"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
JimT wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JimT wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JimT wrote:
Only temporarily. Most will get scooped up straightaway and sent to
the Greybar Hotel.

After Katrina, crime shot up in Houston until the Houston Police
made it clear that one just can't be moseyin' thru the 'hood with a
malt and a toke.

Yeah...lockem' up. How much does that cost again?
Not a lot. In Texas, inmates grow virtually all their own food
(except the obvious: pepper, coffee, etc.). We've got prison cattle
ranches, pig farms, egg factories, and corn fields. Inmates grow
cotton, gin it, and make their own clothes. Most prisons are built
with convict (non-union) labor.

As for cost, consider your typical Heroin addict.

Your average addict will shoot one "paper" of Heroin per day at a
street cost of about $100. Assuming most don't have that much spare
cash, that means the addict has to rob, or more often, steal
something for which he can get a hundred bucks. In reality, he has
to steal about four times what he expects to get (hey, the fence has
to make a living). That's $400 per day taken out of the economy.
Every day. Or, about $150,000 per year per addict.

In a modest sized city, it's not unreasonable to assume there are
5,000 addicts wandering the streets. If they each act like the one I
just described, that's $730 million of wealth destroyed each year
just due to Heroin. Then there's Marijuana, crack-Cocaine, and more.

We can keep a goblin locked up for a paltry $35,000 per year. That's
a saving of over $100,000 per year for each squint behind bars. The
more we incarcerate, the more we save.

Then there are the residual savings. Here in Texas, prisoners make
(and repair) "stuff" which is sold at cost to other agencies of
government. Texas Correctional Industries manufacture things that
range from mops to furniture, trash cans to saddles, truck beds to
toilets. The savings to county and city governments is not trivial.
For a catalog of available products, see he

http://www.tci.tdcj.state.tx.us/

That's how much it "costs." Bottom line: Again, the more people we
lock up, the more we save.

You're out of touch with reality:

http://tinyurl.com/243lcsq
Interesting graph - but it represents national averages, not Texas.
California, for example, the cost is a bit over $47,000 per inmate per
year compared to Texas' $18,000. (Others I've found: Massachusetts -
$46,000; Michigan - $30,500; National Average - $23,000)

There are several reasons the cost here is lower: As I mentioned,
prisoners grow their own food. We don't have an all-powerful prison
guard union in Texas. And unless the bone is sticking out, prisoners
don't get much medical care.

Further, the cost of corrections is like the cost of termite protection.
It costs more today than it did ten years ago, true, but the cost is
still much less than allowing the insects to run loose.

Bottom line: Even at California or Massachusetts rates, locking 'em up
is still a bargain for the community. A bargain in preventing loss, a
bargain in insurance rates, and a bargain in emotional trauma.


I tried to find your stats but I ran across this:

http://www.nicic.org/features/statestats/?State=TX

Doesn't appear to back you up.

"2008 Corrections Percentage of Total State Government Expenditures
Taxpayers paid 1% higher than than the national average in 2008."

????

Wow...TX has the highest % in jail. Yet the crime rate is still higher
than the nat. avg.

The site made me remember a news story about the folks running
the prison system complaining about costs because inmates were
refusing parole. It seems that the inmates wanted to do their
time and be done with it so they wouldn't have to be supervised
when released from prison.

TDD

That's a pretty impressive site. Concise and to the point.

HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
You mean there are provisions to force the enforcer to enforce
the law?! What an interesting and forceful use of the force of
law against law enforcement.................... My head hurts.

Yes. There are things called "sanctuary cities" where, by edict, the
city refuses to enforce applicable laws. San Francisco got hit last
year by a court order demanding it turn over to ICE juveniles found
to be felony violators. Prior to that, these gang members, et al,
were told to go forth and sin no more.


Is that what a Writ of Mandamus is used for?


Um, yeah. A Writ of Mandamus is a command by a court for a public official
to perform his statutory duty.

The sanction, of course, is contempt of court and the official will be
placed in a jail until he complies with the order of the court.

Most criminal laws state that an official will do "such and such" but there
is no penalty should the official decline to perform his duty. That's where
the mandamus business latches in.

The difference in the new Arizona law is that failure to follow the law is
itself a violation of law and the chap who neglects to follow the law can be
arrested.



Hasn't that been tried in relation to immigration law? I gave
up years ago trying to get government officials to do their
jobs. I reported to the FBI a crime committed by a LEO. The
agents did their job, investigated and told me that yes the
LEO did commit a crime. The FBI agents reported their findings
to The US Attorney who's response was "We don't consider it
a serious enough crime so we won't prosecute." I asked for a
list of federal crimes that were not serious enough to prosecute
so I could make it known to everyone but the feds declined my
request. Funny thing happened some years later when a LEO
political candidate did the same thing when he investigated
voter fraud, it suddenly became a serious crime for which the
LEO was prosecuted and imprisoned. Strange how that works.

TDD

JimT wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
JimT wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JimT wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JimT wrote:
Only temporarily. Most will get scooped up straightaway and sent to
the Greybar Hotel.

After Katrina, crime shot up in Houston until the Houston Police
made it clear that one just can't be moseyin' thru the 'hood with a
malt and a toke.

Yeah...lockem' up. How much does that cost again?
Not a lot. In Texas, inmates grow virtually all their own food
(except the obvious: pepper, coffee, etc.). We've got prison cattle
ranches, pig farms, egg factories, and corn fields. Inmates grow
cotton, gin it, and make their own clothes. Most prisons are built
with convict (non-union) labor.

As for cost, consider your typical Heroin addict.

Your average addict will shoot one "paper" of Heroin per day at a
street cost of about $100. Assuming most don't have that much spare
cash, that means the addict has to rob, or more often, steal
something for which he can get a hundred bucks. In reality, he has
to steal about four times what he expects to get (hey, the fence has
to make a living). That's $400 per day taken out of the economy.
Every day. Or, about $150,000 per year per addict.

In a modest sized city, it's not unreasonable to assume there are
5,000 addicts wandering the streets. If they each act like the one I
just described, that's $730 million of wealth destroyed each year
just due to Heroin. Then there's Marijuana, crack-Cocaine, and more.

