I was excited (.. even more than he was) .. running alongside, shouting » "Oh my God! You're riding!" Waiving my arms like an idiot.

But later disappointed. Cuz I had anticipated spending a few days teaching him. Instead, he just hopped on and rode off (.. his very first try).

I didn't say anything, but was thinking, "Doncha know you're supposed fall & crack your noggin a few times .. like I did?"

I've been talking to various dads the past few weeks, learning different techniques on how to teach him to ride ...

.. such as » remove the pedals & let him push himself along, allowing him to become accustomed to the bike's balance at his own pace .. or » grab him by a snug-fitting t-shirt between the shoulder blades and run alongside .. again, giving him most of the balance .. and also » the 'broomstick technique.'

Riding a bike is all about » balance. I think the reason he picked it up so quickly is cuz he's been riding a 2-wheel scooter around town the last few weeks. It's actually called » a razor. (He's a little demon on that razor.)

He has also been spending lots of time on the trampoline .. which is very much about balance. (He bounces pretty dang high.)

Anyway, I wasn't planning on him actually riding the thing. I'd asked several times earlier if he wanted to practice, but he always declined. (He's 4.)

About 10 minutes before we had to leave (for me to take him back) .. I simply asked him to SIT on the bike .. so I could see if the seat was adjusted to the proper height.

"I wanna ride," he said. "We don't have time." I countered, checking my watch. "We have to go in 10 minutes." But he insisted.

So anyway, he climbed on and .. rode off. I'm still kinda surprised. We called all our friends and told them the news. He was proud. (Tho not half as proud as me.) After his first ride, he said (with a big smile) » "I wanna do it again." He rode ~ a dozen times .. a length of some 50-feet .. without falling once.

Miss Julie picked up the bike for him in Laguna last month. He just rode it in the back yard, but immediately wanted to ride out in the street.

"No way," I told him. "Here's the deal. Next time I pick you up, we'll go to the park. And if you can ride around the bases 3 times (relatively soft dirt/clay infield) -- from home plate, to first base, to second base, to third -- I'll let you ride in the street."

"No, dad," he said dismissively, with a wave of the hand. "Here's the deal I wanna make..." =) [ He cracks me up sometimes. ]

I grew up back East (in Connecticut) where Patrick's dad (Mr. Mac) taught all the neighborhood kids to ride. I still remember how cool it felt .. that first time. It was a hot summer night .. starting to get dark. All of us kids taking turns .. crashing into different things. Learning to ride .. the old-school way. Blood-n-guts.

For more along these lines, here's a Google search for the search » first bike ride without training wheels

The article can be summed with the following quote:

"The primary message of all types of conditional parenting is that children must earn a parent's love. A steady diet of that, Rogers warned, and children might eventually need a therapist to provide the unconditional acceptance they didn't get when it counted."

Doesn't it seem odd that a study was required to determine that rationing love & acceptance (like gasoline during a shortage) is detrimental to children? Duh.

First, conditional love is not love. Let's call it by its real name » manipulation. And it's the worst kind of manipulation, cuz children, especially young ones, are at the mercy of their parents.

Moreover, they do not yet possess the skills necessary to recognize and defend against such insidious tactics  .. from people they're so dependent upon (for eveything).

Now, do you know anyone who enjoys being manipulated? Cuz I don't. Heck, even people who enjoy pain don't like being manipulated. Cuz it doesn't really hurt; it just feels slimy. [Speaking of slime & pain, refer to my comments about boiling a frog near the end.]

Not very difficult to tell the difference, either. Kids (who happen to be particularly sensitive) can spot a fake all-the-way across the coffee shop and will turn away .. while gravitating wholeheartedly to the genuine. You can actually observe this play out.

There are many things a parent can use as leverage to encourage (or discourage) a particular behavior. But love should never be included in the leverage toolkit. Same goes for affection & attention .. things too precious to be used as mere bargaining chips.

Withholding love & affection based on behavior is cruel. Sure, it might elicit the desired response .. in the short term. But the child will grow to resent it (.. as does anybody who's being manipulated). Used consistently and frequently enough, it will instill deep-seated feelings of inadequacy .. that may never go away. (You might even know someone like this .. with deformed self-esteem.)

Many times, when a child is acting out, I'd wager it's *because* he or she is not getting the emotional support they need (from a parent). That would be like telling a hungry child » "Stop fussing or I won't give you any food."

[ In the military, we had a saying » "The beatings will continue until morale improves." Same principle. ]

Whichever side of the great nature vs nurture debate you tend to favor, you always return to » the parents .. as the prime causal agent for how a child turns out .. whether it be on count of their genes or their parenting methods (.. or a combination of both).

We were all kids once. (Well, most of us.) So we all have many years of first-hand experience from which to derive our opinions .. of what works, and what doesn't (.. and what really suks). My point is, it's not rocket science.

