The first bath we gave Frances, she liked. Ever since then, baths have fluxuated between barely tolerable to excruciating horror. But now that she has outgrown the baby bathtub and is in the regular tub, she has started to actually enjoy baths. It is nice to be able to clean our baby and not feel like we are torturing her.
mwz
213
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Crazy Thought
Okay, (I like to start posts off with "Okay", it gets me in the mood to write) so I have this idea. It's not a great idea and it has some flaws. It's the kind of idea that will keep me from ever getting elected to public office anywhere but maybe in Texas. Fortunately, I don't ever plan to run for office.
I was thinking about the irony of making sure that people on death row don't commit suicide. It's the whole thing where the state doesn't want to be deprived of killing them, or something.
So here's the idea: we let people on death row or have life sentences kill themselves if they want to. Only people who are going to spend the rest of their lives in prison would be eligible. They could go to the prison doctor and get OD'd with morphine or some other drug. This would save a quite a bit of money from not having to hear appeals or housing these people and it would save some the prisoners the suffering of living long lives in prison. Arguably, it is cruel and unusual punishment to make someone live when they don't want to.
Obviously, there are problems with this. Three in particular.
1. I believe (as many other people do) that if you commit suicide, you go to hell. So by allowing these people to kill themselves, you are letting them go to hell, which is a moral sticking point. This could be countered by saying that these people are making the choice on their own and it isn't the governments job to make sure that people go to heaven.
2. This could be abused by guards and wardens just to kill prisoners. There would have to be forms to fill out and signatures to be collected. It would probably be best if there was a third party that would be required to be present (like the prisoners lawyer) to make sure that the prisoner wasn't forced to do this.
3. The prisoner could be pressured into doing it by the people in charge. Since it would be beneficial to the state to have one less prisoner, careful monitoring would have to take place. You would want the prisoner in question to go through some sort of counseling to talk about the risks (dieing or maybe not dieing) and maybe even the spiritual risks (going to hell) that the person is taking. There would have to be a whole process.
Well, that's my imperfect idea.
mwz
213
I was thinking about the irony of making sure that people on death row don't commit suicide. It's the whole thing where the state doesn't want to be deprived of killing them, or something.
So here's the idea: we let people on death row or have life sentences kill themselves if they want to. Only people who are going to spend the rest of their lives in prison would be eligible. They could go to the prison doctor and get OD'd with morphine or some other drug. This would save a quite a bit of money from not having to hear appeals or housing these people and it would save some the prisoners the suffering of living long lives in prison. Arguably, it is cruel and unusual punishment to make someone live when they don't want to.
Obviously, there are problems with this. Three in particular.
1. I believe (as many other people do) that if you commit suicide, you go to hell. So by allowing these people to kill themselves, you are letting them go to hell, which is a moral sticking point. This could be countered by saying that these people are making the choice on their own and it isn't the governments job to make sure that people go to heaven.
2. This could be abused by guards and wardens just to kill prisoners. There would have to be forms to fill out and signatures to be collected. It would probably be best if there was a third party that would be required to be present (like the prisoners lawyer) to make sure that the prisoner wasn't forced to do this.
3. The prisoner could be pressured into doing it by the people in charge. Since it would be beneficial to the state to have one less prisoner, careful monitoring would have to take place. You would want the prisoner in question to go through some sort of counseling to talk about the risks (dieing or maybe not dieing) and maybe even the spiritual risks (going to hell) that the person is taking. There would have to be a whole process.
Well, that's my imperfect idea.
mwz
213
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
City Annexing
Okay, I don't live in the Omaha area but I used to. So when I heard about this story, it caught my interest. So I thought I would write about it.
Omaha is trying to annex Elkhorn, a small city that has essentially become a suburb. Their city council just voted 7-0 to annex Elkhorn. This might not be a problem, except that the people of Elkhorn don't want to be annexed. I can understand that. As a citizen, I wouldn't want to give my money to a government in exchange for less representation. It just seems wrong that a city can invade a neighboring city.
To research this, I took a peak at the Omaha World Herald. They get my appreciation and respect for having their newspaper on line, available without registering or a subscription. They have had great coverage of this issue (and it seems to have been pretty balanced coverage as well).
My first question was "Why does Omaha want to annex Elkhorn?" I assumed the answer was to get their money and get more power for the Omaha government. With that answer, I asked "What reasons are they using to justify the land grab?" This opinion piece answered that question nicely.
Reasons to invade a neighboring city (as parsed from the opinion piece in the Omaha World Herald):
- Not being able to grow, limits the resources that it can use to "sustain its core". "A sprouting tree cannot maintain its health if the trunk is allowed to rot."
- The main city is the only reason that people want to live in the 'burb, so you owe us the money that you make on those people.
- Maintaining the "core" city is in everyone's interest.
- The suburb my annex other smaller 'burbs and take those away from the main city, too.
So, maybe 1 and 3 are the same but I think that those are the most persuasive of the arguments. If you bind a city, what happens to it. Does it die, as the article I've sited suggests? Yep. That's why Chicago is just an empty wasteland. I would give more counter examples but I don't know that much about cities other than Cleveland which is dieing because it hasn't yet moved out of the industrial revolution economy. The underlying idea behind reasons 1 and 3 is that they are unable to effectively use what they have, so they need to go get more.
