Sunday, December 28, 2014

Commonwealth v Crayton: Librarians Report Child Porn and Preserve Computer Evidence for Police

Commonwealth v. Crayton provides a good example of a librarian reporting child pornography to the police and the library providing police with specially preserved electronic evidence of child porn viewing.  I have to say this because the American Library Association [ALA] works hard to convince librarians to ignore child porn and to delete evidence before police can access it, as I noted in my previous post, among others.

So below are relevant parts from the case I would like people to see showing this library and librarians doing the right thing by reporting the crime and preserving evidence, then providing police with that evidence, as opposed to librarians who adhere to ALA diktat.  Admirably, these Massachusetts librarians go so far as to preserve the evidence before it gets automatically deleted each night.  Really outstanding but really against what ALA advises.  These outstanding librarians who help protect their communities will never win ALA awards; such awards go to librarians who help facilitate child porn such as at the Orland Park Public Library in Illinois, as I proved in my previous post.

We are talking about school children seeing child pornography in a public library.

Also, since ALA policy as applied locally is often directly related to the facilitation of child pornography in public libraries, ALA media such as American Libraries magazine rarely discusses such matters or does so superficially.  I doubt it will report on Commonwealth v. Crayton, except to the extent I have made this prediction, so it might want to prove me wrong.

By the way, this case again illustrates that "Acceptable Use Policies" do not work.  ALA says acceptable use policies work and Internet filters do not.  In reality, it is the exact opposite.  The Cambridge Public Library policy is "Using library computers for illegal activity is strictly prohibited and will result in the loss of library privileges and possible criminal prosecution."  Clearly that had no effect.  On the other hand, the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] has just revealed library Internet filters work exceedingly well.  Such filters would have prevented the school children from seeing the child porn ALA facilitates.  I urge Cambridge Public Library to follow FCC advice and consider using Internet filtering software and tossing aside previous misconceptions ALA keeps promoting.

Here is the Commonwealth v. Crayton case, followed by an excerpt describing the factual background I would like people to read as an example of libraries working effectively to record and report child pornography viewing—too bad they did not use Internet filters to prevent such viewing in the first place but it is never too late to update policies:

470 Mass. 228, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 
17 December 2014
pp. 230-233, underline emphasis in original, bold emphasis mine, footnotes omitted:

Background.  We summarize the evidence at trial, reserving discussion of the evidence that pertains to the issues on appeal.  On January 21, 2009, between approximately 3:30 p.m. and 4 p.m., an eighth grade student, M.S., was doing homework at a computer in the basement technology center of the Central Square branch of the Cambridge Public Library. [FN 4]  A man she described as short, white, and bald, with a “little beard” and eyeglasses was sitting at an adjacent computer to the right of her. [FN 5]  She went to the library “[m]ostly every day,” but had never seen the man before.  When she looked at his computer screen, she saw an image of “a girl about ten years old, covering her chest.”  She could not tell whether the girl was wearing any clothes, because she saw only a “top view” and the man was “cover[ing] the computer screen” with the “umbrella-type” cover that was on it. [FN 6]  She “waved” at her friend, R.M., a ninth grade student, who was also in the technology center of the library, and urged him to look at the man's computer. R.M. testified that he “just got a quick glimpse of the computer,” and could only see “a small portion” of the screen, which displayed a young child wearing no clothes.  He saw only the side of the man's face; he described the man as bald with a goatee.  He went to the library every day after school, but had not seen the man before.  During trial, both M.S. and R.M.  identified the defendant as the man that they had seen at the computer on January 21.

M.S. and R.M. walked over to Ricardo Negron, a library employee who was working at the staff desk in the technology center that afternoon, and they told him that a person was looking at children wearing no clothes on the computer. [FN 7]  Before M.S. and R.M. approached him, Negron had observed M.S. at computer no. one and a white male, “perhaps” in his “early thirties,” bald, with eyeglasses, whom he had seen before at the technology center, at computer no. two. [FN 8]  The police later showed Negron an array of photographs, but he was unable to identify anyone from the array. [FN 9] [FN 10]

Library users were required to log on to a computer by entering their library bar code, so when the two teenagers alerted Negron to what they had seen, Negron looked up the log-in information for computer no. two.  While he was doing so, the man using computer no. two logged off and left the room.  The log inquiry revealed that a person using the library card of an eighteen year old male, “perhaps of Asian descent,” had logged on to computer no. two at 3:08 p.m. and logged off at 3:55 p.m. [FN11]  At some time after 3:55 p.m., Negron went upstairs to speak to the library manager, Esme Green.  Green went downstairs to the technology center, looked at two “video clips” saved on computer no. two, saw that they depicted an approximately twelve year old girl, “either naked or almost naked, masturbating,” and telephoned the police.

When Negron went upstairs, another library employee, Ricardo Ricard, went downstairs to staff the technology center.  Having learned of the allegation, Ricard logged on to computer no. two, saw a folder on the computer with the label “W,” and looked at a video file inside the folder, which showed a nude female child.  Because he was concerned that the library computers deleted all files when they were shut down for the night, Ricard transferred the folder containing the file to a universal serial bus (USB) drive, which he later gave to Green.  He then disabled the computer's “reboot” software so that the computer would retain the files that were then on it.

Ricard had not seen the man who used computer no. two on January 21, but he was aware of the man's physical description.  On January 22, when he saw a man who matched that description in the library lobby, he told Green of the man's presence, and Green notified the police.

Detectives Brian O'Connor and Pam Clair of the Cambridge police department arrived at the library and saw the defendant at a computer with another individual.  The detectives observed the defendant for approximately twenty to thirty minutes at a computer that displayed a “MySpace” profile page, “looking at MySpace.”  As the defendant was leaving the library, Detective O'Connor asked to speak with him, and the defendant agreed.  The defendant admitted that he had been in the library's computer room the previous day.  He said he had used one of the computers for five minutes and then switched to another computer, which he identified as computer no. two, to check his electronic mail (e-mail).  The defendant said that his e-mail address was  He also said that he did not have his own MySpace profile, but used his friend's profile.

