OK, I know that generalizations usually don’t work. But I will generalize here and pose that the definition of a Republican is a person who wants more government in our private lives, and a Democrat is one who wants more government in the marketplace.
On the other hand, libertarians mostly want less government in both places.
In that regard, numbers of times after I became a libertarian in 2003 I heard many people from all different political persuasions tell me that they too in many ways believe they also are libertarians. And you know something? They are probably correct.
What is the real definition of a libertarian? Mostly it is defined as a person who believes in maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
Simply stated, a libertarian has a belief in liberty. Thus, all adults should own their lives and property, and have the right to make their own choices as to how they live their lives, as long as they respect the same right of other people.
To say that libertarians do not believe in government is flat-out wrong.
This is shown by the most libertarian document ever created, which is the United States Constitution.
This brilliant blueprint basically states that the legitimate goal of government in a free society is to serve us in three important areas.
The first is to provide military protection against foreign enemies, and police protection against domestic criminals.
The second is to set up a system of courts that will punish criminals, protect people’s rights and enforce contracts. And the third is to set up a system of equality so that, as much as humanly possible, everyone will have the same rights to pursue their own happiness.
But mostly other than that, the Constitution expressly reserves all other powers to the states, or to the people themselves.
In other words, as Dr. Kenneth Bisson was quoted as saying: “Libertarianism is what your mom taught you: behave yourself and don’t hit your sister.” Thus, libertarians strongly support individual civil liberties, social tolerance, private property, and the positive powers of a free market, which in turn means that libertarians bring to life the philosophy of “live and let live.”
To delve into this matter more personally, visit the website of the Advocates for Self-Government at www.theadvocates.org, and take the offered “World’s Smallest Political Quiz.” This will help you to see where your political philosophy fits by giving you 10 questions to answer. The first five deal with issues of personal liberty, and the second five with economic liberty.
My results showed me to have a 90% libertarian rating for personal issues, and an 80% rating on economic issues. Obviously it is not all-inclusive, because it does not address such important matters as racial issues and foreign policy.
But try it anyway, because I think you will find the results to be informative and thought-provoking.
Then in further contemplating where your political philosophy lies, please consider the following additional points. If you look at the Constitution, you will not find any authority for the federal government to do things like subsidizing farms, bailing out banks, running or even setting forth the parameters of a health-care system, managing automobile companies, or determining whether business executives are receiving too much income.
That is as it should be, because it is transparently clear that bureaucrats do not make good businesspeople. To nail down that conclusion, simply look at the experience of the Soviet Union. But that is what the government is increasingly doing in our country today, to the degree that the government established by the founding fathers in the Constitution has virtually disappeared.
Instead of the expansion of government, it is the expansion of liberty that has brought people to our land from the earliest times in our history. And this desire for liberty has been ratified, because it is our adherence to the principle of limited government that has made our country both great and prosperous. And it will not let us down in the future either.
So most of the answers to today’s problems actually lie in turning away from the government’s taking charge of our lives. To the contrary, the real answer lies in liberty, property rights, individual accountability and the free enterprise system, tempered by appropriate government regulation and oversight.
Adam Smith was right when he said in his book “The Wealth of Nations” that it is demonstrably true that the social good is best served by pursuing private interests. People act in their own economic self-interest by working to produce goods and services that others will want to buy and use. It just so happens that by doing that work, many other people receive benefits as well.
Besides, don’t fool yourself, people in government act in their own political self-interest, because that will allow them to obtain and stay in office.
So, as Milton Friedman asked, how can you believe that one person’s political self-interest will somehow be more noble than another person’s economic self-interest?
That is briefly and generally what libertarians believe, and it describes the conscience of a libertarian.
Give these matters some thought, and if you agree with these principles, seize the opportunities available to you to help us put more of them into practice!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Exploring new worlds: seahorses - by Judge Jim Gray
Before we went on our recent trip to the big island of Hawaii, a real estate broker I have been dealing with strongly suggested we visit Ocean Riders Seahorse Farm on the Kona coast.
This is a place that raises seahorses and sea dragons, educates the public about them, and sells them to people for their aquariums. We took her advice, and it was really worth the effort.
As you know, seahorses have a head like a horse, a tail like a monkey, and a pouch like a kangaroo, so they have developed a certain mythical quality. But they actually are real, although I confess that I didn’t know much about them until our visit.
Sea dragons have a similar makeup, but it looks like they have seaweed or kelp growing out of many parts of their bodies.
The female deposits her eggs into the brood pouch of the male, and then, after a one-month period of gestation, the male gives birth to the offspring – and there can be up to 1,800 in one delivery!
Then about two minutes after that, the female again inserts her eggs. As a result, the adult male is not pregnant for a total of only two minutes every month. (Many women in our world probably fantasize about a situation like this, but the seahorses actually live it.)
Seahorses use their prehensile tails to hook onto underwater vegetation, as well as onto each other, and they have protective bony plates in their skin, and a tube-like mouth for sucking in crustaceans.
And many seahorses actually have character! Just like dolphins, they seem to have fun. For example, they wrap their tales around each other and “dance.” To watch them do this is really endearing.
And they don’t mind being touched, to the extent that if you tickle the tip of one’s tail, it will often wrap its tail around your finger.
In fact, the workers at the farm actually have names for some of the seahorses they have grown most fond of. And at the end of our tour, after carefully washing our hands, we were treated to having some of their favorites wrap their tails around our fingers.
Because these are such cute and interesting creatures, there is a big financial incentive that drives many people to capture them in the wild and sell them. But what these people do not know is that it is natural for seahorses to be monogamous, and they usually have only one mate for life. So if one is captured from the ocean, it will almost always pine away for its mate, to the degree that it soon stops eating.
This means it will almost always be dead within four to six weeks, and the same fate also will befall its mate left in the wild.
So due to the unregulated capturing of seahorses for aquariums, as well as to be dried up into souvenirs and to be ground up and used as supposed medicines in many Asian cultures, about 20 million of them are taken from the oceans each year. This, added to problems of habitat destruction, ocean pollution, and such practices as dynamiting the ocean to gather fish, has resulted in seahorses becoming endangered.
So where there used to be thousands close to our shores, now finding even one in the oceans around our country is rare. And the seahorse population in places like the Philippines has fallen by about 70% in the last 10 years.
Ocean Riders is the only seahorse and sea dragon farm in the United States. It raises them from birth, gathers food for them, and sells them to individuals throughout the country, except in Hawaii.
They also have several programs and tours that teach people about these interesting creatures. And teach us they did.
The farm-raised seahorses and sea dragons have a survival rate up to adulthood of up to 80%, while the rate in the wild is only about 0.1%. And if treated well in aquariums, these amazing creatures can live up to eight years.
They range in size from less than an inch to more than a foot long, depending upon the species.
Regarding seahorses and sea dragons for aquariums, the personnel at the farm have trained the ones they grow and sell not to be monogamous. They did it by increasing the numbers of the seahorses in a small space, which resulted in several of them wrapping their tales around each other and dancing at the same time. That way once they are sold they are much more likely to be able to survive on their own. In the wild, seahorses eat only live brine shrimp and crustaceans, but the farm-raised ones have been trained to eat food that has been dried. So because they are some of the rare life forms that do not have any stomachs, and also because they are not able to chew, that makes their conversion to eat dried food even more important.
All of these efforts are directed to reducing the threat to the continued existence of seahorses and sea dragons in the wild.
By raising them domestically and selling them for a reasonable price, the staff hopes to reduce the business for those people who capture the seahorses in the wild and sell them for aquariums.
The staff also gets involved in legislation to stop the decimation of the wild seahorse population in the oceans of the world, and in encouraging people to be better stewards of our world’s oceans.
If you are interested in learning more about this great work of saving seahorses and sea dragons from extinction through research, propagation, education and ocean conservation, or even if you would like to schedule your own tour of their facility, Ocean Rider can be contacted at (808) 443-6462, or through www.SeahorseHawaii.com. But whatever contact you have with this fine organization, I think you will be favorably impressed.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
This is a place that raises seahorses and sea dragons, educates the public about them, and sells them to people for their aquariums. We took her advice, and it was really worth the effort.
As you know, seahorses have a head like a horse, a tail like a monkey, and a pouch like a kangaroo, so they have developed a certain mythical quality. But they actually are real, although I confess that I didn’t know much about them until our visit.
Sea dragons have a similar makeup, but it looks like they have seaweed or kelp growing out of many parts of their bodies.
The female deposits her eggs into the brood pouch of the male, and then, after a one-month period of gestation, the male gives birth to the offspring – and there can be up to 1,800 in one delivery!
Then about two minutes after that, the female again inserts her eggs. As a result, the adult male is not pregnant for a total of only two minutes every month. (Many women in our world probably fantasize about a situation like this, but the seahorses actually live it.)
Seahorses use their prehensile tails to hook onto underwater vegetation, as well as onto each other, and they have protective bony plates in their skin, and a tube-like mouth for sucking in crustaceans.
And many seahorses actually have character! Just like dolphins, they seem to have fun. For example, they wrap their tales around each other and “dance.” To watch them do this is really endearing.
And they don’t mind being touched, to the extent that if you tickle the tip of one’s tail, it will often wrap its tail around your finger.
In fact, the workers at the farm actually have names for some of the seahorses they have grown most fond of. And at the end of our tour, after carefully washing our hands, we were treated to having some of their favorites wrap their tails around our fingers.
Because these are such cute and interesting creatures, there is a big financial incentive that drives many people to capture them in the wild and sell them. But what these people do not know is that it is natural for seahorses to be monogamous, and they usually have only one mate for life. So if one is captured from the ocean, it will almost always pine away for its mate, to the degree that it soon stops eating.
This means it will almost always be dead within four to six weeks, and the same fate also will befall its mate left in the wild.
So due to the unregulated capturing of seahorses for aquariums, as well as to be dried up into souvenirs and to be ground up and used as supposed medicines in many Asian cultures, about 20 million of them are taken from the oceans each year. This, added to problems of habitat destruction, ocean pollution, and such practices as dynamiting the ocean to gather fish, has resulted in seahorses becoming endangered.
So where there used to be thousands close to our shores, now finding even one in the oceans around our country is rare. And the seahorse population in places like the Philippines has fallen by about 70% in the last 10 years.
Ocean Riders is the only seahorse and sea dragon farm in the United States. It raises them from birth, gathers food for them, and sells them to individuals throughout the country, except in Hawaii.
They also have several programs and tours that teach people about these interesting creatures. And teach us they did.
The farm-raised seahorses and sea dragons have a survival rate up to adulthood of up to 80%, while the rate in the wild is only about 0.1%. And if treated well in aquariums, these amazing creatures can live up to eight years.
They range in size from less than an inch to more than a foot long, depending upon the species.
Regarding seahorses and sea dragons for aquariums, the personnel at the farm have trained the ones they grow and sell not to be monogamous. They did it by increasing the numbers of the seahorses in a small space, which resulted in several of them wrapping their tales around each other and dancing at the same time. That way once they are sold they are much more likely to be able to survive on their own. In the wild, seahorses eat only live brine shrimp and crustaceans, but the farm-raised ones have been trained to eat food that has been dried. So because they are some of the rare life forms that do not have any stomachs, and also because they are not able to chew, that makes their conversion to eat dried food even more important.
All of these efforts are directed to reducing the threat to the continued existence of seahorses and sea dragons in the wild.
By raising them domestically and selling them for a reasonable price, the staff hopes to reduce the business for those people who capture the seahorses in the wild and sell them for aquariums.
The staff also gets involved in legislation to stop the decimation of the wild seahorse population in the oceans of the world, and in encouraging people to be better stewards of our world’s oceans.
If you are interested in learning more about this great work of saving seahorses and sea dragons from extinction through research, propagation, education and ocean conservation, or even if you would like to schedule your own tour of their facility, Ocean Rider can be contacted at (808) 443-6462, or through www.SeahorseHawaii.com. But whatever contact you have with this fine organization, I think you will be favorably impressed.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Think about our everyday language - by Judge Jim Gray
We couldn't function in the everyday world without habits, which are basically actions taken without our conscious thought.
One example is walking. We thought about this act when we were toddlers, but almost all of us really can “walk and chew gum,” which frees our minds to do other things at the same time.
We also naturally fall into similar habits with our everyday language.
For example, one person when greeting another in today's world almost by rote says: “How are you?” to which the answer almost always is “fine.”
All of this is expected, and if the response were to be “Well, my gall bladder has really been acting up,” that response would be seen as weird.
Nevertheless, our language habits can frequently affect our perspectives, and even our attitudes about life.
So think about our normal responses, and if someone asks you how you are, tell them “Great!” If you are great, or wonderful, or terrific, and you probably are because almost all of us are truly blessed beyond belief, why not say so!
Just compare your life with all of those all around the world who have been on this planet before you. Among other things, this will help you to be more appreciative of your good health and opportunities, and will also help you to enjoy the comparatively great life you lead.
Furthermore, it will probably have a similar effect upon other people as well.
Over the years when I went to work at the courthouse after a nice weekend, I would often see some people in the elevator and ask them how they were doing, to which they would often say “Well, OK for a Monday.”
When that happened, almost unfailingly I would respond, “Well, you live one-seventh of your life on a Monday, so you might as well enjoy it.” I acknowledge that I received some strange looks on occasion, but I think it is important for us to focus on things like that.
There are other language habits we fall into.
For example, if someone gives you a compliment about some clothes you are wearing, many people get uncomfortable, and respond by saying things like “Oh, I have had this sweater for years,” or “It's not really that special.”
Nonsense! As long as the compliment is genuine, simply respond by saying “Thank you!” Any other response actually demeans the person who gave you the compliment, and lets a nice human opportunity go to waste.
And on that subject, we should be more open to giving compliments to others. Again, as long as they are genuine.
For example, whether you know the people or not, try telling parents at a restaurant what well behaved or attractive children they have. Or telling people what a nice smile they have, or saying things like “You look like a really nice person,” or even when someone you don’t know answers the telephone pleasantly, compliment them on the cheerful way in which it was done.
All of these comments don’t cost you anything, but they will bring a little happiness to people around you, and undoubtedly to yourself as well. It makes the world a better place for everybody.
Today's society has tended to make all of us lead less personal lives.
In the world of garage door openers, where we close out the world behind us without having to leave our cars, or where we are fearful that giving someone a hug, regardless of their gender or age, might get us ostracized, or even get us sued or prosecuted, we have too often stopped taking even small risks of having genuine human interaction for fear of giving offense.
In fact, while on the subject, it really is OK to wish someone a “Merry Christmas” instead of the general but politically correct “Happy Holidays.” Or if you are still concerned, try wishing people a “Happy Spirit of Christmas.”
Finally, many of us, particularly men, have fallen into the trap of failing to confide our hurts, fears and pains with even our best friends.
Remember, friends can't help us with our problems or adversities of life if they don’t know about them.
Obviously you will want to pick the time and pick the right friend. But good friends want to know, want to listen, and want to help.
In fact, this is true to the extent that they will likely hold it against you, or even question your friendship, if you don't confide in them about a serious problem.
Consequently, we should always bear in mind that we are on this planet for only a short time, and during that time we are not alone.
So open up, focus on your language habits and also upon your attitude in your everyday life, and then recognize and share more of your blessed life with others.
Why? Because your attitude about your life, and the way you think about it, will materially affect how your life is spent, and this in turn will also affect the lives of those around you.
Finally, one of Reach’s Rules is to “Give the world the best you have, and the best will come back to you!”
If you want to find a creed by which to live your life, I suggest that this is the one.
All of us are truly blessed, and we should recognize it and share that fact openly at all opportunities with others. And this in turn will lead you to use the phrase that I use all the time, which is that “Life is Good!” Why do I use that phrase? Because it is true.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today's Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
One example is walking. We thought about this act when we were toddlers, but almost all of us really can “walk and chew gum,” which frees our minds to do other things at the same time.
We also naturally fall into similar habits with our everyday language.
For example, one person when greeting another in today's world almost by rote says: “How are you?” to which the answer almost always is “fine.”
All of this is expected, and if the response were to be “Well, my gall bladder has really been acting up,” that response would be seen as weird.
Nevertheless, our language habits can frequently affect our perspectives, and even our attitudes about life.
So think about our normal responses, and if someone asks you how you are, tell them “Great!” If you are great, or wonderful, or terrific, and you probably are because almost all of us are truly blessed beyond belief, why not say so!
Just compare your life with all of those all around the world who have been on this planet before you. Among other things, this will help you to be more appreciative of your good health and opportunities, and will also help you to enjoy the comparatively great life you lead.
Furthermore, it will probably have a similar effect upon other people as well.
Over the years when I went to work at the courthouse after a nice weekend, I would often see some people in the elevator and ask them how they were doing, to which they would often say “Well, OK for a Monday.”
When that happened, almost unfailingly I would respond, “Well, you live one-seventh of your life on a Monday, so you might as well enjoy it.” I acknowledge that I received some strange looks on occasion, but I think it is important for us to focus on things like that.
There are other language habits we fall into.
For example, if someone gives you a compliment about some clothes you are wearing, many people get uncomfortable, and respond by saying things like “Oh, I have had this sweater for years,” or “It's not really that special.”
