My recent trip to Vietnam and Cambodia with my wife, Grace, consisted mostly of a visit to Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon, and a five-day boat trip up the Mekong River to the Cambodian cities of Phnom Penhand Siem Reap, near Angkor Wat. Our visit to Ho Chi Minh City was the topic of last week’s column. Today, I will discuss our trip to Cambodia.
The highlight was our visit to Angkor Wat, and they truly lived up to our high expectations. This huge complex began in the 9th century and prospered until the 13th century. Many of the statues and stone carvings that have been protected from the elements look like artistic masterpieces that could have been created last week. It is well worth a trip to Cambodia just to see Angkor Wat alone: a truly amazing, inspiring and wondrous creation!
We also visited the holocaust museum in the capital of Phnom Penh. Tuol Sleng was a high school used to imprison and torture thousands of Cambodians for — as they frequently told us — three years, eight months and 20 days between 1975 and 1979. Most of the prisoners were subsequently taken out to the “killing fields” and executed with a club to the back of the head. The victims were the so-called traitors to the revolution, as well as the nation’s educated class or “intellectuals.” They included anyone considered to have had a relationship with the West or anyone who wore eyeglasses — as well as the children of any of the above. As a result, children were callously executed by having their heads beaten in with sticks and clubs.
What I had not focused upon previously was that this genocide was influenced by Mao Tse Tung from Communist China. It happened not long after China’s so-called Cultural Revolution, and was carried out by the Khmer Rouge, which are the French words for the “Red Khmers.” And, just like in China, many from the communist guard were young teenage boys who were given AK-47s and let loose on the population.
By the time it ended, 1.7 million Cambodians, or 21% of the population, perished under Pol Pot’s regime, according to Yale University’s Cambodia Genocide Project. Thus from what I could tell, “The Killing Fields” was unfortunately quite accurate with regard to the bloodbath, although many of the Cambodians perished from starvation and disease that resulted from the KR’s radical policies.
For this reason, half the population is younger than 20. It has also made Cambodia one of the poorest Asian countries. Cambodia is also one of the worst offenders when it comes to human trafficking. This appears to be the mind set because a recent poll showed that 75% of the women in Cambodia feel that it is all right to be beaten by their husbands.
Furthermore, few of the side streets are paved, and education is not compulsory, although it is free through the elementary grades. But for many, higher education is simply not available, either because of the cost or because the children are needed to work to help to support their family. In fact, none of the nation’s three top rulers has a high school degree.
In addition, 29% of its population has access to toilets, which means dysentery is a major killer. Nevertheless, the Cambodian people, whose ethnicity is different from the Vietnamese, were almost uniformly pleasant and cheerful. It was as much of a pleasure to be with them as with the people of Vietnam.
Cambodia uses American dollars as a currency, and, as you can imagine, the cost of living there is quite low. For example, where an hourlong massage costs $12 in Vietnam, a Khmer massage (which is different from anything I have had before and is outstanding) costs $5 for an hour in Cambodia.
But one thing that really stayed with me was the times that I looked at some of the teenage girls who were living on houseboats on the river as they were watching our tourist boat go by. They would look at us in a way that expressed a deep resignation that they knew that their lives would never be any better. They would eventually get married and have children, but still live as fishermen in these same houseboats on the river.
I wish I could take some of our children here in the U.S. and impress upon them the importance of their staying in school and getting an education. So many of these young Cambodians are absolutely desperate to have the education that many of our children are simply throwing away!
But slowly things are getting better in Cambodia. There seems to be a fair amount of freedom of the press, because several of the newspapers I read included articles that were actually critical of the government. Clean drinking water also now seems to be much more readily available, and prison reform is increasing, as is access to their justice system. Religious freedom in the country also does not seem to be a problem, and at least the girls seem to have a veto power over whom they will marry. In addition, tourism dollars are increasingly flowing into the country, at least in Siem Reap, although tourists still must procure a cumbersome and expensive visa to enter the country.
It was a great trip and one that I would recommend to any semi-adventurous travelers. But, as my father used to say, the best part of any trip is coming home. Our visits to Vietnam and Cambodia further helped me to appreciate what we have in our wonderful country, even to the extent that it makes my paying our income taxes in a few weeks quite a bit more palatable.
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, April 5, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
It’s certainly not yesterday’s Vietnam - by Judge Jim Gray
My wife Grace and I just returned from a two-week trip to Vietnam and Cambodia. This column will discuss today’s Vietnam — which has certainly changed since I was there briefly during the war — and next week’s column will talk about Cambodia.
The first thing we noticed about Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) is the chaotic traffic: mostly motorbikes and motor scooters, but also lots of cars, trucks and bicycles mixed in, and precious few traffic signals. So with these pesky two-wheelers darting all over the place, it’s kind of like driving in spaghetti. But, amazingly enough, although we saw and experienced many near misses, we didn’t see even one collision while we were there. And we didn’t even see many scratches on the cars. So, one way or the other, the system is working.
We also saw that most of the Vietnamese women driving motor scooters wore a mask over their faces, long sleeves and gloves. The reason we were given was that having the fairest skin possible is considered to be much better looking in Vietnam.
We also were told about an example of the true new Vietnamese (and American) entrepreneurial spirit. A few years ago during the bird flu epidemic, the people in Vietnam simply stopped eating chicken. Many Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets compensated by importing chickens from France, and publicizing that fact to encourage sales. But it didn’t help. So until the epidemic waned, KFC became KFF, which stands for Kentucky Fried Fish. And they got along nicely.
The most sobering experience on our trip to Vietnam was a visit to the Cu Chi Tunnels, which were dug by the Viet Cong during the French occupation, and continued during the fighting with our troops. The Viet Cong were South Vietnamese guerrillas who fought as against the U.S.-backed Saigon regime. Cu Chi was a cobweb of about 120 miles of tunnels about 40 miles from the center of Saigon. The tunnels were often three stories deep, and contained quarters for storage, sleeping and eating, as well as kitchens and rooms for medical operations. The entrances and breathing holes were highly camouflaged, and the system allowed the Viet Cong fighters to appear in and disappear from most areas above ground virtually at will.
The Viet Cong also built booby traps in the same area, examples of which were demonstrated to us. These would be holes dug in the ground and camouflaged. When our soldiers stepped on the traps they would fall upon metal spikes laced with feces that would pierce their feet, or long sharpened poles that would pierce their armpits. There were others that, when triggered, would release metal balls covered with spikes that would swing down upon our soldiers on a vine from a tree. And, of course there were homemade land mines. These traps reflected the realization that the Viet Cong could obtain greater and more lasting psychological advantages by severely injuring our soldiers.
Imagine being a U.S. soldier on the ground in this area. In the first place, you couldn’t distinguish the friendly Vietnamese from the enemy. And secondly, imagine being with your best buddy when he had his foot punctured by a metal spike or lost his legs from a land mine. It is not an accident that about one-quarter of all of the disabled homeless people in Orange County are military veterans.
Of course, hundreds of thousands of Viet Cong were killed or injured during this “police action.” The conditions in the tunnels alone were terribly unhealthy, with the dampness and the poor air quality caused by oil-burning lamps. And many of the wounded died from infections contracted simply from being in the dampness under ground. We also noted that the Viet Cong remolded the metal from the bombs that our forces dropped on them into the spikes for their booby traps, and also that some of the VC would cut some unexploded bombs open so they could reuse the metal and the explosives inside. One spark and you were history.
But all of this vividly brought home to me the commitment of the Viet Cong to kick out what they saw as foreign occupiers.
While I was stationed with the Navy in Guam from April 1972 until October 1974, I routinely saw large military trucks on our roads carrying 500-pound bombs from the Naval Magazine over to Anderson Air Force Base, where they were loaded onto B-52s. Their motto at Anderson was “Bombs on Target,” which is certainly understandable, because that was their job. But I had never before really appreciated the significance of being on the receiving end of a B-52 raid. As we could see at the tunnels area, each bomb left a crater about 30 feet in diameter and about 15 feet deep. Imagine being on the ground or in the tunnels during such a raid!
When we departed Vietnam, I was left with the thought that North Vietnam would have been far better off had it lost the war because then we probably would have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into their country to spur their economy and well-being. They would also have more freedom, and we would probably be driving Vietnamese cars. Or, on the other hand, we should have had the courage of our philosophy from the outset and not put in troops in the first place. How so? Because communism simply doesn’t work. Our guides in Vietnam routinely said that their country had moved away from communism and over to capitalism exactly for that reason, because once the subsidies from the Soviet Union stopped after its demise, they had no choice. The same thing happened to a major degree in Cambodia and Cuba — and also in China. So today the Vietnamese government only really runs its oil industry, and, of course, the newspapers and the radio and television stations.
Of course, the communist government in Vietnam committed many human rights atrocities before and after it won the war, and, although the situation is somewhat better, it continues to do so. Furthermore, although our guides often said there is freedom of speech in Vietnam, reality shows otherwise. And even though the government appears to have the money, it is not spending much of it to address the problems of creating or maintaining the country’s infrastructure with regard to paving roads, cleaning water, disposing of trash, and making toilets available. Nevertheless, one way or the other, both sides are worse off because we pursued a military solution.
On the positive side, Vietnam has radically changed for the better in almost every regard. Its government has shifted from taking a highly dogmatic and doctrinaire approach to a more practical one. Vietnam is actively trading goods and services with other countries, and is successfully soliciting investments of foreign capital. With all of that progress, it surprises me that the visa process was so cumbersome and expensive. But these are good signs because only rarely do people shoot their customers, and most investors do not place their money in countries that are not stable.
As a result of this progress, the average wage per person has increased from about $1,000 per year in 1975 to about $2,700 today. Prices are still low there, as, for example, an hour’s massage costs about $12. But who could have imagined seeing a Mercedes or a Cadillac being driven down the streets of Ho Chi Minh City by a non-government official? That is a revolution all in itself.
In summary, we had a great trip, meeting good people, seeing interesting sights, and eating good food (try some Pho noodle soup at one of our local Vietnamese restaurants). And on no occasion while in Vietnam did I perceive any rancor or ill will toward me as an American as a result of the war. Nevertheless, and after due consideration, both Grace and I have decided that we would still prefer to live in Newport Beach instead of on a self-constructed 30-foot houseboat with no toilets on the Mekong River that is floating on bamboo poles.
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 first thing we noticed about Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) is the chaotic traffic: mostly motorbikes and motor scooters, but also lots of cars, trucks and bicycles mixed in, and precious few traffic signals. So with these pesky two-wheelers darting all over the place, it’s kind of like driving in spaghetti. But, amazingly enough, although we saw and experienced many near misses, we didn’t see even one collision while we were there. And we didn’t even see many scratches on the cars. So, one way or the other, the system is working.
We also saw that most of the Vietnamese women driving motor scooters wore a mask over their faces, long sleeves and gloves. The reason we were given was that having the fairest skin possible is considered to be much better looking in Vietnam.
We also were told about an example of the true new Vietnamese (and American) entrepreneurial spirit. A few years ago during the bird flu epidemic, the people in Vietnam simply stopped eating chicken. Many Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets compensated by importing chickens from France, and publicizing that fact to encourage sales. But it didn’t help. So until the epidemic waned, KFC became KFF, which stands for Kentucky Fried Fish. And they got along nicely.
The most sobering experience on our trip to Vietnam was a visit to the Cu Chi Tunnels, which were dug by the Viet Cong during the French occupation, and continued during the fighting with our troops. The Viet Cong were South Vietnamese guerrillas who fought as against the U.S.-backed Saigon regime. Cu Chi was a cobweb of about 120 miles of tunnels about 40 miles from the center of Saigon. The tunnels were often three stories deep, and contained quarters for storage, sleeping and eating, as well as kitchens and rooms for medical operations. The entrances and breathing holes were highly camouflaged, and the system allowed the Viet Cong fighters to appear in and disappear from most areas above ground virtually at will.
The Viet Cong also built booby traps in the same area, examples of which were demonstrated to us. These would be holes dug in the ground and camouflaged. When our soldiers stepped on the traps they would fall upon metal spikes laced with feces that would pierce their feet, or long sharpened poles that would pierce their armpits. There were others that, when triggered, would release metal balls covered with spikes that would swing down upon our soldiers on a vine from a tree. And, of course there were homemade land mines. These traps reflected the realization that the Viet Cong could obtain greater and more lasting psychological advantages by severely injuring our soldiers.
Imagine being a U.S. soldier on the ground in this area. In the first place, you couldn’t distinguish the friendly Vietnamese from the enemy. And secondly, imagine being with your best buddy when he had his foot punctured by a metal spike or lost his legs from a land mine. It is not an accident that about one-quarter of all of the disabled homeless people in Orange County are military veterans.
Of course, hundreds of thousands of Viet Cong were killed or injured during this “police action.” The conditions in the tunnels alone were terribly unhealthy, with the dampness and the poor air quality caused by oil-burning lamps. And many of the wounded died from infections contracted simply from being in the dampness under ground. We also noted that the Viet Cong remolded the metal from the bombs that our forces dropped on them into the spikes for their booby traps, and also that some of the VC would cut some unexploded bombs open so they could reuse the metal and the explosives inside. One spark and you were history.
But all of this vividly brought home to me the commitment of the Viet Cong to kick out what they saw as foreign occupiers.
While I was stationed with the Navy in Guam from April 1972 until October 1974, I routinely saw large military trucks on our roads carrying 500-pound bombs from the Naval Magazine over to Anderson Air Force Base, where they were loaded onto B-52s. Their motto at Anderson was “Bombs on Target,” which is certainly understandable, because that was their job. But I had never before really appreciated the significance of being on the receiving end of a B-52 raid. As we could see at the tunnels area, each bomb left a crater about 30 feet in diameter and about 15 feet deep. Imagine being on the ground or in the tunnels during such a raid!
When we departed Vietnam, I was left with the thought that North Vietnam would have been far better off had it lost the war because then we probably would have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into their country to spur their economy and well-being. They would also have more freedom, and we would probably be driving Vietnamese cars. Or, on the other hand, we should have had the courage of our philosophy from the outset and not put in troops in the first place. How so? Because communism simply doesn’t work. Our guides in Vietnam routinely said that their country had moved away from communism and over to capitalism exactly for that reason, because once the subsidies from the Soviet Union stopped after its demise, they had no choice. The same thing happened to a major degree in Cambodia and Cuba — and also in China. So today the Vietnamese government only really runs its oil industry, and, of course, the newspapers and the radio and television stations.
Of course, the communist government in Vietnam committed many human rights atrocities before and after it won the war, and, although the situation is somewhat better, it continues to do so. Furthermore, although our guides often said there is freedom of speech in Vietnam, reality shows otherwise. And even though the government appears to have the money, it is not spending much of it to address the problems of creating or maintaining the country’s infrastructure with regard to paving roads, cleaning water, disposing of trash, and making toilets available. Nevertheless, one way or the other, both sides are worse off because we pursued a military solution.
On the positive side, Vietnam has radically changed for the better in almost every regard. Its government has shifted from taking a highly dogmatic and doctrinaire approach to a more practical one. Vietnam is actively trading goods and services with other countries, and is successfully soliciting investments of foreign capital. With all of that progress, it surprises me that the visa process was so cumbersome and expensive. But these are good signs because only rarely do people shoot their customers, and most investors do not place their money in countries that are not stable.
As a result of this progress, the average wage per person has increased from about $1,000 per year in 1975 to about $2,700 today. Prices are still low there, as, for example, an hour’s massage costs about $12. But who could have imagined seeing a Mercedes or a Cadillac being driven down the streets of Ho Chi Minh City by a non-government official? That is a revolution all in itself.
In summary, we had a great trip, meeting good people, seeing interesting sights, and eating good food (try some Pho noodle soup at one of our local Vietnamese restaurants). And on no occasion while in Vietnam did I perceive any rancor or ill will toward me as an American as a result of the war. Nevertheless, and after due consideration, both Grace and I have decided that we would still prefer to live in Newport Beach instead of on a self-constructed 30-foot houseboat with no toilets on the Mekong River that is floating on bamboo poles.