If you divide any group into those who received too much love growing up, and those who could've used more .. I'd wager you'd wind up with one room over-flowing, and another sporting a few lonely folks. (Can almost hear the echo in there, can'tcha?)

Admittedly my parenting experiences are far from normal. I have the Bug for only a few days each week.

When your time together is limited and repeatedly threatened, discipline falls to the bottom of your parenting priorities.

And my focus is on a 4-year old. As children grow, they become increasingly autonomous, and therefore more responsible for their own behavior (as the parents' role gradually diminishes).

But you don't need an advanced degree in Psychology to know that most of the more serious issues adults deal with can trace their lineage back to childhood, and often to the parents .. either directly or indirectly. No one else has so great an influence & effect (.. for better or worse).

That's why two kids who grew up next to each other, on the same street, and who went to the same schools, and took the same classes, and played the same sports, and attended the same church .. can have such dramatically different outcomes.

The healthiest people I know (psychologically speaking) are those who had the courage to confront the unfortunate things life dealt them (often during their most vulnerable years), and the yucky feelings that arose as a result. They (bravely) dealt with these issues .. and moved on.

But people obviously can't deal with things they refuse to accept ever happened. Denial, we all know, is a beautiful thing. It has the power to eliminate all our problems & eradicate our imperfections .. which is why I employ it myself on a regular basis, and heartily recommend it (.. for a while, anyway).

Unfortunately for little ones, this is often the only tool at their disposal. So into the closet-of-denial goes another monster, ushered forthwith .. to be dealt with at a more opportune time .. when they are better prepared, and better equipped.

This is where love & acceptance come in. Because it's difficult to deal with that monster locked away in your closet if you're concerned that the person(s) who you look to for emotional support (a parent? spouse? best-friend? significant-other?) might withhold their love and/or acceptance if they see how ugly that sucker is.

Or worse » they might judge, criticize, condemn or reject you. So it's best to keep that dude locked away .. where nobody can see. Better yet, swallow the key .. so that it (like a vampire) never sees the light of day.

Anybody who has tried to exorcise these demons knows you can't do it alone. So the only way to oust them is to tell a confidant & enlist their support. And there's no finer support than » Unconditional love. It's the only power-source (that I know of) capable defeating closeted monsters. And it carries none of the side-effects associated with popular alternatives.

Even more disturbing is the notion that some scholars seem to suggest employing the techniques associated with conditional love. Here's another quote:

"Albert Bandura, the father of the branch of psychology known as social learning theory, declared that unconditional love 'would make children directionless and quite unlovable' -- an assertion entirely unsupported by empirical studies. The idea that children accepted for who they are would lack direction or appeal is most informative for what it tells us about the dark view of human nature held by those who issue such warnings."

Let's face it, even under the best of circumstances, kids are gonna have a challenging time in today's world. The last thing they need are deep-seated feelings of insecurity or inferiority because their parents got stingy with the love & affection when they needed it most.

As a side-note, I would argue that the ability to ration love -- turning it on-n-off .. like a spigot -- is a good indicator that this so-called 'love' is not real.

Cuz when you truly love someone, you CAN'T turn it off (.. not even when you wish you could). True love has no throttle valve.

I'm not talking about having a bad day .. which we all have from time to time. Rather I'm talking about making a conscious decision to 'withhold' .. as it were, when it is in our power to give .. and when it's clear that someone we claim to care for needs that love.

Ya know, as adults we're sometimes faced with the question » Is faux-love better than no love? (Hey, that rhymes!) But kids should never be put in that position.

[ Regarding that choice .. as a friend once said » "Once you've tasted prime-rib, it's hard to go back to baloney sandwiches." ]

Only thing I'm not sure about is whether it's possible for someone who grew up in a home where the 'love' was rationed conditionally .. to love their own kids UNconditionally .. for who they are, rather than what they do (.. or how much they earn, or what kind of car they drive).

Some claim this would be difficult .. cuz it involves unlearning a learned behavior .. one that has been entrenched and reinforced over many of the most-formative years.

But I feel these folks would be MOST motivated .. since they know (better than anyone) how krappy it feels to have love & affection rationed according to the whim of a parent who determines when & if they are deserving enough, and what effect this kind of manipulation might have on their self-esteem.

The problem with overcoming dysfunction in the home is that » applied early- & often-enough, it eventually starts to appear normal (.. cuz that's all kids know). It's kinda like boiling a frog. They become accustomed to the damage if it's applied gradually over an extended period. We all want to believe we're lovable. This is what keeps some of us in an uncomfortable pot as temperatures rise.

A chief characteristics of love, it would seem, is » a desire to GIVE. Everybody is familiar with John 3:16 » "For God so loved the world .. that he GAVE..."

And no place can I find where it says anybody ever asked God to send his "only begotten." This would imply that love seeks to give without a corresponding request.

