Comments

1
You move goalposts very nicely, sir.
2
"McGinn has thus far been a bit of "flop.""

Funny, but you should probably be more careful. McGinn is The Stranger's Mayor after all. I don't think slog writers are supposed to be critical of him.
3
The fake outrage by people who didn't support him, won't support him, and will never accept an agenda that expands transportation choices is almost comical at this point.

"HE SAID HE'D BUILD THE TUNNEL! WHY WON'T HE BUILD IT! HE PROMISED! BAWWWWW! I'M NEVER VOTING FOR HIM EVER!"
4
Just build it, damn it.
5
The real question is, did the mayor engage in symbolic and empty grandstanding on his pet issue, wasting taxpayers' money and serving simply to self-aggrandize his own positions despite the voters' intent? There's no flip-flop; he's consistent, at least. Much like his press conference about the John McWilliams inquest yesterday; a ton of empty empathizing and no actual effectiveness.
6
Uh, Goldy? The "agreement" McGinn was referring to was the Memorandum of Agreement authorized by the City Council back in October 2009. Back in the middle of the mayoral campaign. That's the agreement the Mayor agreed to "uphold and execute." And yes, that agreement exists. The Mayor even went so far to say (from the McGinn for Mayor web site):

It is not the Mayor’s job to withhold the cooperation of city government in executing this agreement.


Most of us would consider a veto the withholding of cooperation.

Flip. And Flop.
7
In legal terms, to "execute" an agreement is to SIGN the agreement - you seem to be talking about IMPLEMENTING an agreement that already is signed. If the council wants to sign an agreement, they can only do so through the mayor or by resolution. He agreed to "execute" (ie., sign) which is part of the process of getting a finalized agreement - and refuses to do so.
8
@6: Cooperation is a two-way street.

If the city said it needed to work on utilities running under your property and refused to give you clear answers, ensure you wouldn't have additional costs to foot, antagonized a tenant of yours (e.g. GSA) and refused to listen to your phone calls (vs. trying to dodge initiatives), would you be pissed? Or would you say "well, it's city utilities, they can do whatever they want".

The Mayor has proposed several questions about this tunnel, from cost-overruns, to ending the cost-overrun provision (which a large number of legislators are keen to support), to asking where transit is and even basic questions like what the State intends to do with traffic in Pioneer Square. They have NOT answered these questions.

You can dance around the idea that they can just do whatever the fuck they want with this project but I live in this city, McGinn lives in this city, and tens of thousands of people questioning the tunnel project live here, too.

We sure as hell have a stake in this and we need answers.
9
You move 'em even better.
10
I agree, "flip-flop" is the wrong term. How about "fucking liar"?

Weeks before the election, here is McGinn promising he won't stand in the way of the tunnel as mayor. This was a calculated effort to siphon pro-tunnel votes from Mallahan. Votes like mine, for example. The strategy paid off and got him (barely) elected.

McGinn broke his promise, a promise which he clearly had no intention of ever keeping. That makes him a "fucking liar".
11
If you want to nitpick his actual words like a lawyer, and he is one, it is not a flop.

What the voters heard, and what his campaign spun it as, was that he didn't like the tunnel but he would step out of the way, not obstruct, and let others lead. Everything he has done since being in office is loudmouth, insert himself and obstruct. To the voters who listened to his campaign message - he flopped.

I voted against him mostly because of this single issue. I didn't believe his change of policy in the campaign. I didn't particularly like Mallahan, but McGinn has been so utterly incompetent on any issue because of his devotion to obstruct the tunnel, that I'm glad I voted against him, and I'm certainly not voting for him again.
12
And what is wrong with Seattle that progressive values like boosting transit, intelligently managing existing roads, supporting alternate transportation and decreasing emissions are controversial? There are some things that are common sense.

You can talk about how not having the tunnel or viaduct will increase emissions, but that's simply a red herring. Building space for more cars brings exactly that. Spending billions on practically cars alone is simply saying that your ideas and solutions for our transportation future hinge on a form of transportation geared almost expressly toward single-users.