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 21, 2010
To protect the state — and the church - by Judge Jim Gray
Last week we discussed a sermon I gave at the Garden Grove United Methodist Church, which focused on the decisions that Christians are called upon to make, and whether it makes any difference that we are Christians.
That discussion leads into another discussion I was involved in recently at St. Michael and All Angel’s Episcopal Church in Corona del Mar, about the importance of the separation of church and state. This subject can be considered controversial because some people consider that it could be seen as an attack on religion. I simply do not agree with that assessment.
I view this separation as being one of the most important war-and-peace issues of the 21st century. Of course there will be some exceptions, but in general governments that maintain the separation of church and state will be far less likely to be involved in war than those that do not. For example, we all should be concerned today about the governments of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and others where religion plays a large part in the affairs of government.
Although we generally consider separation of church and state to be addressed in our Constitution, it is not all that clear. The 1st Amendment specifies that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, but that could be read as only controlling the actions of Congress, not those of individuals or churches.
The most-cited reference to the separation doctrine comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, well after the Constitution was ratified, to the Danbury Baptist Assn. of Connecticut.
In this letter Jefferson said that there must be a “wall of separation between church and state.” Nevertheless, the 1st Amendment was later interpreted by the United States Supreme Court as forbidding anyone from bringing religion into government, and vice versa.
This is considered an important issue because of the two goals connected to it. The first is to protect government from the undue influence of the church. That is not to say that governments cannot be influenced by religious values, and it does not imply that we should become a secular society. That is not even a part of the discussion, nor should it be! But if you look back into the history of our country, you will find that churches strongly influenced the Salem Witch Trials. Elsewhere, you will find similar tragic results with the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and the Holy Roman Empire. That is not to say we are in imminent peril; it is simply to say that we should be aware that the seeds are there.
Similarly, the Catholic Church in the 1600s caused Galileo to be prosecuted for proposing the scientific belief that the Earth rotated around the sun. This is not an untypical response when churches have some controls over governments and governments attempt to question church dogma. The seeds are there as well for the suppression of such an inquiry.
More recently we see the involvement by the Taliban in blowing up statues of Buddha in Afghanistan because they presented “inappropriate influences” to the people. Similarly some governments require women to cover themselves with scarves and burqas, or countenance the stoning of women for perceived sexual or other transgressions. Religion is often corrupting of government, and it should be kept separate.
Furthermore, it is not hard for one person or a small group of people to accumulate a large amount of power and influence in a church. Most churches are designed that way, with examples being the pope in Rome, and the ayotollahs in Iran. No one should want church officials to become in any way in charge of civilian governments.
Besides, probably anyone who does not see the problem can almost immediately be helped to see the light by being asked the following question: How would you feel if the other guy’s religion is chosen to lead or have undue influence on your government? I think we all know the answer.
If our country were to choose to have a state religion, or even be strongly influenced by a particular one, a conservative Christian religion would probably be selected. But in reality it is too late. We have long since also become a nation of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, less conservative Christian religions and many other religions, and also of people who are atheists, humanists or who have no religion at all. And if those people felt that someone else’s beliefs were going to have undue influence with their own government, it could very well lead to a civil war. Why? Because they are Americans, too and would rightly not want formally to be discriminated against by their own government.
So what about “In God We Trust” on our currency, or “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance? Is it unconstitutional? No, fortunately the courts understand that these are a large part of who we are, and an expression that, from the Founding Fathers on up until today, we are generally a God-fearing people, and that we trust and believe in God. The same thing is true for us to continue to celebrate Christmas as a national holiday, or for religious events or servants like Mother Teresa to be celebrated on our postage stamps. Of course, there will be those who try to “push the envelope” on both sides of those issues. But fortunately, the courts have seen it appropriate to celebrate and maintain the historical and traditional parts of our nation.
By analogy, probably aspirin would not be cleared today by the Food and Drug Administration, because it can be used in a dangerous if not life-threatening fashion. But we have grown up with it, it is a part of us and our culture, and there is virtually no chance that it will be recalled. Nor should it be. But had the phrase on our money been “In Jesus We Trust,” or the pledge instead contained “one nation under Buddha,” that would appropriately have been held to violate the Constitution and the doctrine of the separation of church and state.
The second critical goal is to enforce this separation for the protection of churches from the undue influence of government. When my wife, Grace, and I took our fabulous trip to Turkey, we learned that the government actually pays much of the salaries of the imams, who are the Muslim prayer leaders. When I asked why, our guide simply said that this was an effective way for the government to exercise some control over the actions of religious leaders. Obviously, these religious leaders would have a tendency to ease back on their criticism of the same entity that was issuing their paychecks. But the danger to religious freedom under those circumstances is obvious.
Similarly, we should be quite concerned about our government funneling charitable funds through religious institutions. It sounds fine in concept for the government to fund wonderful organizations like the Salvation Army and church-sponsored food kitchens for the poor, but remember that where government money is given, control is sure to follow. And then the “strings” attached to the funding invariably become ropes and chains. So in many ways it would be better for the money to be funneled to non-religious organizations. Besides, if the government funds your religious group’s charities, why shouldn’t it also fund mine? And that only begins the friction, because one person’s charity can quickly become another person’s terrorist group. Those conflicts will never end, so it is better not to get started down that road in the first place.
So for those reasons, we should try as firmly as we can to keep the function and control of government and of churches as separate as possible. That should not be seen as a comment that we are not supportive of religion or of government. In fact, it is a statement to the contrary — we actually support both. But true religious freedom can only be enjoyed, and government can only better provide equity, justice and protection for all, if the separation between the two of them is maintained.
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 .
That discussion leads into another discussion I was involved in recently at St. Michael and All Angel’s Episcopal Church in Corona del Mar, about the importance of the separation of church and state. This subject can be considered controversial because some people consider that it could be seen as an attack on religion. I simply do not agree with that assessment.
I view this separation as being one of the most important war-and-peace issues of the 21st century. Of course there will be some exceptions, but in general governments that maintain the separation of church and state will be far less likely to be involved in war than those that do not. For example, we all should be concerned today about the governments of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and others where religion plays a large part in the affairs of government.
Although we generally consider separation of church and state to be addressed in our Constitution, it is not all that clear. The 1st Amendment specifies that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, but that could be read as only controlling the actions of Congress, not those of individuals or churches.
The most-cited reference to the separation doctrine comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, well after the Constitution was ratified, to the Danbury Baptist Assn. of Connecticut.
In this letter Jefferson said that there must be a “wall of separation between church and state.” Nevertheless, the 1st Amendment was later interpreted by the United States Supreme Court as forbidding anyone from bringing religion into government, and vice versa.
This is considered an important issue because of the two goals connected to it. The first is to protect government from the undue influence of the church. That is not to say that governments cannot be influenced by religious values, and it does not imply that we should become a secular society. That is not even a part of the discussion, nor should it be! But if you look back into the history of our country, you will find that churches strongly influenced the Salem Witch Trials. Elsewhere, you will find similar tragic results with the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and the Holy Roman Empire. That is not to say we are in imminent peril; it is simply to say that we should be aware that the seeds are there.
Similarly, the Catholic Church in the 1600s caused Galileo to be prosecuted for proposing the scientific belief that the Earth rotated around the sun. This is not an untypical response when churches have some controls over governments and governments attempt to question church dogma. The seeds are there as well for the suppression of such an inquiry.
More recently we see the involvement by the Taliban in blowing up statues of Buddha in Afghanistan because they presented “inappropriate influences” to the people. Similarly some governments require women to cover themselves with scarves and burqas, or countenance the stoning of women for perceived sexual or other transgressions. Religion is often corrupting of government, and it should be kept separate.
Furthermore, it is not hard for one person or a small group of people to accumulate a large amount of power and influence in a church. Most churches are designed that way, with examples being the pope in Rome, and the ayotollahs in Iran. No one should want church officials to become in any way in charge of civilian governments.
Besides, probably anyone who does not see the problem can almost immediately be helped to see the light by being asked the following question: How would you feel if the other guy’s religion is chosen to lead or have undue influence on your government? I think we all know the answer.
If our country were to choose to have a state religion, or even be strongly influenced by a particular one, a conservative Christian religion would probably be selected. But in reality it is too late. We have long since also become a nation of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, less conservative Christian religions and many other religions, and also of people who are atheists, humanists or who have no religion at all. And if those people felt that someone else’s beliefs were going to have undue influence with their own government, it could very well lead to a civil war. Why? Because they are Americans, too and would rightly not want formally to be discriminated against by their own government.
So what about “In God We Trust” on our currency, or “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance? Is it unconstitutional? No, fortunately the courts understand that these are a large part of who we are, and an expression that, from the Founding Fathers on up until today, we are generally a God-fearing people, and that we trust and believe in God. The same thing is true for us to continue to celebrate Christmas as a national holiday, or for religious events or servants like Mother Teresa to be celebrated on our postage stamps. Of course, there will be those who try to “push the envelope” on both sides of those issues. But fortunately, the courts have seen it appropriate to celebrate and maintain the historical and traditional parts of our nation.
By analogy, probably aspirin would not be cleared today by the Food and Drug Administration, because it can be used in a dangerous if not life-threatening fashion. But we have grown up with it, it is a part of us and our culture, and there is virtually no chance that it will be recalled. Nor should it be. But had the phrase on our money been “In Jesus We Trust,” or the pledge instead contained “one nation under Buddha,” that would appropriately have been held to violate the Constitution and the doctrine of the separation of church and state.
The second critical goal is to enforce this separation for the protection of churches from the undue influence of government. When my wife, Grace, and I took our fabulous trip to Turkey, we learned that the government actually pays much of the salaries of the imams, who are the Muslim prayer leaders. When I asked why, our guide simply said that this was an effective way for the government to exercise some control over the actions of religious leaders. Obviously, these religious leaders would have a tendency to ease back on their criticism of the same entity that was issuing their paychecks. But the danger to religious freedom under those circumstances is obvious.
Similarly, we should be quite concerned about our government funneling charitable funds through religious institutions. It sounds fine in concept for the government to fund wonderful organizations like the Salvation Army and church-sponsored food kitchens for the poor, but remember that where government money is given, control is sure to follow. And then the “strings” attached to the funding invariably become ropes and chains. So in many ways it would be better for the money to be funneled to non-religious organizations. Besides, if the government funds your religious group’s charities, why shouldn’t it also fund mine? And that only begins the friction, because one person’s charity can quickly become another person’s terrorist group. Those conflicts will never end, so it is better not to get started down that road in the first place.
So for those reasons, we should try as firmly as we can to keep the function and control of government and of churches as separate as possible. That should not be seen as a comment that we are not supportive of religion or of government. In fact, it is a statement to the contrary — we actually support both. But true religious freedom can only be enjoyed, and government can only better provide equity, justice and protection for all, if the separation between the two of them is maintained.
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 .
We are all living in the arms of God - by Judge Jim Gray
Recently I was asked to give a sermon at Garden Grove United Methodist Church, the church I belonged to before I met and got married to my wife, Grace, and I was truly happy to do so. So when you have an opportunity to speak on a topic of your own choosing in church, what would you talk about?
Well, I reflected for a while on the subject, and eventually landed on the theme: We are Christians – does it make any difference? Of course, there are significant differences because of Christian theology, and the story and teachings of Jesus. But are there any other differences as well? And if there are, what are they? See if your answers are the same as mine.
I began my talk by saying that I recently had published a book on judging in an attempt to pass along to new judges any wisdom I had gathered from my 25 years on the bench. And the first sentence of the preface of that book said that the best decision I had ever made in my life was choosing my parents. Of course, the benefits of that “choice” had made enormous differences in my life. My parents were a huge support system, and they provided me with love that was both unconditional and unending.
I confess that sometimes I put that love to the test. For example, when I was 10 years old I once attempted to shoplift a bag of Tootsie Rolls I got caught, and then was forced to inform my parents. They stood by me without recrimination, but I could tell that they were as disappointed in me as I was in myself. Since that time I have never again stolen anything from anybody, and I also have not been able to look another bag of Tootsie Rolls in the face!
But what a gift my parents gave me with this love and support! Of course, I believe that gift also came with a moral obligation to help those people on this Earth who did not “choose” their parents quite so well.
Like me, most people at least originally became Christians only by accident of birth. Thereafter, many people actually focus on the teachings of Jesus, weigh the Christian theology against that of other religions, and then choose to continue to follow the Christian faith. But many people did not choose to stay as Christians any more than I actually chose my parents. In fact, if their parents had been Hindu, the odds are overwhelming that they would still be Hindu to this day.
Did God choose us? Well, I certainly do not know the answer to that question – it is well above my pay grade. But I do know that God did give us choices in life, and then, just like my parents, is proud when we choose well, and disappointed when we choose poorly. But He still loves us regardless of the choices we make, without condition and without end. And that is a difference, in fact a big one.
As we discussed previously in this column, our attempts in peer court to have high school students focus on the fact that we are not a thief not because we fear being caught, but because we are better than that! Even if no one else in the world will know that we had taken some other student’s watch from his locker, we would know. And our parents did not raise us to be a thief! And, as Christians, neither did our Father who art in heaven.
Like many other people, I have tried to live the type of life that would allow me to be satisfied when I looked back on it from my deathbed, just as St. Peter would as we try to enter the Pearly Gates. So if I could give myself some advice from that position at the end of my life, it would be three things. First, love the people who treat you right, and absolutely forget about those who don’t. Second, if you get a chance in life, take it! In that regard, try to make the lyrics of the song “I’m Gonna Live Till I Die” as your motto. “Until my number’s up, I’m gonna fill my cup / I’m gonna live, live, live until I die.”
And third, treat people like people. In so many ways, my wonderful father was my role model in this regard, as well as many others. When he was a federal judge in downtown Los Angeles, he would know the names of not only the custodians who kept our office spaces clean, but also the names of their children. And they loved him for it.
So without thinking about it, I naturally followed his lead. One day when I was a federal prosecutor in the same courthouse, I saw one of the men who worked on our floor, and said, “Good morning, Mr. Wicks.” At this point, this man completely stopped what he was doing and said, “Mr. Gray, I have been working here for 18 years, and you are the first person ever to call me by name.” What a shame. (As a further but irrelevant part of the story, I later found out that this nice and hardworking man was the father of Sidney Wicks, the All American basketball player for my treasured UCLA Bruins.) This experience also resulted in my lifelong tendency to try to leave bigger tips for people who wait on tables at cafes and who clean our hotel rooms. They work hard, but are generally taken for granted and unappreciated.
Similarly, my mother told me that one time she had accompanied my father on a trip to inspect Lompoc Federal Prison.
It so happened that the inmates had a talent show on the day of the visit, and my parents stayed to watch the show. As such, my father was seated with the warden on one side and my mother on the other. But next to my mother was an inmate who struck up a conversation with her by saying that my father happened to have sentenced him to prison, and that he had received a maximum sentence. With that piece of news, my mother said she literally tried to move over closer to my father and away from this inmate.
But he went on to say that nevertheless, because throughout the trial and sentencing my father had always treated him with dignity and respect, my father was his favorite judge he had ever appeared before – and he had been before lots of judges!
That is why in so many ways our state’s drug courts have been a positive revolution in our court system. Why? Because it forces judges, prosecutors, probation officers and even the arresting police officers to treat the defendants as real people. No longer are the criminal defendants who happen to be drug-addicted thought of or labeled as “hypes,” “junkies,” or even statistics. Instead, they are thought of as fellow human beings, who have the same desires, needs, dreams, and failings that all of the rest of us have. So treating people as people does not at all mean that we have to be taken advantage of by them, or that we do not hold them accountable for what they do. It just means that we treat them as individuals.
On this subject, I recommend you read the book, “The Anatomy of Peace,” by the Arbinger Institute. This well-crafted and easy-reading book discusses the difference between treating another person as a person, or as an object. If we treat others as people, we do not need to justify our own prejudices, depressions, self-righteousness, or fears, because those issues simply don’t arise. But if we treat them as objects, all of these harmful and degrading traits within us often increase and harden, which will in turn allow them to poison us. Then we proceed to use the injustices that are done to us as justifications to do injustices to others. At that point, we become our own enemies by using our mistreatments to destroy our own peace.
So it is not just the dictators of some nations of the world that inflict bad things upon others in order to get or maintain power. All of us can do that as well.
