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.)