Governments need to outsource services - by Judge Jim Gray

My Aug. 12, 2007, column recommended that all governments pass sunset laws requiring each of their agencies to receive a positive vote every six or seven years from their legislatures in order to be funded again. The government would abolish the agency if it did not receive a favorable vote.

Sunset laws would allow everyone to see more clearly what each governmental agency had accomplished since its last review period, and what its plans would be for the future. We could see if we were getting sufficient "bang" for our tax buck.

Private companies continually follow these basic Libertarian principles, although less formally, as they monitor their own activities in trying to maximize revenues and reduce expenses. Governments should be forced to do the same, and sunset laws would help significantly.

Much of the work done by these agencies simply should not be done by governments at all. Instead it should be done by competent companies as successful low-bid contractors with those governments.

The city of Costa Mesa should be applauded for moving in that direction — if somewhat tardily. This is the fiscally responsible thing to do, and other governments should follow Costa Mesa's lead.

Of course, Costa Mesa's actions have had an impact on some good and faithful city employees who have received layoff notices. Our hearts should go out to them, and they should be treated fairly under the law.

But that also happens in the private sector, and most of those employees were doing work that never should have been done by the city in the first place. Why? Because private companies can virtually always do the job as well but for much cheaper.

For example, why should the state have an agency like the California Department of Transportation? Fundamentally, it is silly for the state to own and maintain all those dump trucks, bulldozers and other heavy equipment, and pay the salaries and other benefits of all of those workers. Instead the state should employ a few people to enter into low-bid contracts with qualified private companies, and then supervise the work those companies do.

As another example, a friend of mine owns a private company in San Diego that contracts with cities to issue each city's building permits, and then inspects the jobs when the work is completed. And the results have been great for everybody. The permit and approval work is done well and with integrity, but the cities have not had to employ and pay for all of those workers; the client builders are happy because each city's rules are applied fairly, but the waiting time has been seriously reduced; and my friend's company is making good money. There is simply no reason that this approach cannot be replicated in other areas as well. In fact, it is financially foolish not to do so.

And can this apply to the federal government? Absolutely.

The first thing to do would be to abolish the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Every time I have asked Native Americans what they think about the BIA, they have said they hate it. And when you discover what is happening, you would agree with them.

Just put yourself in the place of Native Americans. According to http://www.bia.gov, it is the mission of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be involved in the "prudent management of the federal dollars we are entrusted with as we work to strengthen Tribal Nations."

In other words, the federal government, even after keeping the Native Americans under its "protection" for more than 200 years, still does not think that they can effectively manage their own lives.

What would you think if the federal government had an agency to "protect" you because it was so concerned that you as a people were not smart, wise or sophisticated enough to take care of yourselves? Is that not the definition of arrogance? But why stop there? Why do we not have a Bureau of Scottish American Affairs to "protect" me and my family? It would be much better for the Native Americans to be forced to take responsibility for their own decisions, just like everyone else.

Of course, the additional fact that historically the BIA was the policeman that broke their treaties, deprived them of their lands and put them on reservations is difficult for the Native Americans to forget. And to that history we also can add that the BIA has been sued on four separate occasions in class actions for tens of millions of dollars of damages by the Federation of Indian Service Employees for various grievances, as well as for "misplacing" hundreds of millions of dollars of Native American assets gained from the leasing of their lands. So it is not surprising that the Native Americans have no sense of humor about these federal agencies.

And neither should we, if only as taxpayers. The 2012 budget has dedicated $2.5 billion to provide education and health care services for Native Americans and oversee their lands. If you were a member of Congress, how would you vote on whether or not the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be continued or abolished? I'll bet you would vote just like I would.

How many more federal, state, county and city agencies should be abolished and/or their work referred to private companies like has been done by the city of Costa Mesa? None of us know, but it is time to find out.

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

Interpreting the 14th Amendment - by Judge Jim Gray

Why are Arizona and an increasingly large number of other states taking their own action regarding illegal immigration? It results from the frustration of the federal government's inactivity. As was discussed in this column from July 22, 2007, Congress could resolve this problem fairly easily and quickly if it wanted to, but the reality is that it has no such desire.

Why? Because many powerful Republicans want continued access to cheap labor, and many powerful Democrats want people to continue to come here illegally with the hope that eventually they will vote for Democrats. In the meantime, countless numbers of good people are being seriously injured.

Thus, I never get mad at illegal immigrants. They are simply doing what the system so strongly encourages them to do, which is to pursue a better life for themselves and their children. Of course, this is why our ancestors came here as well!

Besides, it is often dangerous and expensive now to come into this country illegally, so there is a strong self-selection process that usually excludes all but the most hearty and dedicated. So mostly I admire them.

The solution is a simple three-step process.

First, we decide how many people we need to enter our country to perform different types of labor and how long they should stay.

Second, we issue counterfeit-proof identification cards, probably based upon fingerprints or cornea images to people from other countries who legally apply for those positions.

Third, anyone who employs workers who do not have a passport or this card would be prosecuted.

The cards would allow people to come into our country and work for a prescribed period of time, and then require them to leave. The migrant workers would have reduced benefits and tax obligations while they were here, and probably could not bring their families.

But within the specified time they could cross the border without a problem, and could have driver's licenses and access to our courts because they would be here legally. Of course, people who did not have this card would increasingly find it difficult to secure or maintain a job, so they would soon be inclined to go elsewhere.

Our present, untenable situation is also being allowed to continue because, although it has all the power, the federal government doesn't have to pay for the costs of illegal immigration. Thus, it has no particular incentive to do anything about it.

Instead, most of the costs are paid by state and local governments, and the school systems. So the incentives to resolve the problems will only be present when the federal government is required to pay for things such as the health care, education and incarceration of illegal immigrants.

Arizona is attempting to enforce the federal immigration laws. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, Arizona should be applauded for doing so! Furthermore, if the federal government does not agree with Arizona's actions, it has the absolute ability to stop them cold.

How? Simply change the federal law.

