Taxpayer funds being spent to track this website.

In a previous post I noted how Rachel Alexander was doing PR work for her boss, Maricopa County A by writing a deceptive article on FoxNews that smeared a victim of their overzealous prosecution, Matt Bandy.

The purpose of the County Attorney is to handle county legal business and I wondered if Ms. Alexander was conducting her PR campaign for her boss Andrew Thomas while on the payroll of the taxpayers. You would think that would be a big “no-no” for staunch conservatives like themselves. Surely no one one in the Maricopa County Attorney’s office would be checking out and/or responding to web articles while they were supposed to be doing legal work.

Or would they? That still remains to be seen. But I can tell you that we got several visitors from some office of the Maricopa County government on the web site today. And today is a work day for them and it was during work hours and it was from county computers. And quite honestly, since this is an opinion blog I can’t conceive of any legitimate county business that would require anyone from the Maricopa County government to be coming to this web site during work hours using work computers.

Absent any legitimate work related reason for being here then what would bring out a slew of visits from Maricopa County employees during work hours? Could it be that they do conduct a PR campaign for their boss during work hours instead of conducting the legal business of the county. Mr. Thomas presents himself as tough on crime. Well, I would hope he is out prosecuting real criminals (a change of pace for him) instead of checking out what sort of publicity he is getting. And I would hope this goes for his employees as well.

Now you might be skeptical about whether or not Maricopa County employees are using their work computers to check up on this blog during the business day. So I made sure I collected some proof. At any one time of the day I can see some basic information as to who is visiting. I don’t get names but I know what city they are from and if their computer is registered to an organization, like the Maricopa County government, that shows up as well. It is a little tough to narrow it down to a specific department or user however.

But here are some pdf images of the information we get when we check out a specific reader of the blog. Now I can only check the most recent 100 visitors at a time and the data constantly refreshes. So I might have missed a visitor using his work time to browse the blog. But here are four different visits today from employees of Maricopa County using county computers. And since the only people we’ve discussed are in the County Attorney’s office I wonder if they aren’t spending their time checking up on what is being said about themselves instead of working. And since there are at least three different browser combinations here we aren’t talking about just one visitor. There were at least three employees from Maricopa County shirking their duties to check up on us.

Anyone want to bet which office? One clue might be that each of this visitors accessed pages with stories about Andrew Thomas, Rachel Alexander the prosecution of Matt Bandy by the County Attorney’s office. No doubt it was it someone in animal control. Don’t you think?

Clarification: Our blog time is not set to US times so don't assume these people were working in the evenings at the office. This would be the middle of the afternoon Phoenix time.

UPDATE: It really must be a slow day in Maricopa County. Two more visits since I posted the blog. Good to know there are no criminals to worry about in Phoenix. The visits from Maricopa Country paid officials continues rather regularly. I won't post each visit here but I do take a photo of the record for our files.

One law for us, another for you.

The stench from the legal prosecution of Matt Bandy continues and desperate hacks for Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas are doing their best to smear Matt.

Several times people have commented about how easy it is for unwanted and unknown images to appear on one’s hard drive. And the question has come up what the prosecutors do if it happened to them, their family or their allies. Now we know.

The full force of the law was used against Matt Bandy. He faced a compulsory, 90 year minimum sentence in prison because nine images were found on his computer and representatives of Andrew Thomas’ office said he put them there willingly. In reality there are half a dozen ways minimum that images can end up in your computer files without your consent or knowledge.

But when it was discovered that Don Lafrenier, who had been with Sahuarita, Arizona police department, had 17 images, defined as child pornography, on his lap top what did the authorities do?

Remember Lafrenier was a full grown adult when his case arose and Matt Bandy was a 16 year old kid. So surely they went after Lafrenier with more force and authority than they did to this kid. Add onto the case the fact that Lafrenier had been a public official, an officer of the law, and you’d think that they would really throw the book at him. They didn’t. They did nothing. I’m not saying they were wrong here. I’m merely illustrating the difference of how the law treats one of their own and how they treat the serfs, I mean the average person.

Lt. Ryan Young of the the local police explained why the Attorney General decided not to prosecute Lafrenier. I quote how it was reported by the Grass Valley (AZ) News.

The decision not to press charges was made by the Attorney General’s office, which typically does not press charges unless there is evidence that someone with pornographic images actively used those images, Young said. That’s because Internet users can find unwanted images, including pornography, “popping up” on their screens, and even if they delete the images, a record of that image will remain in their computer, Young said.

