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.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
State has too many people in prison - by Judge Jim Gray
Most of us have heard that a federal court mandate is just around the corner requiring California to release as many as 43,000 of its about 160,000 inmates. What is the reason for the mandate? Because most of the prisons are housing almost double the number of people they were designed and built for, and there eventually comes a constitutional limit to the overcrowded conditions that we can or should force people to live in. Imagine almost 200 prisoners with ethnic and racial rivalries triple-bunked in hot weather in barracks designed for 100. That does not serve anyone’s legitimate interests.
California’s governor is right when he says that the state’s prison system is “collapsing under its own weight.” But because neither the governor nor the legislature has done anything to rectify this problem, it has been left to the courts. Many politicians, in trying to appear “tough on crime,” are spreading fear that this could cause imminent threats to our safety if this number of people were to be released. But the facts show that is all it is: fear-mongering.
Some politicians intentionally use fear to manipulate the voters and/or to promote their private interests. I am told that one of the most well-known political advisors who did this had a motto framed and hanging on his office wall that said “Keep ‘Em Scared.” That may be good politics, but it makes for rotten government. So gather the evidence yourself, and be cynical about people who deal in fear.
The evidence shows that, even dealing with the possible release of 43,000 inmates, there is simply no way that anyone who is a threat to our safety would ever even be considered to be set free. So relax, people like Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, Richard Ramirez and other murderers, robbers and rapists will safely stay where they are. You can count on it.
The reason for the overcrowding is that today we literally have tens of thousands of people in prison who simply should not be there. For example, and as we have discussed before in this column, right now there are literally thousands of people in prison who did nothing but smoke marijuana. For whatever reason, they were in prison and then released on parole, always with the condition that they use no form of illicit drug. Then, for one reason or another, they smoked marijuana, which is detectable by urinalysis testing for about a month after use. Thereafter, they either fail to show up to take their tests, or they do show up and test positive, and back to prison they go.
I am not discussing the stupidity of their smoking marijuana under these circumstances, but many of them had again found employment and were putting their lives back in order, and they were again supporting their families. So now all of that progress is lost, their families are back on welfare, and the taxpayers are spending about $40,000 per year once again to keep each one of them in prison. They could have been released yesterday without any threat to our safety.
Then there are other people in prison who are simply unable to be a threat to us. These are prisoners who are so old and feeble that the only thing they could do, if they had the strength, would be to throw their walkers at us. Their detention facilities look like old folks’ homes, with ramps instead of stairways, supporting bars on the toilets, chairs in the showers, and ground-up food on the tables. And, because of their medical problems, it costs taxpayers many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to keep each one of these geriatrics in custody.
In fact, I recently received an e-mail from a friend who said that she had found the perfect solution to senior health-care problems. Obviously, you know that many seniors are told that they need to give up even the idea of receiving expensive medications for their blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. And if they need a hip replacement, there is no way it will be funded, because the money will be spent on the younger generation.
Well, the answer is for people older than 70 simply to go out and commit a crime, and then be sent to prison. A roof over your head, three meals per day, and all the health care you can use. Need new teeth, great! Glasses? No problem! New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Bring ’em on. Because if people are in prison, they are constitutionally entitled to good quality medical care. Of course, who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just said that you are too old for health care. And because you are a prisoner, you don’t have to pay any income taxes either! Problems solved!
You might think this is a joke, but that is exactly what taxpayers are now doing for thousands of people in prison. Many of them have been there for decades. On a case-by-case basis, some of the ones who have already spent many years in prison should be released, some to low-security halfway houses, and some should be released outright.
Of course, there are also thousands of nonviolent drug offenders who are spending years in prison for no good purpose. Remember prior columns in which we quoted the RAND Corporation that said, way back in June 1994, that taxpayers get seven times more benefit for their tax money when it is used for drug treatment instead of incarceration? Even for heavy-using drug offenders!
Again, on a case-by-case basis, we should release many of these nonviolent offenders from prison, with the strict condition that they participate meaningfully in a quality drug treatment program. That way, they will be much more likely not to be a drain on society, and the taxpayers can stop spending so much money without purpose. Please bear in mind that 95% of the people who are confined will be released someday. What kind of people will they be when that occurs?
And then there is a new philosophy that is beginning to sweep the nation, and that is the concept of “restorative justice.” This approach encourages a meaningful but much shorter time in custody for the offenders, but then has them released under a strictly applied program of formal probation. But, importantly, it also requires the released offenders, among other things, to get a job and make restitution payments every month to their victims, right off the top from their earnings.
Everyone wins by this system. The offenders are forced into the realization that there are costs for their misdeeds, and that it takes time and effort to pay them. The victims see that they are actually being reimbursed for their losses. That is both psychologically and economically comforting, because their insurance rates start to decrease due to the money being returned to their insurance companies.
And the taxpayers are given a big break because they are no longer required to pay for the continued incarceration of the offenders. So everyone comes out ahead except, of course, the prison guard union, which happens to be the strongest political lobby group in our state today.
Importantly, if violence was involved in the underlying offense, all bets are off. Prison is mostly meant to take violent offenders off the streets, and it should be used more fully for that purpose. But otherwise, we must understand that the United States has only 5% of the world’s population, but a full 25% of its prisoners! As such, we lead the world in the incarceration of our people. And in this case, “We’re No. 1!” should not make us proud.
So don’t let doctrinaire politicians and special-interest lobbyists spread fear about releasing even thousands of these prisoners without facing the evidence. Many of the people in prison shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and others have long since learned all the lessons that incarceration could possibly have taught them. Therefore, every thoughtful person should favor many of these offenders being released, on a case-by-case basis.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
California’s governor is right when he says that the state’s prison system is “collapsing under its own weight.” But because neither the governor nor the legislature has done anything to rectify this problem, it has been left to the courts. Many politicians, in trying to appear “tough on crime,” are spreading fear that this could cause imminent threats to our safety if this number of people were to be released. But the facts show that is all it is: fear-mongering.
Some politicians intentionally use fear to manipulate the voters and/or to promote their private interests. I am told that one of the most well-known political advisors who did this had a motto framed and hanging on his office wall that said “Keep ‘Em Scared.” That may be good politics, but it makes for rotten government. So gather the evidence yourself, and be cynical about people who deal in fear.
The evidence shows that, even dealing with the possible release of 43,000 inmates, there is simply no way that anyone who is a threat to our safety would ever even be considered to be set free. So relax, people like Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, Richard Ramirez and other murderers, robbers and rapists will safely stay where they are. You can count on it.
The reason for the overcrowding is that today we literally have tens of thousands of people in prison who simply should not be there. For example, and as we have discussed before in this column, right now there are literally thousands of people in prison who did nothing but smoke marijuana. For whatever reason, they were in prison and then released on parole, always with the condition that they use no form of illicit drug. Then, for one reason or another, they smoked marijuana, which is detectable by urinalysis testing for about a month after use. Thereafter, they either fail to show up to take their tests, or they do show up and test positive, and back to prison they go.
I am not discussing the stupidity of their smoking marijuana under these circumstances, but many of them had again found employment and were putting their lives back in order, and they were again supporting their families. So now all of that progress is lost, their families are back on welfare, and the taxpayers are spending about $40,000 per year once again to keep each one of them in prison. They could have been released yesterday without any threat to our safety.
Then there are other people in prison who are simply unable to be a threat to us. These are prisoners who are so old and feeble that the only thing they could do, if they had the strength, would be to throw their walkers at us. Their detention facilities look like old folks’ homes, with ramps instead of stairways, supporting bars on the toilets, chairs in the showers, and ground-up food on the tables. And, because of their medical problems, it costs taxpayers many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to keep each one of these geriatrics in custody.
In fact, I recently received an e-mail from a friend who said that she had found the perfect solution to senior health-care problems. Obviously, you know that many seniors are told that they need to give up even the idea of receiving expensive medications for their blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. And if they need a hip replacement, there is no way it will be funded, because the money will be spent on the younger generation.
Well, the answer is for people older than 70 simply to go out and commit a crime, and then be sent to prison. A roof over your head, three meals per day, and all the health care you can use. Need new teeth, great! Glasses? No problem! New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Bring ’em on. Because if people are in prison, they are constitutionally entitled to good quality medical care. Of course, who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just said that you are too old for health care. And because you are a prisoner, you don’t have to pay any income taxes either! Problems solved!
You might think this is a joke, but that is exactly what taxpayers are now doing for thousands of people in prison. Many of them have been there for decades. On a case-by-case basis, some of the ones who have already spent many years in prison should be released, some to low-security halfway houses, and some should be released outright.
Of course, there are also thousands of nonviolent drug offenders who are spending years in prison for no good purpose. Remember prior columns in which we quoted the RAND Corporation that said, way back in June 1994, that taxpayers get seven times more benefit for their tax money when it is used for drug treatment instead of incarceration? Even for heavy-using drug offenders!
Again, on a case-by-case basis, we should release many of these nonviolent offenders from prison, with the strict condition that they participate meaningfully in a quality drug treatment program. That way, they will be much more likely not to be a drain on society, and the taxpayers can stop spending so much money without purpose. Please bear in mind that 95% of the people who are confined will be released someday. What kind of people will they be when that occurs?
And then there is a new philosophy that is beginning to sweep the nation, and that is the concept of “restorative justice.” This approach encourages a meaningful but much shorter time in custody for the offenders, but then has them released under a strictly applied program of formal probation. But, importantly, it also requires the released offenders, among other things, to get a job and make restitution payments every month to their victims, right off the top from their earnings.
Everyone wins by this system. The offenders are forced into the realization that there are costs for their misdeeds, and that it takes time and effort to pay them. The victims see that they are actually being reimbursed for their losses. That is both psychologically and economically comforting, because their insurance rates start to decrease due to the money being returned to their insurance companies.
And the taxpayers are given a big break because they are no longer required to pay for the continued incarceration of the offenders. So everyone comes out ahead except, of course, the prison guard union, which happens to be the strongest political lobby group in our state today.
Importantly, if violence was involved in the underlying offense, all bets are off. Prison is mostly meant to take violent offenders off the streets, and it should be used more fully for that purpose. But otherwise, we must understand that the United States has only 5% of the world’s population, but a full 25% of its prisoners! As such, we lead the world in the incarceration of our people. And in this case, “We’re No. 1!” should not make us proud.
So don’t let doctrinaire politicians and special-interest lobbyists spread fear about releasing even thousands of these prisoners without facing the evidence. Many of the people in prison shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and others have long since learned all the lessons that incarceration could possibly have taught them. Therefore, every thoughtful person should favor many of these offenders being released, on a case-by-case basis.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Forest fires: another harm of prohibition - by Judge Jim Gray
For the past 17 years, I have, as a sitting judge, been trying to call everyone’s attention to the failures of our nation’s policy of drug prohibition. In fact, the truth is that we are “taking it on the chin” in every way imaginable, such that we literally couldn’t pursue a worse policy if we tried. But even I was not aware of the additional harm that is being caused by this failed and hopeless policy, as represented by the huge forest fire that has been burning east of Santa Maria in Santa Barbara County.
Newspapers report that authorities believe this La Brea fire, which has burned about 90,000 acres, was started by growers of illegal marijuana at a hidden farm in the Los Padres National Forest. The trigger for the fire was a propane-fed outdoor camp stove.
How was this fire caused by our policy of drug prohibition? Well, obviously, fires like this do not occur where companies like Phillip Morris or Ligget and Myers are growing tobacco. First of all, these companies aren’t forced to grow their crops in remote and desolate regions, and secondly, they are much more careful in what they do, because if by chance they do start a fire, they are held responsible for the damage.
On the contrary, illegal growers are forced out into remote areas, and usually onto public lands, because if their operations are discovered, the land can’t be forfeited. In fact, this particular camp is in a steep, overgrown canyon more than a mile from the nearest road. The workers unlawfully diverted streams to use for irrigation, polluted the ground with stacks of propane tanks and melted irrigation tubing, empty fertilizer canisters and large mounds of trash. Of course, even if there hadn’t been a fire, the workers never would have removed any of these items because, being an illegal operation, they are not held responsible for any of the damage they cause.
Once authorities located the camp, they found about 30,000 top-grade marijuana plants that ranged from two to six feet in height.
The workers had gone to the trouble of building terraces for the marijuana plants and installing a drip irrigation system, and probably would have been camping in the area for about four to five months to allow the plants to mature enough for harvesting. But with a street value in the millions of dollars for the marijuana, all of their efforts and inconveniences would have been well compensated.
Authorities also reported that so far this year, they have seized about 225,000 marijuana plants from six different sites in the area, including this one, with a street price of about $675 million.
They further stated that all of the workers they had found so far had been illegal immigrants from Mexico, but that really is a false issue. Why? Because, as any economist will tell you, if the demand for marijuana is here, and there is that much money to be made, someone will supply it. And if it is not illegal Mexican immigrants, it will be people like your next-door neighbor.
Marijuana has been illegal in this country since 1933, yet it is still fully available to anyone who wants it. And that includes our children, who report that it is easier for them to get marijuana than it is alcohol. And if you don’t believe me, ask them yourself.
Today, no one offers a free sample of Jim Beam bourbon or Budweiser beer on a high school campus. Why? Because if they were to get even close to doing that, they would be in a world of trouble. But illegal dealers offer free samples of marijuana and other illicit drugs to students on their campuses every day. Why does this happen? Because, just like with the La Brea fire situation, as soon as we prohibit a substance, we give up all of our ability to regulate or control it. That means that we concede all of the controls about quality, age restrictions, places of sale, price and everything else to the illegal dealers. And they are the ones who want to glamorize the use of all of these drugs and get our children hooked — so they can make more money off them. That is really stupid of us.