And then there is the question about whether the 14th Amendment should confer automatic citizenship upon all babies born within our borders. The applicable language cited for that result is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States … "

Up until now, this provision has been interpreted to stand for automatic citizenship. But the interpretation should be re-examined.

As you will recall from your history classes, the 14th Amendment was passed in July 1868 after the Civil War, and intended to confer citizenship upon former slaves. But the framers of the amendment simply could not stop with the words "all persons," because when the Constitution was ratified, slaves were officially recognized only to be 3/5 of a person. Thus, additional language was needed to address those people.

Nevertheless, if the framers were here today and asked whether that amendment would confer automatic citizenship upon a baby who, for example, was on an airplane flying from Mexico City to Toronto, but was born while the plane was refueling in St. Louis, they would give you a four-word response, which would be: "What, are you crazy?" And they would also give you the same answer if asked about children born in our country to parents who were here illegally.

Then, after pondering the situation a bit further, the framers would say: "Wait a minute, we already addressed these issues in the amendment itself by inserting the clause 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' If we had meant literally anyone born here would become a citizen, we would have left that clause out!"

And that is the answer. If a citizen of Japan is arrested here while on vacation, he doesn't call our embassy; he calls the Japanese embassy because he is still subject to the jurisdiction of Japan even though his physical presence is here. Thus the 14th Amendment does not need to be amended, just correctly interpreted.

Re-interpretation is certainly not something to be done lightly, but it has happened before. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 1896 precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson by holding that "separate but equal" public schools were not equal and were therefore unconstitutional. In a similar fashion the Supreme Court should re-examine the 14th Amendment.

Finally, only after we regain control of our borders by implementing this new program and interpretation should we address the truly emotional issues of "amnesty." There truly are some special equitable considerations that must be taken into account for people who have been in this country for so long that they really have no other country to which to return. So special allowances should be made for those people.

But first things first.

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

Justice must come before peace - by Judge Jim Gray

Probably the biggest tinderbox in the world today is the Holy Land, with the problems between Israel and Palestine continuing to deteriorate. But before I say more, I want to affirm as forcefully as I can that I completely support Israel and its right to exist, live peacefully, and thrive.

Some people will misunderstand my suggestions, and some may even do so intentionally. But having said that, the best way for peace in Israel to be obtained is to provide justice to the Palestinians!

How would you feel if you had a friend whose house was bulldozed by the Israeli government because one of their family members was suspected of harboring a terrorist? Often, according to the Palestinians, this happens with no notice, hearing, charges or redress!

How would you feel if you were born in a "temporary relocation camp" 30 years ago and are still living there?

How would you feel if you had lost your job because it was on one side of the security wall and you lived on the other, and it takes hours to get from one side to the other? And how would you feel if your loved one was injured, but soldiers would not allow her ambulance to cross through a security checkpoint to get to a hospital?

If these things were to happen to me, I probably would first try to approach some government officials and request more understanding. If that didn't work, and it most likely would not, then I would probably write some letters and carry some picket signs in protest. If that didn't work, and it most likely would not, my actions might escalate into joining groups of people with similar grievances, maybe even start throwing rocks at soldiers. I believe all of these things would be natural human responses that would evolve from genuine frustration.

I hope I would be sensible enough never to be manipulated into lobbing grenades at civilians or becoming a suicide bomber, but I could see that others could be led into these acts as well. Radical actions can come from people who lose their dignity and hope. In fact, it is a truism that there is no one more dangerous in the world than one who has nothing left to lose. So I can see how this has happened to some Palestinians.

Having said all of that, I truly also share the frustrations of the Israelis as well. For many years, and in many and repeated ways, they have tried to reach agreements with the Palestinians, including several occasions in which they implemented unilateral disengagement plans. But it is virtually impossible for the Israelis to work out disagreements or implement plans for peace when they do not have responsible people to deal with who actually represent the Palestinians. To that effect, I believe that Yasser Arafat, whom I view as almost entirely corrupt, more deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for dying in 2004, than he did for reaching his "agreement" with Yitzhak Rabin in the Oslo Accords in September 1993.

So how can peace come to that truly troubled land? The best way to de-radicalize any area is to implement a system of justice for everyone. This will have a neutralizing effect, and lead to more positive and lasting results. Maybe the Palestinians can form a responsible government that can control their more radical elements and even govern effectively, and maybe not. But regardless of that outcome, that should not keep all people subject to the Israeli government's jurisdiction from being able to have their grievances pursued and resolved in a fair and neutral setting.

For almost the entirety of my time sitting as a judge in Orange County I had a hand-printed sign on my bench that said "There Can Be No Peace in a Land without Justice." I used it to remind myself that each case I had was important to someone, and every decision I made would affect those people and also their views about our government. So I tried to do my best with every ruling under the facts and law of the case, and to explain my conclusions. People actually can accept losing, but what they cannot accept is laws applied in an unbalanced or arbitrary fashion. And what is true regarding the people in our country is also true for people everywhere else.

The American government can help, in fact, it can help where probably no one else can. But for years the perception has been with all Arab countries that our government has ratified the actions of the government of Israel, regardless of its merits. And that has resulted in our government relinquishing its moral authority to be a leader in that area of the world, and with some justification. But just because we have disagreements with the Israeli government on some issues does not at all mean that we do not support Israel's security, any more than when a husband and wife disagree about financial decisions means that they do not love and support each other.

Actually, my wife and I have a trip planned to the Holy Land in July, so maybe I will change my perceptions during my visit, although I doubt it. I will report back to you again on this subject after we return. But in the meantime, I encourage everyone to project themselves into the position of all of the people in the Holy Land: Palestinian and Israeli alike. Justice in our country, coupled with the appearance of justice, has gone a long way in defusing racial strife and violence, and it will do the same thing in the wonderful but deeply troubled land of Israel and Palestine.

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

Could clean water come from coal? 0 by Judge Jim Gray

This column a few years ago discussed nuclear power and how our country was underutilizing it in generating electricity.

A man who works for a company called ConvertCoal, Inc., or CCI, recently contacted me because of that article. The company, founded in 2005, claims to have a process that will enable it to generate petroleum, clean water and cleaner-burning coal fuel from the low-rank coal that is readily available here in the U.S.

