Breaking: SEIU fire now a criminal arson investigation
This morning at 5 a.m., a fire broke out at the headquarters of SEIU Local 49. This afternoon, investigators with Portland Fire & Rescue ruled that the fire was deliberately set. Clarification: They've determined that there's enough evidence to move forward with a criminal investigation of arson. (That's something less than a ruling that it was deliberately set, but a determination that it wasn't accidental.)
I'll continue to update as we get more information.
Earlier coverage, from KATU:
The fire started just after 5 a.m. Friday morning at the Service Employees International Union hall on Southeast 26th Avenue and Southeast Powell Boulevard. Firefighters were able to put it out in under half an hour and kept the fire confined to one room. No one was hurt in the fire.
And a statement from SEIU 49:
"While this is a shock, we're thankful that no one was hurt," said Local 49 President Meg Niemi. "At the moment, we are optimistic that no major damage seems to have occurred outside of the main lobby. We hope to resume work in the building early next week."
|
October 30, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (77 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Ben D | Oct 30, 2009 6:04:06 PM
I'm not sure whether that first comment is a joke or not.
This is terrible news. Thanks for the update, Kari.
Posted by: Not going to say | Oct 30, 2009 6:06:26 PM
This, and shots fired at DeFazio's office? This is a lot different that Tre Arrows setting some SUVs on fire on the other end of the domestic terrorist perspective. These people actually want to kill people! Wingnuts.
Posted by: Greg D. | Oct 30, 2009 6:17:11 PM
Hey, I know nothing about this fire, but the neighborhood of 26th and Powell is not immune from good old fashioned random crime. If it was some sort of domestic terrorism / arson for hire, then go after the criminals with all due haste. But that sort of conclusion seems premature. The Oregon progressive movement has been "burned" more than once by jumping on the crime victim bandwagon prematurely.
Posted by: Chris #12 | Oct 30, 2009 6:18:35 PM
At today's teaparty rally, SEIU was repeatedly denounced as "thugs", and one of the speakers was the guy who claims to have been beat up by SEIU members at a Town Hall in Missouri. It's easy to see how these rallies could encourage individuals to act out in increasingly dangerous ways.
The rally was sponsored by Michael's Italian Sausage at 11th and Sandy--boycott, anyone?
Posted by: Ecto Cooler | Oct 30, 2009 6:26:23 PM
Are [alleged, heh heh] acts of domestic terrorism going to follow the Tea Party bus tour through the entire country, or just in Oregon?
Posted by: LT | Oct 30, 2009 6:39:50 PM
Chris, thanks for the info on the TEA sponsors. Looked like theater to me.
In the 1960s, some groups (anti-war, worker's rights, etc.) used to stage what they called guerilla theater.
That was my impression of the KATU story on the rally.
Bullhorn woman yelling NO MORE TAXES!
Costume with the woman in silver hooked to a ball and chain labeled taxes.
Some guy wearing what looked like an athletic jacket claiming he pays 70% in taxes.
What do these people do for a living? Were they paid to perform in this event?
Terrorism is terrorism--no difference between blowing up an ROTC building in the 1960s and blowing up an abortion clinic in a later decade.
If this was pure old fashioned random crime, someone was really stupid to do it the day of the rally and think no one would see a connection.
If it is someone who sees Tim McVeigh as a hero and thinks it is OK to physically threaten anyone connected to government or unions, do they think there will be no pushback? Crime is crime. If all the "tough on crime" folks want to make an exception for shooting at a federal building or what may well have been arson, then they only make themselves look bad.
My guess is ordinary voters don't buy the "Crime is OK if directed at political opponents" attitude.
Posted by: LT | Oct 30, 2009 6:49:56 PM
BTW, as the granddaughter of a prosecutor (in the Kroger mode) who put away gangsters, people running protection rackets against businesses--"pay up and no one will burn down your business"--rumrunners in a county on the Canadian border during Prohibition, among other things, I hope no one thinks I am "playing the crime victim card" in saying that all suspicious activity should be investigated and all crimes should be prosecuted, period, end of discussion.
