Family rules help children understand what behaviors are okay and not okay. As children grow, they will be in places where they have to follow rules. Following rules at home can help children learn to follow rules in other places.
It is normal for children to break rules and test limits. Breaking a rule is a child’s way of learning about his world. Consistent follow through with consequences when rules are broken help your child have a clear understanding about the importance of rules. Remember, young kids sometimes break rules because they simply forget. Not all broken rules occur because kids are testing the limits. But, our responses should be the same no matter what the reason for breaking the rule.
For family rules to work well, everyone needs to know, understand, and follow the rules. By doing this, children don’t get mixed messages about what is okay or not okay. For example, you may feel that jumping on the bed is a dangerous behavior. You set a family rule that “The bed will be used only for sitting, lying, or sleeping.” If another caregiver jumps on the bed, your child may be confused. Your child may think this behavior is sometimes okay. Your child’s behavior will be better if all caregivers support the rules in the same way. This is true for parents, grandparents, or any other caregivers in your child’s life.
There are several steps that can help all family members be consistent.
The number of rules you set depends on your child’s ability to understand and remember. It is also hard for parents to consistently enforce lots of new rules. For young children, focus on only two or three of the most important rules at any one time. As your child learns a rule and is following it consistently, you can add new rules.
I use the term organized chaos, because that’s probably the most we can strive for without a staff of 7 or having Martha Stewart move in and run things. In our house, the list of family house rules isn’t the pirate’s code where it “is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules*.” Nope. We stand by these. When you really stop and think about it, they’re just examples of plain old-fashioned consideration towards the other members of the household. I think that type of consideration for others is always in fashion. It’s like taking the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and spelling things out. These rules are simple, straightforward and get right to the point. I’m sure you’ve seen similar versions of this before, but I think we can always use a little reminder.
What is the Main Cause of a Heart Attack? What is its Solution? A heart attack is the blockage of… Read More
In the vast economic arena, one term that often takes center stage, inciting extensive debates and discussions, is the "debt… Read More
De-Dollarization: The Changing Face of Global Finance The financial landscape is in a state of flux, with an intriguing economic… Read More
The curtains closed on a dramatic Bundesliga season with Bayern Munich standing tall once again, clinching their 11th straight title.… Read More
The Unfolding Story of Celine Dion's Health In recent news that has left fans across the globe stunned, iconic singer… Read More
As the echoes of the recent NBA season start to fade, the attention of enthusiasts is firmly glued to one… Read More
View Comments
this is a good article to general knowlege.it is good for that there are incloud many rules of our life.I hope to u to write more article's.
under the news reference by the atlantic.com
America Is Under Attack and the President Doesn't Care
As the rest of America mourns the victims of the Parkland, Florida, massacre, President Trump took to Twitter.
Not for him the rituals of grief. He is too consumed by rage and resentment. He interrupted his holidaying schedule at Mar-a-Lago only briefly, for a visit to a hospital where some of the shooting victims were treated. He posed afterward for a grinning thumbs-up photo op. Pain at another’s heartbreak—that emotion is for losers, apparently.
Having failed at one presidential duty, to speak for the nation at times of national tragedy, Trump resumed shirking an even more supreme task: defending the nation against foreign attack.
Last week, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 13 Russian persons and three entities that conspired to violate federal election law, to the benefit of Trump and Republican congressional candidates. This is not the whole of the story by any means. This Mueller indictment references only Russian operations on Facebook. It does not deal with the weaponization of hacked information via WikiLeaks. Or the reports that the Russians funneled millions of dollars of election spending through the NRA’s political action committees. But this indictment does show enough to answer some questions about the scale and methods of the Russian intervention—and pose a new question, the most important of them all.
The new question is this: What has been—what will be done—to protect American democracy from such attacks in the future? The Russian attack in 2016 worked, yielding dividends beyond Vladimir Putin’s wildest hopes. The Russians hoped to cast a shadow over the Clinton presidency. Instead, they outright elected their preferred candidate. Americans once thought it was a big deal that Alger Hiss rose to serve as acting temporary secretary general of the United Nations. This time, a Russian-backed individual was installed in the Oval Office.
