December 02, 2006
Well-known GOP activist Bi-partisan government insider held in sex-predator sting

Today's Seattle Times updates yesterday's irresponsibly biased article about former county employee Larry Corrigan, headlined "Well-known GOP activist held in sex-predator sting" Today's article admits that Corrigan was active in campaigns for a wide variety of politicians:

including Maleng, U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, former City Attorney Mark Sidran and judges Mary Yu, Bobbe Bridge and Faith Ireland.
Sidran, Yu, Bridge and Ireland aren't exactly Republicans. And Corrigan was most active for Reichert in his campaign for the non-partisan Sheriff's office. It was Ron Sims who appointed Reichert in spring 1997 expecting him to run in the fall.

If Corrigan is guilty as alleged he should be excreted from politics no matter which party he favors. But it was pretty shameless of the Times to rush to headline him as a "GOP activist" when he's really a bi-partisan government insider.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 02, 2006 12:32 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Another supporter of right-wing political figures gets nailed doing exactly the opposite of right-wing preaching. Yawn. The liberal media even treats this as "news"-- that just shows their bias. From now on, we'll just assume that anyone who hectors us about public morality-- or who supports such bloviation-- is just making a thinly-veiled confession of hos own immoral desires or behavoir.

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 2, 2006 01:51 PM
2. Katomar's response at another thread was very good, so I am posting it again:
14. I think the discussion of political affiliation for these folks is missing a really huge "bigger picture". That picture should prompt some introspection, asking the question: what have we done to produce a society that feels free, even if they are public figures, to participate in, for example, sexual stalking of young girls? What we have done is socially and judicially loosen all standards of behavior, and endorsed a personal sense of entitlement in everyone. The sixties began a group think era of no accountability for anyone. It continues today and will become all pervasive unless we all say stop. We all need to learn that saying NO is not only very simple, it is liberating. Our freedoms lie not in protecting every single opinion and abberation in existence, but in protecting standards of behavior and ensuring that those who break our laws or ignore those standards are shunned and pay the price for their actions.

Posted by katomar at December 2, 2006 08:21 AM

Posted by: WVH on December 2, 2006 02:23 PM
3. So your "Ron Sims campaign contributor held in sex sting" blog title is not "irresponsibly biased"? I hate to be in the position of defending the libs, but your hypocrisy is glaring. I realize we are talking about the difference between a blog and a major newspaper, however, those in glass houses are never in a good position to be throwing stones.

Posted by: TedR on December 2, 2006 02:57 PM
4. I'd be interested in hearing why Sidran isn't exactly a Republican.

What, bible not shoved far enough up his butt to suit the evangetards?

Posted by: H Moul on December 2, 2006 02:57 PM
5. Glad that I am an independent. H. Moul, being slightly retarded, please explain your comment to stupid me. Is the point the label, is the point the behavior, is the point that hypocrisy is found in all quarters and segments? Katamar is at least providing analysis.

Posted by: WVH on December 2, 2006 03:19 PM
6. TedR:
So your "Ron Sims campaign contributor held in sex sting" blog title is not "irresponsibly biased"?
That was a satiric comment on the Times headline. Is my irony so subtle that I need to start flagging it as such?

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 2, 2006 03:25 PM
7. "The sixties began a group think era of no accountability for anyone. It continues today and will become all pervasive unless we all say stop."

Child predation existed for many centuries. Over the past few decades, we've made great strides in punishing even wealthy, powerful men who rape children. (In the past, their crimes were concealed.) Sexual liberation for gays, and for single straight persons, has nothing to do with preying upon children. Stop trying to blame liberalism for right-wing child molesters.

"We all need to learn that saying NO is not only very simple, it is liberating. Our freedoms lie not in protecting every single opinion and abberation in existence, but in protecting standards of behavior and ensuring that those who break our laws or ignore those standards are shunned and pay the price for their actions."

Actually, we should protect every opinion; it's harmful behavior we should punish. Equating beliefs with actions can lead to repression, covering up the latent sickness which leads to child predation. We need to expose all such hidden desires, not condemn beliefs.

