Puppies and Santa and groping, oh my!

Well, hello! This week, yet another four-year-old boy hit on his teacher. When will those filthy-minded preschoolers learn to keep their grubby hands to themselves?
The boy reportedly “rubbed his face” in the aide’s chest area. He was summarily suspended, and his parents were informed that his record would forever show that he sexually harassed someone. After the parents protested, the accusation was downgraded to “inappropriate physical contact.”
I have to wonder, do these people have any experience with four-year-olds? Let’s say this kid was doing something other than hugging, which seems unlikely. Maybe he was feeling her up. My son is four, and he is nothing if not preoccupied with body parts and their purposes. Couple that with a hazy grasp of personal boundaries, and I usually don’t get through the day without removing a small hand from my shirt and explaining about privacy. But have I accused him of sexual harassment? Well, once. But that was a revenge thing, okay? I admit it.
And let’s say the boy was aware that he was making an unwanted sexual advance and was taking advantage of his power as an exalted four-year-old in order to subjugate the teacher’s aide. If this is the case, either 1) he has an inappropriate knowledge of sexual behavior, which means he’s likely a victim of abuse, or 2) he’s Babyface Finster. Was he smoking a cigar? That’s always a tipoff.
In other news, a boy’s letter to Santa was returned for using an “insufficient address.” I have many questions about this story. To wit: Do these Santa letters really have to be mailed? Can’t we, you know, pretend? Just like we pretend that Santa exists? And parents, did you really have to show the kid that it was returned? Did you have to freak him out like that, just so you could get on the news? You know that Santa doesn’t exist, correct? Does any of this really matter? Where am I?
That ends my questions. For now.
Finally: when are puppies and baby toes not cute? When one is mauling the other, that’s when.
A puppy chewed off an infant’s toes while the parents slept. The parents are being charged with criminal asininity.
Here’s the scenario: the couple was sleeping on a mattress on the floor. The baby was sleeping in an infant seat next to them. There was a six-week-old pit bull puppy. The couple woke up when they heard the baby crying, saw the condition of the baby’s foot, and rushed her to the hospital.
I have so many questions today. Like: if you have a baby, do you have to get a puppy? If you have to get a puppy, do you have to put the baby on the floor next to the puppy? If you put the baby on the floor next to the puppy, does it have to be while you’re asleep?
One of the vets interviewed for this article said that if the puppy were indeed responsible (and I shudder to think who the other potential culprits could be), the removal of the infant’s toes would have taken “at least an hour.” Oookay. It makes sense that the parents wouldn’t wake up, because as we know, babies are often unable or at least unwilling to make their discomfort known. Babies! They’re born stoics.
I can’t think about this anymore because I have an urge to remove my son’s socks and double-check that his feet are intact. If they weren’t, I’m almost sure he would have said something.
Sadly, the babies’ toes could not be reattached. No word yet on the fate of the puppy or the parent-child relationship. Happy Hanukkah!