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...

Um, Yes, I'm Calling About The Couch?

OK, so there is so much wrong with this story it's hard to know where to begin. I'll start out by saying that it took place in Flori-duh. That should give you some indication of how this whole thing is going to go.

According to MSNBC, "A nine-year-old got a pornographic photo sent to his cell phone of a woman performing a sex act on a man." Good Lord. First of all, who are you people who send pictures of yourself either naked or engaged in various sexual activities? What makes you think that's a good idea? Ever! I just don't get that. What? You're sitting around one day and you suddenly think, "I know. I think I'm going to send a picture of my junk to this li'l lady that I know. That should seal the deal!" And then not only do you think it, you go ahead and do it. Very odd behavior indeed.

Second, why does a nine year old have a cell phone that can receive picture texts? I'm torn as to whether or not a nine year old needs a cell phone to begin with. I know, I know, it's so the parents can keep in touch with their kid. My question for that "reasoning" is, "Or if they don't, what's going to happen?" I can't imagine much. But let's say that they DO need a phone. Why does it have to be capable of being anything but a phone? Why can't it be one of those Jitterbugs for the oldsters? A nine year old doesn't need a fancy cell phone.

But I digress, as this story is really more about what led up to some dimwit sending a picture of a couple engaged in sexual gratification anyone other than the intended recipient. Now, the boy who received the text is a lad named Ty'Ge Moore. (I have no idea how to pronounce that, nor do I have any idea what happened to the rest of the vowels in his first name. Don't even get me started on the apostrophe.) He gets the photo and immediately goes to show his mom. So, kudos for the kid for not showing it to everyone at school first, even though I'm kind of surprised that he didn't. He sounds like a good kid. This certainly isn't about him.

Needless to say, his mother was none to happy about the situation. Neither was his grandmother. In fact, the grandmother seemed so upset by the situation that, according to her recollection, she was only able to utter something to the effect of: "I am like let me see that text and I am like wow." Um....huh. Look, I know it's Flori-duh and all, but is his grandmother sixteen? Why is she talking like that? "I am like wow." No, lady. Lemme tell you, I am like wow. Wow. Moving on...

After the grandmother was like wow, she took the cell phone and called the number and when she spoke to the individual on the other end she said that she threatened to call the sheriff. To which the asshat that sent the picture in the first place replied just as you would have expected him to when he said, "...do what you got to do." All right then. While that might have seemed like a good response to him at the time, he quickly realized that it was probably the wrong response and he called the number back. What he said, will shock you. Or not. "They say the man called back later and told them he was trying to sell the couch in the sexually explicit picture."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

What the what?! Said he was trying to sell the couch?! How much of the couch could you actually see? I'm guessing not a whole lot, as the majority of the image was probably taken up with all of the oral sex going on! Seriously, dude, that's the best you can come up with? For reals?! I guess that means that all of the porn that is available out there is simply just a whole bunch of informercials for the furniture in such productions! Trying to sell the couch. Uh-huh. Tell me, does it come with the guy and the whore? No? Aww, that's too bad. Yeah, that's kind of a deal breaker for me. But good luck with that!

According to the article, "The Lee County Sheriff's Office is investigating and the boy's cell phone was turned over to deputies on the case." The grandmother summed up the incident by saying: "Some people make mistakes. I don't think this was a mistake after he text you and told you he was nine-years-old." For cryin' out loud, forget about the phone and take some English classes! He'll get over it! You, on the other hand, need to learn how to speak better. I mean, like, when I hear you say "after he text you", I am like wow. I am like, wow, she needs like, a refresher course or like, two on like, properly spoken English that like, doesn't make you like, sound like you just fell off of a turnip truck. (I'm really not sure what turnips have to do with intelligence, but it's hard to sneak that phrase into conversation these days.)

And is she really contemplating whether or not the guy was really trying to sell his couch? I think she might be! So while I'm pretty sure that the kid is going to recover from receiving such a raunchy text, I am a bit concerned about him growing up around someone who is trying to discern the plausibility of the "I was trying to get a good picture of my couch so I could sell it, but when I went to take pictures, there were these two people doing it on the couch and so I just took the picture anyway and used that" excuse. Please.

Get The Lead Out...Or Don't

If you can figure out the rationale on this one, I'm all ears. Granted, I realize that it involves the Federal government, but still. There has to be a reason why some lead tainted drinking glasses were recalled because it was thought that they were for children. Once they found out that they were technically not for children, then the recall was recalled. Never mind that the glasses still have over 1,000 times the acceptable amount of lead in them. As long as their purpose is defined, everything should turn out just dandy, right? Wait. What?

Here's the story: See, there were these drinking glasses that had Wizard of Oz characters on them and Star Wars characters on them. Pretty cool, yes? Yes. According to The Daily Herald, the "...Consumer Product Safety Commission (the ol' CPSC) said last month the glasses were children's products and thus subject to strict federal lead limits". That seems like a good thing, especially since "Lab testing by The Associated Press found lead in the colored decorations up to 1,000 times the federal maximum for children's products." That's a whole lotta lead. But they were recalled so everyone is safe. Problem solved! Ummm, yeah....not so fast.

