The Internet Lies

I really don't understand a lot of stuff. That's kind of why I'm here. To figure stuff out. But I am convinced that there are some things that I will just never understand. Crimes where the victim needs to play an extremely crucial role in the wrongdoings are some of the things that I don't understand. And I'm not talking about scams where people are bilked out of their life savings. While I don't profess to say that I totally understand how those can happen (and I tend to subscribe to the "A fool and his money are soon parted" explanation for most of them), they sometimes (rarely) have a (microscopic) shred of plausibility to them. (I don't really think that. I'm just trying to be nice. Really, I don't get how they ever happen, but that's probably just me.) But when the crime involves having to coerce the mother to engage in sexual acts with her child, it really boggles the mind. Wait. When they...what now?

Yeah, I'm still trying to noodle this one through. According to an AP story which appeared over yonder at the Huffington Post, the individual that we're describing here is a one Steven DeMink. The article starts off confusing me, as it reads "Online...he presented himself as Dalton St. Clair, an attractive single father and psychologist". Now, I don't know if he included a picture of himself online, but this is the perv we're talking about. Behold!

Yeah, not so much in the attractive category if you're asking me. It also doesn't seem like he would have much going on in the smarts category either, but his little ruse seemed to work. I'm going to tell you what he did and then you tell me if these mothers, who were unthinkably somehow unknowingly complicit in his little scheme, should really be parenting at all, OK? My answer is a massive NO. Maybe they could be good parents one day, but clearly right now is not that day. Perhaps give them something to practice taking care of first before moving up to actual humans. I'm thinking of a perhaps a houseplant. Not much can go wrong there...unless you're the plant.

This guy would go into chat rooms on the Internet and somehow convince "...single mothers...to sexually assault their children as a form of therapy." And he did this for (wait for it) more than a year! That he was able to do it even once is astonishing to me. What kind of mother would go along with this sort of advice? Well, in some cases, this perv "...promised the women a date if they followed through with his directions." A date? In exchange for sexually assaulting your own child? THAT was a relevant factor for some of these idiots? Are you dry shaving me?! How is that possible? Who ARE these people?! I guess they're people like this woman: Apparently, "In one case, Demink started online chats with an Oregon woman about the sexual development of her 8-year-old autistic son...He told her to engage in sexually explicit conduct with her son as a way to teach him about sex...and she did so while Demink watched on a web camera." Excuse me for a moment while I find a wall to bang my head against.

They were on the freaking Internet! Don't they know that the Internet lies?! He said he was a psychologist, so that was good enough for them?! Have they also recently lost a lot of money to a Nigerian prince? Are these women being allowed to continue caring for their children? I don't think that it's an overreaction to ask that question, nor do I think it's an overreaction for someone else to be in charge of these particular children. What kind of person are you who has some guy on the Internet tell you to engage in some form of sex with your autistic son and you think it's a good idea and you do it?! WITH a webcam running?!

Well, the answer to that is right there in the police report. See, "Demink intimated to these women that the result of the therapy would be healthier children." Oh. OK, then. I didn't know that he told them that it would help their children. That makes all of the difference. Totally understandable now. Of course. I should have known that there was a reasonable explanation for all of this insane lunacy. Sweet fancy Moses, what is going on here?!

Oh, look! Here's some information about one of the women! This might help us. OK, it says that this particular individual met this guy on "....an online dating site called singleparentmeet.com." All right. Nothing wrong with making friends online. But then, "She told police she performed sex acts on her young son as directed by her online male friend." All right. There's absolutely something wrong with that! As directed by?! The direction I can fully comprehend. It's the following through with it that still boggles me! Maybe her mother (who was inexplicably interviewed for this story) can help shed some insight on what her daughter was thinking. She said that "...her daughter was "depressed and lonesome" after her divorce." Uh-huh. I'm going to need more than that. "I don't know how he wrangled her in...She could have turned off the computer and gone the other way. He must have had a power over her." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

A power over her?! How about just admitting that your daughter is a complete dumbass?! Power? What kind of power? I've read this story several times (in hopes that I read it wrong at least once) and it makes no mention of him being overly tricky or magic or anything like that. He's just a big, perverted dope who managed to convince not one, not two, but at least seven women from all over the country to sexually assault their children because it would "help" them.