We can keep a goblin locked up for a paltry $35,000 per year. That's
a saving of over $100,000 per year for each squint behind bars. The
more we incarcerate, the more we save.

Then there are the residual savings. Here in Texas, prisoners make
(and repair) "stuff" which is sold at cost to other agencies of
government. Texas Correctional Industries manufacture things that
range from mops to furniture, trash cans to saddles, truck beds to
toilets. The savings to county and city governments is not trivial.
For a catalog of available products, see he

http://www.tci.tdcj.state.tx.us/

That's how much it "costs." Bottom line: Again, the more people we
lock up, the more we save.

You're out of touch with reality:

http://tinyurl.com/243lcsq
Interesting graph - but it represents national averages, not Texas.
California, for example, the cost is a bit over $47,000 per inmate per
year compared to Texas' $18,000. (Others I've found: Massachusetts -
$46,000; Michigan - $30,500; National Average - $23,000)

There are several reasons the cost here is lower: As I mentioned,
prisoners grow their own food. We don't have an all-powerful prison
guard union in Texas. And unless the bone is sticking out, prisoners
don't get much medical care.

Further, the cost of corrections is like the cost of termite protection.
It costs more today than it did ten years ago, true, but the cost is
still much less than allowing the insects to run loose.

Bottom line: Even at California or Massachusetts rates, locking 'em up
is still a bargain for the community. A bargain in preventing loss, a
bargain in insurance rates, and a bargain in emotional trauma.

I tried to find your stats but I ran across this:

http://www.nicic.org/features/statestats/?State=TX

Doesn't appear to back you up.

"2008 Corrections Percentage of Total State Government Expenditures
Taxpayers paid 1% higher than than the national average in 2008."

????

Wow...TX has the highest % in jail. Yet the crime rate is still higher
than the nat. avg.
The site made me remember a news story about the folks running
the prison system complaining about costs because inmates were
refusing parole. It seems that the inmates wanted to do their
time and be done with it so they wouldn't have to be supervised
when released from prison.

TDD

That's a pretty impressive site. Concise and to the point.



I thought so too. Dang! What a great source of information
to use to educate myself with facts that I can hit ignorant
fools upside the head with. *snicker*

TDD

JimT wrote:

Interesting graph - but it represents national averages, not Texas.
California, for example, the cost is a bit over $47,000 per inmate
per year compared to Texas' $18,000. (Others I've found:
Massachusetts - $46,000; Michigan - $30,500; National Average -
$23,000) There are several reasons the cost here is lower: As I
mentioned,
prisoners grow their own food. We don't have an all-powerful prison
guard union in Texas. And unless the bone is sticking out, prisoners
don't get much medical care.

Further, the cost of corrections is like the cost of termite
protection. It costs more today than it did ten years ago, true, but
the cost is still much less than allowing the insects to run loose.

Bottom line: Even at California or Massachusetts rates, locking 'em
up is still a bargain for the community. A bargain in preventing
loss, a bargain in insurance rates, and a bargain in emotional
trauma.

I tried to find your stats but I ran across this:

http://www.nicic.org/features/statestats/?State=TX

Doesn't appear to back you up.

Texas:
"Prisons cost Texas taxpayers $49.40 per inmate per day, which is $18,031
per year. is is lower than the national average of $24,656."
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2008-...sBudget-ml.pdf

California:
"Avg Yearly Cost: per inmate, $49,000"
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Divisions_Boa...nd_Figures.pdf

And others. Keep looking.


"2008 Corrections Percentage of Total State Government Expenditures
Taxpayers paid 1% higher than than the national average in 2008."

????

Wow...TX has the highest % in jail. Yet the crime rate is still
higher than the nat. avg.

Regrettably, that's true. That figure is but a strong indicator that we need
MORE prisons and need to lock up MORE people. Still, there are several
reasons, beyond our immediate control, for the statistics:

* Texas does not release people because the jails are overcrowded, as
California must do under federal court order.
* Texas does not release people because the state can't afford to keep them
locked up as was the case in Michigan this past year.
* While all states have an influx of illegal immigrants, the ones in Ohio
are there to work while many in Texas come across the border merely to kill,
maim, and mope. Then they go back to Mexico.
* We don't ignore as much law-breaking as some other places. Many Katrina
evacuees, for example, found their ordinary daily activities, ignored in New
Orleans, were felonies in Texas.
* Also, Texas contracts with other states to hold their inmates. Our state
could charge, say, Minnesota, $60/day to hold one of their criminals. We
make a profit of $10/day and Minnesota saves over $40/day (1996). It's a
win-win scenario.
See: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonin...nindustry.html

Plus, we've got at least 31,000 federal prisoners in our lock-ups.

Point is, not everybody locked up in Texas prisons are there because they
broke Texas law. Idaho, for example, may have a smaller percentage of their
population in their prisons than Texas, but that's partly because the Idaho
criminals are in Texas jails!

Here's an interesting way to save money:

"Every inmate in a California prison costs taxpayers over $47,000 a year.
Because of the state's astronomical prison costs, a new Reason
Foundation-Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation study finds California could
save $120 million a year for each 5,000 inmates it sends to private prisons
in other states. "
http://reason.org/news/show/private-...california-bil

We'll be glad to take 'em.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

Hasn't that been tried in relation to immigration law? I gave
up years ago trying to get government officials to do their
jobs. I reported to the FBI a crime committed by a LEO. The
agents did their job, investigated and told me that yes the
LEO did commit a crime. The FBI agents reported their findings
to The US Attorney who's response was "We don't consider it
a serious enough crime so we won't prosecute." I asked for a
list of federal crimes that were not serious enough to prosecute
so I could make it known to everyone but the feds declined my
request. Funny thing happened some years later when a LEO
political candidate did the same thing when he investigated
voter fraud, it suddenly became a serious crime for which the
LEO was prosecuted and imprisoned. Strange how that works.


Right. But a government official committing a crime is not the same thing as
that same individual refusing to do his mandated duty. Usually there is no
penalty attached to the latter.

For example, suppose a county clerk refuses to issue a marriage license to a
legally-qualified couple. The couple can get a judge to order the clerk to
issue the license but cannot file criminal charges against that same public
official.