The gut reaction to this project for many is intensely personal and rarely involves thoughts outside their own sphere. They're afraid that their commute will increase, their route to work will change, their traffic will increase. What about the bigger picture? There are tens of thousands of future Seattle voters that will shoulder the future burdens of this project, whether monetary or environmental. All our sweeping rhetoric about Seattle Climate Action Now! and other palaver, and we kick a big chance to reduce roadway and boost sensible management of our existing thousands of lane miles of roadway down the road? For what? A gilded option to glide a small subset of the population to-and-fro? A few hundred construction jobs but millions in payback to a small handful of corporate interests?

You don't say "let's reduce emissions by building more roads". You don't say "let's increase transit by not funding it".

And what about this idea that electric cars will save us? Have you seen the efforts to stifle usage of electric cars in this state? From defunding charging stations to attempts by the legislature to boost tabs sky high for those who purchase an electric car?

No, this project isn't part of a larger scheme to save our environment, it's part of an effort to bulldoze the green wall of Seattle that has held firm since the 1970s.

And people are letting it happen. They WANT it to happen.

They're doing so out of fear for safety, fear for traffic, fear for their pocketbooks, but we need to look at the larger picture. We need to know that we have tools to do this without a tunnel, without building a special corridor. We have the ability. We have the smarts. We can do better. We can remove this viaduct quickly, we can get ITS specialists to work, programmers typing and road crews on the streets to fix this non-mess and make Seattle the home of the greenest streets in America.

Yes we can.
13
What @10 said. Oh, and Baconcat @8, any examples of the Mayor actually, you know, cooperating? Like he promised in his campaign? Or is that just a one-way street for everyone but the Mayor?
14
Baconcat @12, the proposed alternative isn't to build fewer roads, it's just to add lanes to I-5 instead of putting them in a tunnel. So get off your high horse with all the "green" bullshit. The "surface" in "surface/transit" alternative should be honestly renamed "freeway." I don't get what's so green about building a wider freeway instead of a tolled tunnel, but maybe you can educate us on that.
15
@13: He's cooperated in every EIS question and answer session since he entered office, his input and questions are throughout the SDEIS. He's also cooperated by explaining the city's administrative stake in this project and preferred action. His job as mayor is to move things forward in the best interest of the city -- in case you weren't aware, that means that he WILL disagree with the Council from time to time. You saw how that worked out with the Panhandling ordinance.

There have been absolutely no compromises made by any party forcing this tunnel on the City. None. They're fighting citizens, artists, environmentalists and even the GSA. All to get this built?

Just because he's said "no" to the project doesn't mean he's been uncooperative.

Your idea of cooperation is laying back and taking it even when you say you don't want to do it.
16
He absolutely acted in a way to deceive the voters about his actual intent right before the election. He made a qualified mealy mouthed assertion he knew could be bent one way by voters that didn't like Mallahan, but did like the tunnel, but then later spun around so that he could claim with a (barely) straight face that he is doing what he said he'd do.

He's quite a player, our mayor. Too bad he can't get anything done. Maybe that's because he has no real sense of the political zeitgeist off of Capitol Hill.
17
@3: You seem to believe that Seattle is made of two groups - militant bicyclists leading the way forward, and car driving psychopathic frat boys holding us back.

Sorry to fuck up your up little comic book world of good vs evil, but I can assure you, there's a very large 3rd group consisting of intelligent, informed, successful, practical-minded, latte-sipping, baby-jogger-pushing liberals who juggle their support for alt transportation, investing in the waterfront, improving overall mobility, and strengthening the local economy, among many other things.

And like it or not, they are going to vote Mayor McTunnel out of office next election.
18
@14: The surface option is a new lane using an existing shoulder on I-5 from Seneca to 520. It also repurposes existing roads to create a surface couplet on the waterfront. It does not require building an entirely new facility or excessive widening as we see with the southern portal.

Here's the fact sheet from WSDOT: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FAF…

That's 2.8 lane miles created (versus repurposed) by the surface/transit hybrid versus more than 10 created (versus repurposed) by the DBT.
19
@17: Explain how the DBT will do any of that? Thanks.
20
@16: I'm sorry, but do you remember how everyone screamed "he's lying" when he made this "flip-flop" and refused to take him at his word? Do you remember how everyone warned that he would simply obstruct the tunnel anyway? Did you watch the debates at all?