Jesus said: “If you love me, then feed my sheep.” With the blessings we have received, we can help administer to the needs of others who, through nothing they have done, are not as fortunate as we are. I think that is the answer. Oh, I know that we can’t bring peace to the whole world, and it may be naïve to believe otherwise. But we can bring peace to our world! Like the hymn says, “Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me.”
We are truly blessed. We have chosen well, or, one way or the other, we were eternally lucky to have been chosen. Our Father loves us – without condition, and without end. He cares about us, and wants to be proud of us. It matters, and what a difference it makes!
So in the time remaining to us upon this earth, we should stand up extra straight. Walk proud. And fear not. Because we are Christians. We are living our lives nestled in the arms of a loving God!
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 .
Well, I reflected for a while on the subject, and eventually landed on the theme: We are Christians – does it make any difference? Of course, there are significant differences because of Christian theology, and the story and teachings of Jesus. But are there any other differences as well? And if there are, what are they? See if your answers are the same as mine.
I began my talk by saying that I recently had published a book on judging in an attempt to pass along to new judges any wisdom I had gathered from my 25 years on the bench. And the first sentence of the preface of that book said that the best decision I had ever made in my life was choosing my parents. Of course, the benefits of that “choice” had made enormous differences in my life. My parents were a huge support system, and they provided me with love that was both unconditional and unending.
I confess that sometimes I put that love to the test. For example, when I was 10 years old I once attempted to shoplift a bag of Tootsie Rolls I got caught, and then was forced to inform my parents. They stood by me without recrimination, but I could tell that they were as disappointed in me as I was in myself. Since that time I have never again stolen anything from anybody, and I also have not been able to look another bag of Tootsie Rolls in the face!
But what a gift my parents gave me with this love and support! Of course, I believe that gift also came with a moral obligation to help those people on this Earth who did not “choose” their parents quite so well.
Like me, most people at least originally became Christians only by accident of birth. Thereafter, many people actually focus on the teachings of Jesus, weigh the Christian theology against that of other religions, and then choose to continue to follow the Christian faith. But many people did not choose to stay as Christians any more than I actually chose my parents. In fact, if their parents had been Hindu, the odds are overwhelming that they would still be Hindu to this day.
Did God choose us? Well, I certainly do not know the answer to that question – it is well above my pay grade. But I do know that God did give us choices in life, and then, just like my parents, is proud when we choose well, and disappointed when we choose poorly. But He still loves us regardless of the choices we make, without condition and without end. And that is a difference, in fact a big one.
As we discussed previously in this column, our attempts in peer court to have high school students focus on the fact that we are not a thief not because we fear being caught, but because we are better than that! Even if no one else in the world will know that we had taken some other student’s watch from his locker, we would know. And our parents did not raise us to be a thief! And, as Christians, neither did our Father who art in heaven.
Like many other people, I have tried to live the type of life that would allow me to be satisfied when I looked back on it from my deathbed, just as St. Peter would as we try to enter the Pearly Gates. So if I could give myself some advice from that position at the end of my life, it would be three things. First, love the people who treat you right, and absolutely forget about those who don’t. Second, if you get a chance in life, take it! In that regard, try to make the lyrics of the song “I’m Gonna Live Till I Die” as your motto. “Until my number’s up, I’m gonna fill my cup / I’m gonna live, live, live until I die.”
And third, treat people like people. In so many ways, my wonderful father was my role model in this regard, as well as many others. When he was a federal judge in downtown Los Angeles, he would know the names of not only the custodians who kept our office spaces clean, but also the names of their children. And they loved him for it.
So without thinking about it, I naturally followed his lead. One day when I was a federal prosecutor in the same courthouse, I saw one of the men who worked on our floor, and said, “Good morning, Mr. Wicks.” At this point, this man completely stopped what he was doing and said, “Mr. Gray, I have been working here for 18 years, and you are the first person ever to call me by name.” What a shame. (As a further but irrelevant part of the story, I later found out that this nice and hardworking man was the father of Sidney Wicks, the All American basketball player for my treasured UCLA Bruins.) This experience also resulted in my lifelong tendency to try to leave bigger tips for people who wait on tables at cafes and who clean our hotel rooms. They work hard, but are generally taken for granted and unappreciated.
Similarly, my mother told me that one time she had accompanied my father on a trip to inspect Lompoc Federal Prison.
It so happened that the inmates had a talent show on the day of the visit, and my parents stayed to watch the show. As such, my father was seated with the warden on one side and my mother on the other. But next to my mother was an inmate who struck up a conversation with her by saying that my father happened to have sentenced him to prison, and that he had received a maximum sentence. With that piece of news, my mother said she literally tried to move over closer to my father and away from this inmate.
But he went on to say that nevertheless, because throughout the trial and sentencing my father had always treated him with dignity and respect, my father was his favorite judge he had ever appeared before – and he had been before lots of judges!
That is why in so many ways our state’s drug courts have been a positive revolution in our court system. Why? Because it forces judges, prosecutors, probation officers and even the arresting police officers to treat the defendants as real people. No longer are the criminal defendants who happen to be drug-addicted thought of or labeled as “hypes,” “junkies,” or even statistics. Instead, they are thought of as fellow human beings, who have the same desires, needs, dreams, and failings that all of the rest of us have. So treating people as people does not at all mean that we have to be taken advantage of by them, or that we do not hold them accountable for what they do. It just means that we treat them as individuals.
On this subject, I recommend you read the book, “The Anatomy of Peace,” by the Arbinger Institute. This well-crafted and easy-reading book discusses the difference between treating another person as a person, or as an object. If we treat others as people, we do not need to justify our own prejudices, depressions, self-righteousness, or fears, because those issues simply don’t arise. But if we treat them as objects, all of these harmful and degrading traits within us often increase and harden, which will in turn allow them to poison us. Then we proceed to use the injustices that are done to us as justifications to do injustices to others. At that point, we become our own enemies by using our mistreatments to destroy our own peace.
So it is not just the dictators of some nations of the world that inflict bad things upon others in order to get or maintain power. All of us can do that as well.
Jesus said: “If you love me, then feed my sheep.” With the blessings we have received, we can help administer to the needs of others who, through nothing they have done, are not as fortunate as we are. I think that is the answer. Oh, I know that we can’t bring peace to the whole world, and it may be naïve to believe otherwise. But we can bring peace to our world! Like the hymn says, “Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me.”
We are truly blessed. We have chosen well, or, one way or the other, we were eternally lucky to have been chosen. Our Father loves us – without condition, and without end. He cares about us, and wants to be proud of us. It matters, and what a difference it makes!
So in the time remaining to us upon this earth, we should stand up extra straight. Walk proud. And fear not. Because we are Christians. We are living our lives nestled in the arms of a loving God!
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 .
Take heart: a proposed tax that is ‘fair’ - by Judge Jim Gray
No one should need any convincing that our present federal and state income tax system is costly, oppressively complex, and economically inefficient.
The present federal tax code exceeds 54,000 pages and contains more than 2.8 million words, and much of it is for providing special tax breaks for individual companies or industries. Well, take heart because help is on the way.
A Fair Tax Plan has been introduced into Congress in the form of House Bill 25 and Senate Bill 25, and, if passed, would establish a federal progressive national retail sales tax.
We have previously discussed a Flat Tax in this column, which is a severely modified income tax that would be a vast improvement over the present system, and one that we should seriously consider.
But the FAIR Tax, as taken from an open letter from 80 college professors and financial experts to the President, Congress, and the American People, would be different, and in many ways far better.
The FAIR Tax is a national retail sales tax that would be levied upon only the final sale of goods and services.
It also provides that all income, capital gains, payroll, Medicare, and estate taxes, and social security (FICA) withholdings would be abolished upon its implementation!
Among other things, this would enable all workers and retirees to receive 100% of their paychecks and pension benefits because, since there would no longer be an income tax or these other taxes, there would be no need for any withholding from their paychecks. That would further mean that the woes of April 15 would be gone forever with regard to the federal government!
Importantly enough, this tax would not fall disproportionally upon the poor.
This would be assured by a rebate to all households each month on all of the sales taxes that were paid on necessities, up to an independently determined poverty amount of spending. That poverty level would probably be determined by a government agency like the Department of Health and Human Services.
In addition, there would be no sales tax attached either to the rental of or mortgages to purchase real property.
The sales taxes would be collected on all retail transactions, just as 45 states do already. And, importantly enough, the sales tax itself would be revenue neutral.
That is to say, it would not increase or decrease the amounts of tax monies that are paid each year to the federal government.
But it would significantly reduce the amount of administrative, collection, and enforcement expenses that the government now expends – and it would also materially reduce fraud.
How so? Because the only audits that would be required would be those of retail providers of goods and services.
And since the transparency of the tax system would be increased to almost complete, and the complexity would be reduced almost out of existence, it would increase everyone’s belief in the fairness of the system.
Obviously the imposition of this system would also result in similar enormous savings in compliance costs to individuals and corporations, which conservatively cost a total of about $225 billion per year.
And, importantly enough, this would also allow individuals and corporations once again to make family and business decisions based upon family and business considerations, instead of tax considerations.
In other words, for the most part the only people that would lose under the FAIR Tax would be some of the accountants and tax preparers of this world, as well as the employees of the Internal Revenue Service.
In addition, members of Congress would also lose a great deal of their power with the passage of this measure.
Why is that true? Because the ability to designate tax breaks for particular special interests directly results in a great deal of power for the members of Congress. And this power translates into campaign contributions, which, in turn, keep politicians more beholden to those same special interests. Passing the FAIR Tax would substantially do away with that problem area.
There would be other favorable tangible and intangible results as well. For example, all people, whether citizens or documented or undocumented residents, would end up paying their appropriate share of taxes. So this measure would materially enlarge the federal tax base.
Furthermore, it would also make our domestic goods more competitive with foreign goods both inside and outside of our borders.
Why? Because under our present system, payroll, Medicare and social security taxes are now paid on the labor to produce the goods and services that are created here, but not on those created abroad. With this new system, the taxes would be the same for all goods and services in our country, regardless of their origin. This is the system that most foreign countries use already, to our competitive disadvantage.
Similarly, the tax biases against working for the extra dollar and saving and investing money would also be removed, thus strongly re-encouraging these beneficial practices. Today’s income and capital gains taxes to an appreciable degree punish working for the extra dollar, and the saving and investing of those dollars. So removing these disincentives would directly lead to higher economic growth, a faster growth in productivity, more jobs, lower interest rates, and a higher standard of living for the American people.
Finally, even though the FAIR Tax would be designed to be revenue neutral, it would probably eventually increase gross revenues for the government, for each of two reasons. First, the savings both to individuals and to businesses would probably spur the economy significantly just by themselves, so more tax money would be generated. And secondly, since simplicity of enforcement as well as the reality and perception of fairness would all be increased, more people would pay their full share of taxes without feeling that they were being treated as chumps. So what’s not to like?
So how do we implement this change? Well, people are getting excited, and not only those involved with the Tea Party, and they are communicating that excitement to their members of Congress. That is what it takes, so please join them. Imagine the positive changes. Yes, the sales tax will probably be around 23% of all retail transactions, but keeping all of your income until you decide to make a purchase, no longer keeping records for the filing of tax returns, repealing all taxes on savings and investments, and so much more would truly result in a much better, less expensive, and more equitable system, for the prosperity of us all.
For further information, please visit www.passfairtax.com, or call (800) 962-8237.
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 present federal tax code exceeds 54,000 pages and contains more than 2.8 million words, and much of it is for providing special tax breaks for individual companies or industries. Well, take heart because help is on the way.
A Fair Tax Plan has been introduced into Congress in the form of House Bill 25 and Senate Bill 25, and, if passed, would establish a federal progressive national retail sales tax.
We have previously discussed a Flat Tax in this column, which is a severely modified income tax that would be a vast improvement over the present system, and one that we should seriously consider.
But the FAIR Tax, as taken from an open letter from 80 college professors and financial experts to the President, Congress, and the American People, would be different, and in many ways far better.
The FAIR Tax is a national retail sales tax that would be levied upon only the final sale of goods and services.
It also provides that all income, capital gains, payroll, Medicare, and estate taxes, and social security (FICA) withholdings would be abolished upon its implementation!
Among other things, this would enable all workers and retirees to receive 100% of their paychecks and pension benefits because, since there would no longer be an income tax or these other taxes, there would be no need for any withholding from their paychecks. That would further mean that the woes of April 15 would be gone forever with regard to the federal government!
Importantly enough, this tax would not fall disproportionally upon the poor.
This would be assured by a rebate to all households each month on all of the sales taxes that were paid on necessities, up to an independently determined poverty amount of spending. That poverty level would probably be determined by a government agency like the Department of Health and Human Services.
In addition, there would be no sales tax attached either to the rental of or mortgages to purchase real property.
The sales taxes would be collected on all retail transactions, just as 45 states do already. And, importantly enough, the sales tax itself would be revenue neutral.
That is to say, it would not increase or decrease the amounts of tax monies that are paid each year to the federal government.
But it would significantly reduce the amount of administrative, collection, and enforcement expenses that the government now expends – and it would also materially reduce fraud.
How so? Because the only audits that would be required would be those of retail providers of goods and services.
And since the transparency of the tax system would be increased to almost complete, and the complexity would be reduced almost out of existence, it would increase everyone’s belief in the fairness of the system.
Obviously the imposition of this system would also result in similar enormous savings in compliance costs to individuals and corporations, which conservatively cost a total of about $225 billion per year.
And, importantly enough, this would also allow individuals and corporations once again to make family and business decisions based upon family and business considerations, instead of tax considerations.
In other words, for the most part the only people that would lose under the FAIR Tax would be some of the accountants and tax preparers of this world, as well as the employees of the Internal Revenue Service.
In addition, members of Congress would also lose a great deal of their power with the passage of this measure.
Why is that true? Because the ability to designate tax breaks for particular special interests directly results in a great deal of power for the members of Congress. And this power translates into campaign contributions, which, in turn, keep politicians more beholden to those same special interests. Passing the FAIR Tax would substantially do away with that problem area.
There would be other favorable tangible and intangible results as well. For example, all people, whether citizens or documented or undocumented residents, would end up paying their appropriate share of taxes. So this measure would materially enlarge the federal tax base.
Furthermore, it would also make our domestic goods more competitive with foreign goods both inside and outside of our borders.
Why? Because under our present system, payroll, Medicare and social security taxes are now paid on the labor to produce the goods and services that are created here, but not on those created abroad. With this new system, the taxes would be the same for all goods and services in our country, regardless of their origin. This is the system that most foreign countries use already, to our competitive disadvantage.
Similarly, the tax biases against working for the extra dollar and saving and investing money would also be removed, thus strongly re-encouraging these beneficial practices. Today’s income and capital gains taxes to an appreciable degree punish working for the extra dollar, and the saving and investing of those dollars. So removing these disincentives would directly lead to higher economic growth, a faster growth in productivity, more jobs, lower interest rates, and a higher standard of living for the American people.
Finally, even though the FAIR Tax would be designed to be revenue neutral, it would probably eventually increase gross revenues for the government, for each of two reasons. First, the savings both to individuals and to businesses would probably spur the economy significantly just by themselves, so more tax money would be generated. And secondly, since simplicity of enforcement as well as the reality and perception of fairness would all be increased, more people would pay their full share of taxes without feeling that they were being treated as chumps. So what’s not to like?
So how do we implement this change? Well, people are getting excited, and not only those involved with the Tea Party, and they are communicating that excitement to their members of Congress. That is what it takes, so please join them. Imagine the positive changes. Yes, the sales tax will probably be around 23% of all retail transactions, but keeping all of your income until you decide to make a purchase, no longer keeping records for the filing of tax returns, repealing all taxes on savings and investments, and so much more would truly result in a much better, less expensive, and more equitable system, for the prosperity of us all.
For further information, please visit www.passfairtax.com, or call (800) 962-8237.
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, March 1, 2010
Human trafficking is still big business - by Judge Jim Gray
There is no question that the United Nations has become enormously political and petty. But it still offers some hope for addressing and even resolving some disputes around the world, and it should be allowed to continue to exist — if only to keep that hope alive.
