Are today's children being overprotected by their parents? There's been a lot of discussion about this, and I agree that many children are way overprotected.

Many, that is, but not all:

A day after his daughter drowned in the Schuylkill, Octavio Perez was still haunted by how the last time he saw her she was playing in shallow water just 10 feet from him.

Perez said in an interview that he and his brother-in-law had taken their six children to play in the river, where it runs through Valley Forge National Park. Just as the two families were leaving around 5:30 p.m., they noticed 5-year-old Kelly Perez was missing.

Everybody makes mistakes, but something about the circumstances strike me as very odd (especially in the context of our overprotected children):

"She didn't make a sound," Perez said of his daughter's sudden disappearance.

The families searched the area, seeking assistance from fishermen, who Perez said swam underwater in search of Kelly. After 10 minutes, the fishermen called the police, Perez said.

Fire and rescue units found Kelly floating in six feet of water a short distance away, near the Pawlings Road Bridge in Lower Providence Township. She had been spotted by a fireman from the bridge.

The girl was rushed to Phoenixville Hospital, where, after several attempts at resuscitation, she was pronounced dead at 8:23 p.m.

Perez, of the 100 block of Chain Street in Norristown said he and his family had moved to the area from Lakewood, N.J., a month ago, and it was the first time he had taken his children to play in the Schuylkill. He said that neither of them knew how to swim.

"There were no signs saying 'No Swimming,' " Perez said.

Rivers are dangerous, whether there are signs there or not. While I haven't visited River Front Park, I'm willing to bet there are "No Swimming" signs posted there, because it's in a heavily populated area. Personally, I'm against such signs. Rivers are part of nature, and nature -- if it is public property -- should be free to use at your own risk. A tree can fall on you, lightning can strike you, and of course, water can drown you. Signs warning about these things are superfluous. The duty is not that of the state to warn parents.

Ironically, the placement of "No Swimming" signs in one place could be interpreted as meaning that without a "No Swimming" sign, swimming is safe. So, does this mean that the entire 130 miles of the Schuylkill River should be plastered with signs on both sides lest people imagine it is safe to swim? (And what about the many unsigned lakes and coasts?)

What about the fact that this five year old girl didn't know how to swim? Isn't that a more significant factor than the presence or absence of a sign? I may be crazy, but it seems that if you have a child who cannot swim, whether there's a sign is completely superfluous.

I think incidents like this lead to overprotection from the top down, by the nanny state. The overprotective parents buy into it and support it, while at the other end the underprotective parents become victims.

The safety net tightens like a purse being closed. A government purse, of course -- consisting of millions of taxpayer-squeezing "protective" strings. (It really hurts to have to pay for social harm in the name of protection.)

So stay indoors and eat your trans fatty fried onion rings while you're still allowed!