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 2, 2006 03:31 PM
8. What about the "Man Boy Love Association" or wahtever their name is. I think they are involved in an abuse case in Mass. Should we protect their beliefs that is OK to have sex with children because the children benefit from the experience?

Posted by: WVH on December 2, 2006 05:10 PM
9. What about the "Man Boy Love Association" or wahtever their name is. I think they are involved in an abuse case in Mass. Should we protect their beliefs that is OK to have sex with children because the children benefit from the experience?

Posted by: WVH on December 2, 2006 05:10 PM
10. After I posted I had a light bulb moment Stefan, and the satire hit me. So, it wasn't all that subtle as much as I am too serious! :)

Posted by: TedR on December 2, 2006 07:12 PM
11. Paddy: You must have learned to parse from slick Willie! I was commenting on behavior, not freedom of speech or opinon. We seem to have started endorsing and even elevating, for instance, every opinon and affiliation, even those which are illogical and abhorrent to many, as well as those that support illegalities, rather than focus on standards of behavior that benefit us all. WVH is right in his example of NAMBLA. That is an organization which practices it's freedom of opinon and speech to the extent of publishing instructions on how to groom and seduce young boys. Care to draw a line between freedom of speech and incenting illegal behavior? I'd say the connection between belief and action is pretty strong there. I don't care what anyone's opinion is about anything. That's their business. I care about their behavior and society's reaction to it.

Posted by: kattomar on December 2, 2006 07:39 PM
12. The damage here has already been done. This kind of deal happens damn near on a daily basis. I've seen these kinds of hit jobs before in Drive-By Media outlets like the New York Times, the L.A. Times, etc. In the first article, the GOP connection was trumpeted in a 24 point headline for all to see, even to the casual observer. They know that the vast majority of people skim the paper, digesting just the headlines on their way to the "Style", "Technology" or comics sections. I'm sure a lot of us have seen headlines that insinuate things against conservatives or negative about conservative policies that never show-up in the copy of the article. Same deal. Reporting on WMD in Iraq got this kind of treatment and now that the truth is out, who saw that? Not very many.

How many people who saw the GOP incriminating headline ever saw the second, low key, headline? Who even read the second article? The second wasn't nearly as riveting as the first. How deep was the second article buried compared to the first? B-14 versus A-1?

As long as the Drive-By Media vote 90% Democrat, this stuff will be happening.

Posted by: G Jiggy on December 2, 2006 07:45 PM
13. Folks, the question is, by what standard? The reason all beliefs are allowed can be attributed to the fact that there is no standard. What is wrong and what is right? Is NAMBLA wrong? (I believe so). Is killing wrong? Is rape wrong? By what standard are they wrong? Because we don't like it? I don't like peas, should they be illegal? Until you have a standard, you only have a moving mass of opinion that can accept groups like NAMBLA - if everything goes, everything goes. They have to, because if they don't they would have to defend why. They can't defend it, because they have no standard.

Posted by: TedR on December 2, 2006 07:59 PM
14. The local media shows their bias and corruption by lieing about Corrigan. They are clearly trying to slime the Republicans about this guy who was not GOP activist, but an activist for various causes that were independent of political party. They are out to take advantage of the belief that they can get away with this - no controlling authority. Their standards are in the toilet...

Corrigan should be behind bars and the MSM has no shame about lieing. Keep hitting them over the head whenever they lie and they will pay the consequences, but not unless WE make noise about garbage like this.

Posted by: KS on December 2, 2006 08:06 PM
15. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Why is OK for Republicans to SwiftBoat (lie and deceive) but when the paper, correctly I might add, categorizes a political insider as a GOP opperative you have a snit? This man's contributions run about 80% GOP and 20% DEM.

Wait, I know the answer. You just wish to divorce yourselves from yet another Republican pervert and in the process you want to make it appear as if he is a Democrat thereby disparaging the Dems. You get two for one that way.