There is now pending in Sacramento Assembly Bill 390, which is being sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano from San Francisco. This measure would treat marijuana like alcohol in California, with the proviso that it would only go into effect 30 days after the federal law would be changed to allow this to occur legally. AB 390 would regulate and control the sale of marijuana for adults — and then tax it! That act alone would, according to the chair of the State Board of Equalization, bring in additional tax revenue to California of about $1.3 billion each year.
Today, marijuana is already the largest cash crop in the state, the seizures of those 225,000 marijuana plants this year notwithstanding, so this measure certainly will not make it more available than it is now.
But passing AB 390 will raise additional revenue for the state, while at the same time reducing the gross revenues of Mexican drug cartels by taking away their market.
And it will also reduce violence and corruption in this country, and, most importantly, make marijuana less available for children than it is today.
So what’s not to like? Accordingly, please call anyone you can vote for in Sacramento and urge them to vote for AB 390. This situation is far too dangerous to leave up to illegal growers and sellers.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Newspapers report that authorities believe this La Brea fire, which has burned about 90,000 acres, was started by growers of illegal marijuana at a hidden farm in the Los Padres National Forest. The trigger for the fire was a propane-fed outdoor camp stove.
How was this fire caused by our policy of drug prohibition? Well, obviously, fires like this do not occur where companies like Phillip Morris or Ligget and Myers are growing tobacco. First of all, these companies aren’t forced to grow their crops in remote and desolate regions, and secondly, they are much more careful in what they do, because if by chance they do start a fire, they are held responsible for the damage.
On the contrary, illegal growers are forced out into remote areas, and usually onto public lands, because if their operations are discovered, the land can’t be forfeited. In fact, this particular camp is in a steep, overgrown canyon more than a mile from the nearest road. The workers unlawfully diverted streams to use for irrigation, polluted the ground with stacks of propane tanks and melted irrigation tubing, empty fertilizer canisters and large mounds of trash. Of course, even if there hadn’t been a fire, the workers never would have removed any of these items because, being an illegal operation, they are not held responsible for any of the damage they cause.
Once authorities located the camp, they found about 30,000 top-grade marijuana plants that ranged from two to six feet in height.
The workers had gone to the trouble of building terraces for the marijuana plants and installing a drip irrigation system, and probably would have been camping in the area for about four to five months to allow the plants to mature enough for harvesting. But with a street value in the millions of dollars for the marijuana, all of their efforts and inconveniences would have been well compensated.
Authorities also reported that so far this year, they have seized about 225,000 marijuana plants from six different sites in the area, including this one, with a street price of about $675 million.
They further stated that all of the workers they had found so far had been illegal immigrants from Mexico, but that really is a false issue. Why? Because, as any economist will tell you, if the demand for marijuana is here, and there is that much money to be made, someone will supply it. And if it is not illegal Mexican immigrants, it will be people like your next-door neighbor.
Marijuana has been illegal in this country since 1933, yet it is still fully available to anyone who wants it. And that includes our children, who report that it is easier for them to get marijuana than it is alcohol. And if you don’t believe me, ask them yourself.
Today, no one offers a free sample of Jim Beam bourbon or Budweiser beer on a high school campus. Why? Because if they were to get even close to doing that, they would be in a world of trouble. But illegal dealers offer free samples of marijuana and other illicit drugs to students on their campuses every day. Why does this happen? Because, just like with the La Brea fire situation, as soon as we prohibit a substance, we give up all of our ability to regulate or control it. That means that we concede all of the controls about quality, age restrictions, places of sale, price and everything else to the illegal dealers. And they are the ones who want to glamorize the use of all of these drugs and get our children hooked — so they can make more money off them. That is really stupid of us.
There is now pending in Sacramento Assembly Bill 390, which is being sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano from San Francisco. This measure would treat marijuana like alcohol in California, with the proviso that it would only go into effect 30 days after the federal law would be changed to allow this to occur legally. AB 390 would regulate and control the sale of marijuana for adults — and then tax it! That act alone would, according to the chair of the State Board of Equalization, bring in additional tax revenue to California of about $1.3 billion each year.
Today, marijuana is already the largest cash crop in the state, the seizures of those 225,000 marijuana plants this year notwithstanding, so this measure certainly will not make it more available than it is now.
But passing AB 390 will raise additional revenue for the state, while at the same time reducing the gross revenues of Mexican drug cartels by taking away their market.
And it will also reduce violence and corruption in this country, and, most importantly, make marijuana less available for children than it is today.
So what’s not to like? Accordingly, please call anyone you can vote for in Sacramento and urge them to vote for AB 390. This situation is far too dangerous to leave up to illegal growers and sellers.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Hunters decimating shark population - by Judge Jim Gray
Recently, one of my sons loaned me a video titled “Sharkwater,” which was created by Canadian filmmaker Rob Stewart. The thesis of the film is that unchecked hunting is decimating the world’s population of most types of sharks. Regretfully, based upon my inquiries, he appears to be right.
Sharks are one of the most vilified and misunderstood creatures on earth. Much of this is probably traced to Steven Spielberg’s movie “Jaws,” which left the public with a mindset that sharks are aggressive and always on the prowl for humans. They may be in a frenzy if there is blood in the water, but otherwise, all indications are that this is simply not true.
It is true that sharks are the top predator in the oceans of the world. But the average number of human deaths caused by shark attacks is only about 10 per year — worldwide. And very likely, all of those are caused by the sharks confusing a human swimmer or surfer for a sea lion, or some of its other natural prey.
And, of course, when there is a shark attack almost anywhere, that is a sensational story that invariably makes the news.
On the other hand, it is estimated that humans are now killing sharks at the rate of about 38 million per year. And since a female shark averages only about 1.2 pups every other year, and it takes about nine years for a shark to mature in the first place, sharks reproduce quite slowly. This means that their ranks are being seriously depleted.
Does it matter? Although the sharks’ involvement in nature’s balance is more complicated and involved than I am able to discuss, my information shows me that it makes a sizable difference because sharks keep the population of other species in check. So if we have fewer sharks, then there will be more sea lions, that will in turn be eating larger amounts of other fish, and more otters that will be eating larger amounts of clams, etc. So man’s interference with the way of nature can have huge repercussions.
But since most shark meat is not particularly desirable, why are hunters killing them? The answer is in the sharks’ fins. Shark fin soup has long been considered a delicacy in Eastern Asia that symbolizes wealth and prestige, so, even though it has almost no taste, it is often served at weddings and other celebratory banquets. In addition, it is also considered to have medical benefits that can nourish the blood, invigorate the kidneys and lungs, improve digestion and even be an energy supplement.
So even though a bowl can retail for anywhere between $10 and $100, with the rise of the middle class in Eastern Asia in the last 15 years, the demand for shark fin soup has skyrocketed.
As a result, dried shark fin today can fetch a retail price of $300 per pound or more. That makes shark fin, pound for pound, the most lucrative substance taken from the sea, and turns this into a billion-dollar-per-year business. But because the meat is not particularly edible or valuable enough to transport, many hunters simply engage in the practice of “finning.” This means that they capture a shark, cut off and keep all of its fins, and simply throw the rest of the body back into the ocean.
Then, since they can no longer swim, the sharks sink to the bottom and drown or are eaten by other fish.
This problem is similar to the one in Africa in which poachers kill elephants only for their ivory tusks. And both of these are examples of what can happen when no one has any property rights to a particular resource, so one person will attempt to plunder as much as he can before someone else does.
Stewart’s film documents some illegal poachers engaged in the practice of finning off Cocos Island, which is a national park in Costa Rica, but the practice is also heavy in many other places as well, such as Indonesia and Western Australia. And since most of the finning occurs in international waters, the practice is as unmanaged and unmonitored as it is widespread. It is true that sharks are also killed by mistake in nets or baited hooks set out for other fish, but the major reason for the huge killing of sharks still appears to be finning.
So what can be done about this situation? The most effective results so far have come from the education of the public. In areas like Thailand and Singapore, in which advertising has increased public awareness of this problem, demand for shark fins has decreased by about 25%.
And when environmental groups made the decision-makers at Disneyland Hong Kong aware of what was going on, shark fin soup was taken off its menu. Stewart is even taking his film for screenings in China, which is one of the countries most involved in consuming shark fins, with the hope that he can influence public opinion there as well.
But each of us can also have an impact upon this problem by recommending shark fins not be served for any meal we are involved with, and encouraging our friends and family to do the same. So please spread the word.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sharks are one of the most vilified and misunderstood creatures on earth. Much of this is probably traced to Steven Spielberg’s movie “Jaws,” which left the public with a mindset that sharks are aggressive and always on the prowl for humans. They may be in a frenzy if there is blood in the water, but otherwise, all indications are that this is simply not true.
It is true that sharks are the top predator in the oceans of the world. But the average number of human deaths caused by shark attacks is only about 10 per year — worldwide. And very likely, all of those are caused by the sharks confusing a human swimmer or surfer for a sea lion, or some of its other natural prey.
And, of course, when there is a shark attack almost anywhere, that is a sensational story that invariably makes the news.
On the other hand, it is estimated that humans are now killing sharks at the rate of about 38 million per year. And since a female shark averages only about 1.2 pups every other year, and it takes about nine years for a shark to mature in the first place, sharks reproduce quite slowly. This means that their ranks are being seriously depleted.
Does it matter? Although the sharks’ involvement in nature’s balance is more complicated and involved than I am able to discuss, my information shows me that it makes a sizable difference because sharks keep the population of other species in check. So if we have fewer sharks, then there will be more sea lions, that will in turn be eating larger amounts of other fish, and more otters that will be eating larger amounts of clams, etc. So man’s interference with the way of nature can have huge repercussions.
But since most shark meat is not particularly desirable, why are hunters killing them? The answer is in the sharks’ fins. Shark fin soup has long been considered a delicacy in Eastern Asia that symbolizes wealth and prestige, so, even though it has almost no taste, it is often served at weddings and other celebratory banquets. In addition, it is also considered to have medical benefits that can nourish the blood, invigorate the kidneys and lungs, improve digestion and even be an energy supplement.
So even though a bowl can retail for anywhere between $10 and $100, with the rise of the middle class in Eastern Asia in the last 15 years, the demand for shark fin soup has skyrocketed.
As a result, dried shark fin today can fetch a retail price of $300 per pound or more. That makes shark fin, pound for pound, the most lucrative substance taken from the sea, and turns this into a billion-dollar-per-year business. But because the meat is not particularly edible or valuable enough to transport, many hunters simply engage in the practice of “finning.” This means that they capture a shark, cut off and keep all of its fins, and simply throw the rest of the body back into the ocean.
Then, since they can no longer swim, the sharks sink to the bottom and drown or are eaten by other fish.
This problem is similar to the one in Africa in which poachers kill elephants only for their ivory tusks. And both of these are examples of what can happen when no one has any property rights to a particular resource, so one person will attempt to plunder as much as he can before someone else does.
Stewart’s film documents some illegal poachers engaged in the practice of finning off Cocos Island, which is a national park in Costa Rica, but the practice is also heavy in many other places as well, such as Indonesia and Western Australia. And since most of the finning occurs in international waters, the practice is as unmanaged and unmonitored as it is widespread. It is true that sharks are also killed by mistake in nets or baited hooks set out for other fish, but the major reason for the huge killing of sharks still appears to be finning.
So what can be done about this situation? The most effective results so far have come from the education of the public. In areas like Thailand and Singapore, in which advertising has increased public awareness of this problem, demand for shark fins has decreased by about 25%.
And when environmental groups made the decision-makers at Disneyland Hong Kong aware of what was going on, shark fin soup was taken off its menu. Stewart is even taking his film for screenings in China, which is one of the countries most involved in consuming shark fins, with the hope that he can influence public opinion there as well.
But each of us can also have an impact upon this problem by recommending shark fins not be served for any meal we are involved with, and encouraging our friends and family to do the same. So please spread the word.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
How does an airplane fly? Think about it - By Judge Jim Gray
As my wife and I in a few days are going to get onto an airplane and take off for a vacation, I again started wondering how an airplane actually flies.
To me it seems like an unnatural thing for a long and heavy canister with wings to be able to get off the ground and fly through the air. So I did a little research on the subject.
The three major factors of airplane flight are the engines that produce thrust, the wings that produce lift, and the flaps, elevators, and rudders that are used to control the direction in which the aircraft travels. All of those are probably self-evident, except for the concept of lift.
Many flat surfaces like a piece of plywood, a Frisbee, or even a flat stone, will glide for short distances on a fluid like air or water, and will even rise or dive, depending upon the wind and their angle of attack. But they will not produce lift. For that to occur, the objects must have a different configuration.
The next time you are around an airplane, or helicopter either for that matter, look at how the wings and rotors are formed. Their bottoms are basically flat, and go straight to the back, but their top surfaces are curved. This design forces the air on the top of the wing or rotor to travel farther than the air on the bottom during the same amount of time to reach the same spot at the back.
This is important because when the speed of a fluid increases, the pressure exerted by that fluid on the surface of a nearby object actually decreases. In our case, that means that there is more pressure pushing up from the bottom of the wing or rotor than there is pressure on the top pushing down. Therefore, assuming all other factors are equal, when pushed through the air the wings and rotors have a tendency to rise, or to produce lift.