From that position of power, Trump has systematically attempted to shut down investigations of the foreign-espionage operation that operated on his behalf. He fired the director of the FBI to shut it down. His White House coordinated with the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to misdirect the investigation. He mobilized the speaker of the House to thwart bipartisan investigations under broadly respected leadership. He has inspired, supported, and joined a national propaganda campaign against the Mueller investigation.
And all the while, Trump has done nothing—literally nothing—to harden the nation’s voting systems against follow-on Russian operations. On Sunday, he publicly repudiated his own national-security adviser for acknowledging at the Munich Security Conference the most incontrovertible basics of what happened in 2016.
It’s worth thinking about what a patriotic president would have done in Trump’s situation. He would be leading the investigation himself. He would be scouring his own campaign—doing everything in his power to reassure the country that whatever the Russians may or may not have done, his government owed Putin nothing. He would have imposed penalties on Russia for their outrageous acts—rather than protecting Russia from penalties voted by Congress. Above all, he would be leading the demand for changes to election laws and practices, including holding Facebook to account for its negligence.
At every turn, Trump has failed to do what a patriotic president would do—failed to put the national interest first. He has left the 2018 elections as vulnerable as the 2016 elections to Russian intervention on his behalf.
The president’s malignant narcissism surely explains much of this passivity. He cannot endure the thought that he owes the presidency to anything other than his own magnificence. “But wasn’t I a great candidate?” he tweeted plaintively at 7:43 a.m on Sunday morning.
But Americans who cherish democracy and national sovereignty need to start discussing a bigger and darker question.
Authoritarian nationalist parties across the western world have outright cooperated with the Russians. Russian money has helped to finance the National Front in France, and the election and re-election of the president of the Czech Republic. In Germany, Russia first created a hoax refugee-rape case—then widely publicized it—in an effort to boost its preferred extremist party in that country’s 2017 election, the Alternative for Germany. Russia supported pro-AfD comment in media favored by Germany’s surprisingly substantial Russian-speaking communities.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo predicted to the BBC at the beginning of 2018 that Russia “will be back” to help its preferred candidates in November 2018. To what extent does President Trump—to what extent do congressional Republicans—look to Russian interference to help their party in the 2018 cycle?
Most observers predict a grim year for the GOP in 2018. But the economy is strong, and selective tax cuts are strategically redistributing money from blue-state professionals to red-state parents. The Republican national committee commands a huge financial advantage over its Democratic counterpart. (Thing look more even at the level of the individual candidates.) A little extra help could make a big difference to Republican hopes—and to Trump’s political survival.
Nothing has been done in the past 15 months to prevent that help from flowing. You have to wonder whether the president does not privately welcome that help, as he publicly welcomed help from WikiLeaks in the summer of 2016.
Trump’s own tweets reveal that among the things he most fears is the prospect of Representative Adam Schiff gaining the gavel of the House Intelligence Committee from the clownish present chairman, Devin Nunes. How far would Trump go to stop a dreaded political opponent, inside the law and outside? How far has Donald Trump gone in the past?
Trump continues to insist that he and his campaign team did not collude with Russia in the 2016 election. We know that they were ready and eager to collude—that’s on the public record. (“If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”) The public does not yet know whether the collision actually occurred, and if so, in what form and to what extent. But in front of our very eyes we can observe that they are leaving the door open to Russian intervention on their behalf in the next election. You might call it collusion in advance—a dereliction of duty as grave as any since President Buchanan looked the other way as Southern state governments pillaged federal arsenals on the eve of the Civil War.
Framework and strong foundation of every nation: Happy, secure homes with a father and mother training up our children in the way they should go. And as parents build our children's character with integrity, as God-loving citizens of our nations.
Thank you for your carefully outlined article on parenting in love and righteousness.