The Glade 4.0

The cameras would be in place to reduce the necessary staff to monitor the prison population.

Also the job of watching camera feeds does not require being trained and capable of wrestling an inmate.

The point is the systems of "other countries" have actual incentives to prevent prison rape. If someone gets raped, they get a payoff and/or released. That means the government/prison MUST prevent rapes if they don't want to get crucified by the electorate for letting all the prisoners go.

Our system doesn't have it. Nobody gives a **** if a prisoner gets raped. The bureau of prisons suffers little to no consequences for a high incidence of rape or other crimes in prison. The victim, in addition, has no recourse at all. He's not allowed to defend himself and he's not allowed to move away from the people who are victimizing him. In fact, many people think it's appropriate that people get beaten and raped in prison, and tacitly approve of conditions that are conducive to this.

In addition, most European countries don't have indeterminate life terms, so prisoners are less likely to commit crimes that will extend their sentences. In the US we have lifers that have nothing to lose because they're never getting out anyways.

The cameras would be in place to reduce the necessary staff to monitor the prison population. While I'm sure the government would attempt to bill it as "creating jobs" it would actually reduce them. Also the job of watching camera feeds does not require being trained and capable of wrestling an inmate.

I'll agree with that if cameras are supplemental. Less so if they're replacement, as you may need an "all hands" type moment during lockdowns.

If properly dispatched by the camera operators, how many guards would be needed to maintain the Joebobian Prison Complex? Could it be maintained with ten? Could it be maintained with fifteen? if camera operators are paid exactly the same as security guards, that number merely needs to be less than 19 for your camera operators to be a wash financially. If that number is less than 18, you have savings on your personnel expenses.

Let us consider, for a moment, the Joebobian Prison Complex. It has a hundred inmates. A typical shift requires twenty guards. If the Joebobian Prison Complex were covered with cameras, two operators could sufficiently monitor all of the feeds.

If properly dispatched by the camera operators, how many guards would be needed to maintain the Joebobian Prison Complex? Could it be maintained with ten? Could it be maintained with fifteen? if camera operators are paid exactly the same as security guards, that number merely needs to be less than 19 for your camera operators to be a wash financially. If that number is less than 18, you have savings on your personnel expenses.

I'm quite aware of how to tabulate staff metrics.

Even presuming cameras reduce guards, (which I'm slightly skeptical of, but open to) they add other staff besides just the operators.

Ultimately, for any given prison, much less the entire prison system, it would take more analysis than we have data to complete here.

Another cost-saving suggestion: if every prisoner was outfitted with a non-removable shock collar and the camera operators could just push a button to trigger it, we might not need any guards at all! (I'm only half kidding here.)

Much like any institution, new technology is not going to reduce staff right away. It takes some time before those in decision-making positions realize certain staff are superfluous and make appropriate changes. There is also the prison guards' union to consider. I'm not sure if there actually is a prison guards' union at the moment, but there will be once aspects of their job are being performed by computers.

Make no mistake, however, that the ability for a dispatcher in Columbus to lock down Grafton Correctional Institution has a major impact on staffing for the entire Ohio state penal system. The cost required for such a system is not remarkably higher than the cost to put the cameras up.

shuyung's ant-buttsex AI.

Much like any institution, new technology is not going to reduce staff right away. It takes some time before those in decision-making positions realize certain staff are superfluous and make appropriate changes. There is also the prison guards' union to consider. I'm not sure if there actually is a prison guards' union at the moment, but there will be once aspects of their job are being performed by computers.

Make no mistake, however, that the ability for a dispatcher in Columbus to lock down Grafton Correctional Institution has a major impact on staffing for the entire Ohio state penal system. The cost required for such a system is not remarkably higher than the cost to put the cameras up.

It’s All Fun and Games Until Obama’s Feelings Get Hurt

Officials at the Missouri State Fair have banned for life a rodeo clown who entertained spectators during a bull riding contest while wearing a Barack Obama mask. "The rodeo clown won't be allowed to participate or perform at the fair again," the Associated Press reported Monday. "Fair officials say they're also reviewing whether to take any action against the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association, the contractor responsible for Saturday's event."

It's an extreme response but not a surprising one. For those who came in late the unwritten rules are simple: It's okay to wear a Nixon, Reagan or George W. Bush mask. A Barack Obama mask? No so much.

Making fun of the President of the United States is what we do in America. It's a subtle reminder that we are a nation of laws, not of men, and that we threw off the monarchy more than 225 years ago and have not looked back since. We poke fun at our elected leaders to keep them from getting too big for their britches, to remind them – and ourselves – that we are all just citizens, some having been chosen by the rest of us to carry a greater share of the responsibility for the conduct of civic affairs.

From Mark Twain to Will Rodgers, from Fred Allen to Mort Sahl, Johnny Carson and Jay Leno, humorists, clowns and comedians have made taking shots at politicians their bread and butter. Until Barack Obama that is.

