Quotes from two books I have read just seem to stay with me. One is from Pearl Buck’s “The Three Daughters of Madame Liang,” which says that “Freedom is the only air we artists can breathe, and wherever in the world the air is still free, that is our country.” The second is from Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead,” which is that “You can’t fake reality.”
All people who live their lives well are artists in one form or another, and they use the time they have on this earth to do the best they can with the resources available to them. We can pretend that it is the government or some other benevolent group that best promotes everyone’s welfare, but it really is promoted by the individual artists, in whatever form they take. Some of those artists certainly can be in government, but fundamentally society is better because of the productivity of private and free individuals, and that is a reality that cannot be faked.
Unfortunately, our country and our state have for decades been plunging headlong into a reliance upon government to address and fix most issues, instead of relying upon what has made us great in the first place, which is private property rights, the free-enterprise system and the labor and creativity of our artists.
For example, we have fallen into the mindset that whenever we face yet another problem, we simply should respond by passing another law. Well, we have plenty of laws. In fact we have too many, to the extent that we would be far better off to repeal two existing laws for every new one passed.
For example, we really don’t need to have so-called “hate crime” laws on the books.
Why in concept should an assault upon one person, regardless of that person’s ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, etc. be automatically considered worse than a similar assault upon a person who is not in one of those categories?
Assaults are and should be against the law, and prosecutors and judges will bring charges and punish offenders based upon the seriousness of the offenses, the background of the offenders, and the overall harm done. So although passing these additional laws might make legislators feel like they have done something positive, the laws are not necessary, and could even be seen as demeaning to the victims and everybody else.
Furthermore, California would actually be well advised to follow the Texas’ lead and have our legislature in session only every other year, when it can pass a two-year budget. But otherwise, not only do we not need the legislature to be in session each year, we really can’t even afford it! Remember that government does not create wealth. Instead it only takes wealth away from others, keeps a great deal of it for its own expenses, and then distributes what remains to others.
So most productive people will tend to gravitate toward places that have lower taxes and less government interference, and most non-productive people will tend to gravitate toward places where there are larger hand-outs. Thus California, which has state and local expenditures of about $10,070 per person and is 10th from the highest in overall taxes, has an average of 3,247 more people moving out of the state than moving in every year. And Texas, which has state and local expenditures of $6,858 per person and is 38th from the highest in overall taxes, has an average of 1,544 people moving in state every year. And, of course, it is the productive people who are mostly leaving our state, and the non-productive who are moving in. No surprise there.
So how do we reduce the size of government spending so we can in turn reduce the need for such high taxes?
The first place to look is who we hire in the public sector, and how much we pay them, both in salary and in benefits. I have worked in the public sector for almost all of my professional life as a Navy lawyer, federal prosecutor and a judge, and I fully knew and expected that my salary would not match what I could have earned in the private sector. That is appropriate, and should be expected.
But we have too many people on the public payroll who should not be there at all. Much of the work they do should be done by workers in the private sector, who could provide the same services on low bid contract to the government.
For example, if we put the work done by Caltrans out for private bid, we would not only save money on the particular work itself, but also not be required to pay for the health care, retirement and other benefits these public employees receive. That would save real money to the taxpayer, and without a loss of services!
The same thing is true for other public employees who are mechanics, plumbers, electricians, computer support staff and many other technicians who work for various government agencies.
It is not just the cost of what these employees do that is close to bankrupting our governments, it is paying for their benefits. I know that I risk the wrath of many good and loyal public employees by saying these things, but they are true!
And now I am going to risk the further wrath of many other people by saying that we simply must revisit the holdings of Proposition 13.
Obviously there was a dire need for this measure originally to be passed, due to the mindless, irresponsible and never-ending public spending by government officials. In fact that really cannot be denied. But the reality is that the major beneficiaries of Proposition 13 have been companies that have large landholdings, like the Edison Co. In addition, this measure has truly been inequitable for our children, who are trying to break into first-time home ownership, but face much larger property taxes as they do so.
This fact was brought home to me several years ago when I purchased a double-lot home in north Santa Ana, and ended up paying more than twice the property taxes than my pre-Proposition 13 neighbor and friend who had a triple-lot home.
It is true that people on a fixed income need the security that Proposition 13 has given them, and we also need protections against runaway property taxes, but there must be a way for that security to remain without making the system so thoroughly inequitable for the more recent home buyers.
So help me look for ways to encourage more individualism and implement less government expense and interference in our lives. Your thoughts and insights can really help in this area.
In reality, there are lots of ways we can recapture our strength as a country and our security as free artists, and this strength cannot be obtained by continuing to rely upon bigger government. And we cannot continue successfully to fake these realities forever.
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, November 15, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Exploring new worlds: the Peace Corps - by Judge Jim Gray
Between graduating from college in 1966 and entering law school in 1968, I served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Costa Rica.
Many times since my return, people have told me that they always had wanted to be in the Peace Corps.
My response almost always has been, well it was a great experience, and it’s not too late for you to do it now.
But invariable the people then come up with some sort of explanation as to why they can’t do it, at least not now.
Well, in 2011, the Peace Corps will be celebrating its 50th birthday, and it is continuing to do good work. In fact, according to its website, the number of applicants grew by 18% more than a year ago, although I recognize that the economy might have had something to do with it.
The mission statement is in three parts: 1) Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women; 2) Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the people served; and 3) Helping promote a better understanding of other people on the part of Americans.
Obviously, the Peace Corps is certainly not for everyone. In fact, if you even have to ask why someone would want to be involved in such a thing “for two whole years,” you probably would never understand. People either have an intuitive understanding about what it is to be a volunteer, or they don’t.
When I went to Costa Rica, I requested the smallest town in the country that had a high school, and they gave it to me.
The reason was in part that it was completely inconsistent with my vision of a Peace Corps experience to take a bus to work, like some of my colleagues did in the capital city.
My town of Palmar Norte was on the Inter-American Highway, about half way from the point south of the capital city of San Jose where the paving on the highway ended, and the Panamanian border, where it resumed.
It is amazing to me that Costa Rica is now a tourist destination, because when I was there people were mostly ignorant of even where it was — often confusing it with Puerto Rico.
But I was a “profesor de educación física” in the high school, and I also taught physical education in the local elementary schools, as well as general health and community recreation in my extended community.
In fact, I probably still hold the world’s record for brushing my teeth in front of more elementary school classes than anyone else in history.
My biggest tangible success sometimes seemed to be teaching some of the elementary school students to take turns while “up at bat” in our kickball games, because mostly everyone was first in line, all of the time.
But actually, my most general success probably was being able to show the people in my small community that North Americans could work hard at a project, perspire and get dirty.
Clearly my biggest failure was my inability to establish the practice with most families of boiling their drinking water.
When I was there, Costa Rica was believed by many actually to lead the world in birth rates per capita. Nevertheless, their population generally was not expending because of the high infant mortality rate.
And the reason for that mostly was the parasites in their drinking water.
Thus, it was not unusual for me to see a funeral service for an infant in an open casket, in which the mother or someone else had to brush aside the worms that were crawling out of the mouth and nose of the deceased child (I am sorry if this offends, but it’s true — and I grieve about it).
I also tried to spread information about natural birth control to the adults in my town by handing out literature, and encouraging the female home economics teacher in our high school to help me with the discussions.
But that was right at the time that the Papal Encyclical was issued that forbid Catholics even from discussing this subject.
So after this was issued, Padre Samuel Stewart, who was our community’s Catholic priest and a friend of mine, told me that if I didn’t stop, he would take the pulpit against me. What could a Peace Corps volunteer do against a force like that? So I stopped.
By the time my two-year term was completed, I think I was able to make a contribution in keeping with the mission statement.
I helped our Peace Corps group teach a clinic in San Jose that was able to pass along some needed skills and approaches to virtually all of the physical education professors in the country; I led some of my students into various careers that they might not otherwise have pursued; and I became friends and colleagues to quite a few Costa Ricans, with whom I communicated for decades.
For my part, I believe that I learned more from the Costa Ricans than they did from me.
And I also learned to speak a second language, such that years later as a judge I was able to try some of my small claims court cases in Spanish.
And you should have seen the eyes of some of the litigants grow large when this gringo started talking Spanish.
Since the Peace Corps began, about 195,000 volunteers have served in 139 host countries.
But over time the Peace Corps has changed substantially. When I was involved, there was a virtual prohibition against a volunteer being married, and if those who were married ever were expecting children, they were sent home immediately. In addition, most of the volunteers were like me: recent college liberal arts graduates who had lots of idealism, but few skills.
And most of our assignments were either to teach English, or to be involved in “community development.”
So look at it this way: Most of us were young, without real practical skills, not adept in the local language or really understanding the local culture or history, and were being sent down to other people’s countries to help them “develop their communities.” So all of this was a bit arrogant of us back then, if you think of it in that context.
Fortunately, many of those things have changed over time, because more older and wiser volunteers are being recruited, and are serving. And these are people who not only have more life skills, but they also can pass along much of their practical experience, maturity, and demonstrated abilities to the locals.
So if you are one of those people who have frequently thought to yourself that you would like to join the Peace Corps, or a similar domestic program like Teach for America, give some serious thought about doing it now. And if you are married or even if you have children, so much the better.
From my own personal experience, I can tell you that it is one of the most gratifying experiences that you could ever have.
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 .
Many times since my return, people have told me that they always had wanted to be in the Peace Corps.
My response almost always has been, well it was a great experience, and it’s not too late for you to do it now.
But invariable the people then come up with some sort of explanation as to why they can’t do it, at least not now.
Well, in 2011, the Peace Corps will be celebrating its 50th birthday, and it is continuing to do good work. In fact, according to its website, the number of applicants grew by 18% more than a year ago, although I recognize that the economy might have had something to do with it.
The mission statement is in three parts: 1) Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women; 2) Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the people served; and 3) Helping promote a better understanding of other people on the part of Americans.
Obviously, the Peace Corps is certainly not for everyone. In fact, if you even have to ask why someone would want to be involved in such a thing “for two whole years,” you probably would never understand. People either have an intuitive understanding about what it is to be a volunteer, or they don’t.
When I went to Costa Rica, I requested the smallest town in the country that had a high school, and they gave it to me.
The reason was in part that it was completely inconsistent with my vision of a Peace Corps experience to take a bus to work, like some of my colleagues did in the capital city.
My town of Palmar Norte was on the Inter-American Highway, about half way from the point south of the capital city of San Jose where the paving on the highway ended, and the Panamanian border, where it resumed.
It is amazing to me that Costa Rica is now a tourist destination, because when I was there people were mostly ignorant of even where it was — often confusing it with Puerto Rico.
But I was a “profesor de educación física” in the high school, and I also taught physical education in the local elementary schools, as well as general health and community recreation in my extended community.
In fact, I probably still hold the world’s record for brushing my teeth in front of more elementary school classes than anyone else in history.
My biggest tangible success sometimes seemed to be teaching some of the elementary school students to take turns while “up at bat” in our kickball games, because mostly everyone was first in line, all of the time.
But actually, my most general success probably was being able to show the people in my small community that North Americans could work hard at a project, perspire and get dirty.
Clearly my biggest failure was my inability to establish the practice with most families of boiling their drinking water.
When I was there, Costa Rica was believed by many actually to lead the world in birth rates per capita. Nevertheless, their population generally was not expending because of the high infant mortality rate.
And the reason for that mostly was the parasites in their drinking water.
Thus, it was not unusual for me to see a funeral service for an infant in an open casket, in which the mother or someone else had to brush aside the worms that were crawling out of the mouth and nose of the deceased child (I am sorry if this offends, but it’s true — and I grieve about it).
I also tried to spread information about natural birth control to the adults in my town by handing out literature, and encouraging the female home economics teacher in our high school to help me with the discussions.
But that was right at the time that the Papal Encyclical was issued that forbid Catholics even from discussing this subject.
So after this was issued, Padre Samuel Stewart, who was our community’s Catholic priest and a friend of mine, told me that if I didn’t stop, he would take the pulpit against me. What could a Peace Corps volunteer do against a force like that? So I stopped.
By the time my two-year term was completed, I think I was able to make a contribution in keeping with the mission statement.
I helped our Peace Corps group teach a clinic in San Jose that was able to pass along some needed skills and approaches to virtually all of the physical education professors in the country; I led some of my students into various careers that they might not otherwise have pursued; and I became friends and colleagues to quite a few Costa Ricans, with whom I communicated for decades.
For my part, I believe that I learned more from the Costa Ricans than they did from me.
And I also learned to speak a second language, such that years later as a judge I was able to try some of my small claims court cases in Spanish.
And you should have seen the eyes of some of the litigants grow large when this gringo started talking Spanish.
Since the Peace Corps began, about 195,000 volunteers have served in 139 host countries.
But over time the Peace Corps has changed substantially. When I was involved, there was a virtual prohibition against a volunteer being married, and if those who were married ever were expecting children, they were sent home immediately. In addition, most of the volunteers were like me: recent college liberal arts graduates who had lots of idealism, but few skills.
And most of our assignments were either to teach English, or to be involved in “community development.”
So look at it this way: Most of us were young, without real practical skills, not adept in the local language or really understanding the local culture or history, and were being sent down to other people’s countries to help them “develop their communities.” So all of this was a bit arrogant of us back then, if you think of it in that context.
Fortunately, many of those things have changed over time, because more older and wiser volunteers are being recruited, and are serving. And these are people who not only have more life skills, but they also can pass along much of their practical experience, maturity, and demonstrated abilities to the locals.
So if you are one of those people who have frequently thought to yourself that you would like to join the Peace Corps, or a similar domestic program like Teach for America, give some serious thought about doing it now. And if you are married or even if you have children, so much the better.
From my own personal experience, I can tell you that it is one of the most gratifying experiences that you could ever have.
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, October 25, 2009
The conscience of a Libertarian - by Judge Jim Gray
OK, I know that generalizations usually don’t work. But I will generalize here and pose that the definition of a Republican is a person who wants more government in our private lives, and a Democrat is one who wants more government in the marketplace.
On the other hand, libertarians mostly want less government in both places.
In that regard, numbers of times after I became a libertarian in 2003 I heard many people from all different political persuasions tell me that they too in many ways believe they also are libertarians. And you know something? They are probably correct.
What is the real definition of a libertarian? Mostly it is defined as a person who believes in maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
Simply stated, a libertarian has a belief in liberty. Thus, all adults should own their lives and property, and have the right to make their own choices as to how they live their lives, as long as they respect the same right of other people.
To say that libertarians do not believe in government is flat-out wrong.
This is shown by the most libertarian document ever created, which is the United States Constitution.
This brilliant blueprint basically states that the legitimate goal of government in a free society is to serve us in three important areas.
The first is to provide military protection against foreign enemies, and police protection against domestic criminals.
The second is to set up a system of courts that will punish criminals, protect people’s rights and enforce contracts. And the third is to set up a system of equality so that, as much as humanly possible, everyone will have the same rights to pursue their own happiness.
But mostly other than that, the Constitution expressly reserves all other powers to the states, or to the people themselves.
In other words, as Dr. Kenneth Bisson was quoted as saying: “Libertarianism is what your mom taught you: behave yourself and don’t hit your sister.” Thus, libertarians strongly support individual civil liberties, social tolerance, private property, and the positive powers of a free market, which in turn means that libertarians bring to life the philosophy of “live and let live.”
To delve into this matter more personally, visit the website of the Advocates for Self-Government at www.theadvocates.org, and take the offered “World’s Smallest Political Quiz.” This will help you to see where your political philosophy fits by giving you 10 questions to answer. The first five deal with issues of personal liberty, and the second five with economic liberty.
My results showed me to have a 90% libertarian rating for personal issues, and an 80% rating on economic issues. Obviously it is not all-inclusive, because it does not address such important matters as racial issues and foreign policy.
But try it anyway, because I think you will find the results to be informative and thought-provoking.
Then in further contemplating where your political philosophy lies, please consider the following additional points. If you look at the Constitution, you will not find any authority for the federal government to do things like subsidizing farms, bailing out banks, running or even setting forth the parameters of a health-care system, managing automobile companies, or determining whether business executives are receiving too much income.
That is as it should be, because it is transparently clear that bureaucrats do not make good businesspeople. To nail down that conclusion, simply look at the experience of the Soviet Union. But that is what the government is increasingly doing in our country today, to the degree that the government established by the founding fathers in the Constitution has virtually disappeared.
Instead of the expansion of government, it is the expansion of liberty that has brought people to our land from the earliest times in our history. And this desire for liberty has been ratified, because it is our adherence to the principle of limited government that has made our country both great and prosperous. And it will not let us down in the future either.
So most of the answers to today’s problems actually lie in turning away from the government’s taking charge of our lives. To the contrary, the real answer lies in liberty, property rights, individual accountability and the free enterprise system, tempered by appropriate government regulation and oversight.
Adam Smith was right when he said in his book “The Wealth of Nations” that it is demonstrably true that the social good is best served by pursuing private interests. People act in their own economic self-interest by working to produce goods and services that others will want to buy and use. It just so happens that by doing that work, many other people receive benefits as well.
Besides, don’t fool yourself, people in government act in their own political self-interest, because that will allow them to obtain and stay in office.
So, as Milton Friedman asked, how can you believe that one person’s political self-interest will somehow be more noble than another person’s economic self-interest?
That is briefly and generally what libertarians believe, and it describes the conscience of a libertarian.
Give these matters some thought, and if you agree with these principles, seize the opportunities available to you to help us put more of them into practice!
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 .
On the other hand, libertarians mostly want less government in both places.
In that regard, numbers of times after I became a libertarian in 2003 I heard many people from all different political persuasions tell me that they too in many ways believe they also are libertarians. And you know something? They are probably correct.
What is the real definition of a libertarian? Mostly it is defined as a person who believes in maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
Simply stated, a libertarian has a belief in liberty. Thus, all adults should own their lives and property, and have the right to make their own choices as to how they live their lives, as long as they respect the same right of other people.
To say that libertarians do not believe in government is flat-out wrong.