This is Bernoulli’s Principle. Daniel Bernoulli was a Dutch/Swiss mathematician who lived from 1700 to 1782, and he discovered that as the speed of a moving fluid increases, the pressure exerted by that fluid decreases. And this principle holds true as long as the fluids flow smoothly and consistently, and are of the same density.
Furthermore, the more dense the air is with an airplane, the more lift will be generated. That means that the wings will generate more lift in cold weather than warm, because cold air is denser, and the wings will also generate more lift at sea level than at higher altitudes for the same reason.
As I understand it, this can be analogized to a situation in which people would throw large numbers of golf balls in many different directions inside a small container. The balls would spend a lot of energy bouncing into each other and onto the walls of the container, and that would generate higher amounts of pressure on those inner walls. But if the balls were all thrown in the same direction, the inner pressure would be reduced because the balls would not be hitting the walls or each other, and the faster they go, the less they would be inclined to hit anything.
So what about stunt pilots that fly their planes upside down? Why don’t the wings then “lift” the airplane toward the ground? The answer is that the pilots counteract the downward thrust from the wings by over-adjusting the elevators on the back wings of the plane, which changes the angle of attack by keeping the front of the plane higher than the back.
Another application of Bernoulli’s Principle explains why windows in houses tend to explode outward instead of implode inward during a hurricane. The reason is that since the winds are going so fast outside the house, there is less pressure outside the house than inside. That is why people who are knowledgeable about surviving hurricanes suggest that you open all of the windows in your house when one occurs.
I don’t know about you, but I think it is fun to understand the various phenomena that explain the everyday things that are all around us (For example, how does a flush toilet work?). Think about it; it’s interesting.
I also found it interesting to learn that eastbound aircraft are required to fly at an odd number of thousands of feet, and westbound aircraft at an even number. So, for example, eastbound aircraft will fly at 31,000 feet, and westbound will fly at 30,000. Obviously that regulation is meant to decrease the chances of head-on collisions.
Accordingly, as my wife and I get onto our airplane, we can be comfortable not only that Mr. Bernoulli’s Principle will still be fully engaged, but so will many other features that will increase our chances of a safe flight. In fact, studies show that airplane travel is about 20 times safer than automobile travel, as computed in deaths per passenger mile. (You probably know that the even-numbered interstate highways in our country generally go east and west, and the odd numbered go north and south. But that is just for convenience, and regretfully doesn’t have any effect on head-on collisions.)
So the odds are good that we will return safely from our travels, and you can look forward to many more installments of this column in the coming months. Happy summer travels to us all!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
To me it seems like an unnatural thing for a long and heavy canister with wings to be able to get off the ground and fly through the air. So I did a little research on the subject.
The three major factors of airplane flight are the engines that produce thrust, the wings that produce lift, and the flaps, elevators, and rudders that are used to control the direction in which the aircraft travels. All of those are probably self-evident, except for the concept of lift.
Many flat surfaces like a piece of plywood, a Frisbee, or even a flat stone, will glide for short distances on a fluid like air or water, and will even rise or dive, depending upon the wind and their angle of attack. But they will not produce lift. For that to occur, the objects must have a different configuration.
The next time you are around an airplane, or helicopter either for that matter, look at how the wings and rotors are formed. Their bottoms are basically flat, and go straight to the back, but their top surfaces are curved. This design forces the air on the top of the wing or rotor to travel farther than the air on the bottom during the same amount of time to reach the same spot at the back.
This is important because when the speed of a fluid increases, the pressure exerted by that fluid on the surface of a nearby object actually decreases. In our case, that means that there is more pressure pushing up from the bottom of the wing or rotor than there is pressure on the top pushing down. Therefore, assuming all other factors are equal, when pushed through the air the wings and rotors have a tendency to rise, or to produce lift.
This is Bernoulli’s Principle. Daniel Bernoulli was a Dutch/Swiss mathematician who lived from 1700 to 1782, and he discovered that as the speed of a moving fluid increases, the pressure exerted by that fluid decreases. And this principle holds true as long as the fluids flow smoothly and consistently, and are of the same density.
Furthermore, the more dense the air is with an airplane, the more lift will be generated. That means that the wings will generate more lift in cold weather than warm, because cold air is denser, and the wings will also generate more lift at sea level than at higher altitudes for the same reason.
As I understand it, this can be analogized to a situation in which people would throw large numbers of golf balls in many different directions inside a small container. The balls would spend a lot of energy bouncing into each other and onto the walls of the container, and that would generate higher amounts of pressure on those inner walls. But if the balls were all thrown in the same direction, the inner pressure would be reduced because the balls would not be hitting the walls or each other, and the faster they go, the less they would be inclined to hit anything.
So what about stunt pilots that fly their planes upside down? Why don’t the wings then “lift” the airplane toward the ground? The answer is that the pilots counteract the downward thrust from the wings by over-adjusting the elevators on the back wings of the plane, which changes the angle of attack by keeping the front of the plane higher than the back.
Another application of Bernoulli’s Principle explains why windows in houses tend to explode outward instead of implode inward during a hurricane. The reason is that since the winds are going so fast outside the house, there is less pressure outside the house than inside. That is why people who are knowledgeable about surviving hurricanes suggest that you open all of the windows in your house when one occurs.
I don’t know about you, but I think it is fun to understand the various phenomena that explain the everyday things that are all around us (For example, how does a flush toilet work?). Think about it; it’s interesting.
I also found it interesting to learn that eastbound aircraft are required to fly at an odd number of thousands of feet, and westbound aircraft at an even number. So, for example, eastbound aircraft will fly at 31,000 feet, and westbound will fly at 30,000. Obviously that regulation is meant to decrease the chances of head-on collisions.
Accordingly, as my wife and I get onto our airplane, we can be comfortable not only that Mr. Bernoulli’s Principle will still be fully engaged, but so will many other features that will increase our chances of a safe flight. In fact, studies show that airplane travel is about 20 times safer than automobile travel, as computed in deaths per passenger mile. (You probably know that the even-numbered interstate highways in our country generally go east and west, and the odd numbered go north and south. But that is just for convenience, and regretfully doesn’t have any effect on head-on collisions.)
So the odds are good that we will return safely from our travels, and you can look forward to many more installments of this column in the coming months. Happy summer travels to us all!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, August 17, 2009
Keep government out of the marketplace. by Judge Jim Gray
Ihave been pondering the answer to the following two questions for several years: First, what actually is the basic liberal philosophy? See if you agree with my answer. In general, the liberal philosophy is that “Government can best address — if not cure — the ills of the world by spending money.” (Of course, it is our money that the government is spending.)
And second, what is the basic conservative philosophy? See if you agree with my answer. In general, the conservative philosophy is that “We should have as small and non-intrusive a government as possible, which is basically one that will provide us with things like a military and police force, foreign policy, justice system, national monetary system, some oversight and regulating of the marketplace, and a few other nationally oriented things like that.” One of the rationales for that philosophy is that individual people are in a better position to make good decisions about how to spend their money than the government is.
Unfortunately, the recent administration of President George W. Bush abandoned that conservative philosophy when it failed to veto huge congressional spending, and even sponsored much of it. For as long as I can remember, conservatives have been chastising liberals as people who would “tax and spend.” But the Bush administration took that one big step further with policies that would “tax, borrow and spend.” And that is a big reason why our country is in such fiscal trouble today. Therefore, as a practical matter, the Libertarians are the only political group that has held true to the basic conservative economic philosophy.
So now one of the policies that the Obama administration and Congress are pursuing is the so-called “Cash for Clunkers” program. As you know, this program contributes $3,500 to $4,500 to people who trade in their old “clunker” automobile for the purchase of a new one. And the program has been so “successful” that it has gone through the first $1 billion of tax money, so Congress has now added another $2 billion to it.
Is this a good idea? If it is and it is actually working, maybe we should expand it to provide a subsidy for everything! (Hopefully, everyone will agree that this suggestion is preposterous.) I do agree that the program is taking older, more polluting and less fuel-efficient cars off the roads, and that, in a vacuum, is a positive development. But think of what this government interference in the marketplace is actually doing.
One thing is that it is taking people who are probably at the lower end of the economic ladder and putting them into more debt during these hard economic times. And the program is also encouraging (bribing?) people to purchase many new foreign cars, like Hondas, Toyotas, Hyundais and Kias. This results in our tax money being spent to help the economies of places like Japan and Korea. (Yes, I understand that some of the cars are assembled in the United States, but the underlying fact remains.) And even to the extent that they buy cars manufactured in our country, this comes on the heels of the government having paid billions of tax dollars in bailout money to General Motors and Chrysler Corporation.
As importantly, we must understand that everything is related, which is to say that things do not exist in a vacuum. So by encouraging people to purchase new cars, we are discouraging them from spending money on other things like movie tickets, haircuts and refrigerators. (Corporate welfare and other government subsidies bring on the same results.)
Indeed, from an environmental and economic perspective, wouldn’t society be benefited just as much or even more by encouraging people to purchase fuel-efficient refrigerators, air conditioners, dishwashers or toasters? Why just cars? And in many cases, wouldn’t it help people and the economy more by having the money spent on health insurance, trips to Yellowstone or a child’s education? Or why not encourage people to increase their savings, which could in turn be used as a basis for bank loans for capital improvements and business expansion?
Of course, the automobile industry lobbied strongly for the initiation and continuation of the clunkers program, but that just reinforces the old saying that if you are going to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.
So when it comes down to it, the conservative philosophy works more effectively for the benefit of the individual, as well as for society in general. That means that individuals really are in a much better position than government to decide how most effectively to use their money. And this in turn leads to the conclusion that government can best assist our people, as well as our economy, by getting out of the marketplace!
But there is something even more disturbing in what is happening today that must be faced and discussed. None of the major empires I can think of throughout history were conquered from without. Instead, they fell apart from within. Examples are the Roman, Ottoman and British empires. And all of this deterioration was facilitated by government overspending. Those governments extended their domestic and military spending beyond that which they could afford, and also increased taxes beyond the point that the taxpayers were willing or even able to pay. And it was their undoing.
Are we at that point yet? I do not have the answer to that question, but we should all be aware of the problem. Of course, even with all of this government borrowing of money, my generation will still be fine. But it will be our children and grandchildren’s generations that will be looked upon to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility. Shame on us all!
The fundamental truth is that when taxes get too high, people will move their resources somewhere else — out of the state or even out of the country. (Think of offshore banking in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere.) And when bureaucratic interference, costs and taxes pass a certain threshold, people will either move their businesses elsewhere, or simply be forced to close them down. Therefore, the “outsourcing” of jobs is only one of the logical or even economically mandated results of this situation.
So what can we do to keep from weakening our great country? As I have said numbers of times in this column, it is our government, and if government is not working, we have no one to blame but ourselves. That means that, if only for the sake of our children and grandchildren, we had better get more active and require our government to be more fiscally responsible. And the best place to start is to get it out of the marketplace.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
And second, what is the basic conservative philosophy? See if you agree with my answer. In general, the conservative philosophy is that “We should have as small and non-intrusive a government as possible, which is basically one that will provide us with things like a military and police force, foreign policy, justice system, national monetary system, some oversight and regulating of the marketplace, and a few other nationally oriented things like that.” One of the rationales for that philosophy is that individual people are in a better position to make good decisions about how to spend their money than the government is.
Unfortunately, the recent administration of President George W. Bush abandoned that conservative philosophy when it failed to veto huge congressional spending, and even sponsored much of it. For as long as I can remember, conservatives have been chastising liberals as people who would “tax and spend.” But the Bush administration took that one big step further with policies that would “tax, borrow and spend.” And that is a big reason why our country is in such fiscal trouble today. Therefore, as a practical matter, the Libertarians are the only political group that has held true to the basic conservative economic philosophy.
So now one of the policies that the Obama administration and Congress are pursuing is the so-called “Cash for Clunkers” program. As you know, this program contributes $3,500 to $4,500 to people who trade in their old “clunker” automobile for the purchase of a new one. And the program has been so “successful” that it has gone through the first $1 billion of tax money, so Congress has now added another $2 billion to it.
Is this a good idea? If it is and it is actually working, maybe we should expand it to provide a subsidy for everything! (Hopefully, everyone will agree that this suggestion is preposterous.) I do agree that the program is taking older, more polluting and less fuel-efficient cars off the roads, and that, in a vacuum, is a positive development. But think of what this government interference in the marketplace is actually doing.
One thing is that it is taking people who are probably at the lower end of the economic ladder and putting them into more debt during these hard economic times. And the program is also encouraging (bribing?) people to purchase many new foreign cars, like Hondas, Toyotas, Hyundais and Kias. This results in our tax money being spent to help the economies of places like Japan and Korea. (Yes, I understand that some of the cars are assembled in the United States, but the underlying fact remains.) And even to the extent that they buy cars manufactured in our country, this comes on the heels of the government having paid billions of tax dollars in bailout money to General Motors and Chrysler Corporation.
As importantly, we must understand that everything is related, which is to say that things do not exist in a vacuum. So by encouraging people to purchase new cars, we are discouraging them from spending money on other things like movie tickets, haircuts and refrigerators. (Corporate welfare and other government subsidies bring on the same results.)
Indeed, from an environmental and economic perspective, wouldn’t society be benefited just as much or even more by encouraging people to purchase fuel-efficient refrigerators, air conditioners, dishwashers or toasters? Why just cars? And in many cases, wouldn’t it help people and the economy more by having the money spent on health insurance, trips to Yellowstone or a child’s education? Or why not encourage people to increase their savings, which could in turn be used as a basis for bank loans for capital improvements and business expansion?
