posted
Boot camps where you do hard labor and are confined are tough, but these people are absolute monsters. Notice that they're all in 3rd world--presumeably corruptable---countries. They couldn't do 75% of this insanity in any 1st world country.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say that I do have some experience with this. My childhood best friend's new(at the time) stepmother treated him really badly and because he reacted (he was only 11) she first sent him to boarding school, then military school, then to a juvenile psychiatric lockdown in Utah. Why Utah you might ask? It's because Utah is one of the few states where is it not illegal to incarcirate your child for any reason YOU as a parent deem good enough. I'm serious, I was shocked to hear about it. My friend was a resident of Washington, where it illegal to do this, no matter what the age. If he had been able to escape the facility and call Washington CPS or SS then they would have initiated a suit to take him out of there and out of his parents' custody. I never heard from him for 6 years after he got to Utah. From what I heard his father had to trick him to fly there telling him it was only a "lay over." He told me that at the airport two big Samoan guys grabbed him and threw him into a van with bars and metal benches. So basically, because Utah facilitates this kind of thing, my friend was robbed of 6 years of his life - harsher than most criminal sentences - thanks to the fact that his stepmother didn't like him and Utah allows this atrocity to transpire. Maybe its changed in the last few years, but I doubt it.
[ July 02, 2003, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, Morbo? Six out of the eight Wwasp schools on the website I checked are in the United States.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sat down and read the entire article. This sort of thing is just unconscionable and I, too, will be writing letters. This sort of torture should not be legal anywhere, and it should not be legal for parents who live in the United States to send their children off to places like this. It is child abuse, pure and simple.
And, yes, I agree that it is very culty sounding.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I bet they don't get as crazy as the Jamaican one, though.
thanks for the support on the cult thing, littlemisscool
I thought I made a good case---it was weird the more I thought about it the more cult characteristics I saw. When i started that list I was just going to say cult-y or cult-like, but I convinced myself just "cult" is true.!
posted
He told me they would beat up students and medicate them with Haldol(sp?) and thoryzine(sp?) all the time just for kicks. These "Dial 9 restraining events" happened whenever a staff member wanted one, and even more suprisingly required no paperwork or documentation noting that it occured.
Apparently the place was a Charter subsidiary, but then was sold to an independant owner.
[ July 02, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haldol and thorazine are first generation anti-psychotics. Quite sedative. Still used today but most certainly not a first choice anymore. Their side effects can be quite devastating after some time, the worst being a Parkinson-like affliction called Tardive Dyskinesia. You shake, tremble and lose control of movements, develops tics, etc.
Those who have TD are often said to have the "Haldol Shuffle" or "Thorazine Shuffle."
To use them willy-nilly on kids who aren't psychotic is certainly abuse.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If enough outrage surfaces via constiuent input to congress and lobbying, diplomatic pressure can be applied to gov'ts that are condoning/making money off of this.
If they can convince their kids by hook or crook to get on a plane, that's one thing... But to be "arrested" in the middle of the night and bundled off to a foreign country is nuts ...kidnapping by parents. It sickens me.
At they very least, the American parents should not be allowed to bundle 'em off shackled with police escorts help.
That is almost certainly an over-extension of police power as well as 1/2 the bill of rights.
Even more pressure can be applied to US facilites.
posted
Would any lawyers comment on the "police escorts to the plane?"
This seems like a huge due proccess violation.
[thanks for the saliency,Tick. I try]
Also, 5 wwasp facilities are in Utah...so local gov't pressure can be quite effective---from zoning to taxes to child and welfare services investigations. Utah mafia! Where are you when you're needed? just kidding
posted
One of the kids said the police had escorted her, but everything from the adults says hired "escort service" or "guards."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we should mount an expedition to Tranquility Bay to free the slaves imprisoned there. We shall arm ourselves with longswords in honor of a great activist for emancipation--John Brown (did I get that name right). He died for his cause, but we need not! *takes up longsword conveniently placed near computer*
I would be curious--and probably horrified--to see the aftereffects of one of these kids when they reached adulthood and the psychological constructs inflicted upon them begin to crack. What's going to happen when they're put in a position directly coutered to the conditioning they've been put through? Will they obey the letter of the law because it's "the rule" and, by definition, infallable?
