Author Topic: Latest New York Times Piece  (Read 12140 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #30 on: September 08, 2003, 12:46:00 PM »
Carey,
Please don't start being judgemental.  Those of us that sent our kids to a WWASP program agree that it was wrong.  We did fall for the lies and the marketing.  Are you saying that you never invested in something to find out that it was not what you thought it was?  When we go back and reread the contract now, it sounds so different than going over it with the friendly people at WWASP.  Have you ever put your child in time out?  Maybe a chair in a quiet place where they can calm down?  That is how OP was explained to me.  What is wrong with that?  Restraints?  If my child was going to hurt himself or others, I did agree that this would happen. You would do it yourself if you thought your child was going to be harmed.  

The marketing and the lies of WWASP are what we are all fighting against.  Why do you put down those of us that were taken in by it?  Why aren't you supporting us for trying to help others so that they don't go through what we and our children did?

Can you honestly say that you would have never fallen into what we did if you were the one trying to find a place for your child?  If you answer yes to this, we have found a new almighty leader!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #31 on: September 08, 2003, 12:54:00 PM »
Quote
On 2003-09-08 08:36:00, Carey wrote:

Maybe they [the parents] too should be held accountable for neglect.


I believe this is one of the primary reasons why most kids don't come rushing to the legal system when they first get out of a program. At least, it was the primary reason why I just said no to the HRS investigators when they asked if I wanted to pursue action against Straight.

I really wasn't mad at my parents over all of this. I thought they didn't get it (and they didn't) and I felt very sad and alone. But I had no interest whatever in punishing them or holding them accountable for what had happened. Part of that was plain confusion. I really wasn't sure who was right or wrong about what. All I knew for sure was that the program was very quickly making me crazy and I needed desperately to get out of that environment and to be safe from ever being sent back. I needed time to think and that would not have been possible if I'd jumped onto one side or another of this big legal brawl. And I damned sure wasn't about to play a role in helping all these various people use my parents to further their various agendas.

Remember that the kids who've just gotten out have no idea who any of us are. They haven't been allowed to keep up with the news and events of the day on any topic and most of them are not at all sure what they really think. They haven't been allowed to form their own opinions or draw their own conclusions about anything for a long while.

Karen, in the other thread you're asking kids who've been there to tell you how they feel about their parents now. I doubt you'll get any response at all from them, though I suspect some of the anon posts might be from those folks.

And the parents are in substantially the same situation. That's why, 20 years after the fact, I'm all for any legal or journalistic action that anyone wants voluntarily to pursue against an abusive program. It still brings tears to my eyes every time I find out about a parent who wises up and decides to take their kids' side. But I know I'm not in a position to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do in that regard.

And I honestly don't think new laws or legal sanctions, in themselves, will make any big difference. It's not asif we're dealing with people who respect the law. They break the law every day, lie about it and use bribery, threats, intimidation, slap suits and other types of coercion and to cover their crimes.

I think the underlying problem is that there's a broad market demand for these types of services. They call their services "Help for troubled teens". What are they promising to help the teens to do? Essentially, they see teenagers who are unhappy with and unwilling to accept the way teens are treated as a problem. The way I see it, if a substantial number of teens are unhappy with the way they're treated and unwilling to go along with what we've got planned for them, there's probably something wrong with our plans for them. It's not asif just a few of them feel this way. It's an overwhelming majority.

And it's not just the teens, either. Aparently, judging by trends in advertising, there is a substantial market for adults who can't stand the company of their communities and will buy rather expensive pills to mute their anxieties so they can go through the motions of having a social life.

One theme keeps coming up over and over again in all of these discussions about the various programs (the Program, by any other name, would smell just as rancid). The world is different now. Times are changing. That's true.

When our parents were setting out to be parents, we'd just won WWII and they had every reason to believe their sacrifices would result in great promise and opportunity for us. If they could get us to just work hard, stay out of trouble, guard our reputations and pursue our dreams, we'd land up prosperous, happy and proud.

Now it's our turn. Can you honestly look your kid in the eye and tell them to go along with the school locker searches, metal detectors, DARE programs, 1-800-BE-A-SNITCH anonymous tip hotlines and all that entails? Can you promise them that just following orders and doing everything that's expected of them will result in a successful, happy and prosperous future? Can you tell them that our leaders are good, honest, forthright and moral people who they should respect? Can you honestly tell your own son that it is a good and nobel and honorable thing to go to Columbia or Iraq as a soldier to kill and die for the American Way and that all of their friends who would rather go dance at a rave are evil and bad?

They're not buying it. They're angry with the way things are going and doing everything they can to subvert the process by which we, as a society, try to force them into playing their part in it all. THAT is the "problem" that the Program seeks to correct. The real problem is not with the kids who are trying to escape.

