Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_marg]

To both Harmony and Bob,

I don't think either of you have done much reading on the history of behavioral modification programs and what they involve. In quite a few posts I have linked to Maia Szalavitz's article The Trouble with Troubled Teen Programs

If you don't think Westridge uses techniques common in the sorts of programs Maia is discussing then give your reasons.

[_rcrocket]

As I have plainly stated this week, I will be departing this board. The consequences of participation (a complaint to the state bar by one of you about my debate practices) makes it too costly to be here.

[_harmony]

Please try for a little reading comprehension, marg. I didn't say GoodK was dysfunctional. I said his family was dysfunctional. And you'd be hard pressed to argue the contrary.

Harmony I think you need to improve your reading comprehension. I didn't accuse you or assume you said GoodK was dysfunctional. My post was a clarification that while some people in his family may be dysfunctional I don't think it's due to him.

And much as you would like to, you can't know that either. You aren't a member of his family. You don't even know his family. The only thing you know about his family is what he says and one post supposedly from his stepdad.

Personally, I think the family is dysfunctional, so I'm not about to argue that with you. Most families are, at some point or another, some to a higher degree than others. Mine certainly was, when I sent my son to live with his aunt. We all muddle through, though, some better than others.

It is abusive to send a 15 year old away from family and friends to an institution known as a boot camp when there are no signficant behavioral issues.

Again, you're hearing one side of the story.

Why do you refer to UBR as a boot camp? What "boot camp"? I'm not sure UBR could be considered a "boot camp". I know what a boot camp looks like; I have one that's about 20 miles from my home. From what I've seen, they're very successful in turning some kids in troubling situations around. But this one is run by the state with very strict oversight... it's a "real" boot camp, not a wannabe.

What are significant behavior issues? To you they may be quite different than to some other parent. That's why the law allows parents to make the decisions for their children, rather than having you make them all.

As far as intent with regards to the step dad, he was aware that GoodK would be abducted. If he thought GoodK would approve, if he respected GoodK..he would have discussed it before hand. So to some extent he had to have known what he was doing.

Again, unsubstantiated allegations. And a bit of skewed perspective, no doubt.

Try to not throw words around without regard for their meaning, marg.

It's you who doesn't seem to have much regard for the term abuse. You seem to think if some organization can get away with something legally that means there is no abuse. You also seem to lack an appreciation of the techniques these schools use. While I don't think they are all equal in abuse, I do think that sending an individual to an institution without independent objective professional qualified assessment to determine that such action is warranted is abusive irregardless that the individual is under legal age of maturity.

Abuse is a legal term, marg. You're not using it properly. Come back when you learn what abuse means, in the world that can do something about it.

That's not true Harmony. I've never said that someone believing in God is not dealing from a full deck. I'm not going to repeat what his dad said, but he sounds like a religious fundamentalist who thinks he's above others who in his mind are sinning.

So it's just religious fundamentalists (alledged religious fundamentalists in this case) who aren't playing with a full deck? The rest of us are? (playing with a full deck, I mean.)

When I was a parole officer, I had a bonafide schizophrenic on my caseload. A very charming, level headed, intelligent, rational man. Sometimes. I also had a bi-polar sister in law at one point. Also very charming, level headed, intelligent, and rational. Sometimes. They are still charming, etc. both of them. They are also both institutionalized for crimes committed when they were less than charming.

What has also gone on here is that Mormonism was shoved down Eric's throat...by his dad and by the UBR. It is reasonable for Eric to rebel, in fact it is a very sane thing to do.

Whoops. "Sane"? We're back to the implication anyone who believes in Mormonism is not playing with a full deck again.

My point was that being intelligent, level headed and rational has nothing to do with GoodK's situation, just as it had nothing to do with where my parolee and former sister in law ended up. And being intelligent, level headed, and rational has nothing to do with GoodK's rebelling against his parents. How that has anything to do with Mormonism supposedly being shoved down his throat you have not seen fit to show.

Personally, I don't think anyone deserves to be abused, period. I don't think anyone deserves to be treated like GoodK claims to have been treated at UBR. I hope he skewers them good, if what he says is the truth. I just wish he'd hurry up and get the skewering done, because if what he says is going on there is going on there, someone needs to pay with some prison time.

I doubt very much prison time will result. It's not one person, it's the system, it's the laws that are allowing schools to use programs which are abusive and don't work. It's the lack of laws for protection of underage individuals.