From a legal point of view, how CAN this be legal? Aren't the rights of Americans abroad protected by the United States (there are exceptions, I know, like free speech waivers to enter countries like China)?
Certainly Jamaica, being a politically weak Carribean nation, would be forced to recognise the rights granted to the Americans in their country. There have been many Supreme Court rulings saying that, yes, minors are allowed all the protections and privlages of the Bill of Rights. Are not these rights inalienable? Yes. Even certain places on privately-held land are free-speech protected (like on parcels of land owned by the LDS Church, as discussed in another thread).
Where's the ACLU in all of this? They, one of the most opinionated groups in American history, must have an opinion.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Is this better or worse? Also, if the wealthy parents weren't packing them off to somewhere where the kids would be totally behavior modified (I know, any facility like this will do some behav mod, but the Jamiaca place goes waaaay too far) then they would be more concerned about future legal liabilities from they're own children. That's another angle of attack, get those folks who can cough up $30000 to worry about liability issues and they won't do it.
[edit
quote: I would be curious--and probably horrified--to see the aftereffects of one of these kids when they reached adulthood
Hard to predict, but I bet the group as a whole would have more suicides, murders,crime,anti-social behavior,patricides, dysfunctional behavior,unstable relationships, major trust, security and intimacy issues, drug abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder and all the baggage attendant.... the list goes on and it's particularly bad psychologically because its they're own parents screwing them over]
quote: Something I found especially disturbing were the accounts of the 'therapy' sessions. They reminded me of scenes from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. That isn't therapy, it's mindless torture. Human
This same technique was used in a California cult that imploded in..'90?? [edit, quote from below-- I am still pulling crap.This is exactly what that '90's cult would encourage people to say in group--leads to giving up very personal secrets...they have really done their homework on cults]
Group is especially insidious because there is peer pressure instead of staff/patient hierachies, kids are forced to give up all their secrets and then later become the aggressors in group to other victims.This forces them to internalize the jail's precepts to have a prayer of escape.
posted
Update: I'm taking stabs at the ACLU website and getting no hits for wwasp or Tranquility Bay. I'm terriable at online searches, though, so maybe someone else could give it a go: American Civil Liberties Union
EDIT: I'm also going to check the forum and post this thread to it if I don't find anything.
EDIT2:
quote: On level 1, students are forbidden to speak, stand up, sit down or move without permission...
One girl currently has to wear a sign around her neck at all times, which reads: 'I've been in this programme for three years, and I am still pulling crap.'
It may just be my interpretation of the first amendment, but isn't this illegal? This infringes on two of three parts of the first amendment, if they could, I'd imagine they'd infringe on personal beliefs as well (visits to a multidenominational chapel aren't discussed... hmm)
quote: Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...
Actual text of the first amendment. Edited to emphasize pertinent content.
Also, I notice that the organization is given 49% custody. Doesn't this mean that they are subject to the scrutiny of child protective services, regardless of nationality? The kids are American, after all.
EDIT3:
quote: ...I knew I had to do something. I didn't want to lose him. I would do anything for him, that's why I sent him here....
By the Pancreator's blue balls, what is wrong with this person? "I'd do anything for him..." like send him away to a slave camp where his will is broken and he's reconditioned by means of psychological and physical abuse while having his civil liberties--unalienable rights--stripped from him. This person should be fed live to hungry Somalians (Somalis? People who live in Somalia).
quote: Also, I notice that the organization is given 49% custody. Doesn't this mean that they are subject to the scrutiny of child protective services, regardless of nationality? The kids are American, after all.