Seven. I have just lost all faith in humanity. I have nothing left. Seven. Indiana, Georgia, Illinois, Oregon New Hampshire, Idaho and Florida (of course). Those folks are spread all across the country. If it was contained to a particular region (like Florida, as I had expected), maybe I would have some faith left. But it's not. It's from one coast to another and everywhere in between. I don't really know what else to do with that other than to completely abandon any shred of hope that I may have ever had. For cryin' out loud, "Because the Internet told me to" is about the worst excuse I have ever heard in my life and it happened in this instance at least seven times. Yeah, I give up. Good Lord...

Welfare on the High Seas

If you don't live in the state of California, should you be concerned about what is going on over here? I'm thinking that you should. I say that because this state is going to go broke and it is the rest of the country that is going to end up bailing out this failed experiment at trying to create a utopia. And when you hear of some of the reasons that contribute to the state going broke and then you learn that nothing is being done about them, you're going to be angry that your taxes will (likely) go up to help straighten out this fuster cluck at some point in the future.

Let's take a look at a situation that makes me so angry that I want to take all of my money out of the banks and bury it in the backyard of my walled off compound so that no one else can piss it away like they are. According to an awesome story by the fine folks over there at the LA Times, you will be shocked, simply shocked, to learn that between January 2007 and May 2010, "More than $69 million in California welfare money...has been spent or withdrawn outside the state in recent years, including millions in Las Vegas, hundreds of thousands in Hawaii and thousands on cruise ships sailing from Miami." Um...wuck?

That's right. Folks on welfare spending their benefits in Vegas, Hawaii and on freaking cruise ships?! Are you dry shaving me?! What the WHAT?! OK. Calm down. Calm. Down. Breathe. Breathe deeper. OK. Now...let's look at what the benefits were spent on and maybe that will shed some light on this that won't make it seem quite so bad, shall we? Sure. Great idea. It can't be as outright fraudulent as it sounds...can it? CAN IT?! Why aren't you answering me?!

Because you know if you answer me, I'm going to have a stroke. Let's see...in Hawaii, we have folks spending MY money by dropping "...$12,433 spent at the upscale Ala Moana shopping center, $3,030 spent at a group of gift shops next to Jimmy Buffett's Beachcomber restaurant on Waikiki Beach and $2,146 withdrawn from ATMs on the island of Lanai, home to a pair of Four Seasons resorts and little else." Breathe, Mare. Breathe....

What else? Oh, Vegas! Vegas took in almost $12 million of taxpayer money in benefits. What was that spent on? Well, there was "...more than $1 million was spent or withdrawn at shops and casino hotels on, or within a few blocks of, the 4.5-mile strip. The list includes $8,968 at the Tropicana, $7,995 at the Venetian and its Grand Canal Shoppes, and $1,332 at Tix 4 Tonight, seller of discount admission for such acts as Cirque du Soleil." Breathe, dammit. Seriously, I don't know if I can take much more. What else is there? "The data also show $16,010 withdrawn from 14 cruise ships sailing from ports around the world — Long Beach, Rio de Janeiro, Beijing. Eight sail primarily from Miami." That's IT!! I've had it!

CRUISE SHIPS?! For those on WELFARE?! Now, now. Calm down. Let's listen to an alleged voice of reason on this whole matter. Let's turn to a legislative advocate for the Western Center on Law and Poverty, a one Jessica Bartholow, who tells us, "I think when somebody hears it's in a fancy hotel in Hawaii or Vegas, it's too easy to assume the [welfare recipient] is visiting that place and it wasn't somebody who stole their card." ::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Are you freaking kidding me?! YES! Yes, that is EXACTLY what we think! We do NOT think that their card was stolen! That is correct! We KNOW that we, the taxpayers, are getting screwed! And now we KNOW that we, the taxpayers, are getting screwed with the help of Jessica Bartholow and her Center for Sending the Impoverished to Hawaii!! See, this is why you have to believe in God because otherwise, you wouldn't get the pleasure of believing that these folks will go to hell one day.

