for individual personality and cultural needs. It is “bad” in that it is can be confusing to others, and also because so many of the religious differences are over seemingly small issues. But to summarize, and to quote my own pastor, to talk about Christianity is to talk about differences.
So in the coming few weeks I invite you to join us in exploring the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist religions, as well as humanist and some other atheistic views of life. We will begin next week with an exploration of Judaism as well as Christianity, which I openly acknowledge as being my faith. And throughout these weeks to come, if you have a different good faith perspective about any of the religions we discuss, please feel free to share it with all of us on the Daily Pilot’s website.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
“THE RELIGIONS OF ISLAM AND HINDUISM” by Judge Jim Gray
“THE RELIGIONS OF ISLAM AND HINDUISM” by Judge Jim Gray 09/23/08
The response to the column about Judaism and Christianity was good, and many people requested to be informed about the time and date of our session in which I have invited my friend Rabbi Marc Rubenstein of Temple Isaiah in Newport Beach to further discuss Judaism. That will be this coming Tuesday, September 23 at 5:00 pm in room 109 of Heath Hall at Vanguard University. Please join us.
So now continuing our short series about some of the world’s great religions, we turn our attention to the religions of Islam and Hinduism. The religion of Islam, which is the world’s second largest religion after Christianity, is monotheistic, which is to say that there is only one God. And Islam, like Judaism, traces its roots to the prophet Abraham. Moses is believed to have descended from Abraham’s son Isaac, and Muhammad is believed to have descended from Abraham’s other son Ishmael. Consequently, due to lineage, one will find commonalities among Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
The word “Islam” means “submission,” or total surrender of oneself to Allah, which is the Arabic word for God. A person who follows the Islamic religion is known as a Muslim, which means one who submits to God. Muslims believe that prophets were chosen by God, and those prophets include Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, among others. All of these prophets were human and not divine, though some were able to perform miracles to reinforce their claims.
Muslims strongly believe that God revealed his final message to the prophet Muhammad, who is so revered that when his name is spoken, it is almost always followed by the phrase “Peace be upon Him.” Muslims also believe that on numerous occasions during the period between 610 and the date of his death in 632 BCE, Muhammad received the Quran orally from God through the archangel Gabriel. Then Muhammad passed God’s words on to his companions who, in turn, wrote them down. Since these literally are considered to be the words of God, the Quran, which means “recitation,” is the central religious text of Islam.
Like Judaism but unlike Christianity, Islam is a religion that emphasizes faith combined with “good works” to earn God’s forgiveness and favor. Muslims follow the Five Pillars of Islam, which are: “There is but one God, and Muhammad is His messenger;” ritual prayer 3 or 5 times per day that is meant to focus people’s minds upon God; alms-giving; fasting during the month of Ramadan to encourage a feeling of nearness to God; and the Hajj, which is a once in a lifetime pilgrimage during a particular time of year to the City of Mecca, for those who are able.
After Muhammad’s death there was a political schism into Sunni and Shia that was caused by disagreements over who would succeed Muhammad in the religious and political leadership of the Muslim community. About 85 percent of Muslims are Sunni, and 14 percent are Shia, and 1 percent other. But there are actually few theological differences between Sunnis and Shias. Unfortunately, today when people think of Islam, they often think of violence. This is, of course, a stereotype that disturbs the overwhelming majority of Muslims because they believe that Islam completely rejects violence against innocent civilians.
Hinduism is generally considered to be the oldest of the world’s religions, having its roots back to 1500 BCE. It does not have a single founder, a specific theological system, or a single system of morality, but instead has thousands of different religious groups, and it is the dominant religion of India and Nepal. The most sacred scriptures for Hindus are the Vedas, or “Books of Knowledge,” that were written in Sanskrit from about 1500 BCE to 100 CE.
There are some bedrock concepts on which most Hindus agree. For example, like the religions of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, Hindus believe there is only one, all-pervasive and Supreme Being. This is a “three-in-one” God known as Brahman, who is composed of Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver), and Shiva (the Destroyer). But contrary to Christianity, Brahman is not a faraway God in some remote heaven. Instead this Supreme Being is inside each and every soul, waiting to be discovered. This turns the focus of Hindus inward to their own soul for Brahman, which is the ultimate divine reality.
Hindus also worship the “wives” of Shiva, such as Kali, or one of Vishnu’s ten incarnations or “avators.” But this is only the beginning, because there are literally millions of Hindu gods and goddesses, with concurrent religious festivals and holy days.
Hindus also believe in Karma, which is the law of cause and effect by which all people create their own destiny by their thoughts, words and deeds. Thus both good and bad actions come back to people in the future, which helps them to learn life’s lessons and become better people. Therefore, with good Karma a person can be reborn into a higher caste. A fundamental tenet of this is to live with a minimum of “hurt” to other living beings, because all life is sacred. This means that peace and non-violence, as espoused by Mahatma Gandhi, are ingrained into the Hindu religion.
For Hindus the soul leaves the body at death, but does not die. Instead it will be reborn, or “reincarnated,” which is otherwise known as the “transmigration of souls.” Then after a soul evolves well enough spiritually, it can be released from the cycle of physical rebirth to an Enlightenment, which is attained by becoming in tune with the Brahman within. This condition is called Nirvana, and this is the ultimate goal of the Hindu.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
BUDDHISM AND HUMANISM - by Judge Jim Gray
BUDDHISM AND HUMANISM - by Judge Jim Gray 09/28/08
The Buddhist religion dates back to about 563 BCE with the birth of Siddhartha Gautama in Lumbini, Northern India, which now is in Nepal. He was the son of a king, and in childhood was completely sheltered from the real world. But when he was eventually exposed to the miseries of the world, he also encountered a monk who had found peace through contemplation and the renunciation of material objects. Siddhartha was so impressed with that approach that at the age of 29 he renounced his crown and family and set out on a journey to seek the Truth.
After a lengthy period of self-denial, discipline and meditation, he attained Supreme Enlightenment. Thereafter as he worked to share his teachings with others he became known as the Buddha, or “the Enlightened One.”
The teachings of Buddha were not actually written down and finalized for about 500 years. Nevertheless, Buddhism slowly spread to numerous countries all over the world, and this resulted in the development of the religion. Today there are an estimated 350 million Buddhists in the world, with the largest concentration in China and Southeast Asia.
Buddha is not a god, and Buddhists do not believe in a god that is the creator of the universe. Instead, Buddha is the highest form of morality and the Supreme Teacher. Hence, the name Buddha is derived from “budh,” which means “to awaken and be aware or completely conscious of.”
Buddhism today is divided into large numbers of denominations, but most of these share a common set of fundamental beliefs. One of these is reincarnation, which is to say that people are reborn after dying, and this may be done repeatedly. Then after many cycles, if people release their attachment to desire and to the self, they can attain the state of liberation and freedom from suffering that is known as Nirvana.
Most Buddhists also believe in three trainings or practices that can lead to Nirvana. The first is Sila, which is virtue, good conduct and morality. This is in turn founded upon two principles: equality, which means that all living entitles are equal, and reciprocity, which is like the “Golden Rule” in Judaism and Christianity.
The second practice is Samadhi, which is concentration, meditation and mental development. Developing one’s mind is the path to wisdom, which in turn leads to personal freedom. The third practice is Prajna, which is discernment, insight, wisdom and enlightenment. This is the heart of Buddhism. Wisdom will emerge only when the mind is pure and clear.
There are also four “Noble Truths” that most Buddhists accept. They are Dukkha (Suffering exists. It is real and almost universal.); Samudaya (The cause of suffering is human failings, such as a desire for wealth, power, fame, sensual pleasures, etc.); Nirodha (There is an end to suffering when the mind reaches Nirvana, which is freedom, liberation and non-attachment.); and Magga (Following an 8-fold path of right understanding, thinking, speech, conduct, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration).
