JayB

Did the tobacco companies actually lose or agree to settle after all of the states attorney generals decided to pile on? The fundamental issue is whether or not people would have behaved any differently with the advantage of the tobacco companies disclosing what everyone already knew anyway. Given that smokers had the benefit of four decades of public health information, including labels on the pack, and smoking has not ceased altogether since the settlement occured - "MY God Margaret! What all of those doctors and scientists and peer reviewed studies and government warnings have been stating unequivocably since before I was born are....True! No more cigs for me!!" - we can safely conclude that the reasons that smokers continued to smoke had nothing to do with a lack of information about the risks, and everything to do with their own conscious choices. And this business about smokers being victimized by higher nicotine levels might be the most pathetic argument on behalf of abicating any responsibiliy for one's actions that I've ever seen in my life. Everyone knew that cigarettes are addictive, and if you choose to repeatedly consume an addictive substance, then you are running the risk that you will become addicted. When you become addicted, your condition is ultimately the consequence of your choices. "What - you've been selling me the extra addictive kind of crack!?" Please. At the end of the day, Tobacco companies were a politically unpopular group, sitting on a massive pile of money, and this made them an easy target for public confiscation of the profits that they made by selling a legal product to adults who were fully aware of the risks associated with using it. If you thought that the effects of permitting a lawsuit to proceed on the grounds that the tobacco lawsuit was based upon were going to be limited to classic bad guys like the tobacco companies, the coming wave of legal action mounted on behalf of fatasses everywhere will certainly be an eye opener for you. Compulsory catastrophic insurance for all adults, with risk adjusted premiums for fat people and smokers would be a much better way to address the public health costs associated with obesity and smoking IMO.

"1964 Negative Media and Congressional attention directed towards tobacco The Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health releases a 387-page report entitled, "Smoking and Health." It concludes in unequivocal terms that cigarette smoking is causally related to lung Cancer. This initial report unleashes a series of media and governmental scrutiny of the tobacco industry. Before this time there was relatively little media and Congressional attention to the health hazards of smoking. Subsequently, the Surgeon General, the Federal Trade Commission, the FDA and the media all become involved in educating the public of the risks associated with smoking. This negative attention corresponds to changes in tobacco policy and legislation." I'm sorry, Matt - but most retarded people - I am speaking literally here - were quite aware of the fact that smoking is bad for you long before any of these startling revelations came out. I was aware of the fact that smoking was bad for you no later than the age of four, and I hardly think I was especially precocious in this respect. After 1964, anyone older than about 12 who claimed not to know to that smoking was both extremely addictive and bad for your health was either an idiot or a liar - end of story. Whether or not the tobacco companies tried to convince anyone otherwise is a moot point. As far as their liability with respect to health care costs borne by the public is concerned, one could make this argument with respect to any number of products. If the government feels as though a product that it is legal to produce and sell has either become too costly or hazardous, it should outlaw the product, buy out the owners of the company that produces the product at a price determined by an independent third party - and be done with it. What happened to the tobacco companies was nothing less than extortion to enable massive state seizure of private property carried forth on a dubious premise. I'm no fan of the tobacco companies, or smoking in general, but if this sort of thing can happen to one private business that's producing a perfectly legal product, then it can happen to any other.

Great shot.

I'm not sure what the most effective cost solution will be, as I heard someone mention something about a seawall that'll need to be repaired pretty quickly as well - and I'm not sure how that'd jive with the rest of the projects. I definitely think that Seattle should stick to funding the solution that provides the maximal utility - co-optimizing traffic flow and safety - at the lowest cost. I really don't think that the town needs a glamour project to enhance the city in any way. When it comes to using state funds for the project, even if you removed Seattle's population from the equation, maintaining traffic velocity through along the state's primary north-south throughfare will yield economic benefits to the entire state, in much the same way that snow removal operations in the passes benefit people who never physically cross them in the wintertime. I am surprised that the second narrows bridge was not state funded, as you could make the same argument for providing a solution to the Highway 16 megacluster as well. Whatever you folks do in your absence, vote down any measures that rely upon tolls for funding. Possibly the most economically inneficient means of generating revenue ever, and they tend to stay in place out here long after the original debt that they were installed to repay has been retired.

I for one think that these suits have just as much merit as the lawsuits brought against the tobacco manufacturers. I am looking forward to the day when the first class action suit is brought against crack dealers by their clientele.

