28 September 2007

humanity has reached a new all time low.

when a government resorts to shooting anyone, it is an atrocity. when they resort to shooting monks and nuns... well, i don't even have words.

please add your name to this petition. i think we can stop this. we need to stop this.

the latest on burma here.

Labels: ,


22 September 2007

homegrown terrorism

on the heels of yesterday's post, looks like many someones are living in the past and pining for a chapter in history that was horribly sick and wrong.

these unevolved sociopathic whackjobs could use a dose of a 40 year prison term, in my humble opinion.

racism is long dead, huh? from alternet:

In what is not a surprising, but sad development, a white supremacist organization is being monitored by the FBI. William A. White is trying to stir up violence by posting addresses and phone numbers of the Jena 6 family on his web site, proclaiming: "Lynch the Jena 6." He operates out of Roanoke, Virginia:

William A. White also listed some of the defendants' telephone numbers, urging his readers to "Get in touch, and let them know justice is coming."
The review came as protesters gathered Thursday in Jena, the site of racial unrest since last summer. After a black student asked the school for permission to sit under a tree where white students traditionally gathered, three nooses were found hanging from the tree. Months later, the Jena Six were charged with beating a white student.
On his Web site, White complained of "agitators" who were demanding acquittals.
A posting Thursday afternoon that contained contact information for the six youths was headlined: "Addresses of Jena 6 N-----s; In case anyone wants to deliver justice."
In a second item, White was quoted as saying: "If these n------s are released or acquitted, we will find out where they live and make sure that white activists and white citizens in Louisiana know it ... in order to find someone willing to deliver justice."

The Southern Poverty Law Center has details on the other sites and groups fomenting violence in light of the march and search for justice in Jena. Take the bleatings at the neo-Nazi Vanguard News Network:

"I think a group of White men with AK rifles loaded with high capacity magazines should close in on the troop of howler monkeys from all sides and compress them into a tight group, and then White men in the buildings on both sides of the shitskinned hominids shall throw Molotov cocktails from above to cleanse the nigs by fire," wrote "NS Cat" on VNN. Another poster fantasized about a terrorist attack in Jena today: "Wouldn't that be sweet? Gosh darn, wouldn't that be sweet? Good LORD wouldn't THAT be SWeeeeEET? Boom, Boom, no more Coon! Well? A White man can dream can't he?"

sad thing is, this sentiment is still shared (sometimes secretly, often not) amongst MANY that walk among us. i lost count of how many times people would make racist "jokes" to me over the bar, replete with winks and nods as if i agreed simply because i shared a lighter skin tone. imagine my surprise each time it happened. it wasn't as if i was working in some backwoods, small town establishment. it's one thing to hear this sort of crap come from the mouths of people in the little town i pretty much grew up in, but it's a whole 'nother level of messed up when it came from the mouths of highly educated wealthy suits and ties.

the only action that is ever taken for hateful groups like this comes in the form of monitoring. white himself is quoted as saying,
"Law enforcement doesn't care. We have a controversy like this about every two or three months. They don't waste their time contacting me anymore."

good. god.

to top it all off,
this dude is YOUNGER than i' am! while it completely weirds me out when i hear anyone of any age piping up with racist rhetoric, it gets me even more when it is someone younger.

bottom line. these groups would not exist if there wasn't wide support for them. silence condones their behavior. and it is terrorism. i defy that.