There are certainly many subjects about which I have no particular expertise, and the mining and processing of coal are among them. But what this man was saying intrigued me, so I decided to pass along his thoughts to you.

There are basically two types of coal in the world, high-rank coal and low-rank coal. High-rank coal is found deeper in the ground, which means it has been compressed by the weight of the mass of material above it and heated much more fully than low-rank coal. Thus there is less water in high-rank coal and that coal is also more concentrated, which in turn means that it takes less of it to run a power plant generator.

Since strip mining is not feasible because it is so deep, high-rank coal is also more expensive to bring to the surface, because the only practical way to mine high-rank coal is to use deep shafts and tunnels like those that trapped the miners in Chile. Unfortunately, that also makes the deadly "black lung disease" more prevalent due to the miners breathing more of the coal dust inside the mines.

About two-thirds of the Earth's known coal deposits are low-rank coal, and because it is cheaper and more plentiful, that is mostly what is used in the generation of electricity. In fact, about 35% of all the electricity generated in the United States is fueled by low-rank coal. But with the new process, according to CCI's brochures, that same low-rank coal can now be converted into a low-emission coal-char fuel, clean water and synthetic crude oil that can be refined into petroleum. CCI further says it can actually recover between a half to a full barrel of oil from every ton of coal that is run through its process.

That means that, since a standard coal conversion plant would convert about 10,000 tons of coal per day, that coal alone would produce about 500 gallons of clean water each minute, as well as 7,000 barrels of oil each day, along with sufficient upgraded clean-coal char fuel to run a 500 megawatt power plant — and all with fewer emissions! If this is true, and if it could be done economically, this process could spur an economic revolution.

In 2008, the recoverable oil reserves in the U.S. were estimated to be about 21 billion barrels, with an average production of 5.7 million barrels per day. (Since the cost of oil just recently passed $100 per barrel, we are talking about lots of money!) But according to CCI, the potential domestic production of oil from low-rank coal simply using existing power generating plants would be about 1.9 million barrels per day. So just based upon current capacity and using this new technology, we could reduce our oil imports significantly.

Although all of this certainly sounds attractive, I really have no idea whether this process works or not. But the thoughts I am left with are that if this process really does work as well as advertised, why haven't I heard of it before, and why aren't people already making millions of dollars putting it into operation?

When I asked my host these questions, he said the coal conversion process actually was successfully demonstrated in a project run in Gillette, Wyo., between 1992 and 1997. But the reason it was not put into operation at that time is that the process is not economically viable unless oil is priced at more than $60 per barrel. So now that it is priced well above that level, they are optimistically going forward.

Even more fundamentally, though, I am left scratching my head over the federal government's huge and continual subsidizing of corn-based ethanol as a gasoline additive at the rate of a 45-cent per gallon tax credit. The yield in energy from corn does not even approach the yield that could be obtained from the petroleum extracted from coal, if this process would work.

So why is the government doing this — particularly since the government's interference in the market has resulted in substantial increases in the worldwide prices of corn and corn products, such as tortillas, cereals and food for animals like pigs and chickens?

So all of this simply once again brings home the libertarian lesson that governments should put a quick and permanent end to their subsidy programs and leave the market alone! Fundamentally speaking, if there is value in this new coal conversion process, the market will support it, which means that the new technology will be implemented and society will be benefited.

And if there is no value in this process, it would and should fail, but along the way the markets for other products will not be upset, and society would be no worse off. In other words, politicians are not good at choosing what technologies will be successful in the marketplace, and they should leave those issues alone.

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

A worthy celebration of the justice system - by Judge Jim Gray

I was privileged on Feb. 18 to attend a celebration of how our system works, particularly when good people use it for the right purpose. Sometimes it takes time and patience, but eventually we get it right. The celebration took place at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, and featured Sylvia Mendez. When she was 8 years old, Sylvia, along with her brothers, Gonzalo and Jerome, was refused admission to an all-white public school here in Orange County.

Sylvia had been born in Santa Ana, and was living there with her family while they rented a farm from a Japanese-American family that had been sent to an internment camp during World War II. But when her aunt took the three children to the all-white school, she was told she could enroll her own children because they were light-skinned, but Sylvia and her brothers would not qualify because they were Mexican.

So Sylvia's parents, Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez, joined forces with the Gomez, Palomino, Estrada and Ramirez families. They filed a lawsuit on March 2, 1945, in federal court in Los Angeles against their respective school districts to enjoin them from such discriminatory policies. This act showed fortitude and courage, but throughout this ordeal all of these families were assisted by many of their relatives and friends, and also by lots of lawyers (which is yet another reason why I am proud of our profession!).

On Feb. 18, 1946, Judge Paul J. McCormick ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and enjoined such segregationist practices in the public schools. He stated without equivocation that: "The equal protection of the laws pertaining to the public school system in California is not provided by furnishing in separate schools the same technical facilities, textbooks and courses of instruction to children of Mexican ancestry that are available to the other public school children regardless of their ancestry. A paramount requisite in the American system of public education is social equality. It must be open to all children by unified school associations regardless of lineage."

The original idea for the event came when my colleague, Judge Rick Aguirre of our Superior Court, asked my good friend, Judge Andy Guilford of the federal court, if he would agree to make his courtroom available for a small celebration of the Mendez case on the 65th anniversary, exactly to the day, of Judge McCormick's ruling. Of course, Judge Guilford enthusiastically agreed.

Those two judges were quickly joined by attorney Paul Greenwald and Sandra Robbie of Chapman University, and the four of them began to organize the festivities. But as soon as the word got out about what would be happening, the organizers were forced to move the event to the larger ceremonial courtroom to handle the people who had already responded to the invitation. Then, they also had to use Judge Guilford's courtroom as well as an extra one for a video feed.

By the time the day of the event arrived, three Orange County courtrooms and the jury assembly room, plus additional federal courtrooms in both Los Angeles and Riverside, were all pressed into service to handle the crowds. But this heartfelt celebration of heroics and a steadfast belief in our system of laws and justice was worth all of the efforts. What a day!