Anyone know if the original suit against KFC has gone before a judge yet? Didn't the last lawsuit against McDonald's that was brought on this basis get thrown out of court?If anyone ever wins a suit like this, the entire country will be one step closer to involuntary membership in NAAFA. "WHY SHOULD I SUPPORT NAAFA? An estimated 38 million Americans are significantly heavier than average, and face societal and institutional bias because of their size. Fat people are discriminated against in employment, education, access to public accommodations, and access to adequate medical care. In addition, fat people are stigmatized, and are the victims of tasteless jokes and assaults on their dignity. Despite evidence that 95-98% of diets fail over three years, our thin-obsessed society continues to believe that fat people are at fault for their size. NAAFA is the only national membership organization fighting to end size discrimination, educating the public, and working to empower fat people. People all sizes of large should support NAAFA's work in combating size discrimination. People of average size who believe that size discrimination is wrong should ally themselves with the size acceptance movement. BUT ISN'T IT UNHEALTHY TO BE FAT? Just being fat does not signify poor health. In fact, research shows that the health risks once associated with weight may instead by attributable to yo-yo dieting. Because fatness is most often caused by heredity and dieting history, and because 95-98% of all diets fail over three years, it is becoming apparent that remaining at a high, but stable weight and concentrating on personal fitness rather than thinness may be the healthiest way to deal with the propensity to be fat. We must also consider that in our society, it is very difficult for fat people to stay healthy and become fit. Due to prejudicial medical treatment and harassment by health care professionals, many fat people do not receive adequate preventative health care, and procrastinate seeking treatment when there is a medical problem. In addition, many fat people do not feel comfortable participating in activities that would lead to a greater level of fitness due to social stigma. People of all sizes can strive for fitness by making sensible food choices, following an exercise program, and getting regular check-ups. WHY DO WE USE THE WORD "FAT" SO FREELY? "Fat" is not a four-letter word. It is an adjective, like short, tall, thin, or blonde. While society has given it a derogatory meaning, we find that identifying ourselves as "fat" is an important step in casting off the shame we have been taught to feel about our bodies." HOW TO JOIN NAAFA http://www.naafa.org/"

Sweet. I'm envious.

Very glad to hear about your recovery, Kurt.

I think Seattle's real estate inventory looks pretty tight right now, but expect this summer's buying season to represent an inventory minimum going forward. I'm amazed Boston's YOY increase is that small relative to the other markets out there. Should be interesting to see what happens to the radius on the Boston market when all of the condo-supply that's under construction hits the market, and the town's population loss continues apace.

Yes, but is "market value" really how property should be taxed? I believe that increased value - CPI and bond measures notwithstanding - should not be tax-relevant until that property actually changes hands ala California's prop 13. Ask yourself sincerely; does this state really provide increasing levels of service commensurate with property values? The state budget has gone from 21bn to 27bn in just 3 years. Has population increased the same? No. If, as some here believe, the real-estate bubble bursts, will the state then lower property values at pace with the market? I seriously doubt it. The government in Washington State - lacking proper judicial separation as it does - can raise or lower taxes virtually at will. Free market forces are not particularly tied to government tax policy vis a vis property rates. The free market is what it is - taxes are what we as a people decide they ought to be. And I believe there should be much more accountability and performance standard. I don't believe this state government is entitled to a windfall not initiated by any particular policy they passed into law. I'm surprised that there's not widespread agreement on this fundamental point. I don't think that you have to be an anti-tax fanatic to agree with this either. I am not sure what the solution to this is, but if I had a magic wand the first thing I'd do is eliminate any tax advantage associated with real estate versus any other asset class when it comes to capital gains. The second thing I'd do is set a cap on property tax increases that's directly correlated with the core inflation rate and population growth. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes a popular issue when the YOY gains stall out.

Geeez, JayB! You sound like one of them in that last post. You can't reconcile your free market beliefs (which I sincerely admire) with the above. You just can't. Even though it breaks my heart to see the prices here in Pierce County going up at an even faster rate than Seattle, I will remain true to my beliefs. The real injustice is when a retired couple or widow(er) in their late 60's or early 70's has to sell their home because they can no longer afford the property taxes on that once-modest abode. My mother now shells out $10,000/yr in property taxes for the "privelege" of living in the home she worked so hard to pay off years ago. And for what? So state workers can get new fleet vehicles every 16 months? So the state can squander $10,000 per child on K-12 'education' (administration) and subsidize university-level students who are so filled with a sense of entitlement? C'mon, man. You know better. Point taken. I think that there are some government policies that have played a significant role in catalyzing what's become a speculative mania divorced from all economic fundamentals, though. Subsidization of mortgages through the mortgage interest deduction is one, drastic changes to the tax-treatment for capital gains derived from real estate is another, the implicit US government guarantee that enables GNMA and FNMA to borrow money at a lower rate than other institutions, etc.