The justification is partially reasonable and partially not. First, this is what happened to Matt Bandy yet he was prosecuted and faced what amounted to life in jail. And if Lafrenier had been prosecuted he would have faced a minimum term of 170 years in prison. Arizona is bonkers folks. One man recently received a 200 year sentence for 20 photographs he downloaded from the internet, or is alleged to have downloaded. And Arizona courts ruled the sentence is neither cruel nor unusual. I suggest it is cruel, it is unusual and it is insane.

People ought to be outraged but the moment someone whines: “What about the kids?” the public goes into a hypnotic stupor and chants “more prison time, more prison time.”

So police officer Lafrenier was facing the potential of 170 years in prison. But charges are dropped because the District Attorney says people can’t necessarily be held responsible for images found on their computer. Andrew Thomas says they can and tried to send Matt Bandy to prison for life.

But Bandy was no police officer. He wasn’t “one of the boys” and we know law enforcement looks out for one another. So how do you find a difference between the case of Lafrenier and the case of Matt Bandy? You need something to justify throwing the book at the kid and looking the other way for the cop. And the key is found in the phrase “actively used” the images.

What is meant by active use? The local press explains this means “categorized, saved to a compact disc or e-mailed to others.”

Does that necessarily make sense? Some does and some doesn’t. If someone e-mails an image to a friend then they know the image is there. But one’s computer can become part of a zombie network used by hackers to send out e-mails. So e-mails go out from your computer and you are not aware of it. Active use for sure but not your active use. Can the cops tell the difference?

What I assuming here is that they are saying is that the cop's computer had images and it but it doesn’t appear he moved them around. Therefore they conclude he didn’t know they were there. In Matt’s case the images went into the system and sat in a file that was on a CDRom. So that is considered “active use”.

I think they were clutching for a way to save the cop, crucify Matt and justify both. The distinction between the two cases (while both are in Arizona they had different prosecutors but I am sure the prosecutor knew of the Bandy case) is nebulous at best.

Now that this DA has conceded that images can end up on a computer without one’s knowledge can their be evidence of active use and the owner still be innocent?

The answer is yes. As already noted the individual running the zombie network can plant images in a file on your computer and then use your computer to send them to others. In fact if it were being used for such purposes you would assume that active use of the images is more of an indicator of innocence than of guilt.

Consider two cases. Computer A is part of a zombie network. Why is it part of a zombie network? So the controller of the network can use it! Computer B is not part of a network and thus not used actively. The images are not sent to anyone. At least when it comes to zombie networks it would seem that active use is more likely to be found with the innocent person than with the guilty person.

In Matt’s case the images were buried in a file that was buried in a file, in another file for several layers deep which was found on a CDRom. How could this happen, ask the the law crowd, without intent?

Very easily in fact. One can join groups which where the members send out images. Now often anyone can post to that group. The group might be images from mainstream films or it might be legal, adult erotica or anything in between. One person posts a message to that group which contains 20 images and five of them might be questionable. No one asked for the questionable images nor did they know they were coming.

You open your e-mail and find a message with 20 images. If you are a group member five or six other people might have sent multiple images as well, all legal. You might have 100 images. You are in rush and put all these images in a folder without necessarily viewing them first. They are now in the folder and you wish to later go through them and throw out anything you don’t want. You are still unaware of the content of the suspect images.

A few days later you realize your holding folder is getting full. You’ve been throwing these excess images into the folder for a couple of weeks. And the computer is running slow. So you decide to dump things to a CD for storage to free up computer space. Now you could have a few thousand images to inspect. But if you had trouble inspecting 100 images you are not likely to sit down and spend some hours going through thousands of files. So you drag all the files onto the CD and copy them. And then you throw out the original and leave the CD around for “later”.

You received the image but didn’t see it. You put it in one folder still without looking at it. You now stored that folder on a CD without going through that folder. But in moving it twice you “actively used” the image and would be guilty under the Lafrenier principle. Meanwhile a cop, for instance, could download the images, view them numerous times but never move them and his use is "inactive". He is considered innocent and you are considered guilty.

But this can also happen in ways where you didn’t make an effort to subscribe to a group. The zombie controller places images in storage inside a sub-sub file on your computer. You don’t know it is there. You move some files onto the disk to make room. Before you do that you don’t inspect every folder and ever sub folder within every folder. You just copy the whole lot over. And you may delete the originals keeping them on on disk. You are now an “active” user of the file you didn’t know existed and have never seen.