This is shown by the most libertarian document ever created, which is the United States Constitution.
This brilliant blueprint basically states that the legitimate goal of government in a free society is to serve us in three important areas.
The first is to provide military protection against foreign enemies, and police protection against domestic criminals.
The second is to set up a system of courts that will punish criminals, protect people’s rights and enforce contracts. And the third is to set up a system of equality so that, as much as humanly possible, everyone will have the same rights to pursue their own happiness.
But mostly other than that, the Constitution expressly reserves all other powers to the states, or to the people themselves.
In other words, as Dr. Kenneth Bisson was quoted as saying: “Libertarianism is what your mom taught you: behave yourself and don’t hit your sister.” Thus, libertarians strongly support individual civil liberties, social tolerance, private property, and the positive powers of a free market, which in turn means that libertarians bring to life the philosophy of “live and let live.”
To delve into this matter more personally, visit the website of the Advocates for Self-Government at www.theadvocates.org, and take the offered “World’s Smallest Political Quiz.” This will help you to see where your political philosophy fits by giving you 10 questions to answer. The first five deal with issues of personal liberty, and the second five with economic liberty.
My results showed me to have a 90% libertarian rating for personal issues, and an 80% rating on economic issues. Obviously it is not all-inclusive, because it does not address such important matters as racial issues and foreign policy.
But try it anyway, because I think you will find the results to be informative and thought-provoking.
Then in further contemplating where your political philosophy lies, please consider the following additional points. If you look at the Constitution, you will not find any authority for the federal government to do things like subsidizing farms, bailing out banks, running or even setting forth the parameters of a health-care system, managing automobile companies, or determining whether business executives are receiving too much income.
That is as it should be, because it is transparently clear that bureaucrats do not make good businesspeople. To nail down that conclusion, simply look at the experience of the Soviet Union. But that is what the government is increasingly doing in our country today, to the degree that the government established by the founding fathers in the Constitution has virtually disappeared.
Instead of the expansion of government, it is the expansion of liberty that has brought people to our land from the earliest times in our history. And this desire for liberty has been ratified, because it is our adherence to the principle of limited government that has made our country both great and prosperous. And it will not let us down in the future either.
So most of the answers to today’s problems actually lie in turning away from the government’s taking charge of our lives. To the contrary, the real answer lies in liberty, property rights, individual accountability and the free enterprise system, tempered by appropriate government regulation and oversight.
Adam Smith was right when he said in his book “The Wealth of Nations” that it is demonstrably true that the social good is best served by pursuing private interests. People act in their own economic self-interest by working to produce goods and services that others will want to buy and use. It just so happens that by doing that work, many other people receive benefits as well.
Besides, don’t fool yourself, people in government act in their own political self-interest, because that will allow them to obtain and stay in office.
So, as Milton Friedman asked, how can you believe that one person’s political self-interest will somehow be more noble than another person’s economic self-interest?
That is briefly and generally what libertarians believe, and it describes the conscience of a libertarian.
Give these matters some thought, and if you agree with these principles, seize the opportunities available to you to help us put more of them into practice!
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, October 19, 2009
Exploring new worlds: seahorses - by Judge Jim Gray
Before we went on our recent trip to the big island of Hawaii, a real estate broker I have been dealing with strongly suggested we visit Ocean Riders Seahorse Farm on the Kona coast.
This is a place that raises seahorses and sea dragons, educates the public about them, and sells them to people for their aquariums. We took her advice, and it was really worth the effort.
As you know, seahorses have a head like a horse, a tail like a monkey, and a pouch like a kangaroo, so they have developed a certain mythical quality. But they actually are real, although I confess that I didn’t know much about them until our visit.
Sea dragons have a similar makeup, but it looks like they have seaweed or kelp growing out of many parts of their bodies.
The female deposits her eggs into the brood pouch of the male, and then, after a one-month period of gestation, the male gives birth to the offspring – and there can be up to 1,800 in one delivery!
Then about two minutes after that, the female again inserts her eggs. As a result, the adult male is not pregnant for a total of only two minutes every month. (Many women in our world probably fantasize about a situation like this, but the seahorses actually live it.)
Seahorses use their prehensile tails to hook onto underwater vegetation, as well as onto each other, and they have protective bony plates in their skin, and a tube-like mouth for sucking in crustaceans.
And many seahorses actually have character! Just like dolphins, they seem to have fun. For example, they wrap their tales around each other and “dance.” To watch them do this is really endearing.
And they don’t mind being touched, to the extent that if you tickle the tip of one’s tail, it will often wrap its tail around your finger.
In fact, the workers at the farm actually have names for some of the seahorses they have grown most fond of. And at the end of our tour, after carefully washing our hands, we were treated to having some of their favorites wrap their tails around our fingers.
Because these are such cute and interesting creatures, there is a big financial incentive that drives many people to capture them in the wild and sell them. But what these people do not know is that it is natural for seahorses to be monogamous, and they usually have only one mate for life. So if one is captured from the ocean, it will almost always pine away for its mate, to the degree that it soon stops eating.
This means it will almost always be dead within four to six weeks, and the same fate also will befall its mate left in the wild.
So due to the unregulated capturing of seahorses for aquariums, as well as to be dried up into souvenirs and to be ground up and used as supposed medicines in many Asian cultures, about 20 million of them are taken from the oceans each year. This, added to problems of habitat destruction, ocean pollution, and such practices as dynamiting the ocean to gather fish, has resulted in seahorses becoming endangered.
So where there used to be thousands close to our shores, now finding even one in the oceans around our country is rare. And the seahorse population in places like the Philippines has fallen by about 70% in the last 10 years.
Ocean Riders is the only seahorse and sea dragon farm in the United States. It raises them from birth, gathers food for them, and sells them to individuals throughout the country, except in Hawaii.
They also have several programs and tours that teach people about these interesting creatures. And teach us they did.
The farm-raised seahorses and sea dragons have a survival rate up to adulthood of up to 80%, while the rate in the wild is only about 0.1%. And if treated well in aquariums, these amazing creatures can live up to eight years.
They range in size from less than an inch to more than a foot long, depending upon the species.
Regarding seahorses and sea dragons for aquariums, the personnel at the farm have trained the ones they grow and sell not to be monogamous. They did it by increasing the numbers of the seahorses in a small space, which resulted in several of them wrapping their tales around each other and dancing at the same time. That way once they are sold they are much more likely to be able to survive on their own. In the wild, seahorses eat only live brine shrimp and crustaceans, but the farm-raised ones have been trained to eat food that has been dried. So because they are some of the rare life forms that do not have any stomachs, and also because they are not able to chew, that makes their conversion to eat dried food even more important.
All of these efforts are directed to reducing the threat to the continued existence of seahorses and sea dragons in the wild.
By raising them domestically and selling them for a reasonable price, the staff hopes to reduce the business for those people who capture the seahorses in the wild and sell them for aquariums.
The staff also gets involved in legislation to stop the decimation of the wild seahorse population in the oceans of the world, and in encouraging people to be better stewards of our world’s oceans.
If you are interested in learning more about this great work of saving seahorses and sea dragons from extinction through research, propagation, education and ocean conservation, or even if you would like to schedule your own tour of their facility, Ocean Rider can be contacted at (808) 443-6462, or through www.SeahorseHawaii.com. But whatever contact you have with this fine organization, I think 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, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
This is a place that raises seahorses and sea dragons, educates the public about them, and sells them to people for their aquariums. We took her advice, and it was really worth the effort.
As you know, seahorses have a head like a horse, a tail like a monkey, and a pouch like a kangaroo, so they have developed a certain mythical quality. But they actually are real, although I confess that I didn’t know much about them until our visit.
Sea dragons have a similar makeup, but it looks like they have seaweed or kelp growing out of many parts of their bodies.
The female deposits her eggs into the brood pouch of the male, and then, after a one-month period of gestation, the male gives birth to the offspring – and there can be up to 1,800 in one delivery!
Then about two minutes after that, the female again inserts her eggs. As a result, the adult male is not pregnant for a total of only two minutes every month. (Many women in our world probably fantasize about a situation like this, but the seahorses actually live it.)
Seahorses use their prehensile tails to hook onto underwater vegetation, as well as onto each other, and they have protective bony plates in their skin, and a tube-like mouth for sucking in crustaceans.
And many seahorses actually have character! Just like dolphins, they seem to have fun. For example, they wrap their tales around each other and “dance.” To watch them do this is really endearing.
And they don’t mind being touched, to the extent that if you tickle the tip of one’s tail, it will often wrap its tail around your finger.
In fact, the workers at the farm actually have names for some of the seahorses they have grown most fond of. And at the end of our tour, after carefully washing our hands, we were treated to having some of their favorites wrap their tails around our fingers.
Because these are such cute and interesting creatures, there is a big financial incentive that drives many people to capture them in the wild and sell them. But what these people do not know is that it is natural for seahorses to be monogamous, and they usually have only one mate for life. So if one is captured from the ocean, it will almost always pine away for its mate, to the degree that it soon stops eating.
This means it will almost always be dead within four to six weeks, and the same fate also will befall its mate left in the wild.
So due to the unregulated capturing of seahorses for aquariums, as well as to be dried up into souvenirs and to be ground up and used as supposed medicines in many Asian cultures, about 20 million of them are taken from the oceans each year. This, added to problems of habitat destruction, ocean pollution, and such practices as dynamiting the ocean to gather fish, has resulted in seahorses becoming endangered.
So where there used to be thousands close to our shores, now finding even one in the oceans around our country is rare. And the seahorse population in places like the Philippines has fallen by about 70% in the last 10 years.
Ocean Riders is the only seahorse and sea dragon farm in the United States. It raises them from birth, gathers food for them, and sells them to individuals throughout the country, except in Hawaii.
They also have several programs and tours that teach people about these interesting creatures. And teach us they did.
The farm-raised seahorses and sea dragons have a survival rate up to adulthood of up to 80%, while the rate in the wild is only about 0.1%. And if treated well in aquariums, these amazing creatures can live up to eight years.
They range in size from less than an inch to more than a foot long, depending upon the species.
Regarding seahorses and sea dragons for aquariums, the personnel at the farm have trained the ones they grow and sell not to be monogamous. They did it by increasing the numbers of the seahorses in a small space, which resulted in several of them wrapping their tales around each other and dancing at the same time. That way once they are sold they are much more likely to be able to survive on their own. In the wild, seahorses eat only live brine shrimp and crustaceans, but the farm-raised ones have been trained to eat food that has been dried. So because they are some of the rare life forms that do not have any stomachs, and also because they are not able to chew, that makes their conversion to eat dried food even more important.
All of these efforts are directed to reducing the threat to the continued existence of seahorses and sea dragons in the wild.
By raising them domestically and selling them for a reasonable price, the staff hopes to reduce the business for those people who capture the seahorses in the wild and sell them for aquariums.
The staff also gets involved in legislation to stop the decimation of the wild seahorse population in the oceans of the world, and in encouraging people to be better stewards of our world’s oceans.
If you are interested in learning more about this great work of saving seahorses and sea dragons from extinction through research, propagation, education and ocean conservation, or even if you would like to schedule your own tour of their facility, Ocean Rider can be contacted at (808) 443-6462, or through www.SeahorseHawaii.com. But whatever contact you have with this fine organization, I think 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, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Think about our everyday language - by Judge Jim Gray
We couldn't function in the everyday world without habits, which are basically actions taken without our conscious thought.
One example is walking. We thought about this act when we were toddlers, but almost all of us really can “walk and chew gum,” which frees our minds to do other things at the same time.
We also naturally fall into similar habits with our everyday language.
For example, one person when greeting another in today's world almost by rote says: “How are you?” to which the answer almost always is “fine.”
All of this is expected, and if the response were to be “Well, my gall bladder has really been acting up,” that response would be seen as weird.
Nevertheless, our language habits can frequently affect our perspectives, and even our attitudes about life.
So think about our normal responses, and if someone asks you how you are, tell them “Great!” If you are great, or wonderful, or terrific, and you probably are because almost all of us are truly blessed beyond belief, why not say so!
Just compare your life with all of those all around the world who have been on this planet before you. Among other things, this will help you to be more appreciative of your good health and opportunities, and will also help you to enjoy the comparatively great life you lead.
Furthermore, it will probably have a similar effect upon other people as well.
Over the years when I went to work at the courthouse after a nice weekend, I would often see some people in the elevator and ask them how they were doing, to which they would often say “Well, OK for a Monday.”
When that happened, almost unfailingly I would respond, “Well, you live one-seventh of your life on a Monday, so you might as well enjoy it.” I acknowledge that I received some strange looks on occasion, but I think it is important for us to focus on things like that.
There are other language habits we fall into.
For example, if someone gives you a compliment about some clothes you are wearing, many people get uncomfortable, and respond by saying things like “Oh, I have had this sweater for years,” or “It's not really that special.”
Nonsense! As long as the compliment is genuine, simply respond by saying “Thank you!” Any other response actually demeans the person who gave you the compliment, and lets a nice human opportunity go to waste.
And on that subject, we should be more open to giving compliments to others. Again, as long as they are genuine.
For example, whether you know the people or not, try telling parents at a restaurant what well behaved or attractive children they have. Or telling people what a nice smile they have, or saying things like “You look like a really nice person,” or even when someone you don’t know answers the telephone pleasantly, compliment them on the cheerful way in which it was done.
All of these comments don’t cost you anything, but they will bring a little happiness to people around you, and undoubtedly to yourself as well. It makes the world a better place for everybody.
Today's society has tended to make all of us lead less personal lives.
In the world of garage door openers, where we close out the world behind us without having to leave our cars, or where we are fearful that giving someone a hug, regardless of their gender or age, might get us ostracized, or even get us sued or prosecuted, we have too often stopped taking even small risks of having genuine human interaction for fear of giving offense.
In fact, while on the subject, it really is OK to wish someone a “Merry Christmas” instead of the general but politically correct “Happy Holidays.” Or if you are still concerned, try wishing people a “Happy Spirit of Christmas.”
Finally, many of us, particularly men, have fallen into the trap of failing to confide our hurts, fears and pains with even our best friends.
Remember, friends can't help us with our problems or adversities of life if they don’t know about them.
Obviously you will want to pick the time and pick the right friend. But good friends want to know, want to listen, and want to help.
In fact, this is true to the extent that they will likely hold it against you, or even question your friendship, if you don't confide in them about a serious problem.
Consequently, we should always bear in mind that we are on this planet for only a short time, and during that time we are not alone.
So open up, focus on your language habits and also upon your attitude in your everyday life, and then recognize and share more of your blessed life with others.
Why? Because your attitude about your life, and the way you think about it, will materially affect how your life is spent, and this in turn will also affect the lives of those around you.
Finally, one of Reach’s Rules is to “Give the world the best you have, and the best will come back to you!”
If you want to find a creed by which to live your life, I suggest that this is the one.
All of us are truly blessed, and we should recognize it and share that fact openly at all opportunities with others. And this in turn will lead you to use the phrase that I use all the time, which is that “Life is Good!” Why do I use that phrase? Because it is true.
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 .
One example is walking. We thought about this act when we were toddlers, but almost all of us really can “walk and chew gum,” which frees our minds to do other things at the same time.
We also naturally fall into similar habits with our everyday language.
For example, one person when greeting another in today's world almost by rote says: “How are you?” to which the answer almost always is “fine.”
All of this is expected, and if the response were to be “Well, my gall bladder has really been acting up,” that response would be seen as weird.
Nevertheless, our language habits can frequently affect our perspectives, and even our attitudes about life.
So think about our normal responses, and if someone asks you how you are, tell them “Great!” If you are great, or wonderful, or terrific, and you probably are because almost all of us are truly blessed beyond belief, why not say so!
Just compare your life with all of those all around the world who have been on this planet before you. Among other things, this will help you to be more appreciative of your good health and opportunities, and will also help you to enjoy the comparatively great life you lead.
Furthermore, it will probably have a similar effect upon other people as well.
Over the years when I went to work at the courthouse after a nice weekend, I would often see some people in the elevator and ask them how they were doing, to which they would often say “Well, OK for a Monday.”
When that happened, almost unfailingly I would respond, “Well, you live one-seventh of your life on a Monday, so you might as well enjoy it.” I acknowledge that I received some strange looks on occasion, but I think it is important for us to focus on things like that.
There are other language habits we fall into.
For example, if someone gives you a compliment about some clothes you are wearing, many people get uncomfortable, and respond by saying things like “Oh, I have had this sweater for years,” or “It's not really that special.”
Nonsense! As long as the compliment is genuine, simply respond by saying “Thank you!” Any other response actually demeans the person who gave you the compliment, and lets a nice human opportunity go to waste.
And on that subject, we should be more open to giving compliments to others. Again, as long as they are genuine.
For example, whether you know the people or not, try telling parents at a restaurant what well behaved or attractive children they have. Or telling people what a nice smile they have, or saying things like “You look like a really nice person,” or even when someone you don’t know answers the telephone pleasantly, compliment them on the cheerful way in which it was done.
All of these comments don’t cost you anything, but they will bring a little happiness to people around you, and undoubtedly to yourself as well. It makes the world a better place for everybody.
Today's society has tended to make all of us lead less personal lives.
In the world of garage door openers, where we close out the world behind us without having to leave our cars, or where we are fearful that giving someone a hug, regardless of their gender or age, might get us ostracized, or even get us sued or prosecuted, we have too often stopped taking even small risks of having genuine human interaction for fear of giving offense.
In fact, while on the subject, it really is OK to wish someone a “Merry Christmas” instead of the general but politically correct “Happy Holidays.” Or if you are still concerned, try wishing people a “Happy Spirit of Christmas.”
Finally, many of us, particularly men, have fallen into the trap of failing to confide our hurts, fears and pains with even our best friends.
Remember, friends can't help us with our problems or adversities of life if they don’t know about them.
Obviously you will want to pick the time and pick the right friend. But good friends want to know, want to listen, and want to help.