Just three days earlier, on Feb. 15, President Obama awarded Sylvia Mendez the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House in recognition of those families' contributions to our country. On Feb. 18, she proudly wore that medal at our celebration. In addition, representatives of each of the other four families — one of whom was 99 years old — were also in attendance.

At this point, everyone that counts now agrees that Judge McCormick issued the right ruling. But we should all keep in mind that this was a full eight years before the United States Supreme Court's much more famous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kan. Of course, that was the case that held that "separate but equal" schools for black students were a violation of the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment. And that case changed history.

But many legal scholars feel that Brown would never have been decided the way it was without Mendez leading the way. While the Mendez case was going through the court system, Earl Warren — who would go on to be the chief justice on the United States Supreme Court when Brown was decided — was still governor of California, and it is a virtual certainty that he followed the arguments while they were being presented to the courts in Mendez, as well as the eventual rulings.

In addition, while he was still a practicing attorney, Justice Thurgood Marshall represented the plaintiffs in Brown, and he used many of the successful legal arguments from the Mendez case when he argued the Brown case. And the final court rulings in each of those cases contain similar language.

In 2007, the United States Postal Service issued a stamp commemorating the final appellate court ruling in Mendez v. Westminster, and for good reason. This was a positive national historical event that took place here in Orange County, both because it marked the beginning of the end of racial segregation in our nation's schools, and also because it marked yet another occasion in which good and steadfast people followed an important mantra of good citizenship, which is to "Make our System Work."

Once again our system of justice was put to the test, and it lived up to the challenge — and that is something truly worth celebrating! In fact, it made us all proud!

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

With our help, the brain-injured can thrive - by Judge Jim Gray

One of the true embarrassments of our times is that there is no facility in the western United States where brain-injured adults can live, receive appropriate medical care, engage in meaningful employment, and thrive up to the limits of their abilities. There are some facilities for mentally disabled people, but their needs are almost always quite different than the brain-injured. This situation is not known by many of us, but it is drastically known by people who have brain-injured family members and friends.

A local nonprofit called Brain Rehabilitation And Injury Network (B.R.A.I.N.) is working to create a campus like this for brain-injured adults. To be successful, it will need to range from five to 10 acres in size, have both male and female sleeping quarters, and facilities for food service, recreation, medical services and relaxation. It will also need to have places where these wonderful but often fragile people can engage in productive employment.

B.R.A.I.N. was founded by Sue and Jerry Rueb and their daughter Jana. The Ruebs have a daughter/sister who sustained a brain injury during a forceps birth delivery more than 30 years ago. So over the years they have tried to find a caring facility that would meet the medical needs of their loved one, and simply concluded with much pain that there were none available.

But creating such a facility is a daunting task. So the Ruebs have organized what they call "Think Tank 2011," which will be a symposium to provide awareness and information to families and caregivers of brain-injured adults, as well as to the community at large.

The symposium will be held from 12:30 to 5:30 p.m. March 27 at The Grand in Long Beach.

There will be presentations by Dr. Todd Clements, a psychiatrist and medical director of the Clements Clinic in Plano, Texas, on identifying and treating brain injuries; Dr. Bennet Omalu, a forensic pathologist from UC Davis, on the long-term effects of repeated impacts to the head in American athletics; Debbie Edwards, an experienced family caregiver, on practical care for the brain-injured at home; Dr. Earl Henslin, a psychologist, on brain injuries and relationship health; and Angela Mandas, a speech pathologist, on how computers can help to train our brains at home.

If you would like to attend, please contact B.R.A.I.N. at (714) 625-7225, or visit its website at http://www.thebrainsite.org. This will be a truly worthwhile learning experience.

Every 21 seconds, someone in the United States sustains a brain injury. Of the 1.5 million people affected yearly, 50,000 die, but more than a million are treated and released from a hospital. Back in society, they often appear normal on the outside, but on the inside they are living with a whole host of devastating issues. Why? Because when your brain isn't working right, things mostly do not turn out favorably.

So generally how do brain-injured adults live? Not very well. In fact, many of them are living in places where you would not even want to house your pet. Furthermore, lots of these people are merely existing because there is no purposeful work available within their individual competency level.

And, as I have seen throughout my years on the bench, many brain-injured adults also end up in the criminal justice system, either by "losing it" and acting out due to the frustrations of the moment, or by "self-medicating" with illicit drugs. Either way, and as I hope you know, both the Los Angeles and Orange County Jails have become some of the largest "mental health" facilities in the nation. And, unfortunately, in addition to being the most expensive option for the taxpayers to address these situations, being in jail often inflicts untold damage upon these mentally and physically fragile people.

A brain injury can happen to any of us. Recent examples that have received lots of public attention are Bob Woodruff of ABC News, who sustained a brain injury from a bomb explosion while on assignment in Iraq, and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Tucson, Ariz., who was shot in the head at a political gathering. Fortunately, these wonderful people are blessed in having sufficient resources to take care of themselves. But most people are not so blessed, and they need our help.

If you have a family member or friend with a brain injury, please treat the good folks at B.R.A.I.N. as a partner and a resource. And if you are one of those motivated individuals who want to help others who are simply not able to help themselves, please be a resource for B.R.A.I.N.

Our society needs a place where brain-injured adults can be secure and can thrive. There are many people among us who have been brain-injured in their daily lives, and also many of our military veterans who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with brain injuries sustained during their tours of combat. So in addition to affected families, we are also approaching institutions that understand the realities of brain injuries, such as the National Football League, the National Hockey League, college athletics organizations, and medical care facilities to partner with us in this huge project. If you know or have influence with these or any similar organizations, please let us know.

Brain-injured adults will be able to thrive within their limitations if we can provide a facility that will address their needs. And they should have one — not because we have to, but because we want to. So please come help us, and be a part of something truly challenging, gratifying and wonderful!

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court who is affiliated with B.R.A.I.N., the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

St. Valentine's Day — past and present - by Judge Jim Gray

Have you ever wondered where the Valentine's Day celebration came from? I did, and so I did a little research, and no, unlike Mother's Day, Valentine's Day is not rumored to have been created by Hallmark Cards.

