Yesterday, at around 6:12 p.m. EST, Twitter user Shellie Ross (@Military_Mom) posted an ominous tweet:

Please pray like never before, my 2 yr old fell in the pool

Several hours later, she posted a link to a picture “remembering [her] million dollar baby,” indicating that her beautiful son, Bryson Drago Ross, had drowned. An immediate outpouring of sympathy went out on Twitter, with some relating stories of their own tragic loss. It was a tremendous display of how online social networks can be used for expressing grief and to receive virtual emotional support.

But then it got ugly. People started questioning the veracity of the story. They wanted “proof.” They lectured everyone to cast a cynical eye and hold off on donating, like we’re all a bunch of mindless rubes ready to have our pockets picked by the first con artist to come along. Others questioned Ross’ parenting skills, even going so far as to say maybe she was too busy with Twitter and ignoring her child, and wondered why she would be on Twitter while her son was being rushed to the hospital (even though it was only one short tweet asking for prayers, not a “play by play” as it was described). Some thought that the timeline of Ross’ tweets were off.

The most vocal skeptic was Madison McGraw, who even went so far as to make phone calls to the police station and local newspapers near the Ross home. She eventually found her verification of the accident (although she’s quick to point out that “no identities were revealed”). McGraw thinks that Ross’ choice to tweet about the event says something about what humankind has become:

And if we’ve become a society that responds to death in this manner: Have to call 911, have to call husband, have to call mother, have to call funeral home, have to Twitter this- then we are seriously failing as a society.

Now, being a pretty cynical guy myself, the part of people questioning a virtually anonymous person’s writing on the internet doesn’t shock me at all — you might want to reflect on how you got such a cold, jaded heart once in a while, but we certainly have a right to our opinion no matter how heinous some might think it may be. The real gall comes from expressing your opinion in public — and even worse directly to the grieving mother (I don’t care if you’re using the qualifier “possibly” or not), that’s just beyond rude, it’s downright sick. That people have the audacity to say “PROVE IT!” to a mom who said she just lost her toddler and is undoubtedly feeling more grief and guilt than any of us who have not gone through the experience could ever imagine, well that, Ms. McGraw, speaks infinitely more about our failure as a society than someone in their darkest moment typing 140 characters ever could.

When Roman Polanski dies, he will not be known for his brilliant films like Rosemary’s Baby or The Pianist.

He will be known as a sexual predator who used his riches and fame to escape the hand of the law.

Yes. It is a shame that such a brilliant talent will go down like that.

A bigger shame is that he’s gotten away with it for so long.

As a survivor of sexual crimes, it makes me ill to see that he’s never fully acknowledged his crime or served the penalty for victimizing a 13-year-old girl.

As a mother of a 5-year-old girl, it makes me sick think that we have not eliminated people like this from society. I constantly worry about someone taking her innocence as mine was.

As a citizen of the world, it makes me nauseous that France and Poland are asking the United States to turn a blind eye to this man’s crimes because they occurred more than 35 years ago.

While time gives us perspective on life, it may not heal all wounds, especially these kinds of wounds.

The irony of the situation does not escape me. Polanski’s mother died in a concentration camp. Would the crimes against his family been more forgivable if they had been at the hand of a brilliant German artist? Are the crimes of the Holocaust any less heinous because they occurred more than 75 years ago? How can he and those that defend him not see this? Of, if they do see it, ignore it and claim that hampering Polanski’s artistic potential is more important than justice for his victim?

Does it matter that Polanski used drugs and alcohol to coerce his victim instead of a gun or a knife?

I’m sorry Whoopi Goldberg and Martin Scorsese. Rape is rape. He took her innocence. He’s gotten away with it. He needs to serve his time.

The only thing that’s more disgusting than people defending Polanski’s actions is the energy that’s been expended on this particular case. How many other children are voiceless victims of sexual predators?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

• 67 percent of all victims of sexual assault were juveniles
• One out of seven victims in reported sexual assaults are under six
• Convicted rape and sexual assault offenders serving time in State prisons report that two-thirds of their victims were under the age of 18, and 58% of those–or nearly 4 in 10 imprisoned violent sex offenders–said their victims were aged 12 or younger.
• In 90% of the rapes of children less than 12 years old, the child knew the offender.

That should make you sick.

If you’re a parent, think of your child’s class. There are probably 30 or so kids in that room. By the time they finish high school, how many of them will have their innocence stolen by someone they trusted.

We have a choice here. We can keep the spotlight on Roman Polanski and hold him accountable, or we can focus our energies on protecting out kids from people like him. As much as I’d love to see him pay his price,

I have to choose prevention over punishment. One more victim is one too many.

Learn more about what you can do to keep our kids safe at organizations like Prevent Child Abuse America or The Child Abuse Prevention Association or an organization near you.

Today’s topic of discussion comes courtesy of Lenore Skenazy, who’s recent book Free-Range Kids: Giving Our Children the Freedom We Had Without Going Nuts with Worry came to my attention this morning. Ms. Skenazy feels that the constant 24-hour barrage of news on cable television has turned this generation of parents into helicopter moms and dads afraid to let their kids go alone to the corner store. Skenazy first got attention on this subject last year when she wrote a column about letting her 9-year-old son ride home alone on the New York City subway. This was apparently a travesty akin to chaining her kid to a radiator while she went on vacation to Mexico, and a shit storm ensued with some dubbing her the “worst mother in America.” She even got the attention of Penn & Teller:

So what do you think? Should we let our kids be kids and roam about the neighborhood like most of us probably did when we were young, or is it our job in this day and age to try and protect them 24/7/365?

This morning we had parent/teacher interviews with both the girls’ teachers. I wont reveal the details of the discussions obviously but I will say that there is an issue with one of our children that is of some concern and we will be monitoring things closely, as will her teacher.

One of our kids is not playing nicely with some of her fellow students. She is doing well academically, but there are some shenanigans going on during the recess and lunch breaks that need to be addressed quickly.

My younger brother struggled to get along with some of his peers, and his troubles were exacerbated by a general lack of interest in school and a sometimes difficult relationship with his teachers (who were not at all curious about why he might not like school so they just stuck him in the corner and told him to be quiet… thank goodness modern education allows for different learning styles in students… but I digress).

continue reading…

A California school district recently adopted a new tolerance curriculum which includes a book, “And Tango makes Three”. The story — about gay penguins, is geared towards Kindergartners. The curriculum is being billed as age appropriate and claims to teach tolerance about human differences and helps to thwart bullying. The curriculum changes in every grade to correlate with grade level, eventually challenging what children may consider the “normal” family. Every few years the “Gay Penguin” debate resurfaces as parents and school administrators struggle for authority over whether this instruction can be mandated by school officials or if parents have the right to a) know about it and b) opt their children out of it if they deem the material to be inappropriate.

The additional controversy taking place in California is that parents aren’t able to opt their children out leaving parents to challenge the school district with threats of law suits.

According to World Net Daily, the parents claim the California school district is violating federal law, under the following regulations:

Under the regulation, parents must be notified and given an opportunity to opt-out, if the evaluation addresses topics such as:

* Political affiliations or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent;

* sex behavior or attitudes;

* religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student’s parent, etc.

In the past, debates have centered around this “opt out” policy which allows parents the option — to have their children pulled out of controversial subjects, especially in earlier grade levels.

continue reading…