Camping is great. Camping is great for kids. Camping is great for families in too many ways to expound upon here.

This weekend, our group of mamas and little ones is taking our 2nd annual camping trip together. I can guarantee you that there will be 3 adjacent campsites full of rollicking preschoolers in various states of undress. Ditto for when we swim in the lake--we only cover 'em up for sun protection. Not to mention that it will be 95 degrees out and that they all are in the middle of potty training. I can also guarantee you that there will be mamas taking many photos of those happy little munchkins, dressed, undressed, whatever, having a wonderful and memorable, joyful time together. Glad we all have digital cameras.

"And isn't NO alcohol always a better example?"

If this is indeed a serious question, which I hope for "wolf's" sake it is not, allow me to answer succintly: NO. Maybe you are from another planet, but in my family we drink wine at every supper, and have done so for generations. Oh, and for the Holy Eucharist, we Catholic children have been in the presence of wine-drinking adults every Sunday (and Holy day) for our entire lives. Shudder the thought.

And in case that was all too subtle for you, "wolf", allow me this additional succinct summary for your benefit: your comment was completely inane. Now think before your next comment, purty pelase.

Why should kids have to "survive" bad parenting at all? And isn't NO alcohol always a better example?

------------------------

Why would it be. The question itself assumes there is something inherently wrong with alcohol as opposed to problems with alcohol abuse.

For instance, Germany and France have far fewer problems with Alcohol abuse and alcoholism than the United States, despite the fact that the drinking age is both considerably younger and children grow up seeing adults drink with nearly every meal.

Alcohol is not associated with adulthood in those countries, so you don't have silly drinking games such as taking 21 shots when you turn 21.

Treating alcohol as something forbidden and secret often draws children toward drinking rather than drive them away.

Children seeing responsible drinking and are better prepared to resist peer pressure to drink to excess. It’s dangerous to drink 21 shots to celebrate a birthday. Such antics seem silly to the 21 year old who doesn’t believe that alcohol is some tantalizing ritual into adulthood.

"Why should kids have to "survive" bad parenting at all?"

Perhaps because calling the average level of functional parenting over the past ten thousand years "bad" is actually a way of saying "everyone born before me was stupid and evil and didn't really love their kids as much as I do?" The point is that it WASN'T bad parenting then, and it isn't now. If parents love their kids, generally, they provide good parenting, even if they aren't perfect, or rather, don't conform to the current fad definition of perfection.

"And isn't NO alcohol always a better example?"

No, being responsible and honest is always a better example. If you don't drink, though, I don't recommend starting just to show your kids it can be done responsibly. That wouldn't be honest, after all.

So here we have a guy who's moving with his family out of the country--a big deal, as you know if you've ever done it--and apparently the most helpful contribution he can make is to get his whiny ass out of the way while his wife does the work. No big surprise, then, that his ham-handed immaturity (to put the reported events in the kindest possible light) still found a way to fuck things up--for himself, his wife, and their three kids. What a self-involved fool.

Why should kids have to "survive" bad parenting at all? And isn't NO alcohol always a better example?

Something similar happened to me many years ago when my son Jamie was six. He had been caught doing something sexual with another boy at an after-school activity at the Y. The Y called the police. The police told me that they suspected I was sexually abusing him.

Long story short, police officers brought a social worker to my house and they interviewed Jamie alone, decided that he wasn't being abused, and never charged me. I was terrified that Jamie would say something innocent that would come out sounding wrong, and that they would take him away from me. Fortunately, he didn't.

The whole thing had me in a state of extreme anxiety for weeks. When it was finally over, I was more relieved than I had ever been in my entire life. To this day, I have never talked with anyone about this incident, with the obvious exception of Jamie. I did absolutely nothing wrong, but I felt guilty. I still do. It's hard to describe, but it made me feel ashamed. Even more so, because of my sister.

My sister was sexually abused by my father throughout most of our childhood. She never got over it, and eventually committed suicide as an adult. No one reported my father. He got away with destroying her life. To say that I support vigorously prosecuting sexual abusers is an understatement.

How can we find a legal balance that will expose people like my father, but not falsely accuse people like me? Can it be done?

Odd that innocently framed shots of kids can be considered reportable just because they're nude, but dressing little girls like sexual adults and having them perform dances and songs with sexually explicit moves and lyrics is just "Beauty Pagents". Remember Jon Benet Ramsey anyone? The film of her was horrifying and her parents and many other parents push these kids into this behavior. This is somehow fine while a shot of your child taking a bath is to be reported to the police?

"5) Yes, the system needs improvement and no, throwing money at it is not the only answer, but, I do think that the social services where I live are dreadfully underfunded, and that Bush's 'faith-based initiatives' aren't really helping much. Paying people more could be defended pretty easily, I think, although passing such a law would be difficult. Sometimes, however, you do get what you pay for."

You won't get any argument from me there. I certainly didn't intend to come across as an apologist for the current administration, nor as one who stereotypes government workers, who often try to do the best they can in thankless jobs.