Nonsense! As long as the compliment is genuine, simply respond by saying “Thank you!” Any other response actually demeans the person who gave you the compliment, and lets a nice human opportunity go to waste.
And on that subject, we should be more open to giving compliments to others. Again, as long as they are genuine.
For example, whether you know the people or not, try telling parents at a restaurant what well behaved or attractive children they have. Or telling people what a nice smile they have, or saying things like “You look like a really nice person,” or even when someone you don’t know answers the telephone pleasantly, compliment them on the cheerful way in which it was done.
All of these comments don’t cost you anything, but they will bring a little happiness to people around you, and undoubtedly to yourself as well. It makes the world a better place for everybody.
Today's society has tended to make all of us lead less personal lives.
In the world of garage door openers, where we close out the world behind us without having to leave our cars, or where we are fearful that giving someone a hug, regardless of their gender or age, might get us ostracized, or even get us sued or prosecuted, we have too often stopped taking even small risks of having genuine human interaction for fear of giving offense.
In fact, while on the subject, it really is OK to wish someone a “Merry Christmas” instead of the general but politically correct “Happy Holidays.” Or if you are still concerned, try wishing people a “Happy Spirit of Christmas.”
Finally, many of us, particularly men, have fallen into the trap of failing to confide our hurts, fears and pains with even our best friends.
Remember, friends can't help us with our problems or adversities of life if they don’t know about them.
Obviously you will want to pick the time and pick the right friend. But good friends want to know, want to listen, and want to help.
In fact, this is true to the extent that they will likely hold it against you, or even question your friendship, if you don't confide in them about a serious problem.
Consequently, we should always bear in mind that we are on this planet for only a short time, and during that time we are not alone.
So open up, focus on your language habits and also upon your attitude in your everyday life, and then recognize and share more of your blessed life with others.
Why? Because your attitude about your life, and the way you think about it, will materially affect how your life is spent, and this in turn will also affect the lives of those around you.
Finally, one of Reach’s Rules is to “Give the world the best you have, and the best will come back to you!”
If you want to find a creed by which to live your life, I suggest that this is the one.
All of us are truly blessed, and we should recognize it and share that fact openly at all opportunities with others. And this in turn will lead you to use the phrase that I use all the time, which is that “Life is Good!” Why do I use that phrase? Because it is true.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today's Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, October 4, 2009
The wonderful world of grandparenting - By Judge Jim Gray
When I was a judge on the mental health calendar, one of my happiest collateral duties was to officiate over three adoptions almost every morning, and I tried to make them the truly special occasions that they were.
So, among other things, if there were grandparents in attendance, I had them raise their hands and be sworn, right along with the parents, saying that they had duties to perform as well. Then after complying with the law and having the parents swear to support the children and treat them just as if they were their natural birth children, I also figuratively had the grandparents swear that they would spoil the grandchildren. And I never had a complaint. (For example, of course, the child can have a chocolate chip cookie before dinner, etc.)
Being a grandparent is a wonderful thing. Yes, when the children are messy or misbehaving, they can mostly be returned to the parents, and that can be nice. But much more importantly, the relationship between children and grandparents is truly special.
In fact, grandparents can play a unique role, providing unconditional love, helping to make children aware of their roots, providing values to grow from, cultivating a respect for age and wisdom, providing important role models, and inserting another important person in their lives that children would not want to disappoint with bad behavior.
As a result, grandparents can be important mentors, confidants, elder statesmen, playmates and friends. And because we grew up in a more patient time, when you dialed a telephone number and had to wait for the dial to return back to its resting place, we can bring more of that sense of peace to the children. Of course, grandparents must remember not to contradict the parents, and (mostly) to follow the parents’ rules. But otherwise, the sky is the limit.
So I offer some suggestions about how to make this opportunity the best it can be. And please don’t be bashful in sharing some of your own suggestions on the subject with the rest of us at dailypilot.com. That way we all can better take advantage of this wonderful opportunity!
Naturally, the first recommendation is to do things with your grandchildren — almost anything. The zoo, the beach, the park, shopping, a baseball game, the county fair and so much more. In fact, I have always anticipated that the best way of going to Disneyland would be to take my grandchildren and simply sit back and watch them enjoy the experience. What a contemplation! And sometimes you will want to take just one of your grandchildren alone. It is really fun to be able to have a concentrated experience with just one at a time.
Actually, reading to and with them can be just as much fun and a bonding experience as an excursion. You can share adventures together, laugh at silliness, pull for heroes, and scoff at villains. Then after you have finished, you can have great discussions about the stories you read, and how they might feel or act had they been one of the characters.
My favorites are reading Frank Baum’s “The Wizard of Oz” books to them, or reading Dr. Seuss’ “Fox in Sox” with them. Doing this will make long-term and wonderful memories — you can count on it. And along the way you will be exposing these youngsters to a truly joyous and mind-expanding world. (And seriously improving their eventual SAT scores by helping them to develop their language skills and reading comprehension!)
You can also help to create some other truly fun and teachable moments with your grandchildren, virtually all of whom have brains like sponges. For example, borrow a practice used by Newsweek and inspired from Smith Magazine’s Six-Word Memoir Project, by choosing a topic of interest to them and then having them describe their thoughts about it in only six words.
But be sure to give them extra time to think about and refine their selection of words. It can be highly instructive, enable them to show their own particular creativity, and also be lots of fun. This also has the benefit of being able to be done when traveling in a car, or virtually anywhere else.
Another fun and instructive thing to do is to have them find something useful in the home that we take for granted, and write a few paragraphs about how that thing works.
For example, you might have them inspect a toilet, and then write about how it works. Then they can first read what they have written out loud, but in the same boring way that most children read. Then have them read it again, but this time with real and even exaggerated feeling. One approach is to tell them to act as if they know something that will really interest or help their listeners, and be anxious to pass it along to them. You will see that not only the kids will have lots of fun with these projects, but they will learn a lot from them as well.
Similarly, you can play a DVD movie or sitcom for them, or read a play or short story together, and then stop about two-thirds of the way through it and ask them to create their own ending for the story.
Then sit back and watch their creativity blossom. After this has been done, you can all watch or read the actual ending to the story and discuss which ending is better. Most times, of course, you will state — to the grandchildren’s eternal delight — that their endings are better.
Furthermore, in having your grandchildren participate in all of these activities, you will also be giving them the gift of speaking and expressing themselves in public. The more they do it, the smoother and more comfortable they will be — then and for the rest of their lives. And if you give small prizes for the most creative, enthusiastic, realistic, etc. (being sure to spread the prizes around to each of the participants), you will stimulate them to even greater heights.
When I composed my high school musical entitled “Americans All,” I involved the students in doing things like this, and called it “Project Project.” In other words, each student was to try to develop the reputation that, for example, if people knew that Linda would be doing a particular project, they would know that it would be done right, whether it was drawing a picture, taking someone on a tour of their school, or reading a story out loud. In other words, they would “eschew mediocrity,” and instead always pursue excellence. Other than the children’s parents, grandparents are in the best position to promote this concept.
As I am sure you have seen yourself, children do not grow up in reverse. Once your children have grown and gone, they can become your friends — in fact your really good friends, with natural common bonds and experiences.
But now that they are grown, and you are more experienced, and you have more resources, wisdom, and time, you could be blessed to get to do it all over again in being a grandparent. So don’t let this golden opportunity slip by. Because at this point in our lives, being a grandparent really can be what “the good life” is all about!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
So, among other things, if there were grandparents in attendance, I had them raise their hands and be sworn, right along with the parents, saying that they had duties to perform as well. Then after complying with the law and having the parents swear to support the children and treat them just as if they were their natural birth children, I also figuratively had the grandparents swear that they would spoil the grandchildren. And I never had a complaint. (For example, of course, the child can have a chocolate chip cookie before dinner, etc.)
Being a grandparent is a wonderful thing. Yes, when the children are messy or misbehaving, they can mostly be returned to the parents, and that can be nice. But much more importantly, the relationship between children and grandparents is truly special.
In fact, grandparents can play a unique role, providing unconditional love, helping to make children aware of their roots, providing values to grow from, cultivating a respect for age and wisdom, providing important role models, and inserting another important person in their lives that children would not want to disappoint with bad behavior.
As a result, grandparents can be important mentors, confidants, elder statesmen, playmates and friends. And because we grew up in a more patient time, when you dialed a telephone number and had to wait for the dial to return back to its resting place, we can bring more of that sense of peace to the children. Of course, grandparents must remember not to contradict the parents, and (mostly) to follow the parents’ rules. But otherwise, the sky is the limit.
So I offer some suggestions about how to make this opportunity the best it can be. And please don’t be bashful in sharing some of your own suggestions on the subject with the rest of us at dailypilot.com. That way we all can better take advantage of this wonderful opportunity!
Naturally, the first recommendation is to do things with your grandchildren — almost anything. The zoo, the beach, the park, shopping, a baseball game, the county fair and so much more. In fact, I have always anticipated that the best way of going to Disneyland would be to take my grandchildren and simply sit back and watch them enjoy the experience. What a contemplation! And sometimes you will want to take just one of your grandchildren alone. It is really fun to be able to have a concentrated experience with just one at a time.
Actually, reading to and with them can be just as much fun and a bonding experience as an excursion. You can share adventures together, laugh at silliness, pull for heroes, and scoff at villains. Then after you have finished, you can have great discussions about the stories you read, and how they might feel or act had they been one of the characters.
My favorites are reading Frank Baum’s “The Wizard of Oz” books to them, or reading Dr. Seuss’ “Fox in Sox” with them. Doing this will make long-term and wonderful memories — you can count on it. And along the way you will be exposing these youngsters to a truly joyous and mind-expanding world. (And seriously improving their eventual SAT scores by helping them to develop their language skills and reading comprehension!)
You can also help to create some other truly fun and teachable moments with your grandchildren, virtually all of whom have brains like sponges. For example, borrow a practice used by Newsweek and inspired from Smith Magazine’s Six-Word Memoir Project, by choosing a topic of interest to them and then having them describe their thoughts about it in only six words.
But be sure to give them extra time to think about and refine their selection of words. It can be highly instructive, enable them to show their own particular creativity, and also be lots of fun. This also has the benefit of being able to be done when traveling in a car, or virtually anywhere else.
Another fun and instructive thing to do is to have them find something useful in the home that we take for granted, and write a few paragraphs about how that thing works.
For example, you might have them inspect a toilet, and then write about how it works. Then they can first read what they have written out loud, but in the same boring way that most children read. Then have them read it again, but this time with real and even exaggerated feeling. One approach is to tell them to act as if they know something that will really interest or help their listeners, and be anxious to pass it along to them. You will see that not only the kids will have lots of fun with these projects, but they will learn a lot from them as well.
Similarly, you can play a DVD movie or sitcom for them, or read a play or short story together, and then stop about two-thirds of the way through it and ask them to create their own ending for the story.
Then sit back and watch their creativity blossom. After this has been done, you can all watch or read the actual ending to the story and discuss which ending is better. Most times, of course, you will state — to the grandchildren’s eternal delight — that their endings are better.
Furthermore, in having your grandchildren participate in all of these activities, you will also be giving them the gift of speaking and expressing themselves in public. The more they do it, the smoother and more comfortable they will be — then and for the rest of their lives. And if you give small prizes for the most creative, enthusiastic, realistic, etc. (being sure to spread the prizes around to each of the participants), you will stimulate them to even greater heights.
When I composed my high school musical entitled “Americans All,” I involved the students in doing things like this, and called it “Project Project.” In other words, each student was to try to develop the reputation that, for example, if people knew that Linda would be doing a particular project, they would know that it would be done right, whether it was drawing a picture, taking someone on a tour of their school, or reading a story out loud. In other words, they would “eschew mediocrity,” and instead always pursue excellence. Other than the children’s parents, grandparents are in the best position to promote this concept.
As I am sure you have seen yourself, children do not grow up in reverse. Once your children have grown and gone, they can become your friends — in fact your really good friends, with natural common bonds and experiences.
But now that they are grown, and you are more experienced, and you have more resources, wisdom, and time, you could be blessed to get to do it all over again in being a grandparent. So don’t let this golden opportunity slip by. Because at this point in our lives, being a grandparent really can be what “the good life” is all about!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Our top 10 drug policy goals - By Judge Jim Gray
Last weekend I spoke at a drug policy conference at the University of Texas at El Paso. It was put together in response to a resolution adopted last January by the El Paso City Council that urged the support of “an honest, open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics.”
This resolution was in turn adopted as a result of the enormous and continuing violence among warring drug cartels across the Rio Grande River from El Paso in Juárez, Mexico.
After my presentation it struck me that through all of these many years I have been speaking about this critical issue, I have never heard anyone who supports the status quo tell us what our goals actually are for our country’s drug policy.
So, with the understanding that we are all on the same side of this issue, namely we all want to reduce drug abuse and all of the harm and misery that accompanies it, I have made a list of the top 10 goals that I think we are trying to accomplish in this area, in order of importance. See if you agree. They are:
1. Reduce the exposure of drugs to and usage of drugs by children;
2. Stop or materially reduce the violence that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs, especially to police officers and innocent by-standers;
3. Stop or materially reduce the corruption of public officials, individual people and companies, and especially children that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs;
4. Stop or materially reduce crime both by people trying to get money to purchase drugs and by those under the influence of drugs;
5. Stop or materially reduce the flow of drugs into our country;
6. Reduce health risks to people who use drugs;
7. Maintain and reaffirm our civil liberties;
8. Reduce the number of people we must put into our jails and prisons;
9. Stop or materially reduce the flow of guns out of our country and into countries south of our border;
10. Increase respect for our laws and institutions.
You might want to replace one of these goals with another, or readjust the order, but I anticipate that most people would basically agree with those top 10 goals. Please give it some thought.
Now please give the subject some further thought, because I genuinely believe that treating the manufacture and sale of these drugs just like we treat alcohol — for adults — will actually accomplish each of those goals, and that pursuing our present policy of drug prohibition will never accomplish any of them.
The last part of that comment has already been proved, because we have been actively pursuing our present policy since the early 1970s, and throughout that entire time, the situation has demonstrably only gotten worse.
If we were to allow these drugs to be manufactured by reputable pharmaceutical or tobacco companies on low bid contract with the government, and then sold to adults at government package stores in brown packaging without any trade names or any advertising whatsoever, and at prices that are about half of what they are being sold for today out on the streets, the drugs would be less available to children.
Ask our young people yourselves, and they will tell you what they tell me, that it is easier for them today to get marijuana, or any other drug, if they want to, than it is alcohol. Why? Because today’s illegal drug dealers don’t ask for ID!
It would also almost completely stop the crime in the manufacture and distribution of drugs, just as the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition put the Al Capones of this world out of business.
Today if Budweiser has distribution problems with Coors, they don’t take guns to the streets to resolve them. Instead they file a complaint in court, and have it peacefully adjudicated by judges like me.
In a similar fashion, the corruption caused by the huge amounts of available cash in today’s illegal distribution of drugs would virtually disappear.
Why? Because the price of the drugs would be cut in half, and it would still be illegal to buy, use, sell or possess drugs not purchased from the government outlets, illegal dealers would lose a great deal of their present market.
That would run most of them out of business. (And if cutting the price in half would not be sufficient, the price could always be reduced further.)
That would also seriously reduce the flow of drugs into our country because there would not be a market for them.
Furthermore, because drug dealers would no longer be making obscene profits from the sale of illicit drugs, they would not have the money to purchase guns here, and smuggle them into countries south of our border.
Most of the health risks of the usage of these drugs today are caused by the unknown strength and unknown purity of the drugs, and things like the AIDS virus and hepatitis are transmitted by using unclean needles. These are easy problems to resolve.
In fact the FDA resolved virtually all of these problems with over-the-counter and prescription drugs years ago. Similarly, the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition virtually eliminated the “bathtub gin” impurities problems.
Because most of the losses of our civil liberties have come from cases involving drug offenses, that trend would be discontinued, thus reducing the erosion of our civil liberties. And because we would not have the illicit drug dealers in business so much any more, and drug users would not automatically be criminals, that would materially reduce the numbers of people we would be forced to incarcerate.
Furthermore, because we would no longer be doing things like arresting sick people for the use of medical marijuana, or seeing people openly selling drugs on street corners, or trying to enforce laws that make literally millions of people in our country automatic criminals for smoking marijuana, that would increase respect for our nation’s laws, as well as the agencies that are attempting to enforce our laws.
The last goal to address would be the issue of crimes committed by drug users, both to get money to purchase the drugs, and crimes committed while under their influence.
I could argue that with the price cut in half, drug addicted people would only need to steal half as much to get their drugs.
But many would argue that, because the price was reduced, those people would simply use more drugs — and they might be right.
But several countries such as Holland and Portugal have found that the act of decriminalizing drugs has made drug-addicted people much less fearful of their own government.
That has resulted in them being much more likely to come forward and seek drug treatment.
Furthermore, now that those governments are saving the money they previously spent to investigate, prosecute and incarcerate users, more money is available to pay for treatment.
In addition, they found that when drug addiction is treated as a medical issue, the usage of drugs is deglamorized, to the extent that younger people are not nearly as likely to go down that road. So for all of those reasons, drug crimes and drug abuse in those countries have been materially reduced.