That's not the case with the new Arizona law.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JimT wrote:

Interesting graph - but it represents national averages, not Texas.
California, for example, the cost is a bit over $47,000 per inmate
per year compared to Texas' $18,000. (Others I've found:
Massachusetts - $46,000; Michigan - $30,500; National Average -
$23,000) There are several reasons the cost here is lower: As I
mentioned,
prisoners grow their own food. We don't have an all-powerful prison
guard union in Texas. And unless the bone is sticking out, prisoners
don't get much medical care.

Further, the cost of corrections is like the cost of termite
protection. It costs more today than it did ten years ago, true, but
the cost is still much less than allowing the insects to run loose.

Bottom line: Even at California or Massachusetts rates, locking 'em
up is still a bargain for the community. A bargain in preventing
loss, a bargain in insurance rates, and a bargain in emotional
trauma.

I tried to find your stats but I ran across this:

http://www.nicic.org/features/statestats/?State=TX

Doesn't appear to back you up.

Texas:
"Prisons cost Texas taxpayers $49.40 per inmate per day, which is $18,031
per year. is is lower than the national average of $24,656."
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2008-...sBudget-ml.pdf

California:
"Avg Yearly Cost: per inmate, $49,000"
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Divisions_Boa...nd_Figures.pdf

And others. Keep looking.


"2008 Corrections Percentage of Total State Government Expenditures
Taxpayers paid 1% higher than than the national average in 2008."

????

Wow...TX has the highest % in jail. Yet the crime rate is still
higher than the nat. avg.

Regrettably, that's true. That figure is but a strong indicator that we
need MORE prisons and need to lock up MORE people. Still, there are
several reasons, beyond our immediate control, for the statistics:

* Texas does not release people because the jails are overcrowded, as
California must do under federal court order.
* Texas does not release people because the state can't afford to keep
them locked up as was the case in Michigan this past year.
* While all states have an influx of illegal immigrants, the ones in Ohio
are there to work while many in Texas come across the border merely to
kill, maim, and mope. Then they go back to Mexico.
* We don't ignore as much law-breaking as some other places. Many Katrina
evacuees, for example, found their ordinary daily activities, ignored in
New Orleans, were felonies in Texas.
* Also, Texas contracts with other states to hold their inmates. Our state
could charge, say, Minnesota, $60/day to hold one of their criminals. We
make a profit of $10/day and Minnesota saves over $40/day (1996). It's a
win-win scenario.
See: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonin...nindustry.html

Plus, we've got at least 31,000 federal prisoners in our lock-ups.

Point is, not everybody locked up in Texas prisons are there because they
broke Texas law. Idaho, for example, may have a smaller percentage of
their population in their prisons than Texas, but that's partly because
the Idaho criminals are in Texas jails!

Here's an interesting way to save money:

"Every inmate in a California prison costs taxpayers over $47,000 a year.
Because of the state's astronomical prison costs, a new Reason
Foundation-Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation study finds California could
save $120 million a year for each 5,000 inmates it sends to private
prisons in other states. "
http://reason.org/news/show/private-...california-bil

We'll be glad to take 'em.


g.....pretty interesting material. I'm all for it. I don't like the ratio
of violent vs. non-violent inmates, but I'm more of a libertarian than a
Republican. To me, locking up a marijuana dealer, is putting an entrepreneur
out of business.

There are other things about TX stats that bug me but it sounds like we have
some progessive ideas about costs. As far as bring them here; fine as long
as they don't stay.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 07:33:41 -0500, "JimT" wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
JimT wrote:

Interesting graph - but it represents national averages, not Texas.
California, for example, the cost is a bit over $47,000 per inmate
per year compared to Texas' $18,000. (Others I've found:
Massachusetts - $46,000; Michigan - $30,500; National Average -
$23,000) There are several reasons the cost here is lower: As I
mentioned,
prisoners grow their own food. We don't have an all-powerful prison
guard union in Texas. And unless the bone is sticking out, prisoners
don't get much medical care.

Further, the cost of corrections is like the cost of termite
protection. It costs more today than it did ten years ago, true, but
the cost is still much less than allowing the insects to run loose.

Bottom line: Even at California or Massachusetts rates, locking 'em
up is still a bargain for the community. A bargain in preventing
loss, a bargain in insurance rates, and a bargain in emotional
trauma.

I tried to find your stats but I ran across this:

http://www.nicic.org/features/statestats/?State=TX

Doesn't appear to back you up.

Texas:
"Prisons cost Texas taxpayers $49.40 per inmate per day, which is $18,031
per year. is is lower than the national average of $24,656."
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2008-...sBudget-ml.pdf

California:
"Avg Yearly Cost: per inmate, $49,000"
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Divisions_Boa...nd_Figures.pdf

And others. Keep looking.


"2008 Corrections Percentage of Total State Government Expenditures
Taxpayers paid 1% higher than than the national average in 2008."

????

Wow...TX has the highest % in jail. Yet the crime rate is still
higher than the nat. avg.

Regrettably, that's true. That figure is but a strong indicator that we
need MORE prisons and need to lock up MORE people. Still, there are
several reasons, beyond our immediate control, for the statistics:

* Texas does not release people because the jails are overcrowded, as
California must do under federal court order.
* Texas does not release people because the state can't afford to keep
them locked up as was the case in Michigan this past year.
* While all states have an influx of illegal immigrants, the ones in Ohio
are there to work while many in Texas come across the border merely to
kill, maim, and mope. Then they go back to Mexico.
* We don't ignore as much law-breaking as some other places. Many Katrina
evacuees, for example, found their ordinary daily activities, ignored in
New Orleans, were felonies in Texas.
* Also, Texas contracts with other states to hold their inmates. Our state
could charge, say, Minnesota, $60/day to hold one of their criminals. We
make a profit of $10/day and Minnesota saves over $40/day (1996). It's a
win-win scenario.
See: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonin...nindustry.html

Plus, we've got at least 31,000 federal prisoners in our lock-ups.

Point is, not everybody locked up in Texas prisons are there because they
broke Texas law. Idaho, for example, may have a smaller percentage of
their population in their prisons than Texas, but that's partly because
the Idaho criminals are in Texas jails!

