Thursday, December 14, 2006

Prurient Or Porn - It Doesn't Matter!

There are no pictures in today's post other than verbal ones. By design. The verbal ones are graphic and disturbing. They will be offensive to some and for that I apologize. I do not go down this path lightly.

As a resident of this community in which Decency and Responsibility have been foresaken, I cannot, in good conscience, NOT have my say.

This concerns the recently uncovered sexually explicit e-mails that have been circulating around both the Prosecutor's and the Sheriff's department for at least a year. The attempt at minimalizing it is in full swing. The discourse on Huckleberries has at times taken to task those of us who are appalled. There has been much discussion as to whether or not the depiction of a young boy with his privates dangling in a cereal bowl is "kiddie porn". My fellow blogger, Stebbijo called the FBI to get their take. According to their criteria there had to be physical involvement and evidence of massive distribution. I should think it having been posted on the internet would apply but never-the-less...

Descriptions not-with-standing, Stebbi and I decided we could only write with certainty if we could see the pictures. Being public information, she made the arrangements with Associate Editor Dave Oliveria who hosts the Spokesman Review /Huckleberries blog and who's reporters found the files.

This is some of what we saw. The picture of the young boy is disturbing. He is posed on what appears to be a window sill, his legs straddling a cereal bowl, indeed with his genitals, full front view with such clarity that you know he has not been circumcized, hanging over the edge. One hand appears to be holding an eating utensile to his mouth and he is obviously giving the photographer the finger. The lighting is somewhat subdued but does emphasize the genital area. The face is incredibly sad. And this is not pornography.

This is no gurgling baby boy grinning at the photographer after having just had a bath. What kind of person would take this picture what's more post it on the internet? The same kind, I guess, that would pull it off the internet to circulate around the office and think it funny.

Adult male genitals? Oh yes. Several. Including kilt clad men sitting with knees spread exposing all. Implied sodomy? Yep. A buttocks bared male chasing a donkey around a pasture until the donkey complies.

The sex act? That too. A shark costumed figure in full motion video with a morbidly obese woman.

Let's not forget the graphic Lesbian sex. Plenty of touching here! This slide show is so graphic Mr. Oliveria was too embarrassed to stay while we viewed it.

The rest of what we saw was so disgusting I want to banish it from my mind.

All this in the offices of those who have been charged with protecting us from predators. Tax payer dollars pay for the salaries and equipment. This is a time when in the real world one gets sent to sensitivity training for telling an off colored joke or fired out right for any action even approaching this. But then I guess one would have to have some experience in the real world.

I will never be able to greet a local public servant without wondering if they are involved. Without wondering what else is tucked away in a sick psyche. Without wondering how many other offices tolerate this type of behavior that has yet to be discovered. They aren't all involved, of course, but they are all tainted. No, stained.

If you think this is a rant from an old prude I suggest you call the Spokesman's Coeur d'Alene office and make arrangements to view these pictures. They will accommodate you. Make your own judgement. Then make your voices heard loud and clear. If you don't, your silence will speak volumes.

2 comments:

Bill McCrory said...

Mari,

Thank you and Stebbijo, too, for viewing the photos and writing about them. Your outrage is completely justified. What you've pointed out clearly is a failure of supervision in both the Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney's Office and the Kootenai County Sheriff's Department. Photos that you've described have no place in the workplace. If people choose to view them in their own homes and keep them there, well, we can't do too much about that. But we can and must protest when those who have the photos choose to disseminate them. I read Stebbijo's post and understand the FBI's response. However, context is crucial to evaluating the intent of the person displaying the photo. Assuming the photo of the boy with his genitals hanging over the edge of the cereal bowl wasn't PhotoShopped, what parent or guardian would think it is "cute?" For that matter, what reasonable, mature adult would think it's "cute" to pose a child that way? What law enforcement officer would think it's "cute" enough to show that photo to anyone?

Unlike some, I am not willing to give Sheriff Rocky Watson a "pass" on this simply because he instituted some training after the most recent photos surfaced. If he were not just trying to generate cover and concealment for his own leadership failures, he would have instituted the training immediately after the Douglas-Kalani email issue surfaced.

Elected officials and others responsible for supervision must not be allowed to dismiss the misconduct of their subordinates as "joking". As Molly used to say to Fibber, "T'ain't funny, McGee!"

Thanks again.

Thailand Gal said...

I've heard about this on the news and find it disgusting! It never ceases to amaze me what small minds find amusing. "Joking" is no excuse. It's po*rn.

Peace,

~Chani