Regarding crimes committed by people under the influence of drugs, those would still be prosecuted, just like we do today with alcohol-related offenses.
Holding people accountable for their actions, instead of what they put into their bodies, is what the criminal justice system was designed for, and that is a truly legitimate criminal justice function.
What is the difference? Because when someone drives a motor vehicle under the influence of any of these mind-altering and sometimes addicting drugs, etc., they are putting our safety at risk. And they should continue to be prosecuted vigorously for those acts.
So if you really want to achieve the goals of our nation’s drug policy, help me to repeal the policy of Drug Prohibition, which has led us down the wrong path for decades.
And that is not even to mention the large amounts of revenue the governments can generate by taxing these sales.
So that one act will make the world a safer and more prosperous place for us, and for our children. What do you think?
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
This resolution was in turn adopted as a result of the enormous and continuing violence among warring drug cartels across the Rio Grande River from El Paso in Juárez, Mexico.
After my presentation it struck me that through all of these many years I have been speaking about this critical issue, I have never heard anyone who supports the status quo tell us what our goals actually are for our country’s drug policy.
So, with the understanding that we are all on the same side of this issue, namely we all want to reduce drug abuse and all of the harm and misery that accompanies it, I have made a list of the top 10 goals that I think we are trying to accomplish in this area, in order of importance. See if you agree. They are:
1. Reduce the exposure of drugs to and usage of drugs by children;
2. Stop or materially reduce the violence that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs, especially to police officers and innocent by-standers;
3. Stop or materially reduce the corruption of public officials, individual people and companies, and especially children that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs;
4. Stop or materially reduce crime both by people trying to get money to purchase drugs and by those under the influence of drugs;
5. Stop or materially reduce the flow of drugs into our country;
6. Reduce health risks to people who use drugs;
7. Maintain and reaffirm our civil liberties;
8. Reduce the number of people we must put into our jails and prisons;
9. Stop or materially reduce the flow of guns out of our country and into countries south of our border;
10. Increase respect for our laws and institutions.
You might want to replace one of these goals with another, or readjust the order, but I anticipate that most people would basically agree with those top 10 goals. Please give it some thought.
Now please give the subject some further thought, because I genuinely believe that treating the manufacture and sale of these drugs just like we treat alcohol — for adults — will actually accomplish each of those goals, and that pursuing our present policy of drug prohibition will never accomplish any of them.
The last part of that comment has already been proved, because we have been actively pursuing our present policy since the early 1970s, and throughout that entire time, the situation has demonstrably only gotten worse.
If we were to allow these drugs to be manufactured by reputable pharmaceutical or tobacco companies on low bid contract with the government, and then sold to adults at government package stores in brown packaging without any trade names or any advertising whatsoever, and at prices that are about half of what they are being sold for today out on the streets, the drugs would be less available to children.
Ask our young people yourselves, and they will tell you what they tell me, that it is easier for them today to get marijuana, or any other drug, if they want to, than it is alcohol. Why? Because today’s illegal drug dealers don’t ask for ID!
It would also almost completely stop the crime in the manufacture and distribution of drugs, just as the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition put the Al Capones of this world out of business.
Today if Budweiser has distribution problems with Coors, they don’t take guns to the streets to resolve them. Instead they file a complaint in court, and have it peacefully adjudicated by judges like me.
In a similar fashion, the corruption caused by the huge amounts of available cash in today’s illegal distribution of drugs would virtually disappear.
Why? Because the price of the drugs would be cut in half, and it would still be illegal to buy, use, sell or possess drugs not purchased from the government outlets, illegal dealers would lose a great deal of their present market.
That would run most of them out of business. (And if cutting the price in half would not be sufficient, the price could always be reduced further.)
That would also seriously reduce the flow of drugs into our country because there would not be a market for them.
Furthermore, because drug dealers would no longer be making obscene profits from the sale of illicit drugs, they would not have the money to purchase guns here, and smuggle them into countries south of our border.
Most of the health risks of the usage of these drugs today are caused by the unknown strength and unknown purity of the drugs, and things like the AIDS virus and hepatitis are transmitted by using unclean needles. These are easy problems to resolve.
In fact the FDA resolved virtually all of these problems with over-the-counter and prescription drugs years ago. Similarly, the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition virtually eliminated the “bathtub gin” impurities problems.
Because most of the losses of our civil liberties have come from cases involving drug offenses, that trend would be discontinued, thus reducing the erosion of our civil liberties. And because we would not have the illicit drug dealers in business so much any more, and drug users would not automatically be criminals, that would materially reduce the numbers of people we would be forced to incarcerate.
Furthermore, because we would no longer be doing things like arresting sick people for the use of medical marijuana, or seeing people openly selling drugs on street corners, or trying to enforce laws that make literally millions of people in our country automatic criminals for smoking marijuana, that would increase respect for our nation’s laws, as well as the agencies that are attempting to enforce our laws.
The last goal to address would be the issue of crimes committed by drug users, both to get money to purchase the drugs, and crimes committed while under their influence.
I could argue that with the price cut in half, drug addicted people would only need to steal half as much to get their drugs.
But many would argue that, because the price was reduced, those people would simply use more drugs — and they might be right.
But several countries such as Holland and Portugal have found that the act of decriminalizing drugs has made drug-addicted people much less fearful of their own government.
That has resulted in them being much more likely to come forward and seek drug treatment.
Furthermore, now that those governments are saving the money they previously spent to investigate, prosecute and incarcerate users, more money is available to pay for treatment.
In addition, they found that when drug addiction is treated as a medical issue, the usage of drugs is deglamorized, to the extent that younger people are not nearly as likely to go down that road. So for all of those reasons, drug crimes and drug abuse in those countries have been materially reduced.
Regarding crimes committed by people under the influence of drugs, those would still be prosecuted, just like we do today with alcohol-related offenses.
Holding people accountable for their actions, instead of what they put into their bodies, is what the criminal justice system was designed for, and that is a truly legitimate criminal justice function.
What is the difference? Because when someone drives a motor vehicle under the influence of any of these mind-altering and sometimes addicting drugs, etc., they are putting our safety at risk. And they should continue to be prosecuted vigorously for those acts.
So if you really want to achieve the goals of our nation’s drug policy, help me to repeal the policy of Drug Prohibition, which has led us down the wrong path for decades.
And that is not even to mention the large amounts of revenue the governments can generate by taxing these sales.
So that one act will make the world a safer and more prosperous place for us, and for our children. What do you think?
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Getting accurate information to market - by Judge Jim Gray
In many ways, one of the functions of government is to establish systems whereby accurate information can get out into the marketplace. What people do with the information most of the time should be none of the government’s business, but the information should be publicly available. Along those lines, Abraham Lincoln showed his faith that the public would choose wisely when given accurate information when he said: “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”
There is now an opportunity to put this faith into practice, because a bill is pending in Washington that would require restaurant chains that have more than 20 outlets conspicuously to list the number of calories that are found in their regular menu items. We should all contact our representatives in Washington in support of this measure. California already has a similar law on its books that is scheduled to go into effect in 2011.
Once it is passed into law nationally, that should be sufficient. We do not need — nor want — to establish the “food police,” although there should be some sanctions for knowingly posting false information. And we should not impose extra taxes on high-calorie, high-fat or sugary foods. Just placing accurate information conspicuously in the marketplace is sufficient.
What would happen if this occurs? As a matter of course, one restaurant chain that serves lower calorie foods, whether fast food or otherwise, will soon take advantage of the situation, and begin to advertise that their hamburgers, tacos, etc. taste just as good or better than their competitor’s, but have only two-thirds the saturated fat or calories. Or whatever.
Will everyone stop going to the places with the less healthy choices? No, at least not at the beginning. Obviously this action will affect some people more than others. And I acknowledge that the lower fat and slightly higher cost experiment at McDonald’s with the McLean’s burgers about a decade ago was not successful. But slowly people’s awareness and understanding have been changing. Those changes will continue, and this legislation will hasten the process. Soon not only will it be fashionable to choose more healthy meals, it will also become more generally accepted.
Why would a Libertarian favor this legislation? Why not simply rely upon adults to make nutrition decisions for themselves and their children? In fact, some of my friends said that if I publish this column they would figuratively seek to revoke my Libertarian card. The answer is that I do it because obesity is expensive. And the cost of obesity to all of us is increasing quickly, to the degree that today it accounts for about 9% of national health-care spending, which is up from about 6.5% just a decade ago.
Similar to the passage of helmet laws for people riding motorcycles, if those riders want to take a risk with their own safety, that would be fine with me — as long as I am not required to pay for their injuries. But in today’s world, the health-care costs are not restricted just to those risk-takers, but are spread to the rest of us as well. Therefore under these circumstances, the public has a right to impose these safety requirements.
The costs for publishing information about the nutrition of the menu items would be almost insignificant. There are several simple computer programs that can easily compute the calorie and fat information, and for restaurant chains that have the same menus, the computation would only have to be done once. Yes, most menus would have to be reprinted, and the boards above the counters at the fast food outlets would have to be supplemented, but these would not be material costs, particularly because there would be a phase-in period. But the benefits could be substantial. So any cost/benefit analysis should come down in favor of taking this action.
But this approach should not simply be restricted to passing laws. Each of us should do what we can to make healthier food choices available for people we are involved with. The first and most obvious place to start is in our schools. If you see that your child’s school still has cafeterias, snack stands or vending machines that sell soda pop, potato chips, cookies and other “foods” high in sugar, calories and fats, use whatever influence you have for those items to be replaced with things like juices, vitamin waters, yogurts, apples and other more healthy alternatives. Yes, many of these more nutritious foods cost somewhat more, and have a shorter shelf life, but that is a small price to pay for materially greater health for our children.
Happily, many caring schools have already taken this action, and so have several institutions like the YMCA. But we should also not neglect the snack stands at events like school concerts and recitals, as well as soccer, basketball and little league baseball games.
This will go a long way to put peer pressure in favor of more nutritious eating.
In a similar manner, I am encouraging the managers at my alternative dispute resolution office to stop furnishing potato chips, corn nuts, cookies and other junk food to our clients, and to replace them with more healthy offerings. I have told the story that when I was in junior high school I had a package of corn nuts with almost every lunch. But I had not eaten them since that time, until I retired from the bench and began with my mediation business, where those packages of corn nuts were always there on the tables, just looking at me. So I confess that I sometimes weakened and ate some. But had they not been there, I would have never missed them. So the bottom line is that most people have a weakness, but if caring people “remove us from temptation,” we will all be assisted in making healthier choices.
So please consider doing everyone a favor in this area. Accurate information and a little thoughtful caring can and will go a long way to reduce obesity in us and our children, and will also reduce an appreciable amount of our health-care expenses along the way.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
There is now an opportunity to put this faith into practice, because a bill is pending in Washington that would require restaurant chains that have more than 20 outlets conspicuously to list the number of calories that are found in their regular menu items. We should all contact our representatives in Washington in support of this measure. California already has a similar law on its books that is scheduled to go into effect in 2011.
Once it is passed into law nationally, that should be sufficient. We do not need — nor want — to establish the “food police,” although there should be some sanctions for knowingly posting false information. And we should not impose extra taxes on high-calorie, high-fat or sugary foods. Just placing accurate information conspicuously in the marketplace is sufficient.
What would happen if this occurs? As a matter of course, one restaurant chain that serves lower calorie foods, whether fast food or otherwise, will soon take advantage of the situation, and begin to advertise that their hamburgers, tacos, etc. taste just as good or better than their competitor’s, but have only two-thirds the saturated fat or calories. Or whatever.
Will everyone stop going to the places with the less healthy choices? No, at least not at the beginning. Obviously this action will affect some people more than others. And I acknowledge that the lower fat and slightly higher cost experiment at McDonald’s with the McLean’s burgers about a decade ago was not successful. But slowly people’s awareness and understanding have been changing. Those changes will continue, and this legislation will hasten the process. Soon not only will it be fashionable to choose more healthy meals, it will also become more generally accepted.
Why would a Libertarian favor this legislation? Why not simply rely upon adults to make nutrition decisions for themselves and their children? In fact, some of my friends said that if I publish this column they would figuratively seek to revoke my Libertarian card. The answer is that I do it because obesity is expensive. And the cost of obesity to all of us is increasing quickly, to the degree that today it accounts for about 9% of national health-care spending, which is up from about 6.5% just a decade ago.
Similar to the passage of helmet laws for people riding motorcycles, if those riders want to take a risk with their own safety, that would be fine with me — as long as I am not required to pay for their injuries. But in today’s world, the health-care costs are not restricted just to those risk-takers, but are spread to the rest of us as well. Therefore under these circumstances, the public has a right to impose these safety requirements.
The costs for publishing information about the nutrition of the menu items would be almost insignificant. There are several simple computer programs that can easily compute the calorie and fat information, and for restaurant chains that have the same menus, the computation would only have to be done once. Yes, most menus would have to be reprinted, and the boards above the counters at the fast food outlets would have to be supplemented, but these would not be material costs, particularly because there would be a phase-in period. But the benefits could be substantial. So any cost/benefit analysis should come down in favor of taking this action.
But this approach should not simply be restricted to passing laws. Each of us should do what we can to make healthier food choices available for people we are involved with. The first and most obvious place to start is in our schools. If you see that your child’s school still has cafeterias, snack stands or vending machines that sell soda pop, potato chips, cookies and other “foods” high in sugar, calories and fats, use whatever influence you have for those items to be replaced with things like juices, vitamin waters, yogurts, apples and other more healthy alternatives. Yes, many of these more nutritious foods cost somewhat more, and have a shorter shelf life, but that is a small price to pay for materially greater health for our children.
Happily, many caring schools have already taken this action, and so have several institutions like the YMCA. But we should also not neglect the snack stands at events like school concerts and recitals, as well as soccer, basketball and little league baseball games.
This will go a long way to put peer pressure in favor of more nutritious eating.
In a similar manner, I am encouraging the managers at my alternative dispute resolution office to stop furnishing potato chips, corn nuts, cookies and other junk food to our clients, and to replace them with more healthy offerings. I have told the story that when I was in junior high school I had a package of corn nuts with almost every lunch. But I had not eaten them since that time, until I retired from the bench and began with my mediation business, where those packages of corn nuts were always there on the tables, just looking at me. So I confess that I sometimes weakened and ate some. But had they not been there, I would have never missed them. So the bottom line is that most people have a weakness, but if caring people “remove us from temptation,” we will all be assisted in making healthier choices.
So please consider doing everyone a favor in this area. Accurate information and a little thoughtful caring can and will go a long way to reduce obesity in us and our children, and will also reduce an appreciable amount of our health-care expenses along the way.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The great Pacific Ocean garbage patch - by Judge Jim Gray
Recently I was shocked to hear of an area in the Pacific Ocean somewhat north of a line between San Francisco and Hawaii that is simply a heap of trash twice the size of Texas! Just as things tend to drift toward the drain in your bathtub when the water is being emptied, this trash has gravitated to this area for decades because of prevailing wind and current conditions.
Could this be true? On occasion, there are stories that are too wild to believe. Maybe this one fits that category, or maybe it doesn’t. Twice the size of Texas is a big area. It sounds unlikely to me, if only because occasional hurricanes have a tendency to move things around a little bit. But people report that they have seen it, and about 90% of the trash is said to be composed of plastic, and the layer of trash varies between 3 inches and 300 feet thick!
Well, after doing some research on plastic, I discovered that it goes into about 225 million tons of products in the world each year. Most of the plastic is manufactured from petroleum, but some also comes from natural gas. So in addition to pollution problems, this has more than just a minor effect on our country’s importation of oil.
And our usage of plastic is increasing. For example, each person in our country consumed an average of 1.6 gallons of bottled water in 1976. That increased to 10.5 gallons in 1993, 22.6 gallons in 2003 and 28.3 gallons in 2006.
As a result, 3.3 billion plastic water bottles were sold in 1997, and 15 billion were sold in 2002. That is a lot of plastic, and the amount is growing, since plastic containers are almost completely replacing those made of glass. In fact, there is even talk of putting expensive wines into plastic bottles.
Since most of the bottled water is consumed away from home, only a small amount of the plastic bottles are recycled, and that rate is decreasing. For example, about 53% of the plastic water bottles were recycled in 1994, but only about 19% were recycled in 2003.
The rest often find their way onto the streets, where many of them eventually flow into drains and out into the ocean.
Today, only 11 states have plastic bottle recycling laws and, of those, only three include plastic water bottles in their programs. They are California, Hawaii and Maine. That is shortsighted, because where there are recycling laws, about four of five bottles are recycled. And in states such as Michigan, which has a return rate of 10 cents per bottle, a full 95% of the bottles are recycled.
When I was growing up, a friend of mine and I routinely went to housing construction sites and picked up the soda bottles, which had a 2-cent return rate. Of course, we did it to make money. By the way, the beer bottles back then did not require a deposit, so we left them alone. Just another example that “Incentives Matter!”
As further proof, we don’t see many aluminum cans littering our cities and highways today, because either the consumer holds onto them for their return value, or various “Dumpster divers” hunt them down and return them for the money.