Here's an interesting way to save money:

"Every inmate in a California prison costs taxpayers over $47,000 a year.
Because of the state's astronomical prison costs, a new Reason
Foundation-Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation study finds California could
save $120 million a year for each 5,000 inmates it sends to private
prisons in other states. "
http://reason.org/news/show/private-...california-bil

We'll be glad to take 'em.


g.....pretty interesting material. I'm all for it. I don't like the ratio
of violent vs. non-violent inmates, but I'm more of a libertarian than a
Republican. To me, locking up a marijuana dealer, is putting an entrepreneur
out of business.

There was a study done in the NY prisons a few years ago, looking for the
percentage of people incarcerated for drug violations where there was no
violent crimes committed. They found one (no, not one percent).

There are other things about TX stats that bug me but it sounds like we have
some progessive ideas about costs. As far as bring them here; fine as long
as they don't stay.

"Welcome to Texas, now go home"? ;-)

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 07:33:41 -0500, "JimT" wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:hJudne_LaYMKr0nWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink. com...
JimT wrote:

Interesting graph - but it represents national averages, not Texas.
California, for example, the cost is a bit over $47,000 per inmate
per year compared to Texas' $18,000. (Others I've found:
Massachusetts - $46,000; Michigan - $30,500; National Average -
$23,000) There are several reasons the cost here is lower: As I
mentioned,
prisoners grow their own food. We don't have an all-powerful prison
guard union in Texas. And unless the bone is sticking out, prisoners
don't get much medical care.

Further, the cost of corrections is like the cost of termite
protection. It costs more today than it did ten years ago, true, but
the cost is still much less than allowing the insects to run loose.

Bottom line: Even at California or Massachusetts rates, locking 'em
up is still a bargain for the community. A bargain in preventing
loss, a bargain in insurance rates, and a bargain in emotional
trauma.

I tried to find your stats but I ran across this:

http://www.nicic.org/features/statestats/?State=TX

Doesn't appear to back you up.

Texas:
"Prisons cost Texas taxpayers $49.40 per inmate per day, which is
$18,031
per year. is is lower than the national average of $24,656."
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2008-...sBudget-ml.pdf

California:
"Avg Yearly Cost: per inmate, $49,000"
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Divisions_Boa...nd_Figures.pdf

And others. Keep looking.


"2008 Corrections Percentage of Total State Government Expenditures
Taxpayers paid 1% higher than than the national average in 2008."

????

Wow...TX has the highest % in jail. Yet the crime rate is still
higher than the nat. avg.

Regrettably, that's true. That figure is but a strong indicator that we
need MORE prisons and need to lock up MORE people. Still, there are
several reasons, beyond our immediate control, for the statistics:

* Texas does not release people because the jails are overcrowded, as
California must do under federal court order.
* Texas does not release people because the state can't afford to keep
them locked up as was the case in Michigan this past year.
* While all states have an influx of illegal immigrants, the ones in
Ohio
are there to work while many in Texas come across the border merely to
kill, maim, and mope. Then they go back to Mexico.
* We don't ignore as much law-breaking as some other places. Many
Katrina
evacuees, for example, found their ordinary daily activities, ignored in
New Orleans, were felonies in Texas.
* Also, Texas contracts with other states to hold their inmates. Our
state
could charge, say, Minnesota, $60/day to hold one of their criminals. We
make a profit of $10/day and Minnesota saves over $40/day (1996). It's a
win-win scenario.
See: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonin...nindustry.html

Plus, we've got at least 31,000 federal prisoners in our lock-ups.

Point is, not everybody locked up in Texas prisons are there because
they
broke Texas law. Idaho, for example, may have a smaller percentage of
their population in their prisons than Texas, but that's partly because
the Idaho criminals are in Texas jails!

Here's an interesting way to save money:

"Every inmate in a California prison costs taxpayers over $47,000 a
year.
Because of the state's astronomical prison costs, a new Reason
Foundation-Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation study finds California
could
save $120 million a year for each 5,000 inmates it sends to private
prisons in other states. "
http://reason.org/news/show/private-...california-bil

We'll be glad to take 'em.


g.....pretty interesting material. I'm all for it. I don't like the
ratio
of violent vs. non-violent inmates, but I'm more of a libertarian than a
Republican. To me, locking up a marijuana dealer, is putting an
entrepreneur
out of business.

There was a study done in the NY prisons a few years ago, looking for the
percentage of people incarcerated for drug violations where there was no
violent crimes committed. They found one (no, not one percent).

There are other things about TX stats that bug me but it sounds like we
have
some progessive ideas about costs. As far as bring them here; fine as long
as they don't stay.

"Welcome to Texas, now go home"? ;-)

I was wondering if they have to go back to the state they were convicted to
serve out thier probation? I don't know much about this stuff; thankfully!

HeyBub wrote:
hibb wrote:
For some reason, that statement made me think of that Prison Warden in
the movie "Shawshank Redemption". I wonder how many prison wardens in
Texas are making a few extra bucks off the free labor of their
prisoners.



Could be. But prisoners don't work outside the prison. For example, the
Little Rabbit School District sends a school bus to Texas Correctional
Industries (TCI) to be refurbished. TCI puts in a new engine, rebuilds the
cab, straightens the frame, and so on, then sends the bus back. The school
district is charged the cost of refurbishment.

Some inmates buy craft materials and produce things from pot holders to
hand-crafted boots which are sold at the prison store to visitors. The money
goes into the prisoner's account (there may be a small commission).

I don't think prison labor is hired out. And even if it were, the prisoners
would much rather be winnowing someone's wheat than sitting in a cell all
day.



Sounds like maybe they have cleaned up their act a little. First half of
20th century or so, and probably back in the 19th as well, it was
routine to rent out prisoners as field labor. Some counties were known
to arrest transients on trumped-up charges and have a make-believe
trial, when they were short a few bodies. The plantation mentality died
real hard in some places. If you were poor and barely literate (and
usually black), in those pre-Miranda day, if you got busted, well, not a
whole lot you could do about it.

Don't get me wrong, I think prisoner work programs can be a Real Good
Thing, if everything is done on the up-and-up, and the prisoner gets
some OJT in salable skills, and maybe a better attitude. But from what I
have read over the years, some of the programs in the old days were
little more than thinly-disguised slavery.

--
aem sends...