21 September 2007

i thought this was a no-brainer...

until i received a message on myspace from someone that i have never met. i went over to her page to try and figure out who she was and ended up reading a blog post that she'd written that matched the topic she'd messaged me about. how's that for a mouthful?

turns out, she didn't mean for me to get the message. but now i can't stop thinking about it. she wrote:

subject line: jena 6, sick, six
Shine some 'light' on the issue. Grow up and leave the past in the past. Tolerant One!

her blog post goes on to essentially attack the jena 6 - and calls out people, in general, for "living in the past." i'm still trying to get my brain around that one. 50 years ago wasn't all that long ago. and to steal a line from ani, "now that lynching is frowned upon, we've moved on to the electric chair."

jena, louisianna - in a nutshell.

dark skinned students ASK PERMISSION to sit under the shade of the "WHITE TREE" during some school function. wtf?!?!?!

they are told to sit where they want and do so. ok, good. apparently the bleachers, in the sun, are the designated are for dark-skinned kids to sit under, while the light skinned students sit under the tree. segregation? say it isn't so. isn't that ILLEGAL?

so the next day, three nooses appear hanging from the white tree. i'd call that a threat. not good.

the students responsible for the hanging of the nooses face expulsion. ok, good. instead, they received three days of in school suspension. not good. (i received three days of in school suspension once - for ditching after school detention for being late - not for attempting to threaten other students with a hanging death that was a very real and sick and disgusting phenomen just 50 years ago.) i call bullshit.

naturally, the racial violence intensifies, as it typically tends to do when an injustice to this extreme occurs. several situations take place over the following days. it all eventually results in 6 dark skinned students attacking a light skinned student. light skinned student is knocked unconscious and kicked. 6 dark skinned students are arrested.

here's where it gets really twisted. the 6 were facing second degree attempted murder convictions. for a fight, similar to a few of which i witnessed in my own high school days. tell me this had nothing to do race with a straight face. had those 6 been light skinned kids, the charges would have been assault, at best, if ever even reported - or had charges been pressed. guaranteed.

my light shedding says this: as long as anyone is treated in this back asswards fashion of being publicly threatened when they sit under a fucking tree based on skin tone, violence is going to be the outcome. and as long as we have an injustice system in place that condones people who make death threats, but goes completely overboard in their punishments for "some people"...

i find it interesting that anyone would hold the opinion that the hanging of those nooses was just a little funny prank. when i first read about this, i was appalled. WHO finds it clever to ever hang a noose???

there is NO WAY these kids got or can get a fair trial. the initial jury was comprised of light skinned people! you are entitled in this country to a jury of your peers.

in one of the cases, charges are dropped for now, as he was a minor at the time. in two others, they were reduced down to assault and conspiracy. from what i can gather, the final four will be tried as adults, and could face imprisonment until they are 50. years. old. it should also be noted that the kid that was beat up was well enough to be at a ring ceremony party the same night. for an attmepted murder, that's quite a speedy recovery, wouldn't you say?

that, my friends, is not justice. it is wrong. and to the girl that accidentally sent me a message, there's a lot of growing up to do - on many many many levels.

"If you're going to hold someone down you're going to have to hold on by the other end of the chain. You are confined by your own repression."
~toni morrison

and a song:


white people are so scared of black people
they bulldoze out to the country
and put up houses on little loop-dee-loop streets
and while america gets its heart cut right out of its chest
the berlin wall still runs down main street
separating east side from west
and nothing is stirring, not even a mouse
in the boarded-up stores and the broken-down houses
so they hang colorful banners off all the street lamps
just to prove they got no manners
no mercy and no sense

and i'm wondering what it will take
for my city to rise
first we admit our mistakes
then we open our eyes
the ghosts of old buildings are haunting parking lots
in the city of good neighbors that history forgot

i remember the first time i saw someone
lying on the cold street
i thought: i can't just walk past here
this can't just be true
but i learned by example
to just keep moving my feet
it's amazing the things that we all learn to do

so we're led by denial like lambs to the slaughter
serving empires of style and carbonated sugar water
and the old farm road's a four-lane that leads to the mall
and our dreams are all guillotines waiting to fall

i'm wondering what it will take
for my country to rise
first we admit our mistakes
and then we open our eyes
or nature succumbs to one last dumb decision
and america the beautiful
is just one big subdivision

Labels: , ,


20 September 2007

a quiz

that i'll get to in a second.

i find it interesting, the show of outrage over the civilian deaths in iraq at the hands of america's blackwater "corporate warrior" mercenaries. where is the outrage over the civilian deaths that resulted from the shock and awe campaign initiated by the u.s. - civilian deaths that continue today, that came about only because we invaded iraq?

i can think of a few more "contracts" that need nullifying.

now, about that quiz... very interesting historical stuff here. i'm currently drooling over ritter's book, 'waging peace.'