So with the Buddhist cosmology, there are a variety of heavens and hells into which people may be born, but they are not forever. Therefore people can “fall” from a heaven, or “rise” from a hell, based upon their prayers (and other people praying for them) that repent for past transgressions and sincere vows not to repeat them, and an overarching respect for all life, which is shown by refraining from the killing of any living beings.
Humanism is more an ethic than a religion. It affirms each person’s ability and responsibility to lead meaningful and ethical lives that add to the greater good of humanity. It has its roots in ancient Greek culture (with its emphasis upon improving society), the Renaissance (for its advancement of science), the Enlightenment (with its concept of the separation of church and state), and 19th Century “freethought” (with its challenges to discrimination and advocacy of reform).
Most humanists do not believe in a supernatural power, but draw a clear distinction between belonging to a religion, on the one hand, and being “religious,” on the other. This leads humanists to explore the meaning and possibility of having a religion without having an actual god.
In his book “A Common Faith,” John Dewey described the humanist philosophy. He began by noting the “religious” attitudes that devotees had toward their religions. From this he argued that people could equally possess that religious attitude toward the ethics of most religions for the betterment of mankind, without ascribing to the dogma of any of those religions. In other words, Dewey tried to emancipate the religious experience from the religion itself.
Instead of a faith founded upon ideals guaranteed to exist by a supernatural authority, humanism is a moral faith founded upon ideals inherent in the natural relationship existing between man and his environment. And the higher purpose is to meet human needs in the here and now. In fact, most humanists believe it is immoral to wait for God to act for us. Ultimately the responsibility for the kind of world we live in rests with each of us.
We began this short series of columns on religions with a discussion about the critical importance of the separation of church and state. Then we discussed some of the world’s great religions in an attempt to learn from them, and grow from that learning. We now end the series by noting that governments could avoid many problems if they would adopt Humanism’s “religious” higher purpose to meet human needs in the here and now, instead of adopting the tenets of any particular religion. That was the approach adopted by our Founding Fathers when they said that there was a natural order of things, and that some “truths were self-evident,” and that approach should be re-emphasized and continued today.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
“THE COSTS OF LITIGATION” by Judge Jim Gray
“THE COSTS OF LITIGATION” by Judge Jim Gray 08/03/08
At the conclusion of most of my jury trials I tell the jurors that our system of justice is probably the most expensive, time-consuming and unwieldy that has ever been devised - but it is also the best. I also tell them that I hope they have received some gratification by contributing so substantially to it. By the end of their service the jurors almost universally agree with my assessment, and even say they look forward to further jury service in the future - although that feeling probably wears off soon for many of them.
But litigation is expensive. For openers, it costs $320 simply to file a civil lawsuit in California, and all defendants must also each pay a similar $320 appearance fee just for the privilege of appearing to defend themselves. Of course the primary cost to the litigants is for their attorneys, who sell their time, experience, wisdom, and information-gathering abilities. But there are also additional costs for paralegals, investigators, process servers, secretaries, electronic preparation and storage of documents and, of course, the “cottage industry” of expert witnesses.
For personal injury cases many attorneys will often “front” the costs of the suit for the plaintiffs, and not charge them anything for their services unless and until there is a recovery from the defendants. But when there is a recovery, the attorneys are reimbursed for their costs, and also receive anywhere from one-third to two-fifths of the proceeds. The public benefit from this is that the contingency fees system allows good cases to be pursued by plaintiffs who otherwise could not afford to do so.
So when you hear about “large jury awards” in personal injury cases, remember that the litigation itself is expensive, and the risks of pursuing it can be large if not ruinous. And also remember that the contingency fee system provides some safeguards, because attorneys are inherently inclined not to pursue cases that have no merit, since they can lose a great deal of time and money if they do.
I am also happy to report to you that within the last decade our court system as a whole has become much more pro-active in reducing expenses and heading off problems. For example, we now assign most of our cases to a specific judge as soon as a case is filed. That way the litigants get an earlier perception about what the eventual results might be based upon pre-trial rulings. This also prevents a party from getting a second “bite at the apple” for the same losing arguments before a different judge. That results in the cases moving more quickly toward a resolution.
In addition, and all importantly, the individual judges tend to work harder if the cases belong to them because their back log will build up if they don’t - and it is true that judges and staff members quietly note who has a higher or lower inventory of cases. In other words, incentives matter in the courthouse as well as in the rest of the world. As a result of this new approach, we now dispose of about 80 percent of all of our civil cases within 12 months of their being filed, as opposed to about 48 months under the prior system.
Other pro-active programs have been established to reduce future crime, such as screening out defendants charged with alcohol-related offenses who are addicted to alcohol. Once these defendants are identified they are required to address and overcome their addiction problems, or they face additional punishments if they do not.
Additional court screening attention and assistance are provided to juvenile offenders, defendants with mental disorders and dual diagnoses, people who are homeless, and parents who have neglected or mistreated their children. Furthermore, both drug courts and the passage of Proposition 36 by California voters in November of 2000 have materially reduced the recidivism rates for people using illicit drugs by forcing them both to address their substance abuse problems and to be more responsible for their own actions.
As a direct result of all of these programs, many defendants have turned their lives around for the better. Think of the crimes that are not committed, the victims who are not victimized, the police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and jurors who do not have to investigate and litigate the offenses, and the reduced time and money that is wasted by the incarceration of the offenders. Also think of the families that are not forced onto welfare roles because of the incarceration of their breadwinner.
A final significant reduction in the expenses of litigation has been our programs of mediation. These efforts have allowed the parties to “stop the bleeding” earlier by resolving their own problems through negotiation with the help of professional mediators. Many years ago when I was still an attorney it was generally considered to be a sign of weakness even to discuss the possible settlement of a case. But fortunately those days are now mostly behind us.
But the absolute best way of heading off problems and reducing the expenses of litigation is to avoid the litigation altogether by engaging in what I call “legal preventive maintenance.” Along those lines, my all-time favorite bumper sticker is “Become a doctor and support a lawyer.” Doctors are typically concerned about their patients, but they often are all too trusting and even naïve in their own business practices, and they mostly do not ask for help.
So I recommend people conduct inspections of their private and business property and look out for safety problems, and encourage their families and employees to be on the lookout for these problems as well. I also recommend that people get a good legal preventive checkup of all of their business activities.
“Saving” money by failing to get competent preventive legal advice is a classic way of being “penny wise and pound foolish.” Why? Because litigation is expensive, both financially and psychologically. We in the court system are taking steps to reduce these expenses or avoid them altogether. You should too.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
“THE ANSWER IS: IT DEPENDS” = by Judge Jim Gray
“THE ANSWER IS: IT DEPENDS” - by Judge Jim Gray 08/10/08
One of the lessons I learned in law school was that the answer to most questions is: it depends. What does that mean? Well, before you can give a reasoned answer to a question, you should know the circumstances and the context in which the question arises.
Another and slightly bawdy way of saying this is illustrated by one man asking another man the question “How’s your wife?” with the answer being: “Compared to what?”
Children often do not understand or employ the “it depends” way of thinking. For them things are usually “all or nothing.” But when they mature they begin to realize that the answers to most questions depend upon the situation, and the risks or benefits of action or inaction. Even though most adults innately do understand this approach, many do not employ it consciously.