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:03:05 -0500, "JimT" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 07:33:41 -0500, "JimT" wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:hJudne_LaYMKr0nWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink .com...
JimT wrote:

Interesting graph - but it represents national averages, not Texas.
California, for example, the cost is a bit over $47,000 per inmate
per year compared to Texas' $18,000. (Others I've found:
Massachusetts - $46,000; Michigan - $30,500; National Average -
$23,000) There are several reasons the cost here is lower: As I
mentioned,
prisoners grow their own food. We don't have an all-powerful prison
guard union in Texas. And unless the bone is sticking out, prisoners
don't get much medical care.

Further, the cost of corrections is like the cost of termite
protection. It costs more today than it did ten years ago, true, but
the cost is still much less than allowing the insects to run loose.

Bottom line: Even at California or Massachusetts rates, locking 'em
up is still a bargain for the community. A bargain in preventing
loss, a bargain in insurance rates, and a bargain in emotional
trauma.

I tried to find your stats but I ran across this:

http://www.nicic.org/features/statestats/?State=TX

Doesn't appear to back you up.

Texas:
"Prisons cost Texas taxpayers $49.40 per inmate per day, which is
$18,031
per year. is is lower than the national average of $24,656."
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2008-...sBudget-ml.pdf

California:
"Avg Yearly Cost: per inmate, $49,000"
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Divisions_Boa...nd_Figures.pdf

And others. Keep looking.


"2008 Corrections Percentage of Total State Government Expenditures
Taxpayers paid 1% higher than than the national average in 2008."

????

Wow...TX has the highest % in jail. Yet the crime rate is still
higher than the nat. avg.

Regrettably, that's true. That figure is but a strong indicator that we
need MORE prisons and need to lock up MORE people. Still, there are
several reasons, beyond our immediate control, for the statistics:

* Texas does not release people because the jails are overcrowded, as
California must do under federal court order.
* Texas does not release people because the state can't afford to keep
them locked up as was the case in Michigan this past year.
* While all states have an influx of illegal immigrants, the ones in
Ohio
are there to work while many in Texas come across the border merely to
kill, maim, and mope. Then they go back to Mexico.
* We don't ignore as much law-breaking as some other places. Many
Katrina
evacuees, for example, found their ordinary daily activities, ignored in
New Orleans, were felonies in Texas.
* Also, Texas contracts with other states to hold their inmates. Our
state
could charge, say, Minnesota, $60/day to hold one of their criminals. We
make a profit of $10/day and Minnesota saves over $40/day (1996). It's a
win-win scenario.
See: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonin...nindustry.html

Plus, we've got at least 31,000 federal prisoners in our lock-ups.

Point is, not everybody locked up in Texas prisons are there because
they
broke Texas law. Idaho, for example, may have a smaller percentage of
their population in their prisons than Texas, but that's partly because
the Idaho criminals are in Texas jails!

Here's an interesting way to save money:

"Every inmate in a California prison costs taxpayers over $47,000 a
year.
Because of the state's astronomical prison costs, a new Reason
Foundation-Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation study finds California
could
save $120 million a year for each 5,000 inmates it sends to private
prisons in other states. "
http://reason.org/news/show/private-...california-bil

We'll be glad to take 'em.


g.....pretty interesting material. I'm all for it. I don't like the
ratio
of violent vs. non-violent inmates, but I'm more of a libertarian than a
Republican. To me, locking up a marijuana dealer, is putting an
entrepreneur
out of business.

There was a study done in the NY prisons a few years ago, looking for the
percentage of people incarcerated for drug violations where there was no
violent crimes committed. They found one (no, not one percent).

There are other things about TX stats that bug me but it sounds like we
have
some progessive ideas about costs. As far as bring them here; fine as long
as they don't stay.

"Welcome to Texas, now go home"? ;-)

I was wondering if they have to go back to the state they were convicted to
serve out thier probation?

After Katrina, I would hope Texas would have thought that far ahead.

I don't know much about this stuff; thankfully!

Indeed. I do find the Texas prison model interesting, though. Maracopa
county, AZ is another model that should be studied nationwide, pink undies or
no.

On Apr 25, 5:46*pm, aemeijers wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
hibb wrote:
For some reason, that statement made me think of that Prison Warden in
the movie "Shawshank Redemption". I wonder how many prison wardens in
Texas are making a few extra bucks off the free labor of their
prisoners.

Could be. But prisoners don't work outside the prison. For example, the
Little Rabbit School District sends a school bus to Texas Correctional
Industries (TCI) to be refurbished. TCI puts in a new engine, rebuilds the
cab, straightens the frame, and so on, then sends the bus back. The school
district is charged the cost of refurbishment.

Some inmates buy craft materials and produce things from pot holders to
hand-crafted boots which are sold at the prison store to visitors. The money
goes into the prisoner's account (there may be a small commission).

I don't think prison labor is hired out. And even if it were, the prisoners
would much rather be winnowing someone's wheat than sitting in a cell all
day.

Sounds like maybe they have cleaned up their act a little. First half of
20th century or so, and probably back in the 19th as well, it was
routine to rent out prisoners as field labor. Some counties were known
to arrest transients on trumped-up charges and have a make-believe
trial, when they were short a few bodies. The plantation mentality died
real hard in some places. If you were poor and barely literate (and
usually black), in those pre-Miranda day, if you got busted, well, not a
whole lot you could do about it.

Don't get me wrong, I think prisoner work programs can be a Real Good
Thing, if everything is done on the up-and-up, and the prisoner gets
some OJT in salable skills, and maybe a better attitude. But from what I
have read over the years, some of the programs in the old days were
little more than thinly-disguised slavery.

--
aem sends...

I agree but it did tick me off a bit when I lost a good contract with
the local city to a prison labor program from a neighboring county. I
had the contract for years and they made damn sure I didn't hire any
ex-cons to work in the police department and then they let me go and
hire convicts.

In article , JimT wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
JimT wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JimT wrote:

Only temporarily. Most will get scooped up straightaway and sent to
the Greybar Hotel.

After Katrina, crime shot up in Houston until the Houston Police
made it clear that one just can't be moseyin' thru the 'hood with a
malt and a toke.


Yeah...lockem' up. How much does that cost again?