After this conversation, Detective O'Connor obtained the USB drive that Ricard had given to Green, seized computer no. two, and copied the folder labeled “W” onto a compact disc.  After obtaining a search warrant, Detective O'Connor conducted a forensic search of the hard drive of computer no. two.  That search revealed twenty-seven “cookies,” which O'Connor described as “text file[s]” that store information on an Internet browser regarding a Web site that a particular user has visited on the Internet. [FN 12]  The first of these cookies, entitled “magic-Lolita(1).txt,” was created at 3:14 p.m. on January 21; the last, entitled “www.innocentgirls(1).txt,” was created at 3:48 p.m. that day.  Detective O'Connor also uncovered “Yahoo searches” on computer no. two that had been conducted between 3:14 and 3:25 p.m. on January 21 using such search terms as “One hundred percent Lolita” and “Top Lolita.”  Detective O'Connor also located temporary Internet files on the computer's hard drive in which images were automatically downloaded by the Internet browser from a Web site that the user visited.  In those temporary files, he found approximately 210 photographs where children were engaged in sexual acts, of which seven were printed out and admitted as exhibits at trial.  These seven images were created on the computer between 3:27 and 3:50 p.m. on January 21.  The detective also located six video files on the hard drive of the computer, of which two video files were located in a temporary Internet file folder and four video files were located in a folder entitled “W.”  The four video files in the “W” folder, which were played for the jury, were created on the computer between 3:43 and 3:54 p.m. that day. Detective O'Connor also located a MySpace page in the temporary Internet files reflecting a log-in date and time of January 21 at 3:13 p.m.  The MySpace page identifies the user as “Walter”; the e-mail address associated with the MySpace page was


Updated the judicial opinion link to an archived version.

URL of this page:

On Twitter: @ALAlibrary @AmLibraries @CambridgePL @CambridgePolice @OIF

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Sexual Harassment of Librarians Never Happens; Child Pornography is Intellectual Freedom

Sexual harassment of librarians never happened and likely never will, according to the American Library Association's attorney Deborah-Caldwell Stone from ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom.  My reliable source for reporting this?  The Deputy Director of ALA OIF herself.

Below is a transcript of what she said at an Orland Park Public Library board meeting.  Below that is a YouTube video of her saying what's in the transcript so you can hear the dismissive tone in her voice.  And further below that is a library employee in that very same meeting revealing how she was sexually harassed as a result of the library applying ALA OIF's policy:

18 NOVEMBER 2013


I’m Deborah Caldwell-Stone.  I am an attorney employed by the Office for Intellectual Freedom for the American Library Association.

Um, I have thought carefully about what I might say tonight, um, and I could go tit for tat, challenging some of the conclusions that have been offered to you about the legal authorities that govern Internet access in libraries and hostile work environment.  I will only tell you, and um be brief about it, that it's far more complex than it's being represented here tonight.  In fact, the libraries that were sued for hostile work environment settled the cases.  They weren’t forced to pay any money.  Um, the settlement was uh reached with a mutual agreement with the librarians involved to get rid of the lawsuit and both, uh, in fact, both in Minneapolis and in Birmingham the EEOC and the Department of Justice declined to sue on behalf of the librarians.

Hostile work environment is a very fact-based lawsuit.  I’m sure your legal counsel can tell you that.  You must have very strict, uh, standards to bring a lawsuit.  You have to be targeted because you are part of a protected class based on race, sex, ethnicity or religion.  Um, the harassment must be a result of your membership in the protected class.  So these are far more complex lawsuits than, uh, is being represented here.  And there've only been three of them over time, over the last twenty years of Internet access in libraries.

So I encourage you to get good legal consultation on these facts, uh, uh, um, about these things.  We’re happy to assist, um, but I’m sure that there're other attorneys who can assist you as well.

I do want to reiterate that I work with libraries on developing policies on a regular basis.  You have very strong policies, they're very child protective, they're respective of your, uh, users’ rights to access the Internet and the library materials under the First Amendment, and there are First Amendment rights that accrue to library users.  And, um, I want to, uh, just express my, uh, my respect and my appreciation for your professionalism in all of this.

Thank you.

[END TIME 7:22]

Library Admits to Child Porn Coverup:

"Professionalism," to the American Library Association, includes allowing and covering up child pornography.  It is no longer debatable that occurred as the library has admitted to it and admitted it was wrong.  Watch: "2014-8-18 Diane Jennings Admits Child Porn and LIES about Staff Action," by Megan Fox, YouTube, 11 November 2014:

Child Porn Coverup Earns Law-Breaking Library Intellectual Freedom Awards:

Not to worry, that child porn coverup admitted to in August 2013 has earned the library multiple subsequent awards.  ALA seeks to hold up the law-breaking library as an example to others, and what better way than to make it an award-winning library!  After all, protecting child pornography is protecting First Amendment intellectual freedom!  ALA does oppose child pornography per se, but it teaches librarians and trustees they are not judges and are in no position to determine what is child pornography.

Photo Credit: Orland Park Public Library
Here are the awards so far, at least one instigated by ALA's Barbara Jones, and there are likely more in the pipeline—I wouldn't be surprised if library director Mary Weimar makes a graceful exit from her coverup by joining ALA OIF as at least one Assistant Director has done:

YouTube: ALA Says Librarian Sexual Harassment Never Happens:

Here is the visual recording of the transcript provided above:

Source: "2013-11-18 = Terrific Rebuttal to ALA Lies During Public Comment at OPPL Meeting (Part 3)," by Megan Fox, YouTube, 19 November 2013, start time 5:15.

YouTube: Library Employee Reveals Sexual Harassment:

At the very same meeting that ALA just said sexual harassment never happens, a former library employee spoke to say she was sexually harassed in that very library:

Source: "2013-11-18 = SHOCKING EXPOSE: Library Insider Linda Zec Gives Scoop on Porn in Libraries (Part 4)," by Megan Fox, YouTube, 19 November 2013.

Transcript of ALA's Barbara Jones Speaking at Same Meeting:

FYI, here is the transcript of Barbara Jones, head of ALA OIF, who spoke directly before Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq.:

Warning to TeamHarpy:

There are two librarians being sued for defamation for reporting on the alleged sexual harassment by another librarian that allegedly occurs at library conferences.  On Twitter they call themselves #TeamHarpy.