The same phenomenon explains why used hypodermic needles and syringes are mostly not found on streets and in parks in cities that have needle exchange facilities. As a result, those programs protect people from inadvertently stepping upon a dirty needle and thereby sometimes contracting AIDS or hepatitis!
So why don’t more states have plastic bottle recycling laws? For the same reason: Incentives matter. The water industry knows it will sell more product if the merchants don’t have to charge the return rates, and the beverage industry has more political clout than the environmental groups.
But recycling is a good idea for more reasons than merely cutting down on pollution. For example, the energy saved from making just one aluminum can from a recycled one instead of starting from scratch is enough to power a television set or computer for three hours, or power a 100-watt bulb for 20 hours! And the energy saved from recycling a six-pack of aluminum cans is able to move a standard-sized automobile about five miles.
Similarly, the energy saved from recycling a one-gallon milk jug will power a 100-watt bulb for 11 hours. And recycling a one-foot stack of newspapers will save enough energy to heat a standard-sized home for 17 hours.
So when we see that, of the estimated 28 billion water bottles that are consumed each year in our country, only about 20% of them are recycled, we can see how wasteful we are. And the other 80% either end up in landfills, or as litter that either pollutes our countryside, or ends up in the ocean.
To make matters worse, plastic is not biodegradable, like most of the more natural products. Instead, it is photodegradable, which means that the sun’s rays will make it brittle, similar to what the rays do to the vinyl roof of an automobile. That will cause the plastic to break into smaller pieces, and eventually emerge as a fine dust. But otherwise, it takes decades to break it down further.
So instead of being good stewards of the Earth, we are literally fouling our own nest! And in addition to the pollution issues, many of the birds and fish confuse plastic trash for jellyfish and other food. So when they eat the plastic, the wild beings can’t either digest it or expel it, which means that many of them simply starve to death with their stomachs full of plastic.
All of this is disturbing, but what can we do? Obviously, this is a monumental problem, and each of us is only one person. Nevertheless, we can all help by using recycling programs to the fullest, and also by insisting that legislators from all over the country pass recycling laws. And when asked “paper or plastic,” we can choose paper.
Or better yet, we can form the habit of taking canvas bags with us to do our shopping. And we can also remember to decline using a bag at all when it is not necessary.
In the final analysis, whether this trash dump story is true or not, the problems of plastic trash disposal are enormous. But like with so many other things, the resolution is up to us, and every effort helps!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Could this be true? On occasion, there are stories that are too wild to believe. Maybe this one fits that category, or maybe it doesn’t. Twice the size of Texas is a big area. It sounds unlikely to me, if only because occasional hurricanes have a tendency to move things around a little bit. But people report that they have seen it, and about 90% of the trash is said to be composed of plastic, and the layer of trash varies between 3 inches and 300 feet thick!
Well, after doing some research on plastic, I discovered that it goes into about 225 million tons of products in the world each year. Most of the plastic is manufactured from petroleum, but some also comes from natural gas. So in addition to pollution problems, this has more than just a minor effect on our country’s importation of oil.
And our usage of plastic is increasing. For example, each person in our country consumed an average of 1.6 gallons of bottled water in 1976. That increased to 10.5 gallons in 1993, 22.6 gallons in 2003 and 28.3 gallons in 2006.
As a result, 3.3 billion plastic water bottles were sold in 1997, and 15 billion were sold in 2002. That is a lot of plastic, and the amount is growing, since plastic containers are almost completely replacing those made of glass. In fact, there is even talk of putting expensive wines into plastic bottles.
Since most of the bottled water is consumed away from home, only a small amount of the plastic bottles are recycled, and that rate is decreasing. For example, about 53% of the plastic water bottles were recycled in 1994, but only about 19% were recycled in 2003.
The rest often find their way onto the streets, where many of them eventually flow into drains and out into the ocean.
Today, only 11 states have plastic bottle recycling laws and, of those, only three include plastic water bottles in their programs. They are California, Hawaii and Maine. That is shortsighted, because where there are recycling laws, about four of five bottles are recycled. And in states such as Michigan, which has a return rate of 10 cents per bottle, a full 95% of the bottles are recycled.
When I was growing up, a friend of mine and I routinely went to housing construction sites and picked up the soda bottles, which had a 2-cent return rate. Of course, we did it to make money. By the way, the beer bottles back then did not require a deposit, so we left them alone. Just another example that “Incentives Matter!”
As further proof, we don’t see many aluminum cans littering our cities and highways today, because either the consumer holds onto them for their return value, or various “Dumpster divers” hunt them down and return them for the money.
The same phenomenon explains why used hypodermic needles and syringes are mostly not found on streets and in parks in cities that have needle exchange facilities. As a result, those programs protect people from inadvertently stepping upon a dirty needle and thereby sometimes contracting AIDS or hepatitis!
So why don’t more states have plastic bottle recycling laws? For the same reason: Incentives matter. The water industry knows it will sell more product if the merchants don’t have to charge the return rates, and the beverage industry has more political clout than the environmental groups.
But recycling is a good idea for more reasons than merely cutting down on pollution. For example, the energy saved from making just one aluminum can from a recycled one instead of starting from scratch is enough to power a television set or computer for three hours, or power a 100-watt bulb for 20 hours! And the energy saved from recycling a six-pack of aluminum cans is able to move a standard-sized automobile about five miles.
Similarly, the energy saved from recycling a one-gallon milk jug will power a 100-watt bulb for 11 hours. And recycling a one-foot stack of newspapers will save enough energy to heat a standard-sized home for 17 hours.
So when we see that, of the estimated 28 billion water bottles that are consumed each year in our country, only about 20% of them are recycled, we can see how wasteful we are. And the other 80% either end up in landfills, or as litter that either pollutes our countryside, or ends up in the ocean.
To make matters worse, plastic is not biodegradable, like most of the more natural products. Instead, it is photodegradable, which means that the sun’s rays will make it brittle, similar to what the rays do to the vinyl roof of an automobile. That will cause the plastic to break into smaller pieces, and eventually emerge as a fine dust. But otherwise, it takes decades to break it down further.
So instead of being good stewards of the Earth, we are literally fouling our own nest! And in addition to the pollution issues, many of the birds and fish confuse plastic trash for jellyfish and other food. So when they eat the plastic, the wild beings can’t either digest it or expel it, which means that many of them simply starve to death with their stomachs full of plastic.
All of this is disturbing, but what can we do? Obviously, this is a monumental problem, and each of us is only one person. Nevertheless, we can all help by using recycling programs to the fullest, and also by insisting that legislators from all over the country pass recycling laws. And when asked “paper or plastic,” we can choose paper.
Or better yet, we can form the habit of taking canvas bags with us to do our shopping. And we can also remember to decline using a bag at all when it is not necessary.
In the final analysis, whether this trash dump story is true or not, the problems of plastic trash disposal are enormous. But like with so many other things, the resolution is up to us, and every effort helps!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Take time to donate on Labor Day - by Judge Jim Gray
Many of you will not be home this weekend to receive this greeting because you will be taking a short trip for the Labor Day weekend. Nevertheless, happy Labor Day!
This is one of the heaviest getaway weekends of the year, and everyone appreciates it. But what is the derivation of this holiday, which is always on the first Monday of September?
The holiday originated in Canada in the late 1870s, when labor unions were first successful in establishing a nine-hour work day. By 1882, the festivities spread to the United States, where parades and speeches were held celebrating the contributions of laborers. Then, in 1894, it became a federal holiday, largely in an effort to avoid further labor strife. But over time, the celebrations, where there have been any at all, have placed increasing significance upon economic and civil progress and goals, instead of the contributions of labor.
So now, I suggest we take that process one step further, and ask ourselves every year on this holiday the question of whether our own labors are being well spent, what our individual goals are, and what we stand for as individuals. Another way of addressing this is to anticipate what would accurately be said about us at our memorial services after we leave this earth, or what would be placed on our tombstones.
In that regard, I am reminded of an actual tombstone I once saw at a Ripley’s Believe It or Not exhibit in Chicago that had inscribed on it a recipe for an apple pie. Then below it were inscribed words like: “Here rests Mary Jones. She said you could have this apple pie recipe ‘over my dead body.’”
But more seriously, do you really think a fitting remembrance of anyone’s life would be a testament like “My yacht was bigger than your yacht”? Or “I accumulated more power than you ever did”?
Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice had Eva Peron in “Evita” saying “As for fortune, and as for fame . . . they’re an illusion, they are not the solution they promised to be . . . ” Whether this young prima donna ever came close to any such insightful thoughts herself is problematical, but I think the statement attributed to her is correct.
So what is the best thing that can happen to a person here on earth? The answer is not to have wealth, fame, power or even love. Instead, the best thing to have in life is gratification, which is the inward satisfaction and pleasure you can receive by doing things as well as you can. And in that way, to borrow a recruitment slogan from the U.S. Army, you can “Be all you can be.”
To my way of thinking, the No. 1 source of gratification in this world is for people to see their children grow up to be happy, well-adjusted and thriving. Of course, many other things can also provide lasting gratification, such as contributing to a loving relationship; giving best efforts in your work; creating wonderful music, poetry or other art; and donating your time, talents and treasure to helping others. That explains why so many “starving artists” actually are still genuinely happy, and also how the phrase “you only really own something when you give it away” came into being. Even better would be to make donations anonymously, which is actually a heavy part of many religious traditions.
So join with me in creating a new tradition in our lives, and that of our families and friends. Monday, and every Labor Day that follows, stop and think about your life and how it is going. What are your true passions? What are the things that gratify you and give meaning to your special and individual life? And what are you doing to pursue those things?
You don’t have to be a Bill Gates and create a philanthropic foundation all on your own. There are lots of genuinely worthwhile institutions that can use your own special help. Some of them that have been discussed previously in this column are Canyon Acres (which provides a place of learning for mentally disabled children, and a welcome respite for their parents), the Orange County Rescue Mission (which has a fabulous facility for the homeless, combined with a plan that helps them to become self-sufficient), the Heritage Museum (which shows young children what it was like to live in Orange County in the early 1900s) and Good Will (which is establishing low-cost housing for the mentally ill).
To those, I add another wonderful organization that is just in the initial stages of establishing a campus for brain-injured adults. It is called B.R.A.I.N., which stands for Brain Rehabilitation And Injury Network. Their goal is to establish a place where these mentally fragile people can live, work and play up to the highest level of their abilities. Currently there is no place in California that I know of that would provide such a refuge, and this need is dramatically increasing with the return of brain-injured GIs from the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The sponsors of B.R.A.I.N. are having a concert Oct. 1 to raise awareness to the need of building such a long-term facility in Southern California for the brain-injured, and to raise funds to lay the groundwork for such a facility. If you are interested in supporting this worthwhile cause, call Sue or Jerry Rueb at (714) 625-7225, or visit www.thebrainsite.org.
Otherwise, there are opportunities all around you in your own neighborhood to help others. Many of your neighbors are silently living with pain and grief, and could really use a friend who is simply a good listener. In fact, I am passing along a challenge I recently received in church for us to knock on the door of the houses of neighbors that we don’t know, and invite them over for dinner. This is a wonderful suggestion. My wife and I are going to do it, and you might want to do it as well. It could very well help to give you the gratification you are seeking.
So, once again, happy Labor Day! Life is good — particularly if we use it to further the things that really matter.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, and the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com . This is his 100th column for the Pilot.
This is one of the heaviest getaway weekends of the year, and everyone appreciates it. But what is the derivation of this holiday, which is always on the first Monday of September?
The holiday originated in Canada in the late 1870s, when labor unions were first successful in establishing a nine-hour work day. By 1882, the festivities spread to the United States, where parades and speeches were held celebrating the contributions of laborers. Then, in 1894, it became a federal holiday, largely in an effort to avoid further labor strife. But over time, the celebrations, where there have been any at all, have placed increasing significance upon economic and civil progress and goals, instead of the contributions of labor.
So now, I suggest we take that process one step further, and ask ourselves every year on this holiday the question of whether our own labors are being well spent, what our individual goals are, and what we stand for as individuals. Another way of addressing this is to anticipate what would accurately be said about us at our memorial services after we leave this earth, or what would be placed on our tombstones.
In that regard, I am reminded of an actual tombstone I once saw at a Ripley’s Believe It or Not exhibit in Chicago that had inscribed on it a recipe for an apple pie. Then below it were inscribed words like: “Here rests Mary Jones. She said you could have this apple pie recipe ‘over my dead body.’”
But more seriously, do you really think a fitting remembrance of anyone’s life would be a testament like “My yacht was bigger than your yacht”? Or “I accumulated more power than you ever did”?
Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice had Eva Peron in “Evita” saying “As for fortune, and as for fame . . . they’re an illusion, they are not the solution they promised to be . . . ” Whether this young prima donna ever came close to any such insightful thoughts herself is problematical, but I think the statement attributed to her is correct.
So what is the best thing that can happen to a person here on earth? The answer is not to have wealth, fame, power or even love. Instead, the best thing to have in life is gratification, which is the inward satisfaction and pleasure you can receive by doing things as well as you can. And in that way, to borrow a recruitment slogan from the U.S. Army, you can “Be all you can be.”
To my way of thinking, the No. 1 source of gratification in this world is for people to see their children grow up to be happy, well-adjusted and thriving. Of course, many other things can also provide lasting gratification, such as contributing to a loving relationship; giving best efforts in your work; creating wonderful music, poetry or other art; and donating your time, talents and treasure to helping others. That explains why so many “starving artists” actually are still genuinely happy, and also how the phrase “you only really own something when you give it away” came into being. Even better would be to make donations anonymously, which is actually a heavy part of many religious traditions.
So join with me in creating a new tradition in our lives, and that of our families and friends. Monday, and every Labor Day that follows, stop and think about your life and how it is going. What are your true passions? What are the things that gratify you and give meaning to your special and individual life? And what are you doing to pursue those things?
You don’t have to be a Bill Gates and create a philanthropic foundation all on your own. There are lots of genuinely worthwhile institutions that can use your own special help. Some of them that have been discussed previously in this column are Canyon Acres (which provides a place of learning for mentally disabled children, and a welcome respite for their parents), the Orange County Rescue Mission (which has a fabulous facility for the homeless, combined with a plan that helps them to become self-sufficient), the Heritage Museum (which shows young children what it was like to live in Orange County in the early 1900s) and Good Will (which is establishing low-cost housing for the mentally ill).
To those, I add another wonderful organization that is just in the initial stages of establishing a campus for brain-injured adults. It is called B.R.A.I.N., which stands for Brain Rehabilitation And Injury Network. Their goal is to establish a place where these mentally fragile people can live, work and play up to the highest level of their abilities. Currently there is no place in California that I know of that would provide such a refuge, and this need is dramatically increasing with the return of brain-injured GIs from the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The sponsors of B.R.A.I.N. are having a concert Oct. 1 to raise awareness to the need of building such a long-term facility in Southern California for the brain-injured, and to raise funds to lay the groundwork for such a facility. If you are interested in supporting this worthwhile cause, call Sue or Jerry Rueb at (714) 625-7225, or visit www.thebrainsite.org.
Otherwise, there are opportunities all around you in your own neighborhood to help others. Many of your neighbors are silently living with pain and grief, and could really use a friend who is simply a good listener. In fact, I am passing along a challenge I recently received in church for us to knock on the door of the houses of neighbors that we don’t know, and invite them over for dinner. This is a wonderful suggestion. My wife and I are going to do it, and you might want to do it as well. It could very well help to give you the gratification you are seeking.
So, once again, happy Labor Day! Life is good — particularly if we use it to further the things that really matter.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, and the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com . This is his 100th column for the Pilot.
Monday, August 31, 2009
State has too many people in prison - by Judge Jim Gray
Most of us have heard that a federal court mandate is just around the corner requiring California to release as many as 43,000 of its about 160,000 inmates. What is the reason for the mandate? Because most of the prisons are housing almost double the number of people they were designed and built for, and there eventually comes a constitutional limit to the overcrowded conditions that we can or should force people to live in. Imagine almost 200 prisoners with ethnic and racial rivalries triple-bunked in hot weather in barracks designed for 100. That does not serve anyone’s legitimate interests.
California’s governor is right when he says that the state’s prison system is “collapsing under its own weight.” But because neither the governor nor the legislature has done anything to rectify this problem, it has been left to the courts. Many politicians, in trying to appear “tough on crime,” are spreading fear that this could cause imminent threats to our safety if this number of people were to be released. But the facts show that is all it is: fear-mongering.
Some politicians intentionally use fear to manipulate the voters and/or to promote their private interests. I am told that one of the most well-known political advisors who did this had a motto framed and hanging on his office wall that said “Keep ‘Em Scared.” That may be good politics, but it makes for rotten government. So gather the evidence yourself, and be cynical about people who deal in fear.
The evidence shows that, even dealing with the possible release of 43,000 inmates, there is simply no way that anyone who is a threat to our safety would ever even be considered to be set free. So relax, people like Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, Richard Ramirez and other murderers, robbers and rapists will safely stay where they are. You can count on it.
