JayB

I would argue that many women are coerced into prostitution and legalization will not change this fact - and not even improve the situation (it could make it worse). It is as if no one has noticed that when you ask a gal of any age what she wants to be when she grows up, she NEVER says, "a whore". I can't recall any saying "IT professional" or "waitress" either. Obviously your experience with females is rather limited. Limited to women who are much more accomplished, and who work in jobs that are much more interesting and important than "IT professional?" Yes.

I would argue that many women are coerced into prostitution and legalization will not change this fact - and not even improve the situation (it could make it worse). That's a possibility, but not one that's equally likely under all regulatory regimes. I think you'd have to consult the statistical record to make a convincing argument one way or another. I think it all comes down to: 1)Whether or not there's a moral case for prohibiting things that mentally competent adults do to themselves in private, or that they choose to do to one another in private. 2)Whether or not you think it's likely that the coercive apparatus devised to limit one particular variety of behavior that fits the description above will remain confined to the said activities. Personally, someone using heroin concerns me far less than the state's enforcement apparatus seizing their assets because they choose to consume a substance that others don't think is very good for them.

I would argue that many women are coerced into prostitution and legalization will not change this fact - and not even improve the situation (it could make it worse). It is as if no one has noticed that when you ask a gal of any age what she wants to be when she grows up, she NEVER says, "a whore". I can't recall any saying "IT professional" or "waitress" either.

In the era we are talking about, that was not even considered. I have a few suggestions on history books that might be interesting to you and would help round your views out a bit (sorry if that sounds condescending--it honestly is not intended that way). They'd probably be interesting, and they are probably useful for understanding why a group of women at a particular point in history wanted to ban alcohol - but neither would do anything to make their case for empowering the state to deprive others of the liberty to drink alcohol logically or morally compelling to anyone outside of their troubled relationships. The modern equivalent would be arguing for prohibition of alcohol on the basis of drunk-driving statistics, the children of dead mountaineers banding together to have the state enforce a ban on climbing, etc, etc, etc,

Not a fact - an assumption, a claim, whatever. You guys are in a fantasy world anyways if you think prostitution will be legalized in a country where alcohol was banned for over a decade, and pot is still illegal I think that you can make the ethical case solely on the distinction between voluntary and coerced activity, irrespective of whether the person in question claims to be happy or not. The physical act of picking fruit on a citrus farm in 2008 probably isn't terribly different from picking cotton on a plantation in 1858 - but the fact that one is voluntary labor and the other was forced is sufficient to distinguish between the two. Agreed that it is all waaaaaaay hypothetical at this point.

The only thing it's a logical or moral argument for prohibiting is battery of women, actually.

BTW, I profoundly disagree with the notion that legalizing prostitution eliminates all the baggage for women in this industry. The evidence is that most if not all of these women were abused as children, have low self-esteem, are controlled by others, and turn to drugs and suicide in higher proportions than average. YOU as a horny male might be getting something out of legalization, but don't fool yourself into believing these women would have a "great life". Probably a horrible life that I wouldn't wish on anyone, to be sure, but the fact that the scope for suffering and abuse is dramatically reduced seems to be reason enough to favor legalization over the current state of affairs. There are any number of activities that people can voluntarily engage in for one reason or another that I think are sad and self destructive - but so long as we're talking about consenting adults I don't think there's a moral case to be made for prohibition. I think that there's also a practical case to be made for opposing prohibition of things that that adults do to themselves, or consenting adults do to one another.

Never been cheated on (that I'm aware of), and never cheated on anyone (quite sure of that). Don't think it's really all that difficult to do if you are a regular guy. If you are a rock star, and constantly have hot chicks flinging themselves at you, you probably deserve some kind of trophy.

I agree with what you are saying re: contractual agreements (i.e. marriage). My point was, that perhaps expecting people to make these lifelong commits of absolute monogamy is unrealistic. As evidenced by the number of married citizens engaging in extra-marital affairs (caught, or otherwise). I know personally, I've never had a woman NOT cheat on me. Perhaps the expectations we place on one another are unrealistic. What happens to his marriage is between him and his wife. If he was forthright about his habits and she was cool with it, then there's no basis for anyone to ground their critique of the guy on a betrayal of his wife. What happens to his political career is a matter for the voters and the courts to decide. Not sure what happens to a governor who is convicted of something like this in NY. If the law allows it, and the voters want him to stay in office, then the only consequence for the guy is that some people may lower their personal opinion of him. If the expectations associated with any particular relationship are unrealistic, then that's the fault of the parties in the relationship IMO. Neither the church nor the state have any power to compel anyone to abide by any particular standard of fidelity anymore, and society pretty much leaves it to the individuals concerned to define the parameters of the relationship that they're in so - if monogamy's not your thing, and it seems like too much of a stretch, then it's incumbent on you to find a partner who's cool with that either by stating that from the start or divorcing whoever you're with that can't deal (before you cheat) and finding someone new who can. I'd agree with you that the rules that many of us live by require that we overcome much of our biological programming, but I think that applies to most of the rules that govern social interactions in a civilized society. Seems like accepting that temptation of various kinds will beset you throughout your life - the urge to be violent, the urge to cheat - makes it easier to deal with the said urges in a way that's consistent with the code of conduct that you've decided that you are going to try to live with.