And let's get one thing straight here, McGinn is not the sole person opposing this tunnel. We have tens of thousands of people opposed to the tunnel in this city, trying to scapegoat one person over a large base of opposition is dishonest and the highest form of political deception.
21
I for one am grateful to have the Mayor fighting a lonely, yet completely justified battle to protect Seattle's businesses and taxpayers from the undue burden put on this project by a jealous and vindictive legislature.

You say the cost overrun provision is not enforceable, then strike it from the authorizing bill. Only when that is done, will I be OK with this project.
22
And let's get one thing straight here, McGinn is not the sole person opposing this tunnel. We have tens of thousands of people opposed to the tunnel in this city, trying to scapegoat one person over a large base of opposition is dishonest and the highest form of political deception.


I am absolutely willing to scapegoat any person who vetoes a tunnel ordinance.
23
@6 is exactly right. Goldy you're picking a very interesting point to stop your McGinn quote.

You use "any" but McGinn said "the" referring to the agreed to plan.

I'd actually love to hear if this is the rationale McGinn is using. Or does he just own up that he had no intention of following his first flip flop.
24
It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
25
@22: How utterly Orwellian.
26
@19: You mean explain how the DBT is the least evil of the 3 options?

That's been done already. Many times. Reread Licata's memo about the surface option (posted here by Dom), for a good example.
27
He says one thing, does the other and his supporters defend him by using technicalities that make them appear desperate. Its kinda like Bush supporters justifying the war in Iraq by saying they did find 'some' uranium, or 'some 'weapons, its a technicality that doesnt wash at all.
28
@26: The "least evil"?

I think that sums up the problems with pushing ahead with the DBT, thank you so much for that. If tunnel proponents are simply going for the lesser of 3 evils, we can be assured that the sole good of this project is removal of the viaduct itself.

That is what we should do, and we should do it without hesitation. If Minneapolis can successfully navigate a bridge collapse without financial ruin, we can manage our way out of a total immediate removal of the viaduct itself. We have science, we have smarts. The only difference between a catastrophic failure and an orderly removal is death toll, after all.
29
@20: So, you're saying that McGinn was in fact lying, and anyone who trusted his word is a fool?

See, that's funny because I kind of think the lying is the problem, here, not so much the trusting.

In either case, making someone feel like a fool for trusting your word is a doomed political strategy.
30
@27: When you have to try to Godwin someone, you've failed. Especially when you attempt to compare environmentalists, artists, immigrant groups and social justice activists to a hard right winger.

Did you know that Bush pushed ahead on one of the largest road expansion efforts in history, defunding transit and trying to break up funding for alternate modes of transportation? But McGinn opposes more roads and suddenly, he's Bush!

There are no technicalities to his opposition to the tunnel. Like Democratic Senators that voted for the war, he decided that he should not be forced into a false compromise by special interests that demand full compliance with their point of view.
31
@28: I take it you favor the "most evil" option?
32
@29: I see his supposed "flip-flop" as a forced compromise. Nobody would pretend that he would willingly accept the tunnel and anyone who does so is a fool. If you're surprised that he changed his position on moving forward on the tunnel, you aren't paying attention.

Would you characterize Governor Gregoire's decision to NOT tear the viaduct down in 2012 and move teardown back by several years even after saying it had to come down to save lives a "flip-flop"?
33
@31: You're assuming I rank the options in the same way you do. This sort of values judgement is a reflection on you and not me, I'm afraid.

When you say "most evil", you presume to believe that I'm looking for what will do the least harm -- I'm not. I'm looking for the option that will do the most good, and not just for mobility, but for a variety of concerns not limited to what will get 22-30,000 drivers back and forth each day in a city of 620,000 and a downtown worker population of 200,000.
34
@21, I'm grateful to have him, too. I'd vote for him yet a third time in a heartbeat, if he doesn't attract any better opponents than last time.

But remember, as Baconcat pointed out, he's not fighting a "lonely" battle - he has tens of thousands cheering him in that spotlight he's created.

That there are tens of thousands who rather can't wait for him to move on to something else, well, that's fine too. A new politician has to build a base somehow, and this is what he's chosen.
35
@34: Um, well: they are working on plenty.

36
Baconcat, just to be crystal clear about your post @28, are you suggesting we should remove the viaduct without any plans in place to replace it in some manner?