In fact, this is true to the extent that they will likely hold it against you, or even question your friendship, if you don't confide in them about a serious problem.
Consequently, we should always bear in mind that we are on this planet for only a short time, and during that time we are not alone.
So open up, focus on your language habits and also upon your attitude in your everyday life, and then recognize and share more of your blessed life with others.
Why? Because your attitude about your life, and the way you think about it, will materially affect how your life is spent, and this in turn will also affect the lives of those around you.
Finally, one of Reach’s Rules is to “Give the world the best you have, and the best will come back to you!”
If you want to find a creed by which to live your life, I suggest that this is the one.
All of us are truly blessed, and we should recognize it and share that fact openly at all opportunities with others. And this in turn will lead you to use the phrase that I use all the time, which is that “Life is Good!” Why do I use that phrase? Because it is true.
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, October 4, 2009
The wonderful world of grandparenting - By Judge Jim Gray
When I was a judge on the mental health calendar, one of my happiest collateral duties was to officiate over three adoptions almost every morning, and I tried to make them the truly special occasions that they were.
So, among other things, if there were grandparents in attendance, I had them raise their hands and be sworn, right along with the parents, saying that they had duties to perform as well. Then after complying with the law and having the parents swear to support the children and treat them just as if they were their natural birth children, I also figuratively had the grandparents swear that they would spoil the grandchildren. And I never had a complaint. (For example, of course, the child can have a chocolate chip cookie before dinner, etc.)
Being a grandparent is a wonderful thing. Yes, when the children are messy or misbehaving, they can mostly be returned to the parents, and that can be nice. But much more importantly, the relationship between children and grandparents is truly special.
In fact, grandparents can play a unique role, providing unconditional love, helping to make children aware of their roots, providing values to grow from, cultivating a respect for age and wisdom, providing important role models, and inserting another important person in their lives that children would not want to disappoint with bad behavior.
As a result, grandparents can be important mentors, confidants, elder statesmen, playmates and friends. And because we grew up in a more patient time, when you dialed a telephone number and had to wait for the dial to return back to its resting place, we can bring more of that sense of peace to the children. Of course, grandparents must remember not to contradict the parents, and (mostly) to follow the parents’ rules. But otherwise, the sky is the limit.
So I offer some suggestions about how to make this opportunity the best it can be. And please don’t be bashful in sharing some of your own suggestions on the subject with the rest of us at dailypilot.com. That way we all can better take advantage of this wonderful opportunity!
Naturally, the first recommendation is to do things with your grandchildren — almost anything. The zoo, the beach, the park, shopping, a baseball game, the county fair and so much more. In fact, I have always anticipated that the best way of going to Disneyland would be to take my grandchildren and simply sit back and watch them enjoy the experience. What a contemplation! And sometimes you will want to take just one of your grandchildren alone. It is really fun to be able to have a concentrated experience with just one at a time.
Actually, reading to and with them can be just as much fun and a bonding experience as an excursion. You can share adventures together, laugh at silliness, pull for heroes, and scoff at villains. Then after you have finished, you can have great discussions about the stories you read, and how they might feel or act had they been one of the characters.
My favorites are reading Frank Baum’s “The Wizard of Oz” books to them, or reading Dr. Seuss’ “Fox in Sox” with them. Doing this will make long-term and wonderful memories — you can count on it. And along the way you will be exposing these youngsters to a truly joyous and mind-expanding world. (And seriously improving their eventual SAT scores by helping them to develop their language skills and reading comprehension!)
You can also help to create some other truly fun and teachable moments with your grandchildren, virtually all of whom have brains like sponges. For example, borrow a practice used by Newsweek and inspired from Smith Magazine’s Six-Word Memoir Project, by choosing a topic of interest to them and then having them describe their thoughts about it in only six words.
But be sure to give them extra time to think about and refine their selection of words. It can be highly instructive, enable them to show their own particular creativity, and also be lots of fun. This also has the benefit of being able to be done when traveling in a car, or virtually anywhere else.
Another fun and instructive thing to do is to have them find something useful in the home that we take for granted, and write a few paragraphs about how that thing works.
For example, you might have them inspect a toilet, and then write about how it works. Then they can first read what they have written out loud, but in the same boring way that most children read. Then have them read it again, but this time with real and even exaggerated feeling. One approach is to tell them to act as if they know something that will really interest or help their listeners, and be anxious to pass it along to them. You will see that not only the kids will have lots of fun with these projects, but they will learn a lot from them as well.
Similarly, you can play a DVD movie or sitcom for them, or read a play or short story together, and then stop about two-thirds of the way through it and ask them to create their own ending for the story.
Then sit back and watch their creativity blossom. After this has been done, you can all watch or read the actual ending to the story and discuss which ending is better. Most times, of course, you will state — to the grandchildren’s eternal delight — that their endings are better.
Furthermore, in having your grandchildren participate in all of these activities, you will also be giving them the gift of speaking and expressing themselves in public. The more they do it, the smoother and more comfortable they will be — then and for the rest of their lives. And if you give small prizes for the most creative, enthusiastic, realistic, etc. (being sure to spread the prizes around to each of the participants), you will stimulate them to even greater heights.
When I composed my high school musical entitled “Americans All,” I involved the students in doing things like this, and called it “Project Project.” In other words, each student was to try to develop the reputation that, for example, if people knew that Linda would be doing a particular project, they would know that it would be done right, whether it was drawing a picture, taking someone on a tour of their school, or reading a story out loud. In other words, they would “eschew mediocrity,” and instead always pursue excellence. Other than the children’s parents, grandparents are in the best position to promote this concept.
As I am sure you have seen yourself, children do not grow up in reverse. Once your children have grown and gone, they can become your friends — in fact your really good friends, with natural common bonds and experiences.
But now that they are grown, and you are more experienced, and you have more resources, wisdom, and time, you could be blessed to get to do it all over again in being a grandparent. So don’t let this golden opportunity slip by. Because at this point in our lives, being a grandparent really can be what “the good life” is all about!
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, among other things, if there were grandparents in attendance, I had them raise their hands and be sworn, right along with the parents, saying that they had duties to perform as well. Then after complying with the law and having the parents swear to support the children and treat them just as if they were their natural birth children, I also figuratively had the grandparents swear that they would spoil the grandchildren. And I never had a complaint. (For example, of course, the child can have a chocolate chip cookie before dinner, etc.)
Being a grandparent is a wonderful thing. Yes, when the children are messy or misbehaving, they can mostly be returned to the parents, and that can be nice. But much more importantly, the relationship between children and grandparents is truly special.
In fact, grandparents can play a unique role, providing unconditional love, helping to make children aware of their roots, providing values to grow from, cultivating a respect for age and wisdom, providing important role models, and inserting another important person in their lives that children would not want to disappoint with bad behavior.
As a result, grandparents can be important mentors, confidants, elder statesmen, playmates and friends. And because we grew up in a more patient time, when you dialed a telephone number and had to wait for the dial to return back to its resting place, we can bring more of that sense of peace to the children. Of course, grandparents must remember not to contradict the parents, and (mostly) to follow the parents’ rules. But otherwise, the sky is the limit.
So I offer some suggestions about how to make this opportunity the best it can be. And please don’t be bashful in sharing some of your own suggestions on the subject with the rest of us at dailypilot.com. That way we all can better take advantage of this wonderful opportunity!
Naturally, the first recommendation is to do things with your grandchildren — almost anything. The zoo, the beach, the park, shopping, a baseball game, the county fair and so much more. In fact, I have always anticipated that the best way of going to Disneyland would be to take my grandchildren and simply sit back and watch them enjoy the experience. What a contemplation! And sometimes you will want to take just one of your grandchildren alone. It is really fun to be able to have a concentrated experience with just one at a time.
Actually, reading to and with them can be just as much fun and a bonding experience as an excursion. You can share adventures together, laugh at silliness, pull for heroes, and scoff at villains. Then after you have finished, you can have great discussions about the stories you read, and how they might feel or act had they been one of the characters.
My favorites are reading Frank Baum’s “The Wizard of Oz” books to them, or reading Dr. Seuss’ “Fox in Sox” with them. Doing this will make long-term and wonderful memories — you can count on it. And along the way you will be exposing these youngsters to a truly joyous and mind-expanding world. (And seriously improving their eventual SAT scores by helping them to develop their language skills and reading comprehension!)
You can also help to create some other truly fun and teachable moments with your grandchildren, virtually all of whom have brains like sponges. For example, borrow a practice used by Newsweek and inspired from Smith Magazine’s Six-Word Memoir Project, by choosing a topic of interest to them and then having them describe their thoughts about it in only six words.
But be sure to give them extra time to think about and refine their selection of words. It can be highly instructive, enable them to show their own particular creativity, and also be lots of fun. This also has the benefit of being able to be done when traveling in a car, or virtually anywhere else.
Another fun and instructive thing to do is to have them find something useful in the home that we take for granted, and write a few paragraphs about how that thing works.
For example, you might have them inspect a toilet, and then write about how it works. Then they can first read what they have written out loud, but in the same boring way that most children read. Then have them read it again, but this time with real and even exaggerated feeling. One approach is to tell them to act as if they know something that will really interest or help their listeners, and be anxious to pass it along to them. You will see that not only the kids will have lots of fun with these projects, but they will learn a lot from them as well.
Similarly, you can play a DVD movie or sitcom for them, or read a play or short story together, and then stop about two-thirds of the way through it and ask them to create their own ending for the story.
Then sit back and watch their creativity blossom. After this has been done, you can all watch or read the actual ending to the story and discuss which ending is better. Most times, of course, you will state — to the grandchildren’s eternal delight — that their endings are better.
Furthermore, in having your grandchildren participate in all of these activities, you will also be giving them the gift of speaking and expressing themselves in public. The more they do it, the smoother and more comfortable they will be — then and for the rest of their lives. And if you give small prizes for the most creative, enthusiastic, realistic, etc. (being sure to spread the prizes around to each of the participants), you will stimulate them to even greater heights.
When I composed my high school musical entitled “Americans All,” I involved the students in doing things like this, and called it “Project Project.” In other words, each student was to try to develop the reputation that, for example, if people knew that Linda would be doing a particular project, they would know that it would be done right, whether it was drawing a picture, taking someone on a tour of their school, or reading a story out loud. In other words, they would “eschew mediocrity,” and instead always pursue excellence. Other than the children’s parents, grandparents are in the best position to promote this concept.
As I am sure you have seen yourself, children do not grow up in reverse. Once your children have grown and gone, they can become your friends — in fact your really good friends, with natural common bonds and experiences.
But now that they are grown, and you are more experienced, and you have more resources, wisdom, and time, you could be blessed to get to do it all over again in being a grandparent. So don’t let this golden opportunity slip by. Because at this point in our lives, being a grandparent really can be what “the good life” is all about!
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 top 10 drug policy goals - By Judge Jim Gray
Last weekend I spoke at a drug policy conference at the University of Texas at El Paso. It was put together in response to a resolution adopted last January by the El Paso City Council that urged the support of “an honest, open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics.”
This resolution was in turn adopted as a result of the enormous and continuing violence among warring drug cartels across the Rio Grande River from El Paso in Juárez, Mexico.
After my presentation it struck me that through all of these many years I have been speaking about this critical issue, I have never heard anyone who supports the status quo tell us what our goals actually are for our country’s drug policy.
So, with the understanding that we are all on the same side of this issue, namely we all want to reduce drug abuse and all of the harm and misery that accompanies it, I have made a list of the top 10 goals that I think we are trying to accomplish in this area, in order of importance. See if you agree. They are:
1. Reduce the exposure of drugs to and usage of drugs by children;
2. Stop or materially reduce the violence that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs, especially to police officers and innocent by-standers;
3. Stop or materially reduce the corruption of public officials, individual people and companies, and especially children that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs;
4. Stop or materially reduce crime both by people trying to get money to purchase drugs and by those under the influence of drugs;
5. Stop or materially reduce the flow of drugs into our country;
6. Reduce health risks to people who use drugs;
7. Maintain and reaffirm our civil liberties;
8. Reduce the number of people we must put into our jails and prisons;
9. Stop or materially reduce the flow of guns out of our country and into countries south of our border;
10. Increase respect for our laws and institutions.
You might want to replace one of these goals with another, or readjust the order, but I anticipate that most people would basically agree with those top 10 goals. Please give it some thought.
Now please give the subject some further thought, because I genuinely believe that treating the manufacture and sale of these drugs just like we treat alcohol — for adults — will actually accomplish each of those goals, and that pursuing our present policy of drug prohibition will never accomplish any of them.
The last part of that comment has already been proved, because we have been actively pursuing our present policy since the early 1970s, and throughout that entire time, the situation has demonstrably only gotten worse.
If we were to allow these drugs to be manufactured by reputable pharmaceutical or tobacco companies on low bid contract with the government, and then sold to adults at government package stores in brown packaging without any trade names or any advertising whatsoever, and at prices that are about half of what they are being sold for today out on the streets, the drugs would be less available to children.
Ask our young people yourselves, and they will tell you what they tell me, that it is easier for them today to get marijuana, or any other drug, if they want to, than it is alcohol. Why? Because today’s illegal drug dealers don’t ask for ID!
It would also almost completely stop the crime in the manufacture and distribution of drugs, just as the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition put the Al Capones of this world out of business.
Today if Budweiser has distribution problems with Coors, they don’t take guns to the streets to resolve them. Instead they file a complaint in court, and have it peacefully adjudicated by judges like me.
In a similar fashion, the corruption caused by the huge amounts of available cash in today’s illegal distribution of drugs would virtually disappear.
Why? Because the price of the drugs would be cut in half, and it would still be illegal to buy, use, sell or possess drugs not purchased from the government outlets, illegal dealers would lose a great deal of their present market.
That would run most of them out of business. (And if cutting the price in half would not be sufficient, the price could always be reduced further.)
That would also seriously reduce the flow of drugs into our country because there would not be a market for them.
Furthermore, because drug dealers would no longer be making obscene profits from the sale of illicit drugs, they would not have the money to purchase guns here, and smuggle them into countries south of our border.
Most of the health risks of the usage of these drugs today are caused by the unknown strength and unknown purity of the drugs, and things like the AIDS virus and hepatitis are transmitted by using unclean needles. These are easy problems to resolve.
In fact the FDA resolved virtually all of these problems with over-the-counter and prescription drugs years ago. Similarly, the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition virtually eliminated the “bathtub gin” impurities problems.
Because most of the losses of our civil liberties have come from cases involving drug offenses, that trend would be discontinued, thus reducing the erosion of our civil liberties. And because we would not have the illicit drug dealers in business so much any more, and drug users would not automatically be criminals, that would materially reduce the numbers of people we would be forced to incarcerate.
Furthermore, because we would no longer be doing things like arresting sick people for the use of medical marijuana, or seeing people openly selling drugs on street corners, or trying to enforce laws that make literally millions of people in our country automatic criminals for smoking marijuana, that would increase respect for our nation’s laws, as well as the agencies that are attempting to enforce our laws.
The last goal to address would be the issue of crimes committed by drug users, both to get money to purchase the drugs, and crimes committed while under their influence.
I could argue that with the price cut in half, drug addicted people would only need to steal half as much to get their drugs.
But many would argue that, because the price was reduced, those people would simply use more drugs — and they might be right.
But several countries such as Holland and Portugal have found that the act of decriminalizing drugs has made drug-addicted people much less fearful of their own government.
That has resulted in them being much more likely to come forward and seek drug treatment.
Furthermore, now that those governments are saving the money they previously spent to investigate, prosecute and incarcerate users, more money is available to pay for treatment.
In addition, they found that when drug addiction is treated as a medical issue, the usage of drugs is deglamorized, to the extent that younger people are not nearly as likely to go down that road. So for all of those reasons, drug crimes and drug abuse in those countries have been materially reduced.
Regarding crimes committed by people under the influence of drugs, those would still be prosecuted, just like we do today with alcohol-related offenses.
Holding people accountable for their actions, instead of what they put into their bodies, is what the criminal justice system was designed for, and that is a truly legitimate criminal justice function.
What is the difference? Because when someone drives a motor vehicle under the influence of any of these mind-altering and sometimes addicting drugs, etc., they are putting our safety at risk. And they should continue to be prosecuted vigorously for those acts.
So if you really want to achieve the goals of our nation’s drug policy, help me to repeal the policy of Drug Prohibition, which has led us down the wrong path for decades.
And that is not even to mention the large amounts of revenue the governments can generate by taxing these sales.
So that one act will make the world a safer and more prosperous place for us, and for our children. What do 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 .
This resolution was in turn adopted as a result of the enormous and continuing violence among warring drug cartels across the Rio Grande River from El Paso in Juárez, Mexico.
After my presentation it struck me that through all of these many years I have been speaking about this critical issue, I have never heard anyone who supports the status quo tell us what our goals actually are for our country’s drug policy.
So, with the understanding that we are all on the same side of this issue, namely we all want to reduce drug abuse and all of the harm and misery that accompanies it, I have made a list of the top 10 goals that I think we are trying to accomplish in this area, in order of importance. See if you agree. They are:
1. Reduce the exposure of drugs to and usage of drugs by children;
2. Stop or materially reduce the violence that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs, especially to police officers and innocent by-standers;
3. Stop or materially reduce the corruption of public officials, individual people and companies, and especially children that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs;
4. Stop or materially reduce crime both by people trying to get money to purchase drugs and by those under the influence of drugs;
5. Stop or materially reduce the flow of drugs into our country;
6. Reduce health risks to people who use drugs;
7. Maintain and reaffirm our civil liberties;
8. Reduce the number of people we must put into our jails and prisons;
9. Stop or materially reduce the flow of guns out of our country and into countries south of our border;
10. Increase respect for our laws and institutions.
You might want to replace one of these goals with another, or readjust the order, but I anticipate that most people would basically agree with those top 10 goals. Please give it some thought.
Now please give the subject some further thought, because I genuinely believe that treating the manufacture and sale of these drugs just like we treat alcohol — for adults — will actually accomplish each of those goals, and that pursuing our present policy of drug prohibition will never accomplish any of them.