Reason number 2 is basically envy. If Omaha could provide suitable housing and decent schools, those new people would move into the city rather than in the suburbs. It just seems like the Omaha government wants to have all the benefits of running a major city without any of the drawbacks.
Finally, reason number 4 is almost laughable. What I have gathered (which could be wrong), is that Elkhorn is only trying to annex smaller towns BECAUSE Omaha is trying to annex it. If they can get their population up to 10,000 people (currently ~8,000), then any annexing would have to go to a popular vote in their city. In essence allowing the people the right to choose which government they want without Omaha strong arming them.
I've seen a couple places where it was pointed out that Elkhorn is trying to annex other communities, trying to point out the hypocrisy. Here is a nice cartoon. But it is sort of like attacking a pacifist and crying foul when they fight to defend themselves.
It's not over though. Two law suits have been filed to stop the annexation (described in this article). The arguments of the suit brought by the city of Elkhorn are as follows (cribbed from the article above):
- The city council meeting where the vote took place was illegal since not enough notice was given.
- (This is my favorite.) The cities don't have a common border. They are 1.4 miles apart.
- Elkhorn started their annexing first (a defensive move to try to block the announced plans to annex Elkhorn), so those should be resolved first before Omaha's annex attempt takes effect.
The other law suit, brought on behalf of two citizens, is basically a procedural issue that causes the people of Elkhorn not to be able to vote in the Omaha spring elections (even though they would be a part of Omaha). That one bores me. But the city of Elkhorn suit is much more fun.
I love that the cities don't touch. 1.4 miles is a good stretch of land. I don't know who controls that land but maybe Omaha should have gone about their power grab in a reasonable order.
I just think the whole thing stinks. Apparently, in Nebraska it is lawful for a large city to take control of all the little cities they want (as long as they are in the same county, of course).
Let's take a moment and move this issue on to a grander scale. Let's say this was the European Union. Would it be okay if Belgium to annex Luxemburg without the people's consent just because Luxemburg is so small? What about if Belgium was growing stagnant and the only reason people live in Luxemburg is to be near Belgium? No, that would basically be an act of war. But it is somehow okay for cities to eat other cities.
That's basically it but I wanted to add this little tidbit. The reason I heard about this was a friend in the area mentioned it to me. He said that he learned about it by listening to the local liberal radio. I don't know why this would be a liberal vs conservative issue. I'm just reporting the facts... er... the hearsay.
The radio people have been making fun of the Elkhorn people because the radio guys think that the reason they don't want to be a part of Omaha is because their racist and don't want black people moving into their town. First off, I don't understand how race is even an issue in this but it doesn't surprise me that liberals are bringing it up. Second, I don't see how being part of Omaha on paper changes the demographics of who lives in Elkhorn. Let's say they are racist bastards, why would they think that annexation cause ethnic people to move in? It doesn't make sense. I think this is just a case of trying to smear people on the other side of an issue. (On a side note, have you ever noted that both conservatives and liberals think that the other side is anti-Semitic?)
Oh, I almost forgot. If you feel strongly about this issue, you can contact the mayor of Omaha, Mayor Fahey with the following contact information. I already have.
mfahey@ci.omaha.ne.us
1819 Farnam St
Suite 300
Omaha NE 68183
Please post comments if you have something to add... either side of the debate.
mwz
216
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Bababadadadada
My baby has a new consenent. It is "D". Oh, it's very exciting because it means that she says, "dada". This as we all know, means that I won the time honored tradition of rooting for the baby to make sounds that indicate the parent of your gender. Moms are supposed to root for "mama" and fathers root for "dada".
This would be even more exciting if I weren't trying to get her to call me "Papa".
We went to a baby sign language class tonight. It was free and at the library. There we found out that babies are not born knowing how to do America Sign. It turns out that BOTH the baby and the parents need to learn to sign.
Oddly enough, that reminds me. My girl is shaping up to be a great wrestler. Hopefully by the time she is in high school girls will be common place because she has some moves right now.
When I'm changing her diaper she is a master at escaping. I start her on her back and before you know it she has flipped herself over, avoiding the pin.
mwz
216
This would be even more exciting if I weren't trying to get her to call me "Papa".
We went to a baby sign language class tonight. It was free and at the library. There we found out that babies are not born knowing how to do America Sign. It turns out that BOTH the baby and the parents need to learn to sign.
Oddly enough, that reminds me. My girl is shaping up to be a great wrestler. Hopefully by the time she is in high school girls will be common place because she has some moves right now.
When I'm changing her diaper she is a master at escaping. I start her on her back and before you know it she has flipped herself over, avoiding the pin.
mwz
216
Sunday, March 06, 2005
My Baby
Just a little baby blogging. Francis can now say "Babababababa". She seems to enjoy saying it and I enjoy hearing consonants.
She also made a mad dash to one of our cats and managed to touch her before the cat ran away. By mad dash, I mean relatively quick crawl while the kitty was distracted.