The funny thing is that if anything, the East Coast is less affordable than Seattle, but the fundamentals that ultimately determine the behavior of any asset class are finally asserting themselves out here, and the party's just getting started. One of my favorite sayings is that "Things which are not sustainable will eventually come to an end." Another is " 'This time, it's different' are the four most expensive words in the English language." Thankfully - and no thanks to me - I'm pretty sure we'd be able to buy a home there if we wanted to, but it's got to pencil out first. I'll definitely concede that I find that annoying that we may have to wait for a speculative mania to work itself out before purchasing a home is rational financial decision for us - but that's life. I think things will work out pretty well for us in the end - especially if people take the advice that I put in the header.

Yeah - the info there definitely makes it sound pretty scary, but I think if you buy the stuff that's formulated to bond to clothing and takes steps to prevent inhaling it, the amount that actually detatches from the clothes and passes through the esterases on your skin and gets into your system will probably be in the sub-zeptomolar range. Not something that I'd apply daily, but if I was going hunting or fishing or generally grubbing around in the underbrush in tick country I'd probably use it on outer layer clothing. Ditto for pants at least if I were climbing in Leavenworth in the springtime. Thanks for the heads up though. "The DOD Chemical Protection System: The Department of Defense (DoD) utilizes a system of two chemical components in conjunction with the field dress uniform. The EPA approved components of this system include the insecticide permethrin and the insect repellent deet (N, N-diethyl-m-tiluarnide) in concentrations less than 33%. Note: Not all permethrin is blended for the purpose of bonding to fabric. Most permethrin is agricultural which is for pest control on vegetation. Its design purpose is to stick to plants thus protecting the plants. Veterinary products are designed to adhere to animal skins/hair or premises and are not for fabric application. Some permethrin is formulated for treatment of medical conditions such as head lice and scabies. The formulations are not interchangeable mostly because of solvents utilized. Always refer to manufacturers label and use instructions. Permethrin is virtually non-toxic to humans and no systemic effects have been reported.* In EPA and FDA tests, it was uncommon to have any skin reddening, rash or other irritation. When used as a repellent, permethrin is applied to exterior clothing where it dries and bonds to the cloth fiber. This water-based formula is non-staining, odorless and has exceptional resistance to degradation by sunlight (UV), heat and water. Although permethrin is approved for skin application under certain circumstances such as head lice formulas, it is not applied to skin as a repellent. Permethrin does not bond to skin (stick) and is quickly deactivated by skin's esterase action into inactive compounds. Because of these attributes permethrin offers no repellent benefit on skin. It is only effective when used as a clothing treatment. Deactivation of permethrin on skin occurs in approximately 20 minutes, When placed on clothing it will last 2 to 6 weeks (even up to 1 year with special application) and will even last through weekly launderings. With the long history of success permethrin has achieved, it is best not to second guess these extraordinary results. By following the directions provided on the product you can be assured of results that achieve protection at or near 100%. Any variation of instructions that indicate using less permethrin on clothing will result in diminished performance. Follow the direction exactly and you will be amazed at the performance of this product. Permethrin Mosquito Tests: The early history of permethrin development involved tests on mosquitoes conducted by the US Army and Air Force. Tests showed that when lightweight uniforms were treated until moist (approximately 3 ounces) the permethrin alone (0. 5% solution) gave 97.7% protection from mosquitoes and 99.9% protection when used in combination with deet (33% solution). Two detergent washings did not diminish mosquito repellent and killing action of permethrin-treated uniforms. An interesting side note: The effectiveness of permethrin can be shown in the following report highlight that was reported in a very matter of fact statement. During testing in the Everglades, "Mosquitoes were also repelled because of the side-stream effect caused by numerous treated uniforms within the same general location. This required that the test site be moved to locate more mosquitoes!" Now that's performance . . . Permethrin Tick Tests: Test on ticks conducted in Massachusetts concluded that 100% protection was provided against the Deer tick (Ixodes Scapularis) which is the primary vector of Lyme disease in the Midwest and Northeast. The same outstanding results occurred when testing the Western Black Legged tick, Lone Star tick, American Dog tick and Brown Dog tick. Similar results have been found with other tick species throughout the United States and Europe. Two detergent washings did not diminish repellent killing action of permethrin-treated uniforms. In tests, ticks that crossed only 10 inches of treated fabric fell from the uniform, later dying due to this limited exposure. Note: Military application of permethrin (Permethrin Arthropod Repellent) varies from civilian application in that 4.5 ounces are applied to the uniform and the remaining contents of the 6 ounce container used to treat mosquito netting. The difference in application also results in increased protection. It is specified that "reapply after six weeks and sixth laundering." The additional 1.5 ounces doubled the 2 to 3 week protection realized from the civilian application of 3 ounces. Full protection is realized by use of permethrin AND application of standard issue repellent approved for skin application (3M Ultrathon) DEET (N, N-.diethyl-m-tiluamide): is an approved repellent for skin application. Exposure to high concentrations of deet can pose some limited health hazards. At the time concentrations of 33% as provided in the 3M Ultrathon product were chosen by the U.S. Military for its superior performance and high margin of safety. Up until the 3M Ultrathon was chosen the military had been using a 100% deet. It was uncomfortable to wear and easily damaged certain materials synthetic and plastics. Since the 3M Ultrathon introduction, some new developments have been made using deet in special micro encapsulated formulas that have tested quite well and last up to 20 hours between applications against certain insect species. Deet-based products are available in a wide variety of formulas that can address the very specific needs of the individual traveler, outdoors person, family member and even young children. Specific blends with other repellents to repel biting flies are called composites, while others formulas have been added to sunscreen for convenient dual-purpose application. Early research on deet showed that performance dropped off when concentrations of 35% or higher were tested. As an example, if a 30% deet concentration offers satisfactory repellent action for four hours, an assumption that a 60% deet would last eight hours is not correct. The 60% product may only last about 5 hours. In the use of standard deet formulas, it is more effective to use lower concentrations of deet with more frequent application than to assume the higher concentrations to be longer lasting. They are not. Most brand-name deet-based products already have a deet range from 15% to 33%. Once the threat of insect/tick bite is over, the repellent should be washed off. Deet by itself tested between 85% to 89% effective at repelling ticks (deet does not kill either ticks or mosquitoes) and 97% against mosquitoes. The DoD system consists of both permethrin treated clothing and deet applied to skin. The use of one without the other will undermine the system and increase the risk of insect or tick bite. Many non-deet products are available on the market and are not part of the DoD protection system. They show ineffective repellent performance and are not recommended for any situation where disease transmission is a threat."