The reason for the overcrowding is that today we literally have tens of thousands of people in prison who simply should not be there. For example, and as we have discussed before in this column, right now there are literally thousands of people in prison who did nothing but smoke marijuana. For whatever reason, they were in prison and then released on parole, always with the condition that they use no form of illicit drug. Then, for one reason or another, they smoked marijuana, which is detectable by urinalysis testing for about a month after use. Thereafter, they either fail to show up to take their tests, or they do show up and test positive, and back to prison they go.
I am not discussing the stupidity of their smoking marijuana under these circumstances, but many of them had again found employment and were putting their lives back in order, and they were again supporting their families. So now all of that progress is lost, their families are back on welfare, and the taxpayers are spending about $40,000 per year once again to keep each one of them in prison. They could have been released yesterday without any threat to our safety.
Then there are other people in prison who are simply unable to be a threat to us. These are prisoners who are so old and feeble that the only thing they could do, if they had the strength, would be to throw their walkers at us. Their detention facilities look like old folks’ homes, with ramps instead of stairways, supporting bars on the toilets, chairs in the showers, and ground-up food on the tables. And, because of their medical problems, it costs taxpayers many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to keep each one of these geriatrics in custody.
In fact, I recently received an e-mail from a friend who said that she had found the perfect solution to senior health-care problems. Obviously, you know that many seniors are told that they need to give up even the idea of receiving expensive medications for their blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. And if they need a hip replacement, there is no way it will be funded, because the money will be spent on the younger generation.
Well, the answer is for people older than 70 simply to go out and commit a crime, and then be sent to prison. A roof over your head, three meals per day, and all the health care you can use. Need new teeth, great! Glasses? No problem! New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Bring ’em on. Because if people are in prison, they are constitutionally entitled to good quality medical care. Of course, who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just said that you are too old for health care. And because you are a prisoner, you don’t have to pay any income taxes either! Problems solved!
You might think this is a joke, but that is exactly what taxpayers are now doing for thousands of people in prison. Many of them have been there for decades. On a case-by-case basis, some of the ones who have already spent many years in prison should be released, some to low-security halfway houses, and some should be released outright.
Of course, there are also thousands of nonviolent drug offenders who are spending years in prison for no good purpose. Remember prior columns in which we quoted the RAND Corporation that said, way back in June 1994, that taxpayers get seven times more benefit for their tax money when it is used for drug treatment instead of incarceration? Even for heavy-using drug offenders!
Again, on a case-by-case basis, we should release many of these nonviolent offenders from prison, with the strict condition that they participate meaningfully in a quality drug treatment program. That way, they will be much more likely not to be a drain on society, and the taxpayers can stop spending so much money without purpose. Please bear in mind that 95% of the people who are confined will be released someday. What kind of people will they be when that occurs?
And then there is a new philosophy that is beginning to sweep the nation, and that is the concept of “restorative justice.” This approach encourages a meaningful but much shorter time in custody for the offenders, but then has them released under a strictly applied program of formal probation. But, importantly, it also requires the released offenders, among other things, to get a job and make restitution payments every month to their victims, right off the top from their earnings.
Everyone wins by this system. The offenders are forced into the realization that there are costs for their misdeeds, and that it takes time and effort to pay them. The victims see that they are actually being reimbursed for their losses. That is both psychologically and economically comforting, because their insurance rates start to decrease due to the money being returned to their insurance companies.
And the taxpayers are given a big break because they are no longer required to pay for the continued incarceration of the offenders. So everyone comes out ahead except, of course, the prison guard union, which happens to be the strongest political lobby group in our state today.
Importantly, if violence was involved in the underlying offense, all bets are off. Prison is mostly meant to take violent offenders off the streets, and it should be used more fully for that purpose. But otherwise, we must understand that the United States has only 5% of the world’s population, but a full 25% of its prisoners! As such, we lead the world in the incarceration of our people. And in this case, “We’re No. 1!” should not make us proud.
So don’t let doctrinaire politicians and special-interest lobbyists spread fear about releasing even thousands of these prisoners without facing the evidence. Many of the people in prison shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and others have long since learned all the lessons that incarceration could possibly have taught them. Therefore, every thoughtful person should favor many of these offenders being released, on a case-by-case basis.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
California’s governor is right when he says that the state’s prison system is “collapsing under its own weight.” But because neither the governor nor the legislature has done anything to rectify this problem, it has been left to the courts. Many politicians, in trying to appear “tough on crime,” are spreading fear that this could cause imminent threats to our safety if this number of people were to be released. But the facts show that is all it is: fear-mongering.
Some politicians intentionally use fear to manipulate the voters and/or to promote their private interests. I am told that one of the most well-known political advisors who did this had a motto framed and hanging on his office wall that said “Keep ‘Em Scared.” That may be good politics, but it makes for rotten government. So gather the evidence yourself, and be cynical about people who deal in fear.
The evidence shows that, even dealing with the possible release of 43,000 inmates, there is simply no way that anyone who is a threat to our safety would ever even be considered to be set free. So relax, people like Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, Richard Ramirez and other murderers, robbers and rapists will safely stay where they are. You can count on it.
The reason for the overcrowding is that today we literally have tens of thousands of people in prison who simply should not be there. For example, and as we have discussed before in this column, right now there are literally thousands of people in prison who did nothing but smoke marijuana. For whatever reason, they were in prison and then released on parole, always with the condition that they use no form of illicit drug. Then, for one reason or another, they smoked marijuana, which is detectable by urinalysis testing for about a month after use. Thereafter, they either fail to show up to take their tests, or they do show up and test positive, and back to prison they go.
I am not discussing the stupidity of their smoking marijuana under these circumstances, but many of them had again found employment and were putting their lives back in order, and they were again supporting their families. So now all of that progress is lost, their families are back on welfare, and the taxpayers are spending about $40,000 per year once again to keep each one of them in prison. They could have been released yesterday without any threat to our safety.
Then there are other people in prison who are simply unable to be a threat to us. These are prisoners who are so old and feeble that the only thing they could do, if they had the strength, would be to throw their walkers at us. Their detention facilities look like old folks’ homes, with ramps instead of stairways, supporting bars on the toilets, chairs in the showers, and ground-up food on the tables. And, because of their medical problems, it costs taxpayers many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to keep each one of these geriatrics in custody.
In fact, I recently received an e-mail from a friend who said that she had found the perfect solution to senior health-care problems. Obviously, you know that many seniors are told that they need to give up even the idea of receiving expensive medications for their blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. And if they need a hip replacement, there is no way it will be funded, because the money will be spent on the younger generation.
Well, the answer is for people older than 70 simply to go out and commit a crime, and then be sent to prison. A roof over your head, three meals per day, and all the health care you can use. Need new teeth, great! Glasses? No problem! New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Bring ’em on. Because if people are in prison, they are constitutionally entitled to good quality medical care. Of course, who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just said that you are too old for health care. And because you are a prisoner, you don’t have to pay any income taxes either! Problems solved!
You might think this is a joke, but that is exactly what taxpayers are now doing for thousands of people in prison. Many of them have been there for decades. On a case-by-case basis, some of the ones who have already spent many years in prison should be released, some to low-security halfway houses, and some should be released outright.
Of course, there are also thousands of nonviolent drug offenders who are spending years in prison for no good purpose. Remember prior columns in which we quoted the RAND Corporation that said, way back in June 1994, that taxpayers get seven times more benefit for their tax money when it is used for drug treatment instead of incarceration? Even for heavy-using drug offenders!
Again, on a case-by-case basis, we should release many of these nonviolent offenders from prison, with the strict condition that they participate meaningfully in a quality drug treatment program. That way, they will be much more likely not to be a drain on society, and the taxpayers can stop spending so much money without purpose. Please bear in mind that 95% of the people who are confined will be released someday. What kind of people will they be when that occurs?
And then there is a new philosophy that is beginning to sweep the nation, and that is the concept of “restorative justice.” This approach encourages a meaningful but much shorter time in custody for the offenders, but then has them released under a strictly applied program of formal probation. But, importantly, it also requires the released offenders, among other things, to get a job and make restitution payments every month to their victims, right off the top from their earnings.
Everyone wins by this system. The offenders are forced into the realization that there are costs for their misdeeds, and that it takes time and effort to pay them. The victims see that they are actually being reimbursed for their losses. That is both psychologically and economically comforting, because their insurance rates start to decrease due to the money being returned to their insurance companies.
And the taxpayers are given a big break because they are no longer required to pay for the continued incarceration of the offenders. So everyone comes out ahead except, of course, the prison guard union, which happens to be the strongest political lobby group in our state today.
Importantly, if violence was involved in the underlying offense, all bets are off. Prison is mostly meant to take violent offenders off the streets, and it should be used more fully for that purpose. But otherwise, we must understand that the United States has only 5% of the world’s population, but a full 25% of its prisoners! As such, we lead the world in the incarceration of our people. And in this case, “We’re No. 1!” should not make us proud.
So don’t let doctrinaire politicians and special-interest lobbyists spread fear about releasing even thousands of these prisoners without facing the evidence. Many of the people in prison shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and others have long since learned all the lessons that incarceration could possibly have taught them. Therefore, every thoughtful person should favor many of these offenders being released, on a case-by-case basis.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Forest fires: another harm of prohibition - by Judge Jim Gray
For the past 17 years, I have, as a sitting judge, been trying to call everyone’s attention to the failures of our nation’s policy of drug prohibition. In fact, the truth is that we are “taking it on the chin” in every way imaginable, such that we literally couldn’t pursue a worse policy if we tried. But even I was not aware of the additional harm that is being caused by this failed and hopeless policy, as represented by the huge forest fire that has been burning east of Santa Maria in Santa Barbara County.
Newspapers report that authorities believe this La Brea fire, which has burned about 90,000 acres, was started by growers of illegal marijuana at a hidden farm in the Los Padres National Forest. The trigger for the fire was a propane-fed outdoor camp stove.
How was this fire caused by our policy of drug prohibition? Well, obviously, fires like this do not occur where companies like Phillip Morris or Ligget and Myers are growing tobacco. First of all, these companies aren’t forced to grow their crops in remote and desolate regions, and secondly, they are much more careful in what they do, because if by chance they do start a fire, they are held responsible for the damage.
On the contrary, illegal growers are forced out into remote areas, and usually onto public lands, because if their operations are discovered, the land can’t be forfeited. In fact, this particular camp is in a steep, overgrown canyon more than a mile from the nearest road. The workers unlawfully diverted streams to use for irrigation, polluted the ground with stacks of propane tanks and melted irrigation tubing, empty fertilizer canisters and large mounds of trash. Of course, even if there hadn’t been a fire, the workers never would have removed any of these items because, being an illegal operation, they are not held responsible for any of the damage they cause.
Once authorities located the camp, they found about 30,000 top-grade marijuana plants that ranged from two to six feet in height.
The workers had gone to the trouble of building terraces for the marijuana plants and installing a drip irrigation system, and probably would have been camping in the area for about four to five months to allow the plants to mature enough for harvesting. But with a street value in the millions of dollars for the marijuana, all of their efforts and inconveniences would have been well compensated.
Authorities also reported that so far this year, they have seized about 225,000 marijuana plants from six different sites in the area, including this one, with a street price of about $675 million.
They further stated that all of the workers they had found so far had been illegal immigrants from Mexico, but that really is a false issue. Why? Because, as any economist will tell you, if the demand for marijuana is here, and there is that much money to be made, someone will supply it. And if it is not illegal Mexican immigrants, it will be people like your next-door neighbor.
Marijuana has been illegal in this country since 1933, yet it is still fully available to anyone who wants it. And that includes our children, who report that it is easier for them to get marijuana than it is alcohol. And if you don’t believe me, ask them yourself.
Today, no one offers a free sample of Jim Beam bourbon or Budweiser beer on a high school campus. Why? Because if they were to get even close to doing that, they would be in a world of trouble. But illegal dealers offer free samples of marijuana and other illicit drugs to students on their campuses every day. Why does this happen? Because, just like with the La Brea fire situation, as soon as we prohibit a substance, we give up all of our ability to regulate or control it. That means that we concede all of the controls about quality, age restrictions, places of sale, price and everything else to the illegal dealers. And they are the ones who want to glamorize the use of all of these drugs and get our children hooked — so they can make more money off them. That is really stupid of us.
There is now pending in Sacramento Assembly Bill 390, which is being sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano from San Francisco. This measure would treat marijuana like alcohol in California, with the proviso that it would only go into effect 30 days after the federal law would be changed to allow this to occur legally. AB 390 would regulate and control the sale of marijuana for adults — and then tax it! That act alone would, according to the chair of the State Board of Equalization, bring in additional tax revenue to California of about $1.3 billion each year.
Today, marijuana is already the largest cash crop in the state, the seizures of those 225,000 marijuana plants this year notwithstanding, so this measure certainly will not make it more available than it is now.
But passing AB 390 will raise additional revenue for the state, while at the same time reducing the gross revenues of Mexican drug cartels by taking away their market.
And it will also reduce violence and corruption in this country, and, most importantly, make marijuana less available for children than it is today.
So what’s not to like? Accordingly, please call anyone you can vote for in Sacramento and urge them to vote for AB 390. This situation is far too dangerous to leave up to illegal growers and sellers.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Newspapers report that authorities believe this La Brea fire, which has burned about 90,000 acres, was started by growers of illegal marijuana at a hidden farm in the Los Padres National Forest. The trigger for the fire was a propane-fed outdoor camp stove.
How was this fire caused by our policy of drug prohibition? Well, obviously, fires like this do not occur where companies like Phillip Morris or Ligget and Myers are growing tobacco. First of all, these companies aren’t forced to grow their crops in remote and desolate regions, and secondly, they are much more careful in what they do, because if by chance they do start a fire, they are held responsible for the damage.
On the contrary, illegal growers are forced out into remote areas, and usually onto public lands, because if their operations are discovered, the land can’t be forfeited. In fact, this particular camp is in a steep, overgrown canyon more than a mile from the nearest road. The workers unlawfully diverted streams to use for irrigation, polluted the ground with stacks of propane tanks and melted irrigation tubing, empty fertilizer canisters and large mounds of trash. Of course, even if there hadn’t been a fire, the workers never would have removed any of these items because, being an illegal operation, they are not held responsible for any of the damage they cause.
Once authorities located the camp, they found about 30,000 top-grade marijuana plants that ranged from two to six feet in height.
The workers had gone to the trouble of building terraces for the marijuana plants and installing a drip irrigation system, and probably would have been camping in the area for about four to five months to allow the plants to mature enough for harvesting. But with a street value in the millions of dollars for the marijuana, all of their efforts and inconveniences would have been well compensated.
Authorities also reported that so far this year, they have seized about 225,000 marijuana plants from six different sites in the area, including this one, with a street price of about $675 million.
They further stated that all of the workers they had found so far had been illegal immigrants from Mexico, but that really is a false issue. Why? Because, as any economist will tell you, if the demand for marijuana is here, and there is that much money to be made, someone will supply it. And if it is not illegal Mexican immigrants, it will be people like your next-door neighbor.
Marijuana has been illegal in this country since 1933, yet it is still fully available to anyone who wants it. And that includes our children, who report that it is easier for them to get marijuana than it is alcohol. And if you don’t believe me, ask them yourself.
Today, no one offers a free sample of Jim Beam bourbon or Budweiser beer on a high school campus. Why? Because if they were to get even close to doing that, they would be in a world of trouble. But illegal dealers offer free samples of marijuana and other illicit drugs to students on their campuses every day. Why does this happen? Because, just like with the La Brea fire situation, as soon as we prohibit a substance, we give up all of our ability to regulate or control it. That means that we concede all of the controls about quality, age restrictions, places of sale, price and everything else to the illegal dealers. And they are the ones who want to glamorize the use of all of these drugs and get our children hooked — so they can make more money off them. That is really stupid of us.
There is now pending in Sacramento Assembly Bill 390, which is being sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano from San Francisco. This measure would treat marijuana like alcohol in California, with the proviso that it would only go into effect 30 days after the federal law would be changed to allow this to occur legally. AB 390 would regulate and control the sale of marijuana for adults — and then tax it! That act alone would, according to the chair of the State Board of Equalization, bring in additional tax revenue to California of about $1.3 billion each year.
Today, marijuana is already the largest cash crop in the state, the seizures of those 225,000 marijuana plants this year notwithstanding, so this measure certainly will not make it more available than it is now.
But passing AB 390 will raise additional revenue for the state, while at the same time reducing the gross revenues of Mexican drug cartels by taking away their market.
And it will also reduce violence and corruption in this country, and, most importantly, make marijuana less available for children than it is today.
So what’s not to like? Accordingly, please call anyone you can vote for in Sacramento and urge them to vote for AB 390. This situation is far too dangerous to leave up to illegal growers and sellers.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Hunters decimating shark population - by Judge Jim Gray
Recently, one of my sons loaned me a video titled “Sharkwater,” which was created by Canadian filmmaker Rob Stewart. The thesis of the film is that unchecked hunting is decimating the world’s population of most types of sharks. Regretfully, based upon my inquiries, he appears to be right.
Sharks are one of the most vilified and misunderstood creatures on earth. Much of this is probably traced to Steven Spielberg’s movie “Jaws,” which left the public with a mindset that sharks are aggressive and always on the prowl for humans. They may be in a frenzy if there is blood in the water, but otherwise, all indications are that this is simply not true.