The last part of that comment has already been proved, because we have been actively pursuing our present policy since the early 1970s, and throughout that entire time, the situation has demonstrably only gotten worse.
If we were to allow these drugs to be manufactured by reputable pharmaceutical or tobacco companies on low bid contract with the government, and then sold to adults at government package stores in brown packaging without any trade names or any advertising whatsoever, and at prices that are about half of what they are being sold for today out on the streets, the drugs would be less available to children.
Ask our young people yourselves, and they will tell you what they tell me, that it is easier for them today to get marijuana, or any other drug, if they want to, than it is alcohol. Why? Because today’s illegal drug dealers don’t ask for ID!
It would also almost completely stop the crime in the manufacture and distribution of drugs, just as the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition put the Al Capones of this world out of business.
Today if Budweiser has distribution problems with Coors, they don’t take guns to the streets to resolve them. Instead they file a complaint in court, and have it peacefully adjudicated by judges like me.
In a similar fashion, the corruption caused by the huge amounts of available cash in today’s illegal distribution of drugs would virtually disappear.
Why? Because the price of the drugs would be cut in half, and it would still be illegal to buy, use, sell or possess drugs not purchased from the government outlets, illegal dealers would lose a great deal of their present market.
That would run most of them out of business. (And if cutting the price in half would not be sufficient, the price could always be reduced further.)
That would also seriously reduce the flow of drugs into our country because there would not be a market for them.
Furthermore, because drug dealers would no longer be making obscene profits from the sale of illicit drugs, they would not have the money to purchase guns here, and smuggle them into countries south of our border.
Most of the health risks of the usage of these drugs today are caused by the unknown strength and unknown purity of the drugs, and things like the AIDS virus and hepatitis are transmitted by using unclean needles. These are easy problems to resolve.
In fact the FDA resolved virtually all of these problems with over-the-counter and prescription drugs years ago. Similarly, the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition virtually eliminated the “bathtub gin” impurities problems.
Because most of the losses of our civil liberties have come from cases involving drug offenses, that trend would be discontinued, thus reducing the erosion of our civil liberties. And because we would not have the illicit drug dealers in business so much any more, and drug users would not automatically be criminals, that would materially reduce the numbers of people we would be forced to incarcerate.
Furthermore, because we would no longer be doing things like arresting sick people for the use of medical marijuana, or seeing people openly selling drugs on street corners, or trying to enforce laws that make literally millions of people in our country automatic criminals for smoking marijuana, that would increase respect for our nation’s laws, as well as the agencies that are attempting to enforce our laws.
The last goal to address would be the issue of crimes committed by drug users, both to get money to purchase the drugs, and crimes committed while under their influence.
I could argue that with the price cut in half, drug addicted people would only need to steal half as much to get their drugs.
But many would argue that, because the price was reduced, those people would simply use more drugs — and they might be right.
But several countries such as Holland and Portugal have found that the act of decriminalizing drugs has made drug-addicted people much less fearful of their own government.
That has resulted in them being much more likely to come forward and seek drug treatment.
Furthermore, now that those governments are saving the money they previously spent to investigate, prosecute and incarcerate users, more money is available to pay for treatment.
In addition, they found that when drug addiction is treated as a medical issue, the usage of drugs is deglamorized, to the extent that younger people are not nearly as likely to go down that road. So for all of those reasons, drug crimes and drug abuse in those countries have been materially reduced.
Regarding crimes committed by people under the influence of drugs, those would still be prosecuted, just like we do today with alcohol-related offenses.
Holding people accountable for their actions, instead of what they put into their bodies, is what the criminal justice system was designed for, and that is a truly legitimate criminal justice function.
What is the difference? Because when someone drives a motor vehicle under the influence of any of these mind-altering and sometimes addicting drugs, etc., they are putting our safety at risk. And they should continue to be prosecuted vigorously for those acts.
So if you really want to achieve the goals of our nation’s drug policy, help me to repeal the policy of Drug Prohibition, which has led us down the wrong path for decades.
And that is not even to mention the large amounts of revenue the governments can generate by taxing these sales.
So that one act will make the world a safer and more prosperous place for us, and for our children. What do 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 .
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Getting accurate information to market - by Judge Jim Gray
In many ways, one of the functions of government is to establish systems whereby accurate information can get out into the marketplace. What people do with the information most of the time should be none of the government’s business, but the information should be publicly available. Along those lines, Abraham Lincoln showed his faith that the public would choose wisely when given accurate information when he said: “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”
There is now an opportunity to put this faith into practice, because a bill is pending in Washington that would require restaurant chains that have more than 20 outlets conspicuously to list the number of calories that are found in their regular menu items. We should all contact our representatives in Washington in support of this measure. California already has a similar law on its books that is scheduled to go into effect in 2011.
Once it is passed into law nationally, that should be sufficient. We do not need — nor want — to establish the “food police,” although there should be some sanctions for knowingly posting false information. And we should not impose extra taxes on high-calorie, high-fat or sugary foods. Just placing accurate information conspicuously in the marketplace is sufficient.
What would happen if this occurs? As a matter of course, one restaurant chain that serves lower calorie foods, whether fast food or otherwise, will soon take advantage of the situation, and begin to advertise that their hamburgers, tacos, etc. taste just as good or better than their competitor’s, but have only two-thirds the saturated fat or calories. Or whatever.
Will everyone stop going to the places with the less healthy choices? No, at least not at the beginning. Obviously this action will affect some people more than others. And I acknowledge that the lower fat and slightly higher cost experiment at McDonald’s with the McLean’s burgers about a decade ago was not successful. But slowly people’s awareness and understanding have been changing. Those changes will continue, and this legislation will hasten the process. Soon not only will it be fashionable to choose more healthy meals, it will also become more generally accepted.
Why would a Libertarian favor this legislation? Why not simply rely upon adults to make nutrition decisions for themselves and their children? In fact, some of my friends said that if I publish this column they would figuratively seek to revoke my Libertarian card. The answer is that I do it because obesity is expensive. And the cost of obesity to all of us is increasing quickly, to the degree that today it accounts for about 9% of national health-care spending, which is up from about 6.5% just a decade ago.
Similar to the passage of helmet laws for people riding motorcycles, if those riders want to take a risk with their own safety, that would be fine with me — as long as I am not required to pay for their injuries. But in today’s world, the health-care costs are not restricted just to those risk-takers, but are spread to the rest of us as well. Therefore under these circumstances, the public has a right to impose these safety requirements.
The costs for publishing information about the nutrition of the menu items would be almost insignificant. There are several simple computer programs that can easily compute the calorie and fat information, and for restaurant chains that have the same menus, the computation would only have to be done once. Yes, most menus would have to be reprinted, and the boards above the counters at the fast food outlets would have to be supplemented, but these would not be material costs, particularly because there would be a phase-in period. But the benefits could be substantial. So any cost/benefit analysis should come down in favor of taking this action.
But this approach should not simply be restricted to passing laws. Each of us should do what we can to make healthier food choices available for people we are involved with. The first and most obvious place to start is in our schools. If you see that your child’s school still has cafeterias, snack stands or vending machines that sell soda pop, potato chips, cookies and other “foods” high in sugar, calories and fats, use whatever influence you have for those items to be replaced with things like juices, vitamin waters, yogurts, apples and other more healthy alternatives. Yes, many of these more nutritious foods cost somewhat more, and have a shorter shelf life, but that is a small price to pay for materially greater health for our children.
Happily, many caring schools have already taken this action, and so have several institutions like the YMCA. But we should also not neglect the snack stands at events like school concerts and recitals, as well as soccer, basketball and little league baseball games.
This will go a long way to put peer pressure in favor of more nutritious eating.
In a similar manner, I am encouraging the managers at my alternative dispute resolution office to stop furnishing potato chips, corn nuts, cookies and other junk food to our clients, and to replace them with more healthy offerings. I have told the story that when I was in junior high school I had a package of corn nuts with almost every lunch. But I had not eaten them since that time, until I retired from the bench and began with my mediation business, where those packages of corn nuts were always there on the tables, just looking at me. So I confess that I sometimes weakened and ate some. But had they not been there, I would have never missed them. So the bottom line is that most people have a weakness, but if caring people “remove us from temptation,” we will all be assisted in making healthier choices.
So please consider doing everyone a favor in this area. Accurate information and a little thoughtful caring can and will go a long way to reduce obesity in us and our children, and will also reduce an appreciable amount of our health-care expenses along the way.
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 .
There is now an opportunity to put this faith into practice, because a bill is pending in Washington that would require restaurant chains that have more than 20 outlets conspicuously to list the number of calories that are found in their regular menu items. We should all contact our representatives in Washington in support of this measure. California already has a similar law on its books that is scheduled to go into effect in 2011.
Once it is passed into law nationally, that should be sufficient. We do not need — nor want — to establish the “food police,” although there should be some sanctions for knowingly posting false information. And we should not impose extra taxes on high-calorie, high-fat or sugary foods. Just placing accurate information conspicuously in the marketplace is sufficient.
What would happen if this occurs? As a matter of course, one restaurant chain that serves lower calorie foods, whether fast food or otherwise, will soon take advantage of the situation, and begin to advertise that their hamburgers, tacos, etc. taste just as good or better than their competitor’s, but have only two-thirds the saturated fat or calories. Or whatever.
Will everyone stop going to the places with the less healthy choices? No, at least not at the beginning. Obviously this action will affect some people more than others. And I acknowledge that the lower fat and slightly higher cost experiment at McDonald’s with the McLean’s burgers about a decade ago was not successful. But slowly people’s awareness and understanding have been changing. Those changes will continue, and this legislation will hasten the process. Soon not only will it be fashionable to choose more healthy meals, it will also become more generally accepted.
Why would a Libertarian favor this legislation? Why not simply rely upon adults to make nutrition decisions for themselves and their children? In fact, some of my friends said that if I publish this column they would figuratively seek to revoke my Libertarian card. The answer is that I do it because obesity is expensive. And the cost of obesity to all of us is increasing quickly, to the degree that today it accounts for about 9% of national health-care spending, which is up from about 6.5% just a decade ago.
Similar to the passage of helmet laws for people riding motorcycles, if those riders want to take a risk with their own safety, that would be fine with me — as long as I am not required to pay for their injuries. But in today’s world, the health-care costs are not restricted just to those risk-takers, but are spread to the rest of us as well. Therefore under these circumstances, the public has a right to impose these safety requirements.
The costs for publishing information about the nutrition of the menu items would be almost insignificant. There are several simple computer programs that can easily compute the calorie and fat information, and for restaurant chains that have the same menus, the computation would only have to be done once. Yes, most menus would have to be reprinted, and the boards above the counters at the fast food outlets would have to be supplemented, but these would not be material costs, particularly because there would be a phase-in period. But the benefits could be substantial. So any cost/benefit analysis should come down in favor of taking this action.
But this approach should not simply be restricted to passing laws. Each of us should do what we can to make healthier food choices available for people we are involved with. The first and most obvious place to start is in our schools. If you see that your child’s school still has cafeterias, snack stands or vending machines that sell soda pop, potato chips, cookies and other “foods” high in sugar, calories and fats, use whatever influence you have for those items to be replaced with things like juices, vitamin waters, yogurts, apples and other more healthy alternatives. Yes, many of these more nutritious foods cost somewhat more, and have a shorter shelf life, but that is a small price to pay for materially greater health for our children.
Happily, many caring schools have already taken this action, and so have several institutions like the YMCA. But we should also not neglect the snack stands at events like school concerts and recitals, as well as soccer, basketball and little league baseball games.
This will go a long way to put peer pressure in favor of more nutritious eating.
In a similar manner, I am encouraging the managers at my alternative dispute resolution office to stop furnishing potato chips, corn nuts, cookies and other junk food to our clients, and to replace them with more healthy offerings. I have told the story that when I was in junior high school I had a package of corn nuts with almost every lunch. But I had not eaten them since that time, until I retired from the bench and began with my mediation business, where those packages of corn nuts were always there on the tables, just looking at me. So I confess that I sometimes weakened and ate some. But had they not been there, I would have never missed them. So the bottom line is that most people have a weakness, but if caring people “remove us from temptation,” we will all be assisted in making healthier choices.
So please consider doing everyone a favor in this area. Accurate information and a little thoughtful caring can and will go a long way to reduce obesity in us and our children, and will also reduce an appreciable amount of our health-care expenses along the way.
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, September 13, 2009
The great Pacific Ocean garbage patch - by Judge Jim Gray
Recently I was shocked to hear of an area in the Pacific Ocean somewhat north of a line between San Francisco and Hawaii that is simply a heap of trash twice the size of Texas! Just as things tend to drift toward the drain in your bathtub when the water is being emptied, this trash has gravitated to this area for decades because of prevailing wind and current conditions.
Could this be true? On occasion, there are stories that are too wild to believe. Maybe this one fits that category, or maybe it doesn’t. Twice the size of Texas is a big area. It sounds unlikely to me, if only because occasional hurricanes have a tendency to move things around a little bit. But people report that they have seen it, and about 90% of the trash is said to be composed of plastic, and the layer of trash varies between 3 inches and 300 feet thick!
Well, after doing some research on plastic, I discovered that it goes into about 225 million tons of products in the world each year. Most of the plastic is manufactured from petroleum, but some also comes from natural gas. So in addition to pollution problems, this has more than just a minor effect on our country’s importation of oil.
And our usage of plastic is increasing. For example, each person in our country consumed an average of 1.6 gallons of bottled water in 1976. That increased to 10.5 gallons in 1993, 22.6 gallons in 2003 and 28.3 gallons in 2006.
As a result, 3.3 billion plastic water bottles were sold in 1997, and 15 billion were sold in 2002. That is a lot of plastic, and the amount is growing, since plastic containers are almost completely replacing those made of glass. In fact, there is even talk of putting expensive wines into plastic bottles.
Since most of the bottled water is consumed away from home, only a small amount of the plastic bottles are recycled, and that rate is decreasing. For example, about 53% of the plastic water bottles were recycled in 1994, but only about 19% were recycled in 2003.
The rest often find their way onto the streets, where many of them eventually flow into drains and out into the ocean.
Today, only 11 states have plastic bottle recycling laws and, of those, only three include plastic water bottles in their programs. They are California, Hawaii and Maine. That is shortsighted, because where there are recycling laws, about four of five bottles are recycled. And in states such as Michigan, which has a return rate of 10 cents per bottle, a full 95% of the bottles are recycled.
When I was growing up, a friend of mine and I routinely went to housing construction sites and picked up the soda bottles, which had a 2-cent return rate. Of course, we did it to make money. By the way, the beer bottles back then did not require a deposit, so we left them alone. Just another example that “Incentives Matter!”
As further proof, we don’t see many aluminum cans littering our cities and highways today, because either the consumer holds onto them for their return value, or various “Dumpster divers” hunt them down and return them for the money.
The same phenomenon explains why used hypodermic needles and syringes are mostly not found on streets and in parks in cities that have needle exchange facilities. As a result, those programs protect people from inadvertently stepping upon a dirty needle and thereby sometimes contracting AIDS or hepatitis!
So why don’t more states have plastic bottle recycling laws? For the same reason: Incentives matter. The water industry knows it will sell more product if the merchants don’t have to charge the return rates, and the beverage industry has more political clout than the environmental groups.
But recycling is a good idea for more reasons than merely cutting down on pollution. For example, the energy saved from making just one aluminum can from a recycled one instead of starting from scratch is enough to power a television set or computer for three hours, or power a 100-watt bulb for 20 hours! And the energy saved from recycling a six-pack of aluminum cans is able to move a standard-sized automobile about five miles.
Similarly, the energy saved from recycling a one-gallon milk jug will power a 100-watt bulb for 11 hours. And recycling a one-foot stack of newspapers will save enough energy to heat a standard-sized home for 17 hours.
So when we see that, of the estimated 28 billion water bottles that are consumed each year in our country, only about 20% of them are recycled, we can see how wasteful we are. And the other 80% either end up in landfills, or as litter that either pollutes our countryside, or ends up in the ocean.
To make matters worse, plastic is not biodegradable, like most of the more natural products. Instead, it is photodegradable, which means that the sun’s rays will make it brittle, similar to what the rays do to the vinyl roof of an automobile. That will cause the plastic to break into smaller pieces, and eventually emerge as a fine dust. But otherwise, it takes decades to break it down further.
So instead of being good stewards of the Earth, we are literally fouling our own nest! And in addition to the pollution issues, many of the birds and fish confuse plastic trash for jellyfish and other food. So when they eat the plastic, the wild beings can’t either digest it or expel it, which means that many of them simply starve to death with their stomachs full of plastic.
All of this is disturbing, but what can we do? Obviously, this is a monumental problem, and each of us is only one person. Nevertheless, we can all help by using recycling programs to the fullest, and also by insisting that legislators from all over the country pass recycling laws. And when asked “paper or plastic,” we can choose paper.
Or better yet, we can form the habit of taking canvas bags with us to do our shopping. And we can also remember to decline using a bag at all when it is not necessary.
In the final analysis, whether this trash dump story is true or not, the problems of plastic trash disposal are enormous. But like with so many other things, the resolution is up to us, and every effort helps!
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 .
Could this be true? On occasion, there are stories that are too wild to believe. Maybe this one fits that category, or maybe it doesn’t. Twice the size of Texas is a big area. It sounds unlikely to me, if only because occasional hurricanes have a tendency to move things around a little bit. But people report that they have seen it, and about 90% of the trash is said to be composed of plastic, and the layer of trash varies between 3 inches and 300 feet thick!
Well, after doing some research on plastic, I discovered that it goes into about 225 million tons of products in the world each year. Most of the plastic is manufactured from petroleum, but some also comes from natural gas. So in addition to pollution problems, this has more than just a minor effect on our country’s importation of oil.
And our usage of plastic is increasing. For example, each person in our country consumed an average of 1.6 gallons of bottled water in 1976. That increased to 10.5 gallons in 1993, 22.6 gallons in 2003 and 28.3 gallons in 2006.
