Just like most of you, I get lots of unsolicited e-mail messages. Some of them I look at, and some of them I don’t. But I received one recently that really caught my attention about something called the “Monument to the Struggle Against World Terrorism.”
The monument is titled “Tear Drop,” and it is located on a peninsula at Bayonne Harbor, N.J., in full view of the Statue of Liberty and the former site of the World Trade Center. It was created to honor those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedies, as well as the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Furthermore, it was a gift to the United States of America by the people of Russia!
Snopes verifies the story, and my other research confirms it. But before I received that message, I had not heard anything about it. Had you?
The idea for the monument came from Zurab Tsereteli, who is one of Russia’s most prominent and prolific sculptors, designers and architects, and his works are found all over the world. One of them, titled “Good Defeats Evil,” is a sculpture created from scrapped American and Soviet missiles, and it resides on the grounds of the United Nations building in New York.
The “Tear Drop” monument is more than 100 feet tall, and weighs 175 tons. It was shipped here from Russia in six sections, assembled by a group of Russian artisans, and dedicated to the American people as a symbol of solidarity in the fight against world terrorism. Inscribed on the 11-sided base of the monument are the names of the 3,000 people who lost their lives in the 1993 and 9/11 terrorist acts. The dedication ceremony took place on Sept. 11, 2006.
Tsereteli said that he was struck by the outpouring of grief on the streets of Moscow when word came of the 9/11 tragedies, and this caused the image of a tear to form in his mind.
The nickel-plated teardrop itself weighs 4 tons, and is about 40 feet high.
The remainder of the monument is of granite. But the lasting message, in addition to the sadness and grief over the senseless loss of life, is a hope for the future that is free from terror.
I know all Americans join together with Russians and much of the rest of the world in the sharing of this hope. But why has this wonderful gift not been more heavily publicized? The people of France rightfully continue to receive credit and appreciation for their gift of the Statue of Liberty so long ago, why not the people of Russia? Could it be that since we have a history of conflict with the government of the former Soviet Union, and still have some disagreements with the present government of Russia, we do not wish to publicize anything good and generous about their people?
Unfortunately, that is the way our politics has evolved today. If one political party has a good idea, the other tends to oppose it just so that the first will not receive any credit. Has politics made us sink so low here with the people of Russia as well? I hope not, but I’m having difficulty coming up with an alternative explanation.
But since so few of us seem to have been aware of this monument, I am going to send a long overdue note of thanks on behalf of our country to President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, expressing our heartfelt thanks to the people of Russia for this marvelous gesture of solidarity. In fact, this was such a noteworthy gift and message by the Russian people, maybe you will want to join me and send your own letters of appreciation as well.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Reworking prison system could save us - by Judge Jim Gray
OK, now that the voters have told the politicians in Sacramento in the recent election that they oppose the continual raising of their taxes, and also disapprove of the way government has handled our finances, where we should go from here?
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Reworking prison system could save us - by Judge Jim Gray
OK, now that the voters have told the politicians in Sacramento in the recent election that they oppose the continual raising of their taxes, and also disapprove of the way government has handled our finances, where we should go from here?
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, May 18, 2009
We have art all around us in Newport - by Judge Jim Gray
Do you agree with me that being surrounded with art and cultural opportunities enhances and stimulates our daily lives? Well, the good news is that, living in and near Newport Beach, we have those things all around us. But the less than good news is that many people are not aware of that fact, other than seeing the bushes on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar that have been shaped into the form of dolphins.
Much of the credit for the art around us goes to the Newport Beach City Arts Commission, which was formed in 1974. It is composed of seven volunteers who are appointed by the City Council, and serve up to two four-year terms.
Their formal function is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council on all matters pertaining to artistic, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the city. Therefore, the commission recommends the adoption of such ordinances, rules and regulations as it deems necessary for the administration and preservation of fine arts and performing arts, and all of the historical, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the community. The group’s meetings are at 5 p.m. the second Thursday of each month at the Newport Beach Central Library Conference Room.