Of course, the automobile industry lobbied strongly for the initiation and continuation of the clunkers program, but that just reinforces the old saying that if you are going to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.
So when it comes down to it, the conservative philosophy works more effectively for the benefit of the individual, as well as for society in general. That means that individuals really are in a much better position than government to decide how most effectively to use their money. And this in turn leads to the conclusion that government can best assist our people, as well as our economy, by getting out of the marketplace!
But there is something even more disturbing in what is happening today that must be faced and discussed. None of the major empires I can think of throughout history were conquered from without. Instead, they fell apart from within. Examples are the Roman, Ottoman and British empires. And all of this deterioration was facilitated by government overspending. Those governments extended their domestic and military spending beyond that which they could afford, and also increased taxes beyond the point that the taxpayers were willing or even able to pay. And it was their undoing.
Are we at that point yet? I do not have the answer to that question, but we should all be aware of the problem. Of course, even with all of this government borrowing of money, my generation will still be fine. But it will be our children and grandchildren’s generations that will be looked upon to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility. Shame on us all!
The fundamental truth is that when taxes get too high, people will move their resources somewhere else — out of the state or even out of the country. (Think of offshore banking in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere.) And when bureaucratic interference, costs and taxes pass a certain threshold, people will either move their businesses elsewhere, or simply be forced to close them down. Therefore, the “outsourcing” of jobs is only one of the logical or even economically mandated results of this situation.
So what can we do to keep from weakening our great country? As I have said numbers of times in this column, it is our government, and if government is not working, we have no one to blame but ourselves. That means that, if only for the sake of our children and grandchildren, we had better get more active and require our government to be more fiscally responsible. And the best place to start is to get it out of the marketplace.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, August 10, 2009
Ways to resolve our everyday disputes - by Judge Jim Gray
Looking back over my career as a trial court judge, I believe that the thing that brought me the most gratification was helping people to resolve their disputes voluntarily. In fact, in my current work as a private mediator I am still able to do that, so the gratification continues.
But upon reflection, many of the things that I do professionally to facilitate voluntary resolutions of disputes could also be utilized by everyone to resolve their daily disputes. So I thought I would use today’s column to pass along some of the tips that I have learned throughout the years, and I recommend you consider and employ them, and even discuss them with your children and grandchildren to help train them to be peacemakers.
One tool to use at the beginning of settlement discussions is to anticipate the moments in which people on one side or the other may get emotional or upset by asking questions like: “How should we handle it when. . . ?” Many times, settlement discussions are frustrated by these situations. But if you have anticipated them by asking this question, people will see the emotions for what they are, and be able to get through them.
Probably the most important tool in dispute resolution is listening actively. In fact it should not be considered to be an accident that the word “listen” has the same exact letters in it as the word “silent.” Not only will you receive important and often subtle information simply by listening to people as they set forth their grievances, you will also gain their confidence by showing that you are willing to consider their feelings and positions. So understand that there is a huge difference between the act of listening, and the act of simply waiting to talk.
In addition, sometimes people simply need to vent before any serious discussions can begin. So take the time to listen to them, and interrupt only with brief, clarifying questions. This will show them that you are listening and interested, but it will not interfere with the flow of their thoughts.
It is also important to focus upon the fact that the act of listening is not at all the same thing as agreeing. But seldom can disputes be resolved by people who do not understand the position of each side. Then once the person has finished, it can often be helpful to summarize in your own words what that person has said. This will help to put things into perspective, and also show everyone involved that you understand what the issues are.
At this point you can effectively bring up problem areas with each side’s positions by asking neutral but realistic questions. For example, if one person says that she loves to play Beethoven really loudly in her apartment because it is wonderful music that everyone should enjoy, and it really helps to calm her down, ask her how she would feel and react if her neighbor felt the same way, but instead played Bon Jovi? Or ask if she would be able to calm down just as successfully if she listened to her music with earphones. Questions like that are neutral, but bring up realistic problems and possible resolutions.
Once the discussions begin, never use dismissive or disparaging words about any of the participants or their positions, and do not allow anyone else to do so either. Some examples of these are: “Oh, I will just pay ‘nuisance value’ to settle the case,” or one person saying that someone on the other side is a fraud or a thief, or even calls the other party a “jerk,” “dirtbag” or “slimeball,” etc. If that happens, immediately interrupt and say that such words are counterproductive, off limits and not allowed. And be firm about it, because almost nothing will poison a settlement discussion like comments of this kind.
In more complicated disputes it is frequently helpful to ask each side to brainstorm and come up with one or more proposals that take each side’s interests into account. By engaging them in this process, it frequently brings the parties more to a realistic understanding of the problems, and also brings them closer together.
Several years ago I helped to settle what was probably the first Catholic priest child sexual molestation case in the country by not allowing anyone to discuss money at all. Instead, I asked the plaintiff and his attorneys, who were all Catholics, to adjourn to my jury room and prepare a list of institutional changes that they would suggest be adopted by both the Los Angeles and Orange counties dioceses that would seriously reduce the chances that this scurrilous alleged conduct would ever happen again. The plaintiff and his attorneys did so, and in about an hour emerged with a list of 10 suggestions.
Then I requested the church representatives and their attorneys to go into the jury room and consider and respond to those suggestions. When they emerged in about another hour, not only did they agree to each of the 10 suggestions, they actually added an additional one of their own.
At that point, I suggested a dollar figure to settle the case that was quite a bit less than plaintiff had requested, but more than the church had said it was willing to pay. Soon each side agreed to that number, and the case was settled. This approach enlisted each side to help address the fundamental problem, and helped to give them a vested interest in being a part of its resolution. The plaintiff realized that he could never institute these changes by going to trial, only by settling the case. And the church recognized that it could turn an enormously negative situation into something more positive. In addition, each side also received the gratification of knowing that this positive result was facilitated by their own suggestions.
A big secret tool in dispute resolution is to keep the parties slowly moving closer toward each other. And this progress can be about anything. In the example above, if the complaining neighbors simply state that they also enjoy Beethoven, that can disclose a common bond between them. And the more things people see that they have in common, the more likely they are to agree to a workable resolution of their disputes.
Finally, in my mediation efforts I often tell the parties that I am really in the “dissatisfaction distribution business,” and that is true. You will notice that in this discussion I have only used the word “resolution,” and not the word “solution.”
The reason is that most of the time the only things that have actual solutions are mathematical equations; human problems only have resolutions.
So when you are attempting to work with people and deal with their disputes, make sure they understand that probably nothing will make the situation perfect.
We only can do the best we can in an imperfect world.
But being a peacemaker is a skill that can be practiced and improved. And once it is employed successfully, it can bring to you about as perfect a feeling as you will ever enjoy.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
But upon reflection, many of the things that I do professionally to facilitate voluntary resolutions of disputes could also be utilized by everyone to resolve their daily disputes. So I thought I would use today’s column to pass along some of the tips that I have learned throughout the years, and I recommend you consider and employ them, and even discuss them with your children and grandchildren to help train them to be peacemakers.
One tool to use at the beginning of settlement discussions is to anticipate the moments in which people on one side or the other may get emotional or upset by asking questions like: “How should we handle it when. . . ?” Many times, settlement discussions are frustrated by these situations. But if you have anticipated them by asking this question, people will see the emotions for what they are, and be able to get through them.
Probably the most important tool in dispute resolution is listening actively. In fact it should not be considered to be an accident that the word “listen” has the same exact letters in it as the word “silent.” Not only will you receive important and often subtle information simply by listening to people as they set forth their grievances, you will also gain their confidence by showing that you are willing to consider their feelings and positions. So understand that there is a huge difference between the act of listening, and the act of simply waiting to talk.
In addition, sometimes people simply need to vent before any serious discussions can begin. So take the time to listen to them, and interrupt only with brief, clarifying questions. This will show them that you are listening and interested, but it will not interfere with the flow of their thoughts.
It is also important to focus upon the fact that the act of listening is not at all the same thing as agreeing. But seldom can disputes be resolved by people who do not understand the position of each side. Then once the person has finished, it can often be helpful to summarize in your own words what that person has said. This will help to put things into perspective, and also show everyone involved that you understand what the issues are.
At this point you can effectively bring up problem areas with each side’s positions by asking neutral but realistic questions. For example, if one person says that she loves to play Beethoven really loudly in her apartment because it is wonderful music that everyone should enjoy, and it really helps to calm her down, ask her how she would feel and react if her neighbor felt the same way, but instead played Bon Jovi? Or ask if she would be able to calm down just as successfully if she listened to her music with earphones. Questions like that are neutral, but bring up realistic problems and possible resolutions.
Once the discussions begin, never use dismissive or disparaging words about any of the participants or their positions, and do not allow anyone else to do so either. Some examples of these are: “Oh, I will just pay ‘nuisance value’ to settle the case,” or one person saying that someone on the other side is a fraud or a thief, or even calls the other party a “jerk,” “dirtbag” or “slimeball,” etc. If that happens, immediately interrupt and say that such words are counterproductive, off limits and not allowed. And be firm about it, because almost nothing will poison a settlement discussion like comments of this kind.
In more complicated disputes it is frequently helpful to ask each side to brainstorm and come up with one or more proposals that take each side’s interests into account. By engaging them in this process, it frequently brings the parties more to a realistic understanding of the problems, and also brings them closer together.
Several years ago I helped to settle what was probably the first Catholic priest child sexual molestation case in the country by not allowing anyone to discuss money at all. Instead, I asked the plaintiff and his attorneys, who were all Catholics, to adjourn to my jury room and prepare a list of institutional changes that they would suggest be adopted by both the Los Angeles and Orange counties dioceses that would seriously reduce the chances that this scurrilous alleged conduct would ever happen again. The plaintiff and his attorneys did so, and in about an hour emerged with a list of 10 suggestions.
Then I requested the church representatives and their attorneys to go into the jury room and consider and respond to those suggestions. When they emerged in about another hour, not only did they agree to each of the 10 suggestions, they actually added an additional one of their own.
At that point, I suggested a dollar figure to settle the case that was quite a bit less than plaintiff had requested, but more than the church had said it was willing to pay. Soon each side agreed to that number, and the case was settled. This approach enlisted each side to help address the fundamental problem, and helped to give them a vested interest in being a part of its resolution. The plaintiff realized that he could never institute these changes by going to trial, only by settling the case. And the church recognized that it could turn an enormously negative situation into something more positive. In addition, each side also received the gratification of knowing that this positive result was facilitated by their own suggestions.
A big secret tool in dispute resolution is to keep the parties slowly moving closer toward each other. And this progress can be about anything. In the example above, if the complaining neighbors simply state that they also enjoy Beethoven, that can disclose a common bond between them. And the more things people see that they have in common, the more likely they are to agree to a workable resolution of their disputes.
Finally, in my mediation efforts I often tell the parties that I am really in the “dissatisfaction distribution business,” and that is true. You will notice that in this discussion I have only used the word “resolution,” and not the word “solution.”
The reason is that most of the time the only things that have actual solutions are mathematical equations; human problems only have resolutions.
So when you are attempting to work with people and deal with their disputes, make sure they understand that probably nothing will make the situation perfect.
We only can do the best we can in an imperfect world.
But being a peacemaker is a skill that can be practiced and improved. And once it is employed successfully, it can bring to you about as perfect a feeling as you will ever enjoy.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Friday, August 7, 2009
Have a dose of healthy skepticism - by Judge Jim Gray
When my children were between 5 and 8 years old, we happened to be driving south on the San Diego Freeway below El Toro when I saw a strawberry field that was covered in plastic sheeting and said, “Look kids, that’s where they grow plastic.” All three responded with words like “Really, Daddy, really?” I just kept quiet. And then, about 20 miles later, one of my sons said something like “Oh come on, that’s not true.”
I view that experience as one of the important lessons I have provided to my children, which is to question information, regardless of the source. Now, obviously, one cannot question everything at once, or there is no point of reference. But children should be taught to think about whatever they are told, no matter how much authority the provider of the information has.
So this is my 96th column in this Daily Pilot series. Included in prior columns are suggestions about how to address our nation’s drug policy, health care, illegal immigration, foreign policy about Cuba, educational system, justice system and more. I have recommended we as a country convert to the metric system and utilize transcendental meditation in our schools and prisons, and I have provided you with lots of facts and figures. Have you believed what I have said? Have you believed my statistics? I am a trial court judge who retired after 25 years on the bench. That is a responsible position, and I at least try to be objective. Do you simply accept what I tell you?
You shouldn’t. Not with me, and not with anybody else. I am not encouraging cynicism, just skepticism. Just because something is in writing does not mean it is true. Just because someone who has a responsible position in government, the media, the church or an impressive charitable foundation says something does not mean that it should be accepted without us applying our own sense of reason.
Everyone has biases, including judges. Judges try to recognize and correct for them, but that is not always possible. And people also have motives, with some of them being good, and some not. Why would someone create a computer virus that would cause lots of harm and needless expenditures to the rest of us? Who knows? People do things, and sometimes they are harmful. Why do some people commit arson by lighting mountains on fire? Some people are sick. But other people in responsible positions occasionally act in a similar fashion for lots of different reasons. We have the blessings of being in a mostly free society that allows us to never accept anyone’s information and conclusions by rote without our own verification. Just like my children with the field of plastic.