I have a warning for TeamHarpy.  If you ignore the ALA OIF saying sexual harassment of librarians never happens, you'll never be able to prove sexual harassment of librarians really does happen.  At a minimum, you cannot be truly serious about opposing sexual harassment of librarians if you ignore that ALA OIF is saying sexual harassment of librarians never happened and likely never will.  I realize nearly every single librarian is afraid to speak out against ALA OIF on its harmful policies because that would be a career ender, but if your goal is to truly stop sexual harassment of librarians instead of stopping just one man, you must address the source, the ALA policies that allow unfettered porn including child pornography.

Note to my readers:  TeamHarpy absolutely hates me for saying the above, but it is the truth.  You can't prove sexual harassment of librarians happens when ALA OIF says sexual harassment of librarians never happens.


Sexual harassment of librarians never happens.  Child pornography is intellectual freedom.  At least that's what ALA OIF wants people to believe because its own policies are directly responsible for the unfettered porn and child porn viewing that leads directly to sexual harassment and other sex crimes.  These policies are in many libraries nationwide.  If people like TeamHarpy want to address librarian sexual harassment, they should not ignore the main source of that harassment, namely, ALA OIF pro child porn policy.  Such policies must be extirpated or the illegality and harassment will continue unabated.


Here is one example of where the American Library Association advises librarians to ignore child pornography, and this policy guides many local public library polices nationwide:

Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally. Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are obscenity, child pornography, or “harmful to minors.”
As for obscenity and child pornography, prosecutors and police have adequate tools to enforce criminal laws.  Libraries are not a component of law enforcement efforts naturally directed toward the source, i.e., the publishers, of such material.


ALA OIF's new leader, Jamie LaRue, has doubled down on saying sexual harassment of librarians due to the unfiltered Internet never happens.  He called it "speculation," "dubious":

My correspondent made various misleading claims I won’t repeat here. But I did want to address one issue. He wrote that “harassment is caused by people having viewed the unfiltered Internet while in the library.” But that’s speculation, not fact. It’s dubious, too. People read mysteries in libraries and don’t feel compelled to commit murders. People are responsible for unwanted or criminal action, not the internet. And not library policy.


URL of this page:

On Twitter: @GSLIS @IllLibraryAssoc @IntolerantFox @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary #TeamHarpy

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Niles Public Library Votes 5-2 In Favor of Internet Filters; Kudos to Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan

Niles Public Library's KidSpace
Niles Public Library, Niles, IL, has voted 5-2 in favor of library filters according to reporter Megan Fox:
BREAKING! Reporting live from the Niles library board, despite having Dennis Walsh as an attorney, the Niles library board behaves themselves like professionals and also just VOTED YES TO FILTERS! 5-2 Only two dissenters, Karen Dimond and Linda (don't have her last name yet...but we will) congratulations Niles!
Turns out Megan Fox's own experience with the Orland Park Public Library refusing filters and allowing and covering up child pornography for over a year and still ongoing was directly responsible for the move to filter:

The library currently has filters on computers in the KidSpace area, but computers in teen and adult areas aren't filtered.  However, a recent controversy over Orland Park Public Library patrons using computers to view pornography caused the Niles library to reconsider their policy.

Kudos to Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan for showing how and why libraries can be unsafe and what can be done to reverse that.  Congratulations to the people of Niles and the librarians who work there who will all now enjoy vastly reduced criminal activity and sexual harassment.

Here's another recent story:

Remember, librarians:

  1. filtering out porn is perfectly legal per US v. ALA despite what lawyers like Dennis Walsh say, 
  2. no library has ever been sued for blocking porn
  3. refusing to unblock porn is perfectly legal per Bradburn v. NCRL, and 
  4. Illinois state law makes it illegal to view any Internet porn in any Illinois public library.  
  5. Besides, the FCC recently announced library filters are so good that any library that in the past decided against filters should now reconsider.  

Niles Library, consider applying for CIPA funding for Internet access now that you are filtering all computers.

Again, congratulations.

URL of this page:

On Twitter: @FCC @IntolerantFox @istudenkov @NilesLibrary @OrlandPkLibrary @TownNews

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Acceptable Use Policies Do Not Work to Stop Library Crime

Acceptable use policies do not work to stop library crime.  Here's another example, this time at Westmont Public Library, Westmont, IL:

Here's that library's "Public Use of the Internet Policy" that precludes pornography, emphasis added:
  • "The Westmont Public Library requires that library patrons using the library computers, wireless networks and/or Internet do so within the guidelines of acceptable use.  The following activities are unacceptable: ... 
Viewing pornography, which is considered by most to be inappropriate for a public setting where minors may be present."

Here's the reality of the total failure of that policy, from the story linked above:
A Westmont man was charged with obscenity and disorderly conduct after he viewed online pornography in the youth services area of his local library, authorities said Thursday. 
Steven Beckow, 42, is accused of browsing the websites on Sept. 4 and 8 while using public computers in plain view at the Westmont Public Library, 428 N. Cass Ave. 
Police Sgt. Steve Thompson said the library terminated Beckow's Internet privileges after the first incident.  Four days later, he said, Beckow returned and was again seen viewing pornography online.
So not only did he blow right past that "acceptable use" policy and lose his "Internet privileges," but he returned within days, automagically regained his "Internet privileges" that were supposedly taken away, then viewed pornography again even though that violated the required "acceptable use" policy.

Can you see how the public is being completely misled by worthless "acceptable use" policies and claims of removing "Internet privileges"?  Internet filters actually work well, but libraries are guided by the American Library Association to instead use worthless "acceptable use" policies: "The position of the ALA ... calls for free and unfettered access to the Internet for any library user, regardless of age."  Is that the position of your community?  Do you want a magnet library for sex crimes?

So while "acceptable use policies" are complete and total failures in stopping criminal activity in public libraries, they are entirely effective in blame/liability shifting and fooling local communities into thinking libraries are responsive to communities instead of to the American Library Association.  Acceptable use policies do not work to stop library crime.

Here is more from me on this topic: Acceptable Use Policies.

URL of this page:

On Twitter: @ALALibrary @OIF @WestmontLibrary

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Teri Lesesne as Professor Nana, the Censor of Sam Houston State University

Photo credit: ALAN
The censor of Sam Houston State University's Department of Library Science is none other than Dr. Teri Lesesne ("rhymes with insane"), aka Professor Nana who teaches censorship.  She is illustrative of how censors work and how they hide and excuse their censorship.