It is true that sharks are the top predator in the oceans of the world. But the average number of human deaths caused by shark attacks is only about 10 per year — worldwide. And very likely, all of those are caused by the sharks confusing a human swimmer or surfer for a sea lion, or some of its other natural prey.
And, of course, when there is a shark attack almost anywhere, that is a sensational story that invariably makes the news.
On the other hand, it is estimated that humans are now killing sharks at the rate of about 38 million per year. And since a female shark averages only about 1.2 pups every other year, and it takes about nine years for a shark to mature in the first place, sharks reproduce quite slowly. This means that their ranks are being seriously depleted.
Does it matter? Although the sharks’ involvement in nature’s balance is more complicated and involved than I am able to discuss, my information shows me that it makes a sizable difference because sharks keep the population of other species in check. So if we have fewer sharks, then there will be more sea lions, that will in turn be eating larger amounts of other fish, and more otters that will be eating larger amounts of clams, etc. So man’s interference with the way of nature can have huge repercussions.
But since most shark meat is not particularly desirable, why are hunters killing them? The answer is in the sharks’ fins. Shark fin soup has long been considered a delicacy in Eastern Asia that symbolizes wealth and prestige, so, even though it has almost no taste, it is often served at weddings and other celebratory banquets. In addition, it is also considered to have medical benefits that can nourish the blood, invigorate the kidneys and lungs, improve digestion and even be an energy supplement.
So even though a bowl can retail for anywhere between $10 and $100, with the rise of the middle class in Eastern Asia in the last 15 years, the demand for shark fin soup has skyrocketed.
As a result, dried shark fin today can fetch a retail price of $300 per pound or more. That makes shark fin, pound for pound, the most lucrative substance taken from the sea, and turns this into a billion-dollar-per-year business. But because the meat is not particularly edible or valuable enough to transport, many hunters simply engage in the practice of “finning.” This means that they capture a shark, cut off and keep all of its fins, and simply throw the rest of the body back into the ocean.
Then, since they can no longer swim, the sharks sink to the bottom and drown or are eaten by other fish.
This problem is similar to the one in Africa in which poachers kill elephants only for their ivory tusks. And both of these are examples of what can happen when no one has any property rights to a particular resource, so one person will attempt to plunder as much as he can before someone else does.
Stewart’s film documents some illegal poachers engaged in the practice of finning off Cocos Island, which is a national park in Costa Rica, but the practice is also heavy in many other places as well, such as Indonesia and Western Australia. And since most of the finning occurs in international waters, the practice is as unmanaged and unmonitored as it is widespread. It is true that sharks are also killed by mistake in nets or baited hooks set out for other fish, but the major reason for the huge killing of sharks still appears to be finning.
So what can be done about this situation? The most effective results so far have come from the education of the public. In areas like Thailand and Singapore, in which advertising has increased public awareness of this problem, demand for shark fins has decreased by about 25%.
And when environmental groups made the decision-makers at Disneyland Hong Kong aware of what was going on, shark fin soup was taken off its menu. Stewart is even taking his film for screenings in China, which is one of the countries most involved in consuming shark fins, with the hope that he can influence public opinion there as well.
But each of us can also have an impact upon this problem by recommending shark fins not be served for any meal we are involved with, and encouraging our friends and family to do the same. So please spread the word.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sharks are one of the most vilified and misunderstood creatures on earth. Much of this is probably traced to Steven Spielberg’s movie “Jaws,” which left the public with a mindset that sharks are aggressive and always on the prowl for humans. They may be in a frenzy if there is blood in the water, but otherwise, all indications are that this is simply not true.
It is true that sharks are the top predator in the oceans of the world. But the average number of human deaths caused by shark attacks is only about 10 per year — worldwide. And very likely, all of those are caused by the sharks confusing a human swimmer or surfer for a sea lion, or some of its other natural prey.
And, of course, when there is a shark attack almost anywhere, that is a sensational story that invariably makes the news.
On the other hand, it is estimated that humans are now killing sharks at the rate of about 38 million per year. And since a female shark averages only about 1.2 pups every other year, and it takes about nine years for a shark to mature in the first place, sharks reproduce quite slowly. This means that their ranks are being seriously depleted.
Does it matter? Although the sharks’ involvement in nature’s balance is more complicated and involved than I am able to discuss, my information shows me that it makes a sizable difference because sharks keep the population of other species in check. So if we have fewer sharks, then there will be more sea lions, that will in turn be eating larger amounts of other fish, and more otters that will be eating larger amounts of clams, etc. So man’s interference with the way of nature can have huge repercussions.
But since most shark meat is not particularly desirable, why are hunters killing them? The answer is in the sharks’ fins. Shark fin soup has long been considered a delicacy in Eastern Asia that symbolizes wealth and prestige, so, even though it has almost no taste, it is often served at weddings and other celebratory banquets. In addition, it is also considered to have medical benefits that can nourish the blood, invigorate the kidneys and lungs, improve digestion and even be an energy supplement.
So even though a bowl can retail for anywhere between $10 and $100, with the rise of the middle class in Eastern Asia in the last 15 years, the demand for shark fin soup has skyrocketed.
As a result, dried shark fin today can fetch a retail price of $300 per pound or more. That makes shark fin, pound for pound, the most lucrative substance taken from the sea, and turns this into a billion-dollar-per-year business. But because the meat is not particularly edible or valuable enough to transport, many hunters simply engage in the practice of “finning.” This means that they capture a shark, cut off and keep all of its fins, and simply throw the rest of the body back into the ocean.
Then, since they can no longer swim, the sharks sink to the bottom and drown or are eaten by other fish.
This problem is similar to the one in Africa in which poachers kill elephants only for their ivory tusks. And both of these are examples of what can happen when no one has any property rights to a particular resource, so one person will attempt to plunder as much as he can before someone else does.
Stewart’s film documents some illegal poachers engaged in the practice of finning off Cocos Island, which is a national park in Costa Rica, but the practice is also heavy in many other places as well, such as Indonesia and Western Australia. And since most of the finning occurs in international waters, the practice is as unmanaged and unmonitored as it is widespread. It is true that sharks are also killed by mistake in nets or baited hooks set out for other fish, but the major reason for the huge killing of sharks still appears to be finning.
So what can be done about this situation? The most effective results so far have come from the education of the public. In areas like Thailand and Singapore, in which advertising has increased public awareness of this problem, demand for shark fins has decreased by about 25%.
And when environmental groups made the decision-makers at Disneyland Hong Kong aware of what was going on, shark fin soup was taken off its menu. Stewart is even taking his film for screenings in China, which is one of the countries most involved in consuming shark fins, with the hope that he can influence public opinion there as well.
But each of us can also have an impact upon this problem by recommending shark fins not be served for any meal we are involved with, and encouraging our friends and family to do the same. So please spread the word.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
How does an airplane fly? Think about it - By Judge Jim Gray
As my wife and I in a few days are going to get onto an airplane and take off for a vacation, I again started wondering how an airplane actually flies.
To me it seems like an unnatural thing for a long and heavy canister with wings to be able to get off the ground and fly through the air. So I did a little research on the subject.
The three major factors of airplane flight are the engines that produce thrust, the wings that produce lift, and the flaps, elevators, and rudders that are used to control the direction in which the aircraft travels. All of those are probably self-evident, except for the concept of lift.
Many flat surfaces like a piece of plywood, a Frisbee, or even a flat stone, will glide for short distances on a fluid like air or water, and will even rise or dive, depending upon the wind and their angle of attack. But they will not produce lift. For that to occur, the objects must have a different configuration.
The next time you are around an airplane, or helicopter either for that matter, look at how the wings and rotors are formed. Their bottoms are basically flat, and go straight to the back, but their top surfaces are curved. This design forces the air on the top of the wing or rotor to travel farther than the air on the bottom during the same amount of time to reach the same spot at the back.
This is important because when the speed of a fluid increases, the pressure exerted by that fluid on the surface of a nearby object actually decreases. In our case, that means that there is more pressure pushing up from the bottom of the wing or rotor than there is pressure on the top pushing down. Therefore, assuming all other factors are equal, when pushed through the air the wings and rotors have a tendency to rise, or to produce lift.
This is Bernoulli’s Principle. Daniel Bernoulli was a Dutch/Swiss mathematician who lived from 1700 to 1782, and he discovered that as the speed of a moving fluid increases, the pressure exerted by that fluid decreases. And this principle holds true as long as the fluids flow smoothly and consistently, and are of the same density.
Furthermore, the more dense the air is with an airplane, the more lift will be generated. That means that the wings will generate more lift in cold weather than warm, because cold air is denser, and the wings will also generate more lift at sea level than at higher altitudes for the same reason.
As I understand it, this can be analogized to a situation in which people would throw large numbers of golf balls in many different directions inside a small container. The balls would spend a lot of energy bouncing into each other and onto the walls of the container, and that would generate higher amounts of pressure on those inner walls. But if the balls were all thrown in the same direction, the inner pressure would be reduced because the balls would not be hitting the walls or each other, and the faster they go, the less they would be inclined to hit anything.
So what about stunt pilots that fly their planes upside down? Why don’t the wings then “lift” the airplane toward the ground? The answer is that the pilots counteract the downward thrust from the wings by over-adjusting the elevators on the back wings of the plane, which changes the angle of attack by keeping the front of the plane higher than the back.
Another application of Bernoulli’s Principle explains why windows in houses tend to explode outward instead of implode inward during a hurricane. The reason is that since the winds are going so fast outside the house, there is less pressure outside the house than inside. That is why people who are knowledgeable about surviving hurricanes suggest that you open all of the windows in your house when one occurs.
I don’t know about you, but I think it is fun to understand the various phenomena that explain the everyday things that are all around us (For example, how does a flush toilet work?). Think about it; it’s interesting.
I also found it interesting to learn that eastbound aircraft are required to fly at an odd number of thousands of feet, and westbound aircraft at an even number. So, for example, eastbound aircraft will fly at 31,000 feet, and westbound will fly at 30,000. Obviously that regulation is meant to decrease the chances of head-on collisions.
Accordingly, as my wife and I get onto our airplane, we can be comfortable not only that Mr. Bernoulli’s Principle will still be fully engaged, but so will many other features that will increase our chances of a safe flight. In fact, studies show that airplane travel is about 20 times safer than automobile travel, as computed in deaths per passenger mile. (You probably know that the even-numbered interstate highways in our country generally go east and west, and the odd numbered go north and south. But that is just for convenience, and regretfully doesn’t have any effect on head-on collisions.)
So the odds are good that we will return safely from our travels, and you can look forward to many more installments of this column in the coming months. Happy summer travels to us all!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
To me it seems like an unnatural thing for a long and heavy canister with wings to be able to get off the ground and fly through the air. So I did a little research on the subject.
The three major factors of airplane flight are the engines that produce thrust, the wings that produce lift, and the flaps, elevators, and rudders that are used to control the direction in which the aircraft travels. All of those are probably self-evident, except for the concept of lift.
Many flat surfaces like a piece of plywood, a Frisbee, or even a flat stone, will glide for short distances on a fluid like air or water, and will even rise or dive, depending upon the wind and their angle of attack. But they will not produce lift. For that to occur, the objects must have a different configuration.
The next time you are around an airplane, or helicopter either for that matter, look at how the wings and rotors are formed. Their bottoms are basically flat, and go straight to the back, but their top surfaces are curved. This design forces the air on the top of the wing or rotor to travel farther than the air on the bottom during the same amount of time to reach the same spot at the back.
This is important because when the speed of a fluid increases, the pressure exerted by that fluid on the surface of a nearby object actually decreases. In our case, that means that there is more pressure pushing up from the bottom of the wing or rotor than there is pressure on the top pushing down. Therefore, assuming all other factors are equal, when pushed through the air the wings and rotors have a tendency to rise, or to produce lift.
This is Bernoulli’s Principle. Daniel Bernoulli was a Dutch/Swiss mathematician who lived from 1700 to 1782, and he discovered that as the speed of a moving fluid increases, the pressure exerted by that fluid decreases. And this principle holds true as long as the fluids flow smoothly and consistently, and are of the same density.
Furthermore, the more dense the air is with an airplane, the more lift will be generated. That means that the wings will generate more lift in cold weather than warm, because cold air is denser, and the wings will also generate more lift at sea level than at higher altitudes for the same reason.
As I understand it, this can be analogized to a situation in which people would throw large numbers of golf balls in many different directions inside a small container. The balls would spend a lot of energy bouncing into each other and onto the walls of the container, and that would generate higher amounts of pressure on those inner walls. But if the balls were all thrown in the same direction, the inner pressure would be reduced because the balls would not be hitting the walls or each other, and the faster they go, the less they would be inclined to hit anything.
So what about stunt pilots that fly their planes upside down? Why don’t the wings then “lift” the airplane toward the ground? The answer is that the pilots counteract the downward thrust from the wings by over-adjusting the elevators on the back wings of the plane, which changes the angle of attack by keeping the front of the plane higher than the back.
Another application of Bernoulli’s Principle explains why windows in houses tend to explode outward instead of implode inward during a hurricane. The reason is that since the winds are going so fast outside the house, there is less pressure outside the house than inside. That is why people who are knowledgeable about surviving hurricanes suggest that you open all of the windows in your house when one occurs.
I don’t know about you, but I think it is fun to understand the various phenomena that explain the everyday things that are all around us (For example, how does a flush toilet work?). Think about it; it’s interesting.
I also found it interesting to learn that eastbound aircraft are required to fly at an odd number of thousands of feet, and westbound aircraft at an even number. So, for example, eastbound aircraft will fly at 31,000 feet, and westbound will fly at 30,000. Obviously that regulation is meant to decrease the chances of head-on collisions.
Accordingly, as my wife and I get onto our airplane, we can be comfortable not only that Mr. Bernoulli’s Principle will still be fully engaged, but so will many other features that will increase our chances of a safe flight. In fact, studies show that airplane travel is about 20 times safer than automobile travel, as computed in deaths per passenger mile. (You probably know that the even-numbered interstate highways in our country generally go east and west, and the odd numbered go north and south. But that is just for convenience, and regretfully doesn’t have any effect on head-on collisions.)
So the odds are good that we will return safely from our travels, and you can look forward to many more installments of this column in the coming months. Happy summer travels to us all!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, August 17, 2009
Keep government out of the marketplace. by Judge Jim Gray
Ihave been pondering the answer to the following two questions for several years: First, what actually is the basic liberal philosophy? See if you agree with my answer. In general, the liberal philosophy is that “Government can best address — if not cure — the ills of the world by spending money.” (Of course, it is our money that the government is spending.)
And second, what is the basic conservative philosophy? See if you agree with my answer. In general, the conservative philosophy is that “We should have as small and non-intrusive a government as possible, which is basically one that will provide us with things like a military and police force, foreign policy, justice system, national monetary system, some oversight and regulating of the marketplace, and a few other nationally oriented things like that.” One of the rationales for that philosophy is that individual people are in a better position to make good decisions about how to spend their money than the government is.
Unfortunately, the recent administration of President George W. Bush abandoned that conservative philosophy when it failed to veto huge congressional spending, and even sponsored much of it. For as long as I can remember, conservatives have been chastising liberals as people who would “tax and spend.” But the Bush administration took that one big step further with policies that would “tax, borrow and spend.” And that is a big reason why our country is in such fiscal trouble today. Therefore, as a practical matter, the Libertarians are the only political group that has held true to the basic conservative economic philosophy.
So now one of the policies that the Obama administration and Congress are pursuing is the so-called “Cash for Clunkers” program. As you know, this program contributes $3,500 to $4,500 to people who trade in their old “clunker” automobile for the purchase of a new one. And the program has been so “successful” that it has gone through the first $1 billion of tax money, so Congress has now added another $2 billion to it.
Is this a good idea? If it is and it is actually working, maybe we should expand it to provide a subsidy for everything! (Hopefully, everyone will agree that this suggestion is preposterous.) I do agree that the program is taking older, more polluting and less fuel-efficient cars off the roads, and that, in a vacuum, is a positive development. But think of what this government interference in the marketplace is actually doing.
One thing is that it is taking people who are probably at the lower end of the economic ladder and putting them into more debt during these hard economic times. And the program is also encouraging (bribing?) people to purchase many new foreign cars, like Hondas, Toyotas, Hyundais and Kias. This results in our tax money being spent to help the economies of places like Japan and Korea. (Yes, I understand that some of the cars are assembled in the United States, but the underlying fact remains.) And even to the extent that they buy cars manufactured in our country, this comes on the heels of the government having paid billions of tax dollars in bailout money to General Motors and Chrysler Corporation.
As importantly, we must understand that everything is related, which is to say that things do not exist in a vacuum. So by encouraging people to purchase new cars, we are discouraging them from spending money on other things like movie tickets, haircuts and refrigerators. (Corporate welfare and other government subsidies bring on the same results.)
Indeed, from an environmental and economic perspective, wouldn’t society be benefited just as much or even more by encouraging people to purchase fuel-efficient refrigerators, air conditioners, dishwashers or toasters? Why just cars? And in many cases, wouldn’t it help people and the economy more by having the money spent on health insurance, trips to Yellowstone or a child’s education? Or why not encourage people to increase their savings, which could in turn be used as a basis for bank loans for capital improvements and business expansion?