One example of where a question cries out for an “it depends” answer is whether or not we should drill for oil off our coasts and in Alaska. For people to think only in terms of “drill everywhere,” or “drill nowhere” is shortsighted to the extreme. Some important issues to consider are: Where is the oil? How can it be reached? What are the risks of oil spillage or other potential pollution problems at a particular site? Will the extracting company be bonded for environmental problems? Of course all of our land is sacred, but is this site particularly unique or picturesque? In addition, will new developments in technology allow the oil to be extracted a longer way from the drilling site? Only when we get answers to those and other similar questions can we begin to make intelligent decisions on the issue.
The same myopic arguments of all or nothing were utilized by some people in the debate several years ago about whether or not we should have constructed the Alaska pipeline. Fortunately, other more sophisticated people used a risks and benefits analysis, made some modifications to the original proposed plans, and then went ahead with the project. Not only has the pipeline been successful, I am actually not aware of any significant problems with it at all. So for our elected officials now to take positions of all or nothing regarding offshore or Alaska drilling is irresponsible, and even insulting. We are smarter than that; why aren’t they?
When you think about it, most issues lend themselves to a similar risk and benefit analysis, as symbolized by the “it depends” answer. That even includes issues about our country’s security. For example, should our government be able to wiretap telephone conversations between people here and countries like Libya, Pakistan and Iran? The answer is (all together now): it depends. What is the threat to our security, and how immediate is that threat? What are the opportunities for the government agents to seek and obtain a judicial warrant? What do our Constitution and judicial precedents say about this situation? In other words, what are the risks and benefits both regarding our security and also regarding our precious liberties?
The same is true about so-called mandatory minimum sentences in criminal cases. Should a defendant be sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison if he has been convicted of a particular offense? The answer once again is, it depends. What were the circumstances of the offense? Who is this defendant, and what is his background and past criminal record? Who were the victims and how severely were they injured, if at all? It is simply not possible for the legislature, or anyone else, to come up with an appropriate sentence in advance, because there is no way they can have answers to those and other similar critical questions. These laws have resulted in some criminal sentences that are deeply inappropriate both for the defendants and their families, and also for the taxpayers.
But there must be some issues that are so clear that the “it depends” answer is not necessary. For example, what about questions concerning the safety of our children? Well, here again it depends upon the situation. Should we not trust any children to cross any street by themselves until they are in high school? That is a certainly a risky activity that can threaten our children’s safety. But it depends. What are the ages of the children? What kind of streets are involved, and what are their safety features? These questions should be answered before decisions are made. Similarly, there are also definite risks in dating, so should girls not be allowed to date until they are 21? So once again, even though these are important issues, the answer still is that it depends.
Nevertheless, we do not want to descend into moral relativism either. There certainly are some things about which a moral society will not compromise, and in those cases the “it depends” answer does not apply. For example, the answer to questions about slavery, apartheid, the sexual abuse of children, and Hitler’s extermination of millions of Jews, gypsies and others is not “it depends.” In my mind there are ambiguities about many or even most issues in the world, but not those. In fact, I will go so far as to say that in some areas there is even an Absolute Right and an Absolute Wrong Answer, but I may not always be intelligent or perceptive enough to know what that answer is. But to further elaborate on those areas of religion and philosophy is far beyond the reach of this column.
So what is the point of this column? Too often many people, particularly those in government, fall into an “all or nothing” discussion about issues that is based upon politics or emotion or both. Instead, I hope this column will help you to encourage those people publicly and privately to use a cost/benefit approach. That will result in more intelligent decisions being made for us all.
Finally, should a cost/benefit approach be utilized in the next important issue that you will be confronting? The answer is, of course: it depends.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
“EXPAND YOUR CHILDREN’S HORIZONS” by Judge Jim Gray
“EXPAND YOUR CHILDREN’S HORIZONS” by Judge Jim Gray 08/18/08
The two best ways to expand the horizons of our children is for them to travel, and for them to read. In traveling they can be exposed to unfamiliar places and also see both the bad and the good of how other people live. That allows them to learn first hand that there are places in the world other than Newport Beach, and both be stimulated by the differences and more appreciative of what they have here at home. In reading they can vicariously live the lives of other beings of any time and any place, and this will in turn bring them a much deeper understanding of their own lives.
When I was 12 years old my parents took my older sister and me to Europe for six weeks. We took the train back to New York and then a passenger ship to England. Our parents did it this way so that my sister and I could see first hand how large our country is, and how far away Europe is from us. Then we traveled in England, Scotland, France, Switzerland (the birthplace of my mother’s grandparents) and Denmark before flying home.
That trip more than anything else in my life filled me both with a wanderlust and with a knowing that, as time went on, I could travel by myself too. It was a great thing for my development and my independence. What a gift my parents gave us by this trip!
A question I frequently ask other people is “where is the most fascinating place you have ever been?” Then I say that they can define fascinating any way they want to. The responses to that question have almost always been interesting. In fact, I asked that question to Dr. Eugen Weber, who was my all-time favorite UCLA professor, and his wife. They both responded that their most fascinating place was the Villa d’Est on Lake Como in Northern Italy. So several years later my wife and I went there expressly because of their answer. The Webers were right. Other than being quite expensive, overall it was a truly wonderful and stimulating place.
So where is the most fascinating place you have ever been? It would be fun to hear from you and to discuss it. Then maybe we could share your answers with other readers. My most fascinating place is Aphrodisias, which is in the Asian part of Turkey. This was an 8th century B.C. city named for Aphrodite, who was the Greek Goddess of Love, and it absolutely captured me with its stadium, theater, forum, temples, baths - and stories! Trying to project what life was actually like in this fascinating place continues to fill me with inspiration and wonder.
And what are your favorite books for children? If we do not help to instill in our children a love of reading at a fairly young age, they will be deprived of one of life’s most fascinating and rewarding pleasures. (And parenthetically their scores on the SAT and similar tests will truly suffer!)
By the way, don’t forget to join a book discussion club yourself of about five to seven other people. I recommend you have dinner together once a month, and then gather around and discuss a book that has been assigned to and read by everyone for that session. There is virtually no limit to the enjoyment and stimulation that you will experience.
So do a big favor for your children, grandchildren and other children you care about, and expose them to books. The best way to do that is to read to and with them at an early age. When I was on the abused and neglected children’s calendar in Juvenile Court, I purchased numbers of copies of the book “Fox in Sox” by Dr. Seuss, and gave them to the children’s parents, grandparents and foster parents with instructions to read the book to and with them. This is a wonderful, fun - and silly - tongue-twister of a book that lends itself perfectly to group reading. I think it worked, and I strongly recommend this book and this practice to you.
What are other books that are great for children? Again I would be interested in your sharing your input with us. My favorites are Jack London’s “White Fang,” Pearl Buck’s “The Good Earth,” both Mark Twain’s “Tom Sawyer” and “Huckleberry Finn,” Frank Baum’s “The Wizard of Oz” (Our wonderful father read the entire series of these books to us as children.), and Wilson Rawls’ “Where the Red Fern Grows.” Many people also recommend C.S. Lewis’ “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” and Dave Pelzer’s “A Child Called ‘It’,” although I think the latter book is pretty heavy duty depressing for a young child.
Although reading is one of the most fun and bonding things a person can do with young children, I acknowledge that traveling with them is not always fun, at least at the beginning. But once you start seeing the expansion of their development and general interest in life, you will fully know that you have given them a great and lasting gift.
So help to expand the horizons of the children in your life. It is one of the best gifts that a person can give, or that a person can receive.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
“A BIG QUESTION OF OUR DAY” by Judge Jim Gray
“A BIG QUESTION OF OUR DAY” by Judge Jim Gray 08/28/08
A big question of our day, and one of the largest issues that will affect the peace of the world is: Can people keep religion and government separated? For the next decade or two, a major part of the issue of whether the world will be at peace or at war will be determined by the answer to that question.
