Re: NAR Board of Trustees

BS. No parent is chaining their kid to a chair and shoving a bag of Cheetos in his face. Parents take their cues from the kids themselves, trust me, I have 3.

Chris, I can't count the number of teams that I coached for my 3 kids: soccer, baseball, roller hockey, softball. The only thing that they had to do was demonstrate a desire to participate.

There's nothing stopping kids from going outside, grabbing a couple of buddies and playing football or baseball. From what I can see, the problem lies with both parties. Parents should boot their kids outside like mine used to do saying "Go outside and get some of the stink blown off of you". ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

You know what John, it was a rant, pure and simple. Get a clue...it was stated so also.

I work with kids of Junior High School and High School age all the time. It's complete BS how sad the state of our kids demeanor today is. Whether they are on drugs for ADHD or not. 9 out of 10 kids in a larger town or city have no respect for other kids or elders. It's gotten so bad, that our company won't even bother presenting ourselves for hire to the local high schools for prom because the kids are so disrespectful. I refuse to deal with it. I'd just a soon have my company play a prom for a smaller town with kids that have been taught respect, and appreciate all the hard work we do for them, then deal with the BS of the kids of a larger city.

It's funny how kids in a town of 3000 or less raise just as much hell as kids in a city, but they still have work ethic, respect for others and pride in their school...far cry from what we see in larger schools.

So the question is, can you honestly say it's ADHD/ADD causing the problems or society in general and parents lack of discipline?

Actually, don't bother to answer, because I really don't care what you think, however I do value others input that is relative to the subject, that can understand the true meaning in a post.

-Boomer

Why stop with the manufacturers? Why not continue with the duplicity that schools share in the problem. There are schools that won't let "disruptive kids" in their school unless they are on Ritalin. Teachers, not physicians, often make the diagnosis of ADD or ADHD. Here's a short link to read:

What Every Parent Needs To Know About Attention Deficit Disorder by Fred Baughman, M.D.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Boomer wrote: some deleted

I can't give you a cookbook that'll work for all kids, but I can relate what my wife and I have done raising our kids. We have three: 20, 18 and

1. We rarely, but not "never" hit our kids. When we did, it was always immediately following a gross misbehavior and they had been forewarned. It was a single swat on the butt. It got their attention and let them know that there were limits to THEIR behavior and OUR patience. We felt it important enough for us to raise our own kids that my wife stayed home from the day the first one came home from the hospital until today, despite the fact that she's a degreed Social Worker and was a regional sales manager for a large chain of women's stores prior to her first pregnancy. If you want your kids to turn out the way you want them to, YOU have to put in the time to make it happen. Period. I sympathize with people who HAVE to put their kids in daycare to make ends meet, but have ZERO sympathy for those who chose to both work because they wanted that boat or summer cottage. It's too late to start raising kids after the damage has been done and most damage is done by age 5. I look back now (with my second child about to go to college) and am very pleased with our decision. Not trying to brag, but wanting to share the results of our efforts, I have a senior in college on the Dean's List, I have another child that just graduated #2 in his HS and has a full scholarship for college and my youngest is going into her junior year, #1 in her class. None of them have ever smoked, gotten into trouble with the law, done drugs or even hung out with bad kids.....and all of that didn't just happen by chance. It took a lot of hard work (mostly by my wife who is a perpetual motion machine) and discipline tempered with love. During the few times that we did have to punish them, they always knew that we did so for their benefit, not ours. It's especially important for younger kids to know that there are boundaries and that the boundries aren't negotiable depending on the parent's willingness to deal with the "hassle" of punishment. If you do "X", "Y" will occur with 100% assurance, period.

Sorry for the long reply.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

I'm glad to see you were kidding, but I still think you have a problem if you take the subject of 'smacking kids' that lightly. If you wish to teach children respect and self control, don't you think parents should do the same? If your kids go on a "rant", wouldn't you want them to be responsible for what they say and not blame the person pointing it out?

Back to the original (almost) subject, someone assumed kids don't care about small rockets. My son (13) likes them all, especially something complex like clustering or staging or gliders. He has a LOC Viper 4 that we put combinations of larger motors into. He's also been to an LDRS at 10 years old, several other high-power launches, and two NARAMs. At NYPOWER last weekend, he pushed the button for over 100 flights, including M's, and Ed Millers 3xJ monocopter. But, he still loves building and flying the small stuff. And he, like myself, have tendencies toward attention deficit. When I was young, they told me I had an "active mind" and my parents gave me things to do instead of medication or beatings! But this takes time and effort and patience, which I'm afraid most parents don't have anymore. My older sister is a special ed teacher... I wonder if I had anything to do with this? ;)

I have two older daughters that were influenced by rocketry, too, when they were younger. One is starting grad school at Virginia Tech in engineering this fall on full scholarship. The other will be college sophomore this year, also in engineering (she received one of the small scholarships from the NAR last year). Both have >3.7 gpa's. I don't think anyone can tell others how to raise their kids, but I found that three things are very important... keep them out of (most) public schools, keep them busy with positive activities, and keep the television turned off. For many years, we didn't have a TV (believe it or not) and we still do not have cable. Quite ironic seeing that my Dad had a part-time business repairing TV's when I was a kid, and I teach electrical engineering. We've also never had a video game box, though I've had computers around the house since 1979 [old geek alert!].