But what about others in California? Aren't there folks whose job it is to track down this sort of abuse? Of course there are, silly. But, as explained by a one John Haley who is the commander of the financial crimes division of the San Diego County DA's office, "...If it's a one-time thing in Miami, we would never check that out...We look for patterns of abuse." WHAT?! If you are in California and you are ON WELFARE, ANY time in Miami should be checked out! How the hell did you get there and why did you take MY money with you?! Is it because this sort of thing is rare? Uh, well....not exactly. See, Mr. Haley also told the LA Times that "...24% of all new welfare applications in his jurisdiction contain some form of fraud." One in four. But they're never going to catch you if you don't repeatedly go to Miami?! What in the hell kind of a system is THAT?!

Is it just in San Diego? It's not everywhere, is it? IS IT?! Well, um...see...it's like this..."A state audit last year found that none of California's 58 counties was adequately following up on information that could help root out fraud, including monthly computer matches that list clients who are receiving duplicate aid from other states, those who are ineligible because they're in prison and others who have died." Holy. S***.

Remember this when you hear that California has gone bankrupt and your Federal taxes are going to increase to help bail out this mess. And the next time you're going to work, remember that welfare recipients on the public dole are going to Hawaii and Vegas. And finally, remember that constructing a walled off compound is never a bad idea and it's never too late to start.

Mother Of The Year Candidate Part Deux

Thanks to alert blog reader (and now blog contributor) Edge, I must sadly announce that there is now a contender to yesterday's front runner for Mother of the Year. In fact, she might be the new front runner. I know, I know. That's a short front runner reign for the asshat from yesterday, but it's not my fault. I'm not the one "...whose three children were found starving after being shut away in a hotel bathroom for as long as nine months" and whose 11-year old daughter "...was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her mother's boyfriend" during this time. Wait. What the what?

Correct. Unfortunately, correct. We learn of this atrocity from Edge and from the fine folks over there at KTLA. It's pretty much just what I just alluded to. The poor excuse for a human being in this story is a one 31-year old Abernis Santiago. (Perhaps if there's time when I'm done, we can delve into what in the heck kind of a name Abernis is.) We learn from the story that "Police rescued Santiago's 11-year-old daughter and 10- and 5-year-old sons from a bathroom at an extended-stay hotel along one of Dallas' busiest freeways in July 2009. The children, whose skeletons were visible beneath their flaky, stretched skin, were near death from chronic starvation." ::: sigh :::

Look, there are several things wrong with this situation. First and foremost seems to be that this woman was ever born into existence in the first place. Aside from that, explain to me how someone with so little regard for life (let alone the life that they brought into this world) would have three children. While it's not really any surprise that she started when she was around 20, it is a bit surprising that she continued to have the sex and have the children. It's really not some sort of complex math problem that you need to figure out in order to not get pregnant. Then again, those who are as asinine as this woman would appear to be, well, they don't really feel the need to think much about anything. That is evidenced by how this incredibly sad tale turned out.

As if I haven't painted a horrific enough picture, let's just take it a step farther. "A Dallas police detective testified Friday that the 385 square-foot, one-bedroom hotel suite appeared relatively tidy, with the cupboards stocked with crackers, peanut butter, bread and barbecue sauce. The fridge had leftover chicken and rice." Sooooo, simply not having any food wasn't an issue. (And I'm not saying that I ever thought that it was. I think I'm just making an inane point because this story makes me so crazy I want to stab my eyes out after reading it.) No, this was a conscious choice to keep the children locked in the bathroom and to NOT feed them while this scumbag and her piece of crap boyfriend, a one Alfred Santiago, were not locked in the bathroom and were fed. OK. Anything else?

Unfortunately, yes. According to a one Detective Parker Baum, "The bathroom had an oppressive stench of feces and body odor. There were blankets on the floor next to the toilet." Yeah, I would imagine that a bathroom with three small people living in it for nine months would have an oppressive stench...of everything. All I need to know at this point is if this woman got the death penalty.