One of the best ways for the U.N. to regain some positive status would be to find, focus upon and work to resolve a serious problem in the world, and it would be more likely to be successful if the actions that spawned that problem were condemned by every government in the world. Well, such an opportunity exists, because human trafficking, or human slavery, exists all around the world and generates about $9.5 billion each year! So this is an unimaginably large problem, and the United Nations should make the eradication of slavery its top priority.
The most common definition of a slave is a person who is in a social or economic relationship in which he or she is controlled by violence or the threat of violence, forced to work without being paid, and is not permitted to leave. Depending upon which institution you consult, there are somewhere between 12.3 million and 27 million slaves in the world today. And, hard as it may be to believe, it is estimated that about 15,000 people are brought into the United States each year to be enslaved. About 80% of the world’s slaves are women, and 50% are younger than 18. The reason for this is that women and children are usually more docile, which means that they are more easily held in bondage.
With globalization, it is far easier now to transport slaves around the world. In fact, after illicit drugs and guns, slaves are the largest illegal commodity in the world. Slaves are used worldwide not only in prostitution, but also as agricultural, garment and domestic workers. Often they are lured from poverty areas by the promise of food and jobs in another country. But once they arrive, their passports are confiscated, and they are enslaved. Some children are even sold by their desperate parents so that the parents will have more resources to feed and clothe their other children.
As it is required to do by the Trafficking Persons Protective Act, each year the U.S. secretary of state’s office provides a list of countries that are turning a blind eye to the existence of slavery within their borders. As of 2009, these countries are Burma (Myanmar Republic), Chad, Cuba, Eritrea, Fiji, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritania, Niger, North Korea, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria and Zimbabwe. Slavery occurs in these countries because many police, government officials and judges either look the other way to its presence or actually take bribes to allow it to continue.
As a result, and contrary to what most people would think, the 20th century saw a three-fold increase in slavery over what was present in the 19th century. In fact, slavery is so prevalent that the costs of owning a slave today are far lower than before. For example, in many places a slave today can be bought for about $90, whereas in the 1850s the average price in today’s currency was about $40,000. That means that, among other things, there is far less of an incentive to keep one’s slaves alive today than there was before, because it is so cheap to purchase replacements. For that reason, slaves are often referred to as “disposable people.”
It is hard to imagine how there could there be a more important and non-controversial issue that the world could unite and rally behind, and the United Nations would be the best place to start. How could any civilized society publicly refuse to take part in the total eradication of slavery?
Well, unfortunately, the answer to that question often is money. Imagine how hard some governments around the world are pushing OPEC countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia on this issue, considering at the same time that they desperately need to buy oil from those same countries. In addition, often the enslaved people who are discovered and liberated in various places around the world are so fearful about what may happen to their family members back home if they testify against those who sold them into bondage, or kept them there, that prosecutions are difficult. Therefore, often the traders are simply deported instead of being prosecuted.
But if there is the political will, progress can be made. For example, in direct response to the public outrage that resulted from discovering a farm that was using hundreds of slaves, the government of Brazil began taking action to punish slave trading, and has been successful in freeing thousands of slaves. In addition, Brazil has also taken the action permanently to deprive any company from receiving any government grants or loans if they have been involved in using slaves in their businesses.
Another successful manner of fighting slavery comes from consumers organizing themselves to boycott companies that use slave labor. Traditionally one of the industries that has engaged in this despicable behavior was the cocoa plantations in West Africa. Of course, sometimes it is difficult to determine on a retail level which producer is involved and which is not. Nevertheless, when consumers boycotted the entire industry it was so effective that most of the companies that were using slaves changed their ways. That means that, with a little caring and effort, all of us can do our part to reduce and even eventually eliminate this practice.
For more information about the slavery problem of the 21st century I recommend you read two books. One is Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl L. WuDunn’s “Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide” (Borzai Books, 2009), and the other is Kevin Bales’ “Ending Slavery: How We Free Today’s Slaves” (University of California Press, 2007). You can also visit www.freetheslaves.net or www.castla.org (which stands for Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking) to learn more about how you can get involved.
Finally, as fortune would have it, Kevin Bales, who is considered to be one of the foremost authorities in the world about modern day slavery, will be speaking at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles near Los Angeles International Airport at 7:30 p.m. Monday in Hilton Hall, Room 100. I encourage you to attend this sobering and important presentation and then get involved.
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 of the best ways for the U.N. to regain some positive status would be to find, focus upon and work to resolve a serious problem in the world, and it would be more likely to be successful if the actions that spawned that problem were condemned by every government in the world. Well, such an opportunity exists, because human trafficking, or human slavery, exists all around the world and generates about $9.5 billion each year! So this is an unimaginably large problem, and the United Nations should make the eradication of slavery its top priority.
The most common definition of a slave is a person who is in a social or economic relationship in which he or she is controlled by violence or the threat of violence, forced to work without being paid, and is not permitted to leave. Depending upon which institution you consult, there are somewhere between 12.3 million and 27 million slaves in the world today. And, hard as it may be to believe, it is estimated that about 15,000 people are brought into the United States each year to be enslaved. About 80% of the world’s slaves are women, and 50% are younger than 18. The reason for this is that women and children are usually more docile, which means that they are more easily held in bondage.
With globalization, it is far easier now to transport slaves around the world. In fact, after illicit drugs and guns, slaves are the largest illegal commodity in the world. Slaves are used worldwide not only in prostitution, but also as agricultural, garment and domestic workers. Often they are lured from poverty areas by the promise of food and jobs in another country. But once they arrive, their passports are confiscated, and they are enslaved. Some children are even sold by their desperate parents so that the parents will have more resources to feed and clothe their other children.
As it is required to do by the Trafficking Persons Protective Act, each year the U.S. secretary of state’s office provides a list of countries that are turning a blind eye to the existence of slavery within their borders. As of 2009, these countries are Burma (Myanmar Republic), Chad, Cuba, Eritrea, Fiji, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritania, Niger, North Korea, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria and Zimbabwe. Slavery occurs in these countries because many police, government officials and judges either look the other way to its presence or actually take bribes to allow it to continue.
As a result, and contrary to what most people would think, the 20th century saw a three-fold increase in slavery over what was present in the 19th century. In fact, slavery is so prevalent that the costs of owning a slave today are far lower than before. For example, in many places a slave today can be bought for about $90, whereas in the 1850s the average price in today’s currency was about $40,000. That means that, among other things, there is far less of an incentive to keep one’s slaves alive today than there was before, because it is so cheap to purchase replacements. For that reason, slaves are often referred to as “disposable people.”
It is hard to imagine how there could there be a more important and non-controversial issue that the world could unite and rally behind, and the United Nations would be the best place to start. How could any civilized society publicly refuse to take part in the total eradication of slavery?
Well, unfortunately, the answer to that question often is money. Imagine how hard some governments around the world are pushing OPEC countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia on this issue, considering at the same time that they desperately need to buy oil from those same countries. In addition, often the enslaved people who are discovered and liberated in various places around the world are so fearful about what may happen to their family members back home if they testify against those who sold them into bondage, or kept them there, that prosecutions are difficult. Therefore, often the traders are simply deported instead of being prosecuted.
But if there is the political will, progress can be made. For example, in direct response to the public outrage that resulted from discovering a farm that was using hundreds of slaves, the government of Brazil began taking action to punish slave trading, and has been successful in freeing thousands of slaves. In addition, Brazil has also taken the action permanently to deprive any company from receiving any government grants or loans if they have been involved in using slaves in their businesses.
Another successful manner of fighting slavery comes from consumers organizing themselves to boycott companies that use slave labor. Traditionally one of the industries that has engaged in this despicable behavior was the cocoa plantations in West Africa. Of course, sometimes it is difficult to determine on a retail level which producer is involved and which is not. Nevertheless, when consumers boycotted the entire industry it was so effective that most of the companies that were using slaves changed their ways. That means that, with a little caring and effort, all of us can do our part to reduce and even eventually eliminate this practice.
For more information about the slavery problem of the 21st century I recommend you read two books. One is Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl L. WuDunn’s “Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide” (Borzai Books, 2009), and the other is Kevin Bales’ “Ending Slavery: How We Free Today’s Slaves” (University of California Press, 2007). You can also visit www.freetheslaves.net or www.castla.org (which stands for Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking) to learn more about how you can get involved.
Finally, as fortune would have it, Kevin Bales, who is considered to be one of the foremost authorities in the world about modern day slavery, will be speaking at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles near Los Angeles International Airport at 7:30 p.m. Monday in Hilton Hall, Room 100. I encourage you to attend this sobering and important presentation and then get involved.
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 21, 2010
‘We have met the enemy, and he is us’ - by Judge Jim Gray
OK, fun is fun, and fair is fair. But our economy is in serious trouble, which, in turn, means our country’s future is at stake. And, as Ayn Rand was quoted as saying, “You can’t fake reality forever.” So this will be a realistic and even blunt assessment of where our economy is, the problems we are facing, and what we should and must do about them. I am sorry to ruin your Sunday breakfast, but realities must be faced.
Just like the government of Greece, our country’s government is virtually bankrupt, which is to say that the federal government spends more than it takes in, and has been doing that for years. As a “short-term remedy,” the government has been using its irresponsible fallback ability literally to “print more money,” but this has simply aggravated the problem by building up huge budget deficits.
In addition, the signs are increasing that China, which holds more of our debt than any other country, is beginning to seek repayment, because their vast holdings are daily decreasing in value. If and when that happens, it will present us with another major economic crisis! So in so many ways our fiscal irresponsibility is inescapably catching up to us fast, and must be faced — now!
Specifically what are we facing? Using figures that come from economist Robert J. Samuelson, the federal government is projected in the next 10 years to spend about $45.8 trillion. But during that same period the government will take in revenues of only about $37.3 trillion, and even that is based upon the fabulously optimistic assumption that we will soon experience a full economic recovery. Thus the deficit is projected for the upcoming decade — in the best-case scenario — to be about $8.5 trillion, which will be about one-fifth of our total spending.
Starkly put, we cannot borrow our way out of debt. So we must now put into practice what we have been preaching for decades to Third World countries, and that is to “tighten our belts,” and act with fiscal prudence.
What are both our president and Congress doing to respond to this genuine crisis? Almost to a person, they are expressly ducking the hard questions, and are instead continuing to pander to us. How can they live with themselves by doing this while facing such economic peril? Because that is what we tell them we want them to do!
In today’s world, voters nationwide are expressing flagrant contradictions — all at the same time. On the one hand, more than a majority of voters are saying that they favor the so-called stimulus plan and want government to fix our economic problems, while on the other hand they are also saying that the government is too big and costly and spending much too much money, and that taxes are too high.
So what Pogo, the Walt Kelly comic strip character, was quoted years ago as observing is once again true: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” We are the ones who are vehemently saying that we want our entitlements, while at the same time saying that we do not want to pay for them. So our elected representatives have been listening to us, catering to those perceived wishes, and faking reality for years — and they still continue to do so. So it is we who must change!
The truth is that fiscal balance can only be achieved, and our economic future secured, either by increasing government revenues by further increasing taxes, or by reducing government spending, or by a combination of both. In that regard, simple mathematics tells us that we could probably balance our budget by increasing all federal taxes by about 50%.
But that would probably not actually happen because that approach would, of course, be actively resisted by the people who would be called upon to pay those taxes. With time, those people would simply move their companies and assets out of the government’s reach, which would inflict further enormous harm upon our economy. In fact, we have experienced that phenomenon already, and would be well advised to lower the taxes we have today to entice those companies and assets back.
That leaves us to look at an appreciable reduction in governmental spending as the only remaining path to fiscal responsibility. So what should we look at? Well, as has been written several times in this column, we can start by passing sunset laws for our federal agencies that will inevitably reduce the size and cost of government. We can also repeal things like subsidies for farmers to grow and not grow various crops. Those things would be a start, but in themselves they would not be nearly enough at this point to bring us to fiscal stability.
No, what we are facing is much more serious. About $20 trillion of the projected $45.8 trillion in government spending will go for three programs: Medicare, which is health insurance for those who are 65 or older; Medicaid, which is health insurance for the poor; and Social Security. At present the average federal subsidy for each person who is 65 or older is $11,000 for Medicare, and $14,000 for Social Security, for a total of $25,000 per year. Obviously that is a lot of money, and, even speaking as a person who just qualified for Medicare last week, we can no longer afford it.
So we are going to be forced to change the Social Security system to take into account the wealth of the recipient, and reduce the benefits paid to those people. That is really a hard thing to say, because this was supposed to be our money that was being held for us in trust for our retirement. But in truth, the Social Security system was never set up that way. Instead Social Security was always a “pay as you go” program that paid money to today’s retirees that was taken from today’s workers. That means that there were no savings of money in trust for anybody. In other words, Social Security was a legalized Ponzi Scheme, and now reality is exposing that fraud.
Fiscal responsibility also virtually demands that our Social Security age must be pushed back from 65 to 70. Most mortality tables say that people who are now 65 can, on the average, look forward to another 18 years of life. That is much longer than when the Medicare and Social Security programs were originally put into effect, and the program never took that eventuality into account. This will certainly not be popular with people at that age, but the solvency of our country and our way of life simply require that result!
The counties in our state are in much the same position, but their problems to a large degree are caused by the vested benefits they owe to their public employees. These consist mostly of health and retirement entitlements. Think about it, the various county supervisors are almost always elected and re-elected with the financial help of government employees’ unions. Why are the unions so involved in these elections? Because the unions’ members are highly affected by how those supervisors vote.
So after the elections are over, there exists a definite conflict of interest when the supervisors are called upon to decide upon the various financial benefits for the public employees. If they do not vote for benefits that are lucrative enough, they will arouse the anger of their biggest contributors, and this will probably result in their losing their next election. So often the supervisors go to great lengths with county funds to please the unions. But with this scenario, no one looks out for the solvency of the counties. As a result, probably every city and county in California is financially insolvent, because they have more projected obligations than revenues.
Those are the realities. Discussions like this are certainly not fun, but eventually reality must be faced. In fact, our children demand it. Mostly, you and I will be fine, but our financial security and comfort are being paid for by mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren. And I hope you agree with me that this is too high a cost to pay!
In a democracy our “leaders” are governed by only one universal principle: They will follow where the votes are. That means in this case that they will tell us the truth at their peril. Furthermore, as long as financial ruin does not happen while they are still in office, reality can be postponed until someone else’s term. So in effect, all of them have simply been doing our bidding since they were voted into office, and they will continue to do so. Therefore, it is not the “rascals” we elect to office that are to blame. The rascals are us.
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 .
Just like the government of Greece, our country’s government is virtually bankrupt, which is to say that the federal government spends more than it takes in, and has been doing that for years. As a “short-term remedy,” the government has been using its irresponsible fallback ability literally to “print more money,” but this has simply aggravated the problem by building up huge budget deficits.
In addition, the signs are increasing that China, which holds more of our debt than any other country, is beginning to seek repayment, because their vast holdings are daily decreasing in value. If and when that happens, it will present us with another major economic crisis! So in so many ways our fiscal irresponsibility is inescapably catching up to us fast, and must be faced — now!
Specifically what are we facing? Using figures that come from economist Robert J. Samuelson, the federal government is projected in the next 10 years to spend about $45.8 trillion. But during that same period the government will take in revenues of only about $37.3 trillion, and even that is based upon the fabulously optimistic assumption that we will soon experience a full economic recovery. Thus the deficit is projected for the upcoming decade — in the best-case scenario — to be about $8.5 trillion, which will be about one-fifth of our total spending.
Starkly put, we cannot borrow our way out of debt. So we must now put into practice what we have been preaching for decades to Third World countries, and that is to “tighten our belts,” and act with fiscal prudence.
What are both our president and Congress doing to respond to this genuine crisis? Almost to a person, they are expressly ducking the hard questions, and are instead continuing to pander to us. How can they live with themselves by doing this while facing such economic peril? Because that is what we tell them we want them to do!
In today’s world, voters nationwide are expressing flagrant contradictions — all at the same time. On the one hand, more than a majority of voters are saying that they favor the so-called stimulus plan and want government to fix our economic problems, while on the other hand they are also saying that the government is too big and costly and spending much too much money, and that taxes are too high.