Scott Ritter: Calling Out Idiot America


Posted on Mar 23, 2007

By Scott Ritter

The ongoing hand-wringing in Congress by the newly empowered Democrats over what to do about the war in Iraq speaks volumes about the level of concern (or lack thereof) these “representatives of the people” have toward the men and women who honor us all by serving in the armed forces of the United States of America. The inability to reach consensus concerning the level of funding required or how to exercise effective oversight of the war, both constitutionally mandated responsibilities, is more a reflection of congressional cowardice and impotence than a byproduct of any heartfelt introspection over troop welfare and national security.

The issues that prompt the congressional collective to behave in such an egregious manner have more to do with a reflexive tendency to avoid any controversy that might disrupt the status quo ante regarding representative-constituent relations (i.e., re-election) than with any intellectual debate about doing the right thing. This sickening trend is bipartisan in nature, but of particular shame to the Democrats, who obtained their majority from an electorate that expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of the war in Iraq through their votes, demanding that something be done.

Sadly, Congress’ smoke-and-mirrors approach to the Iraq war creates the impression of much activity while generating no result. Even more sadly, the majority of Americans are falling for the act, either by continuing their past trend of political disengagement or by thinking that the gesticulation and pontification taking place in Washington, D.C., actually translate into useful work. The fact is, most Americans are ill-placed intellectually, either through genuine ignorance, a lack of curiosity or a combination of both, to judge for themselves the efficacy of congressional behavior when it comes to Iraq. Congress claims to be searching for a solution to Iraq, and many Americans simply accept that this is this case.

The fact is one cannot begin to search for a solution to a problem that has yet to be accurately defined. We speak of “surges,” “stability” and “funding” as if these terms come close to addressing the real problems faced in Iraq. There is widespread recognition among members of Congress and the American people that there is civil unrest in Iraq today, with Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence tearing that country apart, but the depth of analysis rarely goes beyond that obvious statement of fact. Americans might be able to nod their heads knowingly if one utters the words Sunni, Shiite and Kurd, but very few could take the conversation much further down the path of genuine comprehension regarding the interrelationships among these three groups. And yet we, the people, are expected to be able to hold to account those whom we elected to represent us in higher office, those making the decisions regarding the war in Iraq. How can the ignorant accomplish this task? And ignorance is not something uniquely attached to the American public. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the newly appointed chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, infamously failed a pop quiz in which journalist Jeff Stein asked him to differentiate between Sunni and Shiite. Reyes has become the poster boy for congressional stupidity, but in truth he is not alone. Very few of his colleagues could pass the test, truth be told.

The task of holding Congress to account is a daunting one, and can be accomplished only if the citizenry that forms the respective constituencies of our ignorant congressional representatives are themselves able to operate at an intellectual capacity above that of those they are holding to account. So rather than issue “pop quizzes” to our elected representatives, I’ve designed one for us, the people. If the reader can fully answer the question raised, then he or she qualifies as one capable of pointing an accusatory finger at Congress as its members dither over what to do in Iraq. If the reader fails the quiz, then there should be an honest appraisal of the reality that we are in way over our heads regarding this war, and that it is irresponsible for anyone to make sweeping judgments about the ramifications of policy courses of action yet to be agreed upon. Claiming to be able to divine a solution to a problem improperly defined is not only ignorant but dangerously delusional.

So here is the quiz: Explain the relationship between the Iraqi cities of Karbala and Baghdad as they impact the coexistence of Iraq’s Shiite and Sunni populations.