The real problem is that we are not doing a very good job of helping kids figure out a better way. Program dogma, requires that we force them into the one path that we've chosen for them by creating intolerable artificial consequences for every other possible option. We need to quit doing that.

We're the grown ups now. We're the parents. It's our job to give our kids everything they need until they are able to get it for themselves. It's not our job to police them to make sure they're puruing John Ashcroft's dream or living up the the expectations of the cop hired to deliver the DARE program. It's our job to pass on the best of what our parents had to offer us, even if (especially if) the schoolpeople are trying hard to beat that out of them. It's their job to figure out what's worth passing on to their own kids and to improve on our work.
 




"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
"Isn't your pants' zipper supposed to be in the front?"
--Hobbs to Calvin

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #32 on: September 08, 2003, 01:13:00 PM »
Quote
On 2003-09-08 09:46:00, Anonymous wrote:

The marketing and the lies of WWASP are what we are all fighting against. Why do you put down those of us that were taken in by it? Why aren't you supporting us for trying to help others so that they don't go through what we and our children did?


Anon, let me give you a corollary. My daughter has become pretty good friends with her old friend's girlfriend since we moved up here. Just around a week or so ago, that romance ended explosively. This boy is one who, for some reason I can't explain, just really found a place in my heart years ago when we knew him in Florida. If I'd met him now, I really don't think I'd feel the same way about him. But then, if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts on the ground when they hopped.

The girlfriend is still around our place as often as my daughter is over at hers and we've started to get to know her dad. Seems like an alright guy.

If I were in his shoes, I'd want to strangle the little prick in question too. I'm sure I'd be completely unwilling to consider his feelings or his side of it or even the remote possibility that this kid will ever get his act together. But I'm not the ex-girlfriend's father, I'm the aging hippy who, no matter what, this kid has been able to count on for an honest opinion and a cup of coffee, soup or an aspirin since he was around 15. I can't be mad at him. Well, I can, but not so much as I'm worried about him and pulling for him. I do NOT feel the same way about my daughter's ex-boyfriend, to whom we refer as Psycho Boy.

I think Carey's in substantially the same position wrt Program parents as this gal's dad is wrt this boy. The rest of ya'll have a different set of variables to balance into the equation.

In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong

--John Kenneth Galbraith

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #33 on: September 08, 2003, 02:14:00 PM »
Quote
Can you honestly say that you would have never fallen into what we did if you were the one trying to find a place for your child?


I can honestly say I would NEVER leave my child in a place that tells me that I am not allowed to have contact with them. When my children were little,I chose not to work because they were to youg to talk.  I did not want to have to worry that someone may be abusing them and that they would not have a way of telling me that.  Well, I do not think leaving teenagers in a place that cuts off communication with parents is any different.  

No, I would not have fallen for "the program."  I prefer that my kids make their own mistakes and suffer their own consequences, the legal and binding ones that are in place in society today.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #34 on: September 08, 2003, 02:15:00 PM »
That was me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #35 on: September 08, 2003, 03:18:00 PM »
Carey - where did you get the idea that you couldn't have contact with your child?  Isn't there unlimited letter writing and unless there's a legal reason why you can't see them, you can... unless you follow their recommendation that if it's important to your kid to get the points to earn the visit you'll wait? I do think that waiting can be a long process, so maybe they'll change that recommendation?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #36 on: September 08, 2003, 03:43:00 PM »
Carey,
"I would NEVER leave my child in a place that tells me that I am not allowed to have contact with them."

I wouldn't either.  I was never told that I couldn't have contact with my child.  I, as many others, thought that we were sending them to a boarding school.  A wonderful place where they would experience wonderful things.  

Remember, when you call up any of the WWASP affiliates and tell them what you are looking for in a school for your child, that they will lie to you and tell you that this one or that one is the perfect place for your child.

I didn't fall for a "program".  I was told that these were boarding schools with great opportunities for your child.  That is why we are trying to hold WWASP accountable for their marketing.  They list themselves as boarding schools, military schools, etc.  

I guarantee, that if you were looking for a place for your child, and you would have talked with WWASP as many of us did and talked with all the parent references(not knowing that they were kool-aid drinkers), that you to may have sent your child to a WWASP school.

We all should learn from our mistakes.   Don't put us down for what we did, work with us to make sure this doesn't happen to others.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline MelissaR

  • Posts: 127
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #37 on: September 08, 2003, 04:31:00 PM »
What do you mean, "Kool Aid drinkers?"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #38 on: September 08, 2003, 04:39:00 PM »
Quote
I wouldn't either. I was never told that I couldn't have contact with my child.