It is recommended that you back up the content of your computer regularly. That means you copy the contents of your disk onto disks and store them to replace things just in case the system crashes and destroys data you need. When you back up your system you back up all the files including the files you don’t know about. Once again you have become an “active” user of files which you didn’t know existed.

On the surface the distinction between the two cases sounds plausible. But with only a few seconds consideration you realize the differences are not substantive at all.

Perhaps what is really happening is old as time itself. The political class that rules always feels there is one set of rules for the plebes and another set for themselves. Prosecutors and cops are on the same side, that is why they so often cover up for each other. Law is for the common folk who need to be controlled not by the social elite who are the controllers.

This not rare. The average American is herded into social security. Congress exempted themselves from the system. A political candidate can spend millions of his own funds to win election. If you are a millionaire and want to fund his opponent you can’t do it. You are a plebe and he is one of the masters of the realm.

Since there is a great deal of discretionary power the DA in the Lafrenier case decided not to prosecute. It was a police officer. Andrew Thomas was ready to crucify Matt Bandy but he was just a kid. He wasn’t one of the rulers. This sounds far more likely to be the reason Officer Lafrenier was ignored and Matt Bandy was run through the wringer -- and is still being run through the wringer by Thomas’ close assistant, Rachel Alexander.

Language, anger and a half-apology.

This is a bit of an apology. Not a full out apology, perhaps not really an apology at all. Perhaps it is an explanation. Though I tend to think it is a bit of both.

In some of the previous posts I’ve used some very strong language. I used language I wouldn’t use if I were writing for a newspaper or a magazine.

Why is this? One major reason is that a blog is not simply another journalistic outlet. It can be that but it is also a personal statement. Some are only personal expressions. Others, like this one, do inform and also make personal statements or evaluations. The average person reading this can figure out which is which quite easily. If they can't that is their problem.

A blog is more conversational than most journalism, which is why I try to reply to comments left here. In a conversation you understand the person with whom you are speaking, in part, because of the tone of their voice and the loudness of it. You know when they are joking or angry or passionate or depressed. Such tone is often missing in written language or very difficult to express.

One way of expressing the tone is to use harsher language. For instance I referred to Rachel Alexander as an “evil bitch”. I am totally convinced she is evil. What she did to poor Matt Bandy is unspeakable. This sort of slander is meant to be vicious and can destroy this kid’s life. And it seems to me this is being done for political ambition -- that of her boss and ideological comrade, Andrew Thomas, and her own.

And I used “bitch” because it is a term to refer to a malicious, unpleasant person, especially, though not exclusively, a woman. Saying that someone is malicious may be descriptive but it loses all the tone that is implied when you say they are bitch. So the word very accurately describes what I think of rancid Rachel. It expresses the maliciousness in what she did and it expresses the emotion I was feeling when I wrote it (and still feel when I think of her).

What she did is reprehensible. Already some of stupid blogs of the Religious Right are picking up her distortions and distorting them even more. One site has openly called Matt Bandy “a child pornographer”. Have these people no shame? Why is it that the people who are the most amoral are those who scream morality constantly?

Accusations like this are destructive in ways that most people can’t imagine. Consider the utter lack of decency and the kind of moral character required to spread such accusations purely for political or personal gain. Small facts that would amount to nothing are exaggerated and distorted intentionally to create the illusion of substance and then Matt Bandy’s life is destroyed.

This kid was so traumatized by these accusations and the two years of legal inquisition imposed by Thomas and crew he dropped out of school. Now he finally starts back at school and Alexander launches this attack on him. And then brainless, thoughtless, heartless ideologues take her accusations and exaggerate them even further. Such things are malicious beyond expression.

And to do this to a teenager, a kid, is just unforgivable. It is true child abuse of the worst kind. It is the worst kind because it is done under the sanctity of the law thus perverting law and justice at the same time. It is immorality done in the name of morality. The child rapist is vile but does not rape law and justice as well but is instead made answerable to both. The child abuser is deemed immoral and thus unable to subvert moral law. But when the child abuse is done in the name of morality, justice, and law then not only is the child the victim but so too is morality, justice and law. And when it done by people who purport to be moral, who claim they seek justice and who have the power to uphold the law, not only is the child abused but so too are all people. So too is justice, law and morality abused. Or worse, destroyed.

