Your video, Inmate gets the run-down from a realist prison guard, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^acidSpine:

>> ^quantumushroom:
This is the first time a lot of these men have ever heard anything straight from a father figure.

So I assume you'd be in favour of kids having two fathers?

Wouldn't work! The father figures have to be straight.

It's a big planet brother and there are always choices. But as you say, a town with a rotten sheriff is bad news for all that live there.

>> ^TheFreak:

We will all play are part in the machine. Study hard, make the most of your opportunities and get a good job and you get the facade of choices. Fail to assimilate and the system will assimilate you. Either way, you'll play your part.

I would argue that both those experiments dealt primarily with abuse of authority and on that level there is no greater chance of generating that than religion. Almost all religions (the Great Three especially so) essentially give its members the grandest feeling of authority of all, the idea that they are all infinitely correct and will live forever because of it, while every other fool will burn for all eternity. Giving people authority who are unable to deal with it properly and thus abuse it is the danger here, and religions give that feeling of authority to a hell of a lot more people than a few prison guards. Also as anyone who has actually read the bible knows, it is anything BUT a "good book", and all those prison conversions are primarily just given the good bits that make them feel better and want to change. They have to *want* to change first though, and as long as they have that desire, any properly presented idea will appeal to them. It just so happens that as a rule the first and most readily available idea given is religion. Should any of those converts actually read that precious new book of theirs comprehensively, I should be very afraid to meet them in person.

The quote does make a fair amount of generalization, but the heart of it is true barring unusual circumstances.

I worked as a prison guard for about 6 months and don't let anyone fool you.

once you enter prison you are no longer part of the judicial system

prison guards and correctional officers are not cops, are not parts of the judicial system at all they are all private corporations.

The prison I worked at was in southern Georgia, and here's a little known secret for most. Big corporations like the Pepsico, Coke, Proctor & Gamble and many others own prisons. The one I worked with a subsidiary of Pepsico paid my check.

The reason they get into prisons is it's "insurance" and "free money" The government gives money for each inmate for care and housing/health. The more you can crowd into your prison the more money the government will pay.

So big corporations who primarily do other things, will also own prisons around the country as insurance cause it's guaranteed money, so during economic recessions and when your sales are down you know you are guaranteed xxx amount of money due to the prison income. Now add onto that fact making prisoners work for you making products like license plates for the states and other such products you get even more income from states by using your slave labor force for them.

There is an old documentary on the prison system and who really runs it, in the documentary corporations from Microsoft and Apple to Proctor & Gamble all had stake in private prisons around the country. It's free tax free money.

I know for fact that part of the documentary was true as my check was from pepsico for working for a prison. That was until I finished college and moved to Orlando to work for an ISP.

What a terrible video and terrible non-arguments.

Who are the "California Democrats" he refers to? Elected officials? Teacher Unions certainly don't fit that criteria. Hell, what do Democrats at all have to do with that story? What does this Prison Guard lobby have to do with Democrats?

"You can't make this stuff up." When it's an anecdote heard third hand, yes you sure as hell can make this stuff up. He might as well have begun it with "I heard that this happened one time, somewhere, to someone."

"Anti-poverty programs." Ha. Welfare Reform gets people off welfare. That's all. Someone who doesn't get welfare anymore isn't necessarily less poor, just less eligible.

"Walmart". Really? This is your strawman? That vague and unnamed Democrats hate cheap groceries? How about Walmart's employment practices? Hell, what about Walmart's business practices?

"The Drug War". Congrats, the broken clock is right about a 'War' that everyone on the Internet hates.

"Farms". Don't know enough about it to get as indignant, but randomly bringing "caring more about fish than about humans" is hardly a great argument. Smacks more of an ad hominem. And why is it surprising that environmentalism can go against the interests of some group of people? I'm sorry, do we no longer try to stop Amazon rain forests from being clearcut by poor farmers? He makes it sound like the earth is out to get Latino farmers.

*antiquality

The only just punishment would be to get the prison guards hooked on the same game, and let them starve to death.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'inmates, rescue, guard, wtf' to 'inmates, rescue, prison, guard, wtf' - edited by calvados

>> ^Sarzy:
Inmates rescuing a prison guard? I've been lied to by movies and TV shows.


Yeah, he must be a hell of a good guy.

Inmates rescuing a prison guard? I've been lied to by movies and TV shows.