Accept the fact that this pervert is one of your own and move on. No one believes that all Republicans are perverts. Nope. Just the elected and appointed ones.

I know the censors are going to snip this, but someone has to speak up.

Posted by: frogtalk4u on December 2, 2006 08:30 PM
16. I must have missed the part of the story where Bill Clinton Pardoned Rep. Mel Reynolds (D) a convicted Child Molester and it's "all good". Is it that he deserved a pardon because of his service to the community? Or was it because he was a D ? Have you moved on yet Froggy?

Posted by: Huh? on December 2, 2006 09:03 PM
17. Stefan, why can't you just admit that Corrigan was an Republican insider but the Truth is that Republican insiders help out Democratic insiders all the time. And that is why you can't trust Republican insiders especially Republican politicians.

Funny, but I don't think it is true so much the other way around. That is why I believe that Democrats are more in it for principles (or what they would call principles, for we would judge what they stand for differently) whereas most Republicans when you talk about the insiders and especially the politicians are just in it for the power and the personal gain.

Posted by: Susan on December 2, 2006 09:28 PM
18. Please explain why you are comparing apples and diesel locomotives? Why do you R's continue to bring up Clinton in every discussion? The man has been out of office for 6 years. The government we have is the work of the R's who have been in the majority that entire time(though that ends next month....friendly reminder).

I must have missed the part of the story where Bush is the last man standing, anywhere in the universe, who believes "Staying the Course" is still going to work. I must have missed the part of the story where the vice-president of the United States shoots a man in the face and not only are charges not brought, but there is no investigation and the incident is expunged from the record, Its all good though. Was that because he was an R?

Posted by: frogtalk4u on December 2, 2006 09:30 PM
19. Froggy and others in this discussion have hit on the reason we get low life in office.

"No one believes that all Republicans are perverts. Nope. Just the elected and appointed ones."

As long as a majority think it is not worth running for office as you will be called a pervert, only the perverts will run. Doesn't take to long and they reach the White House, Congress, our schools, our churches, etc.

We aught to be cleaning it up, starting with teaching morals in school...is is not right to steal, cheat, take drugs, be a pervert, kill, rob,abort; maybe in another 20 years we can get good politicians!

Posted by: Old Sgt on December 2, 2006 09:44 PM
20. Old Sgt at 22:

I was with you right up until you got to abortion. The other "sins" you mention are all crimes against the state. PLEASE lets just agree to disagree on the abortion issue. We can talk all night about it, but neither of us is going to change the others mind.

Posted by: frogtalk4u on December 2, 2006 09:48 PM
21. Well Froggy I guess we keep bringing it up A) because it's true. B) It goes to the character of Bill's party because they didn't raise a stink about it. C) Corrigan is apparently a pervert and is going to get what he deserves and his party affiliation had nothing of relevance to the story, yet it became a headline. Conversely the only logical reason Mel Reynolds was pardoned for his sex acts with minors is because of his political affiliation, yet no outrage, no headlines.

Say Froggy next time you hop on down to the King County Courthouse, you might want to drop in on the office of Financial Management and ask if the analyst that was the assistant coach over at Chief Sealth who was dismissed for fraud and recruiting out of district players is still on the job. It's always comforting to know who is minding the books in Simsville. Pssst, I hear he was a Democrat too.

Posted by: Huh? on December 2, 2006 09:50 PM
22. Huh? at 25

We can do this all night if you wish. According to your logic, once character is called into question, you are not qualified to be on the public payroll.

Let me start at the top: George W.Bush, arrested for DUI and known to have skirted on his service commitment.

Posted by: frogtalk4u on December 2, 2006 09:56 PM
23. CnR at 28 and 23,

Huh?

Posted by: frogtalk4u on December 2, 2006 10:04 PM
24. I posted this on another thread, but Susan's comments that dems are in it for principles, well, i just couldn't resist. I am a conservative independent.
Back to regular view • Print this page
Why are conservatives more generous to poor?
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/157420,CST-EDT-BILL02.article)
December 2, 2006

So what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30 percent more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called Who Really Cares, by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives.