It was not my intention to offend readers. If rancid Rachel is insulted too bad. If Bozo Thomas is offended, too bad. “Evil bitch” didn’t even come close to expressing the fury and anger I feel about what these cruel, bureaucrats have done. I simply can not find the words that express my contempt for them. No such words exist. I just wished we live in a world moral enough and decent enough so that immoral, vile, vicious creatures like Rachel Alexander and Andrew Thomas never inflicted their venom on anyone. I hope the people of Maricopa County wake up and chuck these evil, conniving ideologues out of office.

And if they ever do create those public stockades that Andrew Thomas has called for, so that criminals are put to shame in the town square, I hope they reserve some space in there for Thomas and rancid Rachel.

And finally, regarding the language used, I think I should warn you. I will rarely use such words lightly. But when my anger is roused by the victimization of innocent people I will use such language. When cruelty is disguised as virtue I will use such words. When the innocent are mentally or physically tortured, I will use such words. When viciousness is disguised as morality, I will use such words. As long as immoral, petty, small-minded, inferior creatures have power over their betters, I will use such words. And for that I won’t apologize.

The Grand Inquisitor and his Bitch

I am starting to suspect that Rachel Alexander is just a big suck-up. Maybe she is as ambitious as her boss, the Grand Inquisitor, Andrew Thomas.

Ludwig von Mises once noted that in bureaucracy the way to advance is to suck up to the “old men” at the top. That’s how he put it. Basically in politics the only performance that counts is making happy the people who can promote you. That usually means sucking up to them big time.

We have seen Rachel’s bimbo-esque distortion of the Bandy case. She played fast and loose with the truth. I guess that is part of the “biblical” morality she lauds so publicly.

The far Right MichNews.com site loves Rachel. And like so many intellectual conservatives, or what passes for them these days, they know what traits of Rachel’s to promote. “If you are obsessed with blondeness, and sure that it’s the blonder the better, of course you’ll prefer Ann Coulter [I’m only quoting this guy so don’t blame me. Grab an air sickness bag and keep reading.] Otherwise, it’s Rachel Alexander, hands down (or up).”

This pro-Rachel site of Right-wing lunatics tells us that Rachel is an “attorney who lives and works in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan areas (sic, areas?), a former Republican Babe winner and Founder and Co-editor of www.intellectualconservative.com.” This “Republican Babe” thing seems big with the Right. How seriously do you take a movement obsessed with who is, or isn’t a “Babe.” And, considering that they think Ann Coulter qualifies, one must question their tastes as well.

I mean Ann Coulter! The woman looks like the offspring of an anorexic racoon and a giraffe. She is a stick-figure woman with a neck that is far too long for her body and eyeliner so thick she looks like a racoon on speed. Rachel, no doubt, deserves the award, she certainly deserves the company.

Apparently to be a “Republican Babe” you have to be malicious, dishonest and vicious. Coulter certainly is. And the “reply” that Rachel Alexander wrote at Fox fits the bill.

Now, back to how conservatives see Ms. Alexander. MichNews says that Rachel is “way above Ms. Coulter on the long list of those qualified for the Supremes.” What! My god, conservatives don’t have much in the way of qualifications anymore. Basically this editorial said she is a “Republican Babe”and a lawyer and not elitist. Therefore, she’s qualified for the Supreme Court. But, considering what kind of people they think are qualified for the presidency, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

They also claim her “web site appeals especially to intellectual conservatives and libertarians.” They ought to correct that. It most certainly has nothing to appeal to libertarians. And, these days, “intellectual conservatives” are a rare species. Rachel’s rebuttal showed what passes as intellectual in the conservative movement these days.

And, we discover another link between Rachel and fundamentalist extremists. Focus on the Family, one of the worst of the Far Right Theopublican groups, thinks highly enough of her that they bring her on the show to discuss politics. In these circles, what that means is not intellectual rigor or independence of thought. It means slavish obedience to the moralistic agenda of the Religious Right. Consider that Alexander has been a lawyer for four years and has zero academic experience, never been a judge, and is a bureaucrat. Yet, Focus on the Family has her come on to talk about Constitutional theory. Even when she studied law her specialty was consumer law, not constitutional law. But, these groups don't care if the person actually knows the field. They just want them to say the right things. If they do, they will be crowned with having the "expertise," even though they obviously do not.