So what Pogo, the Walt Kelly comic strip character, was quoted years ago as observing is once again true: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” We are the ones who are vehemently saying that we want our entitlements, while at the same time saying that we do not want to pay for them. So our elected representatives have been listening to us, catering to those perceived wishes, and faking reality for years — and they still continue to do so. So it is we who must change!
The truth is that fiscal balance can only be achieved, and our economic future secured, either by increasing government revenues by further increasing taxes, or by reducing government spending, or by a combination of both. In that regard, simple mathematics tells us that we could probably balance our budget by increasing all federal taxes by about 50%.
But that would probably not actually happen because that approach would, of course, be actively resisted by the people who would be called upon to pay those taxes. With time, those people would simply move their companies and assets out of the government’s reach, which would inflict further enormous harm upon our economy. In fact, we have experienced that phenomenon already, and would be well advised to lower the taxes we have today to entice those companies and assets back.
That leaves us to look at an appreciable reduction in governmental spending as the only remaining path to fiscal responsibility. So what should we look at? Well, as has been written several times in this column, we can start by passing sunset laws for our federal agencies that will inevitably reduce the size and cost of government. We can also repeal things like subsidies for farmers to grow and not grow various crops. Those things would be a start, but in themselves they would not be nearly enough at this point to bring us to fiscal stability.
No, what we are facing is much more serious. About $20 trillion of the projected $45.8 trillion in government spending will go for three programs: Medicare, which is health insurance for those who are 65 or older; Medicaid, which is health insurance for the poor; and Social Security. At present the average federal subsidy for each person who is 65 or older is $11,000 for Medicare, and $14,000 for Social Security, for a total of $25,000 per year. Obviously that is a lot of money, and, even speaking as a person who just qualified for Medicare last week, we can no longer afford it.
So we are going to be forced to change the Social Security system to take into account the wealth of the recipient, and reduce the benefits paid to those people. That is really a hard thing to say, because this was supposed to be our money that was being held for us in trust for our retirement. But in truth, the Social Security system was never set up that way. Instead Social Security was always a “pay as you go” program that paid money to today’s retirees that was taken from today’s workers. That means that there were no savings of money in trust for anybody. In other words, Social Security was a legalized Ponzi Scheme, and now reality is exposing that fraud.
Fiscal responsibility also virtually demands that our Social Security age must be pushed back from 65 to 70. Most mortality tables say that people who are now 65 can, on the average, look forward to another 18 years of life. That is much longer than when the Medicare and Social Security programs were originally put into effect, and the program never took that eventuality into account. This will certainly not be popular with people at that age, but the solvency of our country and our way of life simply require that result!
The counties in our state are in much the same position, but their problems to a large degree are caused by the vested benefits they owe to their public employees. These consist mostly of health and retirement entitlements. Think about it, the various county supervisors are almost always elected and re-elected with the financial help of government employees’ unions. Why are the unions so involved in these elections? Because the unions’ members are highly affected by how those supervisors vote.
So after the elections are over, there exists a definite conflict of interest when the supervisors are called upon to decide upon the various financial benefits for the public employees. If they do not vote for benefits that are lucrative enough, they will arouse the anger of their biggest contributors, and this will probably result in their losing their next election. So often the supervisors go to great lengths with county funds to please the unions. But with this scenario, no one looks out for the solvency of the counties. As a result, probably every city and county in California is financially insolvent, because they have more projected obligations than revenues.
Those are the realities. Discussions like this are certainly not fun, but eventually reality must be faced. In fact, our children demand it. Mostly, you and I will be fine, but our financial security and comfort are being paid for by mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren. And I hope you agree with me that this is too high a cost to pay!
In a democracy our “leaders” are governed by only one universal principle: They will follow where the votes are. That means in this case that they will tell us the truth at their peril. Furthermore, as long as financial ruin does not happen while they are still in office, reality can be postponed until someone else’s term. So in effect, all of them have simply been doing our bidding since they were voted into office, and they will continue to do so. Therefore, it is not the “rascals” we elect to office that are to blame. The rascals are us.
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 7, 2010
VIP Mentors: a truly wonderful project - by Judge Jim Gray
One thing I learned from my extended involvement with the criminal justice system is that each case is different, and, although it sounds silly to have to say it, each case involves an individual human. So many times with prosecutors and judges, there can be a tendency to categorize each case simply as a burglary case, a hand-to-hand drug sale case, or tax fraud case, etc. But since I had been a criminal defense attorney in the Navy JAG Corps, I had learned to understand that each case involved a real human, and that experience helped me quite a bit as a judge.
Of course, just because each case had a unique human face did not at all mean that the defendants would not be held responsible for their actions. In fact, my experiences often guided me to look directly at the defendants at time of sentencing and tell them that I understood them, and that it made me feel good to be a spokesman for society and sentence them to jail or prison.
Nevertheless, once people have served their time in custody, it is only appropriate to assist them to live productive lives if at all possible, if only to reduce future crimes, victimization and expenses to the taxpayer. And, of course, everyone must recognize that some people have a better chance to succeed in being productive members of society than others.
But all of this brings me to the topic of today's column, which is the Volunteers in Parole Mentoring Program. This is a group of volunteer attorneys who, since 1972, have been serving as mentors and a support system for recently paroled prisoners. Think about it, lots of people who have been in prison for years want to live productive lives, but many have been virtually rendered unemployable by their felony convictions, have never had a positive support system, and actually are scared to be out on their own again.
How would you feel to be released after 10 years in prison with one set of new clothes, about $200 in cash, and a bus ticket to your former place of residence? Probably your spouse has long-since divorced you, and you wouldn’t have any positive family or social connections. And, of course, you would be told that you had lots of reporting requirements to your parole officer, and if you missed any of them you would likely be sent back to the joint. What would you think? What would you do? For most people, the situation quickly seems to be hopeless.
So now comes the VIP Mentors, whose motto is “Partners in Success.” With this program, parolees are first interviewed and screened by a parole officer, and then by VIP Mentors itself. Then if there seems to be a fit, and if there is room for them, the ex-felons will be given the name and phone number of the local director, and a date for an interview in their home town.
Once they get back to their place of residence, they will be assisted in the re-integration process into the community by being assigned an attorney-mentor with whom they are able to develop a one-on-one relationship.
What does that mean? The mentor will be available for telephone calls, hanging out, going to the mall, or going to movies or ball games. In other words, the mentor will be there — just like a family member — to offer these people in need friendship, emotional and social support, and practical problem solving. Specifically, that sometimes translates into guidance about how to interview for and keep a job, obtain a driver’s license, live on a budget, and work through the various inevitable crises that surely will come their way.
When asked about his experience with the VIP Mentors, one of the younger clients said: “I went into Youth Correctional Facility when I was 14. I came out when I was 19. I couldn’t go home, because that was where my trouble started. I really just didn’t know where to go.”
But with his mentor, this young man said he had not only received the first positive male role model of his life, he also received some essential ingredients for success that he had always been lacking, which were motivation and self-confidence. Thus almost all of the ex-felons who have been matched with mentors say that if they hadn’t been involved in this program, they probably would have been sent back to prison. And this is probably true.
But if the human side of the story does not get your attention, taxpayers should understand that a full 70% of parolees in California end up being re-arrested, and that it costs taxpayers about $35,000 per year to keep just one person in prison. So you will be pleased to hear that in fiscal year 2008, VIP matched 321 parolees with a mentor, and of those, only 57 were returned to custody. That is a return rate of 17.8%.
Using those statistics, VIP saved California taxpayers more than $3.5 million in that year alone! And the return rate for juvenile offenders is almost as good.
VIP Mentors began as a program sponsored by the State Bar of California, and, up until recently, was primarily funded by the state. But with the state’s budgetary problems, all state funding for the program has been taken away — and that was 75% of their operating budget! So, where two years ago they had 15 paid staff members, now they have three. Where the state director used to earn a modest $75,000 per year, that has been reduced by a third. Equally painful reductions have been placed upon the other two remaining on-site directors.
Just when the need for help for the parolees is greatest, when the job market is really tough, and the number of people on parole are increasing, the opportunity to help these people stay out of prison has been severely diminished.
Fortunately, all of the surviving four programs happen to be here in Southern California, but without some extra help, that may be lost as well.
The first sentence in the introduction of my recent book about judging said that the best decision I ever made in my life was choosing my parents. And, of course, I have been a life-long beneficiary of that choice. But I think that also gives me a moral obligation to help those who did not “choose quite so well.” In fact, a high percentage of people who have ended up in prison have never had any positive parental leadership or support. What better way to assist them than to support groups like the VIP Mentors.
If you agree, contact VIP Mentors at (877) 484-2139 www.VIPMentors.org. You will receive a great deal of gratification by supporting this wonderful and successful program.
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 .
Of course, just because each case had a unique human face did not at all mean that the defendants would not be held responsible for their actions. In fact, my experiences often guided me to look directly at the defendants at time of sentencing and tell them that I understood them, and that it made me feel good to be a spokesman for society and sentence them to jail or prison.
Nevertheless, once people have served their time in custody, it is only appropriate to assist them to live productive lives if at all possible, if only to reduce future crimes, victimization and expenses to the taxpayer. And, of course, everyone must recognize that some people have a better chance to succeed in being productive members of society than others.
But all of this brings me to the topic of today's column, which is the Volunteers in Parole Mentoring Program. This is a group of volunteer attorneys who, since 1972, have been serving as mentors and a support system for recently paroled prisoners. Think about it, lots of people who have been in prison for years want to live productive lives, but many have been virtually rendered unemployable by their felony convictions, have never had a positive support system, and actually are scared to be out on their own again.
How would you feel to be released after 10 years in prison with one set of new clothes, about $200 in cash, and a bus ticket to your former place of residence? Probably your spouse has long-since divorced you, and you wouldn’t have any positive family or social connections. And, of course, you would be told that you had lots of reporting requirements to your parole officer, and if you missed any of them you would likely be sent back to the joint. What would you think? What would you do? For most people, the situation quickly seems to be hopeless.
So now comes the VIP Mentors, whose motto is “Partners in Success.” With this program, parolees are first interviewed and screened by a parole officer, and then by VIP Mentors itself. Then if there seems to be a fit, and if there is room for them, the ex-felons will be given the name and phone number of the local director, and a date for an interview in their home town.
Once they get back to their place of residence, they will be assisted in the re-integration process into the community by being assigned an attorney-mentor with whom they are able to develop a one-on-one relationship.
What does that mean? The mentor will be available for telephone calls, hanging out, going to the mall, or going to movies or ball games. In other words, the mentor will be there — just like a family member — to offer these people in need friendship, emotional and social support, and practical problem solving. Specifically, that sometimes translates into guidance about how to interview for and keep a job, obtain a driver’s license, live on a budget, and work through the various inevitable crises that surely will come their way.
When asked about his experience with the VIP Mentors, one of the younger clients said: “I went into Youth Correctional Facility when I was 14. I came out when I was 19. I couldn’t go home, because that was where my trouble started. I really just didn’t know where to go.”
But with his mentor, this young man said he had not only received the first positive male role model of his life, he also received some essential ingredients for success that he had always been lacking, which were motivation and self-confidence. Thus almost all of the ex-felons who have been matched with mentors say that if they hadn’t been involved in this program, they probably would have been sent back to prison. And this is probably true.
But if the human side of the story does not get your attention, taxpayers should understand that a full 70% of parolees in California end up being re-arrested, and that it costs taxpayers about $35,000 per year to keep just one person in prison. So you will be pleased to hear that in fiscal year 2008, VIP matched 321 parolees with a mentor, and of those, only 57 were returned to custody. That is a return rate of 17.8%.
Using those statistics, VIP saved California taxpayers more than $3.5 million in that year alone! And the return rate for juvenile offenders is almost as good.
VIP Mentors began as a program sponsored by the State Bar of California, and, up until recently, was primarily funded by the state. But with the state’s budgetary problems, all state funding for the program has been taken away — and that was 75% of their operating budget! So, where two years ago they had 15 paid staff members, now they have three. Where the state director used to earn a modest $75,000 per year, that has been reduced by a third. Equally painful reductions have been placed upon the other two remaining on-site directors.
Just when the need for help for the parolees is greatest, when the job market is really tough, and the number of people on parole are increasing, the opportunity to help these people stay out of prison has been severely diminished.
Fortunately, all of the surviving four programs happen to be here in Southern California, but without some extra help, that may be lost as well.
The first sentence in the introduction of my recent book about judging said that the best decision I ever made in my life was choosing my parents. And, of course, I have been a life-long beneficiary of that choice. But I think that also gives me a moral obligation to help those who did not “choose quite so well.” In fact, a high percentage of people who have ended up in prison have never had any positive parental leadership or support. What better way to assist them than to support groups like the VIP Mentors.
If you agree, contact VIP Mentors at (877) 484-2139 www.VIPMentors.org. You will receive a great deal of gratification by supporting this wonderful and successful program.
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 1, 2010
How to fix a broken government - by Judge JIm Gray
You probably do not need to hear much from me to convince you that our government is broken. The problems come directly from Congress and our state legislature, and the evidence is all around us. It was Thomas Jefferson who told us that we should have a revolution about every generation to keep special interests from being solidified in government. We should have listened. And Alexis deToqueville famously observed that the American Republic would endure until the day Congress discovered that it could bribe the public with the public’s own money. Unfortunately, that day has probably arrived.
For example, for the past decades Congress and our state legislature have been passing gimmicky budgets that simply ignore fiscal problems and pass them along to some unspecified time in the future. Why does this continue to happen? Because politicians are only truly concerned about the next election, not the next generation. That is what our system encourages. But as a consequence, the federal budget deficit for 2010 is projected to be $1.35 trillion, and the state budget deficit for 2009-10 is about $6.3 billion, and it has a projected budget deficit for 2010-11 of $14.4 billion. So what can or should we do about this dire situation?
Well, the first thing to do, short of electing more Libertarians to office, is to have a state constitutional convention that would incorporate some specific changes into our state government. That, in turn, would probably galvanize the rest of the country to get serious about the federal government as well.
What changes should be made? First, we should follow Texas’ lead and have our legislature in session only every other year. Texas has its legislature in session only in every odd year, which has some poetic justice to it. At these sessions, the legislature would be required to pass two-year budgets.
In addition, we should also follow the lead of the government of British Columbia that requires each bill literally to be read three times on the floor of Parliament before it can become law. The first time is mostly for show, and most members of Parliament are not present. But the second reading is done only one paragraph at a time, and that is followed by a debate and a vote on just that language alone. Then the third reading takes place before a vote on the entire measure.
This process accomplishes two important purposes. The first is that it vastly reduces the number of bills that are even addressed, much less passed into law. This tends to get rid of the junk and other special interest measures that routinely find their way into our statutes. The second is that it requires Parliament actually to read, understand and debate what is being presented to them. What a novel concept! Unfortunately, this enforced responsibility is simply foreign to our Congress and legislature in today’s world!
The new constitution should also include a provision for sunset laws that would require an affirmative vote every six years or so from the Legislature before any state government agency could continue to be funded. This suggestion has been discussed several times in this column, and would be one of the most effective ways of controlling the size, intrusion and bureaucracy of government. If an agency could not show it was giving us enough “bang for the buck,” its size could be reduced, its mandate could be delegated to another agency, or it could be eliminated entirely. Of course, that process would also give a performing agency an opportunity to shine by demonstrating its accomplishments.
In addition, no legislation or voter initiatives would be allowed to pass without first designating a funding source. One way our governments have been allowed to sink under the waves of red ink is because even some well-intentioned measures have been passed without any particular plans, or even thoughts, about where the money would come from to fund them. This fiscal irresponsibility must come to an end.
Recently the United States Supreme Court held that corporations are constitutionally entitled to spend any amount of money they choose to support any candidates running for election, as long as they do not give the money directly to the candidates or their political parties. By inference, that rule would also apply to labor unions. The court saw this matter as one of free speech. But actually, the Supreme Court got it backward.