St. Valentine's Day, commonly shortened to Valentine's Day, is celebrated throughout the world, but it has its roots in Christian and ancient Roman traditions. As best as can be determined, there was a pagan fertility celebration in Roman times called Lupercalia, in honor of Lupa, the she-wolf of Rome, and Faunas, the Roman god of fertility.

On Feb. 14, which was considered to be the first day of spring, two boys would slaughter a goat for fertility and a dog for purity. Then they would dress in animal skins, and gently slap women they would encounter on the streets with strips of the animals' hides dipped in sacrificial blood. All of this was intended to promote fertility.

It is hard to trace the derivation of the actual beginnings of Valentine's Day because in Catholic lore there are actually three St. Valentines, and each one was martyred. One of them lived and died in Africa, and his story is unclear.

The legend of the second says that he was a popular bishop in Rome who was captured by the emperor and imprisoned simply for being a Christian. Many people requested that he be released, but the emperor saw him as a threat because it was rumored that he had cured his jailor's daughter of blindness. Therefore the emperor had him brutally executed on Feb. 14. But on the day of his execution, he sent a note to the daughter professing his love for her, and simply signed it "from your Valentine."

The last legend took place during the time of Roman Emperor Claudius II, when he decided that his soldiers who did not have wives and families were less affected by prolonged periods of absence from home than those who were married. So Claudius decided to forbid any young men from getting married. But Valentine, a Catholic priest in what is now the Italian town of Terni, thinking this to be unjust, defied Claudius and secretly continued to marry these young lovers. When Claudius discovered what was happening, he had the priest executed. He was buried, as a hero to love, on Feb. 14, 270 A.D.

On that date, probably in the year 496 A.D., Pope Galasius, seeing Lupercalia as being both pagan and immoral, did away with it as a day of celebration, but replaced it with St. Valentine's Day, featuring it as a day for lovers. Over time this celebration spread over all of the Roman Empire, where it took root most firmly in England and France, but it was officially deleted from the Catholic Church's calendar by Pope Paul VI in 1969.

During the Middle Ages, it became the custom for English maidens to put a slip of paper with their names upon them into an urn on Feb. 14. Eligible bachelors would pick out a name, and then that selected girl and he would be a pair for the upcoming year. Many marriages resulted from this tradition.

Probably the first so-called Valentine cards were written in 1415 by Charles, Duke of Orleans, to his wife while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London following his capture in battle. Many of these poems or rhymed love letters are now on display in the British Museum.

The whole idea of writing similar handwritten notes became quite popular in England in the 17th Century, and by the mid-18th century it was common for friends and lovers to exchange these as well as little gifts. But by the end of the 18th century, both with the advent of the postal service and with changing cultural mores, it was deemed socially inappropriate to communicate personal feelings of affection to those of the opposite sex. Thus printed cards began to replace the handwritten ones.

Unfortunately with the large-scale use of the public mails, large numbers of obscene Valentine's Day cards began to be mailed anonymously to many people who were often and naturally offended by the receipt. This became so prevalent that in late 19th century Chicago, the postal service simply refused to deliver 25,000 Valentine's Day cards because they were deemed "unfit to be carried in the public mail."

Today it is estimated that about 180 million red roses are delivered each year in honor of Valentine's Day, as well as 36 million boxes of candy. In addition, an estimated 1 billion Valentine's Day cards are also delivered, of which an estimated 85% are sent by women. (This makes Valentine's Day the second highest day of the year for cards of celebration, with Christmas being the first with an estimated 2.6 billion cards.) Of course, all of this also makes Valentine's Day an estimated $14 billion per year business.

Although it is wonderful to purchase cards for the occasion, let's also try on this and every Valentine's Day to make the occasion personally special. As an example, on a Valentine's Day quite a few years ago, an elementary school teacher assigned her class to write a Valentine's Day card to each of their other class members, specifying two things that they most admired about the recipients. Some children were so gratified in hearing the positive things that their classmates felt about them that they kept those cards for years with their most cherished possessions. Some even kept them in their wallets.

So this Valentine's Day, let's each in our own way try to add to the gratification of the people in our lives. That will truly make the day special. In that spirit, my Valentine's Day gift to you is a poem by Zora Neale Hurston, who says: "Love makes your soul crawl out from its hiding place."

May your life be filled with that kind of love. Happy Valentine's Day!

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

Save the date for this year's music festival - by Judge Jim Gray

On May 22, there will be a music festival from noon to 7 p.m. at the Heritage Museum of Orange County. Not only will there be bluegrass, folk and Americana music, there will also be a great barbecue and a number of fun and meaningful family activities.

So put that date on your calendar, and make plans to attend. You will be glad you did!

Several years ago, I mentioned to my wife, Grace, that I would like some time to go to Kentucky or Tennessee to see a bluegrass festival. But once I became acquainted with the Heritage Museum of Orange County, I thought that it would be even more fun to have the bluegrass music come to us.

So that is what is going to happen. There will be three outstanding bluegrass and folk bands, and one big band. The first is comprised of Stephanie Bettman and Luke Halpin, Colorado musicians who are magicians on the fiddle, guitar and mandolin. They will perform a children's concert at 1:15 p.m. and then one for us older types at 3:25 p.m. You can hear them as a warm-up to the festival at http://www.stephaniebettman.com.

The second will be the big band "A Wing and a Prayer" that will perform at 2:20 p.m. It is comprised of about 20 talented musicians who gather and perform for the sheer gratification of it. They will play some of your longtime big band favorites, such that when I heard them play I thought to myself on literally four different occasions: "Yes! That one is so good it will be their closing number!" They are amazing, and you will want to come to the festival if only to hear them!

The third scheduled group will be a five-piece, the Dennis Roger Reed Band, which uses a fiddle, guitar, mandolin, "other assorted stringed things," and "exactly the right amount of percussion," to get it highly touted and reviewed throughout the bluegrass world. Hear them at http://www.dennisrogerreed.com.