As a result, 3.3 billion plastic water bottles were sold in 1997, and 15 billion were sold in 2002. That is a lot of plastic, and the amount is growing, since plastic containers are almost completely replacing those made of glass. In fact, there is even talk of putting expensive wines into plastic bottles.
Since most of the bottled water is consumed away from home, only a small amount of the plastic bottles are recycled, and that rate is decreasing. For example, about 53% of the plastic water bottles were recycled in 1994, but only about 19% were recycled in 2003.
The rest often find their way onto the streets, where many of them eventually flow into drains and out into the ocean.
Today, only 11 states have plastic bottle recycling laws and, of those, only three include plastic water bottles in their programs. They are California, Hawaii and Maine. That is shortsighted, because where there are recycling laws, about four of five bottles are recycled. And in states such as Michigan, which has a return rate of 10 cents per bottle, a full 95% of the bottles are recycled.
When I was growing up, a friend of mine and I routinely went to housing construction sites and picked up the soda bottles, which had a 2-cent return rate. Of course, we did it to make money. By the way, the beer bottles back then did not require a deposit, so we left them alone. Just another example that “Incentives Matter!”
As further proof, we don’t see many aluminum cans littering our cities and highways today, because either the consumer holds onto them for their return value, or various “Dumpster divers” hunt them down and return them for the money.
The same phenomenon explains why used hypodermic needles and syringes are mostly not found on streets and in parks in cities that have needle exchange facilities. As a result, those programs protect people from inadvertently stepping upon a dirty needle and thereby sometimes contracting AIDS or hepatitis!
So why don’t more states have plastic bottle recycling laws? For the same reason: Incentives matter. The water industry knows it will sell more product if the merchants don’t have to charge the return rates, and the beverage industry has more political clout than the environmental groups.
But recycling is a good idea for more reasons than merely cutting down on pollution. For example, the energy saved from making just one aluminum can from a recycled one instead of starting from scratch is enough to power a television set or computer for three hours, or power a 100-watt bulb for 20 hours! And the energy saved from recycling a six-pack of aluminum cans is able to move a standard-sized automobile about five miles.
Similarly, the energy saved from recycling a one-gallon milk jug will power a 100-watt bulb for 11 hours. And recycling a one-foot stack of newspapers will save enough energy to heat a standard-sized home for 17 hours.
So when we see that, of the estimated 28 billion water bottles that are consumed each year in our country, only about 20% of them are recycled, we can see how wasteful we are. And the other 80% either end up in landfills, or as litter that either pollutes our countryside, or ends up in the ocean.
To make matters worse, plastic is not biodegradable, like most of the more natural products. Instead, it is photodegradable, which means that the sun’s rays will make it brittle, similar to what the rays do to the vinyl roof of an automobile. That will cause the plastic to break into smaller pieces, and eventually emerge as a fine dust. But otherwise, it takes decades to break it down further.
So instead of being good stewards of the Earth, we are literally fouling our own nest! And in addition to the pollution issues, many of the birds and fish confuse plastic trash for jellyfish and other food. So when they eat the plastic, the wild beings can’t either digest it or expel it, which means that many of them simply starve to death with their stomachs full of plastic.
All of this is disturbing, but what can we do? Obviously, this is a monumental problem, and each of us is only one person. Nevertheless, we can all help by using recycling programs to the fullest, and also by insisting that legislators from all over the country pass recycling laws. And when asked “paper or plastic,” we can choose paper.
Or better yet, we can form the habit of taking canvas bags with us to do our shopping. And we can also remember to decline using a bag at all when it is not necessary.
In the final analysis, whether this trash dump story is true or not, the problems of plastic trash disposal are enormous. But like with so many other things, the resolution is up to us, and every effort helps!
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, September 6, 2009
Take time to donate on Labor Day - by Judge Jim Gray
Many of you will not be home this weekend to receive this greeting because you will be taking a short trip for the Labor Day weekend. Nevertheless, happy Labor Day!
This is one of the heaviest getaway weekends of the year, and everyone appreciates it. But what is the derivation of this holiday, which is always on the first Monday of September?
The holiday originated in Canada in the late 1870s, when labor unions were first successful in establishing a nine-hour work day. By 1882, the festivities spread to the United States, where parades and speeches were held celebrating the contributions of laborers. Then, in 1894, it became a federal holiday, largely in an effort to avoid further labor strife. But over time, the celebrations, where there have been any at all, have placed increasing significance upon economic and civil progress and goals, instead of the contributions of labor.
So now, I suggest we take that process one step further, and ask ourselves every year on this holiday the question of whether our own labors are being well spent, what our individual goals are, and what we stand for as individuals. Another way of addressing this is to anticipate what would accurately be said about us at our memorial services after we leave this earth, or what would be placed on our tombstones.
In that regard, I am reminded of an actual tombstone I once saw at a Ripley’s Believe It or Not exhibit in Chicago that had inscribed on it a recipe for an apple pie. Then below it were inscribed words like: “Here rests Mary Jones. She said you could have this apple pie recipe ‘over my dead body.’”
But more seriously, do you really think a fitting remembrance of anyone’s life would be a testament like “My yacht was bigger than your yacht”? Or “I accumulated more power than you ever did”?
Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice had Eva Peron in “Evita” saying “As for fortune, and as for fame . . . they’re an illusion, they are not the solution they promised to be . . . ” Whether this young prima donna ever came close to any such insightful thoughts herself is problematical, but I think the statement attributed to her is correct.
So what is the best thing that can happen to a person here on earth? The answer is not to have wealth, fame, power or even love. Instead, the best thing to have in life is gratification, which is the inward satisfaction and pleasure you can receive by doing things as well as you can. And in that way, to borrow a recruitment slogan from the U.S. Army, you can “Be all you can be.”
To my way of thinking, the No. 1 source of gratification in this world is for people to see their children grow up to be happy, well-adjusted and thriving. Of course, many other things can also provide lasting gratification, such as contributing to a loving relationship; giving best efforts in your work; creating wonderful music, poetry or other art; and donating your time, talents and treasure to helping others. That explains why so many “starving artists” actually are still genuinely happy, and also how the phrase “you only really own something when you give it away” came into being. Even better would be to make donations anonymously, which is actually a heavy part of many religious traditions.
So join with me in creating a new tradition in our lives, and that of our families and friends. Monday, and every Labor Day that follows, stop and think about your life and how it is going. What are your true passions? What are the things that gratify you and give meaning to your special and individual life? And what are you doing to pursue those things?
You don’t have to be a Bill Gates and create a philanthropic foundation all on your own. There are lots of genuinely worthwhile institutions that can use your own special help. Some of them that have been discussed previously in this column are Canyon Acres (which provides a place of learning for mentally disabled children, and a welcome respite for their parents), the Orange County Rescue Mission (which has a fabulous facility for the homeless, combined with a plan that helps them to become self-sufficient), the Heritage Museum (which shows young children what it was like to live in Orange County in the early 1900s) and Good Will (which is establishing low-cost housing for the mentally ill).
To those, I add another wonderful organization that is just in the initial stages of establishing a campus for brain-injured adults. It is called B.R.A.I.N., which stands for Brain Rehabilitation And Injury Network. Their goal is to establish a place where these mentally fragile people can live, work and play up to the highest level of their abilities. Currently there is no place in California that I know of that would provide such a refuge, and this need is dramatically increasing with the return of brain-injured GIs from the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The sponsors of B.R.A.I.N. are having a concert Oct. 1 to raise awareness to the need of building such a long-term facility in Southern California for the brain-injured, and to raise funds to lay the groundwork for such a facility. If you are interested in supporting this worthwhile cause, call Sue or Jerry Rueb at (714) 625-7225, or visit www.thebrainsite.org.
Otherwise, there are opportunities all around you in your own neighborhood to help others. Many of your neighbors are silently living with pain and grief, and could really use a friend who is simply a good listener. In fact, I am passing along a challenge I recently received in church for us to knock on the door of the houses of neighbors that we don’t know, and invite them over for dinner. This is a wonderful suggestion. My wife and I are going to do it, and you might want to do it as well. It could very well help to give you the gratification you are seeking.
So, once again, happy Labor Day! Life is good — particularly if we use it to further the things that really matter.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, and 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 . This is his 100th column for the Pilot.
This is one of the heaviest getaway weekends of the year, and everyone appreciates it. But what is the derivation of this holiday, which is always on the first Monday of September?
The holiday originated in Canada in the late 1870s, when labor unions were first successful in establishing a nine-hour work day. By 1882, the festivities spread to the United States, where parades and speeches were held celebrating the contributions of laborers. Then, in 1894, it became a federal holiday, largely in an effort to avoid further labor strife. But over time, the celebrations, where there have been any at all, have placed increasing significance upon economic and civil progress and goals, instead of the contributions of labor.
So now, I suggest we take that process one step further, and ask ourselves every year on this holiday the question of whether our own labors are being well spent, what our individual goals are, and what we stand for as individuals. Another way of addressing this is to anticipate what would accurately be said about us at our memorial services after we leave this earth, or what would be placed on our tombstones.
In that regard, I am reminded of an actual tombstone I once saw at a Ripley’s Believe It or Not exhibit in Chicago that had inscribed on it a recipe for an apple pie. Then below it were inscribed words like: “Here rests Mary Jones. She said you could have this apple pie recipe ‘over my dead body.’”
But more seriously, do you really think a fitting remembrance of anyone’s life would be a testament like “My yacht was bigger than your yacht”? Or “I accumulated more power than you ever did”?
Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice had Eva Peron in “Evita” saying “As for fortune, and as for fame . . . they’re an illusion, they are not the solution they promised to be . . . ” Whether this young prima donna ever came close to any such insightful thoughts herself is problematical, but I think the statement attributed to her is correct.
So what is the best thing that can happen to a person here on earth? The answer is not to have wealth, fame, power or even love. Instead, the best thing to have in life is gratification, which is the inward satisfaction and pleasure you can receive by doing things as well as you can. And in that way, to borrow a recruitment slogan from the U.S. Army, you can “Be all you can be.”
To my way of thinking, the No. 1 source of gratification in this world is for people to see their children grow up to be happy, well-adjusted and thriving. Of course, many other things can also provide lasting gratification, such as contributing to a loving relationship; giving best efforts in your work; creating wonderful music, poetry or other art; and donating your time, talents and treasure to helping others. That explains why so many “starving artists” actually are still genuinely happy, and also how the phrase “you only really own something when you give it away” came into being. Even better would be to make donations anonymously, which is actually a heavy part of many religious traditions.
So join with me in creating a new tradition in our lives, and that of our families and friends. Monday, and every Labor Day that follows, stop and think about your life and how it is going. What are your true passions? What are the things that gratify you and give meaning to your special and individual life? And what are you doing to pursue those things?
You don’t have to be a Bill Gates and create a philanthropic foundation all on your own. There are lots of genuinely worthwhile institutions that can use your own special help. Some of them that have been discussed previously in this column are Canyon Acres (which provides a place of learning for mentally disabled children, and a welcome respite for their parents), the Orange County Rescue Mission (which has a fabulous facility for the homeless, combined with a plan that helps them to become self-sufficient), the Heritage Museum (which shows young children what it was like to live in Orange County in the early 1900s) and Good Will (which is establishing low-cost housing for the mentally ill).
To those, I add another wonderful organization that is just in the initial stages of establishing a campus for brain-injured adults. It is called B.R.A.I.N., which stands for Brain Rehabilitation And Injury Network. Their goal is to establish a place where these mentally fragile people can live, work and play up to the highest level of their abilities. Currently there is no place in California that I know of that would provide such a refuge, and this need is dramatically increasing with the return of brain-injured GIs from the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The sponsors of B.R.A.I.N. are having a concert Oct. 1 to raise awareness to the need of building such a long-term facility in Southern California for the brain-injured, and to raise funds to lay the groundwork for such a facility. If you are interested in supporting this worthwhile cause, call Sue or Jerry Rueb at (714) 625-7225, or visit www.thebrainsite.org.
Otherwise, there are opportunities all around you in your own neighborhood to help others. Many of your neighbors are silently living with pain and grief, and could really use a friend who is simply a good listener. In fact, I am passing along a challenge I recently received in church for us to knock on the door of the houses of neighbors that we don’t know, and invite them over for dinner. This is a wonderful suggestion. My wife and I are going to do it, and you might want to do it as well. It could very well help to give you the gratification you are seeking.
So, once again, happy Labor Day! Life is good — particularly if we use it to further the things that really matter.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, and 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 . This is his 100th column for the Pilot.
Monday, August 31, 2009
State has too many people in prison - by Judge Jim Gray
Most of us have heard that a federal court mandate is just around the corner requiring California to release as many as 43,000 of its about 160,000 inmates. What is the reason for the mandate? Because most of the prisons are housing almost double the number of people they were designed and built for, and there eventually comes a constitutional limit to the overcrowded conditions that we can or should force people to live in. Imagine almost 200 prisoners with ethnic and racial rivalries triple-bunked in hot weather in barracks designed for 100. That does not serve anyone’s legitimate interests.
California’s governor is right when he says that the state’s prison system is “collapsing under its own weight.” But because neither the governor nor the legislature has done anything to rectify this problem, it has been left to the courts. Many politicians, in trying to appear “tough on crime,” are spreading fear that this could cause imminent threats to our safety if this number of people were to be released. But the facts show that is all it is: fear-mongering.
Some politicians intentionally use fear to manipulate the voters and/or to promote their private interests. I am told that one of the most well-known political advisors who did this had a motto framed and hanging on his office wall that said “Keep ‘Em Scared.” That may be good politics, but it makes for rotten government. So gather the evidence yourself, and be cynical about people who deal in fear.
The evidence shows that, even dealing with the possible release of 43,000 inmates, there is simply no way that anyone who is a threat to our safety would ever even be considered to be set free. So relax, people like Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, Richard Ramirez and other murderers, robbers and rapists will safely stay where they are. You can count on it.
The reason for the overcrowding is that today we literally have tens of thousands of people in prison who simply should not be there. For example, and as we have discussed before in this column, right now there are literally thousands of people in prison who did nothing but smoke marijuana. For whatever reason, they were in prison and then released on parole, always with the condition that they use no form of illicit drug. Then, for one reason or another, they smoked marijuana, which is detectable by urinalysis testing for about a month after use. Thereafter, they either fail to show up to take their tests, or they do show up and test positive, and back to prison they go.
I am not discussing the stupidity of their smoking marijuana under these circumstances, but many of them had again found employment and were putting their lives back in order, and they were again supporting their families. So now all of that progress is lost, their families are back on welfare, and the taxpayers are spending about $40,000 per year once again to keep each one of them in prison. They could have been released yesterday without any threat to our safety.
Then there are other people in prison who are simply unable to be a threat to us. These are prisoners who are so old and feeble that the only thing they could do, if they had the strength, would be to throw their walkers at us. Their detention facilities look like old folks’ homes, with ramps instead of stairways, supporting bars on the toilets, chairs in the showers, and ground-up food on the tables. And, because of their medical problems, it costs taxpayers many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to keep each one of these geriatrics in custody.
In fact, I recently received an e-mail from a friend who said that she had found the perfect solution to senior health-care problems. Obviously, you know that many seniors are told that they need to give up even the idea of receiving expensive medications for their blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. And if they need a hip replacement, there is no way it will be funded, because the money will be spent on the younger generation.
Well, the answer is for people older than 70 simply to go out and commit a crime, and then be sent to prison. A roof over your head, three meals per day, and all the health care you can use. Need new teeth, great! Glasses? No problem! New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Bring ’em on. Because if people are in prison, they are constitutionally entitled to good quality medical care. Of course, who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just said that you are too old for health care. And because you are a prisoner, you don’t have to pay any income taxes either! Problems solved!
You might think this is a joke, but that is exactly what taxpayers are now doing for thousands of people in prison. Many of them have been there for decades. On a case-by-case basis, some of the ones who have already spent many years in prison should be released, some to low-security halfway houses, and some should be released outright.
Of course, there are also thousands of nonviolent drug offenders who are spending years in prison for no good purpose. Remember prior columns in which we quoted the RAND Corporation that said, way back in June 1994, that taxpayers get seven times more benefit for their tax money when it is used for drug treatment instead of incarceration? Even for heavy-using drug offenders!
Again, on a case-by-case basis, we should release many of these nonviolent offenders from prison, with the strict condition that they participate meaningfully in a quality drug treatment program. That way, they will be much more likely not to be a drain on society, and the taxpayers can stop spending so much money without purpose. Please bear in mind that 95% of the people who are confined will be released someday. What kind of people will they be when that occurs?
And then there is a new philosophy that is beginning to sweep the nation, and that is the concept of “restorative justice.” This approach encourages a meaningful but much shorter time in custody for the offenders, but then has them released under a strictly applied program of formal probation. But, importantly, it also requires the released offenders, among other things, to get a job and make restitution payments every month to their victims, right off the top from their earnings.
Everyone wins by this system. The offenders are forced into the realization that there are costs for their misdeeds, and that it takes time and effort to pay them. The victims see that they are actually being reimbursed for their losses. That is both psychologically and economically comforting, because their insurance rates start to decrease due to the money being returned to their insurance companies.
And the taxpayers are given a big break because they are no longer required to pay for the continued incarceration of the offenders. So everyone comes out ahead except, of course, the prison guard union, which happens to be the strongest political lobby group in our state today.
Importantly, if violence was involved in the underlying offense, all bets are off. Prison is mostly meant to take violent offenders off the streets, and it should be used more fully for that purpose. But otherwise, we must understand that the United States has only 5% of the world’s population, but a full 25% of its prisoners! As such, we lead the world in the incarceration of our people. And in this case, “We’re No. 1!” should not make us proud.
So don’t let doctrinaire politicians and special-interest lobbyists spread fear about releasing even thousands of these prisoners without facing the evidence. Many of the people in prison shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and others have long since learned all the lessons that incarceration could possibly have taught them. Therefore, every thoughtful person should favor many of these offenders being released, on a case-by-case basis.