I dunno. He is a married man, having sex with prostitutes. The prostitutes are women, having sex with married men. Different sides of the same coin, if you ask me. Of course, only the men offend you, right? I don't buy this bullshit "men are scum and women aren't" argument. Women are just as fucked up as men, sexually and otherwise. Pointing at the mud on someone else's flippers doesn't improve your own swimming. I wasn't clear or you misinterpreted what I said - I was only talking about men and women politicians involved in sex scandals - I think male politicians get caught more. I don't approve or condone of prostitution in any way. And I neer said men are scum and women aren't...did I say that? I don't think so. What is it about prostitution that you are opposed to? I personally feel bad for prostitutes, especially when they suffer at the hands of pimps, etc - but most of the things that make me feel bad for them stem from the fact that it's illegal, and could be remedied by changing the law. In places where it's legal - it's a voluntary exchange between consenting adults, and I think the scope for a moral critique is limited to a personal distaste for the practice. I don't think that there's any reasonable legal basis for prohibiting the practice amongst adults.

The effect that this sort of thing will have on your life in this society will vary in direct proportion to the extent that you've violated codes of conduct that you volunteered to uphold. If you are a single guy who is not holding, or interested in holding public office, you can fly to Nevada and have at it and the effect on your life will be negligible, aside from whatever diseases you contract. If you are a married man holding public office, you've accepted constraints on your behavior that are vastly different than a single, private citizen has to live with in exchange for the benefits that stem from marriage and public office. Violate the oaths that you volunteered to uphold as a husband and public servant and you risk losing both. I don't think the fact that a guy who betrays his wife and office in this fashion loses either his wife and/or his office represents a fault with our society at all. This is coming from someone that thinks both society and prostitutes would be vastly better off if prostitution were legalized and subject to the same laws that govern any other business.

-Driving/parking on surface streets is as close to third-worldish as you'll find in the US/Canada. -Highways feature both massive congestion and tolls. -Mass transit is overwhelmed by debts and inefficiencies, but it's functional most of the time. Features light-rail, subways, and extensive bus routes. -Snow removal is fast and efficient on the main streets and highways. There are still quite a few neighborhoods where folks claim the spot that they dig out after a snowfall until the snow is basically gone. They mark the spots with traffic cones, chairs, garbage cans, etc - and in the worst neighborhoods, some folks will slash-tires, smash-windows, scratch the paint with keys, break-off the antenna, etc if you park in a spot that they've claimed. Doesn't happen on our street, but there are quite a few lazy douchebags that don't dig out their spot, pretty much hosing anyone who parks in the space until the ice the inevitably forms on the street melts off (2WD plus slight uphill on glare-ice = stuck unless someone is around to help push you off).

Yes.

it would only be natural for one's ideas to change, as changes occur in one's life. this can be both a danger, and a sign of maturity and greater perspective. i think it's a danger when these changes hinge solely on self-interest. i've seen people go down this road, and i've certainly felt animal brain cortex pressures to do so in my own life. i believe the government has a vital role to play in mitigating a variety of problems that the private sector has no solid history in mitigating. often the lip service given to "less taxes so i can help more effectively" is either naked greed, or ideological blindness (believe me, i've seen both. some disgusting moments have been spent at small business lobbying group meetings seeing this with my own eyes, and that is a path i'd never wish to go down). i very much believe in a progressive tax system, even though it means greater taxes for myself. Just curious if you were still(were you ever, somehow I got this idea)in favor of straight up, orthodox Socialism. This was more about what to do with what's left over after you've paid whatever your bill was in our tax system. You've paid your bills, and you have a significant chunk left over that you want to do some good with. Which mechanism would you choose to do so? Private philanthropy or initiative, or direct transfer to the state, local, or Federal treasury? Do you think that a tax structure which effectively precluded significant concentrations of wealth outside the direct control of the government would have any potential downsides, even for those who are not wealthy themselves?

Conspiro-chickens coming home to roost. Saw this one coming.