Our closing band, "Folding Mr. Lincoln will perform at 5:45 p.m. This five-piece, led by a husband and wife, has been playing since 1973, and it shows. One reviewer told people to come and "experience the pure joy of musicians feeding off each other and the audience" as they perform their "sweet jingly pop, fiddle-driven folk music." You can listen to a sampling of their music at http://www.foldingmisterlincoln.com.

Tim DeCinces' Beach Pit BBQ is scheduled to provide their famous tri-tip steaks and other wonderful barbequed fare. Picnic tables will be available, and there will also be a roped-off microbrewery and wine garden area, a traditional popcorn cart, and soft drinks, waters, juices and other food and drink for purchase.

And then there are the family activities. The Heritage Music Festival is planning to have wandering minstrel singers, live demonstrations at the museum's blacksmith shop and in adobe brick-making, pony rides, drawing lessons for "young Rembrandts," an area for storytellers, docent tours of the Kellogg House built in 1898, an exhibit about Orange County's Native American tribes, and photographers who will take pictures of guests in early 1900s apparel. The Santa Ana Police Department has been kind enough to furnish two officers on horseback.

And one more thing! From 1 to 3 p.m. May 21, the day before the music festival, there will be a master's class at Orange Coast College. This class will give an opportunity for some of our most talented high school and collegiate musicians, who will have won a county school district competition, to receive tips from Stephanie Bettman and Luke Halpin. Tickets will be available for the general public, but free admission will be awarded to all students who enter the competition.

So what better thing to do on a nice Saturday and Sunday afternoon in May? Parents, bring your children, and grandparents, bring your grandchildren, and everybody bring your friends! Tickets will be available through the Heritage Museum website, http://www.heritagemuseumoc.org

Admission for children 10 and younger will be free, and suggested donations will be $10 for students and $20 for adults. (But the overall suggested donation for any family will be capped at $50, and no one will be turned away.)

There will also be VIP tickets with prime seating for the music performances, including a lunch with two drinks served at your private table for a $100 donation.

Or if you have a company that would like to sponsor a "family day" for its employees or clients, contact the museum.

But at the moment, just save the date on your calendar. The Heritage Museum of Orange County has about 12 acres at 3101 West Harvard St., Santa Ana, between the Mitchell Elementary School, where there is lots of free parking, and Godinez High School.

The museum plans to have this event every year, so plan to make it an annual family tradition!

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

Pursuing a truly lost cause - by Judge Jim Gray

You have probably seen recent newspaper articles saying that the only U.S. manufacturer of sodium thiopental — the anesthetic that begins the three-drug process used in putting condemned prisoners to death — has announced that it was immediately ceasing production of that substance. The stated reason was that the company did not want any of its products to be associated with killing people.

At this point, California still has enough of the drug for about 80 executions, but after that it will be forced to look elsewhere.

There are companies in other countries that manufacture sodium thiopental, but it is a violation of law for many of them to export it to "rogue countries" for use in capital punishment. Of course in this case, one of those rogue countries is ours!

And in those countries where its exportation is not illegal, there has been such a strong political backlash that the companies are not allowing its sale for that use. For example, Germany's minister of health publicly urged all companies and distributors not to provide the drug for such a purpose because, as he expressed it, such use is not in keeping with German and European values.

So if California cannot obtain enough sodium thiopental for use in executions, it will be forced to designate an alternative drug. But that would mean more hearings would have to be held, which would provide for more lengthy legal challenges.

And those challenges are what have stopped any executions from taking place at all in California for the last five years. Right now 718 prisoners are being held on death row, and by the time this issue with sodium thiopental is resolved, there will literally be hundreds more. And then, as a practical matter, some other "unforeseen" issues will probably crop up, resulting in further delay.

Recently the group Death Penalty Focus circulated what it calls a Joint Statement from Law Enforcement Professionals on California's Death Penalty to people who would qualify to sign it. For more information, visit http://www.deathpenalty.org/lawenforcement. That statement reads as follows:

"We are current and former law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and corrections officers who have devoted our lives to improving public safety as well as the accuracy and fairness of the criminal justice system. Having seen the system from the inside, we know that the death penalty is deeply flawed for myriad reasons. We come to this issue from a variety of perspectives.

"For one or more of the following reasons we have concluded that the death penalty in California is not working: 1) In a time of increasingly shrinking public safety resources, with an annual cost of at least $137 million per year in California, the death penalty is extremely expensive and diverts too many crime-fighting resources from other critical public safety needs; 2) The risk of wrongful conviction and execution cannot be entirely eliminated; 3) The system fails victims' families, who are dragged through years of appeals and uncertainly; 4)The death penalty as it is currently administered is no more a deterrent to murder than permanent imprisonment; and/or 5) The vast majority of death row prisoners in California will meet the same fate as those sentenced to permanent imprisonment; they will die in prison despite the extraordinary additional expenses incurred by the taxpayers of California.

"Therefore, we support replacing the death penalty with effective alternatives, such as permanent imprisonment."

So far a large number of current and former law enforcement professionals have already signed that document, including state judges and justices, state and federal police, prosecutors, probation and parole officers, and members of the California Department of Corrections, including Jeanne Woodford, a former warden of San Quentin State Prison.

I have signed the statement as well. Death Penalty Focus plans publicly to release the list of signatories later this year.

Many of the reasons for my conclusions were set forth in my columns published in this space March 16 and 23, 2008. If you are interested, you can find them either on the Daily Pilot's website or my own. And since that time, my conclusions have only become more firm.

Among other things, what people do not understand is that the system can make mistakes — in fact dozens of death row inmates around the country have later been exonerated! Furthermore, it costs the taxpayers about seven times the amount to go through the court's death penalty process — with all of the extra attorneys, investigators, hearings and appeals — than it would be to investigate, prosecute, convict, go through the appellate process and house a defendant in prison with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

In addition, because no one who has been sentenced to life without parole in California has ever been released or escaped, that should not be an issue.

But what above all has convinced me to oppose the death penalty is the fact that under this system the loved ones of the victims are literally being played as political pawns. If closure ever comes at all, it usually comes only when the perpetrator dies in prison of other causes — after decades of the matter being kept in limbo. And that is simply too much grief to inflict upon the families.