Yes. I noticed this and have never heard of such a strange arrangemnet. It's an obvious attempt at liabilty shielding
posted
It's interesting that the parents sign waivers protecting the facilities from civil suits, but that doesn't prevent the children, who can legally sign no such waiver, from suing after the fact. The problem is that because it's a cult--and it is, thanks for pointing that out, Morbo, you're absolutely right--there's unlikely to be any former inmates--slaves--who want to sue this place. I still advocate breaking into the place wielding longswords and doling out vigilante justice.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is impossible to sign away one's right to bring civil suits entirely. There are many things one can always sue for, regardless of anything one signed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes! My cult defining skills have been validated! Thanks WP. I probably wouldn't have jumped on ot so quick if I hadn't just written that nutty meme/cult rant
posted
re Tactics: I think some input from the outside world could do these kids a world of good. Like just banners saying whatever, positive or funny or undermining the authority . This is completely legal as long as your on private property ... Or possibly a biplane flyby w/banner. Anything to make the kids realize that somebody still gives a crap about them. And it would be a great PR stunt... Shine a spotlight on these monsters and they'll scuttle away like bugs Cults hate any bad press. Probably because it wises up the marks before they get sucked into it.
posted
Edit: I'm replying to Morbo, somewhat unclear.
Sweet! I'm soo up for it. My dad was making noise about going to Jamaica this christmas. I wasn't going to go--I hate Jamaica, for many reasons--but maybe I'll reconsider and have 8,000 "Common Sense"-style pamphlets ready to drop from an aircraft rented while on the island. *evil scheme brews* I'm sure that would put me back in my dad's good graces, but that's a whole other sob story that I might post at some point.
Glad you like the plane idea, its realitivly cheap and if there's any int'l press coverage it might do more than cheer up the kids. I might contribute for expenses if you're for real. Also, protests could be organized, but jail's a possibility then.
[edit: Common Sense rocks! I started it on the internet a few weeks ago but never came back to it.] Also, over 25 years ago John Brunner wrote Shockwave Rider. It has a corp. called "Anti-Trauma INC." that uses extreme behav mod techniques on troublesome rich kids. I thought it was over the top, but it's looking incredibly prescient right now He has the main character Sandy curse an ATI employee to the bowels of Hell, and I heartily second the notion.
posted
Saw this on Squarepedia... What a waste. Sending kids to a place like this for mouthing off or wearing the wrong clothes. First of all, some people should just not have kids. If they are not prepared to deal with the trails and tribulations of child rearing they should just not do it. Kids do not ask to be born. Second of all, programs like this are ridiculous. All they do is break down a child's will until they have no mind of their own. What they should do with difficult children is send them to some poor country for a year or two. Make them work out in fields, help feed the hungry. See how lucky they are to have the sort of resources that they have. They'd come back changed people, really changed people, not broken. it also irrates me because who knows what goes on in places like this, sexual abuse, physical abuse, you name it...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: abroad are charged between US$30,000 and $50,000 in tuition and fees, generating yearly revenues of $60 million or more.
These cats have a serious pile to defend themselves with.
[edit: and boy,are they crafty...
quote: "a lateral arabesque with no hub except for these connections in Utah." He cites a network of interlocking directorships based on blood and business ties.
posted
I couldn't tell from your post, Morbo, but I wanted to point out that I was referring to the Common Sense in terms of the pamphlet written by Thomas Paine before the Rev. War. It was a rabble-rousing thing, and only a few pages long, if I remember correctly.