Most respondents who have a basic understanding of Iraq will answer that Karbala is a city of significance to Iraq’s Shiite population. Baghdad is Iraq’s capital, with a mixed Sunni and Shiite population. If that is your answer, you fail.

Karbala is a holy city for the Shiites. Its status as such is based on the fact that Hussein, a grandson of the prophet Muhammad and son of Ali, the fourth caliph, was killed outside Karbala in a battle between Hussein’s followers and forces loyal to Yazid, son of Muawiyah, the fifth caliph. The two sides were fighting over the line of succession when it came to leading the Muslim faithful after the death of Muhammad in the year 632. Abu Bakr, a close colleague of Muhammad but not a member of Muhammad’s biological family, was elected as the first caliph after the prophet’s death, an act that many Muslims believed broke faith with a necessity for the successor of Muhammad to be from his family. Abu Bakr’s death brought about a quick succession of caliphs, all of whom met untimely deaths and none of whom were from the family line of Muhammad.

When Ali was elected as the fourth caliph, many Muslims believed that for the first time since the death of Muhammad the caliphate had been restored to one properly authorized in the eyes of God to lead the Muslim faith. In fact, upon Ali’s accession as caliph, one of his first acts was to seek to restore the Muslim faith to its puritanical origins, which Ali believed had been departed from by the merchant families closely allied with the third caliph, Othman. Ali’s efforts were bitterly resisted by merchant families in Damascus, which refused to recognize Ali as the caliph. The head of the Damascus rebels, Muawiyah, fought a bitter conflict with Ali, which weakened the caliphate and paved the way for Ali’s assassination.

Upon Ali’s death, the caliphate was transferred to his elder son, Hassan, but when this succession was challenged by Muawiyah, Hassan relented, transferring the caliphate to Muawiyah with the caveat that once Muawiyah died, the caliphate would be returned to the lineage of the prophet Muhammad. When Muawiyah died, the caliphate passed to his son, Yazid. This succession was challenged by Hussein, Hassan’s brother and Ali’s younger son, who believed that the succession, as dictated by Hassan when he abdicated, should have gone to someone within the direct line of the prophet Muhammad, namely Hussein. Yazid’s treacherous attack on Hussein and his followers, occurring as it did during prayer time, set the stage for the split in the Muslim faith between the Shiat Ali (Shia, or followers of Ali) and the Ahl-i Sunnah (Sunni, or the people who follow in the custom of the prophet Muhammad). Both Shiite and Sunni view one another as deviants from the pure form of Islam as taught by Muhammad, and as such functioning as apostates deserving death.

If you answered the quiz on Karbala in the above fashion, you would still be wrong. The split between Sunni and Shiite goes beyond simple hatred for one another. Not only did the religion split, but so too did the methodology of governance as well as the interrelationship between religion and politics.

There was a final chance at achieving unity within the Muslim world. In the year 750, at the battle of Zab in Egypt, nearly the entire aristocracy formed from the lineage of Muawiyah was annihilated when the Damascus-based caliphate clashed with predominantly Shiite rebels. Jaffar, a Shiite spiritual leader and the great-grandson of Hussein, was supposed to be elevated to the caliphate, thereby uniting the Muslim world, but was instead murdered by Al-Mansur, who established the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad. This final treachery created a permanent split between the Shiites and those who became known as Sunnis.

The Shiite faithful embraced rule by imams, infallible leaders who provide guidance over spiritual and political affairs. According to the majority of Shiites, there are 12 imams, originating with Ali. The 12th imam, also named Muhammad, is believed by many Shiites to be the Mahdi, or savior, who went into hiding at God’s command and will return at the end of days to bring salvation to the faithful. With the passing of the 12th imam, matters of spiritual and political concerns were dealt with by religious scholars, or the ulema. These scholars are products of religious academies, known as “hawza.” In Iraq, the city of Najaf is home to the most important hawza, the Hawza Ilmiya. Each hawza produces religious scholars, or “marjas,” who interpret religion and provide guidance over social matters to those who rally around their particular teachings.

The Najaf Hawza currently has four marjas, or grand ayatollahs, each of whom reigns supreme when it comes to matters of religion or state. The faithful look to their hawza for guidance in all they do, and the sermons given by the various marjas take on a significance little understood by those who aren’t born and bred into that society. To speak of creating a unified Iraqi state without factoring in the reality of the hawza and its competing marjas is tantamount to claiming one will seek to fly without factoring in the realities of lift and gravity.

So if you answered the question concerning the city of Karbala with anything remotely resembling an insight into not only the schism that exists between the Sunni and the Shiite but also how the development of the practice of the Shiite faith has led to an absolute insinuation of religious dogma into every aspect of social and political life in a manner that operates independently of any so-called central state authority, you would get a passing grade, enabling you to move on to the next city covered by the pop quiz: Baghdad.

It is not only the Shiites who are bound by religious ties seemingly indecipherable to the West. From the chaos that was created with the Islamic schism came a very fluid situation in the development of Sunni Islamic dogma, with the Sunnis embracing a notion of consensus among the historical Muslim community, a line of thinking that led to the creation of four so-called legal schools of Islamic thought (the Maliki, the Hannafi, the Hanbali and the Shafi’i). These schools produced Islamic scholars who in turn competed for a constituency of followers. While in theory Sunni scholars preached adherence to the customs of the prophet Muhammad, in practice the Sunni schools became intertwined in the affairs of state and business. This deviation from the pure practice of faith led to the growth of “mystic societies” known as Sufism. Sufi brotherhoods sprang up throughout the Muslim world, each preaching its own mystical path toward achieving personal growth through the teachings of the prophet Muhammad.

The Abbasid caliphate, which oversaw this period of religious “softening,” in which the pure practice of Islam gave way to a more secular tolerance of the baser concerns of man, was centered in Baghdad. It was the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in 1258 that signaled not only the end of the Abbasid caliph’s rule but the certification in the eyes of some Sunni faithful that Abbasid’s ruin was brought about by the lack of pure faith in Islam by those professing to be Muslim. One of the basic tenants of the Sunni faith was the notion of community consensus, or “taqlid.” Taqlid was actively practiced by three of the four “legal” schools of Sunni thought. The sole exception was the school of the Hanbali, which followed a stricter interpretation of the faith. A Hanbali religious jurist, Ibn Taymiya, rose to prominence in the aftermath of the Mongol invasion. He held not only that the Mongols were an enemy of Islam but that the Shiite Islamic state that emerged in Persia after the Mongol conquest was likewise anathema.

More important, Ibn Taymiya broke ranks with the rest of the Sunni community, especially those who practiced Sufism, declaring all to be an affront to God. Ibn Taymiya rejected the notion of community consensus represented in the taqlid and instead professed that a true Muslim state could exist only where the political leader governed as a partner with the religious leader, and was subordinated to the religious through strict adherence to the “sharia,” or religious law. The Muslim jurists, or “ulema,” held total sway over society, to the extent that even matters pertaining to war were reserved for the religious leader, or imam, who was the only person authorized to declare a jihad.

During the Abbysid caliph, the term jihad had taken on the connotation of inner struggle. This interpretation gained wide acceptance with the spread of the Sufi brotherhoods, which were all about inner discovery. Ibn Taymiya rejected this notion of jihad, instead proclaiming that true jihad involved a relentless struggle against the enemies of Islam. For a while his teachings were popular, especially when they were being used to encourage the forces of Sunni Islam confronting the infidel Mongol invaders. However, his strict interpretation of Hanbali tenets were rejected even by other Hanbali religious scholars, and Ibn Taymiya himself was branded a heretic.