She holds herself out as a professor who teaches school librarians to oppose censorship using, for example, slideshows where the first thing she teaches is "Let children read whatever they want...." See:

But when it comes to things she does not want people to hear, that she censors out.  Children should read absolutely anything, she teaches school librarians, but adults should not hear what she wants to be censored.

She wrote something false, mean, and intentionally misleading about me on her blog:
I responded to her attack in a comment, but it got marked as spam.  I sent her a message about this.  She published my response in a second piece she wrote about me, but only in her own self-interest, and again she cast me in a negative light:
  • "Here Ya Go!," by Teri Lesesne (Professor Nana), The Goddess of YA Literature, 9 October 2014.
I responded to that attack as well, and again it got marked as spam.  Again I informed her of this and asked her to take it out of spam.

Again she did not.  Instead, she launched yet a third attack on me, this time going out of her way to be as downright nasty, unprofessional, and flat out false as she could possibly be:
  • "Guess Who Is Back?," by Teri Lesesne (Professor Nana)The Goddess of YA Literature, 11 October 2014.
My comments simply do not appear on her blog called The Goddess of YA Literature.  (At least as of this time slice.)  When she added one it was in another blog post of her own, hence out of context; it was couched in yet more negative language, and she still did not approve my original comment on her first hit piece on me.  And she never responds to substantive issues.  My comments I post are simply blocked from her site.  Invisible.  Censored out.  By a professor teaching censorship.  At a public institution.  At Sam Houston State University.

Professor Nana feigns innocence, but I have asked her to publish my comments and she has refused, responding instead with the nastiest of new posts.  And this censorship-loving professor actually teaches school librarians not to censor anything from children.  The first page of her training linked above quotes the American Library Association as saying, "Censorship by librarians of constitutionally protected speech, whether for protection or any other reason, violates the First Amendment."  Setting aside that that's legally false, Professor Nana does not even practice what she preaches.  She actually gets paid a publicly-funded salary to teach one thing and do the exact opposite in real life from her public school perch.  She's a paid government censor.

Let me be very clear.  I asked Professor Nana to mark my comment as not spam and publish my comment and she has refused.  She leaves my comments marked as spam.  That not only censors out my comments, but it tells her blog platform that comments from me are considered spam, at least by her.  That makes it harder for me to make other comments on any blog on her blog's platform, in this case LiveJournal, not just on her blog.

It is a means of using the spam filter to censor out speech you hate.  All from a professor in a profession that supposedly opposes censorship and whose leading organization holds itself out as the nation's self-arrogated censorship police.  When I get library mail in my spam folder that I do not like because I disagree with it, I actively click the not spam button.  I play fair.  Professor Nana does not.  I may disagree with it, but it is not spam, and I know leaving it marked as spam will make it harder for the sender to get any message through to anyone else.

By asking Teri Lesesne to publish my comment, I did exactly what I was directed to do by her blog's platform, hyperlinks omitted, emphasis mine:
Due to the variety of anti-spam features that LiveJournal employs there is always a possibility that your legitimate entries or comments will be mis-identified as spam.  If your entries or comments have been incorrectly mis-identified as spam, please open up a Support request....  In addition to contacting Support, you can also contact the journal owner or community owner/maintainers and ask them to mark your comment or entry as not-spam.
But in her third attack piece, Professor Nana, the Goddess of YA Literature, the censorship professor at the Department of Library Science at Sam Houston State University, wrote, "I replied (yes, I should know better) that I had not blocked comments on the blog.  I checked the comment page on my blog and there is nothing there for me to 'mark' and publish. .... This is the end of you, sir.  ....  He accused me then of blocking his comments (and, once again, I did NOT)."  And yet my comments to this day are still not on any of her blog posts about me.

Notice she puts the word "mark" in single quotes to indicate she had absolutely no idea what I was talking about or I am even incapable of speaking intelligently.  It is passive-aggressive bullying.  Yet that is exactly what LiveJournal says to do, "ask them to mark your comment or entry as not-spam."  In the tweet shown above you can see I did exactly what LiveJournal instructed me to do.  Professor Nana is in no position to make it appear I asked for the impossible.

Sam Houston State University
"Now you are just simply baiting me and falsely accusing me of being a censor," she protests.  No, I'm not baiting or deliberately taunting her; she has said false and mean things about me repeatedly and is blocking my responses repeatedly.

No, I'm not falsely accusing her of being a censor.  Instead, I am reporting that she is a censor.  My evidence includes 1) my comments as posted by me do not appear on her blog posts despite my efforts to have them posted per LiveJournal instructions by requesting her to publish them, 2) her comments about me are false and misleading and evidence an intention to censor, not an intention to act professionally by identifying and resolving any technical issue blocking my ability to comment, if any, and 3) her blog is promoted by Sam Houston State University, a public university, where she is employed to teach library science, meaning her actions are not only hypocritical but also represent official government censorship, in this case by a public institution of learning.

"Paint me and anyone who dare object to your form of censorship however you like," she says.  And exactly what form of "censorship" is that?  I oppose censorship in all its forms.  Keeping inappropriate material from children is a serious matter but it is not censorship.  Besides, the last book banned in the USA was Fanny Hill, and that was in 1963, over 50 years ago.  For context, a Banned Books Week cosponsor recently wrote that it was censorship to keep middle school children from reading in school about explicit adult content, so I published an extensive excerpt so people can see exactly what type of material Professor Nana and others like her are protecting.

This is how the censor works.  Censors make false and misleading claims about people who they want to smear so others will not pay attention to them.  They mark legitimate responses as spam or leave them marked as spam so computers can spread the censorship further.  They continue to attack since those censored have no platform on which to respond.  They modify your words then attack you for something you did not say.  The icing on the cake is doing this in a profession that opposes censorship and as a professor who teaches school librarians to oppose censorship.

Think about it.  The censor of Sam Houston State University is the professor teaching censorship.

I should write a letter to Sam Houston State University to see if Professor Censor is really the best match for teaching school librarians about censorship.  There are so many wonderful librarians who can teach.  Actively employing an active censor, and a mean one at that, might not be a good fit for a respected public university, "one of the oldest purpose-built institutions for the instruction of teachers west of the Mississippi River and the first such institution of its type in Texas."