The commission also oversees the providing of grant money from the city to art organizations that have a connection to the city. Some of the recipients have been the Newport Beach Film Festival, Opera Pacific, local ballet companies, Pacific Symphony and Stop Gap Theatre.
Those are the formal functions. But that’s really just the beginning, because the commission also puts on Summer Concerts in the Parks, arts educational programs, Shakespeare by the Sea, and art exhibitions in the City Hall and the Central Library. And it also worked closely with local volunteers on the design and installation of the McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument near the Newport Pier.
So when it comes down to it, the commission really represents genuine community spirit in action, and demonstrates a passion to bring an art element into our public lives. And it is successful in its efforts. In fact, it is unusual to have so much activity in the arts in such a relatively small city.
For example, Summer Concerts in the Park has been going on for nine years, admission is free and the concerts are family friendly. This summer the concerts are scheduled at Mariners Park on July 19 with “Night & Days with Kevin Spirtas,” and at Bonita Canyon Sports Park on Aug. 23 with the Susie Hansen Latin Band. Both concerts are on Sundays, and begin at 6 p.m. This year’s Shakespeare productions are scheduled to be “Love’s Labour’s Lost” on Aug. 1, and “As You Like It” on Aug. 2, and both will also be at Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and begin at 7 p.m. But you will probably want to arrive early for each event and enjoy a picnic dinner — and don’t forget to bring your children and some friends!
In addition to the performing arts, the commission every year sponsors a “Juried Art Show.” This event accepts work from any artists who reside within about 50 miles of Newport. The commission volunteers set up the artwork, and then it is judged by two art professionals. Thereafter all of the artwork is for sale to the general public, with portions going both to the artists and to the Newport Beach Arts Foundation, which is a local nonprofit dedicated to enhancing arts in our city. And at the end of the event there is a ceremony with prizes awarded.
Before I inquired into the work of the arts commission I was simply unaware of the existence of the wonderful McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument. So I went to the Newport Pier, right in front of the dory fishermen’s market, and took a look.
It made me feel proud, and I’m sure you will feel the same.
The motto of the monument is “Remembering the Past; Acknowledging the Present; Looking Toward the Future,” and it is made up of a sea-green sphere that depicts some of the most important aspects of the city’s history.
In fact, you can follow the city’s “footsteps through time,” beginning with its founding by the four McFadden brothers as the “new port,” its incorporation in 1906, and all the way up to the present.
The institutions that are featured are the red cars, Rendezvous Ballroom, dory fishermen, Fun Zone, Balboa and Newport piers, surfing, the McFadden brothers and John Wayne.
As the commission Chairwoman Robyn Grant told me, our city cannot be just made up of beautiful beaches and parks, and world-class shopping and restaurants, it also needs to be immersed in art, because art entertains, enriches and enhances our lives. She is right, and she and her fellow volunteers have truly increased the quality of life for everyone in our area.
So take advantage of their efforts. Go to a summer concert or one of the nights of Shakespeare, devote a few minutes next time you are at the Central Library or City Hall to view the work of the local artists on display, or take a walk down by the Newport Pier and experience the history of our great city at McFadden Square.
And join me in giving each of the members of the City Arts Commission a hearty, well-deserved, and continual chorus of appreciation.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Much of the credit for the art around us goes to the Newport Beach City Arts Commission, which was formed in 1974. It is composed of seven volunteers who are appointed by the City Council, and serve up to two four-year terms.
Their formal function is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council on all matters pertaining to artistic, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the city. Therefore, the commission recommends the adoption of such ordinances, rules and regulations as it deems necessary for the administration and preservation of fine arts and performing arts, and all of the historical, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the community. The group’s meetings are at 5 p.m. the second Thursday of each month at the Newport Beach Central Library Conference Room.
The commission also oversees the providing of grant money from the city to art organizations that have a connection to the city. Some of the recipients have been the Newport Beach Film Festival, Opera Pacific, local ballet companies, Pacific Symphony and Stop Gap Theatre.