Probably a better piece of writing from Paine was The Tempest, which began with the immortal words, "These are times that try men's souls,"
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
this issue is really about a whole societal epidemic-I know someone mentioned it briefly earlier, but talk shows have families on all the time whose kids areviolent and screwed up, and the parent tries to act all innocent and say, well I just can't imagine how my kid turned out this way! I've given my kid everything, and sure I was working all the time and ignoring him and let him get his values from school and tv but, hey, I was a good parent darn it! The day care epidemic is part of the problem (sorry for those of you who put your kids in daycare, but you don't really know until you've worked in one) I'm a preschool teacher, and I can see a big difference in kids who have been in daycare from infancy. They have a pack mentality. They are already like teenagers-caring more about what their gang of kids think than what adults think-after all, they've been through so many teachers by the time they enter school that they aren't trusting and loving anymore. And once school starts, it's all over. Kids today are already "institutionalized" by kindergarden, and society wants to blame THEM when they act like it? Problem is, society will have to change, not the kids, and it's easier to just shuffle the blame and punishment onto the easiest victims-the kids.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a side note, the King's adboys came up with a response to the Common Sense, printing the Plain Truth or something like that. There were a lot of things to like under the king, even though he was crazier than a junebug with alzheimers.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[edit:crazier than a junebug with alzheimers. LOL]
Just called WWASP 1-800-840-5704 and ranted. Funny, it's not as cool as on-line ranting. I came across poorly at first. The guy defended him self remarkably well. But he totally discounted independant reporting and their data. Said 48 Hours did a piece on them awhile back that was negative (but in his mind wrong.) Said he was "social worker" (vauge) with some psych training. When I asked him about the uneducated loser in charge of Tranquillity Bay, he said roughly "but a behavioral modification facilty doesn't need a psychologist in charge." Sheeeesh. He did well until that point. But he came across as sincere and wanting to help kids. I told him to look up these links we've been seeing, maybe he will
posted
Wow. I've read about these things before, but not as extreme as this. It reminds me of the Sunlight Gardener Home for Wayward Boys from The Talisman , by Stephen King/Peter Straub. They had a box that they would put the boys in, as punishment. During the novel, the box was broken, and police officers found writing on its inner walls. I can barely imagine what these kids from "Tranquility" would write. Are kids really that bad to be humiliated and abused like this?
Posts: 70 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they were allowed to write without spending some time on a tile floor.
I'd have to wonder if Ghandi-like passive resistance would work in such a place. I mean, these kids are considered so terrible because they act out, but what if one had the insight to not act at all, and encourage others to do the same?
Passive resistance is the most successful form of protest the world has ever seen, and yet is so seldom practiced.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Passive, nonviolent resistance can only work when one has an enemy that will report it and with a target that will be moved to compassion by it.
For instance, although this is extreme, passive resistance worked on the British with the Indian people because the British had a press that would report it, to some extent, and there was a world press to report it if they didn't. But passive resistance couldn't work in, say, Nazi Germany or more realistically in Soviet Russia because the enemy was entirely too ruthless and the population never heard about it or didn't care.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, good parsing of non-violent resistence. And add Dr. King (my dad once put together a jungle gym for him and kids,I kid you not) civil rights for the same reason plus TV . Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, there is a big difference between "passive" and "nonviolent" when it comes to resistance.
Have you ever actually studied the tactics of coordinated, active, non-violent resistance? It was effective against the Nazis when it was used (which wasn't nearly often enough.) Ever hear of the Rosenstrasse wives?
quote:The reality is that history-making nonviolent resistance is not usually undertaken as an act of moral display; it does not typically begin by putting flowers in gun barrels and it does not end when protesters disperse to go home. It involves the use of a panoply of forceful sanctions—strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, disrupting the functions of government, even nonviolent sabotage—in accordance with a strategy for undermining an oppressor's pillars of support. It is not about making a point, it's about taking power.
Another misconception about nonviolent resistance that policymakers and the media entertain is that there is some sort of inverse relationship between the degree of severity of a regime's repressive instincts and the likelihood of a civilian-based movement's success in overturning it. Three cases come to mind in illustrating that repression is not typically the decisive factor in the dynamics of these struggles.
First, during World War II the Danes gradually developed a broad popular nonviolent resistance to their German occupiers and—through actions such as cultural protests in the beginning and later general strikes—managed both to create the space in which to operate and to impose substantial costs on the Nazi regime for its decision to occupy the country. Even though the Germans were capable of more severe repression in Denmark than they chose to apply, the point is that there was a transactional relationship between the Germans and the Danes, and the Danes discovered that fact—and from that they derived the leverage to press their resistance.
An authoritarian ruler or military occupier wants certain services or benefits from the population, and those benefits can be withheld, albeit at a cost to those resisting. Ratcheting up repression does not necessarily work as a strategy to quell resisters, since when repression increases, more people are antagonized and join the resistance, and business as usual for the regime or occupier becomes even more costly to maintain. It's essential to understand that unless a regime wants to murder the entire population, its ability repressively to compel a population's compliance is not infinitely elastic.