You don't know much about the USA's justice system, do you, marg? If these allegations are proven true, someone, probably several someone's will be serving some prison time. We don't take child abuse lightly here. I'm pretty sure there's still time in the statute of limitations too.

And you don't know this either. Until everyone has their day in court, it's all allegations, unproven allegations. And neither Daniel nor Crock has supported the school at all. I've seen both of them post many times about how unsupportive of the school they are. I think you owe them both an apology.

I do know they have both attempted to discredit Eric. What they have posted with regards to the school, is that they have no interested in it. So they are quite willing to insinuate Eric deserved being sent there, quite willing to discredit Eric's honesty yet make no attempt to investigate the program.

No, they have attempted to show that allegations do not facts make. They've been trying to get GoodK to turn those allegations into something the legal system can work with: a complaint.

I don't think you can assume anything at all, marg. I certainly don't. I place a bit of faith in the justice system of the USA, and even the state of Utah. I can't wait to see this brought to court. I'm just surprised it hasn't been yet; as a matter of fact, I find it very curious that it hasn't been brought to court yet. I could see the Trib being all over it, had it actually been on the docket.

From the sounds of it, you've done absolutely no research into tough love/behavior modification/boot camp programs. You don't know the history of them, how long they've been around. A good place to start is the article I linked to previously. http://www.reason.com/news/show/117088.html

From the sounds of it, you have no idea how to differentiate between facts and allegations. I'm hoping for improvement though.

[_harmony]

Gag. The last thing I want to do is support and uphold boot camps, since I advise parents not to send their kids there.

Your link doesn't work, but isn't she just a reporter? Her statements are not peer reviewed.

Since you like authorities so much, here is a peer reviewed work published by the NIJ. It is a statistical study using standard sociological methods of research.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197018.pdf

Here's a quote:

Boot camps were almost universally
successful in improving
inmates’ attitudes and
behavior during the course of
the program; they also produced
safer environments
for staff and residents, presumably
due to their highly
structured atmosphere and
activities.

Why isn't my quote as good or better than yours?

Damn, Crock. It feels very weird to be on the same side of the fence as you.

[_rcrocket]

As I have plainly stated this week, I will be departing this board. The consequences of participation (a complaint to the state bar by one of you about my debate practices) makes it too costly to be here.

[_Pokatator]

Damn, Crock. It feels very weird to be on the same side of the fence as you.

Harmony, you better watch your grass.

[_marg]

Harmony I think you need to improve your reading comprehension. I didn't accuse you or assume you said GoodK was dysfunctional. My post was a clarification that while some people in his family may be dysfunctional I don't think it's due to him.

And much as you would like to, you can't know that either. You aren't a member of his family. You don't even know his family. The only thing you know about his family is what he says and one post supposedly from his stepdad.

I can only spend so much time with nit wits I'm sorry.

You accused his family of being dysfunctional. You are the friggin one making the positive claim here with lack of evidence.

Abuse is a legal term, marg. You're not using it properly. Come back when you learn what abuse means, in the world that can do something about it.

Right so when I look the word up in the dictionary it's going to tell me it's a legal term.


I really can't bother responding to your entire post Harmony. It's so illogical that I don't have the patience at the present time to spend time on it.

[_harmony]

I really can't bother responding to your entire post Harmony. It's so illogical that I don't have the patience at the present time to spend time on it.

Oh good. At least you won't be posting allegations as facts.

[_rcrocket]

As I have plainly stated this week, I will be departing this board. The consequences of participation (a complaint to the state bar by one of you about my debate practices) makes it too costly to be here.

[_marg]

Gag. The last thing I want to do is support and uphold boot camps, since I advise parents not to send their kids there.

Your link doesn't work, but isn't she just a reporter? Her statements are not peer reviewed.

The link works, yes she's a reporter and has written a book on the issue.

Since you like authorities so much, here is a peer reviewed work published by the NIJ. It is a statistical study using standard sociological methods of research.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197018.pdf

Here's a quote:

Boot camps were almost universally
successful in improving
inmates’ attitudes and
behavior during the course of
the program; they also produced
safer environments
for staff and residents, presumably
due to their highly
structured atmosphere and
activities.

Why isn't my quote as good or better than yours?

I haven't yet gone to your link, however I'll note

first sentence: "Boot camps were almost universally
successful in improving inmates’ attitudes and
behavior during the course of the program;"

-There is no independent assessment required warranting that kids have legitimate behavioral issues

- kids don't even need to have any issues to be sent

Therefore what criteria is used to determine that attitudes and behaviors improved..and compared to what if no assessment was ever made to begin with?