Not a lot. In Texas, inmates grow virtually all their own food
(except the obvious: pepper, coffee, etc.). We've got prison cattle
ranches, pig farms, egg factories, and corn fields. Inmates grow
cotton, gin it, and make their own clothes. Most prisons are built
with convict (non-union) labor.

As for cost, consider your typical Heroin addict.

Your average addict will shoot one "paper" of Heroin per day at a
street cost of about $100. Assuming most don't have that much spare
cash, that means the addict has to rob, or more often, steal
something for which he can get a hundred bucks. In reality, he has
to steal about four times what he expects to get (hey, the fence has
to make a living). That's $400 per day taken out of the economy.
Every day. Or, about $150,000 per year per addict.

In a modest sized city, it's not unreasonable to assume there are
5,000 addicts wandering the streets. If they each act like the one I
just described, that's $730 million of wealth destroyed each year
just due to Heroin. Then there's Marijuana, crack-Cocaine, and more.

We can keep a goblin locked up for a paltry $35,000 per year. That's
a saving of over $100,000 per year for each squint behind bars. The
more we incarcerate, the more we save.

Then there are the residual savings. Here in Texas, prisoners make
(and repair) "stuff" which is sold at cost to other agencies of
government. Texas Correctional Industries manufacture things that
range from mops to furniture, trash cans to saddles, truck beds to
toilets. The savings to county and city governments is not trivial.
For a catalog of available products, see he

http://www.tci.tdcj.state.tx.us/

That's how much it "costs." Bottom line: Again, the more people we
lock up, the more we save.


You're out of touch with reality:

http://tinyurl.com/243lcsq

Interesting graph - but it represents national averages, not Texas.
California, for example, the cost is a bit over $47,000 per inmate per
year compared to Texas' $18,000. (Others I've found: Massachusetts -
$46,000; Michigan - $30,500; National Average - $23,000)

There are several reasons the cost here is lower: As I mentioned,
prisoners grow their own food. We don't have an all-powerful prison guard
union in Texas. And unless the bone is sticking out, prisoners don't get
much medical care.

Further, the cost of corrections is like the cost of termite protection.
It costs more today than it did ten years ago, true, but the cost is still
much less than allowing the insects to run loose.

Bottom line: Even at California or Massachusetts rates, locking 'em up is
still a bargain for the community. A bargain in preventing loss, a bargain
in insurance rates, and a bargain in emotional trauma.


I tried to find your stats but I ran across this:

http://www.nicic.org/features/statestats/?State=TX

Doesn't appear to back you up.

"2008 Corrections Percentage of Total State Government Expenditures
Taxpayers paid 1% higher than than the national average in 2008."

????

Wow...TX has the highest % in jail. Yet the crime rate is still higher than
the nat. avg.

It appears to me that Texas, despite lower cost per inmate, has
above-average % of state budget for "corrections" due to spending less
elsewhere or due to having higher percentage of its population in
prison.

(Not that I find too much fault with keeping career criminals behind
bars as opposed to letting them out to commit more crime.)

Above-national-average % of population in prison is result of rather
than a cause of above-national-average crime rate.

Maybe Texas needs to do more for crime prevention, otherwise maybe Texas
has more than its national-average-share of outlaws.

- Don Klipstein )

I'm sure scams have been happening since the earliest days.
But now, high tech. That's a shame. I'm with you. They can
come out and look in person before I agree to a deal.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"hibb" wrote in message
...


Agreed. The guy who walked my roof told me how many new
sheets of
plywood it needed. If a satellite image can do that, then
they can use
the damn satellite to pull the money out of my wallet when
the job's
done. No way in hell would I hire someone who wouldn't
come out to see
the job and meet me in person.

Sounds like it could be the perfect bait and switch
operator. They
give you a price for the most basic service which looks like
a great
deal and after they get all the shingles off your roof they
tell you
that you need some extra work and all of a sudden your cost
for the
project shoots to the moon.

David

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

There was a study done in the NY prisons a few years ago, looking for
the percentage of people incarcerated for drug violations where there
was no violent crimes committed. They found one (no, not one
percent).


"People get convicted not for what they did, but for what can be proved, and
often what is proved is not what they did," so says Alan Dershowitz.
Dershowitz went on to say "Most criminal defendants cannot be convicted
without violating some fundamental right. This rule is known to the judge,
the prosecutor, and the defense.*"

It makes sense to put a $100/day Heroin addict in prison for possession of
narcotics (a non-violent felony) thereby preventing an armed robbery a day
(a violent felony). Or three burglaries. Or one car theft.

---
* Here's how changing ONE LETTER in an offense report can send a person away
for life:

Excerpt from offense report:
"While on routine patrol, officer Smith and I turned from Main Street onto
1st Street and observed Dudley Dobad, known to us as a formerly
twice-convicted car thief, sitting on a late model Chevrolet, subsequently
determined to be stolen..."

Now change the word "on" to "in" so that the report reads: "... sitting IN a
late model Chevrolet..."

snip

While this all is interesting, the original point began with the cost of
locking up more people. So f$%king what if TX can lock them up per inmate
cheaper if we are still paying 1% over the national average as a % of total
state buget?

The bottom line is all that matters to me. I'm not going to prison anytime
soon. Good for f$%king Texas; they can lock them up cheap. Lower my f$%king
taxes TOO! Too many motherf$%kers are in jail in Texas....PERIOD!

:-)

Jim

In article , JimT wrote:
snip

While this all is interesting, the original point began with the cost of
locking up more people. So f$%king what if TX can lock them up per inmate
cheaper if we are still paying 1% over the national average as a % of total
state buget?

The bottom line is all that matters to me. I'm not going to prison anytime
soon. Good for f$%king Texas; they can lock them up cheap. Lower my f$%king
taxes TOO! Too many motherf$%kers are in jail in Texas....PERIOD!

What if the reason Texas has above-average % of budget being spent on
incarcerations because their budget has below-national-average spending on
excesses, waste, and pork?

However, I might want to look into whether Texas could make a move
towards drug treatment programs, methadone, or the like.

One more thing: It appears to me that USA is worst-in-the-world with
drug laws. I think USA needs to move to one of two extremes:

1. Have drug laws like those that Germany had in the late 1970's
according to my highschool German teacher. Get caught with half a joint,
spend 2 years in "the joint".