Those are the formal functions. But that’s really just the beginning, because the commission also puts on Summer Concerts in the Parks, arts educational programs, Shakespeare by the Sea, and art exhibitions in the City Hall and the Central Library. And it also worked closely with local volunteers on the design and installation of the McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument near the Newport Pier.
So when it comes down to it, the commission really represents genuine community spirit in action, and demonstrates a passion to bring an art element into our public lives. And it is successful in its efforts. In fact, it is unusual to have so much activity in the arts in such a relatively small city.
For example, Summer Concerts in the Park has been going on for nine years, admission is free and the concerts are family friendly. This summer the concerts are scheduled at Mariners Park on July 19 with “Night & Days with Kevin Spirtas,” and at Bonita Canyon Sports Park on Aug. 23 with the Susie Hansen Latin Band. Both concerts are on Sundays, and begin at 6 p.m. This year’s Shakespeare productions are scheduled to be “Love’s Labour’s Lost” on Aug. 1, and “As You Like It” on Aug. 2, and both will also be at Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and begin at 7 p.m. But you will probably want to arrive early for each event and enjoy a picnic dinner — and don’t forget to bring your children and some friends!
In addition to the performing arts, the commission every year sponsors a “Juried Art Show.” This event accepts work from any artists who reside within about 50 miles of Newport. The commission volunteers set up the artwork, and then it is judged by two art professionals. Thereafter all of the artwork is for sale to the general public, with portions going both to the artists and to the Newport Beach Arts Foundation, which is a local nonprofit dedicated to enhancing arts in our city. And at the end of the event there is a ceremony with prizes awarded.
Before I inquired into the work of the arts commission I was simply unaware of the existence of the wonderful McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument. So I went to the Newport Pier, right in front of the dory fishermen’s market, and took a look.
It made me feel proud, and I’m sure you will feel the same.
The motto of the monument is “Remembering the Past; Acknowledging the Present; Looking Toward the Future,” and it is made up of a sea-green sphere that depicts some of the most important aspects of the city’s history.
In fact, you can follow the city’s “footsteps through time,” beginning with its founding by the four McFadden brothers as the “new port,” its incorporation in 1906, and all the way up to the present.
The institutions that are featured are the red cars, Rendezvous Ballroom, dory fishermen, Fun Zone, Balboa and Newport piers, surfing, the McFadden brothers and John Wayne.
As the commission Chairwoman Robyn Grant told me, our city cannot be just made up of beautiful beaches and parks, and world-class shopping and restaurants, it also needs to be immersed in art, because art entertains, enriches and enhances our lives. She is right, and she and her fellow volunteers have truly increased the quality of life for everyone in our area.
So take advantage of their efforts. Go to a summer concert or one of the nights of Shakespeare, devote a few minutes next time you are at the Central Library or City Hall to view the work of the local artists on display, or take a walk down by the Newport Pier and experience the history of our great city at McFadden Square.
And join me in giving each of the members of the City Arts Commission a hearty, well-deserved, and continual chorus of appreciation.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, May 3, 2009
‘The meaning is in the shadows’ - by Judge Jim Gray
The receptionist where I work recently loaned me a book about homelessness titled “The Meaning is in the Shadows,” by Peter McVerry, who is a Jesuit priest in Ireland.
Although as a judge I have dealt for a long time with issues of homeless people, I never before saw them in as realistic a light as presented in this book. But now I see that McVerry is right, society mostly sweeps the entire homelessness issue out of our view, which leaves it hidden in the shadows.
Revealingly, McVerry argues that the hardest part of homelessness is actually not sleeping without a bed, or being cold at night, or even being completely bored with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Instead, the hardest part is having the fact pushed upon them continually that if they were to die right now, no one would care — or even really notice. And that fundamental fact defines their lives, and takes away their dignity and their hope.
This situation often leads people to try to escape the pain of their everyday lives by using illicit drugs. Doing that enables them to feel miserable only some of the time, instead of all of the time. But unfortunately it often also leads them to getting hooked on the drugs, which brings on many added problems.