When I was younger there were people who thought there shouldn't be permanent consequences for those who blew up ROTC buildings (like prison sentences, losing the ability to enter certain professions because they had a criminal record, etc.) because "they were only protesting the war".
WRONG!
The constitutional protection is for "ability to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". Standing (or sitting down) in front of a government building is free speech. Any action (incl. gunshots and arson) which has the capacity to maim or kill a person is a crime, and if someone had been injured or killed by the (alleged) arson or the bullets, that would have been at least assault and possibly attempted murder, it seems to me.
No excuse. Even if it was a wingnut supposedly supporting a cause I had been spending all my spare time supporting, there still would be no excuse.
Posted by: barfhound | Oct 30, 2009 6:58:32 PM
Ben D., of course you don't. That is the point.
We inflict pain on each other. If we agree with the cause, then it is a necessary part of the struggle. If we do not, we condemn it as a horrific act. Unions have the one of the most crime laden, mafia infested, histories of any organizations. But we MUST support them because we agree with their cause. After all, if the end does not justify the means, what does?
Posted by: Thomas Paine | Oct 30, 2009 7:08:39 PM
Apparently trying to stop heathcare reform and calling our president a Nazi isn't enough for the teabaggers anymore. I hope they get caught and rot in jail.
Posted by: LT | Oct 30, 2009 7:11:03 PM
"We inflict pain on each other. If we agree with the cause, then it is a necessary part of the struggle."
NO! It is a debate as old as the Aesop Fable about the Wind and the Sun.
Some believe that violence or at least bullying are all in the service of a cause--the coercion folks.
Some of us believe that persuasion is more successful. FYI, I don't take a person or cause seriously if they believe violence is a part of political action. Period. End of discussion.
And I know you believe that unions are the focus of evil in the modern world. That does not mean everyone does.
Anyone who believes unions have always been thugs and employers have never used violence doesn't know history.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,758013,00.html
Posted by: barfhound | Oct 30, 2009 7:19:26 PM
Burnings, done by Trey Arrow or these people are ALL bad. If it is acceptable for one side to burn according to one group, then it is OK for others. Burnings, done by Trey Arrow or these people are ALL bad, unless one has an absolute claim to inerrancy. Maybe we do. Many others have.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 30, 2009 7:21:47 PM
Isn't anyone going to throw in some comparison to the Reichstag? If we're making huge leaps, might as well make a quantum one.
Of course, we'll neglect the threats to Lou DObbs who speaks out against illegal immigration.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Oct 30, 2009 8:07:08 PM
I suspect it's linked to some of the inflammatory rhetoric from the tea party events. Yet another reason why it's so important to start toning down the rhetoric in our political discourse.
Thankfully, no one was hurt, and the building appears not to have been severely damaged.
Posted by: barfhound | Oct 30, 2009 8:13:19 PM
Lou Dobbs, the Nazis, the church, Air America, Fox, the Boy Scouts, the D's the R's. Let's all point at each other. Let’s burn each other’s buildings. Let’s, like Chuck, insinuate righteous anger. After all, we are RIGHT.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Oct 30, 2009 8:18:56 PM
First bullets in a congressional office, fire in a union hall...what on Earth is next?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 30, 2009 8:24:00 PM
It's plausible it was politically motivated. It's also plausible that it was more mundane on motivation -- maybe it was someone who got laid off or didn't get hired and thought SEIU did something or didn't do something.
It's been less than 24 hours. The investigators will follow the evidence. We'll know soon enough where it leads.
Posted by: Joe Hill | Oct 30, 2009 8:30:07 PM
Just to be clear, LT et al. . . .
what the right wing does is attempt to fog the issue by drawing childish false equivalences between the violence of raining down one million tons of ordnance on North Vietnam and four million tons on South Vietnam in an illegal, genocidal war that can never be expiated or forgiven on the one hand, and someone blowing up Army Math at the University of Wisconsin on the other.