Of course, the automobile industry lobbied strongly for the initiation and continuation of the clunkers program, but that just reinforces the old saying that if you are going to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.
So when it comes down to it, the conservative philosophy works more effectively for the benefit of the individual, as well as for society in general. That means that individuals really are in a much better position than government to decide how most effectively to use their money. And this in turn leads to the conclusion that government can best assist our people, as well as our economy, by getting out of the marketplace!
But there is something even more disturbing in what is happening today that must be faced and discussed. None of the major empires I can think of throughout history were conquered from without. Instead, they fell apart from within. Examples are the Roman, Ottoman and British empires. And all of this deterioration was facilitated by government overspending. Those governments extended their domestic and military spending beyond that which they could afford, and also increased taxes beyond the point that the taxpayers were willing or even able to pay. And it was their undoing.
Are we at that point yet? I do not have the answer to that question, but we should all be aware of the problem. Of course, even with all of this government borrowing of money, my generation will still be fine. But it will be our children and grandchildren’s generations that will be looked upon to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility. Shame on us all!
The fundamental truth is that when taxes get too high, people will move their resources somewhere else — out of the state or even out of the country. (Think of offshore banking in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere.) And when bureaucratic interference, costs and taxes pass a certain threshold, people will either move their businesses elsewhere, or simply be forced to close them down. Therefore, the “outsourcing” of jobs is only one of the logical or even economically mandated results of this situation.
So what can we do to keep from weakening our great country? As I have said numbers of times in this column, it is our government, and if government is not working, we have no one to blame but ourselves. That means that, if only for the sake of our children and grandchildren, we had better get more active and require our government to be more fiscally responsible. And the best place to start is to get it out of the marketplace.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
And second, what is the basic conservative philosophy? See if you agree with my answer. In general, the conservative philosophy is that “We should have as small and non-intrusive a government as possible, which is basically one that will provide us with things like a military and police force, foreign policy, justice system, national monetary system, some oversight and regulating of the marketplace, and a few other nationally oriented things like that.” One of the rationales for that philosophy is that individual people are in a better position to make good decisions about how to spend their money than the government is.
Unfortunately, the recent administration of President George W. Bush abandoned that conservative philosophy when it failed to veto huge congressional spending, and even sponsored much of it. For as long as I can remember, conservatives have been chastising liberals as people who would “tax and spend.” But the Bush administration took that one big step further with policies that would “tax, borrow and spend.” And that is a big reason why our country is in such fiscal trouble today. Therefore, as a practical matter, the Libertarians are the only political group that has held true to the basic conservative economic philosophy.
So now one of the policies that the Obama administration and Congress are pursuing is the so-called “Cash for Clunkers” program. As you know, this program contributes $3,500 to $4,500 to people who trade in their old “clunker” automobile for the purchase of a new one. And the program has been so “successful” that it has gone through the first $1 billion of tax money, so Congress has now added another $2 billion to it.
Is this a good idea? If it is and it is actually working, maybe we should expand it to provide a subsidy for everything! (Hopefully, everyone will agree that this suggestion is preposterous.) I do agree that the program is taking older, more polluting and less fuel-efficient cars off the roads, and that, in a vacuum, is a positive development. But think of what this government interference in the marketplace is actually doing.
One thing is that it is taking people who are probably at the lower end of the economic ladder and putting them into more debt during these hard economic times. And the program is also encouraging (bribing?) people to purchase many new foreign cars, like Hondas, Toyotas, Hyundais and Kias. This results in our tax money being spent to help the economies of places like Japan and Korea. (Yes, I understand that some of the cars are assembled in the United States, but the underlying fact remains.) And even to the extent that they buy cars manufactured in our country, this comes on the heels of the government having paid billions of tax dollars in bailout money to General Motors and Chrysler Corporation.
As importantly, we must understand that everything is related, which is to say that things do not exist in a vacuum. So by encouraging people to purchase new cars, we are discouraging them from spending money on other things like movie tickets, haircuts and refrigerators. (Corporate welfare and other government subsidies bring on the same results.)
Indeed, from an environmental and economic perspective, wouldn’t society be benefited just as much or even more by encouraging people to purchase fuel-efficient refrigerators, air conditioners, dishwashers or toasters? Why just cars? And in many cases, wouldn’t it help people and the economy more by having the money spent on health insurance, trips to Yellowstone or a child’s education? Or why not encourage people to increase their savings, which could in turn be used as a basis for bank loans for capital improvements and business expansion?
Of course, the automobile industry lobbied strongly for the initiation and continuation of the clunkers program, but that just reinforces the old saying that if you are going to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.
So when it comes down to it, the conservative philosophy works more effectively for the benefit of the individual, as well as for society in general. That means that individuals really are in a much better position than government to decide how most effectively to use their money. And this in turn leads to the conclusion that government can best assist our people, as well as our economy, by getting out of the marketplace!
But there is something even more disturbing in what is happening today that must be faced and discussed. None of the major empires I can think of throughout history were conquered from without. Instead, they fell apart from within. Examples are the Roman, Ottoman and British empires. And all of this deterioration was facilitated by government overspending. Those governments extended their domestic and military spending beyond that which they could afford, and also increased taxes beyond the point that the taxpayers were willing or even able to pay. And it was their undoing.
Are we at that point yet? I do not have the answer to that question, but we should all be aware of the problem. Of course, even with all of this government borrowing of money, my generation will still be fine. But it will be our children and grandchildren’s generations that will be looked upon to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility. Shame on us all!
The fundamental truth is that when taxes get too high, people will move their resources somewhere else — out of the state or even out of the country. (Think of offshore banking in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere.) And when bureaucratic interference, costs and taxes pass a certain threshold, people will either move their businesses elsewhere, or simply be forced to close them down. Therefore, the “outsourcing” of jobs is only one of the logical or even economically mandated results of this situation.
So what can we do to keep from weakening our great country? As I have said numbers of times in this column, it is our government, and if government is not working, we have no one to blame but ourselves. That means that, if only for the sake of our children and grandchildren, we had better get more active and require our government to be more fiscally responsible. And the best place to start is to get it out of the marketplace.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, August 10, 2009
Ways to resolve our everyday disputes - by Judge Jim Gray
Looking back over my career as a trial court judge, I believe that the thing that brought me the most gratification was helping people to resolve their disputes voluntarily. In fact, in my current work as a private mediator I am still able to do that, so the gratification continues.
But upon reflection, many of the things that I do professionally to facilitate voluntary resolutions of disputes could also be utilized by everyone to resolve their daily disputes. So I thought I would use today’s column to pass along some of the tips that I have learned throughout the years, and I recommend you consider and employ them, and even discuss them with your children and grandchildren to help train them to be peacemakers.
One tool to use at the beginning of settlement discussions is to anticipate the moments in which people on one side or the other may get emotional or upset by asking questions like: “How should we handle it when. . . ?” Many times, settlement discussions are frustrated by these situations. But if you have anticipated them by asking this question, people will see the emotions for what they are, and be able to get through them.
Probably the most important tool in dispute resolution is listening actively. In fact it should not be considered to be an accident that the word “listen” has the same exact letters in it as the word “silent.” Not only will you receive important and often subtle information simply by listening to people as they set forth their grievances, you will also gain their confidence by showing that you are willing to consider their feelings and positions. So understand that there is a huge difference between the act of listening, and the act of simply waiting to talk.
In addition, sometimes people simply need to vent before any serious discussions can begin. So take the time to listen to them, and interrupt only with brief, clarifying questions. This will show them that you are listening and interested, but it will not interfere with the flow of their thoughts.
It is also important to focus upon the fact that the act of listening is not at all the same thing as agreeing. But seldom can disputes be resolved by people who do not understand the position of each side. Then once the person has finished, it can often be helpful to summarize in your own words what that person has said. This will help to put things into perspective, and also show everyone involved that you understand what the issues are.
At this point you can effectively bring up problem areas with each side’s positions by asking neutral but realistic questions. For example, if one person says that she loves to play Beethoven really loudly in her apartment because it is wonderful music that everyone should enjoy, and it really helps to calm her down, ask her how she would feel and react if her neighbor felt the same way, but instead played Bon Jovi? Or ask if she would be able to calm down just as successfully if she listened to her music with earphones. Questions like that are neutral, but bring up realistic problems and possible resolutions.
Once the discussions begin, never use dismissive or disparaging words about any of the participants or their positions, and do not allow anyone else to do so either. Some examples of these are: “Oh, I will just pay ‘nuisance value’ to settle the case,” or one person saying that someone on the other side is a fraud or a thief, or even calls the other party a “jerk,” “dirtbag” or “slimeball,” etc. If that happens, immediately interrupt and say that such words are counterproductive, off limits and not allowed. And be firm about it, because almost nothing will poison a settlement discussion like comments of this kind.
In more complicated disputes it is frequently helpful to ask each side to brainstorm and come up with one or more proposals that take each side’s interests into account. By engaging them in this process, it frequently brings the parties more to a realistic understanding of the problems, and also brings them closer together.
Several years ago I helped to settle what was probably the first Catholic priest child sexual molestation case in the country by not allowing anyone to discuss money at all. Instead, I asked the plaintiff and his attorneys, who were all Catholics, to adjourn to my jury room and prepare a list of institutional changes that they would suggest be adopted by both the Los Angeles and Orange counties dioceses that would seriously reduce the chances that this scurrilous alleged conduct would ever happen again. The plaintiff and his attorneys did so, and in about an hour emerged with a list of 10 suggestions.
Then I requested the church representatives and their attorneys to go into the jury room and consider and respond to those suggestions. When they emerged in about another hour, not only did they agree to each of the 10 suggestions, they actually added an additional one of their own.
At that point, I suggested a dollar figure to settle the case that was quite a bit less than plaintiff had requested, but more than the church had said it was willing to pay. Soon each side agreed to that number, and the case was settled. This approach enlisted each side to help address the fundamental problem, and helped to give them a vested interest in being a part of its resolution. The plaintiff realized that he could never institute these changes by going to trial, only by settling the case. And the church recognized that it could turn an enormously negative situation into something more positive. In addition, each side also received the gratification of knowing that this positive result was facilitated by their own suggestions.
A big secret tool in dispute resolution is to keep the parties slowly moving closer toward each other. And this progress can be about anything. In the example above, if the complaining neighbors simply state that they also enjoy Beethoven, that can disclose a common bond between them. And the more things people see that they have in common, the more likely they are to agree to a workable resolution of their disputes.
Finally, in my mediation efforts I often tell the parties that I am really in the “dissatisfaction distribution business,” and that is true. You will notice that in this discussion I have only used the word “resolution,” and not the word “solution.”
The reason is that most of the time the only things that have actual solutions are mathematical equations; human problems only have resolutions.
So when you are attempting to work with people and deal with their disputes, make sure they understand that probably nothing will make the situation perfect.
We only can do the best we can in an imperfect world.
But being a peacemaker is a skill that can be practiced and improved. And once it is employed successfully, it can bring to you about as perfect a feeling as you will ever enjoy.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
But upon reflection, many of the things that I do professionally to facilitate voluntary resolutions of disputes could also be utilized by everyone to resolve their daily disputes. So I thought I would use today’s column to pass along some of the tips that I have learned throughout the years, and I recommend you consider and employ them, and even discuss them with your children and grandchildren to help train them to be peacemakers.
One tool to use at the beginning of settlement discussions is to anticipate the moments in which people on one side or the other may get emotional or upset by asking questions like: “How should we handle it when. . . ?” Many times, settlement discussions are frustrated by these situations. But if you have anticipated them by asking this question, people will see the emotions for what they are, and be able to get through them.
Probably the most important tool in dispute resolution is listening actively. In fact it should not be considered to be an accident that the word “listen” has the same exact letters in it as the word “silent.” Not only will you receive important and often subtle information simply by listening to people as they set forth their grievances, you will also gain their confidence by showing that you are willing to consider their feelings and positions. So understand that there is a huge difference between the act of listening, and the act of simply waiting to talk.
In addition, sometimes people simply need to vent before any serious discussions can begin. So take the time to listen to them, and interrupt only with brief, clarifying questions. This will show them that you are listening and interested, but it will not interfere with the flow of their thoughts.
It is also important to focus upon the fact that the act of listening is not at all the same thing as agreeing. But seldom can disputes be resolved by people who do not understand the position of each side. Then once the person has finished, it can often be helpful to summarize in your own words what that person has said. This will help to put things into perspective, and also show everyone involved that you understand what the issues are.
At this point you can effectively bring up problem areas with each side’s positions by asking neutral but realistic questions. For example, if one person says that she loves to play Beethoven really loudly in her apartment because it is wonderful music that everyone should enjoy, and it really helps to calm her down, ask her how she would feel and react if her neighbor felt the same way, but instead played Bon Jovi? Or ask if she would be able to calm down just as successfully if she listened to her music with earphones. Questions like that are neutral, but bring up realistic problems and possible resolutions.
Once the discussions begin, never use dismissive or disparaging words about any of the participants or their positions, and do not allow anyone else to do so either. Some examples of these are: “Oh, I will just pay ‘nuisance value’ to settle the case,” or one person saying that someone on the other side is a fraud or a thief, or even calls the other party a “jerk,” “dirtbag” or “slimeball,” etc. If that happens, immediately interrupt and say that such words are counterproductive, off limits and not allowed. And be firm about it, because almost nothing will poison a settlement discussion like comments of this kind.
In more complicated disputes it is frequently helpful to ask each side to brainstorm and come up with one or more proposals that take each side’s interests into account. By engaging them in this process, it frequently brings the parties more to a realistic understanding of the problems, and also brings them closer together.
Several years ago I helped to settle what was probably the first Catholic priest child sexual molestation case in the country by not allowing anyone to discuss money at all. Instead, I asked the plaintiff and his attorneys, who were all Catholics, to adjourn to my jury room and prepare a list of institutional changes that they would suggest be adopted by both the Los Angeles and Orange counties dioceses that would seriously reduce the chances that this scurrilous alleged conduct would ever happen again. The plaintiff and his attorneys did so, and in about an hour emerged with a list of 10 suggestions.
Then I requested the church representatives and their attorneys to go into the jury room and consider and respond to those suggestions. When they emerged in about another hour, not only did they agree to each of the 10 suggestions, they actually added an additional one of their own.
At that point, I suggested a dollar figure to settle the case that was quite a bit less than plaintiff had requested, but more than the church had said it was willing to pay. Soon each side agreed to that number, and the case was settled. This approach enlisted each side to help address the fundamental problem, and helped to give them a vested interest in being a part of its resolution. The plaintiff realized that he could never institute these changes by going to trial, only by settling the case. And the church recognized that it could turn an enormously negative situation into something more positive. In addition, each side also received the gratification of knowing that this positive result was facilitated by their own suggestions.
A big secret tool in dispute resolution is to keep the parties slowly moving closer toward each other. And this progress can be about anything. In the example above, if the complaining neighbors simply state that they also enjoy Beethoven, that can disclose a common bond between them. And the more things people see that they have in common, the more likely they are to agree to a workable resolution of their disputes.
Finally, in my mediation efforts I often tell the parties that I am really in the “dissatisfaction distribution business,” and that is true. You will notice that in this discussion I have only used the word “resolution,” and not the word “solution.”
The reason is that most of the time the only things that have actual solutions are mathematical equations; human problems only have resolutions.
So when you are attempting to work with people and deal with their disputes, make sure they understand that probably nothing will make the situation perfect.
We only can do the best we can in an imperfect world.
But being a peacemaker is a skill that can be practiced and improved. And once it is employed successfully, it can bring to you about as perfect a feeling as you will ever enjoy.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Friday, August 7, 2009
Have a dose of healthy skepticism - by Judge Jim Gray
When my children were between 5 and 8 years old, we happened to be driving south on the San Diego Freeway below El Toro when I saw a strawberry field that was covered in plastic sheeting and said, “Look kids, that’s where they grow plastic.” All three responded with words like “Really, Daddy, really?” I just kept quiet. And then, about 20 miles later, one of my sons said something like “Oh come on, that’s not true.”
I view that experience as one of the important lessons I have provided to my children, which is to question information, regardless of the source. Now, obviously, one cannot question everything at once, or there is no point of reference. But children should be taught to think about whatever they are told, no matter how much authority the provider of the information has.
So this is my 96th column in this Daily Pilot series. Included in prior columns are suggestions about how to address our nation’s drug policy, health care, illegal immigration, foreign policy about Cuba, educational system, justice system and more. I have recommended we as a country convert to the metric system and utilize transcendental meditation in our schools and prisons, and I have provided you with lots of facts and figures. Have you believed what I have said? Have you believed my statistics? I am a trial court judge who retired after 25 years on the bench. That is a responsible position, and I at least try to be objective. Do you simply accept what I tell you?
You shouldn’t. Not with me, and not with anybody else. I am not encouraging cynicism, just skepticism. Just because something is in writing does not mean it is true. Just because someone who has a responsible position in government, the media, the church or an impressive charitable foundation says something does not mean that it should be accepted without us applying our own sense of reason.
