f*cked up $hit

This song makes me so angry. it's Luda's attempt at redemption. it's his way of saying he cares about the little girls he's telling to shake their money makers (literally played two songs before this one on V103). I've added my comments in red.

(feat. Mary J. Blige)
Ye..and it go a lil sometin like...
[Hook - Mary J. Blige]
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love

[Verse 1 - Ludacris]
Now little Lisa is only 9 years old
Shes tryin to figure out why the world is so cold
Why shes all all alone and they never met her family
Mamas always gone and she never met her daddy
Part of her is missin' and nobody will listen
Mama on drugs gettin high up in the kitchen
Bringin home men at different hours of the night
Startin with some laughs--usually endin in a fight
Sneak into her room while her mamas knocked out
Tryin to have his way and little Lisa says 'ouch' (WTF!)
She tries to resist but then all he does is beat her
Tries to tell her mom but her mama don't believe her
Lisa is stuck up in the world on her own
Forced to think that hell is a place called home
Nothin else to do but some get some clothes and pack
She says shes bout to run away and never come back.

[Hook - Mary J. Blige] (so is this song telling these little girls that they should run away from home?)
Runaway love [x8]

[Verse 2 - Ludacris]
Little Nicole is only 10 years old
Shes steady tryin to figure why the world is so cold
Why shes not pretty and nobody seems to like her
Alcoholic step dad always wanna strike her
Yells and abuses, leaves her with some bruises
Teachers ask questions she makin up excuses
Bleedin on the inside, cryin on the out
Its only one girl really knows what she about
Her name is lil Stacy and they become friends
Promise that they'll always be tight til the end
Until one day lil Stacy gets shot
A drive by bullet went stray up on her block
Now Nicole stuck up in the world on her own
Forced to think that hell is a place called home
Nothin else to do but some get her clothes and pack
She says shes bout to run away and never come back. (run away to where?! and do you think by just telling these stories you've done something? What are we supposed to do now that we know about Lisa and Nicole?)

[Hook - Mary J. Blige]
Runaway love [x8]

[Verse 3 - Ludacris]
Little Erica is eleven years old
Shes steady tryin to figure why the world is so cold
So she pops x to get rid of all the pain
Plus shes havin sex with a boy whos sixteen
Emotions run deep and she thinks shes in love
So theres no protection hes usin no glove
Never thinkin bout the consequences of her actions (right b/c the 11 yr. old girl is the one who should be thinking about consequences, not the 16 yr. old boy!)
Livin for today and not tomorrows satisfaction
The days go by and her belly gets big
The father bails out he aint ready for a kid
Knowin her mama will blow it all outta proportion
Plus she lives poor so no money for abortion
Erica is stuck up in the world on her own
Forced to think that hell is a place called home
Nothin else to do but get her clothes and pack
She say shes about to run away and never come back.

[Hook - Mary J. Blige]
Runaway love [repeats til end]

So of course when you go to a lyrics site they don't have everything and often mess up and omit things, so I wanted to provide the ad libs.

luda says I want you to close your eyes, and imagine that you are running away with me and when we come back, everything will be all right, open your eyes . . .
WTF!! these pre-teens are supposed to runaway with a grown ass man, and when they come back everything's all right? Ludacris that's ludicrous!

Mary sings Don't Runaway . . . I'll runaway with you if you want me too . . . (3x)
Which is it Mary?! Should I stay or are you coming with me?

This song is just social irresponsible. What real solutions are offered? What is a girl going through these things supposed to get from this song? They should runaway? to where? And if they did, Mary and Luda won't be there!!!

Tesco has been forced to remove a pole-dancing kit from the toys and games section of its website after it was accused of "destroying children's innocence".

A little long, but worth the read...

When one of the first-year University of Texas law students who
participated in a "ghetto fabulous" party posted pictures on the Web, we
saw the ugly face of white privilege and the racism in which it is
rooted. But the depth of the white supremacy problem at the University -
and in mainstream institutions more generally - is also evident in the
polite way in which the University administration chastised the
students.

While the thoughtless actions of young adults acting out the racism of
the culture are disturbing, the thoughtful, but depoliticized, response
from the law school is distressing. The actions of both groups in this
affair are a painful reminder of the depth of white society's commitment
to white supremacy.

