"Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -- unknown

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results - Albert Einstein

good leaders are gone
August 25, 2004 - 10:27 am

oh the joys of moving a grand total of 14 miles with only stuff that will fit in a four door sedan.

since graduating college six years ago this will be my ninth address in five states.

i think i'm going to tell people i'm really a fugitive on the lamb. make up some sort of a back story.

anyway.

last night i was reflecting on childing raising - specifcally punishing a naughty child.. now i'm sure at different ages, different types of punishment work best.

i'd have to say that for under 4 years old, the whole time-out thing works well - at least in this househould. i know the urge to give a spanking is might strong quite often.. but that also confuses an important message: that it's not ok to hit people.

the time-out thing, of which i was very skeptipcal, since i was raised in a spanking house and don't see much wrong with that, is used here. she has to sit still for a few minutes. the more she crys and squirms the longer it may be.. but lets face it. 2 minutes is FOREVER to a 3.5 year old. then she has to go to whoever gave her the time out and say why she 'earned' it.

one thing she likes to do when upset with someone is run over and 'bap' them with her hand. a sort of slap thing that doesn't hurt at all since she's so little. well, she used to do that, doesn't anymore. spanking her would really confuse the message of no hitting - she'd scream (if you spanked her) that you're not supposed to hit people.. and then what do you do? tell her sometimes it's ok to hit people if they misbehave?

that only means next time you do something she doesn't like, it's ok for her to hit you - or someone on the playground.

she's too young to grasp the subtle detail of being displined and spanking is acceptable when done by an adult.

without a doubt, the appeal of spanking is that it's satisfying to the spanker - the kid has misbehaved, you (the adult) are upset and are going to punish her. you spank her and thereby get the immediate knowledge that you've done your parential duty and displined.. or something like that. i'm not sure how to express it.

however, it's not you getting satisfaction - it's about the kid learning the rules of life. time-outs are less satisfying to give.. but the mere mention of giving one will settle her down 9 times out of 10 -- and isn't it nifty to give displine without violence?

at the least, time-outs are just as effective as spanking.. and don't have the drawback of teaching that violence is acceptable in some situations.. a lesson best learned later in life when one can better understand the context in which violence should be used.

i've stopped watching the news and reading political articles. i'm sick to death of the 527 ads. the dems are just as dirty as the repubs in this billshite - the dems just whine louder about it. the micheal moore movie is really the same as a 527 ad and it has documented/provable errors.. so shouldn't kerry condem it?

the last news show i saw talked about that. one of the speakers referenced bush sitting and reading to the kids after being told of the attacks and how deplorable that one. another countered, what did kerry say he did during that same time? he said he sat for about 40 minutes totally engrossed/mesmorized by things.. i.e. this senator, member of the intelligence committee, sat on his ass for 40 minutes.. and bush gets chewed out for a few minutes.

what would i have done? i've no idea, but acting rashly isn't a good choice.

i'm confused why the secret service didn't rush in and snatch bush, put his ass in some safe place. i think, as president, that's what i'd have expected to follow being told of the attack - since no one knows the extent of the attacks...

i don't want to defend bush - i'm just saying kerry isn't better than bush. both of them suck. neither one shows steller leadership.

i'm still waiting to see one thing about what kerry has done in the senate - something other than him missing something like 38 out of 40-some public meetings on the intelligence committee.

the longer the media stays on the swift boat bullshite, the more and more i don't think kerry will win... if he can't get people talking about something he's done lately.. why would anyone want him in office?

well, other than they hate bush. is that REALLY a reason to elect kerry? seems to be, if that's your position - you'd vote for anyone. so you're not really a kerry supporter, but a bush hater.

just want i want.. a person elected out of hate or someone else.. (note: sarcasm)

'course that leaves the village idiot in power.. and that's disturbing. i don't like him either.

no wonder the rest of the world doesn't like us.. the political system to lead the dominate country of the world offers up two asshats.

where, oh where, have all the good leaders gone?