For those wishing to see the material being censored, I published it on my SafeLibraries Publications page here.


Look how supposedly professional librarians, prompted by Professor Censor, pile on to make a mockery of their professional ethics and values, egged on by Walt Crawford:

URL of this page:

On Twitter: @ProfessorNana @SamHoustonState @SHSULIBSCI #censorship

Friday, October 3, 2014

American Values are 'Deeply Problematic' for the National Coalition Against Censorship; NCAC Prefers the Ghostwritten Advanced Placement US History Framework for Schools

American values are "deeply problematic" for the National Coalition Against Censorship [NCAC].  It prefers the Advanced Placement US History [APUSH] framework for schools and sends misleading emails to push its view and the framework.  Below is an excerpt from that NCAC letter, my response revealing details about NCAC, then information about the APUSH framework having been politicized and ghostwritten.

NCAC Email to Jefferson County Public Schools:
We are particularly concerned about two aspects of the current proposals. The first has to do with identifying materials in the revised framework that “may reasonably be deemed” to be “objectionable.”  The second is the proposal to consider whether instructional materials “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights” and whether they “encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.” 
Both proposals are deeply problematic.

My Response to Jefferson County Public Schools:

October 2, 2014

Ken Witt, President
Members of the Board of Education
Jefferson County Public Schools
1829 Denver W Dr.
Lakewood, CO 80401

Dear President Witt and Members of the Board,

I have learned that the National Coalition Against Censorship [NCAC] has written to you yesterday regarding the curriculum framework for Advanced Placement U. S. History. ( )  It provided a warning against promoting citizenship, patriotism, the free enterprise system, and respect for authority and individual rights, calling such efforts “deeply problematic.”  It then provided legal argument it wants you to think is accurate and accurately presented.  It was signed by a number of people, principally Joan Bertin, NCAC’s Executive Director.

When considering the weight to be given such a letter, please consider that NCAC is a small pressure group that repeatedly writes to school boards to mislead them with false and misleading factual and legal information.  It is an organization that:
This past week was “Banned Books Week.”  Joan Bertin used the opportunity to call it “censorship” when a middle school removed a John Updike book after several preteens read graphic descriptions of anal s3x, s3xual urination, and ejaculating on a woman’s face, and to rail against Common Sense Media for providing information about the sexualized content of books ( )
Now that same Joan Bertin that last week called it “censorship” to remove a p-rnographic book from a middle school stands before you offering factual and legal guidance for AP US History.  The guidance is intended to mislead you, as this is NCAC’s pattern, and not assist you.  The goal is to mislead you into thinking what NCAC wants you to think so you will do what NCAC wants you to do but does not otherwise have the power to force you to do.

And did you notice NCAC subtly implied teachers get to set the curriculum and not school boards?  That's false, but of course they do not inform you of that.  See:
and another community NCAC tried unsuccessfully to fool (and notice the comments have several authors of note):

Do consider what NCAC has to say, but keep in mind its past behaviors, methods, and interests so as to scrutinize its letter carefully and assign it weight accordingly.  Personally, I think promoting p-rnography in schools and the interests of a Hamas group in America is what’s “deeply problematic” while promoting American values in schools is what the American public wants and expects, what your community wants and expects.  I hope my information on NCAC helps you make the right decision for your community.

If you have any questions, or if I can be of assistance in resolving this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Dan Kleinman, Library Watchdog
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham, NJ 07928

CC: Ken Witt,
Julie Williams,
Lesley Dahlkemper,
John Newkirk,
Jill Fellman,

Notice the above tweet of mine was favorited by @JeffcoPTA.

AP US History Framework is Politicized and Ghostwritten:
Usually authors are proud to have their names recognized for influential pieces of work.  Not so for the Advanced Placement (AP) U.S. history curriculum guide, otherwise known as the Framework.  No one is claiming credit for the latest edition—a version of which has been accused of undermining American exceptionalism.  The Republican National Committee charged that it “reflects a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.”  And while the Framework makes mention of Chief Little Turtle, the leftist Students for a Democratic Society and the Black Panthers, it fails to refer to the likes of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Benjamin Franklin and Martin Luther King Jr.

The Heartland Institute asked the College Board, who published the Framework, to reveal the authors of this “biased, poorly written, and ineptly organized document.” The College Board responded that Page v of the framework revealed the professors and teachers involved. However, on Page v, the only names listed are under the heading of “Acknowledgements.” Dr. Fred Anderson, one of the 19 educators listed on the page, lamented in a letter to the Colorado State Board of Education that he did not have “any hand in drafting this Part, so I can only guess at why the examples that appear were chosen.” “The Part” that Anderson was referring to is nearly 50 pages of course content.

This Framework will be applied to almost 500,000 students in more than 8,000 high schools across America this year.


American values are "deeply problematic" for the NCAC that promotes porn generally, inappropriate materials for school children, and some American Hamas group.  It prefers instead a politicized and ghostwritten Advanced Placement US History framework curriculum for schools and promotes its own values instead of "deeply problematic" American values like "citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights."  Respect for such values like individual rights as expressed in the US Constitution is so out of style these days.

Should any schools receive pressure letters or emails from the NCAC about APUSH or anything else, please consider the above.

URL of this page:

On Twitter: @CollegeBoard, @CommonSense, @HeartlandInst, @JeffcoSchoolsCo, @JeffcoPTA, @NCACensorship, @NRO, @TheBlaze, #APUSH

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Banned Books Week Excerpt: Anal Sex Book for 12 Year Old Girl in Rancho Cucamonga Middle School

In the latest demonstration of just what a hoax is Banned Books Week, a public school rightly removed a book containing inappropriate material including graphic anal sex from its middle school library and is now scouring for more such books.  No doubt they will be labeled as "censors":
RANCHO CUCAMONGA ( — Parents were shocked when they discovered a novel with erotic dialogue was being checked out and read by their children in their middle school’s library. 
The popular novel from the 1980s, “Rabbit is Rich” by famed author John Updike, has a number of graphic sexual scenes many parents say are unacceptable for younger readers to have access to. 
“I wouldn’t even want my kids to read it in high school,” Rancho Cucamonga resident Monica Reyes said. 
Another mother says that her 12-year-old daughter came home from Rancho Cucamonga Middle School one day with the adult novel, which she had checked out from the school’s library. 
The mother took to social media to voice her concern, sharing an erotic excerpt from the book, stating, “My 12 year old daughter brought home this book ‘Rabbit is Rich’ from Rancho Cucamonga Middle School library last week. She started reading it Monday and came to me concerned with the contents that were in the book. As I read it for myself, I became appalled by what I was reading as you can see for yourself. 
“As a concerned parent as to why this book would be in a kids school in the first place, I went directly to the principal’s office the very next day and the district.”