Yes, many family members do want the maximum legal sentence to be imposed for causing the death of their loved one, and that is understandable. But if that maximum sentence statutorily would simply be life without parole, most of them would probably be satisfied and then they could move on with their lives.

Many legal professionals who have been intimately involved in the death penalty system have seen that it is not working. It is time for the rest of California to come to the same conclusion.

JJAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

Honest appraisals in our times of need - by Judge Jim Gray

Recently I heard KFI AM's Bill Handel say that Southern California Edison is attempting to increase its rates by 7% so that, among other things, it can cover the economic losses sustained by the pension plans of its retirees. Now wait a minute! Almost everybody's retirement plans took big economic hits during this recession, so why would we be required to reach into our pockets to pay for the losses sustained by the SCE workers? Simply stated, this is wrong, and things like this need to be addressed.

Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed state budget is addressing some of these things. Of course it also includes prolonging $9 billion in expiring annual income, sales and vehicle taxes, which is a problem, but it also seriously would reduce spending for some of his political party's favored projects. He deserves credit for that. And it also responsibly proposes a shift of the $1.7 billion annual funding of municipal redevelopment agencies from the state to local governments, which would be great for the state, but tough on the locals. (I say "responsibly," because the more local funding and control of these programs, if we must have them, the better.) Of course, now the city governments are disposing of these monies as fast as they can, so that the state can't get them back.

Further to his credit, the new governor is also urging basic structural changes to the state's prison system, which include having non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders, who do not have any previous convictions for such offenses, stay under the guidance of the county courts instead of being sent to state prison. Without question some people belong in prison, but we also must understand that when that happens we will be putting them into a callous and hardened world from which many of them will not return. So it is frequently better to deal with drug addictions and other non-violent anti-social behavior with treatment and responsibility programs while on strict county probation than sending people to the state "correctional" facilities. This will not only save lots of money for the taxpayers, it will also help to address the defendants' underlying problems.

So for his efforts, I award Brown a C-plus, which is much better than the Ds and Fs his predecessors in the statehouse and Legislature have earned. But why is the governor's rating still so mediocre? Because Brown's approaches do not address the real and basic reasons for our budget shortfalls, which are the benefits going to politically powerful labor groups like the prison guard's union, and, even more importantly, public employee retirement benefits.

For example, as recently as 2002, taxpayers in Los Angeles contributed less than $100 million to the Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System — and that was enough for it to be completely funded. But last year, even though the contributions by taxpayers reached above $400 million, the system was more than $2.3 billion in the hole.

How has this happened? First, almost all of the elected officials on city councils and county boards of supervisors statewide have an innate conflict of interest. The groups that care most about who is elected to these positions, and those who most diligently exercise their influence in the elections, are the public employees' unions. Why? Because these elected officials mostly control what benefits will be afforded to the unions' members.

So once the elections are over, if the newly elected officials do not provide the desired financial results to the unions, they know that the unions will support someone else in the next election. Thus the public officials try to keep their jobs by voting for huge benefits for the unions' employees. Of course this means that no one is minding the store for the taxpayers. So often the final salary used to compute the pension plans of the retiring public workers is inflated by inappropriately, but legally, including such things as overtime payments, car allowances, costs of uniforms and unused sick leave and vacation time.

Second, when employees are forced to contribute to their pension benefits, they tend to choose programs that make more business sense. For example, if the choice were solely theirs to make, many people would continue working longer so they could have Medicare benefits when they retire. That in itself would delay the onset of retirement for five years for the average worker, which would, in turn, cut pension costs by about half. But the employees' unions' intervention with their sweetheart deals change the equation.

The bottom line is that public employees should be required to fund their own retirements through economic tools like 401 (k) programs, just like in the private sector. Then workers would logically fund the programs that make economic and social sense to them.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says that pensions like this will be his No. 1 priority, and Brown and the Legislature should follow suit. But until this comes to pass, public pension retirement boards should be controlled by financial experts who are hired by financially independent foundations, so those making decisions about pensions can be free from conflicts of interest.

Brown deserves credit for moving the discussion in the right direction. But now you and I must do our part to bring all of our governments back to solid financial footing, and change the pension plan programs for public employees. If not, this will inevitably be done, after a great deal more financial grief, by a federal bankruptcy court.

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

Ways to protect your home - by Judge Jim Gray

Recently I saw a flier published by the Newport Beach Police Department titled "When a Stranger Knocks" that discusses ways to protect your home. The flier also offered a free individualized home inspection with NBPD's crime prevention unit.

I was intrigued, so I called and spoke to Crime Prevention Specialist Andi Querry about the program, and she gave me some suggestions that even should be used if you live in a gated community.

The first focus of attention is your house's landscaping, especially near the front door. Large bushes and plants, as well as trees with low-hanging branches, can conceal potential burglars from your view and should be removed or trimmed. In addition, $200 will purchase a security camera system that is low tech and easy to install that will greatly expand your vision. Porch lights with at least 60-watt bulbs should also be placed on timers so that they provide illumination throughout the night. And movement detector lights are also helpful, but should only be installed in side areas of the house, where there is not much expected movement from cars, animals or large leaves being moved by the wind.

Starting at the front door, dead bolts are a must. Many doors come with deadbolts but have only small screws holding the strike plate to the door frames. These should be changed to 2- to 3-inch screws, because otherwise the doors can easily be forced open. In addition, if your front door is within 40 inches of a window, the inside of the deadbolt should only be able to be opened with a key, not with a thumb knob. But keep the key hidden from the view of someone standing outside and also keep the key on a large chain so you will not forget and put it in your pocket. Otherwise in a fire or other emergency you could actually lock yourself inside of your own house!

Another important safety device is having a 180-degree view peep hole in all doors that lead outside. These are important so that you can see anyone who is knocking before answering your door, and also for you to scan the area around your door before you do such things as taking out the trash. Of course, you should also be quite careful of people who identify themselves are utility service or repair workers unless you requested the visit. Many times burglars masquerade as those workers to gain access to people's houses, and then do bad things.

