This is a peach. A rare beauty, it deserves to be saved and pressed into a scrapbook. It perfectly displays your unique perspective and unbounded creativity in matters of evidence and reason. If you never spoke another word, we might yet turn back to gaze upon it with awe and wonder. It is the essential you, it oozes Uzi.
I’m glad you are starting to see the light. Given how far your head is up your ass it is a wonder. But I’ll try some simple logic for you. I don’t know why I bother because it won’t register on your limited intellect.
If the food is inedible then people won’t eat it. If people won’t eat the food they will starve, or at least suffer from malnutrition. And yet where is the evidence of this happening? What are the people eating that prevents the starvation or the malnutrition? It must be something. What? Well, obviously the food they ARE getting is enough to prevent this from occurring.
OR we aren’t getting all the information about people actually suffering from lack of food. Unlike you, if there is evidence of this I’d actually change my opinion.
Well, yes, I suppose the fact that the prisoners have not yet resorted to cannibalism proves your point.
Or maybe people when they get released from going to get treated for malnutrition at a local hospital. The results from the hospital might be interesting. Unless no one really feels the need to get checked that is.
But they will eat spoiled and rotten food, if they are hungry enough.
Wait a minute. Where’s Lefty?
Oversight over the county sheriff? Yeah, that sounds like the courts, to me.
Boy seems to have difficulty in distinguishing different concepts, got a very binary approach. “Inedible” doesn’t mean you can’t eat it, it means you most likely shouldn’t. And starvation is only the most extreme and obvious form of malnutrition, just like being beaten to death with an ax handle is an extreme form of battery. You can feed people enough pasta every day so they gain ten pounds a month, never get within a million miles of starvation, but that is still malnutrition, if it doesn’t include necessary vitamins and proteins.
Malnutrition is insidious, not necessarily dramatic and obvious. And it would make no sense to turn ones self into a hospital to treat malnutrition, the cure is to go have something good to eat. Duh.
I think you might be relying on too narrow a definition for the word "inedible,"Uzi. It occurs to me that as a Canadian, you’re probably familiar with a documentary by one Mr. Charles Chaplin, called The Gold Rush. In this film, there is a scene where Chaplin cooks and eats a leather boot.
Is it your contention that because someone ate a leather boot, leather boots are edible?
No, not directly. I was referring to state inspection of the Jail’s Food Services. Certainly, they must be inspected just the same as any other food service, cafeteria, restaurant, etc. Why is there no mention of their findings, only complaints from prisoners who may be being 100% honest, but then again, maybe not.
It’s rather like arguing with communists claiming that Gulag conditions were perfectly adequate for Enemies of the State, and demanding in each case absolute proof of any injury that anyone suffered from any particular dietary regime or harm; without considering whether the Gulag should have existed at all. After all, these are criminals, right ?
Still, turning to an easily found Anti-Joe site [ hit cancel if a password is demanded ], and ignoring the legalize which oftimes obscures rather than… elucidates…:
[5] *Plaintiffs’ psychiatric expert testified that many psychotropic medications, including those most likely to be prescribed to pretrial detainees, cause patients to suffer from a significantly increased risk of heat-related illness when ambient air temperatures reach 85° F. The defendants’ own expert confirmed that high temperatures can “affect someone’s state when they are taking . . . psychotropic medications.” On the basis of this testimony, the district court reasonably concluded that temperatures in excess of 85° F are dangerous for pretrial detainees taking psychotropic medications. Sheriff Arpaio argues that this finding is wrong because the record shows that some psychotropic medications affect the body’s ability to regulate heat, not all such medications.
*
*
*Sheriff Arpaio does not contest the district court’s conclusion that the Eighth Amendment requires “adequate nutrition” or the court’s factual findings.3 He argues only that the relief ordered by the Amended Judgment and now the Second Amended Judgment — that Sheriff Arpaio “provide food to pretrial detainees that meets or exceeds the United States Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans” — is not narrowly tailored to the requirements of the Eighth Amendment. We disagree.