Instead, the Constitution should be changed to disallow any political contributions of any kind from any of these artificial entities. But at the same time, all restrictions should be removed on the amounts of money or support that a human being can donate to any political candidate or cause — subject only to the full and public disclosure of all contributions. As a matter of simple fairness, corporations, labor unions and similar entities should not be allowed to spend communal resources for political purposes, unless each and every stockholder or union member, etc. specifically approves of that expenditure of their money. And if they do approve, fine. Just let them make the contributions in their own names!
Plus, the reality is that wealthy people will always find a way to support their chosen candidates anyway. So let them exercise their free speech and make any contributions they wish — of their own money. Just be sure to force them to do it openly. Then if some other voters become concerned that Candidate Smith might be controlled by Mr. Jones because of a large campaign donation, they can always vote for Smith’s opponent. This process would maximize openness, reduce violations of law and at the same time affirm everyone’s rights of free speech.
Another critically important measure to explore in the constitutional convention is our way of raising tax revenue. Today our income tax system is enormously controlled by special interests. And the largest of those special interests is Congress itself. Why is that true? Because the ability to designate tax breaks for particular special interests directly results in a great deal of campaign contributions. And this is what keeps politicians in office. So we must repeal the entire tax code, and in its place substitute a simple form of flat tax that will do away with this problem.
Just for illustration, the federal flat tax could provide that no one would pay any income taxes at all on their first $30,000 of income. That would both provide equal treatment for everybody, and also protect the poor. Then on the next $50,000, everybody concerned would pay a flat tax of 10% to the government, with no allowances for any deductions of any kind. Then on the next $200,000 of income, everybody at that level would pay a flat 20% to the government. Finally, everybody concerned would pay 25% to the government on every dollar they earned that was above $280,000. A similar program, but with much lower rates, could be used by the state.
This approach would enormously reduce the costs of record-keeping, tax preparation, fraud and enforcement, and along the way also increase basic fairness. And it would probably also increase gross revenues for the government, for each of two reasons. First, the savings to individuals and to businesses would probably spur the economy, so more tax money would be received. And secondly, because simplicity of enforcement as well as the reality and perception of fairness would all be increased, more people would pay their full share of taxes without feeling that they were being treated as chumps.
Obviously, all of these are complicated issues, and there will need to be a great deal of thought, discussion and compromise about them. Thus, we will need everyone to be involved in this critically important process.
But because you have each been religiously planning and practicing your public speaking due to last week’s column, I know you will be up to the task. So let’s all get started!
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, for the past decades Congress and our state legislature have been passing gimmicky budgets that simply ignore fiscal problems and pass them along to some unspecified time in the future. Why does this continue to happen? Because politicians are only truly concerned about the next election, not the next generation. That is what our system encourages. But as a consequence, the federal budget deficit for 2010 is projected to be $1.35 trillion, and the state budget deficit for 2009-10 is about $6.3 billion, and it has a projected budget deficit for 2010-11 of $14.4 billion. So what can or should we do about this dire situation?
Well, the first thing to do, short of electing more Libertarians to office, is to have a state constitutional convention that would incorporate some specific changes into our state government. That, in turn, would probably galvanize the rest of the country to get serious about the federal government as well.
What changes should be made? First, we should follow Texas’ lead and have our legislature in session only every other year. Texas has its legislature in session only in every odd year, which has some poetic justice to it. At these sessions, the legislature would be required to pass two-year budgets.
In addition, we should also follow the lead of the government of British Columbia that requires each bill literally to be read three times on the floor of Parliament before it can become law. The first time is mostly for show, and most members of Parliament are not present. But the second reading is done only one paragraph at a time, and that is followed by a debate and a vote on just that language alone. Then the third reading takes place before a vote on the entire measure.
This process accomplishes two important purposes. The first is that it vastly reduces the number of bills that are even addressed, much less passed into law. This tends to get rid of the junk and other special interest measures that routinely find their way into our statutes. The second is that it requires Parliament actually to read, understand and debate what is being presented to them. What a novel concept! Unfortunately, this enforced responsibility is simply foreign to our Congress and legislature in today’s world!
The new constitution should also include a provision for sunset laws that would require an affirmative vote every six years or so from the Legislature before any state government agency could continue to be funded. This suggestion has been discussed several times in this column, and would be one of the most effective ways of controlling the size, intrusion and bureaucracy of government. If an agency could not show it was giving us enough “bang for the buck,” its size could be reduced, its mandate could be delegated to another agency, or it could be eliminated entirely. Of course, that process would also give a performing agency an opportunity to shine by demonstrating its accomplishments.
In addition, no legislation or voter initiatives would be allowed to pass without first designating a funding source. One way our governments have been allowed to sink under the waves of red ink is because even some well-intentioned measures have been passed without any particular plans, or even thoughts, about where the money would come from to fund them. This fiscal irresponsibility must come to an end.
Recently the United States Supreme Court held that corporations are constitutionally entitled to spend any amount of money they choose to support any candidates running for election, as long as they do not give the money directly to the candidates or their political parties. By inference, that rule would also apply to labor unions. The court saw this matter as one of free speech. But actually, the Supreme Court got it backward.
Instead, the Constitution should be changed to disallow any political contributions of any kind from any of these artificial entities. But at the same time, all restrictions should be removed on the amounts of money or support that a human being can donate to any political candidate or cause — subject only to the full and public disclosure of all contributions. As a matter of simple fairness, corporations, labor unions and similar entities should not be allowed to spend communal resources for political purposes, unless each and every stockholder or union member, etc. specifically approves of that expenditure of their money. And if they do approve, fine. Just let them make the contributions in their own names!
Plus, the reality is that wealthy people will always find a way to support their chosen candidates anyway. So let them exercise their free speech and make any contributions they wish — of their own money. Just be sure to force them to do it openly. Then if some other voters become concerned that Candidate Smith might be controlled by Mr. Jones because of a large campaign donation, they can always vote for Smith’s opponent. This process would maximize openness, reduce violations of law and at the same time affirm everyone’s rights of free speech.
Another critically important measure to explore in the constitutional convention is our way of raising tax revenue. Today our income tax system is enormously controlled by special interests. And the largest of those special interests is Congress itself. Why is that true? Because the ability to designate tax breaks for particular special interests directly results in a great deal of campaign contributions. And this is what keeps politicians in office. So we must repeal the entire tax code, and in its place substitute a simple form of flat tax that will do away with this problem.
Just for illustration, the federal flat tax could provide that no one would pay any income taxes at all on their first $30,000 of income. That would both provide equal treatment for everybody, and also protect the poor. Then on the next $50,000, everybody concerned would pay a flat tax of 10% to the government, with no allowances for any deductions of any kind. Then on the next $200,000 of income, everybody at that level would pay a flat 20% to the government. Finally, everybody concerned would pay 25% to the government on every dollar they earned that was above $280,000. A similar program, but with much lower rates, could be used by the state.
This approach would enormously reduce the costs of record-keeping, tax preparation, fraud and enforcement, and along the way also increase basic fairness. And it would probably also increase gross revenues for the government, for each of two reasons. First, the savings to individuals and to businesses would probably spur the economy, so more tax money would be received. And secondly, because simplicity of enforcement as well as the reality and perception of fairness would all be increased, more people would pay their full share of taxes without feeling that they were being treated as chumps.
Obviously, all of these are complicated issues, and there will need to be a great deal of thought, discussion and compromise about them. Thus, we will need everyone to be involved in this critically important process.
But because you have each been religiously planning and practicing your public speaking due to last week’s column, I know you will be up to the task. So let’s all get started!
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 24, 2010
Discovering new worlds: public speaking - by Judge Jim Gray
Many psychiatrists have reported that the thing most people fear more than anything else is public speaking.
No. 2 is dying, and No. 3 is heights.
Well, I have been involved in public speaking for quite a few years now, and I can tell you that it can be a rewarding and gratifying experience, and it is not at all something to fear.
So here are some tips that will help you be a much more effective public speaker, and I encourage you to try them.
The most important thing in public speaking is showing your audience that you believe what you are saying. If you cannot do that, almost nothing else you do will matter. That point was brought home to me vividly when I was in a speech class at UCLA. Throughout the semester my presentations were basically mediocre. But for my final speech, I chose a topic that was a subject of genuine importance to me: equal rights for African Americans. The speech surprised my professor and my classmates, and this was the first time I learned that I really could do this effectively. So select something that you really believe in, and your chances of getting the attention of your audience will be greatly improved.
Another important point is coming across as being sincere, believable and credible. Harry Truman was once quoted as saying: “Be sincere, even if you don’t mean it.” I’m not sure if the quote is accurate, and I am not encouraging hypocrisy, but showing that you believe what you are saying, and that you are sincere and have nothing to hide will go a long way toward persuading your audience.
In addition, your audience will not care what you think until they think that you care. So any authentic way you can show your audience that you are one of them will assist in getting your message out. One way is to focus upon things you have in common with them, such as you were raised in the same area, your children went to the same type of school, you had the same types of experiences they have had, etc. Another approach I often use when speaking to young people is to tell them that, believe it or not, I myself was actually a teenager for quite a few years. Otherwise, if you do not show your audience how they can identify with you, their attention will wander because they will not emotionally identify with you or the issue you are discussing.
You also must show how the issue you are addressing affects your audience. “What’s in it for me?” will be in the minds of virtually everyone that is listening to you, and your presentation will not be successful unless that question is satisfactorily answered. Actually, when you think about it, that was pretty much the way you educated your children, with stories, examples and lessons that they could identify with, and from which they could benefit. Your audience will be no different.
And, of course, you must prepare your thoughts. In Ed McMahon’s book about public speaking, he recommended the speaker begin to think about the message at least a month before the talk, and begin preparation simply by writing down random thoughts about the subject. Thereafter, those thoughts should be arranged into a beginning, middle and end.
The beginning should be used to establish your credibility, introduce your subject, and show an emotional involvement with your audience. The middle will be the main content, and should include both highly visible visual and emotional images and educated comments about background matters and relevant statistics. The end will be your call to action, in which you show your audience what they should do about the issue. But you will certainly want to remember to tie your closing to your opening, or your presentation will only confuse everyone.
And remember never to apologize for a lack of preparation, education, knowledge or anything else. And also avoid saying words like “before I begin my presentation, I have something important I want to say.” If you fall into either of these traps, you will have demeaned yourself so severely that your audience will not take you seriously — and probably shouldn’t.
Mostly your presentation should be addressed to those people in the audience who have not been converted, or who are not in agreement with you. In other words, don’t waste valuable opportunities by “preaching to the choir.” Successful attorneys arguing to an appellate court will tell you that they spend virtually all of their time addressing those judges who probably are leaning toward the other side.
In addition, you will also want to choose your words carefully. For example, the word “fair” probably has about 40 different meanings. So, as a practical matter, that word has little meaning at all, and its use should be avoided. Being precise in your word selection can turn a dull presentation into one that is dynamic.
Furthermore, think of your notes as a barrier in your communication with your audience because it destroys eye contact. So if you use notes, as most of us do, pause in your presentation whenever you refer to your notes for new thoughts, and then regain eye contact with your audience before you resume.
Although it seems awkward, when standing in front of an audience, you should plant your feet firmly with your weight equally distributed on both feet, and your trunk should be still. Look at any accomplished speaker or singer, and that is what you will see. It looks perfectly natural, and it shows self-confidence. On the contrary, shifting weight from one foot to the other shows a lack of confidence.
Of equal importance, always try to keep your hands in full view of your audience. If you hide your hands, your audience will have a tendency to conclude that you are hiding something from them, and this is death to a speaker. But if your hands are visible, and even used to emphasize particular points, they will help you become much more persuasive.
Another important lesson is to speak in the present tense whenever possible. We can learn a great deal from the simplicity of small children, and this is what they do.
Your audience will be much more likely to answer your call to action when you address something that is happening now, instead of something that you phrase as having happened in the past.
You will also want to vary both your pace and your pitch. Speaking fast is almost never a good thing to do — in fact, the opposite is almost always true. And there is seldom something more intriguing to your audience than for you virtually to whisper when you are discussing some important point. Varying pace and pitch will keep them interested.
Finally, one of the most effective tools of formalizing a presentation is to condense your entire message into a 10-word telegram for yourself. This will help you to crystallize both your thinking and your presentation itself. And keep your speech under an hour, if at all possible. People mostly cannot concentrate for longer than that.
If you think about it, you probably have a number of important things you have learned that you would like to pass along to other people that would help to make their lives better, safer, or more interesting. Developing your talents as a public speaker will help you to do just that.
And besides, next week we will be discussing the tragic but true state of affairs that our government is not only dysfunctional, it is broken.
This problem is so severe that we will need everyone, including you, to help promote a discussion about what we can do to make government more functional and responsible.
So I will give you a week to start practicing!
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 .
No. 2 is dying, and No. 3 is heights.
Well, I have been involved in public speaking for quite a few years now, and I can tell you that it can be a rewarding and gratifying experience, and it is not at all something to fear.
So here are some tips that will help you be a much more effective public speaker, and I encourage you to try them.
The most important thing in public speaking is showing your audience that you believe what you are saying. If you cannot do that, almost nothing else you do will matter. That point was brought home to me vividly when I was in a speech class at UCLA. Throughout the semester my presentations were basically mediocre. But for my final speech, I chose a topic that was a subject of genuine importance to me: equal rights for African Americans. The speech surprised my professor and my classmates, and this was the first time I learned that I really could do this effectively. So select something that you really believe in, and your chances of getting the attention of your audience will be greatly improved.
Another important point is coming across as being sincere, believable and credible. Harry Truman was once quoted as saying: “Be sincere, even if you don’t mean it.” I’m not sure if the quote is accurate, and I am not encouraging hypocrisy, but showing that you believe what you are saying, and that you are sincere and have nothing to hide will go a long way toward persuading your audience.
In addition, your audience will not care what you think until they think that you care. So any authentic way you can show your audience that you are one of them will assist in getting your message out. One way is to focus upon things you have in common with them, such as you were raised in the same area, your children went to the same type of school, you had the same types of experiences they have had, etc. Another approach I often use when speaking to young people is to tell them that, believe it or not, I myself was actually a teenager for quite a few years. Otherwise, if you do not show your audience how they can identify with you, their attention will wander because they will not emotionally identify with you or the issue you are discussing.
You also must show how the issue you are addressing affects your audience. “What’s in it for me?” will be in the minds of virtually everyone that is listening to you, and your presentation will not be successful unless that question is satisfactorily answered. Actually, when you think about it, that was pretty much the way you educated your children, with stories, examples and lessons that they could identify with, and from which they could benefit. Your audience will be no different.
And, of course, you must prepare your thoughts. In Ed McMahon’s book about public speaking, he recommended the speaker begin to think about the message at least a month before the talk, and begin preparation simply by writing down random thoughts about the subject. Thereafter, those thoughts should be arranged into a beginning, middle and end.
The beginning should be used to establish your credibility, introduce your subject, and show an emotional involvement with your audience. The middle will be the main content, and should include both highly visible visual and emotional images and educated comments about background matters and relevant statistics. The end will be your call to action, in which you show your audience what they should do about the issue. But you will certainly want to remember to tie your closing to your opening, or your presentation will only confuse everyone.
And remember never to apologize for a lack of preparation, education, knowledge or anything else. And also avoid saying words like “before I begin my presentation, I have something important I want to say.” If you fall into either of these traps, you will have demeaned yourself so severely that your audience will not take you seriously — and probably shouldn’t.
Mostly your presentation should be addressed to those people in the audience who have not been converted, or who are not in agreement with you. In other words, don’t waste valuable opportunities by “preaching to the choir.” Successful attorneys arguing to an appellate court will tell you that they spend virtually all of their time addressing those judges who probably are leaning toward the other side.
In addition, you will also want to choose your words carefully. For example, the word “fair” probably has about 40 different meanings. So, as a practical matter, that word has little meaning at all, and its use should be avoided. Being precise in your word selection can turn a dull presentation into one that is dynamic.
Furthermore, think of your notes as a barrier in your communication with your audience because it destroys eye contact. So if you use notes, as most of us do, pause in your presentation whenever you refer to your notes for new thoughts, and then regain eye contact with your audience before you resume.