Also, Godwin's law refers to nazis, not George W. Bush. Splitting hairs, I know.
37
@25: A lame attempt at humor. I meant to say I was absolutely willing to scapegoat any person, including the Mayor, who vetoes a tunnel ordinance. The point being that the Mayor isn't just "one person," Baconcat, he's the Mayor, and he vetoed an ordinance. So of course he is the one who is going to be the focus of attention. Pointing that out is not, in fact, "dishonest and the highest form of political deception." Go take your meds, then log in again as Will. We miss him.
38
@35, I don't mean to imply he's sitting on his hands - I'm happy with so much of what he does. I meant "move on to something else" to suggest that he could easily find a more broadly convincing wedge if he needs one.
39
@32: Fair enough. Those of us who believed McGinn's lies are fools. I think McGinn and his supporters should say as much when questioned about this during the next campaign. Rest assured, no one is going to be fooled by him again.

@33: Huh? I look at the costs and benefits of each option across an array of factors, including the economy, mobility, environment, and quality of life in the city. In my opinion, the DBT has the best cost/benefit ratio among a set of imperfect choices - hence, the "least evil" comment.
40
I for one don't give a shit if you call him a flip flopper or not. Did he say he wouldn't object to the plan before or after all the details emerged about how terrible of an idea it is? You know- the exorbitant costs for not a lot of use, the state not covering the budget if it goes over (which it likely will), the literally murky details regarding the stability of the land and the risk to the buildings that are on top of or near the dig site, the unreliability of the machines used to bore tunnels? He's questioning this preposterous plan and that's all I care about. I voted for him because he seems to have some goddamn common sense. If he changed his mind about something after looking at it more in depth, then who the fuck cares as long as it is the right thing to do? Would you rather just let people go ramming huge impact project like this one through without having someone asking the tough questions and looking for other solutions if the answers didn't make sense? It's mind boggling to me if you would answer yes to that question.
41
Wow, what a bunch of mealy mouthed justifications. This is the rhetorical equivalent of being able to bend far enough to kiss your own ass out of both sides of your mouth.

The least you could do is convince us that McGinn had to reverse his position. Convincing us he didn't reverse his position? That's like raping us, robbing us and then asking us how we enjoyed the date you took us on.

I probably have more analogies in here somewhere.
45
While I try not to think of the Mayor much (... only Seattle ...), in this case his position is supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

Unlike "Whimpering Dog" Satterberg.
46
I support McGinn on the tunnel. I'm just depressed that he's probably leading a losing battle, because the rest of the political establishment has gone stark raving crazy for a pointless freeway.
47
@41: it's like rape? What.
48
My preferred harsh words to sling at the Mayor are "big fat liar," anything else is too elegant.
49
Goldy there are enough trolls on slog. Besides, McGinn and his team are way better at explaining themselves than you are.
50
So let's go back to this comparing a political shift to rape. Would you consider Senator Patty Murray voting for then opposing war like "ape? Would you consider her prior support for DADT then opposition to the same to be like rape? Is Governor Gregoire promising to tear the tunnel down by 2012 then changing her position like rape?

As loudly as I've differed in the past to the pro-roads rhetoric, I've given the benefit of a doubt to supporters. This? This sort of jumps the shark.

Let's see, opposing the tunnel is like rape, it's like George W. Bush, it's lying. Are you people listening to yourselves? C'mon, have some decency.
51
The guy is a liar, and it doesn't matter what a handful of people with deeply-entrenched beliefs who are willing to apologize anything on behalf of the mayor. The bottom line is he made a big statement a couple weeks before the election that sounded like he was no longer running on a platform of opposition to the tunnel. It was a BIG DEAL. A lot of anti-tunnel people were devastated by it. And a lot of voters who were on the fence (like myself) were willing to vote for him because the tunnel BS was the one issue making us want to vote for Mallahan. So yeah, to your average voter, who is sick of hearing about the tunnel and just wants to move on -- yes, he seems like a liar.
52
It's interesting that any political shift is called lying.

Obama says he believes god is in the mix when it comes to marriage, do we want him to keep his word?

Dan Savage supported the war in Iraq, should he go back to his original position?

The Seattle Times has consistently opposed transit funding, are we going to hold them to that for fear of lying?