They are not the same.
What the right wing does is draw infantile comparisons between the tens of thousands of workers and perhaps more that have died from unimaginably brutal working conditions and starvation level wages, all enforced by violence both private and publicly funded, on the one hand, and some dishonest and corrupt behavior by some union locals that varied between Damon Runyonesque and the On the Waterfront level of severity.
They are not the same.
God, it's no wonder the Democrats get their collective asses handed to them each and every time we elect them. The right wing thugs get to be as jackbooted as, well, as right wing thugs, and the left has to be 100% saintly or somehow they're both equally at fault for the social situation.
Jesus wept.
Posted by: barfhound | Oct 30, 2009 9:04:44 PM
You're right Joe, Kill them all and let God sort them out.
Posted by: BOHICA | Oct 30, 2009 9:12:06 PM
Another New Jersey State Police spokesperson, Sgt. Julian Castellanos, noted that "it's a wide open area and there are hunters in the area." Castellanos explained that the bullet had hit the house in vicinity of the attic; it "hit the vinyl siding and fell to the ground" without penetrating the vinyl, he said.
Lou Dobbs = WATB
Posted by: LT | Oct 30, 2009 9:31:20 PM
Joe just shows the old debate---was it the violent wing of the anti-war movement which ended the Vietnam War?
Or could it have had something to do with combination of the politicians who came to turn against the war, the young people radicalized by their friends becoming casualties, and groups like Vietnam Veterans Against the War?
Hate to say it, Joe, but barfhound is right about this, "If it is acceptable for one side to burn according to one group, then it is OK for others."
Joe, there is a movie from back then (if memory serves the title was something like THE WAR AT HOME) which I saw at a college screening at a local college with discussion after.
"...illegal, genocidal war that can never be expiated or forgiven on the one hand, and someone blowing up Army Math at the University of Wisconsin on the other."
Regardless of what happened in Vietnam, anyone who attended the U of Wisc. or saw the coverage of it has the right to say whether they believe that action was right or wrong. And saying someone is "prowar" because they condemn blowing up ROTC buildings (as often happened back then) is more likely to alienate people than to solve anything.
But then, the real Joe Hill believed in political violence, so you have a good screen name.
Posted by: Johnny | Oct 31, 2009 2:01:56 AM
Tone down the rhetoric?
Does this mean AL Gore should quit calling people "climate criminals" and others should quit calling for trials or reeducation camps for non believers?
Posted by: Bill R. | Oct 31, 2009 7:52:54 AM
It seems that Sec. of Homeland Security Napolitano was right on when it comes to right wing extremist groups being a prominent threat in domestic terrorism. I hope the FBI is doing its job in surveillance of the tea-baggers. I see their supporters are out en masse trolling the blogosphere.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Oct 31, 2009 8:12:48 AM
”It's plausible it was politically motivated. It's also plausible that it was more mundane on motivation -- maybe it was someone who got laid off or didn't get hired and thought SEIU did something or didn't do something.”
Let’s not ignore a third possibility...that the fires are a form of Pro-Intelco, where the “victim” perpetrated the crime as a way to gain sympathy for their cause.
Not that far-fetched at a time when Big Labor is calling the shots in Washington while seeking to deflect populist anger away from it.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 31, 2009 8:41:26 AM
Speaking of Lou Dobbs:
"Dobbs told his listeners that it had "followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls."
Gee, Huffington Post, great unbiased source. Why not take him at his word like you would if SEIU said something?
This blog is part of the frenzy anyways, everytime some punk pulls a prank like shooting out windows (this has happened before) it instantly becomes the responsibility of anyone who disagrees with opne-minded "progressives", otherwise, why would Mr BlueOregon post it here with heavlily-breathed nuancing?