If you say the right things, no matter what is between your ears (or in spite of it), you are acceptable. Rachel is acceptable. And anyone acceptable to Focus on the Family ought not call herself “fairly libertarian.” MichNews mention her credentials as a writer, all of which focuses on the fact that her “columns” appeared on a slew of Far Right web sites, most of which are minor sites with little credibility such as MichNews, Rantweb, Rightgrrl, Enter Stage Right and Conservative Truth.

Now, back to the sucking up. Rachel’s column defending her boss was a major suck up job. But it was not her first. She has used her “writing skills” before to suck up big time to Andrew Thomas -- yes the same Andrew Thomas who has her as his deputy. I quote:

“Andrew Peyton Thomas, the district attorney for Maricopa County, Arizona, and a graduate of Harvard Law School, has put together a well-written, intriguing expose on the state of free speech at his alma mater, providing an insider’s perspective of the top law professors in the country. Oddly enough, the friction over free speech is not between the political 'left' and the 'right,' because there are practically no conservatives in the administration or on the law faculty, and the majority of students offered admission are also of the leftist persuasion. The battle over free speech is between the 'left' and the 'far left.' (p. 170)”

Ross Perot once commented about the “sucking sound” he thought was coming from Mexico, supposedly “stealing jobs’ from America. He got the general direction right but it was from Phoenix, and it was Rachel sucking up to Andrew Thomas. By the way the book her boss wrote, that she so praises, was published by Encounter Books, a right-wing publishing house.

Rachel also posted her praises of the book at Amazon.com, to encourage people to buy the book. And while she tosses around her position in Thomas’ office with great regularity elsewhere, for some odd reason, she neglected to mention it in any of her reviews. She wouldn’t want to inform people of her conflict of interests. So, her piece at Fox isn't the first time she's played PR rep for the man who gave her a cushy government job.

In another column she writes: “Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio are the only law enforcement officials in the country arresting and prosecuting illegal immigrants under anti-human smuggling (coyote) statute.” Please note that what Thomas did was prosecute an illegal immigrant for smuggling himself! If that isn’t twisting the law, I don’t know what is. This is like charging someone with "molestation" for masturbating or claiming you are kidnapper because you took yourself across state lines. But, the logic seems on par with Rachel’s thinking.

Another column praises her boss yet again, and runs a picture of him a few inches from her own picture. She’s on top! He’s on the bottom. She refers to him as “Maricopa County’s tough on crime prosecutor Andrew Thomas.” (Suck, suck, suck.)

In yet another column she sings the praises of Andrew Thomas. In fact it looks as if she merely reposted a publicity release that Thomas sent out. In yet another post, she merely repeats the publicity releases sent out by Thomas’ office again.

At another Right-wing web site she wrote: “The federal government may not be doing much when it comes to illegal immigration, but Arizona’s Maricopa Country Attorney [Andrew Thomas, her boss] and Sheriff are.” The bio line on this column refers to her web site as “wildly popular.” A bio line is usually suggested by the writer or posted with their approval. So at least she spends some time praising herself -- I was starting to think all she does is praise Andrew Thomas. I mean the way she keeps writing about him you’d think she was sleeping with him. Of course she wouldn’t since that is not biblical. BTW: at a right-wing conference Alexander admitted that her website gets very little traffic and said that the "wildly popular" claims she makes is a way to giver herself unearned credibility. She claims the media will accept her claims and give her more publicity that way.

The “World O’Crap” blog implies they were receiving comments from Rachel, but she was hiding her identity. “Here’s an interesting fact for you: the email address used by our new friend ‘Scottie Dinkle’ seems to belong to Rachel Alexander, the author of that handbook on Getting Custody to Avoid Paying Cild Support. (At least, it’s the email address Rachel used to organize “a debate on illegal immigration between conservatives and libertarians: in June of this year.)” I don’t know what that is all about, but it sounds deceptive. But, they did point to this interesting piece of information.

The Phoenix New Times ran an article on the bizarre antics of Thomas Andrews on January 13, 2005. It seems that when Andrews took office he immediately started demoting people who had experience and credentials in their field, and brought in novices who were ideologues. And it mentions that Thomas “appointed Tom McDermott, Brad Smith, Tim LaSota and Rachel Alexander as special assistant/deputy county attorneys. The quartet has little experience in the practice of law, with Alexander having held a bar license for the longest time -- four and a half years.”