Is global warming actually happening? If so, is it related to actions by mankind? The CATO Institute in a recent advertisement lists about 100 scientists and educators from all around the world saying that the cause and effect relationship is anything but clear. So do some people have other motives underlying their attempts for developed nations to cut back on carbon emissions? Are there people in our government and elsewhere who have other motives for perpetuating the War on Drugs, our present system of government schools, or converting our private healthcare system into one that is fundamentally controlled by the federal government? It would not be hard to replace our failed immigration system with one that works. Is there a reason why our elected representatives in Congress only talk about changing it, but don’t actually do anything about it?
I don’t particularly have any more information than you do on these questions, although I do spend time thinking about and researching them. But honest skepticism should always be employed. Remember, William Randolph Hearst really did have some unstated vested interests when he printed numbers of untrue or greatly exaggerated stories in his newspaper chain about the supposed harms of marijuana. There also was a movie released in 1936 titled “Reefer Madness” that purported to show innocent high school students being lured to try marijuana and soon thereafter committing murder, rape and suicide as they descended into madness. No such thing has ever been known to have happened, but it was “on the screen,” so people believed it and acted upon it. Instead, they should have been skeptical.
So we should at least get a second opinion and maybe even a third, and think about every question, before we accept something important as true. As a judge, I was called upon frequently to determine who was telling the truth. How could I know? Actually, I’m sure sometimes I was fooled. It is true that sometimes people with beady eyes fidget, perspire and look furtively all around the room when testifying, but they still tell the truth. And others who are calm, self-assured, confident and smooth sometimes lie pathologically. I was trained to be aware of that, but I was also trained to look for biases and motives. We as voters and citizens should be similarly aware, and should similarly pass that honest skepticism on to our children and grandchildren.
Of course, there is also such a thing as “paralysis by analysis.” If we carry “I’m from Missouri” too far, we could all become Hamlets, and then we would never get anything done. So, like everything else, we should employ a balance. So use “Snopes” on the Internet to see if things are true, or a hoax.
But how do you know Snopes is true? Good question.
And by the way, where do they raise plastic?
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
I view that experience as one of the important lessons I have provided to my children, which is to question information, regardless of the source. Now, obviously, one cannot question everything at once, or there is no point of reference. But children should be taught to think about whatever they are told, no matter how much authority the provider of the information has.
So this is my 96th column in this Daily Pilot series. Included in prior columns are suggestions about how to address our nation’s drug policy, health care, illegal immigration, foreign policy about Cuba, educational system, justice system and more. I have recommended we as a country convert to the metric system and utilize transcendental meditation in our schools and prisons, and I have provided you with lots of facts and figures. Have you believed what I have said? Have you believed my statistics? I am a trial court judge who retired after 25 years on the bench. That is a responsible position, and I at least try to be objective. Do you simply accept what I tell you?
You shouldn’t. Not with me, and not with anybody else. I am not encouraging cynicism, just skepticism. Just because something is in writing does not mean it is true. Just because someone who has a responsible position in government, the media, the church or an impressive charitable foundation says something does not mean that it should be accepted without us applying our own sense of reason.
Everyone has biases, including judges. Judges try to recognize and correct for them, but that is not always possible. And people also have motives, with some of them being good, and some not. Why would someone create a computer virus that would cause lots of harm and needless expenditures to the rest of us? Who knows? People do things, and sometimes they are harmful. Why do some people commit arson by lighting mountains on fire? Some people are sick. But other people in responsible positions occasionally act in a similar fashion for lots of different reasons. We have the blessings of being in a mostly free society that allows us to never accept anyone’s information and conclusions by rote without our own verification. Just like my children with the field of plastic.
Is global warming actually happening? If so, is it related to actions by mankind? The CATO Institute in a recent advertisement lists about 100 scientists and educators from all around the world saying that the cause and effect relationship is anything but clear. So do some people have other motives underlying their attempts for developed nations to cut back on carbon emissions? Are there people in our government and elsewhere who have other motives for perpetuating the War on Drugs, our present system of government schools, or converting our private healthcare system into one that is fundamentally controlled by the federal government? It would not be hard to replace our failed immigration system with one that works. Is there a reason why our elected representatives in Congress only talk about changing it, but don’t actually do anything about it?
I don’t particularly have any more information than you do on these questions, although I do spend time thinking about and researching them. But honest skepticism should always be employed. Remember, William Randolph Hearst really did have some unstated vested interests when he printed numbers of untrue or greatly exaggerated stories in his newspaper chain about the supposed harms of marijuana. There also was a movie released in 1936 titled “Reefer Madness” that purported to show innocent high school students being lured to try marijuana and soon thereafter committing murder, rape and suicide as they descended into madness. No such thing has ever been known to have happened, but it was “on the screen,” so people believed it and acted upon it. Instead, they should have been skeptical.
So we should at least get a second opinion and maybe even a third, and think about every question, before we accept something important as true. As a judge, I was called upon frequently to determine who was telling the truth. How could I know? Actually, I’m sure sometimes I was fooled. It is true that sometimes people with beady eyes fidget, perspire and look furtively all around the room when testifying, but they still tell the truth. And others who are calm, self-assured, confident and smooth sometimes lie pathologically. I was trained to be aware of that, but I was also trained to look for biases and motives. We as voters and citizens should be similarly aware, and should similarly pass that honest skepticism on to our children and grandchildren.
Of course, there is also such a thing as “paralysis by analysis.” If we carry “I’m from Missouri” too far, we could all become Hamlets, and then we would never get anything done. So, like everything else, we should employ a balance. So use “Snopes” on the Internet to see if things are true, or a hoax.
But how do you know Snopes is true? Good question.
And by the way, where do they raise plastic?
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Consider the ways to lose a filthy habit - by Judge Jim Gray
The only positive thing that resulted from my wonderful mother’s addiction to cigarettes was that I grew up hating them.
To me, smoking was and is dirty, smelly, expensive, stupid and disgusting. A smoker’s mouth, hair, clothes, car, and house usually smell of stale smoke, and the idea that smoking makes young people look older and more mature is deeply laughable. But even with that being the case, I am embarrassed to say that each of my three adult children smokes “occasionally,” as does our current president.
I know that smoking is attractive to some people, and once begun, can be quite difficult to put aside. Tobacco is at least as addictive as cocaine. Mark Twain best set the stage for quitting when he said: “Giving up smoking is easy, I’ve done it lots of times.”
But in today’s world, we have large amounts of verified scientific information showing how smoking harms one’s health; it killed my mother. So there simply can be no good reason for all smokers, occasional or regular, not to do their best to give up smoking. And, although it can be a delicate subject, I think it is the duty of all of us to encourage our friends and family members who are smokers to quit. Just try not be too judgmental or heavy-handed when you do so.
How can this be done? Focus on the proven facts: Smoking causes lung cancer and, it also contributes to many other health problems, including breathlessness, heart disease, and other cancers. It also can cause poor skin quality, bad breath, and yellow teeth. So quitting smoking may be the most important thing you can do to improve both your health as well as your appearance.
Happily enough, the human body has remarkable powers of recovery. So no matter how many years you have smoked, or how many cigarettes you smoke each day, your health and appearance can benefit enormously from quitting. One of the most encouraging things about quitting is that you can literally see your health getting better each day, each month, and each year.
Here are some of the benefits smokers can look forward to by quitting: After only 20 minutes from your last smoke, your blood pressure and pulse will approach normal, and circulation will improve in your hands and feet. After 12 hours, the nicotine and poisonous carbon monoxide levels in your blood will be reduced by half, and your blood oxygen levels will return to normal.
After 24 hours, carbon monoxide will be eliminated from your body, which will allow your lungs to begin to clear out mucus and other smoking debris. Within 48 hours, there should be no nicotine left in your body. This will greatly improve your senses of taste and smell. Within 72 hours, your breathing will become easier because your airways will start to relax. This will result in increased energy levels.
Within two weeks, your heart will be pumping more oxygen-rich blood around your body, which means you will be putting less strain upon your heart. And the longer you go without smoking, the better your heart and blood vessels will become. In four weeks, the damage that occurs to your skin from smoking, which actually gives you more wrinkles, will have stopped.
Within six weeks, your heart, circulation, lungs, skin, teeth, and senses of taste and smell will have materially improved. Within eight weeks, your bones will be stronger, more dense, and less brittle. This will materially reduce the risk of fractures. Within 10 weeks, your skin will be getting smoother, your hair healthier, and your smile whiter.
In about four months, your coughing, wheezing, and breathing will be improved, as your lung functions will have increased by up to 10%. In about one year, your risk of heart attack will have nearly fallen to about half that of a smoker. In about 10 years, your risk of lung cancer will have fallen to about half that of a smoker. In about 15 years, your risk of heart attack will now be about the same as someone who has never smoked.
But quitting smoking can be difficult, and you must remember that you will experience some ups and downs along the way. Probably the best approach is to set a “quit date,” and announce it to your family and friends. This will allow you to plan ahead and be better prepared and supported. Then before the appointed day, throw out all your cigarettes, empty packs, and lighters – and remember to check all of your clothes, purses, drawers, cars, etc. for any of these. Then clean and put away all ashtrays and other reminders of smoking, and wash all of your clothes, towels, and other items that smell of smoke, clean your home and car thoroughly, and open all the windows to clear the air.
It also helps to keep a “Quit Smoking Calendar,” and circle the days you have not smoked in blue. If you slip and have a cigarette, don’t despair, feel like a failure, or stop trying, but simply circle that date in red. If you think positively throughout, eat a balanced diet, increase your physical exercise, and, of course, consult with medical professionals if you think they can help you, you will strongly increase your chances of permanent success.
But you will also have to learn to deal with cravings for a cigarette. Some ways of counteracting these are to include the “4D’s.” These are: delay at least three minutes before you smoke, and often the urge will pass; drink a glass of water or juice; distract yourself by moving away from the situation that is encouraging you to light up; and take deep breaths, because breathing fully and slowly will help you to relax.
Finally, for additional positive reinforcement, test yourself concerning your progress. For example, test your endurance by walking up stairs after the first week, and on each succeeding week for the first three months, and then keep a chart about the “difficulty level” from one to 10. Test your senses by smelling some flowers or eating something sweet, and keep a similar chart about how strong those senses were. You will be amazed by the results, and this will energize you to continue. Besides, think of the money you will save.
And for pregnant women, the benefits for your developing baby if you stop smoking are stark. Much of the tar and nicotine you breathe in when smoking goes directly from your system into your baby’s, and this cannot help but cause health problems for this developing little person. For example, babies born to women who smoke are twice as likely to develop asthma and other lung problems, such as wheezing and chest infections. They are also much more prone to ear infections, colic, and meningitis, among other things.
There are also new and exciting developments to help people eliminate nicotine cravings and to quit smoking, such as the ML830 Laser treatments, which stimulate oxygen flow in tissues. In only three treatments with this “cold” laser to your ear, hands, wrists, and feet, some physical therapists have had a 70% success rate in curing the craving for cigarettes. For more information, contact Sue Hale, who is an occupational therapist in Florida, at JHale2@cfl.rr.com.
So OK, quitting smoking can be difficult, but the benefits can be enormous. And it is never too late to quit. Your family, your friends, your unborn children, and, most of all, you, yourself, will always be grateful that you did.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
To me, smoking was and is dirty, smelly, expensive, stupid and disgusting. A smoker’s mouth, hair, clothes, car, and house usually smell of stale smoke, and the idea that smoking makes young people look older and more mature is deeply laughable. But even with that being the case, I am embarrassed to say that each of my three adult children smokes “occasionally,” as does our current president.
I know that smoking is attractive to some people, and once begun, can be quite difficult to put aside. Tobacco is at least as addictive as cocaine. Mark Twain best set the stage for quitting when he said: “Giving up smoking is easy, I’ve done it lots of times.”
But in today’s world, we have large amounts of verified scientific information showing how smoking harms one’s health; it killed my mother. So there simply can be no good reason for all smokers, occasional or regular, not to do their best to give up smoking. And, although it can be a delicate subject, I think it is the duty of all of us to encourage our friends and family members who are smokers to quit. Just try not be too judgmental or heavy-handed when you do so.
How can this be done? Focus on the proven facts: Smoking causes lung cancer and, it also contributes to many other health problems, including breathlessness, heart disease, and other cancers. It also can cause poor skin quality, bad breath, and yellow teeth. So quitting smoking may be the most important thing you can do to improve both your health as well as your appearance.
Happily enough, the human body has remarkable powers of recovery. So no matter how many years you have smoked, or how many cigarettes you smoke each day, your health and appearance can benefit enormously from quitting. One of the most encouraging things about quitting is that you can literally see your health getting better each day, each month, and each year.
Here are some of the benefits smokers can look forward to by quitting: After only 20 minutes from your last smoke, your blood pressure and pulse will approach normal, and circulation will improve in your hands and feet. After 12 hours, the nicotine and poisonous carbon monoxide levels in your blood will be reduced by half, and your blood oxygen levels will return to normal.
After 24 hours, carbon monoxide will be eliminated from your body, which will allow your lungs to begin to clear out mucus and other smoking debris. Within 48 hours, there should be no nicotine left in your body. This will greatly improve your senses of taste and smell. Within 72 hours, your breathing will become easier because your airways will start to relax. This will result in increased energy levels.
Within two weeks, your heart will be pumping more oxygen-rich blood around your body, which means you will be putting less strain upon your heart. And the longer you go without smoking, the better your heart and blood vessels will become. In four weeks, the damage that occurs to your skin from smoking, which actually gives you more wrinkles, will have stopped.