In addition, 25% of the people nationwide who are homeless are generally diagnosed with severe mental health problems, and probably another 25% have similar problems that are undiagnosed. Of course, the largest mental health facility in Orange County, and almost all other counties, is the county jail. But this is the most expensive way to deal with mental illness, and it does untold damage to these mentally fragile people.
Obviously, it is hard to obtain consistent statistics on the subject of homelessness. But a study was conducted showing that on Jan. 25, 2007, there were 3,649 people in homeless shelters in Orange County, and that the average homeless person enters into a shelter about seven times per year.
Of those studied, 56% were female and 44% male, and about 370 were diagnosed as being severely mentally ill, 150 had the AIDS virus, 675 were veterans, 330 were chronic substance abusers, and 250 were chronically homeless.
Of course, those numbers have probably increased with these recent problems in our economy, and this also does not include those people who had no shelter at all.
Our county’s Housing and Community Services Department reports that the homeless are often wrongly portrayed just as panhandlers asking for money. On the contrary, the homeless population here mostly consists of working families and individuals. Nevertheless, many live in cars, parks, motels, under bridges, and in homeless shelters, trying to maintain their dignity while they struggle to survive. And, just like in Ireland, they mostly remain hidden.
But the most notable problem we are facing today which we have not seen before in our history is the number of children who are homeless. In the time period of 2007 to 2008, our county Department of Education identified a total of 16,422 children and youth (pre-K to 12th grade) who were homeless. Their definition of homelessness was different from Housing and Community Services because it included 15,175 who were in doubled or tripled-up housing due to economic hardship.
But it also included 388 children living in homeless shelters, 60 living in cars, parks or campgrounds, and 787 in motels. Not surprisingly, the school districts in Santa Ana and Anaheim had the most homeless children, with 6,731 and 3,259, respectively, but the Newport-Mesa district had 115.
So what should be done about this situation? As a Libertarian, the first thing I want to make clear is that we should not be required to do anything.
But we will respond to the needs of these people voluntarily because we want to, not because we have to. Why? Because that is the type of people we are. So we should provide them with a safety net below which they should not be allowed to fall.
But having said that, the answer is also not to reward panhandling. I confess that I am not always able to stop myself, particularly for down-and-out women (I know this is sexist), but I try. Basically, it does not serve anyone’s best interest to support begging on the streets. Instead, I tell these people that I make donations to the Orange County Rescue Mission, and this great organization can provide them with food boxes and groceries, as well as more long-term care and assistance. So they should go there (They are located at One Hope Drive, Tustin, CA 92782). Nevertheless, when I make that comment, I try to greet the people pleasantly, look them in the eye, and treat them like the human beings they are. And I recommend you do the same. We cannot expect to breed or maintain respect for our society from the homeless unless society also shows respect for them.
Traditionally when the American people are confronted by a problem there is an outpouring of support. But today, American charitable giving is under attack because the federal government is reducing the tax deductions for those gifts, and at the same time is increasing its own funding in these same charitable areas. That means that we are sending our tax dollars to Washington, where they are then “magnanimously” distributed by politicians. No one gains by this system except the politicians, and this practice should be curtailed.
Homelessness is not an issue that should stay in the shadows. Yes, Orange County has 68 emergency and transitional shelters that currently offer 3,400 beds, as well as another 1,875 supportive housing beds in other facilities, so some of the temporary needs of these people are being met. But whether for humane, religious, or even practical reasons, we should keep ourselves aware of the homelessness issue by keeping it out in the open. And as caring Americans we should be sure that the fundamental needs of homeless people are met, especially in these difficult economic times.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe: The Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website, www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Although as a judge I have dealt for a long time with issues of homeless people, I never before saw them in as realistic a light as presented in this book. But now I see that McVerry is right, society mostly sweeps the entire homelessness issue out of our view, which leaves it hidden in the shadows.
Revealingly, McVerry argues that the hardest part of homelessness is actually not sleeping without a bed, or being cold at night, or even being completely bored with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Instead, the hardest part is having the fact pushed upon them continually that if they were to die right now, no one would care — or even really notice. And that fundamental fact defines their lives, and takes away their dignity and their hope.