This was illustrated in another case during World War II: the nonviolent public resistance of the Rosenstrasse wives in February-March 1943. Reacting to the internment of their Jewish husbands, hundreds of these non-Jewish wives and other civilians who supported them started daily sit-ins in front of the building at Rosenstrasse 2-4 where their husbands had been taken initially (many were soon shipped to the camps). SS soldiers shot into the air over their heads, shut down the nearest streetcar station, and tried to frighten them off, but they kept coming, their ranks swelling to a thousand. The Nazis were faced with a dilemma: To stop the protest, they could drag these women away and arrest them, or brutalize them in the streets—but the regime was concerned that that would inflame other Berliners, who would surely hear about what had happened. In a week Goebbels decided it was easier just to give them their husbands back, and he did so, transporting many back from the camps; 1,700 were set free.
Nonviolent resistance often confounds the assumption that the next degree of repressive pressure will somehow neutralize further resistance, because conflicts in which strategic nonviolent action is applied are not necessarily contests of physical force in all of their phases. The Nazis could have ended the Rosenstrasse protest on its first day, but they did not—they realized it was not really a physical problem. There was a political context: Killing Jews was one thing, but killing or even injuring non-Jewish German citizens, especially women, was quite another—it would tarnish their image (which is to say, potentially jeopardize the legitimacy of their domestic rule) at a vulnerable time, right after the German defeat at Stalingrad. The lesson: Their latitude for decision making was not automatically enlarged by their capacity for repression. Another case that illustrates the importance of this question of legitimacy is that of Chile. No one doubted the willingness of Pinochet's regime, in the 1970s and early 1980s, to use terror as an instrument of repression in order to assure the regime's control: Disappearances, brutal killings of dissidents, and arbitrary arrests had silenced most dissenters. But once that silence was broken in 1983 in a way that the regime could not immediately suppress—through a one-day nationwide slow-down, followed by a nighttime city-wide banging of pots and pans in Santiago—the regime was no longer able to re-establish the same degree of fear in the population, and mammoth monthly protests were soon under way.
After it was clear that a broad cross-section of the population opposed the regime, Pinochet felt compelled to reassert its legitimacy, and so he went ahead with a scheduled referendum on his continued rule which, thanks to internationally supported poll watching and extraordinary grass roots organizing, he lost. Then his impulse to crack down was blocked when his senior military chiefs made it clear that they would refuse his orders to do so. What had happened? A seemingly innocuous protest had compromised the regime's ability to rule by intimidation, allowing the democratic opposition to organize and eventually capture a higher legitimacy, splitting the ranks of the dictator's supporters.
posted
Hmmm...I understand what you're saying, dkw. You obviously understand better the differences than I do.
You're right, of course, that nonviolent and passive are different. However...
One thing that was clear is that the nonviolent resistance could only lead to successful results in certain circumstances. More, perhaps, than one would think initially but by no means does that mean every set of circumstances. In all of those circumstances, the nonviolent resisters had something in common: power. Even if it is just a little bit, they had the power to be a major thorn in their oppressor's side. And it was not always permanent, either.
With these kids in Tranquility Bay, though, it's different. Their environment is totally controlled. They are not allowed to speak or listen to anything, and they are subjected to numerous brainwashing materials all day long. Well, you've read it, you know as much as I do at least.
The point is that for nonviolent resistance to work in Tranquility Bay a child would have to keep resisting for years. Not only that, they'd have to keep up their resistance in solitary confinement. They wouldn't have a chance to tell other prisoners how or what they were doing. In fact, I quite suspect that some prisoner there did decide to take the route of nonviolent resistance...and they were immediately put into OP, and the staff lied to the other prisoners about what they were there for and what they were saying and thinking.
I keep thinking back to that girl who was in OP for eighteen months. I wonder if she decided to be the one to overcome the brainwashing and torture that goes on in Tranquility Bay. I can picture her struggling for months, mocking her jailors...and eventually being beaten down into submission.