Lead is bad. No one wants a mouthful of lead. Ever. It's just a bad, bad thing to ingest into your body. But for some reason, there are no limits on lead for adult drinking glasses. None! As adults, our products can be as lead-y as they can be (and a thousand times more than a maximum sounds like an awful lot of lead) and they're just fine to sell and use willy-nilly. Am I the only one confused as to why something like lead would only be monitored for children's products and not for adult products? I must be. That's because once the CPSC decided that a drinking glass with a Wizard of Oz character or a Star Wars character on it was not a drinking glass made for an adult (an assumption that I take great umbrage at!), they recalled their recall and all is well in drinking glass land again. Right? What now? Oh, the lead! Yeah, I was getting to that.

Who ARE these morons?! Are they serious?! It's a drinking glass. Do you think that kids (or adults, for that matter) actually differentiate between which drinking receptacles are for children and which are for adults? I'm not so sure that they do. I'll go as far as to say that I will draw the line at a sippy cup. I don't think that adults should be drinking out of one of those (no matter how spill proof they may seem). Other than that, I don't think that there's going to be much differentiating going on.

Seriously, the glasses have pictures of cool things on them. What kid, given a choice, would not opt for one with a picture on it as opposed to one that does not have a picture? I'm not imagining that too many would. Heck, I would choose the Yoda glass over a plain glass any day. (May the Force be with me and my liquids!) But according to a one Scott Wolfson, the spokeshole for CPSC, "These glasses are not primarily intended for use by a child 12 or younger. ... Since these glasses are not intended for use by young children, it is recommended that parents not provide them to children to use." Oh. OK, then. If it's that simple then...wait a minute! That's not going to work!

Clearly, this Mr. Wolfson does not have small children. It's questionable, given his reasoning, as to whether he's ever been around a small child. If either of those scenarios had been true, he'd realize that is near idiotic. You think that an 11-year old isn't going to be drinking out of the Chewbacca glass? You're wrong. They are. And what are you supposed to tell them as to why they can't drink out of the cool glasses?

You: You can't use that glass.

Child Susceptible To Lead: Why?

You: Because it has a whole lot of lead in it.

Child Confused With Your Logic: What's lead?

You: It's a chemical that's really, really bad for you. Worse than masturbating.

Child With More Sense Than The CPSC: Then how come you can use it?

You: I'm like Superman. Lead doesn't hurt me. Now, go play on the freeway.

I'm not sure why things with lead in them are not regulated for adults. I'm also not sure why drinking glasses need to have any lead in them in the first place, let alone 1,000 times more lead that they're allowed to have. Did I mention that they're made in China? They are. The Chinese seem to just love lead, as they seem to put it in a lot of stuff that they're selling us. Hmm. Maybe that's how they think that they'll overtake us. Tempt us with Chewbacca glasses and then wait until our lead-y, lead-y brains end up like pickled turnips. The sad part is, given how we apparently regulate things in this country, it just might work.

The Most Obnoxious Child Ever

I think I've done it. I think I've found the most annoying 10-year old in the world. I might have found the most annoying child in the world. I'm probably stretching it to say that she is the most annoying person in the world (especially since I've seen episodes of Jersey Shore), but not stretching it too far. Actually, I can't take all of the credit for this one. I stumbled upon this self-important child over at a blog/website that appears to be called either Blog Bethany or Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. It's one of the two. And whichever one it is certainly does not detract from the content, as Bethany is highly amusing.

Here's the deal: What you're about to watch is a less than 2-minute interview with a one 10-year old Cecilia Cassini. Ms. Cassini is dubbed as the "Youngest Fashion Designer in the Country". I'm not going to doubt that, as I have seen her "designs" and they do appear as if they were created by someone quite young. Granted, I think the term "designer" is a bit gracious. Perhaps they should have tried on something like "Young Person Learning To Sew". I find that title to be a bit more accurate.

Warning: You might not be able to make it through this entire video without feeling the uncontrollable urge to strangle this child. This is not an uncommon reaction, as I have shown this video to several people and all have had visceral reactions to it (the most severe hoping that she OD's on cocaine by age 11). And look, I realize that she's 10. Should I not like a 10-year old as much as I don't like this one? If they act like she does, I think that's just inevitable. Now, I realize that I would probably dislike her parents even more than I dislike her, as they are the ones that are putting up with this sort of nonsense. But since they're not around in the video, I just get to dislike her. And now, behold! The most annoying person you will witness all day (at least)!

How ya doin' over there? You OK? Clawed out your eyeballs? Stabbed your ears? Yelled "Kill it with fire!"? Yeah, I understand. Let's take this from the top. What in the hell is on top of her head? Look, that's not fashion. That's like a startling visual for why you shouldn't do drugs. Is she trying to channel Sarah Jessica Parker during some SATC movie premiere? (That chick always has on a large hat for some reason.) Working on a more modern version of Aretha Franklin's inauguration hat? I don't get it.