Within six weeks, your heart, circulation, lungs, skin, teeth, and senses of taste and smell will have materially improved. Within eight weeks, your bones will be stronger, more dense, and less brittle. This will materially reduce the risk of fractures. Within 10 weeks, your skin will be getting smoother, your hair healthier, and your smile whiter.
In about four months, your coughing, wheezing, and breathing will be improved, as your lung functions will have increased by up to 10%. In about one year, your risk of heart attack will have nearly fallen to about half that of a smoker. In about 10 years, your risk of lung cancer will have fallen to about half that of a smoker. In about 15 years, your risk of heart attack will now be about the same as someone who has never smoked.
But quitting smoking can be difficult, and you must remember that you will experience some ups and downs along the way. Probably the best approach is to set a “quit date,” and announce it to your family and friends. This will allow you to plan ahead and be better prepared and supported. Then before the appointed day, throw out all your cigarettes, empty packs, and lighters – and remember to check all of your clothes, purses, drawers, cars, etc. for any of these. Then clean and put away all ashtrays and other reminders of smoking, and wash all of your clothes, towels, and other items that smell of smoke, clean your home and car thoroughly, and open all the windows to clear the air.
It also helps to keep a “Quit Smoking Calendar,” and circle the days you have not smoked in blue. If you slip and have a cigarette, don’t despair, feel like a failure, or stop trying, but simply circle that date in red. If you think positively throughout, eat a balanced diet, increase your physical exercise, and, of course, consult with medical professionals if you think they can help you, you will strongly increase your chances of permanent success.
But you will also have to learn to deal with cravings for a cigarette. Some ways of counteracting these are to include the “4D’s.” These are: delay at least three minutes before you smoke, and often the urge will pass; drink a glass of water or juice; distract yourself by moving away from the situation that is encouraging you to light up; and take deep breaths, because breathing fully and slowly will help you to relax.
Finally, for additional positive reinforcement, test yourself concerning your progress. For example, test your endurance by walking up stairs after the first week, and on each succeeding week for the first three months, and then keep a chart about the “difficulty level” from one to 10. Test your senses by smelling some flowers or eating something sweet, and keep a similar chart about how strong those senses were. You will be amazed by the results, and this will energize you to continue. Besides, think of the money you will save.
And for pregnant women, the benefits for your developing baby if you stop smoking are stark. Much of the tar and nicotine you breathe in when smoking goes directly from your system into your baby’s, and this cannot help but cause health problems for this developing little person. For example, babies born to women who smoke are twice as likely to develop asthma and other lung problems, such as wheezing and chest infections. They are also much more prone to ear infections, colic, and meningitis, among other things.
There are also new and exciting developments to help people eliminate nicotine cravings and to quit smoking, such as the ML830 Laser treatments, which stimulate oxygen flow in tissues. In only three treatments with this “cold” laser to your ear, hands, wrists, and feet, some physical therapists have had a 70% success rate in curing the craving for cigarettes. For more information, contact Sue Hale, who is an occupational therapist in Florida, at JHale2@cfl.rr.com.
So OK, quitting smoking can be difficult, but the benefits can be enormous. And it is never too late to quit. Your family, your friends, your unborn children, and, most of all, you, yourself, will always be grateful that you did.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, July 6, 2009
Celebrating and preserving our heritage - By Judge Jim Gray
What was life like in Orange County the early 1900s? It was almost completely agricultural, but how did those people live? Well, the answers to these questions can still be found at the Heritage Museum at 3101 West Harvard St. in Santa Ana – which is just off Fairview between Warner and Edinger. Unfortunately, few people seem to be aware of the existence of this museum, but you should take your children and grandchildren and experience it. It really is a gem.
On this 12-acre site is the Kellogg House, which was built like a ship in 1898, the Maag House from the same time period, a blacksmith shop, a water tower, a gold mine, a gazebo, an herb and flower garden, and lots of citrus trees. It also has the highest point in Santa Ana (which is about 65 feet), and the only remaining freshwater marsh in the city. The Kellogg family founded an agricultural supplies business in Orange County that is still in existence, and the Maag family was instrumental in founding the Sunkist Growers Cooperative.
As its mission statement says, the Heritage Museum of Orange County is a cultural and natural history center dedicated to preserving, promoting, and restoring the heritage of Orange County and the surrounding region through quality hands-on educational programs for students and visitors of all ages. And the more you become familiar with what they do, the more you will agree that they are accomplishing that mission.
When you take a tour of the Kellogg House, you and your children will see life as it was 100 years ago by making butter, looking through a stereoscope viewer, doing laundry on a washboard, tasting home-grown citrus fruit, playing the pump organ just like your great grandfather did, dressing (and having your picture taken) in period clothes, and playing with old-fashioned toys.
The museum has many innovative hands-on programs for children and also hosts many other instructional activities. For example, third- to fifth-graders can build their own covered wagon, and “travel” from Independence, Mo. to the California Gold Fields, encountering many hardships along the way. They can also pan for gold in the museum’s rustic stream, remembering to yell “Eureka” when they find their first nugget.
The Heritage Museum also hosts a “First Californians” class for third- to fifth-graders that allows the children to touch and use native “artifacts,” participate in a traditional round dance, and make a ceremonial rattle to take home. Another class teaches children the importance of proper manners, including the formalities of setting a table, making introductions, and speaking on the telephone. Then they can practice their best manners at an old-fashioned tea party in the beautiful oval-shaped dining room of the Kellogg House, and finish the occasion with the preparation of a lovely thank-you note.
For older children, the Orange County Blacksmith Guild now holds beginning “smithy” classes on Saturday mornings, and makes hand-wrought iron goods for display and sale at the gift shop. In addition, the Orange County Astronomers conduct beginning astronomy courses on the site as well.
But this is not only a wonderful place for children and adults to have fun by learning, it is also a great and unique place for weddings and for private and corporate meetings, parties and picnics. When you see it, I know you will agree.
As you can imagine, there are numbers of exceptional opportunities for adults, scouts, and students to contribute as volunteers to the museum. These include docent tours of the facility, and people to help with the gardens and nature center. It also includes helping to expand the mine and water tower exhibits, continuing the decorating and electrical wiring of the Maag House, and much more.
In fact, at this moment the museum is attempting to complete two projects that will add immeasurably to its facility. The first is to move two late 19th Century houses from downtown Santa Ana, where they are scheduled to be demolished, to their site. Then they will be used, among other things, for job skills training for some of our youth. The second is to dig out the pond in the freshwater marsh area, and then also dig a well both to supply water to keep the pond full year-round, and also to provide water for their citrus trees. This would both allow native fish, turtles, frogs and migrating water birds again to be found in Santa Ana, and also materially reduce the museum’s irrigation expenses. If you or any of your friends have any thoughts or expertise about how to bring either or both of these projects to fruition, please let me know.
So often we all hear people say that they wish we could have preserved more of our past. Well here in Orange County, the Heritage Museum is doing just that. We should each embrace that effort, and help the museum to build upon it. So I wanted to pass along this information to you with the hope and expectation that you would take this challenge personally and help. For more information, please visit www.heritagemuseumoc.org, or contact Colleen Mensel at (714) 540-0404.
On this 12-acre site is the Kellogg House, which was built like a ship in 1898, the Maag House from the same time period, a blacksmith shop, a water tower, a gold mine, a gazebo, an herb and flower garden, and lots of citrus trees. It also has the highest point in Santa Ana (which is about 65 feet), and the only remaining freshwater marsh in the city. The Kellogg family founded an agricultural supplies business in Orange County that is still in existence, and the Maag family was instrumental in founding the Sunkist Growers Cooperative.
As its mission statement says, the Heritage Museum of Orange County is a cultural and natural history center dedicated to preserving, promoting, and restoring the heritage of Orange County and the surrounding region through quality hands-on educational programs for students and visitors of all ages. And the more you become familiar with what they do, the more you will agree that they are accomplishing that mission.
When you take a tour of the Kellogg House, you and your children will see life as it was 100 years ago by making butter, looking through a stereoscope viewer, doing laundry on a washboard, tasting home-grown citrus fruit, playing the pump organ just like your great grandfather did, dressing (and having your picture taken) in period clothes, and playing with old-fashioned toys.
The museum has many innovative hands-on programs for children and also hosts many other instructional activities. For example, third- to fifth-graders can build their own covered wagon, and “travel” from Independence, Mo. to the California Gold Fields, encountering many hardships along the way. They can also pan for gold in the museum’s rustic stream, remembering to yell “Eureka” when they find their first nugget.
The Heritage Museum also hosts a “First Californians” class for third- to fifth-graders that allows the children to touch and use native “artifacts,” participate in a traditional round dance, and make a ceremonial rattle to take home. Another class teaches children the importance of proper manners, including the formalities of setting a table, making introductions, and speaking on the telephone. Then they can practice their best manners at an old-fashioned tea party in the beautiful oval-shaped dining room of the Kellogg House, and finish the occasion with the preparation of a lovely thank-you note.
For older children, the Orange County Blacksmith Guild now holds beginning “smithy” classes on Saturday mornings, and makes hand-wrought iron goods for display and sale at the gift shop. In addition, the Orange County Astronomers conduct beginning astronomy courses on the site as well.
But this is not only a wonderful place for children and adults to have fun by learning, it is also a great and unique place for weddings and for private and corporate meetings, parties and picnics. When you see it, I know you will agree.
As you can imagine, there are numbers of exceptional opportunities for adults, scouts, and students to contribute as volunteers to the museum. These include docent tours of the facility, and people to help with the gardens and nature center. It also includes helping to expand the mine and water tower exhibits, continuing the decorating and electrical wiring of the Maag House, and much more.
In fact, at this moment the museum is attempting to complete two projects that will add immeasurably to its facility. The first is to move two late 19th Century houses from downtown Santa Ana, where they are scheduled to be demolished, to their site. Then they will be used, among other things, for job skills training for some of our youth. The second is to dig out the pond in the freshwater marsh area, and then also dig a well both to supply water to keep the pond full year-round, and also to provide water for their citrus trees. This would both allow native fish, turtles, frogs and migrating water birds again to be found in Santa Ana, and also materially reduce the museum’s irrigation expenses. If you or any of your friends have any thoughts or expertise about how to bring either or both of these projects to fruition, please let me know.
So often we all hear people say that they wish we could have preserved more of our past. Well here in Orange County, the Heritage Museum is doing just that. We should each embrace that effort, and help the museum to build upon it. So I wanted to pass along this information to you with the hope and expectation that you would take this challenge personally and help. For more information, please visit www.heritagemuseumoc.org, or contact Colleen Mensel at (714) 540-0404.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Exploring an existing school of thought - by Judge Jim Gray
Since I wrote the column about the transcendental meditation program (“To a mind that is still,” Dec. 13), I have learned so many exciting things about how the technique is now being used both in schools and the criminal justice system.
For example, there is a K-12 school in Fairfield, Iowa, that has incorporated meditation into the regular schedule every day for students, teachers and staff. Everyone swears by the program, and the results support their enthusiasm. The Maharishi School Pioneers, which has only 300 students, requires its students, teachers and staff each morning and afternoon to meditate for 15 to 20 minutes. Basically that is the only difference that sets this open-enrollment and racially integrated school apart from any other (of course it also wisely requires the students to wear uniforms).
But using meditation works. The school has won state championships in drama, golf, history, math, a program called “Odyssey of the Mind,” photography and art, poetry and writing, science, spelling bees, tennis, and track, among other things. Why does meditation work? Because, as the staff says, the simple act of meditating on a regular basis settles and calms the mind and reduces stress, and when stress is reduced, children are happier and more productive.
So, as one student told me in an interview, meditation lets anger and stress simply “fly out of your body.”
Many of the older graduates continue to live in Fairfield expressly so that their children can profit from the same experience they had, and other parents who have heard about the school have moved their families to Fairfield for the same reason. In fact, some of these parents actually came from Laguna Beach.
The school is not religious based and does not pursue any particular beliefs or dogma. But the administrators of the school believe that meditation helps the electrical activity of the human brain to slow down. This makes thinking itself more clear and focused, and also allows the brain to develop more fully. And this, in turn, naturally promotes a higher state of interest and wellness in the students.
Once the technique is learned, meditation puts the students’ minds into a position of complete silence where thoughts do not happen. Soon the students are more aware of their mind settling down, and, eventually, of consciousness itself. This, in turn, increasingly allows the mind to become more clear and to experience more subtle thoughts, so everything around them more readily falls into place and becomes understandable.
The more scientific explanation is that when under stress, the pre-frontal cortex of the brain shuts down, and the primitive part of the brain with the protective “fight or flight” reaction is engaged. This also causes the brain to become flooded with adrenaline, so it is consequently not able to do such things as “analyze a five-year plan,” or even be rational. So stress is one reason why teenagers are more combative and resistant to learning. Then later, when the pre-frontal cortex kicks back in, the brain again gets back into the “I’m sorry” mode and other more calm states of analysis.
But transcendental meditation is successful by increasing the pathways of the brain, which, in turn, improves focus, attention, anger management and positive social behavior. This also makes transcendental meditation extremely effective for people who have ADHD, high-functioning autism, and adults who are bi-polar, and have post-traumatic stress disorders from military service.
The students from Fairfield that I spoke to in telephone interviews confirm these positive results.
For example, Essa said she watches the news and sees people in fights.
“But not here,” she said. “In our school we intermingle and are all supportive.”
In addition, she said that meditation not only helped her to be more athletic, it also gave her both the confidence and initiative to try something new. So she went into theater, and was successful.