2. Have recreational drug laws like those that USA had in 1900. Back
then, marijuana, cocaine and opiates were legal.

- Don Klipstein )

clipped

One more thing: It appears to me that USA is worst-in-the-world with
drug laws. I think USA needs to move to one of two extremes:

1. Have drug laws like those that Germany had in the late 1970's
according to my highschool German teacher. Get caught with half a joint,
spend 2 years in "the joint".

We tried that...at least when the smokers were black.

2. Have recreational drug laws like those that USA had in 1900. Back
then, marijuana, cocaine and opiates were legal.

- Don Klipstein )

"Natural selection" might take care of the problem in the long-run.
Last week, the St. Pete Times ran an article about oxycontin overdose
deaths...there were more than 100 last year in Hillsborough County
(Tampa) alone. I don't recall for sure, but I think some of the other
area counties had more deaths than HC in the same period. The article
also gave some numbers for visits to "pain clinics" that dish out
prescriptions at alarming rates.

When medicaid for "everyone" kicks in, it probably will take off like
free gold bars....death is the only sure "cure" for addiction.

I hope they again ban TV ads for pharmaceuticals..."This drug might
cause dizzyness, nausea, vomiting, death, but it sure as hell will make
you feel better".

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:19:30 -0500, "JimT" wrote:

I tried to find your stats but I ran across this:

http://www.nicic.org/features/statestats/?State=TX

_National Institute of Corrections_ has for many years (decades) been
ran and managed by top officials, federal and state retirees /
consultants. All with a Corrections background.

More on the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)*

And. Remember many TX state prisoners are held (contract) by the
federals.

Tax dollars at work.

Weekly Population Report

Total Federal Inmates: 211,253 (Last updated on April 22, 2010 )

The weekly population report is generated every Thursday at 12:00 a.m.

http://www.bop.gov/locations/weekly_report.jsp

The fed population, 30 years ago was 50,000

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:03:05 -0500, "JimT" wrote:

I was wondering if they have to go back to the state they were convicted to
serve out thier probation? I don't know much about this stuff; thankfully!

Ordinarily - parole supervision is served in the court of
jurisdiction. That can be changed.

For the record, if one serves time in prison he has already past the
probation stage of the courts.

IOW prisoners don't get probation from prison, but get parole.

Parole was hampered when authories stopped parole.

I can hear it now!

"Boss, I gotta take it to the door!!"

It means he walks out without a supervision. Time served.

Don Klipstein wrote:

What if the reason Texas has above-average % of budget being spent on
incarcerations because their budget has below-national-average
spending on excesses, waste, and pork?

However, I might want to look into whether Texas could make a move
towards drug treatment programs, methadone, or the like.

Because drug treatment programs are, in the main, feel-good endeavors.

There are two federal drug treatment prisons. The BEST results they've ever
obtained - graduates being drug-free after one year - is a piddly six
percent.

Conversely, a significant percentage of Viet Nam veterans returned from Asia
addicted to Heroin. Virtually all kicked the habit on their own.

Druggies are druggies.


One more thing: It appears to me that USA is worst-in-the-world with
drug laws. I think USA needs to move to one of two extremes:

1. Have drug laws like those that Germany had in the late 1970's
according to my highschool German teacher. Get caught with half a
joint, spend 2 years in "the joint".

2. Have recreational drug laws like those that USA had in 1900. Back
then, marijuana, cocaine and opiates were legal.


Turkey has some pretty good drug laws...

JimT wrote:
snip

While this all is interesting, the original point began with the cost
of locking up more people. So f$%king what if TX can lock them up per
inmate cheaper if we are still paying 1% over the national average as
a % of total state buget?

The bottom line is all that matters to me. I'm not going to prison
anytime soon. Good for f$%king Texas; they can lock them up cheap.
Lower my f$%king taxes TOO! Too many motherf$%kers are in jail in
Texas....PERIOD!
:-)


Well, yeah, not sending as many crooks to prison might lower the cost per
inmate, but don't forget the economies of scale!

If we got down to, say, only ONE inmate in prison, the cost per inmate would
be astronomical. For example, you'd need, say, five full-time guards (at,
oh, $60,000 each per year), a building, utilities, food, etc. The cost per
inmate could easily reach a half-million per year.

On the other hand, if you have 200,000 prisoners already, adding one more
can be had for pennies.

In other words, to lower the cost per inmate, we need to INCREASE the number
of prisoners, not reduce it.

HeyBub wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
What if the reason Texas has above-average % of budget being spent on
incarcerations because their budget has below-national-average
spending on excesses, waste, and pork?

However, I might want to look into whether Texas could make a move
towards drug treatment programs, methadone, or the like.

Because drug treatment programs are, in the main, feel-good endeavors.

No, they are life-saving for those who want to change. As a nurse, I
worked in a detox/treatment center, back in the day when small towns'
worst drug was marijuana. Had one patient that I recall used coke, and
was a dealer. Had a local judge who gave folks with DUI's the choice
between jail and rehab...there wasn't a heck of a lot of difference,
other than the jail cell being locked. I'm sure there were loads of
people who relapsed, but there were those who woke up and took the
chance to change before they lost everything.

Most of the staff were recovering people, so it was pretty hard to BS
them. One old Marine explained why so many people are on skid row, his
theory being that they had nothing (more) to lose and knew what to
expect each day.

The amazing discovery made by a lot of folks in recovery was that their
troubles were not much different than those of other people drinking to
cover up whatever. I guesstimate that 90% had history of pretty serious
abuse as children and the other 10% probably couldn't bring themselves
to speak of it yet. Pretty horrific experiences for many, and some
started drinking/using at about age 8, although 12-14 was most common.

There are two federal drug treatment prisons. The BEST results they've ever
obtained - graduates being drug-free after one year - is a piddly six
percent.

Lots of folks become institutionalized...can't/won't function where they
must take some responsibility for themselves. Unfortunately, they
usually reproduce.

Conversely, a significant percentage of Viet Nam veterans returned from Asia
addicted to Heroin. Virtually all kicked the habit on their own.

Virtually all? You have got to be kidding...changed drugs, maybe.

Druggies are druggies.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 06:54:17 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

There are two federal drug treatment prisons. The BEST results they've ever
obtained - graduates being drug-free after one year - is a piddly six
percent.