The teachings of Ibn Taymiya continued to be taught in certain Hanbali circles, including those operating in the holy city of Medina. It was here, in the 18th century, that a Arab Bedouin from the Nejd desert, in what is today Saudi Arabia, named Muhammed al-Wahhab emerged to create a movement that not only embraced the teachings of Ibn Taymiya but took them even further, preaching a virulent form of Islam that claimed to seek to bring the faithful back to the religion as practiced by the prophet Muhammad himself. Wahhab’s movement, known as the Call to Unity, reflected his strict interpretation of Islam as set forth in his book Kitab al-Tawhid, or the Book of Unity.

At first Wahhab was rejected by the Sunni scholars, and he was hounded and finally forced to take refuge in the tiny village of Dariya. There Wahhab befriended the local governor, Muhammed Ibn Saud, initiating what was to become a partnership in which the Saud family took on the role of emir, or political leader, while Wahhab became imam, or religious leader. The team of Bedouin warrior and Islamic fanatic soon led to what would become known as the Wahhabi conquest, bringing much of what is now present-day Saudi Arabia under their strict religious rule. In 1802 a Wahhabi army attacked Karbala and sacked the sacred Shiite shrine to Hussein. In 1803 the Wahhabis sacked Mecca, laying waste to the most holy sites in the Islamic world, including the Great Mosque. In 1804 the Wahhabis captured Medina, looted the tomb of the prophet Muhammad and shut off the hajj, or pilgrimage, to all non-Wahhabis. The rise of the Wahhabi empire was seen as a threat to all Islam, and soon a massive counterattack was mounted by the caliphate in Egypt. By 1818 the Wahhabis had been destroyed in battle, and everyone professing Wahhabism was treated as an apostate and butchered. The head of the Saud tribe was captured and beheaded, along with many of his fellow tribesmen.

Deep in the Arab deserts, a small number of Saudi tribesmen, strict adherents to Wahhabism, survived the Egyptian onslaught and began the struggle to regain their lost power. By 1924 the Wahhabis once again controlled Mecca and Medina, and by 1932 a new nation, Saudi Arabia, emerged from the Arabian deserts, governed by the house of Saud and with religious affairs totally in the hands of the Wahhabis.

To the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia there were two great sources of religious heretics: the Shiites, who ruled in Iran and represented a majority population in several Arab nations, including Iraq, and worse still, the Sunni Arabs, who rejected the true path as represented by the teachings of Wahhab. The puritanical form of Islam pushed by the Wahhabis was difficult to export, however, until the oil crisis of 1973, after which the Saudi government was able to fund the printing of Wahhabi literature and training of Wahhabi missionaries. In Iraq, there was some attraction to the puritanical teachings of Wahhabism among the Bedouin of the western deserts. However, with the rise to power of Saddam Hussein, Wahhabism and those who proselytized in its name were treated as enemies of the state. Wahhabism was still practiced in the shadows of Sunni mosques throughout Iraq, but anyone caught doing so was immediately arrested and put to death.

Wahhabi concerns over the weakening of the Muslim world by those who practiced anything other than pure Islam were certified in the minds of the faithful when, in April 2003, American soldiers captured Baghdad in what many Wahhabis viewed as a repeat of the sack of the city at the hands of the Mongols in 1258. Adding insult to injury, the role of Iraq’s Shiites in aiding and abetting the American conquest was seen as proof positive that the only salvation for the faithful could come at the hands of a pure form of the Islamic faith, that of Wahhabism. As the American liberation dragged on into the American occupation, and the level of violence between the Shiites and Sunnis grew, the call of jihad as promulgated by the Wahhabis gained increasing credence among the tribes of western Iraq.