Despite your informative (thanks for sharing, btw, I learned a good deal:)) link concerning the differences between passive and nonviolent resistance, I am still firmly convinced that neither would work in Tranquility Bay. For the purposes of combating resistance, the staff has essentially infinite resources...or near enough so that it doesn't matter. The prisoner has only themself, and only themself when they're slowly being tricked into being something weaker.
But perhaps I am too cynical. Is there a way it could happen? I am the romantic enough-after all, Hurin is one of my favorite characters in Tolkien-that I believe there are a very, very few people who simply Do Not Break under torture. But I don't think the chances of such a person ending up in Tranquility Bay and being permitted to stay and spread their mindset to the other students is very good at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as non-violent protests go , the all-time MVP in my book is that little guy that stood in front of the tanks, arguing with the tank commander, in Tianneman Square.
Now that's brave. I like to think of myself as brave, but all the tea in China wouldn't get me to do that. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A few comments come to mind as I read through this thread.
Morbo...Well, yes, it does seem like a violation of due process rights, especially in cases where no actual crime has been committed. However, I'm not sure how this works on minors in the control of their parents. I mean, ethically it should be the same as for adults. But in reality, I don't know how this works. I may have to do a little legal research, dust off the old paralegal skills....
WheatPuppet...Concerning the First Amendment, I don't really think it can be invoked in this case unless the institution gets government funding. Unfortunately, the wording of this amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law..." The amendment was extended to cover state (and probably local) governments through the 14th Amendment (I think that's the one...it has been way too long since I took my Constitutional Law class). The rulings have been mixed in regards to private entities. Private property that could reasonably be considered public places, such as shopping malls, have in some cases been ruled liable to allow free expression. However, places that cannot reasonably be considered public do not have to allow free expression of first amendment rights. (Sorry, I don't have any references for this right now. If only I knew where my notes from Constituitional Law were hiding....)
VenomusValentine (I hope I spelled your name correctly; please forgive if I didn't - I'll get it right eventually)...I think that giving the kids everything may well be one of the problems here. The parents are so wrapped up in the rat race of making a fortune (considering the cost of this place, I doubt there are many lower or middle class people sending their kids there) that they never spend any time with their kids, building a relationship with them. So they give them stuff instead. And then they get all upset when their kids act out or don't "like" them.
Well, I wouldn't have liked my parents either, if they acted like I was the least important thing in their lives. My dad worked hard, long hours, often seven days a week. He gave me the things I needed, but not everything I wanted by a long shot. But he found time to spend time with me, even if he had to take my mother and me (I? - I never have figured out this rule of English) to work with him on the weekends, when he was working seven days a week. And when he had to travel - sometimes he would be away from home a month or six weeks at a time - my mother and I went with him. We lived in motel rooms with kitchenettes then, and it was crowded but it was fun, and I knew that I was loved and valued. If it was during the school year, sometimes I went to school where we went and sometimes I just took assignments along from my school at home. Sure, there were a couple of years there when I was in elementary school where we were away from home half the year or more in total. It was a great way to learn about other places - I knew kids at my school at home who lived a 30 to 40 minute drive from the beach but had never, ever even been there because their parents were "too busy" to take them. Well, their dads weren't too busy to play golf on the weekends and go out partying all the time, and their moms weren't too busy to carry on their own social lives. And these were the kids who ended up acting out in the ways described in the article that started this whole thread.
Sorry for the rant. I'm really not saying that parents should give up their lives when they kids. Mine didn't...although they were not the sort of people who were inclined to go places very often where they couldn't take me. However, I am saying that having kids entails responsibilities beyond just feeding and clothing them, giving them a roof over their heads, and making sure they go to school. And if people aren't willing to spend some time with their kids sometimes, even if it means missing a night out with the guys or the girls once in awhile, then they shouldn't have them - or they shouldn't be surprised when the kids turn out not to like them very much. How can they like their parents, if they haven't spent enough time with them to get to know them?
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I looked at several links including 2 newspaper stories and the survivor website...someone posted it I think Tom and the wwasp.com website . wwasp is umbrella group behind it all
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
