Even before I had a child, I observed three distinct parenting styles among my acquaintances. The first is the classic "over-protective" method: An ever-vigilant parent, watching his or her child's every step and working overtime to make sure that the child is never exposed to any "bad" things. The second style is quite the opposite: A parent who sits back and lets the child do whatever he or she wants. The third category (where most folks seem to sit) is a suspension of the two: Whipsawing between the two extremes depending on the feeling of the moment.

None of these methods are really very good. The ideal is to steer a path between the extremes, keeping young children out of dangerous situations (being able to recognize real from imagined danger, of course) and then letting out the leash slowly as the child grows older and more accomplished in the world.

I try to hit that ideal, but it's not easy. Now that my son Max has entered the "terrible twos" (which actually begin at about 18 months of age), I find myself more and more on edge, threatening to bounce around despite my best intentions.

Those of you without children might ask, "What's so terrible about two?" Intrinsically? Nothing. But children of this age tend to get moodier and more frustrated as they learn more and more. I have a feeling it was a parent of a young child who coined the phrase "the more you know, the less you understand." Max is learning new words at a frightening pace, and he's even beginning to use adjectives. He understands the concept of color, but he can't vocalize the names of different hues. Ask him to pick up the red crayon, and he will. Ask him what color it is, and he'll say "blue." Well, more like "boo." The "L" sound, especially in combination with another consonant, apparently is very difficult to learn. When I tell him the crayon is red (something that he knows), he'll often get mad at me and spit out, "Boo. Boo, boo, boo!"

Max also knows that he isn't supposed to play with the VCR or with Mommy's and Daddy's books. He knows he's not supposed to throw any toys other than balls. He's quite aware of his boundaries, and he's constantly testing them. The problem is that consequence-based discipline doesn't work very well with most 19-month-olds. They simply don't remember well enough. Take last night. Max got agitated and threw his telephone. I told him that he shouldn't throw his telephone, and if he did again I would put it away. So what does he do? He walks over, picks up the phone, looks at me and smiles before pitching the thing at my feet. So I put it away and he screams in anger. So far, so good, right? Well, a minute later he has no memory of the event. The next time he plays with the phone he's just as likely to throw it if that's what he feels like doing.

Soon enough (in a couple months, most likely), he'll develop the combination of short-term and long-term memory necessary to remember what happens when he throws the phone. Many psychologists link this ability to the advent of basic language fluency. There is significant debate over how people process and file away memory, but the fact that few people can recall pre-speaking memories (though sometimes such early memories can be awakened using techniques such as hypnosis) is somewhat telling, I think.

So I'm stuck. My wife Barbara is stuck. We go through the motions of disciplining Max, and over time it will take. Of course, as Max gets older he'll find more and more boundaries to push. That's the entire point of being a child.

I can't remake the world so that it will be entirely safe for Max. I wouldn't want to, because some of my most interesting experiences came when I was in decidedly unsafe situations. I see all these people who move to the suburbs so that their children can be "safe" and go to "good" schools. Trying to put your kid in a bubble isn't doing anyone any good. For starters, no matter where you live or what school your child attends, the real world will manage to intrude, whether you like it or not. Unless, of course, you move to the Moon or Mars or someplace like that. Then you might have a fighting chance of keeping society's hands off your child. Until the oxygen runs out, anyway.

Of course, it's no good to be lax and let your child do whatever he or she desires. I've seen plenty of those kids, and they're even more unhappy than their parents. These spoiled brats are smart enough to figure out that, in fact, the world does put limits on your behavior, and the later you learn this lesson, the more difficult it is to accept.

These thoughts are relevant to the greater world as well. There are some people whose main goal is to make things as safe as possible for one group of people or another--at the expense of some excluded group, of course. And there are those who would happily fiddle while Rome burns anew. It seems to me that, as with kids, there's a middle path, one that balances the relative safety of as many people as possible with the need to allow the world to breathe freely.

Hey, an entire nation can't control the thoughts and actions of one 19-month-old. What makes us think we can control the earth? It's an absurd thought.

Ah well. The fact of the matter is that kids grow up. And the delusional fall victim to their visions. It's just a matter of time.

Jon Worley can't control his own hair.