What makes this hobby interesting is the variety of options available when one gets bored. You have to be in the hobby for some time to realize this. Forcing the NAR to go solely in one direction will be the beginning of the end of the organization, and would be a diservice to the membership.

-John DeMar (having a rant of his own kind) NAR #52094

Absolutely untrue, Mark. Teachers make no diagnoses whatsover, nor are public schools allowed to deny service to students without meeting all the requirements set forth by law and school district administrators.

I am not a psychologist nor a psychiatrist. However, I absolutely KNOW that particular teaching methods, classroom organization, and tailored curricula (hands-on work, etc), improve the work and progress of students who exhibit behavior symptoms commonly referred to as ADHD and who have been diagnosed as having ADHD by licensed psychologists/psychiatrists. There is simply no question. I deal with it on a daily basis.

Certainly, I have students who have been mis-diagnosed. It takes me about two minutes to identify those students from the ones with real ADHD-attributed symptoms. Treating the students individually (we can do that because of our small class sizes) allows us to maintain a learning environment with a population composed entirely of "disruptive" students.

There is no "complicity" (implying direct intention) between teachers/schools and anyone/anything else concerning drugs and ADHD, at least not in my district. If anything, the problem lies at the diagnosis level OUTSIDE the school system; perhaps the shrinks are too quick to say "ADHD".

There are "problem" students and there are students with real learning and behavioral disorders. On the surface, they may be hard to distinguish in a school environment. But when directed approaches are taken to deal with ADHD symptoms, the results are dramatic. The "problem" students do not respond, but the ADHD kids do.

Most parents do not have children with ADHD and see similarities in ADHD behaviors which they would attribute as a lack of discipline in their own kids. It is not always the case. Imagine a kid being disciplined over and over and over again for something they cannot control. We get kids who are thoroughly convinced that they are failures and see no reason to even try anymore. It's a two way street; dismissing their problem only perpetuates it.

It is a diservice to the kids, schools, and parents to dismiss ADHD as simply an excuse to coddle problem kids or as a condition invented to sell drugs.

While I agree in most part that personal accountability is SERIOUSLY lacking in our current nation I do have one problem with smoking.

It kills me too and I am not smoking.

Where was my choice in the matter ?

Chris Taylor

I am sorry I disagree. I have SEEN with my own eyes dozens of kids etc.. in the scenario I describe.

I have seen kids who WANT to do this or that but can not because the parent simply does not have the time for them so they buy them video games (or worse do not have the time AND do not buy them video games)

I have watched kid after kid with whatever attitudes toward activities because at home their are no activities.

No time to take them to the park or on a hike or camping. No time for wood crafts or other hobbies.

Video games are easy.

the KID is not legally old enough to make these kinds of decisions and for damned good reason. nature tends to take the path of least resistance. you might have to make them initially do more active things (although most are more than willing if not eager if started young)

your telling me when your kids were 3 years old they wanted nothing but video games ? how about 4 ? how about 5 ? 6 ? on and on. at some point they will get stuck into whatever pattern they were brought up into (most of the time)

once they get over 10 etc.. they now do not want to do more active stuff if they have not done much active stuff before. (path of least resistance)

I MIGHT give my kids a video game after than pass 10 years old. MAYBE.

I Have no doubt you are a fine parent. I have no doubt you have fine kids. I hope I am a good parent when I become one.

but your scenario does not alter or change the reality of what I have seen with my own eyes (ok eye)

I worked with other kids throughout jr high and high school and afterwards. I saw it every day.

I have seen dozens of families with young (under 7 or 8) kids who want nothing more than to go outside who have no interest in "nintendo"

they want to run play with their friends.

but after being told no time. have to work. etc.. (and in some cases this is reality they really do have to work) or 'm too tired. they resign themselves to playing video games to pass the time.

then when they are older and ABLE to go out on their own to some extent they no longer have the desire or passion to. they are now resigned to sit in front of a damned screen and play video games.

This is the of society to a point but to parents since they MAKE society.

I hope I can do my part to break this trend. I can only try.

Kids are born as a blank slate. they are what YOU and Society make them into for the most part. YOU and Society program their core with only few exceptions.

Chris Taylor

Wrong again, Chris.