This controversy is not unique to UT. It seems that every year students
at a prestigious university - the University of Chicago last year,
Cornell in 2004, and Texas A&M in 2003 - hold one of these parties, in
which white students revel in what they believe to be the behavior of
the black and brown people of the "ghetto."

The student from the UT party who posted the photos has taken them off
the Web, but news reports describe a party in which the students
"carried 40-ounce bottles of malt liquor and wore Afro wigs, necklaces
with large medallions and name tags bearing historically black and
Hispanic names." No one has contested that description.

The motivations and views of participants may vary, but these parties
have two consistent features: One, white people mock African-American
and Hispanic people through stereotypes of the residents of low-income
urban areas, while at the same time enjoying the feeling of temporarily
adopting these poses. Two, the white folks typically do it without
pausing to ponder what right they have as members of a dominant racial
class to poach in this fashion on the lives of people in a subordinated
racial class.

In other words, white people find pleasure in insulting non-white people
while at the same time safely "slumming" for cheap thrills in that
non-white world, all the time oblivious to the moral and political
implications.

Also typical is a tepid reaction from administrators, who tend to avoid
the contentious race politics at the core of the problem. At UT, the
e-mail that went out to all law students from Dean Larry Sager is
revealing.

Let me be clear that this critique is not focused on the dean, or any
other administrator involved. Sager has a distinguished record as a
teacher and is a widely recognized constitutional scholar who has
published important work on civil liberties, especially freedom of
religion. He consulted other administrators and students before
communicating to the entire student body, and his commitment to equality
and diversity is clear.

Still, Sager's characterization of the incident is troubling. His e-mail
to students doesn't use the terms "racism" or "white supremacy." The
only reference to the racial politics of "ghetto fabulous" is the
description of the party as being "named in a way that was easily
understood to have negative racial overtones" and a reminder that being
"racially insensitive" is inappropriate. While many of the students at
the party may not have thought they were being racist, it's essential
that we name such activities as rooted in white people's sense of
privilege and entitlement, the result of historical and contemporary
racism in a white-supremacist culture.

This language is crucial. Even with the gains of the civil-rights
movement, U.S. society is still white supremacist in material terms
(there are deep, enduring racialized disparities in measures of wealth
and well-being) and ideology (many white people continue to believe that
the culture and politics of Europe are inherently superior). To pretend
that things such as a ghetto party are not rooted in those racist
realities is to ignore fundamental moral and political issues in an
unjust society. It's not about "negative racial overtones" - it's about
racism, whether conscious or not. It's not about being "racially
insensitive" - it's about support for white supremacy, whether intended
or not.

The dean's e-mail to law students goes on to give three reasons the
party was "thoughtless."

First, Sager suggests that some students "might be seriously offended by
the party, and especially by the pictures taken at the event." No doubt
many people were offended, and we all should avoid unnecessary offense
to others. But the key problem is not that such images are offensive but
that they are part of an oppressive system of white supremacy. In a
pluralist society, we all can expect to be offended by some things other
people say and do. Such offense becomes an important political issue
when connected to the ways in which some people are systematically
devalued and discriminated against.

Racist, sexist, and heterosexist images and words are a problem not
merely because they offend but because they help keep non-white people,
women, and lesbians and gays in subordinated positions. Framing the
problem of oppressive systems as a question of offensiveness often leads
people to argue that the solution is for the targets of the offensive
speech or actions to be less sensitive, rather than changing the
oppressive system. Sager's e-mail doesn't suggest that, but it could
play into that common feeling among people in the dominant classes. We
live in a world in which the legitimate concerns of non-white people
about racist expression and actions are often met by white people
saying, "Stop whining - get over it." In such a world, white people
trying to resist racism should be careful not to do anything that could
contribute to that.

Second, the e-mail suggests that the partygoers didn't consider "the
potential harm they were causing to UT Law" by doing something that
could make some people "feel uncomfortable simply because of who they
are." Most would agree that it's important at a public institution of
higher education for all people to feel accepted as part of the
university community, but the real harm is not to the institution but to
the people who are targeted. By highlighting the effect of this on "UT
Law," Sager risks elevating the institution above the principles
involved and may well leave people wondering if the university isn't
worried most about its image.