And sadly, the answer to that would be no. She did, however, plead guilty to the charges of being a completely worthless human being. (I'm not sure if those were the charges verbatim or anything like that, but they were pretty close to that. But you know how the legal system always wants to sugar coat things. I decided to just spell it out in plain English that made it crystal clear what a piece of crap this woman is.) But even though she pleaded guilty, she had complaints. She "...thought her guilty plea Friday would end the proceedings and was confused after testimony continued before the jury for purposes of sentencing."I think this is unnecessary since I already pleaded myself guilty," Santiago told the judge. "I want it over with. This is pointless." Good Lord... Oh, and nice neck tattoo you've got yourself there. Very stylish. And not at all surprising.

Seriously?! It's unnecessary?! So, she was upset that she had to sit in a courtroom for a few more days of testimony? THAT was upsetting to her? I wonder if she thought that her children were upset that they had to sit in a bathroom with minimal amounts of food for nine months? I wonder if she thought that at any point during those nine months that she children thought "I want it over with. This is pointless." I'm guessing that she didn't really see the correlation between the two. Bitch.

This dips**t was sentenced to life in prison. Her dips**t boyfriend was sentenced to two 99-year sentences, to be served concurrently. That seems like an awful lot of taxpayer money that will go toward keeping them in prison. Can't we just use my fifty cent solution? One bullet. One head. Carefully placed. Granted, in this case, we'd need a dollar, but I'd kick in for that.

Oh, wait. We might need another bullet. I forgot about the defense attorney. Now, I realize that they're just doing their job. But do they have to use the weakest arguments ever? You know, like the one that this particular defense attorney, a one James Jamison used when he "...portrayed Abneris Santiago as a victim of domestic violence". I don't ever want to hear that excuse again. Being a victim of domestic violence does not cause one to lock their three children in a hotel bathroom for damn near a year! It just doesn't! I know you're trying to do your job, sir, but please don't.

No, really. I'm serious. Please don't. Because I'm assuming that you were also trying to do your job when you made the most ridiculous statement that anyone could have ever made in regard to this case when you said, "This young lady has made some pretty poor choices in life." Umm...what? I think that damn near starving your three children to death while you and your scumbag boyfriend are well fed is a little bit more than a poor choice! How do you live with yourself, sir? Drink a lot? Meth? Seriously, how? Don't even get me started on him calling her "young lady". She had already pled guilty at that point? Couldn't he just say, "My client is one guilty bitch."? That works for me.

Mother of the Year Candidate

This woman is definitely the front runner for "Mother of the Year 2010". I'm not sure if I should say fortunately or unfortunately she's going to be a tough act to top. Seriously, you tell me something more abhorrent than a woman marrying the guy who was charged with sexually abusing her 7-year old daughter. Can't think of anything? How about something more abhorrent than a woman marrying the guy who was charged with sexually abusing her 7-year old daughter and then helping the man elude police for a time being? Still nothing? OK, then how about something more abhorrent than a woman marrying the guy who was charged with sexually abusing her 7-year old daughter and then helping the man elude police for a time being, all only TWO hours after he was indicted? Drawing a blank, aren't you? We have a winner!

Here's the story as told by OregonLive.com. It's from an article that they published where we learn that a one 47-year-old (and clearly old enough to freaking know better) Don Edward Smock Jr., was charged with 45 felony counts of child-sex-related charges. That was back in July when "...Smock was indicted on 13 counts of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, eight counts of first-degree encouraging child sexual abuse, one count of first-degree attempted sexual abuse and 23 counts of second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse." See, this is one of those times when an indictment is simply too kind. This is one of those times that seems to require a fifty cent solution. One bullet. Carefully placed. Problem solved. What a pig.

But it gets worse. Only a mere two hours after he was indicted, Mr. Smock and the mother of his victim, a one 41-year old Barbara Lynn Whitehead, "...secretly married in a ceremony in Colton (that's in Oregon)". And naturally, when you get married, you want your family present, right? Apparently, that's just how twisted Ms. Whitehead was, as her 7-year old daughter, the one who was being abused by Mr. Smock, was there for the nuptials of this vile couple. Seriously, lady, what in the hell is wrong with you? How on earth could you possibly justify doing that? You should never have that child or any child for that matter in your custody ever again. It doesn't really get much more wrong than this. Not much. A little bit, but not much.