Most people in the world hold religious beliefs of some form. That is certainly a positive thing, and for people to derive morals from religious tenets and teachings is both natural and appropriate. But to claim one religious tradition as the basis for civil or criminal law can lead to internal and external strife, chaos and, eventually, war. So that is why the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State, as recognized by our Founding Fathers, is so critically important.
For evidence in the Muslim world, we need only look at the actions of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. By the decree of the governments that they influenced, non-Muslim books of all kinds were banned and burned, free discussion was not tolerated, and it was not only acceptable but increasingly justified to kill the infidels, who were defined as the “enemies of Islam.”
It is harmful enough for individual people and groups to espouse such beliefs, but for governments to be run under these dictates is much more serious. Remember recently when the government of the Sudan charged a British teacher with “inciting religious hatred,” which is a crime punishable by anything from 40 lashes to death, because she allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad? Some fundamentalists considered this act to be an insult to Islam and successfully invoked the sanction of government “to uphold their religion’s honor.” This was one of the better-known incidents, but in countries with religious governments incidents like this occur frequently.
Another example is found by the government of Iran enforcing the wearing of Muslim head coverings by women. Religious requirements like these are fine, as long as they are adhered to voluntarily by individuals who are applying their own religious convictions. But for a government to impose religious dictates upon anyone - believers or non-believers alike - is dangerous.
Governments in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries today have gone to the extreme in establishing Departments for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, and putting the sanctions of the government behind them. And whose concept of vice and virtue is being enforced? The religious fundamentalists.
Of further enormous concern is the current practice by Wahhabi sheiks from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, who are using some of their vast oil revenues to fund religious schools called madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as in their own countries. These schools teach young people to be violently intolerant of non-Muslims, to subjugate women, and to follow other radical single-mindedness. Wahhabi is a fundamentalist offshoot of Sunni Islam, is the official state religion of Saudi Arabia, and is steadily expanding its influence around the world. For example, the growing “Religious Right” movement in Europe is Muslim fundamentalism, so attitudes like this in Europe are on the rise.
I obtained much of this information by reading Gary Mortenson and David Oliver Relin’s book “Three Cups of Tea.” Mortenson has established about 32 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as healthcare facilities and centers where people can learn and practice small business skills like sewing and mountain climbing. After learning about Mortenson’s work, I join with him in believing that the best way to combat terrorism is to combat ignorance. I strongly recommend this book to you.
Disturbingly, the breaking down of the barrier between church and state is also going on here in America as well. For example, some Christian fundamentalists openly argue that governments in America must come under the control of religious leaders like them. With many of these people there are only two camps: Good and Evil, and they preach that not to be firm in what they define as “good” would be to tempt God’s disfavor and wrath.
This Christian fundamentalism movement has been greatly assisted by the increasing polarization of the people in our country. For example, I originally welcomed the coming of cable television with its large numbers of channels because I thought this would expose people to more varied points of view. But now I see that the reverse has actually occurred. Most of these channels cater their reporting and editorial comments to people who already have a fixed outlook and philosophy, and those people mostly only watch those stations. So this results in these people’s established views only getting more reinforced.
Aside from the concern that Christian religious fundamentalists could take us back to the mentality of the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials, the time has long-since passed that we can become a nation officially dominated by Christianity, or any other religion. One of the significant reasons is that at this point we have large numbers of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others who rightfully see America as their country too, and the likelihood that they would respond violently if they were to be officially subjected to Christian or any other religious doctrines and dictates would be substantial.
To guard against this potential result we must stand firm in sponsoring a government that accommodates the free but peaceful exercise of one’s chosen religion, whatever it may be. But if we ever allow religious “errors,” misstatements or even tastelessness to be prosecuted or even prohibited, we will be on the road to facing the same type of problems that exist in some of these Muslim countries.
So in matters of religion, government must be strictly neutral. People must be able to choose for themselves, even if they choose “badly.” If particular religious doctrines are “right,” they will win people’s hearts and minds in the free marketplace of ideas. But as soon as a government takes sides and starts to enforce one interpretation of religious “rightness” over another, religious zealotry will not be far behind. And soon thereafter will come violence, chaos, war, and the loss of the America that we know and love.
Finally, and as importantly, by enforcing the Separation of Church and State, we will not only protect government from religious zealotry, but we will also be protecting religion from governmental zealotry as well. So in the long run, religion and government will both win, and the world will also be more likely to be at peace.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
DRUG PROBLEMS VS. DRUG MONEY PROBLEMS - by Judge Jim Gray
DRUG PROBLEMS VS. DRUG MONEY PROBLEMS - by Judge Jim Gray 05/04/08
As all sophisticated people know, life is full of distinctions. One of those critical distinctions that we will discuss today is the difference between drug problems, and there certainly are many, as opposed to drug money problems.
There is no doubt that illicit drugs can sometimes be dangerous and addictive and cause harm. Many people’s health and lives have been ruined, and families torn apart emotionally and financially because of the havoc caused by the abuse of and addiction to illicit drugs. So without question this is a big problem.
But there are also big problems that are caused exclusively by drug money. For example, for years we have been hearing and reading about the large-scale violence and corruption that takes place with drug dealers in Colombia, Mexico, Afghanistan and many other countries. And certainly the United States has had its share of this violence and corruption as well. These problems are not caused by the drugs themselves, they are caused by the drug money.
Similarly, it is drug money that is causing drug-addicted people to commit crimes in order to get the money for their drugs. Obviously that includes burglaries, purse-snatchings, check offenses, shop-liftings, and prostitution. As a practical matter, all of the illicit drugs themselves are extremely inexpensive to raise, manufacture and package. In fact they are actually “dirt cheap.” The only reason they are expensive is because they are illegal, and that expense causes many crimes.
For example, marijuana is not called a “weed” for nothing. It will grow virtually anywhere. In fact, for all of our efforts for its eradication, marijuana is presently the largest cash crop in California. (Number two is grapes, if you care.) And even though the DEA has gone to great lengths to convince us that the opium poppy can only be grown in mountainous regions, the National Park Service was actually growing those poppies for years at Thomas Jefferson’s home in Monticello before the DEA found out about it and made them take them out. (They are a beautiful flower.) So if the opium poppies will grow in Virginia, it is pretty obvious that they will grow anywhere.
But now I want to talk to you about another drug money problem that you probably are not aware of. The following scenario would take place in my courtroom about every four or five weeks when I was sitting on a Juvenile Court calendar. There would be, for example, a single mother of two small children who made a bad decision, namely she decided to hook up with the wrong boyfriend. The man would be selling drugs and the mother would generally be aware of it, but that is the way things were.
One fine day the boyfriend would tell the mother that if she would take a package across town and give it to “Charlie,” he would give her $500 for her efforts. She would basically know the package contained drugs, but she was behind on her rent and the $500 would really help. So she would do it. And then she would be arrested and convicted for the offense of transporting drugs, and sentenced to five years in prison. Now to be honest, in today’s world being sentenced to five years in prison for transporting four ounces or so of cocaine is not an unreasonable sentence.
But let me ask you a question: when the mother is put in prison, what happens to her children? Well, that answer is easy. The mother has legally abandoned her children since she is not available to take care of them. As a consequence they would all come to me in Juvenile Court on the Abused and Neglected Children calendar.
So I would have this young mother in my court in a jail jumpsuit and handcuffs and I would tell her the truth, which was that she would not functionally be a part of her children’s lives for the next five years. At that point she would usually become misty-eyed at the realization. (Wouldn’t you?) But then I would tell her the brutal truth, which was that unless she was really lucky and either had a close personal friend or family member that was both willing and able to take custody of her children until she was released, her children would probably be adopted by somebody else by the time she got out of prison. At that point she would usually break down in tears. (Wouldn’t you?)