The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about ''nurturing'' people who need help. The ''tax the rich'' crew can't yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money.

That may be unfair but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is ''income redistribution,'' that is big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed ''economic justice,'' things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security.

But a funny thing happened on the way to socialism. Americans who believe in ''income redistribution'' give 75 percent less to charity than Americans who don't, according to Brooks. That is a stunning differential.

I believe this is a religious thing. Secular-progressives believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and a vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it's all about you -- then you are thinking about you -- not about poor Dave down the street.

But devoted Christians, Jews and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in Scripture. Jesus was a huge ''help your neighbor'' guy. For J.C., it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession.

The statistics say that religious Americans give four times more money to charity each year than secular people and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here's another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation's blood supply would rise 45 percent.

So in this season of giving, Christmas -- a word some liberals don't like to say -- it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portray conservatives as mean, cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden. But, as the tax returns of multimillionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The vice president gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little.

So the next time you hear a big-government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned in this column. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing. What's left is not even close.
© Copyright 2006 Sun-Times News Group | User Agreement and Privacy Policy

So much for principles.

Posted by: WVH on December 2, 2006 10:23 PM
25. Froggy allow me to start at the bottom. Bill Clinton pardoned a convicted Child Molester because he was a Democratic Representative, not because he was innocent. And nobody in his party thought there was a problem with that, period. Corrigan is apparently a pervert who worked on several Republican campaigns and will be prosecuted to the fullest by a Republican prosecutor. No pardon. I do not have a problem with justice being served, do you?

As to character being a condition of public service I can only hope that if someone found out that a person in a position of public Fiscal Responsiblity was dismissed for Fraud in
another position, it might be of some concern.
Apparently you would let this guy do your taxes.
The whole point is that is not his party affiliation, it's his illegal behavior that should have been the lead in the article.

Posted by: Huh? on December 2, 2006 10:28 PM
26. Froggy and Susan are cherry picking. Corrigan was a fund raiser for former City Attorney Mark Sidran and judges Mary Yu, Bobbe Bridge and Faith Ireland - ALL DEMOCRATS !

You are intellectually dishonest, unless you can admit that Corrigan was as much of a Democrat as a Republican operative. Did Goldstein send you over here ? Corrigan is a scumbag no matter what party he is affiliated with - so stop whining about an attempt to alternatively report something that the Times f***ed up in the first place. Stop bringing up GW Bush, and the Repubs can stop bringing up Clinton - irrelevant in both cases !

Posted by: KS on December 2, 2006 10:36 PM
27. #28 - You can try and justify principles, but you are pitting one party against the other - the Dems are the party in power in this state and are just as much a culture of corruption here as the Republicans are/were back in DC. Both parties are out of touch in alot of ways with their constituents and corrupt - thanks to things out of our control.

Posted by: KS on December 2, 2006 10:43 PM
28. Susan,

What Kool-aid are you drinking? Both parties are out of touch with their consituents. Back in the day when I was a PC and involved in dem party politics, one would work their way up the food chain. Eventually, you get invited to $500 fundraiser this, $1,500 fundraiser that. I thought the dem constituent was middle class or working folks. Not to mention those poor underprivledged kids in failing schools. I assume that Bruce and Ivan are probably dems, but they wouldn't even remotely consider solutions to help kids out of failing schools. How many working class folks do you know that go to $1,500 and above fundraisers? I'll let the pubbies make their own comments.

Posted by: WVH on December 2, 2006 11:09 PM
29. THANK YOU WVH! I think it's really hard for secularists and progressives to have any firm standards because absolutely nothing personally compels them to live up to standards. So we get relativism, nuances, and gray areas because that makes everything fluid and easy.