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 .
California’s governor is right when he says that the state’s prison system is “collapsing under its own weight.” But because neither the governor nor the legislature has done anything to rectify this problem, it has been left to the courts. Many politicians, in trying to appear “tough on crime,” are spreading fear that this could cause imminent threats to our safety if this number of people were to be released. But the facts show that is all it is: fear-mongering.
Some politicians intentionally use fear to manipulate the voters and/or to promote their private interests. I am told that one of the most well-known political advisors who did this had a motto framed and hanging on his office wall that said “Keep ‘Em Scared.” That may be good politics, but it makes for rotten government. So gather the evidence yourself, and be cynical about people who deal in fear.
The evidence shows that, even dealing with the possible release of 43,000 inmates, there is simply no way that anyone who is a threat to our safety would ever even be considered to be set free. So relax, people like Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, Richard Ramirez and other murderers, robbers and rapists will safely stay where they are. You can count on it.
The reason for the overcrowding is that today we literally have tens of thousands of people in prison who simply should not be there. For example, and as we have discussed before in this column, right now there are literally thousands of people in prison who did nothing but smoke marijuana. For whatever reason, they were in prison and then released on parole, always with the condition that they use no form of illicit drug. Then, for one reason or another, they smoked marijuana, which is detectable by urinalysis testing for about a month after use. Thereafter, they either fail to show up to take their tests, or they do show up and test positive, and back to prison they go.
I am not discussing the stupidity of their smoking marijuana under these circumstances, but many of them had again found employment and were putting their lives back in order, and they were again supporting their families. So now all of that progress is lost, their families are back on welfare, and the taxpayers are spending about $40,000 per year once again to keep each one of them in prison. They could have been released yesterday without any threat to our safety.
Then there are other people in prison who are simply unable to be a threat to us. These are prisoners who are so old and feeble that the only thing they could do, if they had the strength, would be to throw their walkers at us. Their detention facilities look like old folks’ homes, with ramps instead of stairways, supporting bars on the toilets, chairs in the showers, and ground-up food on the tables. And, because of their medical problems, it costs taxpayers many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to keep each one of these geriatrics in custody.
In fact, I recently received an e-mail from a friend who said that she had found the perfect solution to senior health-care problems. Obviously, you know that many seniors are told that they need to give up even the idea of receiving expensive medications for their blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. And if they need a hip replacement, there is no way it will be funded, because the money will be spent on the younger generation.
Well, the answer is for people older than 70 simply to go out and commit a crime, and then be sent to prison. A roof over your head, three meals per day, and all the health care you can use. Need new teeth, great! Glasses? No problem! New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Bring ’em on. Because if people are in prison, they are constitutionally entitled to good quality medical care. Of course, who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just said that you are too old for health care. And because you are a prisoner, you don’t have to pay any income taxes either! Problems solved!
You might think this is a joke, but that is exactly what taxpayers are now doing for thousands of people in prison. Many of them have been there for decades. On a case-by-case basis, some of the ones who have already spent many years in prison should be released, some to low-security halfway houses, and some should be released outright.
Of course, there are also thousands of nonviolent drug offenders who are spending years in prison for no good purpose. Remember prior columns in which we quoted the RAND Corporation that said, way back in June 1994, that taxpayers get seven times more benefit for their tax money when it is used for drug treatment instead of incarceration? Even for heavy-using drug offenders!
Again, on a case-by-case basis, we should release many of these nonviolent offenders from prison, with the strict condition that they participate meaningfully in a quality drug treatment program. That way, they will be much more likely not to be a drain on society, and the taxpayers can stop spending so much money without purpose. Please bear in mind that 95% of the people who are confined will be released someday. What kind of people will they be when that occurs?
And then there is a new philosophy that is beginning to sweep the nation, and that is the concept of “restorative justice.” This approach encourages a meaningful but much shorter time in custody for the offenders, but then has them released under a strictly applied program of formal probation. But, importantly, it also requires the released offenders, among other things, to get a job and make restitution payments every month to their victims, right off the top from their earnings.
Everyone wins by this system. The offenders are forced into the realization that there are costs for their misdeeds, and that it takes time and effort to pay them. The victims see that they are actually being reimbursed for their losses. That is both psychologically and economically comforting, because their insurance rates start to decrease due to the money being returned to their insurance companies.
And the taxpayers are given a big break because they are no longer required to pay for the continued incarceration of the offenders. So everyone comes out ahead except, of course, the prison guard union, which happens to be the strongest political lobby group in our state today.
Importantly, if violence was involved in the underlying offense, all bets are off. Prison is mostly meant to take violent offenders off the streets, and it should be used more fully for that purpose. But otherwise, we must understand that the United States has only 5% of the world’s population, but a full 25% of its prisoners! As such, we lead the world in the incarceration of our people. And in this case, “We’re No. 1!” should not make us proud.
So don’t let doctrinaire politicians and special-interest lobbyists spread fear about releasing even thousands of these prisoners without facing the evidence. Many of the people in prison shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and others have long since learned all the lessons that incarceration could possibly have taught them. Therefore, every thoughtful person should favor many of these offenders being released, on a case-by-case basis.
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, August 23, 2009
Forest fires: another harm of prohibition - by Judge Jim Gray
For the past 17 years, I have, as a sitting judge, been trying to call everyone’s attention to the failures of our nation’s policy of drug prohibition. In fact, the truth is that we are “taking it on the chin” in every way imaginable, such that we literally couldn’t pursue a worse policy if we tried. But even I was not aware of the additional harm that is being caused by this failed and hopeless policy, as represented by the huge forest fire that has been burning east of Santa Maria in Santa Barbara County.
Newspapers report that authorities believe this La Brea fire, which has burned about 90,000 acres, was started by growers of illegal marijuana at a hidden farm in the Los Padres National Forest. The trigger for the fire was a propane-fed outdoor camp stove.
How was this fire caused by our policy of drug prohibition? Well, obviously, fires like this do not occur where companies like Phillip Morris or Ligget and Myers are growing tobacco. First of all, these companies aren’t forced to grow their crops in remote and desolate regions, and secondly, they are much more careful in what they do, because if by chance they do start a fire, they are held responsible for the damage.
On the contrary, illegal growers are forced out into remote areas, and usually onto public lands, because if their operations are discovered, the land can’t be forfeited. In fact, this particular camp is in a steep, overgrown canyon more than a mile from the nearest road. The workers unlawfully diverted streams to use for irrigation, polluted the ground with stacks of propane tanks and melted irrigation tubing, empty fertilizer canisters and large mounds of trash. Of course, even if there hadn’t been a fire, the workers never would have removed any of these items because, being an illegal operation, they are not held responsible for any of the damage they cause.
Once authorities located the camp, they found about 30,000 top-grade marijuana plants that ranged from two to six feet in height.
The workers had gone to the trouble of building terraces for the marijuana plants and installing a drip irrigation system, and probably would have been camping in the area for about four to five months to allow the plants to mature enough for harvesting. But with a street value in the millions of dollars for the marijuana, all of their efforts and inconveniences would have been well compensated.
Authorities also reported that so far this year, they have seized about 225,000 marijuana plants from six different sites in the area, including this one, with a street price of about $675 million.
They further stated that all of the workers they had found so far had been illegal immigrants from Mexico, but that really is a false issue. Why? Because, as any economist will tell you, if the demand for marijuana is here, and there is that much money to be made, someone will supply it. And if it is not illegal Mexican immigrants, it will be people like your next-door neighbor.
Marijuana has been illegal in this country since 1933, yet it is still fully available to anyone who wants it. And that includes our children, who report that it is easier for them to get marijuana than it is alcohol. And if you don’t believe me, ask them yourself.
Today, no one offers a free sample of Jim Beam bourbon or Budweiser beer on a high school campus. Why? Because if they were to get even close to doing that, they would be in a world of trouble. But illegal dealers offer free samples of marijuana and other illicit drugs to students on their campuses every day. Why does this happen? Because, just like with the La Brea fire situation, as soon as we prohibit a substance, we give up all of our ability to regulate or control it. That means that we concede all of the controls about quality, age restrictions, places of sale, price and everything else to the illegal dealers. And they are the ones who want to glamorize the use of all of these drugs and get our children hooked — so they can make more money off them. That is really stupid of us.
There is now pending in Sacramento Assembly Bill 390, which is being sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano from San Francisco. This measure would treat marijuana like alcohol in California, with the proviso that it would only go into effect 30 days after the federal law would be changed to allow this to occur legally. AB 390 would regulate and control the sale of marijuana for adults — and then tax it! That act alone would, according to the chair of the State Board of Equalization, bring in additional tax revenue to California of about $1.3 billion each year.
Today, marijuana is already the largest cash crop in the state, the seizures of those 225,000 marijuana plants this year notwithstanding, so this measure certainly will not make it more available than it is now.
But passing AB 390 will raise additional revenue for the state, while at the same time reducing the gross revenues of Mexican drug cartels by taking away their market.
And it will also reduce violence and corruption in this country, and, most importantly, make marijuana less available for children than it is today.
So what’s not to like? Accordingly, please call anyone you can vote for in Sacramento and urge them to vote for AB 390. This situation is far too dangerous to leave up to illegal growers and sellers.
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 .
Newspapers report that authorities believe this La Brea fire, which has burned about 90,000 acres, was started by growers of illegal marijuana at a hidden farm in the Los Padres National Forest. The trigger for the fire was a propane-fed outdoor camp stove.
How was this fire caused by our policy of drug prohibition? Well, obviously, fires like this do not occur where companies like Phillip Morris or Ligget and Myers are growing tobacco. First of all, these companies aren’t forced to grow their crops in remote and desolate regions, and secondly, they are much more careful in what they do, because if by chance they do start a fire, they are held responsible for the damage.
On the contrary, illegal growers are forced out into remote areas, and usually onto public lands, because if their operations are discovered, the land can’t be forfeited. In fact, this particular camp is in a steep, overgrown canyon more than a mile from the nearest road. The workers unlawfully diverted streams to use for irrigation, polluted the ground with stacks of propane tanks and melted irrigation tubing, empty fertilizer canisters and large mounds of trash. Of course, even if there hadn’t been a fire, the workers never would have removed any of these items because, being an illegal operation, they are not held responsible for any of the damage they cause.
Once authorities located the camp, they found about 30,000 top-grade marijuana plants that ranged from two to six feet in height.
The workers had gone to the trouble of building terraces for the marijuana plants and installing a drip irrigation system, and probably would have been camping in the area for about four to five months to allow the plants to mature enough for harvesting. But with a street value in the millions of dollars for the marijuana, all of their efforts and inconveniences would have been well compensated.
Authorities also reported that so far this year, they have seized about 225,000 marijuana plants from six different sites in the area, including this one, with a street price of about $675 million.
They further stated that all of the workers they had found so far had been illegal immigrants from Mexico, but that really is a false issue. Why? Because, as any economist will tell you, if the demand for marijuana is here, and there is that much money to be made, someone will supply it. And if it is not illegal Mexican immigrants, it will be people like your next-door neighbor.
Marijuana has been illegal in this country since 1933, yet it is still fully available to anyone who wants it. And that includes our children, who report that it is easier for them to get marijuana than it is alcohol. And if you don’t believe me, ask them yourself.
Today, no one offers a free sample of Jim Beam bourbon or Budweiser beer on a high school campus. Why? Because if they were to get even close to doing that, they would be in a world of trouble. But illegal dealers offer free samples of marijuana and other illicit drugs to students on their campuses every day. Why does this happen? Because, just like with the La Brea fire situation, as soon as we prohibit a substance, we give up all of our ability to regulate or control it. That means that we concede all of the controls about quality, age restrictions, places of sale, price and everything else to the illegal dealers. And they are the ones who want to glamorize the use of all of these drugs and get our children hooked — so they can make more money off them. That is really stupid of us.
There is now pending in Sacramento Assembly Bill 390, which is being sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano from San Francisco. This measure would treat marijuana like alcohol in California, with the proviso that it would only go into effect 30 days after the federal law would be changed to allow this to occur legally. AB 390 would regulate and control the sale of marijuana for adults — and then tax it! That act alone would, according to the chair of the State Board of Equalization, bring in additional tax revenue to California of about $1.3 billion each year.
Today, marijuana is already the largest cash crop in the state, the seizures of those 225,000 marijuana plants this year notwithstanding, so this measure certainly will not make it more available than it is now.
But passing AB 390 will raise additional revenue for the state, while at the same time reducing the gross revenues of Mexican drug cartels by taking away their market.
And it will also reduce violence and corruption in this country, and, most importantly, make marijuana less available for children than it is today.
So what’s not to like? Accordingly, please call anyone you can vote for in Sacramento and urge them to vote for AB 390. This situation is far too dangerous to leave up to illegal growers and sellers.
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 .
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Hunters decimating shark population - by Judge Jim Gray
Recently, one of my sons loaned me a video titled “Sharkwater,” which was created by Canadian filmmaker Rob Stewart. The thesis of the film is that unchecked hunting is decimating the world’s population of most types of sharks. Regretfully, based upon my inquiries, he appears to be right.
Sharks are one of the most vilified and misunderstood creatures on earth. Much of this is probably traced to Steven Spielberg’s movie “Jaws,” which left the public with a mindset that sharks are aggressive and always on the prowl for humans. They may be in a frenzy if there is blood in the water, but otherwise, all indications are that this is simply not true.
It is true that sharks are the top predator in the oceans of the world. But the average number of human deaths caused by shark attacks is only about 10 per year — worldwide. And very likely, all of those are caused by the sharks confusing a human swimmer or surfer for a sea lion, or some of its other natural prey.
And, of course, when there is a shark attack almost anywhere, that is a sensational story that invariably makes the news.
On the other hand, it is estimated that humans are now killing sharks at the rate of about 38 million per year. And since a female shark averages only about 1.2 pups every other year, and it takes about nine years for a shark to mature in the first place, sharks reproduce quite slowly. This means that their ranks are being seriously depleted.
Does it matter? Although the sharks’ involvement in nature’s balance is more complicated and involved than I am able to discuss, my information shows me that it makes a sizable difference because sharks keep the population of other species in check. So if we have fewer sharks, then there will be more sea lions, that will in turn be eating larger amounts of other fish, and more otters that will be eating larger amounts of clams, etc. So man’s interference with the way of nature can have huge repercussions.
But since most shark meat is not particularly desirable, why are hunters killing them? The answer is in the sharks’ fins. Shark fin soup has long been considered a delicacy in Eastern Asia that symbolizes wealth and prestige, so, even though it has almost no taste, it is often served at weddings and other celebratory banquets. In addition, it is also considered to have medical benefits that can nourish the blood, invigorate the kidneys and lungs, improve digestion and even be an energy supplement.
So even though a bowl can retail for anywhere between $10 and $100, with the rise of the middle class in Eastern Asia in the last 15 years, the demand for shark fin soup has skyrocketed.
As a result, dried shark fin today can fetch a retail price of $300 per pound or more. That makes shark fin, pound for pound, the most lucrative substance taken from the sea, and turns this into a billion-dollar-per-year business. But because the meat is not particularly edible or valuable enough to transport, many hunters simply engage in the practice of “finning.” This means that they capture a shark, cut off and keep all of its fins, and simply throw the rest of the body back into the ocean.
Then, since they can no longer swim, the sharks sink to the bottom and drown or are eaten by other fish.
This problem is similar to the one in Africa in which poachers kill elephants only for their ivory tusks. And both of these are examples of what can happen when no one has any property rights to a particular resource, so one person will attempt to plunder as much as he can before someone else does.
Stewart’s film documents some illegal poachers engaged in the practice of finning off Cocos Island, which is a national park in Costa Rica, but the practice is also heavy in many other places as well, such as Indonesia and Western Australia. And since most of the finning occurs in international waters, the practice is as unmanaged and unmonitored as it is widespread. It is true that sharks are also killed by mistake in nets or baited hooks set out for other fish, but the major reason for the huge killing of sharks still appears to be finning.
So what can be done about this situation? The most effective results so far have come from the education of the public. In areas like Thailand and Singapore, in which advertising has increased public awareness of this problem, demand for shark fins has decreased by about 25%.
And when environmental groups made the decision-makers at Disneyland Hong Kong aware of what was going on, shark fin soup was taken off its menu. Stewart is even taking his film for screenings in China, which is one of the countries most involved in consuming shark fins, with the hope that he can influence public opinion there as well.
But each of us can also have an impact upon this problem by recommending shark fins not be served for any meal we are involved with, and encouraging our friends and family to do the same. So please spread the word.
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 .
Sharks are one of the most vilified and misunderstood creatures on earth. Much of this is probably traced to Steven Spielberg’s movie “Jaws,” which left the public with a mindset that sharks are aggressive and always on the prowl for humans. They may be in a frenzy if there is blood in the water, but otherwise, all indications are that this is simply not true.
It is true that sharks are the top predator in the oceans of the world. But the average number of human deaths caused by shark attacks is only about 10 per year — worldwide. And very likely, all of those are caused by the sharks confusing a human swimmer or surfer for a sea lion, or some of its other natural prey.
And, of course, when there is a shark attack almost anywhere, that is a sensational story that invariably makes the news.
On the other hand, it is estimated that humans are now killing sharks at the rate of about 38 million per year. And since a female shark averages only about 1.2 pups every other year, and it takes about nine years for a shark to mature in the first place, sharks reproduce quite slowly. This means that their ranks are being seriously depleted.
Does it matter? Although the sharks’ involvement in nature’s balance is more complicated and involved than I am able to discuss, my information shows me that it makes a sizable difference because sharks keep the population of other species in check. So if we have fewer sharks, then there will be more sea lions, that will in turn be eating larger amounts of other fish, and more otters that will be eating larger amounts of clams, etc. So man’s interference with the way of nature can have huge repercussions.