Everyone has biases, including judges. Judges try to recognize and correct for them, but that is not always possible. And people also have motives, with some of them being good, and some not. Why would someone create a computer virus that would cause lots of harm and needless expenditures to the rest of us? Who knows? People do things, and sometimes they are harmful. Why do some people commit arson by lighting mountains on fire? Some people are sick. But other people in responsible positions occasionally act in a similar fashion for lots of different reasons. We have the blessings of being in a mostly free society that allows us to never accept anyone’s information and conclusions by rote without our own verification. Just like my children with the field of plastic.
Is global warming actually happening? If so, is it related to actions by mankind? The CATO Institute in a recent advertisement lists about 100 scientists and educators from all around the world saying that the cause and effect relationship is anything but clear. So do some people have other motives underlying their attempts for developed nations to cut back on carbon emissions? Are there people in our government and elsewhere who have other motives for perpetuating the War on Drugs, our present system of government schools, or converting our private healthcare system into one that is fundamentally controlled by the federal government? It would not be hard to replace our failed immigration system with one that works. Is there a reason why our elected representatives in Congress only talk about changing it, but don’t actually do anything about it?
I don’t particularly have any more information than you do on these questions, although I do spend time thinking about and researching them. But honest skepticism should always be employed. Remember, William Randolph Hearst really did have some unstated vested interests when he printed numbers of untrue or greatly exaggerated stories in his newspaper chain about the supposed harms of marijuana. There also was a movie released in 1936 titled “Reefer Madness” that purported to show innocent high school students being lured to try marijuana and soon thereafter committing murder, rape and suicide as they descended into madness. No such thing has ever been known to have happened, but it was “on the screen,” so people believed it and acted upon it. Instead, they should have been skeptical.
So we should at least get a second opinion and maybe even a third, and think about every question, before we accept something important as true. As a judge, I was called upon frequently to determine who was telling the truth. How could I know? Actually, I’m sure sometimes I was fooled. It is true that sometimes people with beady eyes fidget, perspire and look furtively all around the room when testifying, but they still tell the truth. And others who are calm, self-assured, confident and smooth sometimes lie pathologically. I was trained to be aware of that, but I was also trained to look for biases and motives. We as voters and citizens should be similarly aware, and should similarly pass that honest skepticism on to our children and grandchildren.
Of course, there is also such a thing as “paralysis by analysis.” If we carry “I’m from Missouri” too far, we could all become Hamlets, and then we would never get anything done. So, like everything else, we should employ a balance. So use “Snopes” on the Internet to see if things are true, or a hoax.
But how do you know Snopes is true? Good question.
And by the way, where do they raise plastic?
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
I view that experience as one of the important lessons I have provided to my children, which is to question information, regardless of the source. Now, obviously, one cannot question everything at once, or there is no point of reference. But children should be taught to think about whatever they are told, no matter how much authority the provider of the information has.
So this is my 96th column in this Daily Pilot series. Included in prior columns are suggestions about how to address our nation’s drug policy, health care, illegal immigration, foreign policy about Cuba, educational system, justice system and more. I have recommended we as a country convert to the metric system and utilize transcendental meditation in our schools and prisons, and I have provided you with lots of facts and figures. Have you believed what I have said? Have you believed my statistics? I am a trial court judge who retired after 25 years on the bench. That is a responsible position, and I at least try to be objective. Do you simply accept what I tell you?
You shouldn’t. Not with me, and not with anybody else. I am not encouraging cynicism, just skepticism. Just because something is in writing does not mean it is true. Just because someone who has a responsible position in government, the media, the church or an impressive charitable foundation says something does not mean that it should be accepted without us applying our own sense of reason.
Everyone has biases, including judges. Judges try to recognize and correct for them, but that is not always possible. And people also have motives, with some of them being good, and some not. Why would someone create a computer virus that would cause lots of harm and needless expenditures to the rest of us? Who knows? People do things, and sometimes they are harmful. Why do some people commit arson by lighting mountains on fire? Some people are sick. But other people in responsible positions occasionally act in a similar fashion for lots of different reasons. We have the blessings of being in a mostly free society that allows us to never accept anyone’s information and conclusions by rote without our own verification. Just like my children with the field of plastic.
Is global warming actually happening? If so, is it related to actions by mankind? The CATO Institute in a recent advertisement lists about 100 scientists and educators from all around the world saying that the cause and effect relationship is anything but clear. So do some people have other motives underlying their attempts for developed nations to cut back on carbon emissions? Are there people in our government and elsewhere who have other motives for perpetuating the War on Drugs, our present system of government schools, or converting our private healthcare system into one that is fundamentally controlled by the federal government? It would not be hard to replace our failed immigration system with one that works. Is there a reason why our elected representatives in Congress only talk about changing it, but don’t actually do anything about it?
I don’t particularly have any more information than you do on these questions, although I do spend time thinking about and researching them. But honest skepticism should always be employed. Remember, William Randolph Hearst really did have some unstated vested interests when he printed numbers of untrue or greatly exaggerated stories in his newspaper chain about the supposed harms of marijuana. There also was a movie released in 1936 titled “Reefer Madness” that purported to show innocent high school students being lured to try marijuana and soon thereafter committing murder, rape and suicide as they descended into madness. No such thing has ever been known to have happened, but it was “on the screen,” so people believed it and acted upon it. Instead, they should have been skeptical.
So we should at least get a second opinion and maybe even a third, and think about every question, before we accept something important as true. As a judge, I was called upon frequently to determine who was telling the truth. How could I know? Actually, I’m sure sometimes I was fooled. It is true that sometimes people with beady eyes fidget, perspire and look furtively all around the room when testifying, but they still tell the truth. And others who are calm, self-assured, confident and smooth sometimes lie pathologically. I was trained to be aware of that, but I was also trained to look for biases and motives. We as voters and citizens should be similarly aware, and should similarly pass that honest skepticism on to our children and grandchildren.
Of course, there is also such a thing as “paralysis by analysis.” If we carry “I’m from Missouri” too far, we could all become Hamlets, and then we would never get anything done. So, like everything else, we should employ a balance. So use “Snopes” on the Internet to see if things are true, or a hoax.
But how do you know Snopes is true? Good question.
And by the way, where do they raise plastic?
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Consider the ways to lose a filthy habit - by Judge Jim Gray
The only positive thing that resulted from my wonderful mother’s addiction to cigarettes was that I grew up hating them.
To me, smoking was and is dirty, smelly, expensive, stupid and disgusting. A smoker’s mouth, hair, clothes, car, and house usually smell of stale smoke, and the idea that smoking makes young people look older and more mature is deeply laughable. But even with that being the case, I am embarrassed to say that each of my three adult children smokes “occasionally,” as does our current president.
I know that smoking is attractive to some people, and once begun, can be quite difficult to put aside. Tobacco is at least as addictive as cocaine. Mark Twain best set the stage for quitting when he said: “Giving up smoking is easy, I’ve done it lots of times.”
But in today’s world, we have large amounts of verified scientific information showing how smoking harms one’s health; it killed my mother. So there simply can be no good reason for all smokers, occasional or regular, not to do their best to give up smoking. And, although it can be a delicate subject, I think it is the duty of all of us to encourage our friends and family members who are smokers to quit. Just try not be too judgmental or heavy-handed when you do so.
How can this be done? Focus on the proven facts: Smoking causes lung cancer and, it also contributes to many other health problems, including breathlessness, heart disease, and other cancers. It also can cause poor skin quality, bad breath, and yellow teeth. So quitting smoking may be the most important thing you can do to improve both your health as well as your appearance.
Happily enough, the human body has remarkable powers of recovery. So no matter how many years you have smoked, or how many cigarettes you smoke each day, your health and appearance can benefit enormously from quitting. One of the most encouraging things about quitting is that you can literally see your health getting better each day, each month, and each year.
Here are some of the benefits smokers can look forward to by quitting: After only 20 minutes from your last smoke, your blood pressure and pulse will approach normal, and circulation will improve in your hands and feet. After 12 hours, the nicotine and poisonous carbon monoxide levels in your blood will be reduced by half, and your blood oxygen levels will return to normal.
After 24 hours, carbon monoxide will be eliminated from your body, which will allow your lungs to begin to clear out mucus and other smoking debris. Within 48 hours, there should be no nicotine left in your body. This will greatly improve your senses of taste and smell. Within 72 hours, your breathing will become easier because your airways will start to relax. This will result in increased energy levels.
Within two weeks, your heart will be pumping more oxygen-rich blood around your body, which means you will be putting less strain upon your heart. And the longer you go without smoking, the better your heart and blood vessels will become. In four weeks, the damage that occurs to your skin from smoking, which actually gives you more wrinkles, will have stopped.
Within six weeks, your heart, circulation, lungs, skin, teeth, and senses of taste and smell will have materially improved. Within eight weeks, your bones will be stronger, more dense, and less brittle. This will materially reduce the risk of fractures. Within 10 weeks, your skin will be getting smoother, your hair healthier, and your smile whiter.
In about four months, your coughing, wheezing, and breathing will be improved, as your lung functions will have increased by up to 10%. In about one year, your risk of heart attack will have nearly fallen to about half that of a smoker. In about 10 years, your risk of lung cancer will have fallen to about half that of a smoker. In about 15 years, your risk of heart attack will now be about the same as someone who has never smoked.
But quitting smoking can be difficult, and you must remember that you will experience some ups and downs along the way. Probably the best approach is to set a “quit date,” and announce it to your family and friends. This will allow you to plan ahead and be better prepared and supported. Then before the appointed day, throw out all your cigarettes, empty packs, and lighters – and remember to check all of your clothes, purses, drawers, cars, etc. for any of these. Then clean and put away all ashtrays and other reminders of smoking, and wash all of your clothes, towels, and other items that smell of smoke, clean your home and car thoroughly, and open all the windows to clear the air.
It also helps to keep a “Quit Smoking Calendar,” and circle the days you have not smoked in blue. If you slip and have a cigarette, don’t despair, feel like a failure, or stop trying, but simply circle that date in red. If you think positively throughout, eat a balanced diet, increase your physical exercise, and, of course, consult with medical professionals if you think they can help you, you will strongly increase your chances of permanent success.
But you will also have to learn to deal with cravings for a cigarette. Some ways of counteracting these are to include the “4D’s.” These are: delay at least three minutes before you smoke, and often the urge will pass; drink a glass of water or juice; distract yourself by moving away from the situation that is encouraging you to light up; and take deep breaths, because breathing fully and slowly will help you to relax.
Finally, for additional positive reinforcement, test yourself concerning your progress. For example, test your endurance by walking up stairs after the first week, and on each succeeding week for the first three months, and then keep a chart about the “difficulty level” from one to 10. Test your senses by smelling some flowers or eating something sweet, and keep a similar chart about how strong those senses were. You will be amazed by the results, and this will energize you to continue. Besides, think of the money you will save.
And for pregnant women, the benefits for your developing baby if you stop smoking are stark. Much of the tar and nicotine you breathe in when smoking goes directly from your system into your baby’s, and this cannot help but cause health problems for this developing little person. For example, babies born to women who smoke are twice as likely to develop asthma and other lung problems, such as wheezing and chest infections. They are also much more prone to ear infections, colic, and meningitis, among other things.
There are also new and exciting developments to help people eliminate nicotine cravings and to quit smoking, such as the ML830 Laser treatments, which stimulate oxygen flow in tissues. In only three treatments with this “cold” laser to your ear, hands, wrists, and feet, some physical therapists have had a 70% success rate in curing the craving for cigarettes. For more information, contact Sue Hale, who is an occupational therapist in Florida, at JHale2@cfl.rr.com.
So OK, quitting smoking can be difficult, but the benefits can be enormous. And it is never too late to quit. Your family, your friends, your unborn children, and, most of all, you, yourself, will always be grateful that you did.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
To me, smoking was and is dirty, smelly, expensive, stupid and disgusting. A smoker’s mouth, hair, clothes, car, and house usually smell of stale smoke, and the idea that smoking makes young people look older and more mature is deeply laughable. But even with that being the case, I am embarrassed to say that each of my three adult children smokes “occasionally,” as does our current president.
I know that smoking is attractive to some people, and once begun, can be quite difficult to put aside. Tobacco is at least as addictive as cocaine. Mark Twain best set the stage for quitting when he said: “Giving up smoking is easy, I’ve done it lots of times.”
But in today’s world, we have large amounts of verified scientific information showing how smoking harms one’s health; it killed my mother. So there simply can be no good reason for all smokers, occasional or regular, not to do their best to give up smoking. And, although it can be a delicate subject, I think it is the duty of all of us to encourage our friends and family members who are smokers to quit. Just try not be too judgmental or heavy-handed when you do so.
How can this be done? Focus on the proven facts: Smoking causes lung cancer and, it also contributes to many other health problems, including breathlessness, heart disease, and other cancers. It also can cause poor skin quality, bad breath, and yellow teeth. So quitting smoking may be the most important thing you can do to improve both your health as well as your appearance.
Happily enough, the human body has remarkable powers of recovery. So no matter how many years you have smoked, or how many cigarettes you smoke each day, your health and appearance can benefit enormously from quitting. One of the most encouraging things about quitting is that you can literally see your health getting better each day, each month, and each year.
Here are some of the benefits smokers can look forward to by quitting: After only 20 minutes from your last smoke, your blood pressure and pulse will approach normal, and circulation will improve in your hands and feet. After 12 hours, the nicotine and poisonous carbon monoxide levels in your blood will be reduced by half, and your blood oxygen levels will return to normal.
After 24 hours, carbon monoxide will be eliminated from your body, which will allow your lungs to begin to clear out mucus and other smoking debris. Within 48 hours, there should be no nicotine left in your body. This will greatly improve your senses of taste and smell. Within 72 hours, your breathing will become easier because your airways will start to relax. This will result in increased energy levels.
Within two weeks, your heart will be pumping more oxygen-rich blood around your body, which means you will be putting less strain upon your heart. And the longer you go without smoking, the better your heart and blood vessels will become. In four weeks, the damage that occurs to your skin from smoking, which actually gives you more wrinkles, will have stopped.
Within six weeks, your heart, circulation, lungs, skin, teeth, and senses of taste and smell will have materially improved. Within eight weeks, your bones will be stronger, more dense, and less brittle. This will materially reduce the risk of fractures. Within 10 weeks, your skin will be getting smoother, your hair healthier, and your smile whiter.
In about four months, your coughing, wheezing, and breathing will be improved, as your lung functions will have increased by up to 10%. In about one year, your risk of heart attack will have nearly fallen to about half that of a smoker. In about 10 years, your risk of lung cancer will have fallen to about half that of a smoker. In about 15 years, your risk of heart attack will now be about the same as someone who has never smoked.
But quitting smoking can be difficult, and you must remember that you will experience some ups and downs along the way. Probably the best approach is to set a “quit date,” and announce it to your family and friends. This will allow you to plan ahead and be better prepared and supported. Then before the appointed day, throw out all your cigarettes, empty packs, and lighters – and remember to check all of your clothes, purses, drawers, cars, etc. for any of these. Then clean and put away all ashtrays and other reminders of smoking, and wash all of your clothes, towels, and other items that smell of smoke, clean your home and car thoroughly, and open all the windows to clear the air.
It also helps to keep a “Quit Smoking Calendar,” and circle the days you have not smoked in blue. If you slip and have a cigarette, don’t despair, feel like a failure, or stop trying, but simply circle that date in red. If you think positively throughout, eat a balanced diet, increase your physical exercise, and, of course, consult with medical professionals if you think they can help you, you will strongly increase your chances of permanent success.
But you will also have to learn to deal with cravings for a cigarette. Some ways of counteracting these are to include the “4D’s.” These are: delay at least three minutes before you smoke, and often the urge will pass; drink a glass of water or juice; distract yourself by moving away from the situation that is encouraging you to light up; and take deep breaths, because breathing fully and slowly will help you to relax.
Finally, for additional positive reinforcement, test yourself concerning your progress. For example, test your endurance by walking up stairs after the first week, and on each succeeding week for the first three months, and then keep a chart about the “difficulty level” from one to 10. Test your senses by smelling some flowers or eating something sweet, and keep a similar chart about how strong those senses were. You will be amazed by the results, and this will energize you to continue. Besides, think of the money you will save.
And for pregnant women, the benefits for your developing baby if you stop smoking are stark. Much of the tar and nicotine you breathe in when smoking goes directly from your system into your baby’s, and this cannot help but cause health problems for this developing little person. For example, babies born to women who smoke are twice as likely to develop asthma and other lung problems, such as wheezing and chest infections. They are also much more prone to ear infections, colic, and meningitis, among other things.
There are also new and exciting developments to help people eliminate nicotine cravings and to quit smoking, such as the ML830 Laser treatments, which stimulate oxygen flow in tissues. In only three treatments with this “cold” laser to your ear, hands, wrists, and feet, some physical therapists have had a 70% success rate in curing the craving for cigarettes. For more information, contact Sue Hale, who is an occupational therapist in Florida, at JHale2@cfl.rr.com.
So OK, quitting smoking can be difficult, but the benefits can be enormous. And it is never too late to quit. Your family, your friends, your unborn children, and, most of all, you, yourself, will always be grateful that you did.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+a.jpg)