Although it seems awkward, when standing in front of an audience, you should plant your feet firmly with your weight equally distributed on both feet, and your trunk should be still. Look at any accomplished speaker or singer, and that is what you will see. It looks perfectly natural, and it shows self-confidence. On the contrary, shifting weight from one foot to the other shows a lack of confidence.
Of equal importance, always try to keep your hands in full view of your audience. If you hide your hands, your audience will have a tendency to conclude that you are hiding something from them, and this is death to a speaker. But if your hands are visible, and even used to emphasize particular points, they will help you become much more persuasive.
Another important lesson is to speak in the present tense whenever possible. We can learn a great deal from the simplicity of small children, and this is what they do.
Your audience will be much more likely to answer your call to action when you address something that is happening now, instead of something that you phrase as having happened in the past.
You will also want to vary both your pace and your pitch. Speaking fast is almost never a good thing to do — in fact, the opposite is almost always true. And there is seldom something more intriguing to your audience than for you virtually to whisper when you are discussing some important point. Varying pace and pitch will keep them interested.
Finally, one of the most effective tools of formalizing a presentation is to condense your entire message into a 10-word telegram for yourself. This will help you to crystallize both your thinking and your presentation itself. And keep your speech under an hour, if at all possible. People mostly cannot concentrate for longer than that.
If you think about it, you probably have a number of important things you have learned that you would like to pass along to other people that would help to make their lives better, safer, or more interesting. Developing your talents as a public speaker will help you to do just that.
And besides, next week we will be discussing the tragic but true state of affairs that our government is not only dysfunctional, it is broken.
This problem is so severe that we will need everyone, including you, to help promote a discussion about what we can do to make government more functional and responsible.
So I will give you a week to start practicing!
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 17, 2010
May each deserve a sprig of verbena - by Judge Jim Gray
Last week you heard from my good friend Judge Andrew Guilford about his thoughts and involvement in the preparation of this column for the past 2½ years. And, as you have seen, he has been constructive and helpful in developing those thoughts, even though at times, he did not even agree with some of them. My wonderful wife, Dr. Grace Walker Gray, has sometimes been in the same situation, and has been equally helpful.
But that says a great deal about a person, and that is one reason why I would trust important decisions about the safety of my family and treasure to people like my wife and Guilford. In most things, people cannot reasonably decide for or against a position unless they understand exactly what that position is. In fact, it is arrogant to make decisions unless you understand all sides of the issues.
On a larger and quite different scale, Emma Darwin, Charles Darwin’s wife, was in the same situation. Devoutly religious, she watched as her husband slowly worked out his theories of evolution. And, even though she did not agree with the thrust of those theories, she was his strongest partner and admirer throughout that process, and that helped him to make those thoughts and theories more precise.
Well, it takes a strong person to help others formulate thoughts and ideas that are contrary to their own. Emma Darwin was one of those strong people. But, as the story goes, she was able to get in the last word once Charles Darwin died, when she told her children that although their father did not believe in God, God certainly believed in their father.
As a further illustration, my wife and I recently saw “Invictus,” which was about Nelson Mandela as he assumed the presidency of South Africa and attempted to change it away from its prior policies of Apartheid. The movie’s story centered upon his use of South Africa’s rugby team, and his conclusion that blacks should not force the white Afrikaners to change the team’s colors, even though those were the colors that represented the past oppression. Mandela argued that because they were victors in the struggle against Apartheid and in control of the government, the blacks should understand the present concerns of the former oppressors, and show them that they were welcome to remain as an important part of their country.
In this spirit, Mandela quoted the poem “Invictus” by William Ernest Henley, which, he said, had maintained him through the decades that he was imprisoned by those former oppressors. The poem ended with: “It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll. I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”
A person, a society or a government that is the captain of its soul will have the strength to understand and even respect the opinions, views and feelings of others. It is only then that honest discussions can begin, compromises can be hammered out, and peace can have a chance to prevail.
In my view, that is probably the main reason why President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, although this award was flamingly premature. Rightly or wrongly, it was the perception of many people around the world that our government thought it had all of the answers, and was not willing to listen to anyone else, much less partner with them. But when that perception was changed, this was seen as furthering the cause of peace so substantially that Obama was given this prestigious award. Of course, now that he has received it, I deeply hope Obama goes on to earn it.
Finally, when I was in a literature class at UCLA, I was assigned to read a book called “The Unvanquished” by William Faulkner, which is one of the most pivotal books I have ever read. The story was set around the chaos of the Civil War, where people were mostly forced to be involved with violence to survive. But although the hero of the story, Bayard Sartoris, was well schooled in killing, he was able to rise above it, face his enemy alone and unarmed, and forgive that enemy for past serious wrongs that had been inflicted against him and his family.
Sartoris’ acts, which were found to be above courage, would break the cycle of violence for himself and his descendants. For such acts he was awarded a sprig of verbena. This is a flower with a lemony scent that is strong and almost impossible to forget. In the story, the verbena is equated with heroism and bravery that is so strong that it cannot be argued with or dissuaded, and it was awarded to Sartoris by the female lead of the story, even though she did not agree with his refusal to commit violence.
Now this is not to say that people should compromise their values and, of course, there also are times that people must fight to protect and defend what they hold dear. Thomas Jefferson understood this when he said that “Anyone who beats his swords into plowshares will soon be plowing for someone else.” So obviously there are many situations in life that call for courageous responses. But sometimes there are also some important occasions that call for something greater than courage — they call for verbena.
We are confronting one of those occasions now, because today our society has become unnecessarily punitive, particularly in the criminal justice system. As a direct result of that approach, our country leads the world in the incarceration of our people, which is enormously expensive both in financial as well as human terms. As such, we need people who are highly placed in government, who are strong enough to act counter to the “prevailing wisdom” that punishment is almost always the answer, and to earn a sprig of verbena.
Emma Darwin, Guilford, and Walker Gray, from what I have seen, you are truly the captains of your ship. And for your understanding, counsel and devotion to the free-flow of ideas and to the spokespersons of those ideas, I find you to be deserving of a sprig of verbena. And on a larger scale, Obama and Mandela, for your efforts and actions to take people and governments away from arrogance and the perpetuation of unnecessary violence, and for your meaningful attempts to bring people together in peace, I award you a sprig of verbena.
May each one of us in the course of both our personal and professional lives, be the captains of our ships as well, and, on the right occasions, be deserving of a sprig of verbena.
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 that says a great deal about a person, and that is one reason why I would trust important decisions about the safety of my family and treasure to people like my wife and Guilford. In most things, people cannot reasonably decide for or against a position unless they understand exactly what that position is. In fact, it is arrogant to make decisions unless you understand all sides of the issues.
On a larger and quite different scale, Emma Darwin, Charles Darwin’s wife, was in the same situation. Devoutly religious, she watched as her husband slowly worked out his theories of evolution. And, even though she did not agree with the thrust of those theories, she was his strongest partner and admirer throughout that process, and that helped him to make those thoughts and theories more precise.
Well, it takes a strong person to help others formulate thoughts and ideas that are contrary to their own. Emma Darwin was one of those strong people. But, as the story goes, she was able to get in the last word once Charles Darwin died, when she told her children that although their father did not believe in God, God certainly believed in their father.
As a further illustration, my wife and I recently saw “Invictus,” which was about Nelson Mandela as he assumed the presidency of South Africa and attempted to change it away from its prior policies of Apartheid. The movie’s story centered upon his use of South Africa’s rugby team, and his conclusion that blacks should not force the white Afrikaners to change the team’s colors, even though those were the colors that represented the past oppression. Mandela argued that because they were victors in the struggle against Apartheid and in control of the government, the blacks should understand the present concerns of the former oppressors, and show them that they were welcome to remain as an important part of their country.
In this spirit, Mandela quoted the poem “Invictus” by William Ernest Henley, which, he said, had maintained him through the decades that he was imprisoned by those former oppressors. The poem ended with: “It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll. I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”
A person, a society or a government that is the captain of its soul will have the strength to understand and even respect the opinions, views and feelings of others. It is only then that honest discussions can begin, compromises can be hammered out, and peace can have a chance to prevail.
In my view, that is probably the main reason why President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, although this award was flamingly premature. Rightly or wrongly, it was the perception of many people around the world that our government thought it had all of the answers, and was not willing to listen to anyone else, much less partner with them. But when that perception was changed, this was seen as furthering the cause of peace so substantially that Obama was given this prestigious award. Of course, now that he has received it, I deeply hope Obama goes on to earn it.
Finally, when I was in a literature class at UCLA, I was assigned to read a book called “The Unvanquished” by William Faulkner, which is one of the most pivotal books I have ever read. The story was set around the chaos of the Civil War, where people were mostly forced to be involved with violence to survive. But although the hero of the story, Bayard Sartoris, was well schooled in killing, he was able to rise above it, face his enemy alone and unarmed, and forgive that enemy for past serious wrongs that had been inflicted against him and his family.
Sartoris’ acts, which were found to be above courage, would break the cycle of violence for himself and his descendants. For such acts he was awarded a sprig of verbena. This is a flower with a lemony scent that is strong and almost impossible to forget. In the story, the verbena is equated with heroism and bravery that is so strong that it cannot be argued with or dissuaded, and it was awarded to Sartoris by the female lead of the story, even though she did not agree with his refusal to commit violence.
Now this is not to say that people should compromise their values and, of course, there also are times that people must fight to protect and defend what they hold dear. Thomas Jefferson understood this when he said that “Anyone who beats his swords into plowshares will soon be plowing for someone else.” So obviously there are many situations in life that call for courageous responses. But sometimes there are also some important occasions that call for something greater than courage — they call for verbena.
We are confronting one of those occasions now, because today our society has become unnecessarily punitive, particularly in the criminal justice system. As a direct result of that approach, our country leads the world in the incarceration of our people, which is enormously expensive both in financial as well as human terms. As such, we need people who are highly placed in government, who are strong enough to act counter to the “prevailing wisdom” that punishment is almost always the answer, and to earn a sprig of verbena.
Emma Darwin, Guilford, and Walker Gray, from what I have seen, you are truly the captains of your ship. And for your understanding, counsel and devotion to the free-flow of ideas and to the spokespersons of those ideas, I find you to be deserving of a sprig of verbena. And on a larger scale, Obama and Mandela, for your efforts and actions to take people and governments away from arrogance and the perpetuation of unnecessary violence, and for your meaningful attempts to bring people together in peace, I award you a sprig of verbena.
May each one of us in the course of both our personal and professional lives, be the captains of our ships as well, and, on the right occasions, be deserving of a sprig of verbena.
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 10, 2010
‘But, oops, I’ve got a deadline to meet’ - by Judge Jim Gray
This is the 117th column I have written for the Daily Pilot. When the editors and I first reached an agreement, I committed for only a year. But it has been so much fun and such a challenge, and I have received so much gratification from your comments and responses, that I simply had to keep going. And the editors graciously allowed this to occur.
Almost from the beginning of this project, I asked one of my best and most admired friends, Andrew J. Guilford, a U.S. District Court judge in Santa Ana and former president of the State Bar of California, if he would look at the drafts of my columns to give me his thoughts, criticisms and suggestions.
By no means has he always agreed with what I have written, but his comments have made the column much more interesting and insightful. If you only knew...
My wife, Dr. Grace Walker Gray, suggested that I offer Guilford the opportunity to provide you with some of his observations about the process of writing the column, as well as some of the thoughts expressed in it. Happily, he has agreed, and this also gives me the opportunity publicly to thank him. His comments are as follows:
I was impressed a few years ago when my friend Jim Gray said he would be writing a weekly column, in addition to his busy day job. I’ve previously had to write a monthly column, and I found that 12 deadlines a year were daunting.
Jim has now met about 50 deadlines a year, and 117 overall. For this he deserves commendation, yet he has received some condemnation from me, as his friend, for some of the conclusions in his column. Still, maybe that’s what friends are for, and Jim has always taken my criticisms gracefully and in stride. I hope Jim agrees with my conclusions here on seeking answers when faced with uncertainty.
We all have been cursed/blessed with a fascinating world of uncertainty, and great friends can help us as we struggle to find answers.
Should we legalize (or decriminalize) drugs? Should we fight a war on terror? Should we add further regulations to our laws? What is the best form of meditation? Should I wish you a Merry Christmas? Is there a God?
Some think uncertainty is a curse, particularly as to that last question. But I think uncertainty is a blessing. For as we struggle to find answers, we define who we are and we shape our souls. Uncertainty gives us chances to learn, discover, and grow.
Life would be so boring and stagnant if all the answers were obvious. This makes me wonder if whether, even in heaven, there will be uncertainty so that we will have chances to experience learning and discovery and growth, and avoid stagnation. Hey, Jim, maybe you could write a column on that!
Jim probably agrees with me that the worst answers to a question are “I don’t know” or “I don’t care,” and perhaps this is because judges must make judgments. Many people today respond to the blessing of uncertainty with indifference. Perhaps lost in a fog of relativism, they can’t or won’t find answers.
But there are answers to all the important questions, and there is one truth for important issues. Life is richer if we strive to find those answers and that truth while retaining an open, inquisitive mind always skeptical that we have found the often-elusive truth that we know is there. Jim strives to inform himself on the issues, and he reaches conclusions. He even seeks input from friends like me, especially when we disagree.
It is a particular blessing to explore issues with a friend like Jim. Readers of his column must appreciate that he has expressed his own unique conclusions on a wide range of issues. Even when I sometimes disagree with his conclusions, I remain impressed with the breadth of his curiosity.
In this short column, I can’t begin to describe Jim’s rich life experiences, which make him the perfect person to write a column on such a broad spectrum of topics. Much about Jim is commonly known, in part from the brief statement at the end of his column — he has written two books and the words and music to a musical that I recommend.
But most don’t know that he’s a darn good basketball player in his seventh decade (putting him in his 60s, which raises another interesting issue about how we count decades or centuries or millenniums). He’s an even better tennis player. He’s a great singer. And if you read his column, you know he’s developed a crisp, accessible — even chatty — writing style that effectively communicates his ideas.
Jim obviously learned much during his career as a judge, and also from his father, a distinguished gentleman who was, as I am today, a federal district judge.
Many years ago when I was a law student, Jim’s father rejected my application to be his legal extern, so there is a real irony that his son now invites me to comment on his columns. It was also ironic that Jim gave me his father’s judicial robe as I became a judge, which reflected Jim’s graciousness and generosity.
Disagreements between Jim and me have existed from the time we became good friends, mostly because that has allowed us to have some sensitive discussions. I have been particularly critical of some of Jim’s comments on religion, both mine and others. By God, I think he is wrong on some points!
I’ve also been critical when he claims to embrace a philosophy, like libertarianism, and then occasionally endorses regulations that are abhorrent to libertarians. But then again, maybe that just reflects his inquisitive, unpredictable, renaissance mind.
Yes, indeed, Jim is a professed libertarian, who supports some regulations that most libertarians view as part of a nanny state mentality. He is an intensely patriotic American exceptionalist, who is disgusted by what this country has done in Iraq. He is a former prosecutor and judge, who wants to legalize drugs. He is a fan of Milton Friedman and the free market, who supports some non-market responses to environmental issues. No doubt, I dissent to some of Jim’s conclusions.
But I have grown and learned from my disagreements with Jim. Probably you readers sometimes disagree with him, too, and have learned from him as well. Of course, Jim and I also often agree, but the blessings of our friendship are most apparent when we disagree.
One of the biggest lessons for me is that friends can disagree with passion while retaining a strong and supportive friendship. Oh how I wish those leaders bickering on the world stage today could learn from the example of Jim’s grace in debating issues with dissenters, like me.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, like Jim, served in the military and as a lawyer and judge, once said that he had felt “the passion of life to its top.” With Jim’s remarkable life experiences and his toils in the vineyard of ideas, Jim knows the passion of life to its top. None of us can know that without properly confronting all the challenges and uncertainty that life presents. Jim’s columns help us do that.
So we’ve all been blessed with 117 columns by Jim, each one guiding us in our searches for answers in a world of uncertainty, and I look forward to many more.
I could go on and on, but, oops, I’ve got a deadline to meet!
JAMES P. GRAY, a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, is 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 .