But if that human tragedy is not enough to break you down, I can probably dissolve you in tears as a taxpayer. Because in the first year, we will be spending upwards of $5,000 per month per child to keep them in a group home until they can be adopted by someone else. That means that in that first year we will be spending about $60,000 per child, times two children, plus an additional $25,000 to keep the mother in prison. As a result we will be spending somewhere around $145,000 in taxpayer money physically to separate a mother from her children!
And who gets to enforce this situation? I do. Of course I do it because I have sworn to uphold the law. But I do not have to do it quietly, and that is why I am passing on this story to you.
So from my experience and perspective, if we would change our drug laws to hold people accountable for their actions instead of what they put into their bodies, we would begin greatly to reduce the drug money crime. And this could be easily done by undercutting the market for the sale of illicit drugs to adults.
As was discussed in an earlier column, we could start by treating marijuana like alcohol. That would result in the savings of huge amounts of taxpayer money that are presently being spent on efforts to eradicate marijuana and to prosecute non-violent marijuana users. In addition, we could generate additional billions of dollars annually simply by taxing the sales of marijuana to adults, just like we do for alcohol. And all of this would have the substantial additional benefit of making marijuana less available for our teenagers than it is today. Why? Because illicit drug dealers don’t ask for i.d.
So what is not to like? We should pattern our conduct after most countries in Europe and start to address these problems as managers instead of moralists. This would reduce the crime, violence and corruption brought about by drug money. And then we could re-focus our efforts upon the actual drug problems themselves, like many countries are doing in Europe.
I think that everyone agrees that the federal government does not have all of the answers in this area, so why don’t we allow each state to decide what is best for its people? This is the concept of federalism upon which our great country was founded. There are viable alternatives to our present failed federal policy of Drug Prohibition, so let’s allow each state to try some alternatives. What do you think?
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
“WHAT TO DO ABOUT GANGS AND POVERTY” - by Judge Jim Gray
“WHAT TO DO ABOUT GANGS AND POVERTY” - by Judge Jim Gray 05/18/08
What should we do about the criminal and antisocial acts and other aberrant behavior of young people in gangs? It’s a tough issue. Law enforcement obviously has its limitations, so instead we need to get to the root of the problems. So what can we do?
In my view, the best chance for success is to show these young people a better way. Show them that they actually can have a better life by having the security of a good job, the gratification of a strong family life, and increased longevity by leading a healthy lifestyle. Okay, that is probably obvious. But how can we so this in a way that will stick?
Well by analogy to other problem behaviors, the most successful way to get drug-addicted people on the road to recovery is to partner them up with someone who has “been there” and is a recovering alcoholic or other drug addict. That is one reason why Alcoholics Anonymous has been so successful. And one of the best ways for our young people to see that things like ditching school, shoplifting and smoking marijuana aren’t “cool” is for them to hear that message at Peer Court from their fellow students. These people “speak the same language” as the addicts and juvenile offenders, and don’t accept their rationalizations and excuses.
Similarly, I believe the best way to get gang members to turn away from antisocial behavior is for former gang members who have evolved into a more healthy and productive lifestyle to share their stories, views and personal experiences with the present gang members. Actually this is now occurring in South Los Angeles with a group of former gang members called “The Businessmen.” It is also happening here in Orange County in a program sponsored by the Orange County Bar Foundation called “Shortstop.” These programs use former gang members and others who have been convicted of felonies to show the young people how the way they are going leads nowhere. And these programs are successful.
In fact, the same approach is now being used by our government in places like Iraq and Palestine, where former terrorists try to educate present terrorists about the futility of their actions, and how they are being callously manipulated by extremists along the way. In other words, someone with a common experience and familiarity with the aberrant behavior, whether it be drug addiction, gang involvement or terrorist activity, will have the best chance of communicating effectively with people who are presently stuck in that behavior.
But it takes more than that - it also takes hope. Most people realize that a person without hope is probably the most dangerous person in the world, because a person without hope has nothing to lose. And it is mostly people who don’t know any better and who have no hope that become drug addicted, gang members and terrorists. So how do we help to provide hope to those people?
In that regard, I will pass along to you something I observed when I was in the Peace Corps. Surprisingly enough, most of the merchants in my small town, which was in the southwestern part of Costa Rica, were Chinese. That included the owner of the place where I and the other high school teachers lived. His name was Chunga, and we lived on the second floor of his “Soda Interamericana,” which was the only place in our town large enough to hold a dance. So one day I asked him why most of the merchants in our town happened to be Chinese.
He told me that after the fall of Chiang Kai-shek in China, most of his supporters fled to Taiwan. But many others kept on coming. Some stopped in Hawaii, but others continued to most of the western coasts of North, Central and South America. And that included Costa Rica. And when they came, they brought with them a cultural tradition.
At about the age of 18 to 20, young men would come to the Elders of the Chinese community and present to them what amounted to a business plan for a proposed business. The Elders would give some suggestions, and then if they decided that the candidate was sincere, able and had a reasonably good plan, they would provide the “seed” money to get the business venture started. (Yes, at least at that time the program was only available for young men.)
This seed money was not a loan, it was a gift. But there would never be a second opportunity. If the young man was eventually successful, he would have the hope that one day he also could be a member of the Elders, and contribute his own funds to perpetuate the tradition. To him, it was a matter of cultural “face,” or pride. But if he was not successful, he might as well leave town, because the shame he would bring upon himself and his family would make his continued presence in the community hard to bear.
Although to my knowledge no other community in our country has this particular tradition to build upon, why could it not be developed? It works!
Personally I deeply admire Bill Cosby. At the moment he is taking a lot of flack in the African-American community for speaking the truth. As you know, recently he has been saying that their community is suffering from unacceptable amounts of violence, single-parent families and a general lack of education. Furthermore, he is saying that it is their own responsibility to turn those conditions around. But that effort will be more successful if it also helps to provide some hope to the people who are involved.
Likewise, if our government would change its foreign aid programs to provide small loans to people at the bottom rung of the economic ladder, instead of grants of large amounts of money to the governments of these economically poor countries, much more tangible progress would be made.
Private organizations do things like this quite successfully today. For example, a group called Oxfam provides small loans to people in poor countries so that they can purchase things like a sewing machine, and thus begin a small business. But Oxfam also ensures that the money is eventually repaid. That promotes personal responsibility. Similarly a group called Heifer International provides farm animals like goats, chickens and cows to families in poor countries, along with an education about how to care for them. These people then have the incentive to take care of the animals, because they can use them for milk, eggs and meat to feed their families. Then eventually the excess food products can be sold to others for the benefit of all. Instead of large amounts of our money ending up in the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt government officials, these much smaller amounts of money actually promote and establish businesses, nutrition and self-sufficiency.
We should learn these lessons, and adopt them to our practices both governmentally and privately, and domestically and abroad. Like all economists say, “Incentives Matter!” And an infusion of positive mentors, incentives and realistic hope will have a meaningful chance of reducing gang and terrorist activity and otherwise changing aberrant behavior, as well as promoting a better, safer and more prosperous world. And, by the way, it will cost a great deal less money than we are now spending.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
“FROM ONE UNGUARDED MOMENT” by Judge Jim Gray
“FROM ONE UNGUARDED MOMENT” by Judge Jim Gray 05/25/08
“One Unguarded Moment - A Lifetime of Regret.” How often have you seen or heard about an example of that situation?
In the heat of the moment all of us have done some thoughtless, harmful and even dangerous things. Some of us have been fortunate to have escaped our behavior without many adverse consequences, and others have emerged with only a bit of embarrassment. But all too often many of these spur-of-the-moment explosions have resulted in injuries to others, and the loss of friends, family and jobs. And they have even resulted in prison sentences.