This grasping at straws by screaming "liar" is getting old. None of you tunnel supporters believed him at the time, and polls showed the flip actually hurt McGinn. You can stop suggesting that he only won because of his softened position. You know it's not true, and when you flog something that isn't true...
53
Baconcat, normally I enjoy your arguments and nearly all the time I agree with you, but here you're actually sounding like the unhinged one - you're putting loaded words into others mouths.

Take a step back, let's get beyond the tunnel rhetoric about how it's not justified, how awful, horrible, no good, very bad day it is, and concentrate on this post itself - the mayor said he wasn't going to obstruct the tunnel to get votes and it turns out he did exactly the opposite. Goldy's twisted semantic defense really only makes that more obvious.

So yes, those of us who took him at his word on this (and, in my case, working on getting light rail to West Seattle) have been made fools of and we know not to trust the Mayor on anything he says going forward. You seem to think that the tunnel is so evil that this justifies his lying to the voters and you're entitled to that opinion... it's just sad to see you go apeshit because others don't agree with you on that.
54
And somehow Mallahan was at 44% to McGinn's 36% and yet still lost. Huh. I wonder how that happened. Maybe in the end those undecided voters looked at what McGinn had said about the tunnel and decided to go with him based on that?

FWIW, I'm not a tunnel supporter and I have concerns about it, but getting consensus and actually moving forward on anything in this city is hellish and the viaduct needs to come down and be replaced by something. From my perspective, all of the options have risks attached to them - not the same risks, but risks just the same.

The city has decided on the tunnel and gotten nearly all the various power players in the state to support it (albeit with caveats like the overrun provision). It's moving forward. I'm tired of the do nothingness, I support moving forward, even if it's not the perfect option. But I also think there IS NO PERFECT OPTION. When it comes the tunnel, I'm playing the pragmatist, in the exact same way I did when I voted for Kerry.
55
The problem is this, Donolectic: screaming "liar" and "flip-flop" and "just build it" ignores a pretty justified opposition by the Mayor that's balanced by his right as an independent arm of City Government (which is why saying "the city has decided" is flawed) and a general disquiet with the project itself.

For example, various polls actually support McGinn in his opposition to moving forward at present without certain resolutions -- and these polls support a referendum on the matter.

Many voters actually like the tunnel -- neck and neck with opposition, in fact -- and more than likely many of them do so because it's "moving forward", but the way it's being administered is apparently fairly unpopular. From the looks of things, voters are willing to kill a plan that does not conform to the promises of "no overruns".

It's unsurprising that McGinn would return to his initial opposition, given these circumstances.

That being said, would a second normal session elapsing without removal of 2009's cost overrun provision being removed be construed as lying on the part of legislators who have claimed they will work to get it removed? Would the lack of any legislation to that effect mean that those who promised to have it removed this session are liars? And those that promised removal last session?

Can we use this hardball rhetoric to suggest that any legislator that proposed to remove the language but has not (and ultimately does not) is a liar?

I can disagree with your calling him a liar just as readily as you can disagree with my defense. Suggesting otherwise is hilariously wrongheaded.
56
@55: Really? You can't see the difference between a politician who has a change of heart, and a politician who intentionally deceives voters in order to get elected?

Well, I can, and I call the latter a "fucking liar".

57
@56: The difference lies entirely between your ears.
58
@57 - Sorry Bacon, gotta agree with seandr on this one.
59
About the tunnel, proof that democracy is a slogan and that big money has this country mesmerized. What we need to do is create resource pools for small business funding and development. This will allow a diverse and vibrant, sustainable economic system that can turn from the archaic, exploitative, industrial corporate model that dictates 'decisions' based on profits over all else.

Global bullies need reprimands not subsidized encouragement.

PS who makes the $ on the tunnel? When things don't make sense I look to find out who or what really benefis. Bingo!
60
Whoa, the governing agents in the USA are controlled by subsidized big business interests...hence the subsidies. Like, who passed the laws and regulations that abetted the process?
The tunnel is a question of who or what really benefits. Follow the money. If you consider that tax payers have said no to the tunnel several times, you might ask yourselves -democracy, where?
Until we create economic diversity via resource pooling for funds and development that will free us from the post industrial exploit model, we enable the interests of the few to override the benefit of the majority. Today’s knowledge points to a different more sustainable course.
Social equity and fair play worked in grade school...so why let the bullies run amuck now?
61
Baconcat - I wasn't comparing mcginn's reversal to rape. I was comparing goldy's attempt to convince us McGinn didn't flop flop to calling a robbery-rape a "date." see, I was really really trying to dramatize how preposterously indefensible I feel goldy's position is.
62
@61: that's not any better.
63
@55, what various polls show is that Seattle can't make up it's collective mind and there is no option that a majority of people support. Ten years of the Seattle Way of endless talk, polls, community forums, hot air and bullshit has failed.

