Fixing the Crack in U.S. Drug Policy

Eugenia Jennings’ mother left her at a neighbor’s house and never returned to get her.

The people who were supposed to take care of Eugenia, wound up beating and molesting her instead.

Eugenia was sexually abused by another neighbor and a prostitute at the age of seven. A year later she was raped by a step-brother and the man who called himself her step-father tried so when she was a teenager.

Eugenia ran away at 13, and shortly thereafter got hooked on crack-cocaine and alcohol.

“She stopped using when she learned she was pregnant but after she gave birth at age 16, desperate for money to support her and her daughter, she began selling drugs. Of course, she was eventually caught,” said her brother, Cedric Parker, who will testify before U.S. senators this week about federal mandatory drug sentences.

While in prison Eugenia got clean, earned a GED and gave birth to another child. But after getting released in 1999, she relapsed.

In June 2000 Eugenia Jennings was arrested for trading 13.9 grams of crack cocaine – differing quantities on two different occasions - for clothing.

She was charged in federal court with two counts of distributing crack cocaine. She pleaded guilty and, because she already had prior offenses for small amounts of drugs, Eugenia was sentenced in 2001 to nearly 22 years in prison; she was 23 years old.

The irony here is, had Eugenia Jennings been found with powder cocaine instead of crack, she would have gotten less than half that amount of time behind bars.

The system, the judge said when sentencing Jennings, had let her down.

“Mrs. Jennings, I’m not mad at you. . . . The fact of the matter is, nobody has ever been there for you when you needed it. Never. You never had anyone who stood up for you. All the government’s ever done is just kick your behind. When you were a child and you had been abused, the government wasn’t there. When your stepfather abused you, the government wasn’t there. When your stepbrother abused you, the government wasn’t there. But, when you get a little bit of crack, the government’s there.

“Now is that fair? No. It’s not. And have you been punished? You bet,” according to a transcript of the court proceedings. “Your whole life has been a life of deprivation, misery, whippings, and there is no way to unwind that. But the truth of the matter is it’s not in my hands. As I told you, Congress has determined that the best way to handle people who are troublesome is we just lock them up. Congress passed the laws.

“And it is an awful thing, an awful thing, to separate a mother from her children,” the judge continued. “And the only person who had the opportunity to avoid that was you . . . . .At every turn in the road we failed you. And we didn’t come to you until it was time to kick your butt. That’s what the government has done for Eugenia Jennings.”

Click to find out what happened to Eugenia, and please leave a comment here or here. Thanks, ~Sunshine

Politics of Color for Obama in Cuba

Miriela Mir Fonseca left her mother as well as four brothers and sisters behind in Cuba. Her relatives often don’t have enough to eat, she says.

So when President Obama recently lifted travel and remittance restrictions for the tiny island nation, Mir Fonseca considered it a blessing.

“With Obama, I can go home anytime I want,” said the 33-year-old, who works as a baker for a popular pastry chain in Buffalo, NY. “Can I tell you my dream? My dream is for my mother to come visit me, and for my brother to come here to help me start my business.”

Mir Fonesca is the face of a little-understood side of U.S.-Cuba relations. She is Afro-Cuban.
Fidel Castro’s relationship with blacks in the U.S. goes all the way back to when he stayed in Harlem after getting rejected by Western and European leaders attending a UN General Assembly meeting in 1961; he was welcomed by El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (also known as Malcolm X). Castro has chosen to visit and deliver speeches in Harlem ever since.

The tiny island nation has long offered to provide free medical school to African Americans, and took a harsh stance against South African apartheid, even as the American government would not.

Over the years, Fidel Castro has encouraged his country – about 60 percent of which is of African descent — to not only identify themselves with African Americans, but to have an affinity for them. And he used America’s racism to discredit U.S. policy on the island, according to Mark Sawyer, associate professor of political science at UCLA and author of Racial Politics in Post-Revolutionary Cuba.

Obama’s election means the Cuban regime might not be able to demonize the U.S. as it once did.
But despite his reversal of Bush Administration policy toward Cuba travel, it more than likely will prove difficult to follow that with a quick end to the 47-year-old trade embargo.
For one thing, Cuban leaders aren’t sure the country is ready for the embargo to be lifted. That’s why we see mixed messagescoming from the Castro brothers about opening a dialogue with the U.S.

And Castro isn’t stupid. He saw what happened to the Soviet Union in the 1980s after it opened itself up to the West — its economy collapsed.

“Cuba is an island of 10 million people and it has a very small economy,” Sawyer said during a recent telephone conversation. “Opening up with the U.S. could potentially overwhelm their economy; and it could dramatically undermine Cuba’s power, control and its domestic policy.”
Like Mir Fonseca, Afro-Cubans tend to want the embargo put to rest; but they also want their families to maintain the gains of the revolution, such as universal health care and a guaranteed quality education. (Cuba has one of the highest life-expectancies in the world, and Castro is credited with basically eliminating illiteracy in the country.)

A report released earlier this year by Sen. Richard G. Lugar , R-Ind., recommended establishing a bipartisan commission to forge a new, multilateral strategy on Cuba with Latin America and the European Union. It also urged Havana’s reintegration into western-dominated international institutions, such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, among other steps.

Borrowing money from the International Monetary Fund could impact Cuba’s domestic policy, by forcing the country to put caps on how much money it spends on education, health and poverty reduction. And it could affect how much Cuba can tax remittances. Currently taxed at 20 percent, that money allows Cuba to provide social services to its citizens.

Possible negotiations with the U.S. are further complicated by an issue that has a decidedly racial component.

When 25,000 elite, mostly white Cubans, fled the island between 1959 and 1993, Castro allowed their homes to be taken over by the maids and other servants – mostly black – who, in many cases, worked for the families that moved to Miami. “These wealthy families want to be paid back for their homes,” said Sawyer. “Under the radar, this is being talked about in terms of possible negotiations with the U.S.”

Cuba could be bankrupted if forced to repay wealthy exiles for their property, Sawyer said.
And that would further hurt poor black Cubans, like the realtives of Mir Fonesca.

As grateful as she is to be able to see her family more than once every three years, as the Bush Administration permitted, she wants more for them, and thinks ending the embargo would be the right start.

“Our families are starving,” she said. “We’re praying for a new start for the USA and Cuba.”

[un]Common Sex Blog: Muslim Husbands Can Rape Their Wives?

Okay, so I stole the title from Eddie Blue Eyes, but it does fit what I'm about to write about. Well, kinda.

See, one of my male friends went on a tantrum this week after hearing how U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confronted Afghan President Hamid Karzai (pronounced Carz-eye) about a new law he signed. The law, according to Clinton and U.N. officials, effectively allows husbands to rape their wives.

Women, as you know, have very little freedom in many parts of the Middle East. In places like Afghanistan, Muslim women must be completely obedient to their husbands. The new law essentially forces women to get their husband's permission before looking for a job, going to the doctor, or receiving education, and grants custody of children to fathers and grandfathers only.

The friend I mentioned earlier, takes offense to Clinton - and by extension - the U.S. meddling in Afghan affairs. He flatly states that it is not America's business what happens in the bedroom of a husband and wife, especially when that husband and wife live in another country, on another continent.

As a woman my heart goes out to the women in Afghanistan, I mean, what woman would want to live under those conditions?

When I mentioned that, my friend asked me what Muslim women have I heard complain. Well, you know me, don't ask a question if you don't want me to answer. I pointed to several youtube videos, news articles, human rights reports... You get the picture. I have my facts together and spat them.

Then he goes to a place that I wasn't prepared, and still can not, possibly defend.

My friend, who isn't American, pointed out the ultimate of American hypocrisy. We talked about rape in America and how victims are too often treated. Many times they are raped, albeit not physically, all over again by the people who are supposed to protect them.

And then he mentioned that if we're going to use this issue to ramp up American anger to help bolster military efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan, then we better be prepared to go after our trusted ally Saudi Arabia too.

Yup, he's right. when it comes to women, they don't have any rights in Saudi Arabia either. In fact, some maintain that women are worse off in Saudi Arabia than they are in Afghanistan.

Remember this? Or how about this?

And what about Pakistan, another "friend" of America, where public flogging of women is commonplace.

First Lady Hype Can Be Offensive

Press coverage of Michelle Obama has been all over the map, and not all for the good.

A year ago she was being called an angry, black woman. After the inauguration we were saturated with debate over her body parts (here and here). On the eve of her trip to London, a talk radio host called Mrs. Obama “trash” and Townhall.com referred to her as a female dog. The b-word has since been removed from its web site.

In the past week, television seemed to fixate on an intimate moment Mrs. Obama shared with the Queen of England.

Heavens to Betsy! It’s not like we’re on the verge of a global economic collapse or anything, right?

Polls suggest that Michelle Obama is more popular than her husband.

She has even managed to win over some Republicans who, just a couple of months ago, would have had her stay behind in Chicago rather than move to Washington.

Once written off as a radical, if the reports are to be believed, Mrs. Obama is now the new Jackie O. But all I see when I look at her is my mother, cousins and friends. (They really mean Jackie Kennedy, anyway. The O-part came later.)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Mrs. Obama is showing the world — including many Americans — the real face of the average black American woman: Beautiful, strong, warm, nurturing, even likeable.

But many African-American women, including this one, view all the attention — even the seemingly benign kind — as bordering on patronizing and, at times, offensive.

Reality check: About 2.3 million black women 25 years and older in the U.S. hold baccalaureate degrees or better, and 68 percent of them work full-time. They also work in higher numbers than white women in the U.S, according to data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau.

To read the rest, click here and PLEASE leave a comment over there. Thanks, Sunshine

Is Anyone Else Tired of Michelle Obama Coverage, Or Is It Just Me?

Okay, last night I was bombarded with news stories concerning Michelle Obama's major faux paux of touching Queen Elizabeth?

Heavens to Betsy!

It's not like the world economy is teetering near disaster or anything, but hey, we have to read about something other than Glenn Beck's apparent breakdown, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I'm proud and happy that the First Lady is showing the world, and many in America, the face of the average black woman: Educated, beautiful, strong, warm, nurturing, graceful and gracious.

Yes, we're all that and more.

But it does feel that I'm on Michelle O-overload!

One moment I'm reading what used to be two of my favoritie columnists debating whether she should cover her arms within the staid pages of The New York Times. Then I read about her vegetable garden, visiting schoolchildren and feeding the homeless. She, it appears, is just as good as June Cleaver, so much so that she's winning over some of the same Republicans who, just a couple of months ago, would have had her stay behind in Chicago instead of move to Washington.

Then, last week on the eve of Mrs. Obama's trip to London, I heard a talk-radio host call the First Lady trash. Next I'm reading an article in Townhall.com that refered to her as a female dog (editor won't let me use the actual term in this publication, but I'm quite sure you can guess).

Now, I'm hearing how Michelle Obama is taking the world by storm.

Ink overflows about her style, her smile, her grace.

What did they expect, for Obama to wrap herself in red, black and green, blow her out into an righteous afro and throw up black power signs everywhere she goes?

Puhleeze! Some of the adulation is bordering on plain-old-patronizing.

So... I have to ask: Is anyone else tired of how Michelle Obama is being covered in the media or is it just me?