The areas for abuse include anger, with all of its dangers and potentially devastating consequences; alcohol and other drug abuse; and spousal and child abuse and other domestic violence. As individuals and as a society we must be aware of the warning signs of trouble, and be prepared to step in as much as possible to head them off both for ourselves and for others.
Once people who have been brought into the court system have been identified with problems in these areas, I am proud to say that we are doing a reasonably effective job in dealing with them. But the main purpose of today’s column is to talk with you about the measures being taken today by the Marine Corps to head off these problems before they occur.
With the Marines the dangerous situations discussed above are often combined with combat stress as well as long and frequent assignments in combat areas, so the problems both for the returning troops as well as their families can be seriously compounded. Fortunately, under the leadership of Judge Pamela Iles, the Family Violence Project has joined forces with the Orange County Superior Court and the Marine Corps to institute day-long learning seminars that are entitled “Heroes and Healthy Families.”
These seminars show both the warriors and their families how to recognize the signs of stress and their related consequences, and also provide all of them with the tools to reduce or even neutralize those pressures. By doing this the Marine Corps is supporting its warriors and their families in a safe return, as they say - “all the way home.”
Among other things, these seminars drive home the reality that it is always wrong for an adult to hit a child. Similarly, it is wrong for a man to hit a woman, and, of course, for a woman to hit a man. But if that abuse has occurred once without being confronted, it almost certainly will happen again. So it must be addressed - formally and promptly.
Anger management classes really help in this regard. The aggressors can be taught to take “time outs” when they feel themselves losing control, and the family members can be taught to allow the aggressors some space and time in order to regain their equilibrium.
But just as importantly, the people being battered should have a private escape plan - “just in case.” That means that all adults who are at risk to be victims of this abuse should have their own personal checking account, even if there is little money in it. They should also have a personal bank safe deposit box that contains their important personal papers and their valuables, including a spare set of house and car keys.
If your partner’s behavior is abusive, you must understand that you can and probably should leave until that behavior is addressed and corrected. Have a packed bag at the ready in a safe place that contains a change of clothes for yourself and your children. Furthermore you should tell someone you trust the straightforward truth about your situation. And do not be hesitant to tell that person that sometime with short notice you might be needing a ride, some help with your children, or even a place to stay.
Domestic violence can have a significant harmful effect upon children, and along the way it almost always increases their feelings of anger, fear, guilt, shame, confusion and helplessness. It is also a fact that children over the age of five have a distinct tendency to identify with the aggressors and to lose respect for and attachment to the victims. The children also tend to develop a tolerance for violence, which results in an inclination to perpetuate that violent behavior when they eventually have families of their own.
The seminars also provide useful pointers on reducing the stresses that can result in domestic abuse. One of the most effective points is developing the ability to be an effective listener. Some of the tips to developing this skill are to maintain eye contact when your partner is sharing his or her feelings with you; to nod, smile and provide other acknowledgements of listening and understanding about what your partner is saying; and to ask respectful clarifying questions about the subject at hand. But throughout all of this, resist being defensive and trying to problem solve. And you should also be aware that understanding what your partner is saying is not the same thing as agreeing with it. Finally, remember that listening is not the same thing as waiting to talk!
The bottom line is that abusive behavior will seldom get better unless it is addressed, and the longer it is allowed to continue the more likely it will be to result in long-range problems for everyone involved.
The Marine Corps recognizes these realities, and it has implemented these seminars in furtherance of its proud tradition of taking care of its own. In my view, the Corps should be commended and even honored for that tradition. So I hope that the rest of us can learn from the preventive steps being taken by the Marines, and in that way we can more effectively take care of our own as well. For more information about this great program, please visit HeroesAndHealthyFamilies.com.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
“I’M JUST A GIRL FROM CHINA” by Judge Jim Gray
“I’M JUST A GIRL FROM CHINA” by Judge Jim Gray 04/20/08
A short time ago I was waiting at the San Jose Airport for a flight back to Orange County, and I started talking to the young lady sitting next to me. Since American Airlines had canceled our particular flight we had an extra hour to wait, so we had a nice discussion.
Her name is Alicia, and I asked her what she had been doing in San Jose. She responded that she had been attending a 3-day conference. About what? She said she is an electrical and electronics engineer, and the conference had reviewed cutting-edge developments in her field. When I said that the Silicon Valley was the logical place to come for such a conference, she told me that actually the Golden Triangle area of Irvine is catching up.
But I noticed that when Alicia was talking to me about what she had learned at the conference she was actually beaming, and I told her so. She smiled and said the things that were happening in her industry were so exciting she couldn’t wait to get back to let her fellow workers know about them. But then her boss would probably want her to give a presentation to her colleagues, and she was nervous about doing that.
I said I understood. (Actually I once saw a study that concluded that most people are more afraid of public speaking than of dying.) So since I do a fair amount of public speaking, I passed along two tips to her that I have found to be effective. The first tip she had already mastered, which is to show your audience that at least you are convinced about what you are talking to them about. If you can’t show that you are convinced, it is hard to convince others.
The second tip is if you are nervous when standing in front of a group, instead of looking right at your audience, you should actually look over their heads and pretend to yourself that you are simply talking personally to a friend in the very back of the room. Never look down because that shows a lack of confidence, but if you look over their heads everyone will actually feel that you are looking directly at them. Try it; it works!
As an example, I told her that my wonderful wife had fairly recently given the valedictorian speech when she received her doctorate of occupational therapy, and she used this suggestion successfully. In fact, during her talk I actually stood at the very back of the room and she simply looked at me. And since I moved from side to side, everyone in the audience felt that she had been looking directly at them personally. My new friend liked the idea, and said she would try it. (I recommend it to you as well.)
Alicia also told me that she had been so fortunate in being able to come to this country from China and become a citizen she wanted to give something back. In fact she had learned of a group called MentorNet that tries to mentor and motivate young people, but the slogan from MentorNet prevented her from doing so. What was that slogan? She said it is “Until women and people of color are fully represented in the fields of science and engineering, society is losing out on the talents of a vast number of potential contributors.”
Then Alicia made me beam by saying: “I could not disagree more. Here I’m just a girl from China who came to America empty handed. And now look at me and what I have today. I think this country has already given me the equal opportunity. But equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes. They focus on the wrong issue.”
So she asked me to recommend an alternative mentoring program. I recommended to her the Stay in School program that is overseen by the Nicholas Academic Center and its founder, Judge Jack Mandel, which is located at 412 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana 92701, telephone 714 834-0521. (As you may recall, the Stay in School program was the subject of a prior column.)
Are there still disparities or even discrimination in the workplace for women and people of color in our country? Okay, probably so. But there are also opportunities for everyone like never before. As a matter of fact, today I believe there are more females in law school than males, and companies of all kinds are hungry to find qualified people of color to work with them at every level of their operations. So in a lot of ways people of color who are good workers have an extra advantage over others.
In summary, I agree with my new friend Alicia. America, for all of its faults, still is a land of opportunity for people who work to get ahead. And generally people who have come over from other countries seem to appreciate our country more than those people like me who were so blessed to have been born here.
So without reducing our efforts to bring about a fully lawful and non-discriminating life in the United States, I suggest we all join with Alicia and not accept or even focus upon the contrary arguments of victimization. This is the next logical step in our progression to complete gender and racial equality.
As a result, for my part I don’t even respond to questionnaires asking for my race or ethnic background from the Red Cross when I give blood, or to other similar forms. In my view, today a person’s race is irrelevant for almost all reasons except medical, and I try to act accordingly.