As the movant, the burden was on Sheriff Arpaio to demonstrate that the relief ordered by the Amended Judgment went beyond what is necessary to remedy the ongoing constitutional violations at the Maricopa County jails. See Gilmore, 220 F.3d at 1008 (holding that the district court erred by not “plac[ing] the burden on the state to show that the 1972 Order exceeded the constitutional minimum”). Sheriff Arpaio does not point to any evidence in the record supporting his assertion that 2600 to 2800 calories is more than what is required for adequate nutrition. Instead, he relies on this court’s decision in Hoptowit v. Ray,682 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1982), which states that a court “may consider opinions of experts and pertinent organizations” when determining whether prison conditions violate the Eighth Amendment, “**ut these opinions will not ordinarily establish constitutional minima.” Id. at 1246. While instructive, Hoptowit is not dispositive; Hoptowit discussed what a district court may consider when determining the minimum required by the Eighth Amendment, while we are concerned with whether the PLRA’s narrow tailoring requirement is violated because the Dietary Guidelines are too far from the Eighth Amendment minimum.
[10] The abuse of discretion standard does not require us to measure the distance between the Eighth Amendment’s adequate nutrition standard and the nutrition standards established by the United States Dietary Guidelines. It requires that we are satisfied that the two are not so far apart that adopting the Dietary Guidelines is “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record,” Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1264, and therefore violative of the PLRA’s narrow tailoring requirement. In light of the evidence in the record — which includes nothing from Sheriff Arpaio to suggest that the Dietary Guidelines exceed what is necessary for adequate nutrition — we cannot say that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to order Arpaio to provide food that satisfies the Dietary Guidelines.*
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling 13 Oct 2010
Arizona Prison Watch
One may argue that no bodies are being hauled out of Uncle Joe’s jails due to starvation, but it would be difficult to argue that the local courts, and most reasonable people, feel that he — possibly inadvertently or through personal inadequacy, — has failed in his duty of care to those under his protection.
If all I had to eat was leather boots, then it would eventually show that was all I had to eat, wouldn’t it?
Please work on your syntax and try again. Although that looked like a response to my question, I’m damned if I can parse it so that it’s comprehensible as an answer.
Hey, I just realized that Firefox has a spellchecker built right in. Take that, fat fingers on the net-book!
What would a diet of leather boots do to a person physically? Short term? Long term?
Are any of the prisoners showing similar symptoms/affects form their inedible diets?
Cobblophagia is a much neglected field in nutrtional science.
Look, if you don’t think the question admits of a yes/no answer, feel free to just say so.
I’m not sure how that would work, given that the question was whether you, yourself will lay claim to a contention…
The judge that issued the original order, that the 9th circuit upheld, regarding the condition of the food and the medical care was District Court Judge Neil Wake. Wake graduated from Harvard in 1974. Wake was a business lawyer and colleague and friend of Senator John Kyl at the firm of Bryan Cave. Wake is a registered Republican, and through his life usually has donated money to Republican candidates. In 2000, he donated $4,232, and in 2002, the last election cycle before he became a judge, $2,150, all to Republican candidates.
He was nominated as a Federal District judge in 2003 by George W. Bush at the reccomendation of John Kyl and John McCain. He has a reputation as a judicial conservative with a strong respect for stare decisis and has spoken out against “activist judges” and “legislating from the bench”.
Oh, and also 85% of the people in the jail are in pretrial detention, so a ruling of the court didn’t put most of those people into jail.
There appears to be a two-year gap between the District Court’s opinion, and the decision by the Ninth circuit. Is there any data as to whether the jail system moved into compliance during that interim?
I should have put a ‘do not’ in there somewhere. Insert as appropriate.
Though I suppose very soft supple boots, say, suede boots might be suitable for an oriental style stir fry. These boots are made for wokin’. So to speak.