You must have signed a different contract than the one I saw.  The one I saw was presented in court and it outlined what had to happen before communication was allowed. (I don't consider letters to be an adequate form of communication, especially given the nature of these programs.  There is to high of a risk for abuse in programs that are not monitored by any outside child protective agencies.)

Quote
I, as many others, thought that we were sending them to a boarding school. A wonderful place where they would experience wonderful things.



You have got to be kidding.  You read the contract and you thought you were sending them to a regular boarding school.  Come on.  You are only fooling yourself.

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-09-08 13:41 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #39 on: September 08, 2003, 04:42:00 PM »
It's a reference to Jim Jones and the purpole kool-aid used as a medium for the poison the People's Temple folks drank.

The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.


--William Osler

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline MelissaR

  • Posts: 127
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #40 on: September 08, 2003, 07:52:00 PM »
I am totally infuriated by Tim's article. He TOTALLY pussed out. Sorry for that, but I'm at a complete lack of better words. I'm soo irritated, I was interviewed and nothing even pertinent to what the scope of the article originally was about is even remotely close to the questions I was asked. I understand his job is on the line, but his job is to report unbiased news. Too bad for WWASP that unbiased news is the fact they beat and torture teens. Enough said.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline spots

  • Posts: 251
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #41 on: September 08, 2003, 09:40:00 PM »
Melissa, I had a very very different take on Tim Weiner's Spring Creek Lodge article.  I was even surprised that some anonymous WWASPie came on this forum and said she was sort of "pleased" with the article as being "better", somehow than his previous ones on Casa, Dundee, and TB. It's a pretty potent look at the badness of WWASPS.

Tim's job is not "on the line", and his job is not to report unbiased news.  He has a strong personal opinion, but his job is to give both sides of the story...not unbiased, just 2 sides.  However, think about Joe Normal drinking his morning coffee and reading the NYT:  
-"...parents swear with near-religious devotion...others have come to curse it." [good lead-in, incriminating]
-"...staff accused of sexual abuse, physical violence and psychological duress."
-some children and parents call physically and psycholgically brutal."
-South Carolina is fighting (4 years worth.  The State hates WWASPS and is trying to shut them down.)
-Even Utah "officials are wrestling" with unliscensed Cross Creek and Majestic.
-the Feds are "taking a look" at tax irregularities.  [This is how the Feds eventually broke the Mob and did in Al Capone...taxes!]
-Montana says "We'll get action after there's a crisis".  Joe Normal says, "...whoa, they're expecting a riot or something like Costa Rica."
-about the Hobbit, "...When he came back, he was worse, far worse."
-reports of sexual assaults, beatings, escapes [but Tim didn't mention the $1000 reward to local ranchers catching runaways].
-the story about Vermillion Bridge (which I've known about for some time)..."Mentally, they do damage. Emotionally, too" says a former staffer.

Jeez, I think this is a strong article.  If Tim just quoted you that "they beat and torture teens", Joe Normal wouldn't believe it.  It is unbelievable, these accusations, while you're drinking your morning coffee.  

Trust me, Tim Weiner and the influence of the New York times running continuting coverage of WWASPS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.  The 5 or so Anaonymous pro-WWASPS posters on this forum can stomp and froth all they want, but the 50 million or so folks who read the NY Times and the associated news groups will believe and do something, if it becomes believeable.  

Maybe not sensational enough for you right now, but these articles are the stuff of action.  Give Mr. Weiner credit where credit is due.  He is the greatest ally you can ask for, and I sincerely hope he is awarded his third Pulitzer Prize when WWASPS falls.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline MelissaR

  • Posts: 127
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #42 on: September 08, 2003, 10:14:00 PM »
Point taken, yet, I'm failing to understand why he did not use any of the information I provided. Especially information pertinent to the academics at SCL. I'm frustrated because it seems as though people want to make SCL out to be "not as bad as the others." When in reality, it is just as bad or worse than the other facilities in certain areas. It seems that people are using Spring Creek Lodge as a backdoor, saying "SCL is better, they don't beat kids..." They do, I saw one girl have her jaw broken by several support staff and several family reps in 2002, right before I left.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline anon

  • Posts: 267
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #43 on: September 08, 2003, 10:15:00 PM »
[ This Message was edited by: KarenZ on 2003-10-18 13:17 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Latest New York Times Piece
« Reply #44 on: September 08, 2003, 11:25:00 PM »
Karen wrote:But what dose that say about a parent who can read that article, think it fair and accurate - and still sing the program's praises?"


Karen where did you get the idea we think it's fair and accurate?  It's neither, balanced maybe!

Suffice it to say that two sue-happy lawyers, fired employees and a pissed off troubled teen made the story.

Damn, I think I'll go scream and beat on a chair. or maybe I'll call Rose Mary Hinsch in Phoenix...whoops, wrong again.  She doesn't live there, never did :rofl:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »