What's it all about, Luda?

First of all "Ludacris" and "Obama" don't even belong in the same sentence.


VIDEO: YOUTUBE

So how is it that I wake up today to the radio blare of a rapper posting a song on Youtube that could sabotage the chances of the Dems' nominee for President?

Chris Bridges (a.k.a. Ludracris) is one of the more soft-spoken, polite and deliberate celebrities you'll ever meet in person. Or, at least, he was on the one occasion I dined over several courses of steak and wine with him a few years back at a restaurant opening.

My mixed feelings about rap and its messages aside, Luda's got skills I find extraordinary. This new tune about Obama? Garbage, unless weak lyrics and tired beats suit your taste.

I'm no music critic. I'm just sayin'...

This new stunt single he's released is nothing but a pathetic lurch for attention and dollars. Ludracris has the right to grab the mic and insult George W., McCain and Hillary 'til the cows come home. But why do it in Obama's name?

If you can't say something nice (or in the least bit edifying for your audience) why say it at all? And if you have to say something stoopid, why not keep the responsibility for those "statements" to yourself?

http://askyourdaddy.blogspot.com/

Apology for slavery accepted?

Apology for slavery accepted?
I think ... not.


VIDEO: YOUTUBE

Unless there was a full roll call taken of evey congressional representative, cabinet member and President SOON to record a vote that determines how sincerely America feels sorry for the way it exploited slaves, how legitimate would that expression of regret be?
For as long as I live, I'm going to have to try and be there for my young son and struggle to answer how slavery and racism and intolerance came to be and still plague him. His Pre-K intellect _ astounding as it is _ won't fully grasp some proclamation voted on anonymously by a bunch of politicians who can't explain away the horrific past, much less chart us a comfortable future.
By some strange coincidence, my last name's the same as one of the original (slave-owning) signers of the United States Constitution. There are sub-divisions, parkways and schools named after him all over these parts.
Every day I park in a lot at the intersection of a street named after him.
None of US Jeffersons or Washingtons or Franklins or Adamses who probably descend from some of the "founding fathers" benefit at all from the birthrights. We can't claim the bloodlines, nor deny them.
So why, really, rehash that phase of our collective past now? To stir up a futile call for reparations?
Put this distraction to rest already.
What's done is done.

The sins of the father...

Ebony magazine raises an intriguing question about parent-to-child disclosure in its latest issue...you know, the one with a bootylicious shot of Serena Williams on the cover.

In essence, the article debates whether your kids need to know all about the offenses you (allegedly) committed in your past; and if they might benefit from rehashing your mistakes.

There's not a "yes" or "no" answer to this one.


VIDEO: YOUTUBE

I'm comfortable with openness where that sort of thing's concerned. But the outcome of telling (almost) all could be "iffy", at best.

To me, a son should by all means be told about what went right and wrong with his dad's signigicant relationships with women. And he might as well be clued in as well about what casual flings can lead or succomb to as well.

Of course, the timing of such frank discussions is crucial. But they have to take place.

Nature hates a vacuum. Boys can't help seeking clues for conduct.

Surely, if f I'd been forewarned about the pitfalls of wantonly making whoopee, not to speak of the perils of office politics, I'd be regret-free (not that I have may, far from it) today.

As I'm reminded every time I listen to Sam Cook and the Soul Stirrers: "This is a Mean Old World."

So why shouldn't a father divulge to his son everything he's learned from avoiding the land mines?