Mickey’s family came from Knoxville. He is in the school’s Destination Imagination Club that has won national honors, and is now competing in a worldwide competition. In addition, the school also recently won the statewide science fair, three of its students won state honors in engineering, and one student is a finalist in an international creative arts competition (not bad results for a school of 300).
The school was partially founded with the assistance of the David Lynch Foundation. Lynch is probably known to many of you as the Academy Award-nominated director of “Elephant Man” and “Twin Peaks.” It is the mission of this foundation to eliminate violence and life-threatening stress in schools across the planet, and it already is responsible for the establishment of schools in the United States, Israel and Europe.
One of those schools is the Ideal Academy Public Charter School in northwest Washington, D.C. I spoke to its principal, Dr. George H. Rutherford, who told me that the David Lynch Foundation had sponsored three trainers about three years ago to come to his school and teach transcendental meditation to some of his students, teachers and staff.
And soon things really started changing — for the better! Now they have involved the entire school, and everyone’s attitudes have changed. The students are calmer, more disciplined, more interested in learning and their grades have improved.
Transcendental meditation programs have also been offered in San Quentin and Folsom State prisons in California. Like everywhere else, those programs are taught in seven classes, with the first two being lectures that focus upon the benefits, research and techniques of the method. The third is a personal interview, and the fourth provides one-on-one training. Then the last three are consecutive days of group follow-up. Pretty simple and straightforward, and the programs are not expensive.
But the results show that 90% of the graduates have not returned to prison. There even is a program of criminal sentencing in Missouri in which young adults have the option of using transcendental meditation which has seen similar excellent results with increased schooling, employment and lower recidivism rates.
So that is a further part of the story. Recently, former Beatles Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, along with several other pop stars, raised more than $1 million in a benefit concert at the New York’s Radio City Music Hall to help establish more transcendental meditation programs around the world. They believe that meditation works for our children and for all of the rest of us. And if you learn more about it, I think you will too.
For more information about the sentencing program visit www.EnlightenedSentencing.org, and for the David Lynch Foundation and the transcendental meditation movement in general, visit www.TM.org or www.DavidLynchFoundation.org. Then tell me what you think.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
For example, there is a K-12 school in Fairfield, Iowa, that has incorporated meditation into the regular schedule every day for students, teachers and staff. Everyone swears by the program, and the results support their enthusiasm. The Maharishi School Pioneers, which has only 300 students, requires its students, teachers and staff each morning and afternoon to meditate for 15 to 20 minutes. Basically that is the only difference that sets this open-enrollment and racially integrated school apart from any other (of course it also wisely requires the students to wear uniforms).
But using meditation works. The school has won state championships in drama, golf, history, math, a program called “Odyssey of the Mind,” photography and art, poetry and writing, science, spelling bees, tennis, and track, among other things. Why does meditation work? Because, as the staff says, the simple act of meditating on a regular basis settles and calms the mind and reduces stress, and when stress is reduced, children are happier and more productive.
So, as one student told me in an interview, meditation lets anger and stress simply “fly out of your body.”
Many of the older graduates continue to live in Fairfield expressly so that their children can profit from the same experience they had, and other parents who have heard about the school have moved their families to Fairfield for the same reason. In fact, some of these parents actually came from Laguna Beach.
The school is not religious based and does not pursue any particular beliefs or dogma. But the administrators of the school believe that meditation helps the electrical activity of the human brain to slow down. This makes thinking itself more clear and focused, and also allows the brain to develop more fully. And this, in turn, naturally promotes a higher state of interest and wellness in the students.
Once the technique is learned, meditation puts the students’ minds into a position of complete silence where thoughts do not happen. Soon the students are more aware of their mind settling down, and, eventually, of consciousness itself. This, in turn, increasingly allows the mind to become more clear and to experience more subtle thoughts, so everything around them more readily falls into place and becomes understandable.
The more scientific explanation is that when under stress, the pre-frontal cortex of the brain shuts down, and the primitive part of the brain with the protective “fight or flight” reaction is engaged. This also causes the brain to become flooded with adrenaline, so it is consequently not able to do such things as “analyze a five-year plan,” or even be rational. So stress is one reason why teenagers are more combative and resistant to learning. Then later, when the pre-frontal cortex kicks back in, the brain again gets back into the “I’m sorry” mode and other more calm states of analysis.
But transcendental meditation is successful by increasing the pathways of the brain, which, in turn, improves focus, attention, anger management and positive social behavior. This also makes transcendental meditation extremely effective for people who have ADHD, high-functioning autism, and adults who are bi-polar, and have post-traumatic stress disorders from military service.
The students from Fairfield that I spoke to in telephone interviews confirm these positive results.
For example, Essa said she watches the news and sees people in fights.
“But not here,” she said. “In our school we intermingle and are all supportive.”
In addition, she said that meditation not only helped her to be more athletic, it also gave her both the confidence and initiative to try something new. So she went into theater, and was successful.
Mickey’s family came from Knoxville. He is in the school’s Destination Imagination Club that has won national honors, and is now competing in a worldwide competition. In addition, the school also recently won the statewide science fair, three of its students won state honors in engineering, and one student is a finalist in an international creative arts competition (not bad results for a school of 300).
The school was partially founded with the assistance of the David Lynch Foundation. Lynch is probably known to many of you as the Academy Award-nominated director of “Elephant Man” and “Twin Peaks.” It is the mission of this foundation to eliminate violence and life-threatening stress in schools across the planet, and it already is responsible for the establishment of schools in the United States, Israel and Europe.
One of those schools is the Ideal Academy Public Charter School in northwest Washington, D.C. I spoke to its principal, Dr. George H. Rutherford, who told me that the David Lynch Foundation had sponsored three trainers about three years ago to come to his school and teach transcendental meditation to some of his students, teachers and staff.
And soon things really started changing — for the better! Now they have involved the entire school, and everyone’s attitudes have changed. The students are calmer, more disciplined, more interested in learning and their grades have improved.
Transcendental meditation programs have also been offered in San Quentin and Folsom State prisons in California. Like everywhere else, those programs are taught in seven classes, with the first two being lectures that focus upon the benefits, research and techniques of the method. The third is a personal interview, and the fourth provides one-on-one training. Then the last three are consecutive days of group follow-up. Pretty simple and straightforward, and the programs are not expensive.
But the results show that 90% of the graduates have not returned to prison. There even is a program of criminal sentencing in Missouri in which young adults have the option of using transcendental meditation which has seen similar excellent results with increased schooling, employment and lower recidivism rates.
So that is a further part of the story. Recently, former Beatles Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, along with several other pop stars, raised more than $1 million in a benefit concert at the New York’s Radio City Music Hall to help establish more transcendental meditation programs around the world. They believe that meditation works for our children and for all of the rest of us. And if you learn more about it, I think you will too.
For more information about the sentencing program visit www.EnlightenedSentencing.org, and for the David Lynch Foundation and the transcendental meditation movement in general, visit www.TM.org or www.DavidLynchFoundation.org. Then tell me what you think.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Join me in celebrating our country’s flag - by Judge Jim Gray
Our country’s flag is the symbol of our country and our freedoms, and in many ways it is a large part of our daily lives. On June 14, 1777, Congress passed an act adopting a flag with 13 horizontal stripes, alternating red and white, with red on the top and bottom, and 13 white stars on a field of blue, to be our country’s standard. And so every year on June 14, which happens to be today, we celebrate Flag Day.
Our “Stars and Stripes” is one of the oldest national flags in the world, even older than the Union Jack of Great Britain or the Tricolor of France. It was designed by a committee chaired by Ben Franklin, after consultations with George Washington as the head of the Army, and first unfurled publicly by Washington himself Jan. 2, 1776.
The colors of the flag are frequently seen as representing the very character of our nation. The white in the flag is said to be a living symbol of our country being the “land of liberty.” The red signifies the courage and sacrifices of the nation’s defenders, and the blue represents the loyalty and unity of our citizens.
As new states were added to the union, the number of both the stars and the stripes was increased accordingly. But in April 1818, Congress passed an act providing that the flag should revert to the original 13 stripes, but that a star should be added the next July 4 after the admittance of any new state into the Union.
The guidelines about how to display and use the flag were haphazard all the way until July 7, 1976, when Congress passed the Federal Flag Code. This contains eight sections and multiple subsections describing how, when, and where the flag should be displayed, honored, handled and eventually disposed.
Some of the most interesting regulations for the flag are that it can only be displayed between sunrise and sunset, unless it is properly illuminated during all of hours of darkness, and not displayed at all during inclement weather unless it is an all-weather flag. It should also be raised briskly, but lowered ceremoniously, and should be displayed on the main administration building of every public institution, and on every schoolhouse.
With the extremely limited exception of when church pennants are flown during religious services conducted aboard our naval vessels while at sea, no other flag or pennant may be placed above our flag at any time. If any flags are flown on the same level, our flag must be to the right side of all the others. And our flag may not be dipped to any person or thing under any circumstances, with the limited exception of when a vessel from a foreign country that is recognized by our government dips its flag to a vessel of the U.S. Navy, our naval ship may return the compliment.
The flag is never to be flown with the stars at the bottom, unless there is a circumstance of dire emergency, such as a ship sinking, and it is not supposed to be left on a grave for more than one day. It is also never to be allowed to touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, floor, water or merchandise.
Our national banner is also not to be used for advertising for any purposes, or as a table cover, wearing apparel or articles such as cushions, handkerchiefs or napkins, or as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying or delivering anything. But it is permissible for the flag to be worn as a button or pin.
Even though we have those recommendations, no federal statutes exist that set forth any penalties for any misuse or mistreatment of our flag, which leaves the enforcement of these provisions, if at all, up to the individual states.
Ironically enough, because our nation’s flag is a symbol for liberty and freedom, it actually stands as a principle to allow its own desecration or destruction.
This was the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Texas v. Johnson, which involved the burning of the flag by some protesters. The court held that our liberties actually allow a person to burn, mutilate or even spit upon our flag as a matter of free speech.
This legitimately upsets lots of people. But upon reflection, people usually understand that we can’t have freedom only for speech and symbolic acts that we agree with. That would soon result in protections only for speech that the government allows, and that would take us in a direction that we do not want to go.
F.A. (Baldy) Harper, the founder of the Institute for Humane Studies, once said “The man who knows what freedom means will find a way to be free.”
Join me in honoring the Stars and Stripes, especially today on its special day. Among other things, that means that we stand, if we are able, when the flag goes by, put our hands over our hearts both when the flag is presented and when we sing our national anthem, and fly it often but appropriately, with the full understanding that this flag is our chief symbol of the freedoms that are the very soul of our country.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Our “Stars and Stripes” is one of the oldest national flags in the world, even older than the Union Jack of Great Britain or the Tricolor of France. It was designed by a committee chaired by Ben Franklin, after consultations with George Washington as the head of the Army, and first unfurled publicly by Washington himself Jan. 2, 1776.
The colors of the flag are frequently seen as representing the very character of our nation. The white in the flag is said to be a living symbol of our country being the “land of liberty.” The red signifies the courage and sacrifices of the nation’s defenders, and the blue represents the loyalty and unity of our citizens.
As new states were added to the union, the number of both the stars and the stripes was increased accordingly. But in April 1818, Congress passed an act providing that the flag should revert to the original 13 stripes, but that a star should be added the next July 4 after the admittance of any new state into the Union.
The guidelines about how to display and use the flag were haphazard all the way until July 7, 1976, when Congress passed the Federal Flag Code. This contains eight sections and multiple subsections describing how, when, and where the flag should be displayed, honored, handled and eventually disposed.
Some of the most interesting regulations for the flag are that it can only be displayed between sunrise and sunset, unless it is properly illuminated during all of hours of darkness, and not displayed at all during inclement weather unless it is an all-weather flag. It should also be raised briskly, but lowered ceremoniously, and should be displayed on the main administration building of every public institution, and on every schoolhouse.
With the extremely limited exception of when church pennants are flown during religious services conducted aboard our naval vessels while at sea, no other flag or pennant may be placed above our flag at any time. If any flags are flown on the same level, our flag must be to the right side of all the others. And our flag may not be dipped to any person or thing under any circumstances, with the limited exception of when a vessel from a foreign country that is recognized by our government dips its flag to a vessel of the U.S. Navy, our naval ship may return the compliment.
The flag is never to be flown with the stars at the bottom, unless there is a circumstance of dire emergency, such as a ship sinking, and it is not supposed to be left on a grave for more than one day. It is also never to be allowed to touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, floor, water or merchandise.
Our national banner is also not to be used for advertising for any purposes, or as a table cover, wearing apparel or articles such as cushions, handkerchiefs or napkins, or as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying or delivering anything. But it is permissible for the flag to be worn as a button or pin.
Even though we have those recommendations, no federal statutes exist that set forth any penalties for any misuse or mistreatment of our flag, which leaves the enforcement of these provisions, if at all, up to the individual states.
Ironically enough, because our nation’s flag is a symbol for liberty and freedom, it actually stands as a principle to allow its own desecration or destruction.
This was the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Texas v. Johnson, which involved the burning of the flag by some protesters. The court held that our liberties actually allow a person to burn, mutilate or even spit upon our flag as a matter of free speech.
This legitimately upsets lots of people. But upon reflection, people usually understand that we can’t have freedom only for speech and symbolic acts that we agree with. That would soon result in protections only for speech that the government allows, and that would take us in a direction that we do not want to go.
F.A. (Baldy) Harper, the founder of the Institute for Humane Studies, once said “The man who knows what freedom means will find a way to be free.”