Finally, and most important, the dean's message warns the partygoers
that they failed to consider "the extraordinary damage they could do to
their own careers" in a society in which those who employ lawyers might
not want to hire people who engage in such conduct. Sager warns that it
is "genuinely foolhardy to engage in conduct (and even more foolhardy to
proudly disseminate proof that you have done so) that could jeopardize
your ability to practice law." That's certainly true, though it's also
true there are many places in Texas (and around the country) where the
good old boys in power would find no problem with this kind of "harmless
fun." There are no doubt lots of practicing attorneys who enjoy similar
kinds of fun themselves.

But whatever the case, should we be stressing to students that the
reason they should not be white supremacists is that it might hurt their
careers? What does such a message convey to students and to the
community?

Framing the problem of oppressive systems as a question of offensiveness
often leads people to argue that the solution is for the targets of the
offensive speech or actions to be less sensitive, rather than changing
the oppressive system. Sager's e-mail doesn't suggest that, but it could
play into that common feeling among people in the dominant classes by
focusing on offensiveness instead of racism and white supremacy.

What's missing in this official response is a clear statement that these
law students, many of whom go on to join the power elite running our
society, have engaged in behavior that is racist. Whatever their
motivations in planning or attending the party, they have demonstrated
that they have internalized a white-supremacist ideology. When these
students are making decisions in business, government and education, how
will such white supremacy manifest itself? And who will be hurt by that?


Here's what we should say to students: The problem with a racist ghetto
party isn't that it offends some people or tarnishes the image of UT or
may hurt careers. The problem is that it's racist. When you engage in
such behavior you are deepening the racism of a white-supremacist
culture, and that's wrong. It violates the moral and political
principles that we all say we endorse. It supports and strengthens
social systems and institutions that hurt people.

These incidents, and the universities' responses, also raise a
fundamental question about what we white people mean when we say we
support "diversity." Does that mean we are willing to invite some
limited number of non-white people into our space, but with the implicit
understanding that it will remain a white-defined space? Or does it mean
a commitment to changing these institutions into truly multicultural
places? If we're serious about that, it has to mean not an occasional
nod to other cultural practices, but an end to white-supremacist
practices. It has to mean not only honoring other cultural practices but
recognizing that the wealth of the United States and Europe is rooted in
the destruction of some of those cultures over the past 500 years, and
that we are living with the consequences of that destruction.

We white people can't simply point to the overt racism of neo-Nazis as
the problem and feel morally superior. We can't slap a few law students
on the wrist with a warning about being thoughtless and think we've done
our job. The problem is that most of us white people, myself included,
are reflexively hesitant to surrender control of institutions which,
presently, are predominately white. Real change - the process of truly
incorporating a deep multiculturalism into our schools, churches, and
businesses - is a long struggle. The more I make some progress in my own
classes, for example, the more I see how much I have left to do and the
more aware of my mistakes I become.

An easy place to start is by clearly marking racist actions for what
they are: expressions of white people's sense of entitlement and
privilege that are rooted in a white-supremacist system. We can start by
saying - unequivocally, in blunt language - that such racism is morally
wrong, that white supremacy is morally wrong, and that we white people
have an obligation to hold ourselves and each other accountable until we
have created a truly just multiracial society.

We'll know we are there not when white people have stopped throwing
ghetto parties, but when we have built a world in which there are no
ghettos.

We have a long way to go.

Jensen is an associate professor of journalism.

i woke up just in time for my weekly dose of desperate housewives. and it might just be the last time that i watch the show, at least for awhile...

1. the portrayal of the estranged baby mama as white trash, immature, and hypersexual to the point where it's ok for lynette to manipulate her into dating men who are abusive

2. susan's high school aged daughter is hit on by edie's nephew, clearly older and "more experienced"/less innocent that her character. isn't she a little young to be seduced? isn't this what we're trying to move away from.

3. gabrielle and edie, the hypersexual women on the block are the only two without children in the groups. edie remains an outsider. gabrielle is unable to have children. and, given the chance to have a child using the body of her illegal immigrant asian maid (also sexualized, but here blatant racism is permitted from one minority to another), do they finally give her a baby? of course not. instead, the baby born from the maid is BLACK; america's biggest nightmare. so not cool...