Just thought I'd chime in and add that treating the clothing that you'll be wearing in the outdoors with permethrin is a good idea if you'll be venturing out into tick country. Supposed to last for 6 weeks, and should be a pretty effective combo if you supplement it with Deet based repellents on the skin.

I gave away the secret too early. Should have done some cropping first....

It'd be interesting to Google Earth the Badlands or a landscape like that and see if you could find any areas that look like mini-mountain ranges.

Definitely seems like a possibility. That'd be quite the impressive unintentional fractal geography display.

Spotted by a Google Earth user, somewhere in China.

Wow man. Those are some great photos, especially the first few scenic shots. Very nice.

East Coast white water ratings are as soft as Snuggles the Fabric Softener Bear. And I like Maine way, way more than Massachussetts.

I need to expand the chillout mix to power me through the Big-Dig fueled cluster en route to points north this weekend, so chime in with your favorite chill-out music. For an added bonus, include where and how you first heard it. 1. Nightmares on Wax - Smoker's Delight or Carboot Soul . Unfortunately I can't quite remember where I first heard this stuff. Somewhere in Colorado, I think. 2. Manu Chao - Clandestino. Overheard while downing Imperials and watching the sunset over the Pacific in Costa Rica. 3. Zero Seven - Simple Things. Playing at a Cafe in Whistler the morning after proposing to my wife, and minutes before heading up to the Glacier for some summertime turns on a beautiful day. Mellow bordering on depressing as it brings back good memories from the West, and reminds me how much I hate pretty much everything about the East Coast.

I don't think any of this matters all that much for people who can afford the terms of their loan under all but the most dire scenarios, and who plan on living in the same home for quite a while. I think anyone who is buying a rental property with an adjustable rate loan with a monthly payment that exceeds the rent minus taxes, upkeep, etc - is insane unless they have steady nerves, super-deep pockets, and a long, long time horizon. I'm pretty sure we'll be renting until the numbers work out for us in terms of a purely financial rent-vs-buy analysis, which I'd guess will be the case until '011 or '012.

Seems like it would work out well for everyone.

I think you are in a different boat than most of the folks who are taking on this kind of mortgage debt, simply by virtue of your ability to qualify for the same loan at a fixed rate. Something tells me that your I/O mortgage didn't fall into the subprime category either. Watch the I/O + ARM origination rate vs. foreclosure stats between now and the end of '07 and I expect that you'll observe an increasing correlation between the two. Some suggest that there's also a relationship between these figures and average amount that a house has appreciated, and that a negative change or reduction in this variable will also have an effect on things. Recent rates of real-appreciation also seem somewhat higher than average, inasmuch as the data series from 1890 to the present constitute a reliable indicator.

Maybe if all of the married gay guys donate their genetic patrimony to all of the unmarried career gals in the blue states this problem will go away.... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4170483