Since the Nisqually Earthquake we've gone through three mayors, five councils and two governors. We elected them to lead and make decisions. Some of those ain't going to be popular and may be in opposition to popular support - particularly when no option does have majority support.

So go ahead and hold initiatives and references denying support. In the end it just delays any decision from ever occurring. What all this obstructionism and denial IS NOT DOING is creating any positive support or consensus around any alternative. It's been ten years. Enough.
64
@63: Well how about we tear down the viaduct NOW?

Oh, no, you won't do that because that's the worst thing -- not because of the potential for traffic snarls, but because it could very well prove the general scientific suggestion that removing something like the AWV could be a non-issue.

We saw it when WSDOT basically made I-5 unusable for days and days in 2007. Why? Because drivers adapt. That would essentially make all this wrangling "I win, you lose" battling over a replacement option moot. This is why nobody wants to actually just shut the thing down, they want their grand plan to come to fruition so they can gloat about it, and no side is immune to this. Gregoire wants her cash-cow tunnel and McGinn wants his green-cred Surface+Transit.

Just removing the damn thing is probably the most revolutionary and most successful plan out there.

And you say "we elected them to make decisions" forgetting that all these arms of government are independent. Did we elect Governor Gregoire and the legislature to slash Basic Health? To sign DOMA into law? Did we elect Rob McKenna to challenge HCR? If I had to guess, I'd say Seattle voters are more inclined to have them do the progressive thing.

So keep screaming "SEATTLE WAY" and pretend that it's obstruction of good... in reality, it's an attempt to stave off status quo and bring a more progressive solution to bear.
65
@64
That alternative was discussed and rejected and was never seriously considered. Keep tilting at windmills.

McGinn is the third mayor since the earthquake. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Since he doesn't agree with the tunnel, he won't lead or follow, and promised to get out of the way. What he's done since that promise is obstruct.

What the "Seattle Way" has shown is that it is always possible to kill, or at delay, solutions with mixed results for better or worse in the end. For me, the tunnel is the progressive solution.
66
It'll be great when this fucking thing is dug. While it isn't my favorite option, I'm tired of Seattle having a third rate infrastructure due to dithering, diddling and voting multiple times.
67
@65: So...tearing down the viaduct isn't urgent anymore? Nice flip-flop! Bravo :)
68
@67 tearing down the viaduct has already started, because we have plans in place to replace it. Nice try though.
69
@68: And what year will that be completed? Note that I said urgent, but don't let that stop you from your typical ... whatever you call what you do when you start typing and don't know when to stop.

In case you're bored with your own cluelessness like the rest of the world, remember Gregoire promising a 2012 teardown? Remember shrieks of "we need to tear it down now!!!" in 2007? And, well, since long before that? Were those people lying or did the political landscape simply change? Was it a flip flop or did they simply respond to the current climate? What happened to the urgency that started this mess in the first place? The one where we're trying to keep people from being crushed?

Is a tunnel worth more than a handful of lives? Please, enlighten us.
70
Seattle process is not known for its urgency. In any real city it would have been torn down and replaced with in five years, not 15.

It may not be completed by 2012, but at least something is GETTING DONE NOW, instead of obstruction, delay and more talk, cuz that's all you and the mayor want.
71
And I suppose the Govn'r could still order it torn down if McGinn keeps dawdling and obstructing. Is that what you're after?
72
Ha, ha! Bacon, still at this? Love it! You point out that we didn't need I-5 when the expansion joints were being repaired, don't need SR 99, hell, maybe we don't need any express routes anywhere between Oregon and Canada. And the Mayor is "an independent arm of City Government" but "to scapegoat one person [poor Mike!] over a large base of opposition is dishonest and the highest form of political deception." Wow! Good work, Sloggers! You've topped the Big Lie! Bacon, is someone paying you to write this? (Hint: Leno pays more for the real comedy stuff).

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.