This situation often leads people to try to escape the pain of their everyday lives by using illicit drugs. Doing that enables them to feel miserable only some of the time, instead of all of the time. But unfortunately it often also leads them to getting hooked on the drugs, which brings on many added problems.
In addition, 25% of the people nationwide who are homeless are generally diagnosed with severe mental health problems, and probably another 25% have similar problems that are undiagnosed. Of course, the largest mental health facility in Orange County, and almost all other counties, is the county jail. But this is the most expensive way to deal with mental illness, and it does untold damage to these mentally fragile people.
Obviously, it is hard to obtain consistent statistics on the subject of homelessness. But a study was conducted showing that on Jan. 25, 2007, there were 3,649 people in homeless shelters in Orange County, and that the average homeless person enters into a shelter about seven times per year.
Of those studied, 56% were female and 44% male, and about 370 were diagnosed as being severely mentally ill, 150 had the AIDS virus, 675 were veterans, 330 were chronic substance abusers, and 250 were chronically homeless.
Of course, those numbers have probably increased with these recent problems in our economy, and this also does not include those people who had no shelter at all.
Our county’s Housing and Community Services Department reports that the homeless are often wrongly portrayed just as panhandlers asking for money. On the contrary, the homeless population here mostly consists of working families and individuals. Nevertheless, many live in cars, parks, motels, under bridges, and in homeless shelters, trying to maintain their dignity while they struggle to survive. And, just like in Ireland, they mostly remain hidden.
But the most notable problem we are facing today which we have not seen before in our history is the number of children who are homeless. In the time period of 2007 to 2008, our county Department of Education identified a total of 16,422 children and youth (pre-K to 12th grade) who were homeless. Their definition of homelessness was different from Housing and Community Services because it included 15,175 who were in doubled or tripled-up housing due to economic hardship.
But it also included 388 children living in homeless shelters, 60 living in cars, parks or campgrounds, and 787 in motels. Not surprisingly, the school districts in Santa Ana and Anaheim had the most homeless children, with 6,731 and 3,259, respectively, but the Newport-Mesa district had 115.
So what should be done about this situation? As a Libertarian, the first thing I want to make clear is that we should not be required to do anything.
But we will respond to the needs of these people voluntarily because we want to, not because we have to. Why? Because that is the type of people we are. So we should provide them with a safety net below which they should not be allowed to fall.
But having said that, the answer is also not to reward panhandling. I confess that I am not always able to stop myself, particularly for down-and-out women (I know this is sexist), but I try. Basically, it does not serve anyone’s best interest to support begging on the streets. Instead, I tell these people that I make donations to the Orange County Rescue Mission, and this great organization can provide them with food boxes and groceries, as well as more long-term care and assistance. So they should go there (They are located at One Hope Drive, Tustin, CA 92782). Nevertheless, when I make that comment, I try to greet the people pleasantly, look them in the eye, and treat them like the human beings they are. And I recommend you do the same. We cannot expect to breed or maintain respect for our society from the homeless unless society also shows respect for them.
Traditionally when the American people are confronted by a problem there is an outpouring of support. But today, American charitable giving is under attack because the federal government is reducing the tax deductions for those gifts, and at the same time is increasing its own funding in these same charitable areas. That means that we are sending our tax dollars to Washington, where they are then “magnanimously” distributed by politicians. No one gains by this system except the politicians, and this practice should be curtailed.
Homelessness is not an issue that should stay in the shadows. Yes, Orange County has 68 emergency and transitional shelters that currently offer 3,400 beds, as well as another 1,875 supportive housing beds in other facilities, so some of the temporary needs of these people are being met. But whether for humane, religious, or even practical reasons, we should keep ourselves aware of the homelessness issue by keeping it out in the open. And as caring Americans we should be sure that the fundamental needs of homeless people are met, especially in these difficult economic times.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe: The Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website, www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+a.jpg)