In days past, making fun of the president, not just his policies but the man himself, was no big deal. Some, like FDR, Kennedy and Reagan, appeared to take it in stride and were able to give as good as they got. Others, like Nixon, found little to laugh at. Obama is different. People are all too sensitive about what passes for funny where he is concerned, lest it displace him from the pedestal on which his supporters have placed him.

Overall this sensitivity reflects what might be called a latent insecurity about his job performance, about his ability to lead the nation that brings to mind the story of the emperor and his new suit of clothes.

President Obama's policies have failed in large measure. The post-recession growth in the economy has been the most anemic since the end of World War II. The official unemployment rate during his time in office has consistently been over 7 percent, while the real unemployment rate, which includes people who have simply stopped looking for work, is closer to 14 percent. His signature health care law is a mess even before it is fully implemented, the latest example being Tuesday's report that the caps on out-of-pocket health care costs the statute imposed starting in 2014 are being pushed back to 2015. America is even less popular abroad than it was under George W. Bush and our relations with the Chinese, the Russians and the Islamic world – three hot button flash points – have all worsened. And yet, somehow, making fun of the president is in some ways still off limits.

Taste is not a factor here. There were plenty of things that were written about George W. Bush and said about Ronald Reagan that were in very bad taste, yet some people laughed and the tellers of the tale got away with it. Under Obama, people are so fawningly, stupidly concerned about hidden meanings and matters of perception that they are falling all over themselves to avoid giving offense.

It is unfortunate the culture has been changed in this way, for comedy's sake as well as the nation's well-being. It may be a naturally defensive posture to take given that the Alinskites who worship Obama and all that he stands for use public shaming as a rather effective bludgeon against anyone who gets in their way. As has been previously noted, in the age of the community organizer president the ones who scream the loudest, longest often win even when the facts are not on their side.

A lifetime ban on a poor rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask, when there is, as the AP noted, a tradition of poking fun at all presidents in the same way in that venue, is not only extreme but borders on Stalinist. Remember, a bad joke told in Soviet Russia could get one sent to the gulag. In this case the offender should probably be grateful he is only being sent to the unemployment line.

Consumer Product Safety Enforcement Doesn't Usually Go After Individuals, But It Does if You Make Fun of the Government

Brian Doherty|Aug. 13, 2013 1:35 pm



Walter Olson at Cato sums up the ongoing story of what appears to be the first time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has deliberately gone after an individual business owner over a safety complaint.



Has Craig Zucker, the former CEO of Maxfield and Oberton, recklessly continued to sell something killing or harming millions with no due diligence? No. The product in question, a rare earth magnet toy known as "Buckyballs," were labeled instructing people to keep them away from children, since they can cause health problems to children if swallowed.

The company was known to stop selling them in stores that didn't try to keep them segregated from children's toys. The CPSC's complaint documents fewer than two dozen problem cases. And the company chose to go out of business in response to CPSC pressure. Anthony Fisher blogged last year about when Buckyballs gave up the ghost in response to state pressure.

Olson tells the story of how the fight became about a man, not a company, and why:


The maker in question had devised cheeky, sarcastic ads asking why other products with injurious potential (coconuts, hot dogs) weren’t banned on the CPSC’s logic.

One reason it’s rare to mount open and disrespectful resistance to a federal agency is that agencies have so many ways to make businesspeople’s lives unhappy. This spring, breaking new legal ground, the CPSC reached out and named CEO Craig Zucker personally as a respondent in its recall proceeding....If the move succeeds, Zucker could be ordered to foot the bill personally for offering consumers full refunds for all products sold, reimbursing retailers for recall costs, and various other expenses potentially reaching into the millions.

As Morrison & Foerster says in its client alert:


Despite [Buckyballs maker] Maxfield and Oberton’s aggressive publicity campaign against the CPSC, the CPSC continued to pursue its complaint. Maxfield and Oberton folded and the company dissolved in December 2012, making the complaint moot. In February 2013, the CPSC moved for leave to file a second amended complaint naming the former CEO, Craig Zucker, both individually and as an officer of Maxfield and Oberton. The CPSC requested the same relief against Zucker as it had against Maxfield and Oberton—i.e., recall, refund, and compliance reports.


While Zucker has “argued that he could not be liable as he did not personally manufacture, distribute, or sell the product at issue,” CPSC has invoked something called the responsible corporate officer doctrine, approved by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Dotterweich (1943) and U.S. v. Park (1975), which “permits responsible corporate officers to be held liable for the actions of the corporation, even in the absence of personal guilt on the part of the individual.”

Especially when the individual has helped promote Internet memes making fun of the CPSC.

Counter-sue. Take it to the Supreme Court if necessary. Heads should roll at the CPSC, and the commissioners should lose their shirts in civil court.

They probably have immunity.

Bah. And this is what's wrong with government.