Knocking on Wood.

So there was some dramatic news about Chinese-made drugs killing 81 people, and yesterday was Earth Day, and there's the whole continuing Clinton debacle, but I just don't care.

The world is beautiful once again.

Two nights in a row Number One has slept through the night. We're talking 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.

With no swaddle.

And last night she only cried for about 20 seconds when we put her in bed.

Sleeping baby equals happy Papa.

Swaddling, redux.

Dear Anonymous (if that is indeed your name - not Miracle Blanket Corporation),

Who knew that swaddling would generate such a response? In fact, I didn't think two people who aren't Auntie A even read this.

Anyway, since I have been twice chastised, I will respond. It's not that I'm anti-swaddling generally, or that I think she'll go to college with a swaddle, or that I think there is permanent harm being done. I'm not a cry-it-outer. I want the little gal to sleep.

So, why the swaddle-debacle?

First (to the doula), she's a week away from six months old, not four months old. So Number One is getting pretty good with her hands. She's got some skills. But when she's all wrapped up she can't put her hand in her mouth or pick up her pacifier or do of the other things she's capable of doing to soothe herself. She just has to lay there and rely on Mom and Papa to give her the pacifier when it falls out of her mouth.

Second, if she wakes up before we do, she can't hang out in her crib and grab her feet or move around and be content because she's all wrapped up.

Finally, it seems like she hates getting wrapped up sometimes, so I want to unwrap her. It's because I think it will make things better - not worse. (Mom disagrees on this point, and I freely admit I could be wrong, here).

So don't be a hater, Anonymous. I'm just trying to keep the kid happy.

But failing apparently...

Swaddling.

SuperWife and I have for some time been engaged in low intensity, guerilla warfare over the use of the so-called "miracle blanket."

Number One at times seems to hate the thing, which works like a baby straightjacket, but she can't seem to fall asleep without it.

I'm constantly taking her out of the thing, which infuriates SuperWife, who immediately re-wraps the kid.

"She can't fall asleep without it!" she says.

"I know she can't fall asleep without it," I say. "That's the problem."

Last weekend the swaddling debate blew up like Basra. Number One woke up 4 times Saturday night, and by Sunday afternoon it was like Sunni and Shia up in our house. SuperWife couldn't take it anymore:

"Swaddling is tearing this family apart!"

Sickness.

Number One is sick for the first time in her short life. Fever. Congestion. Coughing. The whole works.

It's the saddest thing ever.

Plus, it's back to the bad ol' days. Screaming and crying and wailing and gnashing of teeth at bed time. Waking up three or four times last night.

Rough.

We took Number One to the Dr. on Monday. At the time, she was hardly sick at all, and the Dr. couldn't find anything wrong. The Dr. said she was "probably coming down with something." I was like, "Yes! We knew it even before the Dr. and even before she was actually sick. We're the best parents ever!"

My enthusiasm has dulled.

The Regulated Community will say the darndest things...

"Calling it unrealistic for utilities, shareholders and consumers to "step up" and pay the price of curbing carbon dioxide and other unregulated greenhouse gases, Craig Hansen, a vice president for the energy technology firm Babcock & Wilcox, said yesterday that the industry needed Congress to offset the extra cost of building coal-fired power plants capable of capturing and storing carbon dioxide. In other words, the most direct path to carbon neutrality may be through the U.S. Treasury."

a) Why is it unrealistic for the producers of greenhouse gas emissions, the beneficiaries of utility profits, or the people who use the generated power to pay for pollution they are responsible for generating?

b) If "nobody" is paying the price of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, now, that simply means that the market is failing to properly price electricity. If the cost of greenhouse gas emissions are not reflected in electricity bills, then the market is failing to properly capture the price of climate change, and the cost is being passed on to the environment.

3) Hey, asshole, if Congress offsets the extra cost of building coal-fired power plants capable of capturing and storing carbon dioxide (a specious idea in the first place), utilities, shareholders and consumers will still pay for it. It's called taxes, and we all pay them (except maybe your welfare-loving corporation).

You probably hate "lazy welfare moms" but you'll sure suck up to the public tit for big business won't you?