That is the response most people would expect since most people oppose sexually explicit materials in public schools.  Banned Books Week, created by a member of the Board of Directors of the Illinois ACLU who then joined the American Library Association and created the hoax, claims removal of such books is "censorship," 100% of the people who do this are "censors," censors usually act alone or with the support of people such as myself, and no one supports the "censors."

Predictably, Joan Bertin, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, complains about the removal of "literary classics ... like ... John Updike" books from public schools and calls it "censorship."  She decries the "never-ending assault on books in school that contain anything that someone finds controversial, provocative, unpleasant, or offensive":

Could literary classics by Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winning authors like William Faulkner, Toni Morrison, Tony Kushner and John Updike be next on the chopping block? You bet, if we accept the idea that children should be protected from learning about life or fed only sanitized glimpses.

That's right, schools must not protect twelve year old girls from learning the exact details of one way to allow someone to sodomize them and urinate on them and ejaculate on their faces, which is what the Rancho Cucamonga Middle School girl read in the John Updike book, excerpt below.  After all, someone will eventually do this to them, so they might as well learn how to react while "at a safe distance" in public school, which is an actual ALA argument for allowing this.  This from the NCAC, a cosponsor of Banned Books Week.  Why not call it Misogyny and Pedophilia Week?

Part of the hoax of Banned Books Week is to not reveal what inappropriate material is actually being removed.  Even where the claim is made right in the title to reveal such material, it is not done.  It is not done because if people knew the truth, they would agree such material is not for public schools and would have it removed:
Another part of the hoax is to proclaim all the awards a book wins.  Indeed, the John Updike school book won the 1982 National Book Award.  Why are censors trying to keep kids from award winning books?  Who are they to tell others what children can and cannot read?

School Librarians Are Trained To Mislead

Here is an example of directions school librarians are given to mislead people about such materials.  Notice the directions, shown in the graphics below, are written to turn aside questions about the inappropriateness of school material and use them as another opportunity for propaganda, like how libraries may not limit access based on "age" when the US Supreme Court says the exact opposite: "There are substantial Government interests at stake here: The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree."

Notice the cover of "Banned Books" by Robert P. Doyle shows harmless books, not those like the John Updike one in the Rancho Cucamonga Middle School.  Notice the diktat not to engage in discussion on an issue such as pornography in the public school, instead, "Beware of manipulation.  Some reporters may ask leading questions, something like, 'Isn't it true that...?'  Make your own statement":

Media Fears Publishing Excerpts So People Remain Uninformed; I'll Inform Them

I'm going to reveal the truth about this John Updike school book, despite its winning awards, despite the excerpt below being pure porn, a word the American Library Association trains librarians not to use.  It is so outrageously pure porn in this school book that media will not even speak of it.  ALA benefits when media cannot even speak of the matter.  That way people do not really know the depth of the problem.  The school children can read it but the adults cannot discuss it.

So let's all grit our teeth and grind through an actual excerpt from a school book a twelve year old girl was reading until her mom reported the book to the school and the school removed it.  Think of the effect reading such material has on the mind of a young girl.  See if you think keeping a preteen school kid from reading this is "censorship."  There's a lot excerpted because ALA always claims context is important, so I'm providing context, not a single paragraph or two.

I know I'll get criticism and ridicule for reprinting this, but you just don't see this in the main stream media and someone has to do it to explain what is going on in public schools.  This is the kind of material in school books that ALA, NCAC, and many more claim is censorship to remove—you have to read this to believe it—this was in a public school—children actually read this—and Banned Books Week is the hoax needed to drive the ALA/ACLU's agenda ensuring school children retain access to such material:

Except of School Book from Rancho Cucamonga Middle School

Thelma with what breaks upon him like the clatter of an earthquake has come out of the bathroom. She is holding her underclothes in front of her, and with her back to him she sorts the underpants into the dirty pile the Harrisons keep beside the bureau, behind the straw wastebasket, and the bra, clean enough, back into the drawer, folded. This is the second time in this trip, he thinks drowsily, that he has seen her ass. Her body as she turns eclipses the bureau lamp and the front of her gathers shadow to itself, she advances timidly, as if wading into water. Her breasts sway forward as she bends to turn the light he switched off back on. She sits down on the edge of the bed.

His prick is still sleepy. She takes it into her hand. "You're not circumcised."

"No, they somehow weren't doing it at the hospital that day. Or maybe my mother had a theory, I don't know. I never asked. Sorry."

"It's lovely. Like a little bonnet." Sitting on the edge of the bed, more supple naked than he remembers her seeming with clothes on, Thelma bends and takes his prick in her mouth. Her body in the lamplight is a pale patchwork of faint tan and peeling pink and the natural yellowy tint of her skin. Her belly puckers into flat folds like stacked newspapers and the back of her hand as it holds the base of his prick with two fingers shows a dim lightning of blue veins. But her breath is warm and wet and the way that in lamplight individual white hairs snake as if singed through the mass of dull brown makes him want to reach out and stroke her head, or touch the rhythmic hollow in her jaw. He fears, though, interrupting the sensations she is giving him. She lifts a hand quickly to tuck back a piece of her hair, as if to let him better see.

He murmurs, "Beautiful." He is growing thick and long but still she forces her lips each time down to her fingers as they encircle him at his base. To give herself ease she spreads her legs; between her legs, one of them lying aslant across the bed edge, he sees emerging from a pubic bush more delicate and reddish than he would have dreamed a short white string. Unlike Janice's or Cindy's as he imagined it, Thelma's pussy is not opaque; it is a fuzz transparent upon the bruise-colored labia that with their tongue of white string look so lacking and defenseless Harry could cry. She too is near tears, perhaps from the effort of not gagging. She backs off and stares at the staring eye of his glans, swollen free of his foreskin. She pulls up the bonnet again and says crooningly, teasingly, "Such a serious little face." She kisses it lightly, once, twice, flicking her tongue, then bobs again, until it seems she must come up for air. "God," she sighs. "I've wanted to do that for so long. Come. Come, Harry. Come in my mouth. Come in my mouth and all over my face." Her voice sounds husky and mad saying this and all through her words Thelma does not stop gazing at the little slit of his where a single cloudy tear has now appeared. She licks it off.