The Bible describes love as "not self-seeking." Whereas conditional love (i.e. manipulation) is always associated with » GETTING.

Next time you raise a glass, make a toast .. "to Unconditional Love." Cuz 'withholding' should be relegated to taxes.

As a closing thought, I'm convinced that a relationship in which two people truly love each other (unconditionally) .. is the closest thing to heaven-on-earth any of us will ever experience (.. next to a blazingly-fast SCSI hard drive, of course). If you find something better, send me a sample (.. packaged, of course, in a plain, brown wrapper).

For more along these lines, here's a Google search preconfigured for the query » conditional love manipulation

Understanding the concepts outlined here will help troubleshoot any CSS rendering problem .. much better than banging your head against the wall (.. a technique that seems to provide limited success).

Three rendering principles determine how CSS styles are applied to a web page, and which style(s) take precedence. They are:

1. The Cascade
2. Inheritance
3. Specificity

For reference sake, here's a quick review of basic CSS syntax » selector {property: value}

For example » p {color: green} .. will apply a value of 'green' to the color property for the text contained in a paragraph ('p' = paragraph selector). This is called a CSS "rule".

Here's a brief overview of the 3 rendering principles listed above that determine how CSS rules are applied to a web page:

I. THE CASCADE

Styles are applied in the following "cascading" order: External style sheet » Embedded styles » Inline styles.

A given HTML page can contain one, two, or all three (or none). Styles lower down the cascade normally supplement (add to) styles higher up the cascade. If a styling conflict exists however, styles lower down take precedence.

In other words, the last style applied wins (.. given equal specificity). Here's a brief description of each type of cascading style mentioned above.

1. External style sheets (fileName.css).

These styles can be applied to an unlimited number of HTML pages .. which link to the CSS file. Very powerful, since they allow you to change the look-n-feel of an entire site by modifying a single file. Web pages normally link to only a single external style sheet, tho it's possible to link to multiple external style sheets .. which also cascade, depending on the order they're listed. Large professional sites often use multiple external style sheets.

2. Embedded styles

They are found within the head tag of an HTML page. These styles are enclosed within the 'style' tag <style> and apply only to the HTML page in which they are found. These styles supercede any styles contained within an external style sheet that may conflict with them (.. given equal specificity).

3. Inline styles

Inline styles are applied to individual HTML elements/tags, using the "style" ATTRIBUTE. Note that this is not the same as the style ELEMENT applied to embedded styles mentioned above, tho it's spelled the same way. Inline styles supercede all others that conflict with them .. since the last style applied wins. Plus, they carry maximum specificity (which we'll discuss later).

II. INHERITANCE

Inheritance is an easy concept to understand. Properties of rules applied to parent tags (elements) will also be applied to their child tags (.. long as those specific properties inherit). Styles applied directly to child elements supercede those applied to their parent elements.

Inheritance allows you to keep your CSS code light-weight by applying global styles (once) to parent elements and having those styles 'broadcast' down to their child elements .. instead of styling each child element individually.

For example, you can apply a font-family styling of 'Verdana' to the <body> tag/element .. and have that styling 'inherit' down to affect the style of every text-based element in your page, or even your entire web site .. by merely styling that one tag/element.

You can then overwrite styling applied to parent elements (when desired) by applying more specific styles directly to the child elements.

III. SPECIFICITY

When two rules conflict, the most specific rule wins. Specificity is responsible for more CSS frustration than any other rendering principle. If you're having trouble getting a particular selector to render the way you want, the problem is usually specificity.

Inline styles applied directly to an individiual element via the style attribute are most specific of all. ID selectors are the next-most specific. Then comes » Class selectors. Lastly » Element selectors.

To evaluate the relative specificity of a given rule, count the number of inline attributes, IDs, classes and elements. You can then calculate a numeric value of a particular CSS rule by totaling the values of its various components .. using the following values:

• Inline style attributes = 1,000
• ID selectors= 100 [ ID selectors begin with a '#' ]
• Class selectors= 10 [ Class selectors begin with a period or 'dot' ]
• Element selectors = 1

Add the values of the various components for a given rule to calculate its specificity. Increasing the specificity of a particular rule is a common way to "force" your desired styling effect. To do this, you need to understand how decendant selectors work, which is beyond the scope of this guide (tho not difficult to understand).

Note that an embedded style with low-specificity will LOSE to a style contained in an external style sheet that has higher-specificity. For the embedded style to win, it needs to have at least the SAME specificity (as the conflicting external style). The more-specific rule wins, regardless of where it happens to be found in the cascade.

This is a quick-n-dirty guide to troubleshooting CSS rendering problems. Whole books have been written on the subject. Speaking of which, here's a good one » McFarland's Missing Manual .. 2nd edition, released Sept, 2009.

For more along these lines, here's a Google search preconfigured for the query » troubleshooting css rendering problems cascading style sheets inheritance specificity