I used to believe the 'blank slate' theory (even though looking back at my own childhood, that should have disproved it). But then I had kids.

Each kid has their own personality, interests, metabolism, etc. You won't change that (much), and if you DO change it, you will permanently damage them to the point where they'll end up in therapy. In other words, if you try to 'force' a naturally introverted kid to be an extrovert, or vice-versa, it won't work.

That's not to say that parents don't have responsibility in raising kids, they do! But, the parent's job is to get the child to reach their greatest potential, STARTING WITH the tools the child was born with, and then moving on from there. While you won't get a natural introvert to be an extrovert, the good parent can help the naturally introverted child be slightly less introverted, to where they are at least accepted in the 'norm'. The same holds true for most other characteristics.

I have two kids. They are very different people, and their personal traits (many of them) were evident from birth. Some of these are physiological, some are psychological, but they are ALL very real. On the physiological side, for example, I have one kid who MUST get a great deal of sleep to function, and another who can get by with virtually none. On the psychological side, one child is very laissez-faire about getting schoolwork done, the other is almost compulsive. And there is no correlation to IQ about this, either.

There are certain things you can learn about by viewing others, Chris, and there are some things that are so all encompassing that you have to experience them to speak knowledgably about them. Raising kids is one of those things...

David Erbas-White

Something else I've noticed is that each child also inherits traits from each parent. Of my three kids, each has characteristics of me and of my wife, in different combinations. As a totally unscientific example, my wife is a picky eater, while I'm not. One child is picky, the other two are not.

They each grew up with the same household rule: "you have to try it before you can say you don't like it". They'll all try new foods, that's a learned behavior. One is much more likely to not want it again, although there's no way to predict ahead of time who will and will not like it.

Ted

Agreed in full, but it's also difficult to tell how much is 'genetic' versus 'environmental' (being picky about foods is a great example). I, for example, have an extremely severe eating disorder, and we went to great lengths during the kids' formative years to not have the kids exposed to it. Thus, they have not 'learned' that behavior. But, they definitely have different characteristics (from both of us).

What makes it worse (in the learned behavior department) is you can never tell whether kids will want to 'emulate' or 'reject' certain behaviors. For example, both of my kids have 'rejected' my behavior as a rocketeer...

David Erbas-White

See previous message. There is the same level of certainty as there would be with a primary smoker. No difference in the physical evidence. No one should be forced to work for someone or with someone who smokes in the same room. It is a basic right not to be harmed by another person's negligence. However... forcing a non-essential public place to be "non-smoking" is going over the edge. If you don't like a restaurant that doesn't have a non-smoking area, just don't give them your money. If the waiting room at your local car mecahnic is full of smoke, just bring your business some where else. Etc. Our county legislature just put into law a public smoking ban that I don't believe will last long. But.... claims from smoking related illnesses cause my health insurance and taxes to be higher. I don't think someone's choice of a bad habit should affect my wallet. Otherwise, I couldn't care less what anyone does to slowly kill themselves... it's their right as long as they don't cause me harm (physically or financially).

-John

I think that if you smoke then your insurance rates should be

**substantially* higher.

So do I. All health insurance should be risk-based. That said, I also think that gays insurance should also be higher than heterosexuals because they die sooner than smokers due to their lifestyle and THAT one can be linked to a causal relationship, unlike second-hand smoke. But can you imagine that actually happening? The insurance companies would be picketed, the government would be passing new anti-insurance legislation....all in the name of being PC.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Phil Stein wrote: much deleted

Just a thought, is Frank K. a NAR Weenie? >;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Phil, The whole mess was settled prior to NYPOWER. I flew several Pro38 motors there and if you recall, that was the launch where both 5-grain Pro38's and AT J350's had catoes woes. Both were resolved, one quicker and more legitimate than the other, I might add. ;-)

That's one niche that the NAR has purposefully chosen NOT to be involved in. I believe that the decision was a conscious one in order to keep insurance costs low and to keep NAR's distance from a potential EX mishap. All members have a voice in the policies of the NAR. If enough want to change that policy, I'm sure that the NAR would oblige.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

every doctor I have talked to says that second hand smoke is harmful. that is can kill me or shorten my life or cause other problems.

until I hear otherwise that is what I will believe.

Either way it makes me gag and choke when I breath it >

can you guarentee she did not.

this is curcular BS and it sickens me when people try to use it to bolster their arguments.

anyone who things 2nd hand smoke is not harmful to non smokers has their head up their ass. ANYONE.

the > >

This is also unfair. Why should buisnesses have to decide whether or not to ELIMINATE an entire and very significant market one way or the other ?

this is simply not right. I should be forced to take my buisness elsewhere because you are doing something that is lethal to everyone ?

you have your priorities ass backwards to me. it is you who should take your lethal activity elsewhere.