My cousin in currently a sniping instructor for Blackwater (or whatever the new company name is), but he has served 6 or 7 deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan for the company. I've never been comfortable with the fact that he is essentially a mercenary, but god I hope he wasn't involved in some of this stuff. He's a good person and certainly this is not indicative of all Blackwater soldiers, but "mob mentality" and positions of authority over other humans has the power to corrupt anyone (the Stanford Prison Guard Experiment, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment).

^ Let consumers and consumer groups who care about the environment boycott industries that harm it. Let private companies that check and endorse industries that respect the environment inform the consumers. Let environmental friendliness become a competitive advantage when the environment becomes a concern. Let news organizations and environment activists denounce industries that harm the environment. Let courts punish those who harm the property of others. The list goes on...

The problem with "shaping" the market to do what you want is that it has already been done many many times over and over, usually you don't get what you want, you just distort the market into all sorts of unforeseen consequences, and you open yet another precedent for more intervention and abuse to "correct" that distortion that you created in the first place.

In fact, what we have are already extremely distorted markets, and you're thinking cap'n trade, which is just another great idea, would just fly in and save the day?

I have to take a step back though, because the reason you would suggest "correcting" a free market is because, well, you don't trust it, right? Just say it. Left to its own devices, bad things will happen and free society will inevitably self-destruct and implode planet Earth. If that's the case, then it's where you and I disagree. There's a certain understanding about free markets that, when you get it, you know a free market has a tendency to correct itself with time. Even if it takes a while. I believe that's also the case when it comes to the environment.

Just like freedom of expression: I'm sure there's a LOT of crap out there, but I know that things that make sense, ideas that work, philosophies and knowledge that help us instead of deceive us, they end up staying. The rest gets slowly culled out.

It's not a "faith in humanity" thing, it's more like an understanding of the mechanisms, already in place, that favor this kind of selection.

You may have noticed I love making the free market <--> freedom of expression comparison a lot, not football or traffic, etc. For much of our history, our ancestors couldn't give a rat's ass about free speech, hell, not even 200 years ago, most people thought slavery was OK, or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, etc. Today we know those ideas are absurd, yet they were unquestionably accepted by the majority not too far back.

Today, the concept people are entirely unfamiliar with in our own age is that of "economic freedom". We don't have it. We don't even know that we don't have it, it's like being born in a prison. Actually, it's more like almost the entire prison population is convinced that prison is better than being free, because that's what the warden and prison guards tell us, he's in charge of educating prisoners anyway, so that's what he's told them over and over to foil any escape attempts.

So when I talk about free market, it's like a chimera, most people can't imagine it, some even think it's bad, and few people care. I hope our descendants can laugh at us about it.

"Sure the people that would lose their jobs would find other work elsewhere but that takes time, and unemployment is bad enough without adding a surplus of prison guards and cops to it."

I think short term, one-time costs would have to be pretty big in order to be bigger than the continual long term costs over centuries.

>> ^chilaxe:
Hollywood Bob said "And put the people that survive on that tax money out of work. That's the only drawback. Draconian pot laws keep jails full and law enforcement busy, at that employs many people."
That sounds like a "broken window fallacy." If these people weren't doing unnecessary work, they'd be doing work that society actually has need for, which enriches everyone.


I think we all know what a broken window fallacy is, but in this situation I don't think it fits. We're not talking about the good that can be done at the expense of someone else, but rather an entire system that is already in place, that legalization would upset. Sure the people that would lose their jobs would find other work elsewhere but that takes time, and unemployment is bad enough without adding a surplus of prison guards and cops to it. So yeah, that's a big drawback to legalizing pot.

Personally I couldn't care less if we loosed an army of cops terrified they'll lose their jobs, hell bent on nailing everyone for the slightest possible infractions, to prove their worth.

"They could have built hotels on the beaches of Gaza"

ummm how could they do that when they have abject poverty and food/water/fuel/medicine all rationed and controlled by Israel who frequently refuses to let basic supplies enter the region.

That's saying someone can have a free state inside a prison.

How do you get investment when your prison guard wont recognize your people as a nation.

Also... how is it a war crime for hamas to shelter with their families but not a war crime for Israel to fire on the women and children?

If they didnt - if they had army barracks: they would be killed indiscriminately without mercy or taking of prisoners it would be suicide.

...and if there was no Hamas and no resistance what would happen? Israeli settlers would have nothing to fear...they would once again start claiming land and taking it with tanks.