For sheer ludicrous disingenuousness it's hard to beat today's op-ed from Jan Drago, which purports to explain "why the viaduct ballot will ask voters two questions"--that is, why we'll have one measure asking if we want a tunnel and one asking if we want a rebuild, but not a single measure asking us to choose which we want. After dancing around for several paragraphs she finally arrives at The Explanation: "[It didn't] seem fair to ask for a head-to-head vote between a fully developed elevated highway and a four-lane tunnel that has not yet been completely vetted." Oh, ok. So totally "fair" and reasonable to ask voters to approve a pie-in-the-mud tunnel, the cost and parameters of which are unknown. Just not fair to actually pit that against a rebuild. Sure, that makes sense. I don't know why people were so confused.