Join me in honoring the Stars and Stripes, especially today on its special day. Among other things, that means that we stand, if we are able, when the flag goes by, put our hands over our hearts both when the flag is presented and when we sing our national anthem, and fly it often but appropriately, with the full understanding that this flag is our chief symbol of the freedoms that are the very soul of our country.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, May 31, 2009
To the people of Russia: Thank you - by Judge Jim Gray
Just like most of you, I get lots of unsolicited e-mail messages. Some of them I look at, and some of them I don’t. But I received one recently that really caught my attention about something called the “Monument to the Struggle Against World Terrorism.”
The monument is titled “Tear Drop,” and it is located on a peninsula at Bayonne Harbor, N.J., in full view of the Statue of Liberty and the former site of the World Trade Center. It was created to honor those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedies, as well as the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Furthermore, it was a gift to the United States of America by the people of Russia!
Snopes verifies the story, and my other research confirms it. But before I received that message, I had not heard anything about it. Had you?
The idea for the monument came from Zurab Tsereteli, who is one of Russia’s most prominent and prolific sculptors, designers and architects, and his works are found all over the world. One of them, titled “Good Defeats Evil,” is a sculpture created from scrapped American and Soviet missiles, and it resides on the grounds of the United Nations building in New York.
The “Tear Drop” monument is more than 100 feet tall, and weighs 175 tons. It was shipped here from Russia in six sections, assembled by a group of Russian artisans, and dedicated to the American people as a symbol of solidarity in the fight against world terrorism. Inscribed on the 11-sided base of the monument are the names of the 3,000 people who lost their lives in the 1993 and 9/11 terrorist acts. The dedication ceremony took place on Sept. 11, 2006.
Tsereteli said that he was struck by the outpouring of grief on the streets of Moscow when word came of the 9/11 tragedies, and this caused the image of a tear to form in his mind.
The nickel-plated teardrop itself weighs 4 tons, and is about 40 feet high.
The remainder of the monument is of granite. But the lasting message, in addition to the sadness and grief over the senseless loss of life, is a hope for the future that is free from terror.
I know all Americans join together with Russians and much of the rest of the world in the sharing of this hope. But why has this wonderful gift not been more heavily publicized? The people of France rightfully continue to receive credit and appreciation for their gift of the Statue of Liberty so long ago, why not the people of Russia? Could it be that since we have a history of conflict with the government of the former Soviet Union, and still have some disagreements with the present government of Russia, we do not wish to publicize anything good and generous about their people?
Unfortunately, that is the way our politics has evolved today. If one political party has a good idea, the other tends to oppose it just so that the first will not receive any credit. Has politics made us sink so low here with the people of Russia as well? I hope not, but I’m having difficulty coming up with an alternative explanation.
But since so few of us seem to have been aware of this monument, I am going to send a long overdue note of thanks on behalf of our country to President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, expressing our heartfelt thanks to the people of Russia for this marvelous gesture of solidarity. In fact, this was such a noteworthy gift and message by the Russian people, maybe you will want to join me and send your own letters of appreciation as well.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
The monument is titled “Tear Drop,” and it is located on a peninsula at Bayonne Harbor, N.J., in full view of the Statue of Liberty and the former site of the World Trade Center. It was created to honor those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedies, as well as the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Furthermore, it was a gift to the United States of America by the people of Russia!
Snopes verifies the story, and my other research confirms it. But before I received that message, I had not heard anything about it. Had you?
The idea for the monument came from Zurab Tsereteli, who is one of Russia’s most prominent and prolific sculptors, designers and architects, and his works are found all over the world. One of them, titled “Good Defeats Evil,” is a sculpture created from scrapped American and Soviet missiles, and it resides on the grounds of the United Nations building in New York.
The “Tear Drop” monument is more than 100 feet tall, and weighs 175 tons. It was shipped here from Russia in six sections, assembled by a group of Russian artisans, and dedicated to the American people as a symbol of solidarity in the fight against world terrorism. Inscribed on the 11-sided base of the monument are the names of the 3,000 people who lost their lives in the 1993 and 9/11 terrorist acts. The dedication ceremony took place on Sept. 11, 2006.
Tsereteli said that he was struck by the outpouring of grief on the streets of Moscow when word came of the 9/11 tragedies, and this caused the image of a tear to form in his mind.
The nickel-plated teardrop itself weighs 4 tons, and is about 40 feet high.
The remainder of the monument is of granite. But the lasting message, in addition to the sadness and grief over the senseless loss of life, is a hope for the future that is free from terror.
I know all Americans join together with Russians and much of the rest of the world in the sharing of this hope. But why has this wonderful gift not been more heavily publicized? The people of France rightfully continue to receive credit and appreciation for their gift of the Statue of Liberty so long ago, why not the people of Russia? Could it be that since we have a history of conflict with the government of the former Soviet Union, and still have some disagreements with the present government of Russia, we do not wish to publicize anything good and generous about their people?
Unfortunately, that is the way our politics has evolved today. If one political party has a good idea, the other tends to oppose it just so that the first will not receive any credit. Has politics made us sink so low here with the people of Russia as well? I hope not, but I’m having difficulty coming up with an alternative explanation.
But since so few of us seem to have been aware of this monument, I am going to send a long overdue note of thanks on behalf of our country to President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, expressing our heartfelt thanks to the people of Russia for this marvelous gesture of solidarity. In fact, this was such a noteworthy gift and message by the Russian people, maybe you will want to join me and send your own letters of appreciation as well.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Reworking prison system could save us - by Judge Jim Gray
OK, now that the voters have told the politicians in Sacramento in the recent election that they oppose the continual raising of their taxes, and also disapprove of the way government has handled our finances, where we should go from here?
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Reworking prison system could save us - by Judge Jim Gray
OK, now that the voters have told the politicians in Sacramento in the recent election that they oppose the continual raising of their taxes, and also disapprove of the way government has handled our finances, where we should go from here?
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, May 18, 2009
We have art all around us in Newport - by Judge Jim Gray
Do you agree with me that being surrounded with art and cultural opportunities enhances and stimulates our daily lives? Well, the good news is that, living in and near Newport Beach, we have those things all around us. But the less than good news is that many people are not aware of that fact, other than seeing the bushes on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar that have been shaped into the form of dolphins.
Much of the credit for the art around us goes to the Newport Beach City Arts Commission, which was formed in 1974. It is composed of seven volunteers who are appointed by the City Council, and serve up to two four-year terms.
Their formal function is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council on all matters pertaining to artistic, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the city. Therefore, the commission recommends the adoption of such ordinances, rules and regulations as it deems necessary for the administration and preservation of fine arts and performing arts, and all of the historical, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the community. The group’s meetings are at 5 p.m. the second Thursday of each month at the Newport Beach Central Library Conference Room.
The commission also oversees the providing of grant money from the city to art organizations that have a connection to the city. Some of the recipients have been the Newport Beach Film Festival, Opera Pacific, local ballet companies, Pacific Symphony and Stop Gap Theatre.
Those are the formal functions. But that’s really just the beginning, because the commission also puts on Summer Concerts in the Parks, arts educational programs, Shakespeare by the Sea, and art exhibitions in the City Hall and the Central Library. And it also worked closely with local volunteers on the design and installation of the McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument near the Newport Pier.
So when it comes down to it, the commission really represents genuine community spirit in action, and demonstrates a passion to bring an art element into our public lives. And it is successful in its efforts. In fact, it is unusual to have so much activity in the arts in such a relatively small city.
For example, Summer Concerts in the Park has been going on for nine years, admission is free and the concerts are family friendly. This summer the concerts are scheduled at Mariners Park on July 19 with “Night & Days with Kevin Spirtas,” and at Bonita Canyon Sports Park on Aug. 23 with the Susie Hansen Latin Band. Both concerts are on Sundays, and begin at 6 p.m. This year’s Shakespeare productions are scheduled to be “Love’s Labour’s Lost” on Aug. 1, and “As You Like It” on Aug. 2, and both will also be at Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and begin at 7 p.m. But you will probably want to arrive early for each event and enjoy a picnic dinner — and don’t forget to bring your children and some friends!
In addition to the performing arts, the commission every year sponsors a “Juried Art Show.” This event accepts work from any artists who reside within about 50 miles of Newport. The commission volunteers set up the artwork, and then it is judged by two art professionals. Thereafter all of the artwork is for sale to the general public, with portions going both to the artists and to the Newport Beach Arts Foundation, which is a local nonprofit dedicated to enhancing arts in our city. And at the end of the event there is a ceremony with prizes awarded.
Before I inquired into the work of the arts commission I was simply unaware of the existence of the wonderful McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument. So I went to the Newport Pier, right in front of the dory fishermen’s market, and took a look.
It made me feel proud, and I’m sure you will feel the same.
The motto of the monument is “Remembering the Past; Acknowledging the Present; Looking Toward the Future,” and it is made up of a sea-green sphere that depicts some of the most important aspects of the city’s history.
In fact, you can follow the city’s “footsteps through time,” beginning with its founding by the four McFadden brothers as the “new port,” its incorporation in 1906, and all the way up to the present.
The institutions that are featured are the red cars, Rendezvous Ballroom, dory fishermen, Fun Zone, Balboa and Newport piers, surfing, the McFadden brothers and John Wayne.
As the commission Chairwoman Robyn Grant told me, our city cannot be just made up of beautiful beaches and parks, and world-class shopping and restaurants, it also needs to be immersed in art, because art entertains, enriches and enhances our lives. She is right, and she and her fellow volunteers have truly increased the quality of life for everyone in our area.
So take advantage of their efforts. Go to a summer concert or one of the nights of Shakespeare, devote a few minutes next time you are at the Central Library or City Hall to view the work of the local artists on display, or take a walk down by the Newport Pier and experience the history of our great city at McFadden Square.
And join me in giving each of the members of the City Arts Commission a hearty, well-deserved, and continual chorus of appreciation.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Much of the credit for the art around us goes to the Newport Beach City Arts Commission, which was formed in 1974. It is composed of seven volunteers who are appointed by the City Council, and serve up to two four-year terms.
Their formal function is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council on all matters pertaining to artistic, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the city. Therefore, the commission recommends the adoption of such ordinances, rules and regulations as it deems necessary for the administration and preservation of fine arts and performing arts, and all of the historical, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the community. The group’s meetings are at 5 p.m. the second Thursday of each month at the Newport Beach Central Library Conference Room.
The commission also oversees the providing of grant money from the city to art organizations that have a connection to the city. Some of the recipients have been the Newport Beach Film Festival, Opera Pacific, local ballet companies, Pacific Symphony and Stop Gap Theatre.
Those are the formal functions. But that’s really just the beginning, because the commission also puts on Summer Concerts in the Parks, arts educational programs, Shakespeare by the Sea, and art exhibitions in the City Hall and the Central Library. And it also worked closely with local volunteers on the design and installation of the McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument near the Newport Pier.
So when it comes down to it, the commission really represents genuine community spirit in action, and demonstrates a passion to bring an art element into our public lives. And it is successful in its efforts. In fact, it is unusual to have so much activity in the arts in such a relatively small city.
For example, Summer Concerts in the Park has been going on for nine years, admission is free and the concerts are family friendly. This summer the concerts are scheduled at Mariners Park on July 19 with “Night & Days with Kevin Spirtas,” and at Bonita Canyon Sports Park on Aug. 23 with the Susie Hansen Latin Band. Both concerts are on Sundays, and begin at 6 p.m. This year’s Shakespeare productions are scheduled to be “Love’s Labour’s Lost” on Aug. 1, and “As You Like It” on Aug. 2, and both will also be at Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and begin at 7 p.m. But you will probably want to arrive early for each event and enjoy a picnic dinner — and don’t forget to bring your children and some friends!
In addition to the performing arts, the commission every year sponsors a “Juried Art Show.” This event accepts work from any artists who reside within about 50 miles of Newport. The commission volunteers set up the artwork, and then it is judged by two art professionals. Thereafter all of the artwork is for sale to the general public, with portions going both to the artists and to the Newport Beach Arts Foundation, which is a local nonprofit dedicated to enhancing arts in our city. And at the end of the event there is a ceremony with prizes awarded.
Before I inquired into the work of the arts commission I was simply unaware of the existence of the wonderful McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument. So I went to the Newport Pier, right in front of the dory fishermen’s market, and took a look.
It made me feel proud, and I’m sure you will feel the same.
The motto of the monument is “Remembering the Past; Acknowledging the Present; Looking Toward the Future,” and it is made up of a sea-green sphere that depicts some of the most important aspects of the city’s history.
In fact, you can follow the city’s “footsteps through time,” beginning with its founding by the four McFadden brothers as the “new port,” its incorporation in 1906, and all the way up to the present.
The institutions that are featured are the red cars, Rendezvous Ballroom, dory fishermen, Fun Zone, Balboa and Newport piers, surfing, the McFadden brothers and John Wayne.
As the commission Chairwoman Robyn Grant told me, our city cannot be just made up of beautiful beaches and parks, and world-class shopping and restaurants, it also needs to be immersed in art, because art entertains, enriches and enhances our lives. She is right, and she and her fellow volunteers have truly increased the quality of life for everyone in our area.
So take advantage of their efforts. Go to a summer concert or one of the nights of Shakespeare, devote a few minutes next time you are at the Central Library or City Hall to view the work of the local artists on display, or take a walk down by the Newport Pier and experience the history of our great city at McFadden Square.
And join me in giving each of the members of the City Arts Commission a hearty, well-deserved, and continual chorus of appreciation.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+a.jpg)