Posted by: Greg D. | Oct 31, 2009 8:56:05 AM
Are any of you old enough to recall Azalea Cooley? I am, which is why I still say you should wait for definitive evidence before rushing to judgment on any of this. But if I ever want to get a lynch mob going, it appears that a few bits of random speculation on BlueOregon is the place to go.
If it turns out that the night janitor dropped his roach in the wastepaper basket or the photocopier shorted out, some of you are going to look mighty idiotic.
Sheesh!
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Oct 31, 2009 10:30:00 AM
Any act of violence or terrorism should be investigated and the culprits prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. there can be no excuses for this type behavior. Like Kari has stated, it could be a common criminal, a disgruntled union member or it could be targeted from groups who are anti-SEIU. We just don't know - yet.
I am thankful that nobody was injured and that the fire itself was put out quickly.
Thanks for the nod LT. My dad was in the NROTC building at the University of Washington during one of the anti-war riots. Destroying and maiming in the name of peace is like screwing for virginity. To paraphrase a great 70's saying.
Posted by: rw | Oct 31, 2009 10:38:47 AM
Hey LT - as the daughter of a union shop steward for the railroads, a man who, as his parting act upon retirement, was recording illegal activity on the part of the rr, subverting the contract in place.... well, I suspect that comments above are ONLY trying to say "Let's not get all worked into a froth of supposition and mentalized drama on this blog ahead of actually knowing what happened!"
I hate looking stupid and bareassed when I supposed, ventilated, bloviated, ran... and found out that behind me was not even a starting line... it was just a bare patch on the field of play.
Posted by: LT | Oct 31, 2009 10:50:23 AM
Thanks, Kurt. Political violence is never OK and I will vote against anyone who says otherwise. I had this debate back in the 1990s with a friend over whether Earth First had the right to be violent. Violence ends my support. Period. There are other ways of doing things, and if someone doesn't like that attitude, they don't want my vote.
RW, I have no idea what happened. But "They've determined that there's enough evidence to move forward with a criminal investigation of arson. (That's something less than a ruling that it was deliberately set, but a determination that it wasn't accidental.)"
does sound more like the actual investigators don't think this was just an accident like an electrical short.
Posted by: barfhound | Oct 31, 2009 10:56:36 AM
What would REALLY piss me off would be, after all these posts, that it turned out to be caused by a squirrel chewing on a transformer.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Oct 31, 2009 11:19:25 AM
this was not an act of terror. Trey Arrow was not a terrorist. terrorists use, um, let's see, what's that word? oh yea: terror. a fire in the middle of the night is not terrifying. it's vandalism, it's thuggery, it's a step before terror, but it's well short of actual terror.
bombs in a market place: that's terror. shooting govt officials in front of their family: that's terror.
burning an SUV in the middle of the night when no one is around to get hurt: that's monkey wrench-style vandalism. criminal, yes; terror, no.
the trouble is, we don't know when someone's limit is vandalism, as appears to be true with Arrow, or when they'll decide the vandalism is insufficient and they need to start putting people into danger. it's hard to know if someone is going to be willing to cross the line into terrorism, and after Okla City, 9/11, Dr Tiller and what we see in the world, our fear threshold is so low, we want to call any incident "terror" as if that will someone bring the cavalry to our rescue. it won't, and throwing around the word "terror" does no good. we need to keep our fear in check, keep a tight hold of what makes us strongest as a nation (that would be our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, along with our belief in same), and we need to keep our belief in the things we know are right.
people have been bullying and attacking others for century. this is nothing new. let's just save the word "terror" for where it really belongs so we keep our society from collapsing into an anti-freedom state of fear, a la the Patriot Act.
Posted by: Dan | Oct 31, 2009 11:28:23 AM
Wow...so when a union hall gets set on fire, it's automatically the fault of republicans?
But when Bill Ayers bombs government buildings and then becomes best friends with Barack Obama...well...that's just not the same thing! He was protesting the evils of war-mongering republicans and it was justified!!
History has shown that people will damage the buildings of their enemies. History also shows that people will damage their OWN buildings...and blame it on their enemies. I guess if we find a charred red-white-and-blue elephant in the ashes, it's an open and shut case, right?
Posted by: Not going to say | Oct 31, 2009 11:39:57 AM
Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər, ˈte-rər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrēre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble — more at tremble
Date: 14th century
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3 : reign of terror
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist \-ər-ist\ adjective or noun
— ter·ror·is·tic \ˌter-ər-ˈis-tik\ adjective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Oct 31, 2009 11:41:23 AM
Sorry t.a., but you are wrong. Tre Arrow and his accomplices in ELF are terrorists. They destroyed homes, fire bombed businesses and caused widespread destruction.
By your definition, the firebombs the rednecks hid in the Alabama church in the mid 60's wasn't too bad. It was just unfortunate that some young girls happened to be in the building at the time. Wrong! Willful and wonton planned destruction via firebombs IS terrorism.
Posted by: Not going to say | Oct 31, 2009 11:43:15 AM
Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər, ˈte-rər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrēre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble — more at tremble
Date: 14th century
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3 : reign of terror
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist \-ər-ist\ adjective or noun
— ter·ror·is·tic \ˌter-ər-ˈis-tik\ adjective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Oct 31, 2009 11:48:32 AM
Dan, I have heard no one say that Bill Ayers' actions in the 1960's were justified. Not Barack Obama. Not supporters of Obama. No one.
But here's the question: Why do you automatically assume that because some of us believe that this may have been politically motivated, that we would not denounce similar actions, if perpetrated by the left?
I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I generally try and make it a point to be an evenhanded critic of extremism.
Nevertheless, I see far stronger tendencies toward violence or calls for armed insurrection from the far right, than from the far left, particularly since Obama was elected.
We saw millions of people peacably assemble against the war and occupation of Iraq during the Bush administration, but I can not recall any mention of anyone taking assault weapons to political rallies during those protests. I don't recall left-leaning talking heads advocating for the overthrow of our Democratically-elected government, as we see from Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and other talking heads on the right.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Oct 31, 2009 11:49:35 AM
Kurt's analysis of what constitutes terrorism strikes me as spot-on.
Posted by: Jim | Oct 31, 2009 12:01:47 PM
Dan, if nothing else you are engaging in classic simplifying. People like Ayers--agree with his tactics or not--were not blaming Republicans solely for the war. In fact, most like him would be more likely to blame Democrats like Kennedy and Johnson, but even that is too simple. It is blaming a system, one that makes it okay to murder millions of people with simplistic rationales like making the world safe or whatever feel good phrase lets you look in the mirror in the morning. Democrats and Republicans have largely supported such things, just differing on tactics. See Iraq and Afghanistan for more recent examples.
Posted by: LT | Oct 31, 2009 12:09:32 PM
Right on!
"By your definition, the firebombs the rednecks hid in the Alabama church in the mid 60's wasn't too bad. It was just unfortunate that some young girls happened to be in the building at the time. Wrong! Willful and wonton planned destruction via firebombs IS terrorism."
Points if anyone remembers what famous woman went to a rememberance of that event decades later and said the girls who died had been friends of hers.
Nothing would make me happier than finding out this was some kind of electrical malfunction or whatever. I suspect that the "move forward with a criminal investigation of arson. (That's something less than a ruling that it was deliberately set, but a determination that it wasn't accidental.)" means experts suspect it was no accident and will do an investigation to find out for sure.
Yes, Sal, note the ROTC bombings above.
"But here's the question: Why do you automatically assume that because some of us believe that this may have been politically motivated, that we would not denounce similar actions, if perpetrated by the left? "
There are those of us who draw bright lines---certain behavior is never acceptable. Period. No difference between ELF, ROTC bombings, anti-abortion violence or anything else.
