As a columnist, sometimes there’s
just no way to swing and miss with some ideas that present an irresistible mix
of incredulity and ridiculousness. Such came our way when Hollywood personality
Pamela Anderson made
cuisine recommendations to the Louisiana Department of Corrections.
People
for Ethical Treatment of Animals spokeswoman Anderson, who now eschews meat
but some
years ago didn’t mind a helping or two of it, with her organization apparently
got wind of the state’s budgetary difficulties and magnanimously informed Gov. John Bel Edwards
that he the state could save some dough by having its imprisoned population go
vegan. No doubt the governor’s eyes popped out more than usual when he saw the
estimated savings in the neighborhood of $620,000 and, perhaps had not the DOC
counseled otherwise, he would have gone scurrying to legislative leaders
proclaiming this bonanza would end all difficulties.
In fact, according to the DOC, “While
there may be some offenders who wouldn’t mind the change, let’s just say that
any savings realized from the switch to vegan would easily be surpassed by the
extensive damage caused to our facilities by those not so appreciative of the
idea,” with that response thereby throwing cold water on her gracious idea to
come and cook a vegan meal herself for the guys and gals behind bars. Just as
well; the response made no mention of the inevitable rioting that would occur should
she do that, for example at Angola, given the relative deprivation in the air,
with most if not all of Angola’s male inmates having not seen a female of her
physique in some time, if ever in their lives.
A change
made at Maricopa Co., AZ inspired her request both to demonstrate and to forward
the idea. Of course, when breaking down the numbers, her advice would save the
state nearly 5 cents a prisoner a day (although at the end of 2015 only half
of the state headcount then served time in state facilities, so perhaps the
figure she recited applied just those under state supervision, which jacks the
figure up to 9 cents a day or 3 cents a meal). Still, anything endorsed by the
self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America” Joe Arpaio deserves at least a
passing look.
Arpaio argued that while cost
considerations helped, it also offered a healthy diet. This advantage magnifies
when applied to Louisiana, whose populace particularly enjoy their heart-stopping,
calorie-maximizing fare. Perhaps he left unmentioned that a shift to this menu
by the constantly coming-and-going short-term inmates that comprise his jailed
population for the durations as guests of the county likely for some interval
creates more lassitude among them as they adjust to eating it, if they don’t
revert to childhood and refuse to eat their greens.
Consider, however, that Angola’s
denizens and others who makes their homes in Louisiana pens typically reside
there for years, if not decades, so the lethargy would wear off in short order
as soon enough the starving choke down anything. And even if the threat of
forcibly eating vegan might deter lawbreakers, given the meat-centric Louisiana
diet an enterprising con might well succeed in taking the issue to court and
having it declared a violation of the Eighth
Amendment.
One final consideration deserves
notice: the meat-and-potatoes
diet drove the evolution of the human brain, and while promoting brain
health among those incarcerated for extended periods of time might stimulate
intellectual activity geared towards criminality, at the same time many of
these prisoners will finish their sentences and not fall into recidivism when
they return to the community, potentially siring or bearing children as well.
PETA may make audacious claims about the lack of necessity of eating meat to remain
healthy, but it cannot deny that to do so robs future generations of more
brainpower.
On balance, then, the proposal
generates more laughs than seriousness, but at least it provides comic relief to
the depressing budgetary picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment