I have watched all of the Star Wars movies and I have to say they are terrible.  Even the old ones.  Even though they are "special effect masterpieces" (the originals) I just don't like them.
DOn't get me wrong.  I am not one of those effete snobs that hates any kind of flash or bang in a movie (I still like Transformers even though there are plot-holes you could drive Optimus through).
To me those movies are all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Or rather, they are a sci-fi vers

Discipline:

1. training, especially of the mind or character.
   
   
2. the training effect of experience.
   
   
3. a trained condition or order of experience.
   
   
4. order among schools or armed forces or members of any group.
   
   
5. a particular system of rules for conduct.
   
   

Punish:

1. cause pain, loss, or discomfort to (a person) because of some fault or offense.
   
   
2. Deal with severely.
3. 
   
4. Apology:
   

1. words or actions of regret for an offense or accident.
   
   
2. acknowledgment of fault or failure.
   
   

Only the use of the verb of discipline can be used as a term for punishment, and it still is not the primary function of the word discipline.

True leaders know that they cannot punish the people under their command. Punishment (as defined here) can only be effective in conjunction with the definition of apology. Punishment and discipline are clearly different from one another, and someone who is punished will not necessarily become disciplined. Or, their body may become obedient, but their spirit or mind will be removed from the consequences. Examples of this are situations where a person assaults another individual and is incarcerated. The offender may learn to not got caught or be forced into labor, but they may not feel that their actions were unjustifiable. So, they may become disciplined in patience, but not in the direction their accusers want. Often in a situation where a person has been incarcerated (where they feel unfairly), the punishment will only lead to resentment or further insubordination.

Laws only affect the law abiding.
Some leaders, under the rubric of teaching "discipline" (here under a misnomer: they have replaced punishment with discipline), feel that strict rules and adherence to doctrine is the best way to guide a group. It is true that it may keep the honest ones in line, and there's the joke. The dishonest or sneakier members of a group will only follow the letter of the law, or find ways to work around leadership. This is a case where the leader has a unit of bodies, but not a cohesive group of minds.

Tell an honest soldier who believes in his leader and doesn't want to disappoint them to jump. That soldier will jump as high as they can, putting all of their effort into it. A soldier that knows they will be "disciplined" or treated with derision regardless of how they perform may jump, but not as hard as they could unless ordered to jump higher.


A whipped horse is not "disciplined". It is broken and will only work or run as hard as it is beaten. A trained horse, one where the rider has led it, groomed it, cared for its well being, rewarded its effort, had its trust built between rider and horse, and can follow commands without the need for punishment is disciplined. The disciplined horse can be guided with simple nudges or commands. Rider and horse know that they depend on one another to be effective.

Much like leaders and their units.

So punishing a unit for the acts of individuals is contrary to effective leadership. All this provides is division within the ranks, and resentment both towards the offender, and the leadership for treating the good along with the bad. Why should a troop try hard if they are only going to be rewarded with what the laziest person accomplished or failed at. The understanding for punishing (or disciplining) the group is that all the other members will apply pressure on the individual to conform.

The reaction will have adverse effects, especially if the transgressor is charismatic. Mutiny, insubordination, or political maneuverings to replace the leadership may end up taking place.


Worse, you may find a person who likes to see the rest of the group suffer because they can take whatever you dish out, and the more you punish the group for the ones actions, the more the group will turn on the individual and the more the individual will misbehave out of resentment to being isolated.

Even leaders answer to someone above themselves, a chain of command that is supposed to allow cohesion. If the command sees that their delineated personnel are incapable of leadership, they will bring in someone else.

Didn't want to watch a "team building comraderie" movie with the rest of the chimps so I read a book in the darkened theater.  It was slightly difficult, I just had to wait for the brighter scenes so I could see the print.
I don't really believe in teamwork.  Do your job, be able to do the job of the guy next to you, don't sabotage anyone, and usually your company can excel.  It shouldn't matter if the guy down the hall from you slept with your wife.  You are not at work to bury hatchets, burn bridges, form friendships.  Those are all by-products of being social creatures.  The primary reason most of us go to work is the food, clothing, and shelter it provides.
What I'm really trying to say is your work is your work and your friends are your friends, and they don't have to mix.  You should be able to walk away from work and leave it there.  When you leave the thresh-hold of work,  have home just be at home, not stressing about how you dislike people at work or how the lazy ones are affecting your productivity, because if it is, they now have you working off the clock for free.  No job is worth working for free unless it's a volunteer basis.  You're paid to do a job and do it well, you don't have to actually care about the job.
Some organizations have sports days where everyone is expected to attend, the wife and kids are invited, and everyone is supposed to hang out.  What if I don't like 95% of the people I work with?  I now have to smile and act friendly with people who I would never talk to outside of work.  Then if they think you are a nice person (which I am not, I just have manners.  It sometimes gets mistaken for friendliness), they want to see you outside of work.  Work now is forcing itself upon my mental health by intruding on my familial solitude.
I don't want my kid hanging out with your maladjusted, remedial child.  He/she is cute, I won't argue that,  but it's not the influence I want for my kid.  You're gossipy wife is going to cause me more harm than good because all the back-biting and rumors will now trot through my home.  The lines will begin to blur and I'll never be able to escape or get a moment to myself because work will now be everywhere I go.
To quote Fight Club: "You are not your job, or how much money you have in the bank!"

There isn't a vast difference (to me) between the rabid atheist and the crazy religious person.  Turn down the volume and watch the faces and they pretty much look the same.  Most of the time.  Sometimes in a heated discussion you'll see the atheist fly off the handle and go red in the face while the religious person sits stoically, or the other way around.  Turn the volume back up and the atheist is telling the religious person to go to hell.  Or swearing and telling the religious person all manner of interesting things they can do with their genitals.
The fact that I am trying to make is that both of these people are trying to tell me what to believe, or each other to believe.  The atheist will often resort to name calling and question the intelligence of their opponent while they do it, though.
I know, many people will say "No, the religious person is telling you how to live and telling you to go to hell."  My experience has shown me that the atheist calls me stupid if I don't agree with them.  The majority of religious people I know don't force their beliefs on me. 
I used to work with a women who was an atheist and very politically correct.  She was often telling me what I could and couldn't say, how I should behave, etc.  She reminded me very much of the busy-body church lady, the only difference was the content of what she was saying.
Atheists also talk about how things would be so much better for the world if there were no religious people.  Well, hate to inform you, but Communist Russia was built on a total atheist belief system, and when it fell (hard, failing miserably), the people (80% by current polls) discovered that ol' religion and gave up their forced upon beliefs.
And lets not forget that Hitler (no he wasn't Catholic, he just said that to get support from the unbathed masses) and his whole platform was the Ubermench, superman or master race, based on evolutionary eugenics.  Those are just the two most current historical cases for atheism.
Not that religion has done any better, its just that the only two major times an atheistic regime took over it completely brutalized and dehumanized people.
Blaming religion for the worlds ills is a fragile scapegoat, however.  If the atheists are right and we all climbed out of the trees, it wasn't religion that caused us to kill and rape and steal from each other.  Monkeys do that without the pope.  No, the monkey killed his brother to steal  his mate to further propagate the species and then lied about it.  From an evolutionary viewpoint the lie of religion turns out to be a good thing, huh?
This also compounded with what (often) atheists fall back on.  Claiming to be good.  In a world where we are not accountable for our actions, and killing someone has the same moral quantative value as saving them or genocide is just as right as overpopulation, no one can say what is good or bad.  Sure they can claim that it is wrong to destroy the environment and slaughter the whales, but when everyone is dead who will punish us?  We won't continue on in some elevated form to look back and say "wow, we really screwed the pooch on that one."
I'm not saying the religions have it right.  I am saying that atheism hasn't provided us with an actual, air tight counter-argument  that holds up under scrutiny.  Nihilism is the only outcome, no matter how cheerful a face you put on it.  It is a self defeating argument.
I'm done on this topic.
I believe in God, by the way.

When I travel abroad I tell people that I either am a unemployed writer or sell drugs to school children.  This isn't because I am actually without employment, I'm just ashamed of my job.  I never leave work with any tell-tale signs of what I do if I can help it, and I try to separate my home life with my work life.
I work for some very stupid people.
Not my immediate supervisors are stupid, or even the "head honcho" is stupid.  But there is one individual who can direct almost everyone who has very poor leadership skills.  I will give examples later (some personal ones), for now let's look at leadership: 
Effective leadership is one that encourages your sub-ordinates to become better by encouraging them, and admonishing them in such a way that makes them think about putting the best foot forward.  For instance, and using the foot metaphor, if you're employee never polishes their shoes, an effective leader might pull that person aside and say "You may not like it here, or even think that some of the practices here are dumb, but you should respect yourself.  You can show that self respect by touching up your wardrobe, such as your shoes.  People take a man seriously who can take care of himself."
The ineffective leader would say "You look like a bag of sh*t.  If I see you come through here with shoes like that again I'm going to make your life miserable".
Both methods might be effective at getting a person to shine their shoes.  The positive leader will have a greater chance of building the respect of his sub-ordinates, and encourage them to give it their best in all ways.  The negative leader will probably foster resentment in his people, and they will only work as hard as they have to, never trying to surpass their bosses expectations.
The boss that I find hard to take, and I feel breeds nothing but contempt where I work, is in this latter category.  Despite the fact that our branch has won every sports day event against other branches, we are still "lazy" and don't do well enough.  One employee who is finishing his contract and leaving due to medical issues was told he was "gaining a lot of weight.  You should hit the treadmill more often", despite the fact that this guy goes to physio five days a week to combat a biological disorder.  Then he was told "I will make you want to re-sign your contract by the end of this."
He does random cubicle inspections to make sure no codes are violated.  To me that's fine, but it's executed that makes a jerk move.  Our cubby-holes for our personal effects are supposed to be clean.  His solution?  Nothing is allowed to be placed in the cubby-hole.  The $5,000+ entertainment system in the break room is not allowed to be on during working hours, and no one is allowed to stay late to watch anything.  People arriving to work are told not to wear specific clothing that may look bad to the organization ie: ripped sweaters (that are designed to look that way), muscle shirts, etc. even though these people get changed into business attire before they start work. 
One of his co-bosses won't allow the executives to eat Captain Crunch in the breakfast line because it is "for children".  He wants to do the same for his workers.
He spent three hours going through the rules and regulations of the company to find a way to prove himself right over a procedural issue that doesn't matter (how long to hold down the fire alarm), just so he could "put that person in their place."
True leadership does not put people "in their place".  True leadership directs them where they should be.

They should do a mature version of Blues Clues.  It would be like CSI, but there would be a little blue dog and the audience could scream "THE SEMEN IS FROM THE DAD!  LOOK IN THE DESK DRAWER!"
That would be cool.