This “girl from China” is now living the American Dream, and the opportunities she has are still available for people from Mexico, Indonesia, Rwanda, or anywhere else, as long as they come here legally, get their education, keep from having children out of wedlock - and work hard.
I am proud of Alicia and what she has accomplished, and I am proud of my country as we continue our march toward complete gender and color blindness. Please join us on that march.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
ARE ATTORNEYS FRIENDS OR FOES? by Judge Jim Gray
ARE ATTORNEYS FRIENDS OR FOES? by Judge Jim Gray
04/20/08
Okay, yes I am a member of the legal profession, and yes I agree that our profession has some problems. But by and large I am proud of my profession, and I think it is time for me to stand up for it more vocally. So please permit me to pass along to you some thoughts as you consider what to think about attorneys and the legal profession in general.
In the first place, virtually all attorneys deal in disputes and other problem areas in our society. Today we litigate many disputes that involve deeply important and emotional issues, like who will have custody of children, who will be awarded sometimes large amounts of money from someone else, whether a candidate will be able to appear on a ballot or not, where the body of a loved one will be buried when the family members do not agree, whether a real estate development project has complied with all applicable laws, or whether a potentially life-saving medicine should be pulled from the shelves of stores. The reputation of those of us in the legal profession is inescapably affected by our being involved in those difficult disputes.
For those who work as plaintiffs’ attorneys in litigation, frequently their clients are not happy with them because plaintiffs often lose their cases. Or they are not satisfied with the eventual award, or, if they are, with the time it took to procure it. With regard to representing defendants in litigation, it is a fact that no one likes to get sued. At the very least it is expensive, aggravating and takes lots of time, and attorneys frequently charge a lot of money for their time and expertise.
So one way or the other, litigation attorneys usually have unsatisfied clients on their hands, and “it is always their attorney’s fault” (or the judge’s). And that does not even begin to discuss what people think about the attorneys on the other side of their cases. So, as I often tell people, we are in the “dissatisfaction distribution business,” and that is almost literally true. And that situation adversely affects our reputation.
Even the large remainder of attorneys who do not get involved in litigation mostly deal with unhappiness in one form or another. Think of those who deal with regulatory agencies and governments at all levels, and tax attorneys. Usually they deal with bad news - it is simply a question of how bad. And when negotiating contracts, leases and other agreements, it is the other side’s attorney that is trying to procure “unfavorable” terms at your expense. So as a natural result, people often equate the attorneys representing the other side with disaffection and even bitterness.
Nevertheless, I believe people innately understand what we are up against, and that there remains an inherent appreciation of the services we render. As an example to support that belief, one evening I was attending yet another fundraising event, and I found myself sitting next to a lady at dinner who found out that I am in the legal profession. Throughout the dinner she harangued me about how the “shyster lawyers” are responsible for all kinds of things that are wrong with our society. It was amazing and quite one-sided. Finally in despair by the time of dessert I tried to change the subject by asking her if she had any children. “Oh yes,” she exclaimed proudly, “and my oldest son is in law school!”
But let me pass on to you some additional points that maybe my dinner friend and even you might not be aware of as you ponder what you think about attorneys in our community. The first point is in response to those who feel that attorneys file too many frivolous personal injury cases. You might not be aware of this, but most of these cases are taken by plaintiffs’ attorneys on a contingency basis, which is to say that the attorneys only take a negotiated percentage of what is eventually recovered. That means that unless the plaintiffs recover an award of some kind, the attorneys receive nothing on the case. As a result, since the attorneys run the risk of working for free, and even paying for costs of the lawsuit out of their own pockets, a sizeable screening process takes place in deciding what cases are filed at all by attorneys.
Another thing that people are almost completely unaware of is that attorneys as a profession routinely donate thousands of hours of “pro bono” work, which is to say that they donate their time to worthy people and causes that otherwise could not afford them. Personally I am not aware of any other profession that comes close to that type of a contribution.
Further, the legal profession polices itself diligently, to the degree that 80 percent of the state bar’s budget is spent on disciplinary inquiries. If any active judge came close to treating people like “Judge Judy” does, or any attorney were to act as is portrayed in many movies or television shows, they would soon lose their licenses to practice law. And rightfully so.
Attorneys at least in California are also required to specify in a written and signed retainer agreement what the relationships are between them and their clients before they can represent those clients in almost any litigation. And before they can bring an action for unpaid fees, the attorneys must offer neutral arbitration to their clients or former clients.
In addition, please consider the following. In my view, there are really only two ways that we can maximize the safety of products in the marketplace and justice and the realization of our expectations in our relationships with each other. One of them is through our civil justice system, with all of its imperfections. But the other is to have even greater governmental regulation of everything we do. And no one I know wants the government to be involved with even more regulation. So maybe we should appreciate what we have a little bit more, along with continuing to use our best efforts to improve the system further.
So are attorneys your friends, or your foes? In my view, the more people are aware of the facts, the more they will understand that the legal profession is a basic, valuable and necessary part of dispute avoidance, dispute resolution and securing safety and peace in the land. As such, it should be genuinely respected for the contributions it makes for us all.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
LET’S LOOK AGAIN AT NUCLEAR ENERGY - by Judge Jim Gray
LET’S LOOK AGAIN AT NUCLEAR ENERGY - by Judge Jim Gray 04/20/08
With all of the debates and even diatribes today about the harms of our oil dependency, environmental pollution and global warming, it surprises me that there have not been more open and honest public discussions about nuclear power. Why is that? In my view it is a combination of mostly needless public fear of nuclear power, and the self-interested promotions of the oil companies. So let’s look at the facts.
Today by far the largest contributor of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is the burning of coal. Why? Because it is plentiful and relatively cheap. The United States is the world’s largest consumer of coal, and today we generate a full 50 percent of our electricity from it.
But look at what this means. We now are burning about one billion tons of coal in our country every year. That is enough to fill 50 million freight train cars, and is double what we consumed in 1976. But the burning of one ton of coal spews about 3 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and this produces about 40 percent of the world’s so-called greenhouse gases, and about 20 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions.
What is even worse is that coal is one of the most environmentally destructive substances we can use as a fuel. In addition to the substantial pollution problems, the EPA estimates that it kills about 30,000 people in our country alone each year as a result of diseases incurred by miners and others who work with it.
On the other hand, nuclear electric generating plants require only a few flatbed trucks every two years carrying loads of fuel rods, and these are only mildly radioactive such that they can be handled simply by using special gloves. And these rods will stay in the reactors for about six years. (Most facilities replace one-third of their rods every two years.) Yes, the replaced rods are more radioactive than before, but they can be stored in a three-foot deep water storage pool, and actually can safely remain there almost indefinitely. It is also true that a residual amount of the spent material needs special handling, but most of that could be used for other commercial purposes if only that were politically feasible.
There is no exhaust from the generating of nuclear power, no carbon emissions, nor any sulfur sludge to be carted away like that caused by the burning of coal. In fact there is no pollution at all except for some non-tainted hot water that is a by-product of the cooling process.
So what are the public fears? The two most pervasive are that the nuclear plants will blow up, and/or that they will melt down. But the first result is physically not possible, and today the second is practically impossible.
I am far from being even knowledgeable about nuclear physics. But all of the information I have seen tells me that a chain reaction resulting in an explosion can only come from “enriched” uranium, which is about 90 percent U-235. But reactor-grade uranium contains only about 3 percent U-235, so there is simply no way that it ever could explode.
Secondly, in all of our history through the years with our more than 100 nuclear reactors, none of them has ever come close to melting down. Yes it is true that Three Mile Island had problems when a valve stuck in the open position. But the security system worked at TMI and the fuel stayed within the reactor vessel. No one was killed, or even injured, although we naturally roped off the area for a time, and it was expensive to clean up the facility. So the “China Syndrome” scenario is really just a Hollywood fable.