"Have you really," he asks timidly, "liked me for a while?"

"Years," she says. "Years. And you never noticed. You shit. Always under Janice's thumb and mooning after silly Cindy. Well you know where Cindy is now. She's being screwed by my husband. He didn't want to, he said he'd rather go to bed with me." She snorts, in some grief of self-disgust, and plunges her mouth down again, and in the pinchy rush of sensation as he feels forced against the opening of her throat he wonders if he should accept her invitation.

"Wait," Harry says. "Shouldn't I do something for you first? If I come, it's all over."

"If you come, then you come again."

"Not at my age. I don't think."

"Your age. Always talking about your age." Thelma rests her face on his belly and gazes up at him, for the first time playful, her eyes at right angles to his disconcertingly. He has never noticed their color before: that indeterminate color called hazel but in the strong light overhead, and brightened by all her deep-throating, given a tawny pallor, an unthinking animal translucence. "I'm too excited to come," she tells him. "Anyway, Harry, I'm having my period and they're really bloody, every other month. I'm scared to find out why. In the months in between, these terrible cramps and hardly any show."

"See a doctor," he suggests.

"I see doctors all the time, they're useless. I'm dying, you know that, don't you?"


"Well, maybe that's too dramatic a way of putting it. Nobody knows how long it'll take, and a lot of it depends upon me. The one thing I'm absolutely supposed not to do is go out in the sun. I was crazy to come down here, Ronnie tried to talk me out of it."

"Why did you?"

"Guess. I tell you, I'm crazy, Harry. I got to get you out of my system." And it seems she might make that sob of disgusted grief again, but she has reared up her head to look at his prick. All this talk of death has put it half to sleep again.

"This is this lupus?" he asks.

"Mmm," Thelma says. "Look. See the rash?" She pulls back her hair on both sides. "Isn't it pretty? That's from being so stupid in the sun Friday. I just wanted so badly to be like the rest of you, not to be an invalid. It was terrible Saturday. Your joints ache, your insides don't work. Ronnie offered to take me home for a shot of cortisone."

"He's very nice to you."

"He loves me."

His prick has stiffened again and she bends to it. "Thelma." He has not used her name before, this night. "Let me do something to you. I mean, equal rights and all that."

"You're not going down into all that blood."

"Let me suck these sweet things then." Her nipples are not bumply like Janice's but perfect as a baby's thumb-tips. Since it is his treat now he feels free to reach up and switch off the light over the bed. In the dark her rashes disappear and he can see her smile as she arranges herself to be served. She sits cross-legged, like Cindy did on the boat, women the flexible sex, and puts a pillow in her lap for his head. She puts a finger in his mouth and plays with her nipple and his tongue together. There is a tremble running through her like a radio not quite turned off. His hand finds her ass, its warm dents; there is a kind of glassy texture to Thelma's skin where Janice's has a touch of fine, fine sandpaper. His prick, lightly teased by her fingernails, has come back nicely. "Harry." Her voice presses into his ear. "I want to do something for you so you won't forget me, something you've never had with anybody else. I suppose other women have sucked you off?"

He shakes his head yes, which tugs the flesh of her breast.

"How many have you fucked up the ass?"

He lets her nipple slip from his mouth. "None. Never."

"You and Janice?"

"Oh God no. It never occurred to us."

"Harry. You're not fooling me?"

How dear that was, her old-fashioned "fooling." From talking to all those third-graders. "No, honestly. I thought only queers… Do you and Ronnie?"

"All the time. Well, a lot of the time. He loves it."

"And you?"

"It has its charms."

"Doesn't it hurt? I mean, he's big."

"At first. You use Vaseline. I'll get ours."

"Thelma, wait. Am I up to this?"

She laughs a syllable. "You're up." She slides away into the bathroom and while she is gone he stays enormous. She returns and anoints him thoroughly, with an icy expert touch. Harry shudders. Thelma lies down beside him with her back turned, curls forward as if to be shot from a cannon, and reaches behind to guide him. "Gently."

It seems it won't go, but suddenly it does. The medicinal odor of displaced Vaseline reaches his nostrils. The grip is tight at the base but beyond, where a cunt is all velvety suction and caress, there is no sensation: a void, a pure black box, a casket of perfect nothingness. He is in that void, past her tight ring of muscle. He asks, "May I come?"

"Please do." Her voice sounds faint and broken. Her spine and shoulder blades are taut.

It takes only a few thrusts, while he rubs her scalp with one hand and clamps her hip steady with the other. Where will his come go? Nowhere but mix with her shit. With sweet Thelma's sweet shit. They lie wordless and still together until his prick's slow shrivelling withdraws it. "O.K.," he says. "Thank you. That I won't forget."


"I feel embarrassed. What does it do for you?"

"Makes me feel full of you. Makes me feel fucked up the ass. By lovely Harry Angstrom."

"Thelma," he admits, "I can't believe you're so fond of me. What have I done to deserve it?"

"Just existed. Just shed your light. Haven't you ever noticed, at parties or at the club, how I'm always at your side?"

"Well, not really. There aren't that many sides. I mean, we see you and Ronnie -"

"Janice and Cindy noticed. They knew you were who I'd want."

"Uh - not to, you know, milk this, but what is it about me that turns you on?"

"Oh darling. Everything. Your height and the way you move, as if you're still a skinny twenty-five. The way you never sit down anywhere without making sure there's a way out. Your little provisional smile, like a little boy at some party where the bullies might get him the next minute. Your good humor. You believe in people so - Webb, you hang on his words where nobody else pays 'any attention, and Janice, you're so proud of her it's pathetic. It's not as if she can do anything. Even her tennis, Doris Kaufmann was telling us, really -'

"Well it's nice to see her have fun at something, she's had a kind of dreary life."