This is a good debate to be having out in the open.
http://www.absolutelyrics.com/lyrics/view/the_beatles/revolution/
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Posted by: barfhound | Oct 31, 2009 12:22:43 PM
Do you think the Kari, who started all this, would have been equally outraged if the building set on fire was the Chamber of Commerce? If not, why not? What about you?
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Oct 31, 2009 12:31:21 PM
Kurt, by my definition, doing something that is designed to actually hurt people is terror. the SEIU fire, if arson, was designed to avoid people being in the building. my understand of Arrow's actions is they were timed in the same way. and as i said, it's not an easy distinction, especially if you are unlucky or careless enough that someone shows up. what i would like for us as a society to avoid is a cheapening, so to speak, of the word "terror". politically based criminality is not necessarily terrorism, nor should it be. the Patriot Act made farting in Bush's direction worthy of being sent to Gitmo (ok, i may be overstating a tiny bit). terror needs to be a very special class of crime; making any political crime "terror" is a major part of what got us the Patriot Act and a willingness of the American people to piss away their First Amendment rights in fear of the bad guys.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Oct 31, 2009 12:33:14 PM
Kurt: Willful and wonton planned destruction via firebombs IS terrorism.
if the goal is collecting insurance? killing your wife's boyfriend? scaring away investors in a new development? that's all terror?
a more careful use of words might be in order - which is all i am arguing for.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Oct 31, 2009 12:33:25 PM
A couple of points...
1) I don't see any "outrage" in Kari's post. It strikes me as a straight report of something that happened.
2) What does it say about you that you would believe that any person of good conscience would not respond with outrage at an act of violence, regardless of whom it was perpetrated against?
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Oct 31, 2009 12:36:57 PM
Kurt, by my definition, doing something that is designed to actually hurt people is terror.
Yes. And that is wrong. Burning a cross on someone's lawn may not actually hurt anyone, but it is definitely a terorist act, in my view.
YMMV.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Oct 31, 2009 12:48:36 PM
t.a., I understand your fine line demarcation. I just disagree with it. Perhaps if one of Tre Arrows "targets" had been in your town, as one was in mine you would view ELF's actions differently. By your definition, had there been a timber worker of other employee in one of the targeted facilities it would default to terror by happenstance?
Sorry, we will remain in disagreement on this one.
Posted by: barfhound | Oct 31, 2009 12:52:56 PM
Sal,
1. "I don't see any "outrage" in Kari's post. It strikes me as a straight report of something that happened."
You are right. I made an unwarranted assumption. I should have said “move to post…” or the like. The question still stands on its own, but I should be more careful.
2)”What does it say about you that you would believe that any person of good conscience would not respond with outrage at an act of violence, regardless of whom it was perpetrated against?”
You are wrong. You made an unwarranted assumption about what I believe.
What does that say about you?
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Oct 31, 2009 1:00:52 PM
How about this definition:
A politically-motivated act of violence or vandalism intended to instill fear in a person or class of persons ™
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Oct 31, 2009 1:02:57 PM
BH - I'm not the one implying that Kari and others would not be outraged by a terrorist act, regardless of whom it is perpetrated against.
Posted by: dartagnan | Oct 31, 2009 1:05:38 PM
The wingnuts have been spouting hate against the SEIU and unions in general for years; it was inevitable that some nut case would turn words into actions. Of course the wingnut bloggers and pundits will cluck their tongues and "deplore" this action ... and then resume spewing their venom.
Posted by: dartagnan | Oct 31, 2009 1:09:01 PM
"Willful and wonton planned destruction via firebombs IS terrorism."
I enjoy wontons and I deplore any planned destruction of them, by firebombs, firearms or any other means.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: barfhound | Oct 30, 2009 5:52:27 PM
This is really offensive and should NOT have happened. It is the UNIONS that are supposed set fires at night and intimidate people. It just goes to show that the world is upside down and going to Hell.