The longer the Americans remain in Iraq, the more violence the Americans bring down on Iraq, and the more the Americans are seen as facilitating the persecution of the Sunnis by the Shiites, the more legitimate the call of the Wahhabi fanatics become. While American strategists may speak of the rise of al-Qaida in Iraq, this is misrecognition of what is really happening. Rather than foreigners arriving and spreading Wahhabism in Iraq, the virulent sect of Islamic fundamentalism is spreading on its own volition, assisted by the incompetence and brutality of an American occupation completely ignorant of the reality of the land and people it occupies. This is the true significance of Baghdad, and any answer not reflecting this will be graded as failing.

A pop quiz, consisting of one question in two parts. Most readers might complain that it is not realistic to expect mainstream America to possess the knowledge necessary to achieve the level of comprehension required to pass this quiz. I agree. However, since the mission of the United States in Iraq has shifted from disarming Saddam to installing democracy to creating stability, I think it only fair that the American people be asked about those elements that are most relevant to the issue, namely the Shiite and Sunni faithful and how they interact with one another.

It is sadly misguided to believe that surging an additional 20,000 U.S. troops into Baghdad and western Iraq will even come close to redressing the issues raised in this article. And if you concur that the reality of Iraq is far too complicated to be understood by the average American, yet alone cured by the dispatch of additional troops, then we have a collective responsibility to ask what the hell we are doing in that country to begin with. If this doesn’t represent a clarion call for bringing our men and women home, nothing does.

Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) and “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006).

Labels: ,


18 September 2007

stupid cops rock.

and so do the people that just sit around and watch something like this happen - no matter how ridiculous the last question was. get a load of the video. do the student's actions really warrant a possible five year prison term? seriously. geez.


05 September 2007

you almost lost me today

due to heart failure.

i boogied out onto the front porch to put a few items in the recycling bin. while i was breaking boxes down, bebe apparently busted down the babygate and bum-rushed to the front door. i turned around when i heard the screen door LOCK! yup. me outside, bebe inside. LOCKED inside. the first floor of our house is pretty much baby-proofed - the two rooms that are babygated contain no dangers. beyond the babygates, however... suffice it to say he's never in those areas alone.

i tell bebe, through the screen+glass door, to turn the lock. he does so, i try the door. no dice. i tell him to try again, while attempting to remain calm. he's locked inside with the dogs. and the stairs. and the very dangerous stairs to the third floor that has no railing. i think about how i'm going to get in. he knows how to open the windows in the living room, and perhaps i can convince him to crawl back under the baby gate and unlock one. he turns the lock again. i try the door. still locked. i feel myself starting to panic. i start thinking about things i can use to break windows, doing a mental scan of everything around the outside of the house.

"i need help, mommy," he says as he moves away from the door.

"mommy is out here and you are in there, i need you to help me unlock the door. try turning the lock again, please." my heart is pounding, i'm shaking, but somehow i sound calm.

he turns the door handle. i tell him again to try the little lock beneath.

i see a terminex van and turn to flag it down, in hopes that they have a phone. they look at me hollering at them and waving my arms about... then, you guessed it, they keep driving. mental note: NEVER call terminex for my termite needs.

bebe moves the lock again and i try the door. nada.

"mommy. HELP me." he's laughing. he tries it again. still locked. i tell him to turn it the other way.

in fine toddler two year old fashion, "NOOOOOOOOO!"

"bebe, please show mommy how well you turn the lock the other way now. it's different than the other times you've turned it."

he does. DOOR OPENS! i shriek with sheer glee and we do a little dance. then we talked about how we shouldn't lock the door when mommy is outside.

i swear, it took me 30 minutes to stop shaking once i got back inside. time stood still. what happened over the course of a few minutes felt. like. an. eternity.

NEVER did that scenario cross my mind!

time to bebe-proof the rest of the house.

we leave for the cottage tomorrow after i get out of class! oh, how we need a rest, though i'll have lots of book learnin' to do! 10 glorious days of reprieve, here we come!!!!


FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We have posted it here in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social justice and other issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The material in this site is provided for educational and informational purposes only.