Posted by: katomar on December 2, 2006 11:14 PM
30. Like always. Liberals will point the fingers at Conservatives to make them look bad. I have seen the politics of Personnal Destruction in use for over a decade now. Always destroy a person and blame the other party. I find that when this is done By politicians or newspapers that every fault they claim for Republicans is something that they do. That way the say well the Republicans do it so it is OK for us to continue to do it. When I see Republican Activist That means Democrats are guilty of something really bad and they want to cover it up. I wonder what is really happening.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on December 2, 2006 11:16 PM
31. Susan: If the Democrats are honest to the people who help them get elected, why did we see so many Democrats in this last election, nationally, suddenly shift toward the center and right, start quoting scripture, supporting gun rights, and, heaven forbid, some of them even came out against abortion! That's honesty with their base? I don't think so. I think that's political expediency. They were courting wavering Republican votes, and their base is now dang mad about it!

Posted by: katomar on December 2, 2006 11:27 PM
32. Baloney. The Republican, I mean, the Southern party, is the party the hypocrites flock to. Reichert is not the only well known Repub supported by this GOP insider. He supports the Repub Maleng, among others. This abuser, like Mark Foley & Ted Haggart, supports your Southern Party. Period. Accept it.

Posted by: RationalAmerican on December 2, 2006 11:36 PM
33. Susan,

Are you and Nancy of the "Onward Christian Soldiers" thread related? Hope this is not another case of trying to teach a mule to tango.

Posted by: WVH on December 2, 2006 11:59 PM
34. CnR
43. So WVH you support Corrigan?
You wouldn't happen to work in the Secretary of State's office would you now?

As I have said numerous times, I am an independent because I believe that we have the best government money can buy.
I do not work for the Secretary of State, although
I would not have a problem working there.
I do not support corruption in any form. My particular interest is making sure that low income kids from deprived backgrounds get a good basic education, so they have a chance at a good life. I don't see the dems moving in the direction to help these kids because of the stakeholders in the dem party and they rely on a permanent victim class.
I don't see the pubblies helping these kids out, incidently, competiton in education will help all kids, because they are gutless.
I believe in a government that helps people and has some ethical foundtion.

Posted by: WVH on December 3, 2006 12:16 AM
35. CnR
Are you related to Susan and Nancy?

Posted by: WVH on December 3, 2006 12:24 AM
36. Stefan,

Give it up the man is a Republican.

Posted by: me on December 3, 2006 12:34 AM
37. My interest is in helping low income kids get a good education. Hey CnR is that the sound of your wings flapping toward the moon?

Posted by: WVH on December 3, 2006 12:36 AM
38. CnR
I am an educator. I don't know what axe to grind that you have with the prosecutor, but that is your business. As I said on another thread, when dealing with those who flap their winds toward the moon. Good night, Gracie.

Posted by: WVH on December 3, 2006 12:57 AM
39. frog 18: "The man has been out of office for 6 years."

Bill? you kidding? i know of no other pres that just CANT stay out of the limelight & interfere with a current admin to seek MORE attention. time's up. he had his day. history wont be re-written to a gentler version just because you insist on a camera angle. now PLEASE leave the stage!

pres's used to respect each other & traditions & leave when their time was up. reason why HE keeps popping up in blogs is his own past behavior, dalliances & lack of judgement & that famous "is is" dancing to try to fool the public while at the top helm of the Country. no one else is to blame for his own free actions.

party aside, any crook or illegal actor is just that. i want anyone punished accordingly. i care about actions & intergity FIRST, not parties.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 3, 2006 09:03 AM
40. Sorry folks, "CnR", "Susan", "Sue" and "Ted" are the same undermedicated weirdo who's been spamming the comments here under a variety of fake names for months, only to make the same idiotic statement, i.e. "mainstream Republicans are all like Ted Bundy". It's past the point of weighing in with fair comment, she's merely a nuisance. Please ignore her. I delete her comments when I can.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 3, 2006 09:25 AM
41. Definition: 'Swift Boat' verb - To tell the truth

Posted by: sillyguy on December 3, 2006 09:25 AM
42. CnR, Sue, Susan, Ted: Pssst...no one's listening...

Posted by: katomar on December 3, 2006 02:02 PM
43. Just to be clear, there is a sane Ted here as well I don't think Stefan was referring to me in his last post. I have posted here I mere 5 or 6 times and my family tells me that I am not in need of any meds, at least for now.