"See? You're just terribly generous. You're so grateful to be anywhere, you think that tacky club and that hideous house of Cindy's are heaven. It's wonderful. You're so glad to be alive."

"Well, I mean, considering the alternative

"It kills me. I love you so much for it. And your hands. I've always loved your hands." Having sat up on the edge of the bed, she takes his left hand, lying idle, and kisses the big white moons of each fingernail. "And now your prick, with its little bonnet. Oh Harry I don't care if this kills me, coming down here, tonight is worth it."

That void, inside her. He can't take his mind from what he's discovered, that nothingness seen by his single eye. In the shadows, while humid blue moonlight and the rustle of palms seep through the louvers by the bed, he trusts himself to her as if speaking in prayer, talks to her about himself as he has talked to none other: about Nelson and the grudge he bears the kid and the grudge the boy bears him, and about his daughter, the daughter he thinks he has, grown and ignorant of him. He dares confide to Thelma, because she has let him fuck her up the ass in proof of love, his sense of miracle at being himself, himself instead of somebody else, and his old inkling, now fading in the energy crunch, that there was something that wanted him to find it, that he was here on earth on a kind of assignment.

"How lovely to think that," Thelma says. "It makes you" - the word is hard for her to find - "radiant. And sad." She gives him advice on some points. She thinks he should seek out Ruth and ask her point-blank if that is his daughter, and if so is there anything he can do to help? On the subject of Nelson, she thinks the child's problem may be an extension of Harry's; if he himself did not feel guilty about Jill's death and before that Rebecca's, he would feel less threatened by Nelson and more comfortable and kindly with him. "Remember," she says, "he's just a young man like you once were, looking for his path."

"But he's not like me!" Harry protests, having come at last into a presence where the full horror of this truth, the great falling-off, will be understood. "He's a goddam little Springer, through and through."

Thelma thinks he's more like Harry than he knows. Wanting to learn to hang glide - didn't he recognize himself in that? And the thing with two girls at once. Wasn't he, possibly, a bit jealous of Nelson?

"But I never had the impulse to screw Melanie," he confesses. "Or Pru either, much. They're both out of this world, somehow."

Of course, Thelma says. "You shouldn't want to fuck them. They're your daughters. Or Cindy either. You should want to fuck me. I'm your generation, Harry. I can see you. To those girls you're just an empty heap of years and money."

And, as they drift in talk away from the constellations of his life, she describes her marriage with Ronnie, his insecurities and worries beneath that braggart manner that she knows annoys Harry. "He was never a star like you, he never had that for a moment." She met him fairly well along in her twenties, when she was wondering if she'd die a spinster schoolteacher. Being old as she was, with some experience of men, and with a certain gift for letting go, she was amused by the things he thought of. For their honeymoon breakfast he jerked off into the scrambled eggs and they ate his fried jism with the rest. If you go along with everything on that side of Ronnie, he's wonderfully loyal, and docile, you could say. He has no interest in other women, she knows this for a fact, a curious fact even, given the nature of men. He's been a perfect father. When he was lower down on the totem pole at Schuylkill Mutual, he lost twenty pounds, staying awake nights worrying. Only in these last few years has the weight come back. When the first diagnosis of her lupus came through, he took it worse than she did, in a way. "For a woman past forty, Harry, when you've had children … If some Nazi or somebody came to me and they'd take either me or little Georgie, say - he's the one that's needed most help, so he comes to mind - it wouldn't be a hard choice. For Ronnie I think it might be. To lose me. He thinks what I do for him not every woman would. I suspect he's wrong but there it is." And she admits she likes his cock. But what Harry might not appreciate, being a man, is that a big one like Ronnie's doesn't change size that much when it's hard, just the angle changes. It doesn't go from being a little bonneted sleeping baby to a tall fierce soldier like this. She has worked him up again, idly toying as she talks, while the night outside their louvered window has grown utterly still, the last drunken shout and snatch of music long died, nothing astir but the incessant sighing of the sea and the piping of some high-pitched cricket they have down here. Courteously he offers to fuck her through her blood, and she refuses with an almost virginal fright, so that he wonders if on the excuse of her flow she is not holding this part of herself back from him, aloof from her love and shamelessness, pure for her marriage. She has explained, "When I realized I was falling in love with you, I was so mad at myself, I mean it couldn't contribute to anything. But then I came to see that something must be missing between me and Ronnie, or maybe in any life, so I tried to accept it, and even quietly enjoy it, just watching you. My little hairshirt." He has not kissed her yet on the mouth, but now having guessed at her guilty withholding of herself from being simply fucked he does. Guilt he can relate to. Her lips feel cool and dry, considering. Since she will not admit him to her cunt, as compromise he masturbates her while sitting on her face, glad he thought of washing where he did. Her tongue probes there and her fingers, as cool on top of his as if still filmed with Vaseline, guide his own as they find and then lose and find again the hooded little center that is her. She comes with a smothered cry and arches her back so this darkness at the center of her pale and smooth and unfamiliar form rises hungrily under his eyes, a cloud with a mouth, a fish lunging upwards out of water. Getting her breath, she returns the kindness and with him watches the white liquid lift and collapse in glutinous strings across her hand. She rubs his jism on her face, where it shines like sun lotion. The stillness outside is beginning to brighten, each leaf sharp in the soft air. Drunk on fatigue and selfexposure, he begs her to tell him something that he can do to her that Ronnie has never done. She gets into the bathtub and has him urinate on her. "It's hot!" she exclaims, her sallow skin drummed upon in designs such as men and boys drill in the snow. They reverse the experience, Thelma awkwardly straddling, and having to laugh at her own impotence, looking for the right release in the maze of her womanly insides. Above him as he waits her bush has a masculine jut, but when her stream comes, it dribbles sideways; women cannot aim, he sees. And her claim of heat seems to him exaggerated; it is more like coffee or tea one lets cool too long at the edge of the desk and then must drink in a few gulps, this side of tepid. Having tried together to shower the ammoniac scent of urine off their skins, Thelma and Harry fall asleep among the stripes of dawn now welling through the louvers, they sleep as if not a few more stolen hours but an entire married life of sanctioned intimacy stretches unto death before them.

URL of this page:

On Twitter: @BannedBooksWeek @NCACensorship @OIF @VaselineBrand