But since most shark meat is not particularly desirable, why are hunters killing them? The answer is in the sharks’ fins. Shark fin soup has long been considered a delicacy in Eastern Asia that symbolizes wealth and prestige, so, even though it has almost no taste, it is often served at weddings and other celebratory banquets. In addition, it is also considered to have medical benefits that can nourish the blood, invigorate the kidneys and lungs, improve digestion and even be an energy supplement.
So even though a bowl can retail for anywhere between $10 and $100, with the rise of the middle class in Eastern Asia in the last 15 years, the demand for shark fin soup has skyrocketed.
As a result, dried shark fin today can fetch a retail price of $300 per pound or more. That makes shark fin, pound for pound, the most lucrative substance taken from the sea, and turns this into a billion-dollar-per-year business. But because the meat is not particularly edible or valuable enough to transport, many hunters simply engage in the practice of “finning.” This means that they capture a shark, cut off and keep all of its fins, and simply throw the rest of the body back into the ocean.
Then, since they can no longer swim, the sharks sink to the bottom and drown or are eaten by other fish.
This problem is similar to the one in Africa in which poachers kill elephants only for their ivory tusks. And both of these are examples of what can happen when no one has any property rights to a particular resource, so one person will attempt to plunder as much as he can before someone else does.
Stewart’s film documents some illegal poachers engaged in the practice of finning off Cocos Island, which is a national park in Costa Rica, but the practice is also heavy in many other places as well, such as Indonesia and Western Australia. And since most of the finning occurs in international waters, the practice is as unmanaged and unmonitored as it is widespread. It is true that sharks are also killed by mistake in nets or baited hooks set out for other fish, but the major reason for the huge killing of sharks still appears to be finning.
So what can be done about this situation? The most effective results so far have come from the education of the public. In areas like Thailand and Singapore, in which advertising has increased public awareness of this problem, demand for shark fins has decreased by about 25%.
And when environmental groups made the decision-makers at Disneyland Hong Kong aware of what was going on, shark fin soup was taken off its menu. Stewart is even taking his film for screenings in China, which is one of the countries most involved in consuming shark fins, with the hope that he can influence public opinion there as well.
But each of us can also have an impact upon this problem by recommending shark fins not be served for any meal we are involved with, and encouraging our friends and family to do the same. So please spread the word.
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 .
How does an airplane fly? Think about it - By Judge Jim Gray
As my wife and I in a few days are going to get onto an airplane and take off for a vacation, I again started wondering how an airplane actually flies.
To me it seems like an unnatural thing for a long and heavy canister with wings to be able to get off the ground and fly through the air. So I did a little research on the subject.
The three major factors of airplane flight are the engines that produce thrust, the wings that produce lift, and the flaps, elevators, and rudders that are used to control the direction in which the aircraft travels. All of those are probably self-evident, except for the concept of lift.
Many flat surfaces like a piece of plywood, a Frisbee, or even a flat stone, will glide for short distances on a fluid like air or water, and will even rise or dive, depending upon the wind and their angle of attack. But they will not produce lift. For that to occur, the objects must have a different configuration.
The next time you are around an airplane, or helicopter either for that matter, look at how the wings and rotors are formed. Their bottoms are basically flat, and go straight to the back, but their top surfaces are curved. This design forces the air on the top of the wing or rotor to travel farther than the air on the bottom during the same amount of time to reach the same spot at the back.
This is important because when the speed of a fluid increases, the pressure exerted by that fluid on the surface of a nearby object actually decreases. In our case, that means that there is more pressure pushing up from the bottom of the wing or rotor than there is pressure on the top pushing down. Therefore, assuming all other factors are equal, when pushed through the air the wings and rotors have a tendency to rise, or to produce lift.
This is Bernoulli’s Principle. Daniel Bernoulli was a Dutch/Swiss mathematician who lived from 1700 to 1782, and he discovered that as the speed of a moving fluid increases, the pressure exerted by that fluid decreases. And this principle holds true as long as the fluids flow smoothly and consistently, and are of the same density.
Furthermore, the more dense the air is with an airplane, the more lift will be generated. That means that the wings will generate more lift in cold weather than warm, because cold air is denser, and the wings will also generate more lift at sea level than at higher altitudes for the same reason.
As I understand it, this can be analogized to a situation in which people would throw large numbers of golf balls in many different directions inside a small container. The balls would spend a lot of energy bouncing into each other and onto the walls of the container, and that would generate higher amounts of pressure on those inner walls. But if the balls were all thrown in the same direction, the inner pressure would be reduced because the balls would not be hitting the walls or each other, and the faster they go, the less they would be inclined to hit anything.
So what about stunt pilots that fly their planes upside down? Why don’t the wings then “lift” the airplane toward the ground? The answer is that the pilots counteract the downward thrust from the wings by over-adjusting the elevators on the back wings of the plane, which changes the angle of attack by keeping the front of the plane higher than the back.
Another application of Bernoulli’s Principle explains why windows in houses tend to explode outward instead of implode inward during a hurricane. The reason is that since the winds are going so fast outside the house, there is less pressure outside the house than inside. That is why people who are knowledgeable about surviving hurricanes suggest that you open all of the windows in your house when one occurs.
I don’t know about you, but I think it is fun to understand the various phenomena that explain the everyday things that are all around us (For example, how does a flush toilet work?). Think about it; it’s interesting.
I also found it interesting to learn that eastbound aircraft are required to fly at an odd number of thousands of feet, and westbound aircraft at an even number. So, for example, eastbound aircraft will fly at 31,000 feet, and westbound will fly at 30,000. Obviously that regulation is meant to decrease the chances of head-on collisions.
Accordingly, as my wife and I get onto our airplane, we can be comfortable not only that Mr. Bernoulli’s Principle will still be fully engaged, but so will many other features that will increase our chances of a safe flight. In fact, studies show that airplane travel is about 20 times safer than automobile travel, as computed in deaths per passenger mile. (You probably know that the even-numbered interstate highways in our country generally go east and west, and the odd numbered go north and south. But that is just for convenience, and regretfully doesn’t have any effect on head-on collisions.)
So the odds are good that we will return safely from our travels, and you can look forward to many more installments of this column in the coming months. Happy summer travels to us all!
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 .
To me it seems like an unnatural thing for a long and heavy canister with wings to be able to get off the ground and fly through the air. So I did a little research on the subject.
The three major factors of airplane flight are the engines that produce thrust, the wings that produce lift, and the flaps, elevators, and rudders that are used to control the direction in which the aircraft travels. All of those are probably self-evident, except for the concept of lift.
Many flat surfaces like a piece of plywood, a Frisbee, or even a flat stone, will glide for short distances on a fluid like air or water, and will even rise or dive, depending upon the wind and their angle of attack. But they will not produce lift. For that to occur, the objects must have a different configuration.
The next time you are around an airplane, or helicopter either for that matter, look at how the wings and rotors are formed. Their bottoms are basically flat, and go straight to the back, but their top surfaces are curved. This design forces the air on the top of the wing or rotor to travel farther than the air on the bottom during the same amount of time to reach the same spot at the back.
This is important because when the speed of a fluid increases, the pressure exerted by that fluid on the surface of a nearby object actually decreases. In our case, that means that there is more pressure pushing up from the bottom of the wing or rotor than there is pressure on the top pushing down. Therefore, assuming all other factors are equal, when pushed through the air the wings and rotors have a tendency to rise, or to produce lift.
This is Bernoulli’s Principle. Daniel Bernoulli was a Dutch/Swiss mathematician who lived from 1700 to 1782, and he discovered that as the speed of a moving fluid increases, the pressure exerted by that fluid decreases. And this principle holds true as long as the fluids flow smoothly and consistently, and are of the same density.
Furthermore, the more dense the air is with an airplane, the more lift will be generated. That means that the wings will generate more lift in cold weather than warm, because cold air is denser, and the wings will also generate more lift at sea level than at higher altitudes for the same reason.
As I understand it, this can be analogized to a situation in which people would throw large numbers of golf balls in many different directions inside a small container. The balls would spend a lot of energy bouncing into each other and onto the walls of the container, and that would generate higher amounts of pressure on those inner walls. But if the balls were all thrown in the same direction, the inner pressure would be reduced because the balls would not be hitting the walls or each other, and the faster they go, the less they would be inclined to hit anything.
So what about stunt pilots that fly their planes upside down? Why don’t the wings then “lift” the airplane toward the ground? The answer is that the pilots counteract the downward thrust from the wings by over-adjusting the elevators on the back wings of the plane, which changes the angle of attack by keeping the front of the plane higher than the back.
Another application of Bernoulli’s Principle explains why windows in houses tend to explode outward instead of implode inward during a hurricane. The reason is that since the winds are going so fast outside the house, there is less pressure outside the house than inside. That is why people who are knowledgeable about surviving hurricanes suggest that you open all of the windows in your house when one occurs.
I don’t know about you, but I think it is fun to understand the various phenomena that explain the everyday things that are all around us (For example, how does a flush toilet work?). Think about it; it’s interesting.
I also found it interesting to learn that eastbound aircraft are required to fly at an odd number of thousands of feet, and westbound aircraft at an even number. So, for example, eastbound aircraft will fly at 31,000 feet, and westbound will fly at 30,000. Obviously that regulation is meant to decrease the chances of head-on collisions.
Accordingly, as my wife and I get onto our airplane, we can be comfortable not only that Mr. Bernoulli’s Principle will still be fully engaged, but so will many other features that will increase our chances of a safe flight. In fact, studies show that airplane travel is about 20 times safer than automobile travel, as computed in deaths per passenger mile. (You probably know that the even-numbered interstate highways in our country generally go east and west, and the odd numbered go north and south. But that is just for convenience, and regretfully doesn’t have any effect on head-on collisions.)
So the odds are good that we will return safely from our travels, and you can look forward to many more installments of this column in the coming months. Happy summer travels to us all!
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 .
Monday, August 17, 2009
Keep government out of the marketplace. by Judge Jim Gray
Ihave been pondering the answer to the following two questions for several years: First, what actually is the basic liberal philosophy? See if you agree with my answer. In general, the liberal philosophy is that “Government can best address — if not cure — the ills of the world by spending money.” (Of course, it is our money that the government is spending.)
And second, what is the basic conservative philosophy? See if you agree with my answer. In general, the conservative philosophy is that “We should have as small and non-intrusive a government as possible, which is basically one that will provide us with things like a military and police force, foreign policy, justice system, national monetary system, some oversight and regulating of the marketplace, and a few other nationally oriented things like that.” One of the rationales for that philosophy is that individual people are in a better position to make good decisions about how to spend their money than the government is.
Unfortunately, the recent administration of President George W. Bush abandoned that conservative philosophy when it failed to veto huge congressional spending, and even sponsored much of it. For as long as I can remember, conservatives have been chastising liberals as people who would “tax and spend.” But the Bush administration took that one big step further with policies that would “tax, borrow and spend.” And that is a big reason why our country is in such fiscal trouble today. Therefore, as a practical matter, the Libertarians are the only political group that has held true to the basic conservative economic philosophy.
So now one of the policies that the Obama administration and Congress are pursuing is the so-called “Cash for Clunkers” program. As you know, this program contributes $3,500 to $4,500 to people who trade in their old “clunker” automobile for the purchase of a new one. And the program has been so “successful” that it has gone through the first $1 billion of tax money, so Congress has now added another $2 billion to it.
Is this a good idea? If it is and it is actually working, maybe we should expand it to provide a subsidy for everything! (Hopefully, everyone will agree that this suggestion is preposterous.) I do agree that the program is taking older, more polluting and less fuel-efficient cars off the roads, and that, in a vacuum, is a positive development. But think of what this government interference in the marketplace is actually doing.
One thing is that it is taking people who are probably at the lower end of the economic ladder and putting them into more debt during these hard economic times. And the program is also encouraging (bribing?) people to purchase many new foreign cars, like Hondas, Toyotas, Hyundais and Kias. This results in our tax money being spent to help the economies of places like Japan and Korea. (Yes, I understand that some of the cars are assembled in the United States, but the underlying fact remains.) And even to the extent that they buy cars manufactured in our country, this comes on the heels of the government having paid billions of tax dollars in bailout money to General Motors and Chrysler Corporation.
As importantly, we must understand that everything is related, which is to say that things do not exist in a vacuum. So by encouraging people to purchase new cars, we are discouraging them from spending money on other things like movie tickets, haircuts and refrigerators. (Corporate welfare and other government subsidies bring on the same results.)
Indeed, from an environmental and economic perspective, wouldn’t society be benefited just as much or even more by encouraging people to purchase fuel-efficient refrigerators, air conditioners, dishwashers or toasters? Why just cars? And in many cases, wouldn’t it help people and the economy more by having the money spent on health insurance, trips to Yellowstone or a child’s education? Or why not encourage people to increase their savings, which could in turn be used as a basis for bank loans for capital improvements and business expansion?
Of course, the automobile industry lobbied strongly for the initiation and continuation of the clunkers program, but that just reinforces the old saying that if you are going to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.
So when it comes down to it, the conservative philosophy works more effectively for the benefit of the individual, as well as for society in general. That means that individuals really are in a much better position than government to decide how most effectively to use their money. And this in turn leads to the conclusion that government can best assist our people, as well as our economy, by getting out of the marketplace!
But there is something even more disturbing in what is happening today that must be faced and discussed. None of the major empires I can think of throughout history were conquered from without. Instead, they fell apart from within. Examples are the Roman, Ottoman and British empires. And all of this deterioration was facilitated by government overspending. Those governments extended their domestic and military spending beyond that which they could afford, and also increased taxes beyond the point that the taxpayers were willing or even able to pay. And it was their undoing.
Are we at that point yet? I do not have the answer to that question, but we should all be aware of the problem. Of course, even with all of this government borrowing of money, my generation will still be fine. But it will be our children and grandchildren’s generations that will be looked upon to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility. Shame on us all!
The fundamental truth is that when taxes get too high, people will move their resources somewhere else — out of the state or even out of the country. (Think of offshore banking in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere.) And when bureaucratic interference, costs and taxes pass a certain threshold, people will either move their businesses elsewhere, or simply be forced to close them down. Therefore, the “outsourcing” of jobs is only one of the logical or even economically mandated results of this situation.
So what can we do to keep from weakening our great country? As I have said numbers of times in this column, it is our government, and if government is not working, we have no one to blame but ourselves. That means that, if only for the sake of our children and grandchildren, we had better get more active and require our government to be more fiscally responsible. And the best place to start is to get it out of the marketplace.
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 .
And second, what is the basic conservative philosophy? See if you agree with my answer. In general, the conservative philosophy is that “We should have as small and non-intrusive a government as possible, which is basically one that will provide us with things like a military and police force, foreign policy, justice system, national monetary system, some oversight and regulating of the marketplace, and a few other nationally oriented things like that.” One of the rationales for that philosophy is that individual people are in a better position to make good decisions about how to spend their money than the government is.
Unfortunately, the recent administration of President George W. Bush abandoned that conservative philosophy when it failed to veto huge congressional spending, and even sponsored much of it. For as long as I can remember, conservatives have been chastising liberals as people who would “tax and spend.” But the Bush administration took that one big step further with policies that would “tax, borrow and spend.” And that is a big reason why our country is in such fiscal trouble today. Therefore, as a practical matter, the Libertarians are the only political group that has held true to the basic conservative economic philosophy.
So now one of the policies that the Obama administration and Congress are pursuing is the so-called “Cash for Clunkers” program. As you know, this program contributes $3,500 to $4,500 to people who trade in their old “clunker” automobile for the purchase of a new one. And the program has been so “successful” that it has gone through the first $1 billion of tax money, so Congress has now added another $2 billion to it.
Is this a good idea? If it is and it is actually working, maybe we should expand it to provide a subsidy for everything! (Hopefully, everyone will agree that this suggestion is preposterous.) I do agree that the program is taking older, more polluting and less fuel-efficient cars off the roads, and that, in a vacuum, is a positive development. But think of what this government interference in the marketplace is actually doing.
One thing is that it is taking people who are probably at the lower end of the economic ladder and putting them into more debt during these hard economic times. And the program is also encouraging (bribing?) people to purchase many new foreign cars, like Hondas, Toyotas, Hyundais and Kias. This results in our tax money being spent to help the economies of places like Japan and Korea. (Yes, I understand that some of the cars are assembled in the United States, but the underlying fact remains.) And even to the extent that they buy cars manufactured in our country, this comes on the heels of the government having paid billions of tax dollars in bailout money to General Motors and Chrysler Corporation.
As importantly, we must understand that everything is related, which is to say that things do not exist in a vacuum. So by encouraging people to purchase new cars, we are discouraging them from spending money on other things like movie tickets, haircuts and refrigerators. (Corporate welfare and other government subsidies bring on the same results.)
Indeed, from an environmental and economic perspective, wouldn’t society be benefited just as much or even more by encouraging people to purchase fuel-efficient refrigerators, air conditioners, dishwashers or toasters? Why just cars? And in many cases, wouldn’t it help people and the economy more by having the money spent on health insurance, trips to Yellowstone or a child’s education? Or why not encourage people to increase their savings, which could in turn be used as a basis for bank loans for capital improvements and business expansion?
Of course, the automobile industry lobbied strongly for the initiation and continuation of the clunkers program, but that just reinforces the old saying that if you are going to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.
So when it comes down to it, the conservative philosophy works more effectively for the benefit of the individual, as well as for society in general. That means that individuals really are in a much better position than government to decide how most effectively to use their money. And this in turn leads to the conclusion that government can best assist our people, as well as our economy, by getting out of the marketplace!
But there is something even more disturbing in what is happening today that must be faced and discussed. None of the major empires I can think of throughout history were conquered from without. Instead, they fell apart from within. Examples are the Roman, Ottoman and British empires. And all of this deterioration was facilitated by government overspending. Those governments extended their domestic and military spending beyond that which they could afford, and also increased taxes beyond the point that the taxpayers were willing or even able to pay. And it was their undoing.
Are we at that point yet? I do not have the answer to that question, but we should all be aware of the problem. Of course, even with all of this government borrowing of money, my generation will still be fine. But it will be our children and grandchildren’s generations that will be looked upon to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility. Shame on us all!