It'll be much worse than that for you. My commuter route could be close enough that I might be within earshot on my bike when you notice that the elderly lady who's had the temerity to challenge you on one of the finer points of wasp taxonomy is wearing a D.A.R. pin, at which point you toss down the hose that you are using to dispense de-fluorinated tap-water on your organic hobby-garden and challenge her to a pull-up contest/tiger-mountain ascent in between high decibel proclamations outlining highlights from from your storied career as a chief technical officer, ACLU speaker, and high-level naval tactician. I suspect that you will also find occasion to inform her that you are now an ice climber. Yes. An ice-climber. Someone who uses sharp metal implements attached to his hands and feet to ascend...frozen...waterfalls. Yes, that's right grandma. Frozen. Waterfalls.

What's happening with the Viaduct, bridges, light-rail, tolls, etc in Seattle these days? I was kind of hoping that one fringe benefit of being away for a few years was that at least some small part of the megacluster would have been resolved by the time I returned. Now it looks like spring of '09 might be just in time to live through Son-of-Big-Dig. I suspect that the bike commuting option will continue to reign supreme as the least of many evils. Speaking of which, what's the state of the BGT through Freelard these days?

I see. Not impossible to make money in a declining market (never been my argument), but the requirements for doing so are rather different than those at play when a particular asset class is increasing in value. Given what I've observed in aggregate and in conversations with individuals, I think that the average person would do well to abstain from purchasing real estate if their sole or even primary motivation is to realize a profit. You may well be quite a bit more astute than the average participant in the market, in which case you may profit handsomely. Maybe we can switch the discussion to whether or not the said success and profit has affected your econo-political perspectives in any way at that point (will a greater good be served by you personally allocating the windfall to private charities, or transfer to the state, etc). As far as rents are concerned, since they generally have to be paid out of earned income rather than borrowing, the constraints on the growth of rents are quite a bit more restrictive than those that operate on home prices. There's also the matter of the condo/townhome inventory projected to come online in Seattle in the next two-three years, some portion of which will revert to rental status, and a few other variables. On the whole, I'd expect the difference between rents and mortgages to be restored primarily by declines in prices, but rising rents will play a role.

Spoiler... I'd agree that there's definitely quite a bit to admire about McGovern, though.

Depends. Looks like the same dynamics that have played elsewhere - rising YOY inventories, declining sales volume, increasing DOM. Usually what happens when a market stagnates and sellers refuse to budge on prices is that people who have to sell - divorce, deaths, transfers, foreclosures, etc start to set the market at the margins. Toss in what's happening in the credit markets, incomes, market psychology, etc and I think it's worth asking what will insulate Seattle from the factors that have affected real-estate prices elsewhere in the country. In any given market it may be possible to make money, but the distribution of probabilities derived from macro-factors will render each outcome more or less likely. Why has San Diego, but not Seattle, seen declines? Also - which stats do you use? The median figure from the MLS or the CSW index? Which of the two is more accurate in your opinion? As far as your investment property is concerned, that is great - but since you are doing this for a living, I presume that you actually sell a given property and make a few additional entries on the cost side of the ledger before tabulating your profits. There are a few folks in Sacramento and elsewhere that made similar claims while holding properties that have subsequently seen a rather dramatic change in their value. What is different about this property? On the plus side - I think that most of the factors that I have been droning on about for a while will increase the number of people looking to rent. Probably good news if you have a cashflow-positive property, especially multi-family. Probably not enough to bail out folks who speculated on SFR's and have a monthly nut that significantly exceeds what the property that they own is likely to rent for. I don't think that the rent/own differential that's at play in San Clemente is all that uncommon these days.

Perhaps not, but given the the philosophy that prevailed in his day, especially in his party, and this quote from the passage: "Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society." I'd be kind of surprised if what he wrote was entirely consistent with his thinking when he was engaged in his bid for the presidency.

Broken record time: If we substituted "four McMansions," for "four homeless shelters," "four low-income housing units," "four ACLU offices," "four union halls," or the perennial favorite "four abortion clinics"...the rhetoric issuing forth from the cc.com commentariat would be rather different.

I did a doubletake when reading the byline on this editorial in the WSJ this morning. Without using the internet, guess which former Democratic candidate for president penned this editorial.... "Freedom Means Responsibility Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that "'one-size-fits all' rules for business ignore the reality of the market place." Today I'm watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse. Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages. With liberalized credit rules, many people with limited income could access a mortgage and choose, for the first time, if they wanted to own a home. And most of those who chose to do so are hanging on to their mortgages. According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition,their holders neither delinquent nor in default. There's no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market. The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out. Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states. Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all. Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as "payday lending." With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee -- usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating. Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next. Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it. Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society. Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life. The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else."

How much for the BallNutz?

Cough. http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=8&Number=382099&Searchpage=1&Main=26996&Words=Serra+&topic=0&Search=true#Post382099