Residents should also install hardware protectors on all windows, which are available at most hardware stores. One of the best ways to protect wooden, double-hung windows that open up and down is simply to drill a small hole through the frames of the upper and lower windows, and then insert a long screw or nail into the hole. This will provide protection even if the window lock is breached.

Similarly on outside doors with outfacing hinges, drill a small hole in the top, middle and bottom of the doorframe on the side of the hinges and hammer a strong nail into the door that will fit into the holes when the door is closed. Then those nails will keep the door in place if anyone removes the pins from the hinges while the door is closed.

In addition to their normal locks, all sliding doors and windows should be secured with a wooden dowel that extends the full length of the particular door or window. Using dowels that are cut three or four inches shorter to allow for ventilation allows burglars to use wires or other tools to pop them out and then open the window. But if you really need the ventilation, in addition to the shorter dowel, put a bell on the window that will ring or something like a vase that can fall should someone outside disturb the window. Not only will the noise call your attention to the possible entry, it could very well scare away the potential intruder. But even if you think the intruder has fled, be sure to call the police.

It is also a good idea to install timers on lamps or other light fixtures inside your house so that some lights are on at night.

If you have a pedestrian entrance door on your garage door, be sure it is of solid construction, and that it stays locked. In addition, it is a good idea when you go on vacation either to unplug your garage door opener, or to put a padlock onto its track until you get home. And if you don't have a deadbolt lock on the door entering your house from the garage, you should install one – and use it!

Finally, if you have a burglar alarm system, use it as well. Many times people find these systems can be a nuisance and continually experience false alarms. But the answer is to adjust the alarm systems to fit your lifestyle instead of disabling them.

There are many more tips as well, such as never using companies to feed your pets while you are on vacation that advertise who they are on their vehicles. That simply allows burglars to follow those vehicles to a group of empty homes. And always make arrangements with someone you trust to pick up your mail, newspapers, packages and dry cleaning.

If you have more questions about security in your home, and live in Newport Beach, call Querry at (949) 644-3699. If you live elsewhere, call your local police department. What do you have to lose?

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

Why liberty is so important to us - by Judge Jim Gray

January 08, 2011|By James P. Gray



The response to last week's column asking our politicians to dare to lead and dare to lose was substantial, and mostly positive. The column closed by commenting that there is nothing wrong with our country that cannot be resolved by us once again becoming Americans!

But what does that really mean? The column last week also said that we became great by our own grit, and by respecting and enforcing private property rights and free trade, and that's certainly true. But fundamentally none of these things would have been effective without liberty. Therefore, when it comes down to it, the strength of America is our liberties.

So that necessarily brings up the question, what is liberty, and why is it so important? The formal definition generally is that liberty gives a person freedom from despotic or arbitrary rule or control. More specifically, liberty gives a person freedom from undue interference by government or anyone else. To look at the impacts of liberty in more depth, I recommend that you read the recently-released book "Why Liberty: Personal Journeys Toward Peace and Freedom," (Cobden Press, Apple Valley, 2010). This book, edited by Marc Guttman, provides the opportunity for 54 different authors to tell their stories about how liberty works where virtually nothing else does.

The first story was written by an African American who discusses a time when he raised his voice in anger while arguing that since blacks had been taken advantage of for so many years, somebody had to pay! Whereupon an older black man, who eventually became his mentor, simply smiled and said: "I don't want nobody's help. Just get out of my way and I can do it myself."

The author never forgot those words, and by following them, he became successful. Then as he grew older, those words became his mantra, because he realized the truth that only he could effectively control his own destiny. And that is what liberty allowed him to do.

Over the years we have taken these stories for granted, and that has led us astray. The problem is that any approach without liberty is inherently self-defeating. For example, for several important reasons, government programs are simply not the same thing as parents or caring private charities. First, they have no flexibility and really cannot discriminate between people who really need a helping hand, and those who are simply lazy or gaming the system. Furthermore, the people administering the government programs really do not have a viable incentive even to make these important distinctions. Why? Because no one really owns the money that the government programs give out; they simply control it.

Private charities are run differently than government programs because they are evaluated by results, not by intentions. Thus in virtually all cases, private charities, which are run by people with liberty, results-oriented flexibility and accountability, yield much better results. One huge example of this is the Orange County Rescue Mission, which is a private organization previously discussed in this column. No government program I am aware of has ever come close.

Another difference between government and private programs is that people who are receiving assistance from private charities are constantly mindful that the generosity comes from somewhere, and it is not their right to receive it. Thus there are much greater feelings of "please" and "thank you" with a private charity, instead of with government programs, where people continually and self-righteously shout about their "rights."

In a similar fashion, the liberty of free trade allows deals to be struck that benefit both sides. This, in turn, breeds a sense of interdependence and trust, and allows those parties to bypass inefficient, protective and often stodgy government bureaucracies. John Stossel illustrated this fact quite well in one of the chapters when he said: "Once established players capture a licensing board, they tend to use their power to stifle competition and keep newcomers out. Every day businesses are killed by 'consumer protection' regulators."

Stossel went on to cite examples of two elderly ladies who liked to knit sweaters and mittens in the comfort of their homes, and then sell their products in local markets, and of another lady trying to stay off welfare by baking muffins at home and selling them door to door to her neighbors. But the authorities closed all three of them down. Why? No businesses were allowed in the home, because they might "disrupt the neighborhood." Of course, this action worked to the detriment of those ladies, as well as their customers, but protected the established businesses, who, in turn, provided support for the government regulators.

In case after case it is shown that the one thing big government is really good at is increasing the intrusion and size of government. That reality also carries over into our political world, as shown by the fact that neither of the two main political parties really ever campaign under the slogan: "If you want something, work and save for it until you can buy it for yourself." To the contrary, all we seem to hear is: "If you want something, vote for us and we'll make others work and save and pay for it."

But the one-word slogan for the Libertarian Party is "liberty." Unlike the two main political parties, what Libertarians promote is not "warm and fuzzy," or based upon the philosophy of what I call "poor baby," but it works. And America will only regain its greatness when we finally go back to it!

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.