The fundamental truth is that when taxes get too high, people will move their resources somewhere else — out of the state or even out of the country. (Think of offshore banking in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere.) And when bureaucratic interference, costs and taxes pass a certain threshold, people will either move their businesses elsewhere, or simply be forced to close them down. Therefore, the “outsourcing” of jobs is only one of the logical or even economically mandated results of this situation.
So what can we do to keep from weakening our great country? As I have said numbers of times in this column, it is our government, and if government is not working, we have no one to blame but ourselves. That means that, if only for the sake of our children and grandchildren, we had better get more active and require our government to be more fiscally responsible. And the best place to start is to get it out of the marketplace.
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, August 10, 2009
Ways to resolve our everyday disputes - by Judge Jim Gray
Looking back over my career as a trial court judge, I believe that the thing that brought me the most gratification was helping people to resolve their disputes voluntarily. In fact, in my current work as a private mediator I am still able to do that, so the gratification continues.
But upon reflection, many of the things that I do professionally to facilitate voluntary resolutions of disputes could also be utilized by everyone to resolve their daily disputes. So I thought I would use today’s column to pass along some of the tips that I have learned throughout the years, and I recommend you consider and employ them, and even discuss them with your children and grandchildren to help train them to be peacemakers.
One tool to use at the beginning of settlement discussions is to anticipate the moments in which people on one side or the other may get emotional or upset by asking questions like: “How should we handle it when. . . ?” Many times, settlement discussions are frustrated by these situations. But if you have anticipated them by asking this question, people will see the emotions for what they are, and be able to get through them.
Probably the most important tool in dispute resolution is listening actively. In fact it should not be considered to be an accident that the word “listen” has the same exact letters in it as the word “silent.” Not only will you receive important and often subtle information simply by listening to people as they set forth their grievances, you will also gain their confidence by showing that you are willing to consider their feelings and positions. So understand that there is a huge difference between the act of listening, and the act of simply waiting to talk.
In addition, sometimes people simply need to vent before any serious discussions can begin. So take the time to listen to them, and interrupt only with brief, clarifying questions. This will show them that you are listening and interested, but it will not interfere with the flow of their thoughts.
It is also important to focus upon the fact that the act of listening is not at all the same thing as agreeing. But seldom can disputes be resolved by people who do not understand the position of each side. Then once the person has finished, it can often be helpful to summarize in your own words what that person has said. This will help to put things into perspective, and also show everyone involved that you understand what the issues are.
At this point you can effectively bring up problem areas with each side’s positions by asking neutral but realistic questions. For example, if one person says that she loves to play Beethoven really loudly in her apartment because it is wonderful music that everyone should enjoy, and it really helps to calm her down, ask her how she would feel and react if her neighbor felt the same way, but instead played Bon Jovi? Or ask if she would be able to calm down just as successfully if she listened to her music with earphones. Questions like that are neutral, but bring up realistic problems and possible resolutions.
Once the discussions begin, never use dismissive or disparaging words about any of the participants or their positions, and do not allow anyone else to do so either. Some examples of these are: “Oh, I will just pay ‘nuisance value’ to settle the case,” or one person saying that someone on the other side is a fraud or a thief, or even calls the other party a “jerk,” “dirtbag” or “slimeball,” etc. If that happens, immediately interrupt and say that such words are counterproductive, off limits and not allowed. And be firm about it, because almost nothing will poison a settlement discussion like comments of this kind.
In more complicated disputes it is frequently helpful to ask each side to brainstorm and come up with one or more proposals that take each side’s interests into account. By engaging them in this process, it frequently brings the parties more to a realistic understanding of the problems, and also brings them closer together.
Several years ago I helped to settle what was probably the first Catholic priest child sexual molestation case in the country by not allowing anyone to discuss money at all. Instead, I asked the plaintiff and his attorneys, who were all Catholics, to adjourn to my jury room and prepare a list of institutional changes that they would suggest be adopted by both the Los Angeles and Orange counties dioceses that would seriously reduce the chances that this scurrilous alleged conduct would ever happen again. The plaintiff and his attorneys did so, and in about an hour emerged with a list of 10 suggestions.
Then I requested the church representatives and their attorneys to go into the jury room and consider and respond to those suggestions. When they emerged in about another hour, not only did they agree to each of the 10 suggestions, they actually added an additional one of their own.
At that point, I suggested a dollar figure to settle the case that was quite a bit less than plaintiff had requested, but more than the church had said it was willing to pay. Soon each side agreed to that number, and the case was settled. This approach enlisted each side to help address the fundamental problem, and helped to give them a vested interest in being a part of its resolution. The plaintiff realized that he could never institute these changes by going to trial, only by settling the case. And the church recognized that it could turn an enormously negative situation into something more positive. In addition, each side also received the gratification of knowing that this positive result was facilitated by their own suggestions.
A big secret tool in dispute resolution is to keep the parties slowly moving closer toward each other. And this progress can be about anything. In the example above, if the complaining neighbors simply state that they also enjoy Beethoven, that can disclose a common bond between them. And the more things people see that they have in common, the more likely they are to agree to a workable resolution of their disputes.
Finally, in my mediation efforts I often tell the parties that I am really in the “dissatisfaction distribution business,” and that is true. You will notice that in this discussion I have only used the word “resolution,” and not the word “solution.”
The reason is that most of the time the only things that have actual solutions are mathematical equations; human problems only have resolutions.
So when you are attempting to work with people and deal with their disputes, make sure they understand that probably nothing will make the situation perfect.
We only can do the best we can in an imperfect world.
But being a peacemaker is a skill that can be practiced and improved. And once it is employed successfully, it can bring to you about as perfect a feeling as you will ever enjoy.
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 upon reflection, many of the things that I do professionally to facilitate voluntary resolutions of disputes could also be utilized by everyone to resolve their daily disputes. So I thought I would use today’s column to pass along some of the tips that I have learned throughout the years, and I recommend you consider and employ them, and even discuss them with your children and grandchildren to help train them to be peacemakers.
One tool to use at the beginning of settlement discussions is to anticipate the moments in which people on one side or the other may get emotional or upset by asking questions like: “How should we handle it when. . . ?” Many times, settlement discussions are frustrated by these situations. But if you have anticipated them by asking this question, people will see the emotions for what they are, and be able to get through them.
Probably the most important tool in dispute resolution is listening actively. In fact it should not be considered to be an accident that the word “listen” has the same exact letters in it as the word “silent.” Not only will you receive important and often subtle information simply by listening to people as they set forth their grievances, you will also gain their confidence by showing that you are willing to consider their feelings and positions. So understand that there is a huge difference between the act of listening, and the act of simply waiting to talk.
In addition, sometimes people simply need to vent before any serious discussions can begin. So take the time to listen to them, and interrupt only with brief, clarifying questions. This will show them that you are listening and interested, but it will not interfere with the flow of their thoughts.
It is also important to focus upon the fact that the act of listening is not at all the same thing as agreeing. But seldom can disputes be resolved by people who do not understand the position of each side. Then once the person has finished, it can often be helpful to summarize in your own words what that person has said. This will help to put things into perspective, and also show everyone involved that you understand what the issues are.
At this point you can effectively bring up problem areas with each side’s positions by asking neutral but realistic questions. For example, if one person says that she loves to play Beethoven really loudly in her apartment because it is wonderful music that everyone should enjoy, and it really helps to calm her down, ask her how she would feel and react if her neighbor felt the same way, but instead played Bon Jovi? Or ask if she would be able to calm down just as successfully if she listened to her music with earphones. Questions like that are neutral, but bring up realistic problems and possible resolutions.
Once the discussions begin, never use dismissive or disparaging words about any of the participants or their positions, and do not allow anyone else to do so either. Some examples of these are: “Oh, I will just pay ‘nuisance value’ to settle the case,” or one person saying that someone on the other side is a fraud or a thief, or even calls the other party a “jerk,” “dirtbag” or “slimeball,” etc. If that happens, immediately interrupt and say that such words are counterproductive, off limits and not allowed. And be firm about it, because almost nothing will poison a settlement discussion like comments of this kind.
In more complicated disputes it is frequently helpful to ask each side to brainstorm and come up with one or more proposals that take each side’s interests into account. By engaging them in this process, it frequently brings the parties more to a realistic understanding of the problems, and also brings them closer together.
Several years ago I helped to settle what was probably the first Catholic priest child sexual molestation case in the country by not allowing anyone to discuss money at all. Instead, I asked the plaintiff and his attorneys, who were all Catholics, to adjourn to my jury room and prepare a list of institutional changes that they would suggest be adopted by both the Los Angeles and Orange counties dioceses that would seriously reduce the chances that this scurrilous alleged conduct would ever happen again. The plaintiff and his attorneys did so, and in about an hour emerged with a list of 10 suggestions.
Then I requested the church representatives and their attorneys to go into the jury room and consider and respond to those suggestions. When they emerged in about another hour, not only did they agree to each of the 10 suggestions, they actually added an additional one of their own.
At that point, I suggested a dollar figure to settle the case that was quite a bit less than plaintiff had requested, but more than the church had said it was willing to pay. Soon each side agreed to that number, and the case was settled. This approach enlisted each side to help address the fundamental problem, and helped to give them a vested interest in being a part of its resolution. The plaintiff realized that he could never institute these changes by going to trial, only by settling the case. And the church recognized that it could turn an enormously negative situation into something more positive. In addition, each side also received the gratification of knowing that this positive result was facilitated by their own suggestions.
A big secret tool in dispute resolution is to keep the parties slowly moving closer toward each other. And this progress can be about anything. In the example above, if the complaining neighbors simply state that they also enjoy Beethoven, that can disclose a common bond between them. And the more things people see that they have in common, the more likely they are to agree to a workable resolution of their disputes.
Finally, in my mediation efforts I often tell the parties that I am really in the “dissatisfaction distribution business,” and that is true. You will notice that in this discussion I have only used the word “resolution,” and not the word “solution.”
The reason is that most of the time the only things that have actual solutions are mathematical equations; human problems only have resolutions.
So when you are attempting to work with people and deal with their disputes, make sure they understand that probably nothing will make the situation perfect.
We only can do the best we can in an imperfect world.
But being a peacemaker is a skill that can be practiced and improved. And once it is employed successfully, it can bring to you about as perfect a feeling as you will ever enjoy.
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 .
Friday, August 7, 2009
Have a dose of healthy skepticism - by Judge Jim Gray
When my children were between 5 and 8 years old, we happened to be driving south on the San Diego Freeway below El Toro when I saw a strawberry field that was covered in plastic sheeting and said, “Look kids, that’s where they grow plastic.” All three responded with words like “Really, Daddy, really?” I just kept quiet. And then, about 20 miles later, one of my sons said something like “Oh come on, that’s not true.”
I view that experience as one of the important lessons I have provided to my children, which is to question information, regardless of the source. Now, obviously, one cannot question everything at once, or there is no point of reference. But children should be taught to think about whatever they are told, no matter how much authority the provider of the information has.
So this is my 96th column in this Daily Pilot series. Included in prior columns are suggestions about how to address our nation’s drug policy, health care, illegal immigration, foreign policy about Cuba, educational system, justice system and more. I have recommended we as a country convert to the metric system and utilize transcendental meditation in our schools and prisons, and I have provided you with lots of facts and figures. Have you believed what I have said? Have you believed my statistics? I am a trial court judge who retired after 25 years on the bench. That is a responsible position, and I at least try to be objective. Do you simply accept what I tell you?
You shouldn’t. Not with me, and not with anybody else. I am not encouraging cynicism, just skepticism. Just because something is in writing does not mean it is true. Just because someone who has a responsible position in government, the media, the church or an impressive charitable foundation says something does not mean that it should be accepted without us applying our own sense of reason.
Everyone has biases, including judges. Judges try to recognize and correct for them, but that is not always possible. And people also have motives, with some of them being good, and some not. Why would someone create a computer virus that would cause lots of harm and needless expenditures to the rest of us? Who knows? People do things, and sometimes they are harmful. Why do some people commit arson by lighting mountains on fire? Some people are sick. But other people in responsible positions occasionally act in a similar fashion for lots of different reasons. We have the blessings of being in a mostly free society that allows us to never accept anyone’s information and conclusions by rote without our own verification. Just like my children with the field of plastic.
Is global warming actually happening? If so, is it related to actions by mankind? The CATO Institute in a recent advertisement lists about 100 scientists and educators from all around the world saying that the cause and effect relationship is anything but clear. So do some people have other motives underlying their attempts for developed nations to cut back on carbon emissions? Are there people in our government and elsewhere who have other motives for perpetuating the War on Drugs, our present system of government schools, or converting our private healthcare system into one that is fundamentally controlled by the federal government? It would not be hard to replace our failed immigration system with one that works. Is there a reason why our elected representatives in Congress only talk about changing it, but don’t actually do anything about it?
I don’t particularly have any more information than you do on these questions, although I do spend time thinking about and researching them. But honest skepticism should always be employed. Remember, William Randolph Hearst really did have some unstated vested interests when he printed numbers of untrue or greatly exaggerated stories in his newspaper chain about the supposed harms of marijuana. There also was a movie released in 1936 titled “Reefer Madness” that purported to show innocent high school students being lured to try marijuana and soon thereafter committing murder, rape and suicide as they descended into madness. No such thing has ever been known to have happened, but it was “on the screen,” so people believed it and acted upon it. Instead, they should have been skeptical.
So we should at least get a second opinion and maybe even a third, and think about every question, before we accept something important as true. As a judge, I was called upon frequently to determine who was telling the truth. How could I know? Actually, I’m sure sometimes I was fooled. It is true that sometimes people with beady eyes fidget, perspire and look furtively all around the room when testifying, but they still tell the truth. And others who are calm, self-assured, confident and smooth sometimes lie pathologically. I was trained to be aware of that, but I was also trained to look for biases and motives. We as voters and citizens should be similarly aware, and should similarly pass that honest skepticism on to our children and grandchildren.
Of course, there is also such a thing as “paralysis by analysis.” If we carry “I’m from Missouri” too far, we could all become Hamlets, and then we would never get anything done. So, like everything else, we should employ a balance. So use “Snopes” on the Internet to see if things are true, or a hoax.
But how do you know Snopes is true? Good question.
And by the way, where do they raise plastic?
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 .
I view that experience as one of the important lessons I have provided to my children, which is to question information, regardless of the source. Now, obviously, one cannot question everything at once, or there is no point of reference. But children should be taught to think about whatever they are told, no matter how much authority the provider of the information has.
So this is my 96th column in this Daily Pilot series. Included in prior columns are suggestions about how to address our nation’s drug policy, health care, illegal immigration, foreign policy about Cuba, educational system, justice system and more. I have recommended we as a country convert to the metric system and utilize transcendental meditation in our schools and prisons, and I have provided you with lots of facts and figures. Have you believed what I have said? Have you believed my statistics? I am a trial court judge who retired after 25 years on the bench. That is a responsible position, and I at least try to be objective. Do you simply accept what I tell you?
You shouldn’t. Not with me, and not with anybody else. I am not encouraging cynicism, just skepticism. Just because something is in writing does not mean it is true. Just because someone who has a responsible position in government, the media, the church or an impressive charitable foundation says something does not mean that it should be accepted without us applying our own sense of reason.
Everyone has biases, including judges. Judges try to recognize and correct for them, but that is not always possible. And people also have motives, with some of them being good, and some not. Why would someone create a computer virus that would cause lots of harm and needless expenditures to the rest of us? Who knows? People do things, and sometimes they are harmful. Why do some people commit arson by lighting mountains on fire? Some people are sick. But other people in responsible positions occasionally act in a similar fashion for lots of different reasons. We have the blessings of being in a mostly free society that allows us to never accept anyone’s information and conclusions by rote without our own verification. Just like my children with the field of plastic.
Is global warming actually happening? If so, is it related to actions by mankind? The CATO Institute in a recent advertisement lists about 100 scientists and educators from all around the world saying that the cause and effect relationship is anything but clear. So do some people have other motives underlying their attempts for developed nations to cut back on carbon emissions? Are there people in our government and elsewhere who have other motives for perpetuating the War on Drugs, our present system of government schools, or converting our private healthcare system into one that is fundamentally controlled by the federal government? It would not be hard to replace our failed immigration system with one that works. Is there a reason why our elected representatives in Congress only talk about changing it, but don’t actually do anything about it?
I don’t particularly have any more information than you do on these questions, although I do spend time thinking about and researching them. But honest skepticism should always be employed. Remember, William Randolph Hearst really did have some unstated vested interests when he printed numbers of untrue or greatly exaggerated stories in his newspaper chain about the supposed harms of marijuana. There also was a movie released in 1936 titled “Reefer Madness” that purported to show innocent high school students being lured to try marijuana and soon thereafter committing murder, rape and suicide as they descended into madness. No such thing has ever been known to have happened, but it was “on the screen,” so people believed it and acted upon it. Instead, they should have been skeptical.
So we should at least get a second opinion and maybe even a third, and think about every question, before we accept something important as true. As a judge, I was called upon frequently to determine who was telling the truth. How could I know? Actually, I’m sure sometimes I was fooled. It is true that sometimes people with beady eyes fidget, perspire and look furtively all around the room when testifying, but they still tell the truth. And others who are calm, self-assured, confident and smooth sometimes lie pathologically. I was trained to be aware of that, but I was also trained to look for biases and motives. We as voters and citizens should be similarly aware, and should similarly pass that honest skepticism on to our children and grandchildren.
Of course, there is also such a thing as “paralysis by analysis.” If we carry “I’m from Missouri” too far, we could all become Hamlets, and then we would never get anything done. So, like everything else, we should employ a balance. So use “Snopes” on the Internet to see if things are true, or a hoax.
But how do you know Snopes is true? Good question.
And by the way, where do they raise plastic?
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
Consider the ways to lose a filthy habit - by Judge Jim Gray
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 .
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 .
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 findin