Then there is the matter of her designs. They all seem to sport a common theme (aside from appearing to be poorly sewn). The theme is a solid colored fabric on top or bottom of a dress and then a printed fabric (or a really, super sparkly one) opposite of that one. Oh, wait. I forgot about the theme of all fabrics that don't go together at all and look like they were sewn in the dark. Behold!

Wow. OK, then. That's what kids want to wear? Um, have at it, I guess. I don't quite know how to react to those, other than "Run! Save yourself!"

But what I really don't get is that Valley Girl, "I'm so much better than you" tone in her voice. What is up with that? Why is she talking like that? I spent a little time with The Google and found a couple of other interviews that she has done earlier in the year. She was somewhat obnoxious, but nowhere near as obnoxious as she was in the video above. This kid is letting her ego get way too big for herself. Sure, it's cool that she has an interest in designing clothes. Sure, it's great that she's learning (and I stress the word learning) to do what she's doing. I'm sure that she'll have a lovely career in fashion of some sort. You can see more of her "fashion designs" at her website.

The point here is that she is insufferable as a human being. I skimmed through her blog and she seems to delight in referring to herself as "moi". Didn't Miss Piggy do that? Hmmm. It's certainly more endearing for the muppet than it is for her. Her clothes aren't that great (at this point) and are extremely overpriced (for something that isn't that great). Don't get me wrong. I'm thrilled that she will be able to support herself one day and has some sort of a future. But she really needs to work on her attitude, not to mention the quality of her work. (Is a straight seam too much to ask?) The last thing that we need is a bunch of kids running around emulating her and her extreme obnoxiousness. (Is that a word? Obnoxiousness? If not, is it now and it was invented just for her.)

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.

Single Children Put Some Clothes On It

The video below disturbs me in more ways than one. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against showing a little skin. It's not like I'm a member of the FLDS or anything like that. Skin is good. Let me rephrase that. Adult skin is good. Why must people insist on letting their children parade around like hooker-ific pole dancers? It's not attractive. It's disgusting and disturbing. Seriously, folks. When allowing your small children to re-enact Beyonce's "Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)" (a fabulous little ditty, by the way), I think that the rule of thumb should be that they have to be wearing at least as much clothes as Beyonce was wearing. Would that be so bad?

Actually, now that I think about it, I have a couple of rules I'd like to implement. We've already gone over the first one, you must be covering the same ratio of your body as Beyonce is covering hers. Rule number two: Do not dress your children (especially those whose ages appear to still be in single digits) in something that a horny boyfriend would buy for his girlfriend after stopping by a 7-11 on his way home on Valentine's Day. What in the world are those girls wearing? I didn't know that you could get five dollar hooker outfits that small. If I can't see Beyonce's midriff, I don't want to see your seven-year old girl's midriff, either. Got it? For God's sake, I hope so.

Rule number three: If you do not have anything to shake, please don't try to shake it anyway. Clearly, these girls are not quite at the breasticle stage yet. There's nothing to shake. And that's FINE!! Yet, there they are, shaking their money makers when they don't even have change, let alone real money.

Rule number four: This one pertains mainly to this example only. The song basically talks about if some dude likes what he sees, perhaps he should "put a ring on it" if it's that important to him. Marry the chick, for cryin' out loud, is the message here. I don't know that you can have that message be spewed by little girls dressed in cheap lingerie who look as if they're all missing a brass pole or two. Seriously. Who are you people who are letting your kid do this and who are you people who are cheering these girls on?

Listen, the girls are talented. They have great dance moves. But why are they darn near naked? These are little girls! Where are their fathers? (Or their mothers, for that matter. But I'm really surprised that Dads would let their little girls prance around like that.) My Dad sure as hell would never have let me wear anything like that in public when I was eight OR when I was thirty, for that matter. I'd be a little afraid to wear anything like that now, lest he come back from beyond the grave and haunt me and my scantily clad booty for dressing like a ho. My brother (who is 3 years younger than me) is raising his step-daughter by himself (don't ask) and he's told her she's not dating until she's eighty. (He tells her that as he's cleaning his gun.) She certainly isn't walking out of his house looking like those girls do. She's kind of lucky he lets her walk out of the house at all (she's gonna be hot).

Seriously, why couldn't they have had on leotards or one piece swim suits or something? (After viewing that, I'm kind of leaning toward parkas, but they seem like they'd be rather bulky to dance in. See? I'm not unreasonable about the whole thing, nor impractical!) Why do they have to look like there is a midget hooker and pole dancer convention in town? Cover up your children when they're in public. Please. There's enough sexual exposure out there in all forms of media that they're going to be saturated with beginning at birth. Hypersexualizing the kids themselves by allowing them to parade their bodies in public when they are SEVEN years old can't lead to anything that's going to be great, I'll tell you that.

Again, I think that they're fabulous dancers. They're all very talented. However, the outfits that they are wearing are inappropriate and disturbing. And do you know what would have happened if they had wore outfits that were just a touch more modest (ie, I'm not looking at a 7-year old's belly button)? The ONLY thing that everyone would be talking about was how awesome the dance was. And that's how it should have been. Instead, the obvious talent that is there is lost and under-appreciated because all you can focus on is all of the sex that is there. It's sad, really. I can only hope that it won't be sadder for them as they get older.