Ah, but what about the problems at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union? Well, that certainly did melt down. But Chernobyl did not have a concrete containment structure like all reactors in our country have, and the Soviets used noticeably inferior technology that we have never used.
Much of the rest of the world seems to understand the safety and benefits of generating electricity from nuclear reactors. France turned away from oil-burning electric plants back in the 1980s when it experienced an “oil shock” due to the increase in the price of foreign oil. So when its Civaux nuclear plant comes on line within another year, France will have 56 nuclear plants that will generate about 76 percent of its electricity. This situation already allows France to export electricity to the southeastern parts of England.
Similarly, China is building two new pressurized reactors in Zhejiang Province, which is near Shanghai, that will each generate 1 million kilowatts of electricity by the year 2014. And Japan, even with its history of being the only country to have experienced the horrors of the atomic bomb, began its nuclear generating program in 1966. So now with its more than 50 reactors, Japan generates more than one-third of its electricity from nuclear reactors. Even Egypt currently has plans to build several nuclear electric generating plants.
And what are our viable options other than nuclear? The generation of power from wind-driven turbines is unreliable. For political and environmental reasons we have reduced our reliance upon hydroelectric power from 30 percent in the 1930s to only 10 percent today, and those numbers will probably continue to decline. Natural gas is a possibility because it is clean-burning and large amounts are increasingly being found in places like Russia and the Middle East. And Singapore burns natural gas for 85 percent of its electricity, so why can’t we? Well, we already import 15 percent of our natural gas from Canada, and it is hugely expensive to transport it over water. So our reliance upon natural gas for our future power generating needs is unrealistic.
So why have we lagged behind other countries in this area? Presently the only nuclear power generating facilities in California are south of us in San Onofre and at the Diablo Canyon plant near San Luis Obispo. But one of the two reactors at San Onofre has recently been closed. That reactor could have continued to operate, but politically there was no support for that to occur. And no plans are presently on file for any company to open any additional nuclear generating plants in our state.
We must do better. One of the largest threats to the security of our country is our dependence upon foreign oil. If we could utilize safe and environmentally friendly nuclear power to generate our electricity, that threat would be materially diminished.
So when people look at the facts, they will see that nuclear reactors today are environmentally friendly, less expensive, safer and better designed than ever before. Most of the rest of the world sees those facts, why don’t we?
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
SCHOOL UNIFORMS ARE THE RIGHT CHOICE - by Judge Jim Gray
SCHOOL UNIFORMS ARE THE RIGHT CHOICE - by Judge Jim Gray 04/28/08
Having been raised in the public school system, my first exposure to school uniforms took place when I was a Peace Corps Volunteer teaching in the smallest town in Costa Rica that had a high school.
Some of the students in our school were the children of the “jefes” or bosses of the United Fruit Company, so they could afford more expensive school clothes, but most of them came from quite humble circumstances. But all of our schools required that their students wear uniforms, which consisted of a pair of khaki pants and white shirt for the boys, and a khaki skirt and white blouse for the girls. And that system worked wonderfully.
What were the benefits that I observed? Well, since the uniforms themselves were quite a bit less expensive than the wide array of other clothes that children would normally wear, all families could afford them. Plus students could get by on one or two pairs of clothes instead of much more. This resulted in the “have nots” being able to keep up with the “haves.” In other words, all students looked the same regardless of the income disparities. This also meant that competition in wearing more pricey “designer labels” and other exotic apparel simply disappeared. And the same was true with the more sloppy clothing.
Beyond the issue of cost, school uniforms took a great deal of pressure off the parents and the school administrators. Instead of fighting with the students about what they could not wear, there was a common understanding about what they actually would wear. This naturally reduced a great deal of the pressure on students and adults alike, and brought greater peace both to the home and to the school. An added feature was that it took the students a great deal less time to get dressed in the morning.
Importantly, I also observed the enormous benefit that school uniforms were able to keep the children younger longer. Particularly in today’s world with all of the pressures on our kids to grow up quickly, I think we can all agree that this is clearly a good thing.
For example, I never will forget the time that we had an annual high school dance at my Costa Rican high school. One of the girls present was stunningly dressed in a fairly low-cut top, short skirt and make-up. I wondered who that “looker” could be, until it dawned upon me that this was “little Leda,” one of my wonderful young ninth-grade students. Of course all of the boys were distracted by her, and vied for her attention. So if she had been allowed to wear clothes like that to school, it was clear to me that everyone’s attention level to sex and flirting would have increased dramatically, to the detriment of the entire scholastic atmosphere of the school.
Finally, but critically, most people generally tend to act in keeping with the manner in which they are dressed. If one wears sloppy attire, that person naturally tends to act more casually. But if people are dressed more formally, their actions generally tend to be more controlled and refined. So if students are wearing the uniform of their school, they will be much more likely to behave themselves as representatives of their school. In a similar fashion, they will be “dressed for learning,” and act accordingly. This also has the additional benefit of showing respect for learning, and disrespect for sloppiness.
The same is true for the rest of us. I know I have a definite tendency to act more formally and cautiously when I am wearing my working “uniform,” which is to say my judicial robe. And I venture to say that most other people have the same tendencies. If people are wearing shirts that display the name of their company on them, they are more likely to be careful about their demeanor. The same is true for men who are wearing a coat and tie, or women who are wearing more formal business attire. They tend to be more business-like than people wearing jeans and sweatshirts.
So what are the drawbacks of this program of school uniforms? From my perspective, there really is only one, and that is a limitation upon individual expression. But that is really a small price to pay for the other benefits. In fact, many people believe that this would also be a benefit in itself. The children can “express themselves” all they want to, within parental limits, once they get back home. But while they are in school, they are literally working at the most critical job of their lives, which is to get an education. This is not the time for diverting their attention to who looks more “cool” or sexy. Instead their focus should be on learning, and school uniforms strongly promote that focus.
So why aren’t more schools in our country requiring uniforms for their students? I believe that most of them would like to do so, but are hindered by resistance from the parents, who in many ways seem to be afraid of the wrath of their own children. But there is a difference between being your children’s friends, as opposed to being their parents. Appropriate wearing apparel is not a decision to be made by children; it is to be made by concerned parents.
Accordingly, in my view it is time for parents to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of school uniforms. When they do so, I believe they will decide that the benefits discussed above strongly outweigh the one so-called drawback. And then the parents should assert themselves for a program of school uniforms for the good of the education and future of all of our children.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
WE MUST REGAIN FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY! by Judge Jim Gray
WE MUST REGAIN FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY! by Judge Jim Gray 03/04/08
In my view, the most dangerous threat to our safety and security is not the possibility of being invaded by another country, or even the terrorist actions of any of the world’s radical elements. Instead, the greatest threat facing the safety of our country is a weak national economy.
Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and the Ottoman Empire were really not conquered by external forces. Instead, they overspent themselves to death and spread themselves too thin. That is a major lesson in history, and the Government of the United States of America has not learned that lesson.
For example, the total revenues or tax collections for the federal government in 2007 was about $2,500 billion, but the total expenditures by the federal government were about $3,200 billion. So our government had a budget deficit in this past year alone of $
700 billion!
To that we add the existing national debt of about $10,000 billion, which requires an annual debt service or interest payment of more than $350 billion. That is almost a billion dollars every day we make just in interest payments! At this point, we are making those interest payments both by borrowing the money from other countries, and by printing extra money – which contributes directly to inflation. So now can you see why the value of our dollar is declining?
If this balance sheet were to be applied to any private business, that business would be in bankruptcy. No non-governmental enterprise could possibly survive such red ink. But our government continues to deepen the hole we are i