I just want to pause for a second to point out the date of this article: January 13, 2005. Now, go to the Rachel Alexander article praising her boss for his book which attacks Harvard Law School for not being Right-wing. It is dated May 16, 2005. So, keep in mind that when she wrote this review, she had just been appointed to a cushy, well-paid job for which her qualifications were very meager. Reviewing a book written by your employer might be considered a conflict of interest. So how does Rachel handle it in the Enter Stage Right column? Well, when they list her credentials they simply neglect to mention she was working for the man. More of that biblical morality, no doubt.

According to Phoenix New Times Thomas is “best known for inflammatory screeds on such topics as child care, abortion, and other societal issues. He’s certainly a kindred philosophical spirit with new special assistant Rachel Alexander...”

What kind of man is Thomas, outside the viciousness and ineptitude he showed in the Bandy case? Well, pretty extreme. No wonder Rachel loves him. And Thomas takes care of his friends. He did give his old law firm $326,000 in county business. I’m sure he takes care of Rachel as well. After all, with just four years in the legal profession she ends up with a well paid job as his assistant.

In a previous book Thomas called for “publicly incarcerating drug dealers and other criminals, displaying them before their neighbours in large, open-air holding pens with their names and crimes prominently displayed, a modified stockade program could provide specific deterrence at marginal cost and general deterrence for the community.” This sounds like the sort of tactics the Red Guard used under Mao. Has the lunatic Right go so far into totalitarianism that they are now suggesting we follow the example of the Red Guard?

Who would get this treatment? Mothers who hold jobs? Possibly since, according to our friends at Reason magazine, Thomas “castigated career-minded parents who put their children in day-care. Thomas called them ‘more respectable, less violent versions of Susan Smith,’ the North Carolina woman who drowned her two sons in lake because they were interfering with her post-divorce love life.” Elsewhere Thomas said child care “mentally impaired” children.

Rachel is not content with smearing Matt Bandy and sucking up to Andrew Thomas. She also has to attack Wendy McElroy for writing her column. And again she distorts the facts. She refers to Wendy as “a former writer for my web site.” This sounds as if perhaps she and Wendy had a falling out since Wendy used to write for her. Maybe Wendy was being dishonest because she had this falling ou,t and was trying to embarrass the office for which rancid Rachel works.

But, the truth again is not quite the way Rachel puts it. Wendy is a columnist for Fox News and, in my opinion, one of the few really decent columnists they have. In addition, she is a top notch person in general. But, Wendy never wrote for Rachel’s web site. She wrote her normal column, which Rachel’s site reproduced. It was reproduced with permission and Wendy is very generous with giving permission to reprint her material. But, she didn’t write it for Rachel. Nor was she employed in any way by, or for that web site. It is a tad bit deceptive to call Wendy “a former writer for my web site.” But, it is par for the course for Rachel.

Alexander says that Wendy drank “the kool-aid of 20/20 and other media spin regarding the prosecution of Matt Bandy.” The reference is to the poison laced kool-aid given out by Rev. Jim Jones to his brainwashed cult members. And, then right below her comments about Wendy she makes the most extreme accusation yet about Matt Bandy. “Bandy admitted to frequenting a Yahoo child porn group...”

What an evil bitch. I use the word bitch to mean everything it usually means in this context and then some. Note how she changed her accusation once it was off Fox News. At Fox she claimed he visited “an online group known for sharing pornographic images of children.” Here she says he went to a child porn group.

In the first instance she is saying he went to a group where some people are known to have traded images. In the second accusation she is saying he went to a group that was set up expressly to exchange those images. This is a major change in her accusation. And, it is a lie. Matt admitted he went to a Yahoo group that had pictures of adult women in the nude and which was set up for that purpose. It was not a child porn group, but a group that some people supposedly used to exchange child porn with one another. Someone uploaded a kiddie porn image to the group, or to someone on the group, which is why Yahoo reported it. And they claimed it came from Matt’s computer.

Alexander now turns a Yahoo group for Playboy-like images into a “child porn group.” What a contemptible thing for her to do. How does she sleep at night? (And no jokes about “under Andy Thomas” either.) The more I read about Rachel Alexander the more I am convinced she is dishonest and vicious. So, when her pals on the extreme Right compare her to Ann Coulter -- well, they ain’t that far off. Coulter usually slanders only adults. Rachel publicly slanders teens. You decide which is worse.