By the way, this woman looks just about like you'd expect her to look. Behold!

The little bit worse that it gets is that after the ceremony, "....all three drove to Portland and checked into a hotel for a weekend-long honeymoon, before Smock disappeared." Uh, I think I might hurl. I really don't want to have to speculate as to whether or not the little girl was involved in any of the typical honeymoonal activities, but I really don't put anything past this guy and his scumbucket bride at this point.

Fortunately, thanks to help from the public, scumbucket was arrested Wednesday and Mrs. Scumbucket was arrested on Monday. They ended up charging her with four counts of wrongfulness. Tampering with a witness, hindering prosecution, perjury and false swearing. (What in the world is false swearing? Is it like you're about the say the F-word and then you don't? Hardly sounds like anything that would be considered a crime. Annoying? Sure. But criminal? That'd be odd.) Four counts? That doesn't seem like nearly enough.

The 7-year old "...was taken into custody by state Child Protective Services". I think that the words of a one Detective Jim Strovink, who is the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office spokesman, pretty much sum up the actions of these two asshats. He said, "This would appear to be a new low." That's saying something. The bar, after all, is incredibly low to begin with when you're dealing with scum that sexually abuse children. I only wish that I thought that we wouldn't be able to go any lower. But I know better. There is some sick ass person out there who will do worse than this. And it probably won't take long, either.

Sign On The Dotted Line

I've come across a new aspect of abusive relationships. Sure, some folks say that those who stay in abusive relationships "have it coming" or some crap like that (they don't, of course). But the question now is do they "have it coming" if they sign a contract in which they consent to the abuse beforehand? Wait. What now?

Correct. For some reason, this story is coming to us from our friends across the pond at The Daily Mail, even though it takes place in Seattle, Washington. What we appear to have is "A violent boyfriend forced his pregnant girlfriend to sign an 'abuse contract' allowing him to beat her whenever he wanted." But that's not all! Like any contract, there were clauses and terms that spelled out what the contract was all about. And "Under the terms of the contract Graydon Smith,31, was allowed to punch, kick and throttle his 19 year old girlfriend." And if you're wondering what this sort of loser looks like, I'm going to say that he looks about exactly what you think he looks like. Behold!

See? Was I wrong? Of course not. But let's not be too hasty to judge this lad! After all, not only were there terms, there were also restrictions, for cryin' out loud. There were certain things that he couldn't do. That's only fair, right? (Why those certain things didn't include the abuse in the first place is a bit beyond my capacity to understand this sort of thing.) "His only restriction was that he wasn't allowed to punch her stomach." Awww.....see? What a great guy! He was looking out for the unborn! What a peach. That is, if by "peach" I really mean "A-hole".

This all came to light when the girlfriend's stepfather "saw Smith throttling his daughter" and subsequently called police. Might I just note that most fathers/stepfathers would have done a little throttling of their own had they been witness to such an act. I'm thinking ol' Graydon got off easy by having the cops called.

When the cops arrived, this dimwit "...admitted to police that he had made his girlfriend...sign the contract giving him free rein to carry out domestic abuse." I am dying to know what this admission came about. I can only assume that he was confronted by the cops and, because he's practically Einstein, pulled out the contract and showed it to them. I'm also assuming that it involved some use of the term "See?" Again, pure speculation on my part, but only because it's completely asinine to expect that anything sane would be taking place at this point.

I'd like to know how long this was going on before he was busted. I mean, did his 19-year old girlfriend really think that there wasn't anything that could be done because she signed some idiotic contract that allows for her to be beaten? Oh, I almost forgot: Anywhere but in the stomach region. You know, because he's such a caring individual.

The article ends with these two gems of sentences: "Unemployed Smith has been charged with assault and harassment. He is being held on £75,000 bond." Oh, what?! He's unemployed?! Shocking. Simply shocking.