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.