Almost from the beginning of this project, I asked one of my best and most admired friends, Andrew J. Guilford, a U.S. District Court judge in Santa Ana and former president of the State Bar of California, if he would look at the drafts of my columns to give me his thoughts, criticisms and suggestions.
By no means has he always agreed with what I have written, but his comments have made the column much more interesting and insightful. If you only knew...
My wife, Dr. Grace Walker Gray, suggested that I offer Guilford the opportunity to provide you with some of his observations about the process of writing the column, as well as some of the thoughts expressed in it. Happily, he has agreed, and this also gives me the opportunity publicly to thank him. His comments are as follows:
I was impressed a few years ago when my friend Jim Gray said he would be writing a weekly column, in addition to his busy day job. I’ve previously had to write a monthly column, and I found that 12 deadlines a year were daunting.
Jim has now met about 50 deadlines a year, and 117 overall. For this he deserves commendation, yet he has received some condemnation from me, as his friend, for some of the conclusions in his column. Still, maybe that’s what friends are for, and Jim has always taken my criticisms gracefully and in stride. I hope Jim agrees with my conclusions here on seeking answers when faced with uncertainty.
We all have been cursed/blessed with a fascinating world of uncertainty, and great friends can help us as we struggle to find answers.
Should we legalize (or decriminalize) drugs? Should we fight a war on terror? Should we add further regulations to our laws? What is the best form of meditation? Should I wish you a Merry Christmas? Is there a God?
Some think uncertainty is a curse, particularly as to that last question. But I think uncertainty is a blessing. For as we struggle to find answers, we define who we are and we shape our souls. Uncertainty gives us chances to learn, discover, and grow.
Life would be so boring and stagnant if all the answers were obvious. This makes me wonder if whether, even in heaven, there will be uncertainty so that we will have chances to experience learning and discovery and growth, and avoid stagnation. Hey, Jim, maybe you could write a column on that!
Jim probably agrees with me that the worst answers to a question are “I don’t know” or “I don’t care,” and perhaps this is because judges must make judgments. Many people today respond to the blessing of uncertainty with indifference. Perhaps lost in a fog of relativism, they can’t or won’t find answers.
But there are answers to all the important questions, and there is one truth for important issues. Life is richer if we strive to find those answers and that truth while retaining an open, inquisitive mind always skeptical that we have found the often-elusive truth that we know is there. Jim strives to inform himself on the issues, and he reaches conclusions. He even seeks input from friends like me, especially when we disagree.
It is a particular blessing to explore issues with a friend like Jim. Readers of his column must appreciate that he has expressed his own unique conclusions on a wide range of issues. Even when I sometimes disagree with his conclusions, I remain impressed with the breadth of his curiosity.
In this short column, I can’t begin to describe Jim’s rich life experiences, which make him the perfect person to write a column on such a broad spectrum of topics. Much about Jim is commonly known, in part from the brief statement at the end of his column — he has written two books and the words and music to a musical that I recommend.
But most don’t know that he’s a darn good basketball player in his seventh decade (putting him in his 60s, which raises another interesting issue about how we count decades or centuries or millenniums). He’s an even better tennis player. He’s a great singer. And if you read his column, you know he’s developed a crisp, accessible — even chatty — writing style that effectively communicates his ideas.
Jim obviously learned much during his career as a judge, and also from his father, a distinguished gentleman who was, as I am today, a federal district judge.
Many years ago when I was a law student, Jim’s father rejected my application to be his legal extern, so there is a real irony that his son now invites me to comment on his columns. It was also ironic that Jim gave me his father’s judicial robe as I became a judge, which reflected Jim’s graciousness and generosity.
Disagreements between Jim and me have existed from the time we became good friends, mostly because that has allowed us to have some sensitive discussions. I have been particularly critical of some of Jim’s comments on religion, both mine and others. By God, I think he is wrong on some points!
I’ve also been critical when he claims to embrace a philosophy, like libertarianism, and then occasionally endorses regulations that are abhorrent to libertarians. But then again, maybe that just reflects his inquisitive, unpredictable, renaissance mind.
Yes, indeed, Jim is a professed libertarian, who supports some regulations that most libertarians view as part of a nanny state mentality. He is an intensely patriotic American exceptionalist, who is disgusted by what this country has done in Iraq. He is a former prosecutor and judge, who wants to legalize drugs. He is a fan of Milton Friedman and the free market, who supports some non-market responses to environmental issues. No doubt, I dissent to some of Jim’s conclusions.
But I have grown and learned from my disagreements with Jim. Probably you readers sometimes disagree with him, too, and have learned from him as well. Of course, Jim and I also often agree, but the blessings of our friendship are most apparent when we disagree.
One of the biggest lessons for me is that friends can disagree with passion while retaining a strong and supportive friendship. Oh how I wish those leaders bickering on the world stage today could learn from the example of Jim’s grace in debating issues with dissenters, like me.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, like Jim, served in the military and as a lawyer and judge, once said that he had felt “the passion of life to its top.” With Jim’s remarkable life experiences and his toils in the vineyard of ideas, Jim knows the passion of life to its top. None of us can know that without properly confronting all the challenges and uncertainty that life presents. Jim’s columns help us do that.
So we’ve all been blessed with 117 columns by Jim, each one guiding us in our searches for answers in a world of uncertainty, and I look forward to many more.
I could go on and on, but, oops, I’ve got a deadline to meet!
JAMES P. GRAY, a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, is 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, January 3, 2010
Taking taxing to the most logical limits - by Judge Jim Gray
While contemplating the gathering of information to prepare for my 2009 income tax returns, I started thinking about all of the different and creative ways governments come up with to impose taxes on all of us. Worse yet, most of the time we are not really even aware of the extent of that taxation.
Have you thought about all of the occasions in our daily lives that the governments reach their hands into our wallets?
Obviously there are income taxes, where some people think the process of withholding money from our paychecks has made this tax less painful, and others feel the lost interest increases the pain. And, of course, there are capital gains taxes on investment earnings, and yearly taxes on the ownership of real property.
Then there are the state, county and city sales taxes. In Orange County, the total sales taxes are 8.75%, and in Los Angeles County they are 9.75%. That makes my neighbor, who owns a home improvement store just over the Orange County line into Los Angeles County, really upset, because his customers will actually drive about 10 miles farther to make expensive purchases inside Orange County just to save that 1%. But any way you look at it, all of us pay a pretty large amount of money in sales taxes.
Most of us are aware that motor fuels are also taxed at a high rate, but did you know how high they are? In California motorists pay 63.9 cents per gallon for gasoline, and 72.9 cents for a gallon of diesel — and that is in addition to sales taxes! Imagine how much money that brings into various governments each day. The rationale for those high taxes is that the money raised will be used to build and maintain our roads and other transportation facilities. But often politicians find a way to divert it to other purposes, because they simply cannot ignore large amounts of money that are not being spent.
Other large sources of revenues for governments are the so-called “sin” taxes that are imposed upon cigarettes, which are taxed in California at 87 cents per pack, hard alcohol at $3.30 per gallon, and wine and beer at 20 cents per gallon. We also have inheritance taxes, or the so-called “death tax,” that take a fairly large chunk of the estates of deceased people above a certain value.
Those are the taxes that are normally the most visible. But have you looked recently at your telephone bills? My examination of my monthly Verizon cell-phone bill showed me that of the $30.81 total charges, 8.6%, was for various taxes and surcharges. There was even a charge of $1.75 not to publish my listing! (Maybe we all should start businesses of not publishing people’s telephone numbers, and then charge them a fee for it?) I would also pass along to you the amount of taxes on our AT&T home telephone bill, but I couldn’t figure them out.
There are similar taxes, fees, charges and surcharges on all other utility bills as well, which are mostly blended into the overall bills to obscure how much they are, or what they are for. But you get the idea. Similarly, I recently I flew from Orange County to Washington D.C., and calculated that the “taxes, fees and charges” came to a full 15.7% of the cost of the ticket.
The worst situation for added charges that I am aware of is, embarrassingly enough, with so-called “penalty assessments” that the court system imposes when people have committed a traffic violation. That means that when, for example, a person is ordered to pay a traffic fine of $100, the court is required to order the person also to pay penalty assessments of an additional $344.
These fees are assessed for such things as DNA testing, court security screening, the law library fund, court maintenance, traffic school and even unspecified “surcharge” fees. And it has been known that some judges inform traffic offenders only that they will be paying a fine of $100 “plus penalty assessments,” so the people find out how much they will actually owe only when they go down to the clerk’s office with checkbook in hand.
I was as much in the “responsibility business” as any judge, but it seems to constitute an institutional lack of integrity to add such a high percentage of fees onto the fines that we assess. Nevertheless, judges are expressly forbidden by law to waive any of these fees, because the folks in government are so hungry for extra money, and have run out of other options.
How has this situation become so extreme? The answer is that governments continue to grow and, therefore, they need more money to pay for additional employees, assets and programs. This is logical because it is the natural function of any bureaucracy to increase its size and power. But do we really need to have and pay for all of this government? For example, do we really need agencies like the Bureau of Indian Affairs? The Native Americans don’t think so.
Similarly, and as has been discussed in previous columns, why should governments own things like county fairgrounds, sports complexes and theaters? If there is a public need or desire for such things, the free market will provide them — and run them much more efficiently along the way. Or why should the government be involved in the partial ownership and running of automobile companies, banks or health-care services? Setting up oversight over these activities? Certainly, but that’s all.
In addition, why do we continue to require that mail delivery be publicly run? In today’s world of electronic bill paying, e-mail correspondence and computer teleconferencing, the amount of first-class mail that is being sent is steadily decreasing. Nevertheless, we continue to maintain the expensive U.S. Postal Service monopoly. Why not instead have Congress decide how much of a bounty it is worth to the public to have things like newspapers and magazines delivered through the mail and pay that amount to any carrier that will deliver them? Then we can open up all mail delivery services on low-bid contracts to companies like Federal Express or the United Postal Service, who will do the job better, and for far less money than the U.S. Postal Service.
Finally, I want to pass along to you a story. When I was a military lawyer at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Guam, for reasons only the Navy could explain, I was given the responsibility of overseeing the station’s child care center. When I took over the operation, the numbers of children left by parents with the center per day were down, the center itself was losing money, the staff was underpaid, and morale was poor. After assessing the situation, I ordered that the charges per hour per child be reduced, employees who were performing well be given a raise, and non-performing staff be let go.
Within four weeks, the center was full of children, morale was high, and we were making a profit. Government can learn important lessons from experiences like that. Often by reducing taxes and other fees the economy will improve, the government will actually increase its gross revenues, and everyone will be better off.
So the ultimate Libertarian lesson is that you and I must exercise the supervisory powers we inherently have over government as taxpayers and voters to reduce the size, power and expense of government. Then we can reduce taxes and other related fees, and along the way be able to spur the economy and the creation of jobs much better than we are doing today. But without our involvement, governments will continue sinking into their present sea of red ink.
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 .
Have you thought about all of the occasions in our daily lives that the governments reach their hands into our wallets?
Obviously there are income taxes, where some people think the process of withholding money from our paychecks has made this tax less painful, and others feel the lost interest increases the pain. And, of course, there are capital gains taxes on investment earnings, and yearly taxes on the ownership of real property.
Then there are the state, county and city sales taxes. In Orange County, the total sales taxes are 8.75%, and in Los Angeles County they are 9.75%. That makes my neighbor, who owns a home improvement store just over the Orange County line into Los Angeles County, really upset, because his customers will actually drive about 10 miles farther to make expensive purchases inside Orange County just to save that 1%. But any way you look at it, all of us pay a pretty large amount of money in sales taxes.
Most of us are aware that motor fuels are also taxed at a high rate, but did you know how high they are? In California motorists pay 63.9 cents per gallon for gasoline, and 72.9 cents for a gallon of diesel — and that is in addition to sales taxes! Imagine how much money that brings into various governments each day. The rationale for those high taxes is that the money raised will be used to build and maintain our roads and other transportation facilities. But often politicians find a way to divert it to other purposes, because they simply cannot ignore large amounts of money that are not being spent.
Other large sources of revenues for governments are the so-called “sin” taxes that are imposed upon cigarettes, which are taxed in California at 87 cents per pack, hard alcohol at $3.30 per gallon, and wine and beer at 20 cents per gallon. We also have inheritance taxes, or the so-called “death tax,” that take a fairly large chunk of the estates of deceased people above a certain value.
Those are the taxes that are normally the most visible. But have you looked recently at your telephone bills? My examination of my monthly Verizon cell-phone bill showed me that of the $30.81 total charges, 8.6%, was for various taxes and surcharges. There was even a charge of $1.75 not to publish my listing! (Maybe we all should start businesses of not publishing people’s telephone numbers, and then charge them a fee for it?) I would also pass along to you the amount of taxes on our AT&T home telephone bill, but I couldn’t figure them out.
There are similar taxes, fees, charges and surcharges on all other utility bills as well, which are mostly blended into the overall bills to obscure how much they are, or what they are for. But you get the idea. Similarly, I recently I flew from Orange County to Washington D.C., and calculated that the “taxes, fees and charges” came to a full 15.7% of the cost of the ticket.
The worst situation for added charges that I am aware of is, embarrassingly enough, with so-called “penalty assessments” that the court system imposes when people have committed a traffic violation. That means that when, for example, a person is ordered to pay a traffic fine of $100, the court is required to order the person also to pay penalty assessments of an additional $344.
These fees are assessed for such things as DNA testing, court security screening, the law library fund, court maintenance, traffic school and even unspecified “surcharge” fees. And it has been known that some judges inform traffic offenders only that they will be paying a fine of $100 “plus penalty assessments,” so the people find out how much they will actually owe only when they go down to the clerk’s office with checkbook in hand.
I was as much in the “responsibility business” as any judge, but it seems to constitute an institutional lack of integrity to add such a high percentage of fees onto the fines that we assess. Nevertheless, judges are expressly forbidden by law to waive any of these fees, because the folks in government are so hungry for extra money, and have run out of other options.
How has this situation become so extreme? The answer is that governments continue to grow and, therefore, they need more money to pay for additional employees, assets and programs. This is logical because it is the natural function of any bureaucracy to increase its size and power. But do we really need to have and pay for all of this government? For example, do we really need agencies like the Bureau of Indian Affairs? The Native Americans don’t think so.
Similarly, and as has been discussed in previous columns, why should governments own things like county fairgrounds, sports complexes and theaters? If there is a public need or desire for such things, the free market will provide them — and run them much more efficiently along the way. Or why should the government be involved in the partial ownership and running of automobile companies, banks or health-care services? Setting up oversight over these activities? Certainly, but that’s all.
In addition, why do we continue to require that mail delivery be publicly run? In today’s world of electronic bill paying, e-mail correspondence and computer teleconferencing, the amount of first-class mail that is being sent is steadily decreasing. Nevertheless, we continue to maintain the expensive U.S. Postal Service monopoly. Why not instead have Congress decide how much of a bounty it is worth to the public to have things like newspapers and magazines delivered through the mail and pay that amount to any carrier that will deliver them? Then we can open up all mail delivery services on low-bid contracts to companies like Federal Express or the United Postal Service, who will do the job better, and for far less money than the U.S. Postal Service.
Finally, I want to pass along to you a story. When I was a military lawyer at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Guam, for reasons only the Navy could explain, I was given the responsibility of overseeing the station’s child care center. When I took over the operation, the numbers of children left by parents with the center per day were down, the center itself was losing money, the staff was underpaid, and morale was poor. After assessing the situation, I ordered that the charges per hour per child be reduced, employees who were performing well be given a raise, and non-performing staff be let go.
Within four weeks, the center was full of children, morale was high, and we were making a profit. Government can learn important lessons from experiences like that. Often by reducing taxes and other fees the economy will improve, the government will actually increase its gross revenues, and everyone will be better off.
So the ultimate Libertarian lesson is that you and I must exercise the supervisory powers we inherently have over government as taxpayers and voters to reduce the size, power and expense of government. Then we can reduce taxes and other related fees, and along the way be able to spur the economy and the creation of jobs much better than we are doing today. But without our involvement, governments will continue sinking into their present sea of red ink.
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 .
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
+a.jpg)