All federal prisons have voluntary AA & NA Programs. Outside
volunteers manage the meetings. There is also random urine testing.
Years ago the "Furlough" policy was changed. The inmate signed to
"rules". One rule was not to eat poppy seeds. Seems they gave a false
positive. Even staff are subject to drug testing...

On extended parole supervision (for years) they are subject to urine
testing.

" wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

-snip-

Conversely, a significant percentage of Viet Nam veterans returned from Asia
addicted to Heroin. Virtually all kicked the habit on their own.

Virtually all? You have got to be kidding...changed drugs, maybe.

I went out googling to show Heybub how wrong he was-- and damned if he
aint right again.g

I was a Marine in VN in 1969 & 70 and never saw heroin or opium. Saw
lots of kick-ass pot and an amphetamine called 'Obesital'.

But I guess I wasn't far enough in the rear- or far enough south- or
was the wrong color green;
http://www.bookrags.com/research/vie...study-edaa-03/
[regarding a study of soldiers returning from VN in 1971]
"Almost half (43%) of the army enlisted men had used heroin or opium
in Vietnam, and 20 percent had been addicted to narcotics there.
Second, only a tiny proportion (12%) of those addicted in Vietnam
became readdicted in the year after return (Robins et al., 1974).
Follow-up again two years later showed that this low rate of
readdiction continued (Robins et al., 1980)."

I don't think many programs can boast an 88% success rate long term.

Jim

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
" wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

-snip-
Conversely, a significant percentage of Viet Nam veterans returned from Asia
addicted to Heroin. Virtually all kicked the habit on their own.
Virtually all? You have got to be kidding...changed drugs, maybe.

I went out googling to show Heybub how wrong he was-- and damned if he
aint right again.g

I was a Marine in VN in 1969 & 70 and never saw heroin or opium. Saw
lots of kick-ass pot and an amphetamine called 'Obesital'.

But I guess I wasn't far enough in the rear- or far enough south- or
was the wrong color green;
http://www.bookrags.com/research/vie...study-edaa-03/
[regarding a study of soldiers returning from VN in 1971]
"Almost half (43%) of the army enlisted men had used heroin or opium
in Vietnam, and 20 percent had been addicted to narcotics there.
Second, only a tiny proportion (12%) of those addicted in Vietnam
became readdicted in the year after return (Robins et al., 1974).
Follow-up again two years later showed that this low rate of
readdiction continued (Robins et al., 1980)."

I don't think many programs can boast an 88% success rate long term.

Jim
2.6 million served there, so, using your numbers, about 1,118,000 used
heroin or opium. If 20% of those were addicted, the number is 223,000
or thereabouts. I don't for a minute believe that only 20% of
heroin/opiate users became addicted OR that only 12% were "readdicted"
(whatever that is) in the year after their return. Half probably lied
to whomever did the study, and most addicts don't even admit addiction
to themselves. Then one considers the addicts who merely change
chemicals when supplies aren't available. Amazing numbers of bad backs
are cured when addicts are in recovery; a few discover when they are
sober that they have a bad back, not noticed prior because they
self-medicated )

Wonder how drug use affects PTSD rates...either more mellow or dead?
Iraq is not Viet Nam, but a heck of a lot of vets are coming back with
loads of trouble.

" wrote:

Jim Elbrecht wrote:

-snip-
I was a Marine in VN in 1969 & 70 and never saw heroin or opium. Saw
lots of kick-ass pot and an amphetamine called 'Obesital'.

But I guess I wasn't far enough in the rear- or far enough south- or
was the wrong color green;
http://www.bookrags.com/research/vie...study-edaa-03/
[regarding a study of soldiers returning from VN in 1971]
"Almost half (43%) of the army enlisted men had used heroin or opium
in Vietnam, and 20 percent had been addicted to narcotics there.
Second, only a tiny proportion (12%) of those addicted in Vietnam
became readdicted in the year after return (Robins et al., 1974).
Follow-up again two years later showed that this low rate of
readdiction continued (Robins et al., 1980)."

I don't think many programs can boast an 88% success rate long term.

Jim
2.6 million served there, so, using your numbers, about 1,118,000 used
heroin or opium.

Note that these were all Army- and in 1971. a skewed sample during
the height of drug use- and when troop levels were 1/2 of what they
were a couple years before.

If 20% of those were addicted, the number is 223,000
or thereabouts. I don't for a minute believe that only 20% of
heroin/opiate users became addicted OR that only 12% were "readdicted"
(whatever that is) in the year after their return.

The' readdicted' thing is because they wouldn't let you leave if you
tested positive for opiates. So presumably when you left, you were
clean.

Half probably lied
to whomever did the study,

I don't doubt that--but I'd be interested in seeing another study.
Idle speculation has its place, but I like a fact or two thrown in now
and then.

-snip-

Wonder how drug use affects PTSD rates...either more mellow or dead?

Depends on the drug of choice. Sometimes it is just working 100
hours a week- so a heart attack gets you early.

Iraq is not Viet Nam, but a heck of a lot of vets are coming back with
loads of trouble.

I think that we'll see 10 times the amount of PTSD in Iraq vets over
the next decade. We served a year, sometimes 2, and rarely 3 in
Vietnam. [3rd tours were only on approval of a shrink when I was
there] We were younger and less likely to be wanting to make the
military a career. Some of these *moms* and *dads* have served 4
tours- with just enough time between to get them 1/2way back to
peacetime mode.

When they've been back in country for a couple years is when they'll
relax enough to get bit in the ass by PTSD. I recommend that every
vet and spouse of a vet, and anyone who cares about them read Patience
Mason's 'Recovering From the War'. The Vietnam references might be
dated- but the principles of the disorder & its treatment don't
change.

Jim

[snip]
e

I was impressed when one of the roofing companies I contacted did the
estimate from satellite imagery. The computer spits out the estimate. I
didn't hire them and I'm glad I didn't. They did one of my neighbor's and
the crew consisted of Mexican Nationals. Nothing against Mexicans but I want
one or two English speaking guys on the crew.

Point is: It's the final job that matters. :-)


Sometimes I get the idea they hire Mexicans so they don't waste time
talking to you.