Posted by: TedR on December 3, 2006 02:29 PM
44. TedR, don't worry, you're cool. You're not the poseur "Ted" I was referring to above.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 3, 2006 02:37 PM
45. "What about the "Man Boy Love Association" or wahtever their name is. I think they are involved in an abuse case in Mass. "

We should encourage every person with pedopheliac desires to make those desires known publicly. These persons desperately need treatment, and we all need to know who they are, so that we can protect children from them.

"Should we protect their beliefs that is OK to have sex with children because the children benefit from the experience?"

We should denounce such lies every time we hear them. Anyone who touches a child with such intent should be punished to the fullest extent of a very tough law. Americans have the right to odious beliefs, so long as we do not act upon them. Many religious-right figures openly state that Jews (and others) will go straight to hell upon death. These "moral leaders" can preach such hate from every one of their pulpits, every week, but any attempt at forced conversions of Jewish (or other) children should get prosecuted.

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 3, 2006 08:39 PM
46. #45
At present, what religious leaders are forcing others to convert? Do you even believe in heaven or hell? If you don't believe in the concepts, do you care what someone says regarding the subject? The First Amendment protects speech and religious speech. The Constitution does not protect NAMBLA's right to assault children.

Posted by: WVH on December 3, 2006 09:39 PM
47. "At present, what religious leaders are forcing others to convert?"

At present, none. The forced conversions of Jewish children are a part of European history, back when "Europe" was called "Christendom". Religious-right preachers in the modern USA proclaim that all but their own followers will suffer eternal torment. Logically, forcibly converting the children of other faiths will save those kids from eternal torment, and thusbecomes the only humane option. "If you accept his assumptions, even a madman becomes reasonable."

"Do you even believe in heaven or hell?"

It matters not what I believe. We here discuss the aberrant beliefs of preachers and pedophiles, neither of whose beliefs I support. (But I respect their rights to hold, and to proclaim, those beliefs.)

"If you don't believe in the concepts, do you care what someone says regarding the subject? The First Amendment protects speech and religious speech. The Constitution does not protect NAMBLA's right to assault children."

Of course it does not. It protects unpopular speech, not harmful actions. Every child molester should receive the harshest possible sentence. Every potential child molester (like former Rep. Foley) should receive treatment, so that he does not molest a child. Proclaiming the stupid opinion, that adult molestation of children does not incur harm, should receive our immediate ridicule. As should the opinion that non-Christians will suffer eternal torment. Our Consitution protects opinions and beliefs, not the "right" to force those beliefs upon others.

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 4, 2006 02:52 AM
48. Paddy Mac
So, are Christians the only religious group that have ever forced others to convert? Are Christians the only group that has behaved badly toward others? Is your, apparent hatred of Christianity so deep that you single out only the example of abuse committed in the name of Chritianity? Are there examples of other religions doing the same? What about Stalin, an atheist? "Logically, forcibly converting the children of other faiths will save those kids from eternal torment, and thusbecomes the only humane option. If you accept his assumptions, even a madman becomes reasonable"
What the heck does "logically forcing the converting" mean. Does this mean if one gives some one a Bible and they read it and convert, that is force? Can someone given your apparent defintion ever convert to another religion and not have it seen as a forceful conversion? "As should the opinion that non-Christians will suffer eternal torment. Our Consitution protects opinions and beliefs, not the "right" to force those beliefs upon others."
I am unclear as to how Christianity is being forced upon you? Can you provide concrete examples of how Christianity is, at present, being forced upon you?
Do you object to the doctorine of:
Islam
Buddhism
Hinduism
Zorasterism
Bahai
Judism
Is is just Christians you seem to hate.

Posted by: WVH on December 4, 2006 09:35 AM
49. Here is a full list of who Larry Corrigan Contributed to.

http://tinyurl.com/yedqzg

Let people decide for themselves what he was.

Posted by: Kari on December 4, 2006 02:20 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?