The last time we played the drums together, Francis held both sticks the whole time and didn't try to chew on them. She hit the drum on her own several times and only hit my face a few times.
mwz
217
She also made a mad dash to one of our cats and managed to touch her before the cat ran away. By mad dash, I mean relatively quick crawl while the kitty was distracted.
The last time we played the drums together, Francis held both sticks the whole time and didn't try to chew on them. She hit the drum on her own several times and only hit my face a few times.
mwz
217
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Law of Unintended Consequences
Note: I tried to post this using email but it has been 12 hours since I sent it and it hasn't posted. So, I'm sorry if it double posts.
The Washington Monthly has a nice, little, well-rounded article about the "Cedar Revolution" (ie. Lebanon) and other middle East shifts and whether or not the Bush administration had anything to do with it. It is a nice piece but I only want to pick on a little piece because I have seen the same sentiment elsewhere.
"For starters, despite a fair amount of breast beating in the conservative blogosphere, the Bush administration itself didn't consider democratization a primary reason for the Iraq invasion."
The theory is that since the administration didn't 'call it', they shouldn't get credit for any involvement that they had in bringing democracy to the middle east. Now, I'm a big fan of the Law of Unintended Consequences (well not so much a fan but a believer). QandO was where I first had the Idea placed in my head. They like to bring it up.
The gist is that when you take some action (such as regulation), there are bound to be unintended consequences. Now if the those consequences are bad, everyone (including me) blames the action taker for messing things up. For instance, when it looked like the Iraqi invasion was going to bread more hate towards America (which it might still do, who knows), the Dems were quick to blame Bush.
But now that there are good, unforseen things coming out of it, I think you have to place the praise in the same place you would place the blame. This is government not pool. You don't have to call all the balls that will fall, you just do what you think is right and hope for the best.
On a completely different note, FOX News has taught me that all the important events that the rest of the world has to offer can be covered in 80 seconds.
mwz
217
The Washington Monthly has a nice, little, well-rounded article about the "Cedar Revolution" (ie. Lebanon) and other middle East shifts and whether or not the Bush administration had anything to do with it. It is a nice piece but I only want to pick on a little piece because I have seen the same sentiment elsewhere.
"For starters, despite a fair amount of breast beating in the conservative blogosphere, the Bush administration itself didn't consider democratization a primary reason for the Iraq invasion."
The theory is that since the administration didn't 'call it', they shouldn't get credit for any involvement that they had in bringing democracy to the middle east. Now, I'm a big fan of the Law of Unintended Consequences (well not so much a fan but a believer). QandO was where I first had the Idea placed in my head. They like to bring it up.
The gist is that when you take some action (such as regulation), there are bound to be unintended consequences. Now if the those consequences are bad, everyone (including me) blames the action taker for messing things up. For instance, when it looked like the Iraqi invasion was going to bread more hate towards America (which it might still do, who knows), the Dems were quick to blame Bush.
But now that there are good, unforseen things coming out of it, I think you have to place the praise in the same place you would place the blame. This is government not pool. You don't have to call all the balls that will fall, you just do what you think is right and hope for the best.
On a completely different note, FOX News has taught me that all the important events that the rest of the world has to offer can be covered in 80 seconds.
mwz
217
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
New Liberal Blog
Okay, it's not new but it is new to me. Well, that's not entirely true. I was directed to it about a month ago but couldn't find the RSS feed. Now, I've found it.
What is this new miracle blog? Okay, it's not a miracle blog but it is a liberal blog that is well written and civil and not completely about one topic. It is The Washington Monthly (aka Political Animal but I think that name is stupid). It's written by Kevin Drum who seems like a nice guy.
Anyway, I like it a lot, to the point that I look forward to reading it. I don't agree with what he thinks a lot of the time but he is at least interesting. I have given it about a week before adding it here because I didn't want to go through what I did with Talking Points Memo (not related to Bill O'reilly) where I liked it initially then got really bored by it.
On a side note, Right Wing Duck has started posting on IMAO, so I don't have to read his blog specifically anymore.
On another side note, I occationally look at the site meter results to see who is looking at the page and I saw one reference was from Yahoo. Apparently, if you search for "nudity in GTA", a post of mine is the top spot. I thought that was pretty interesting.
mwz
What is this new miracle blog? Okay, it's not a miracle blog but it is a liberal blog that is well written and civil and not completely about one topic. It is The Washington Monthly (aka Political Animal but I think that name is stupid). It's written by Kevin Drum who seems like a nice guy.
Anyway, I like it a lot, to the point that I look forward to reading it. I don't agree with what he thinks a lot of the time but he is at least interesting. I have given it about a week before adding it here because I didn't want to go through what I did with Talking Points Memo (not related to Bill O'reilly) where I liked it initially then got really bored by it.
On a side note, Right Wing Duck has started posting on IMAO, so I don't have to read his blog specifically anymore.
On another side note, I occationally look at the site meter results to see who is looking at the page and I saw one reference was from Yahoo. Apparently, if you search for "nudity in GTA", a post of mine is the top spot. I thought that was pretty interesting.
mwz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)