Essence CoverTry 2 free issues

About

Categories





Get Adobe Flash player



Essence Newsletter

Get the latest in news, photos, relationship advice and more.

Sign up for the newsletter »


Essence Community

Get the latest in news, photos, relationship advice and more.

Join the Essence Community today »



Obama Watch

Last month, there was a big to-do about ethics charges facing various members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The Congressional Ethics Office is investigating, for example, Rep. Maxine Waters for setting up a meeting for a Black-owned bank, in which her husband owns stock. (Waters was not present at the meeting.) Rep. Charles Rangel actually requested an investigation of himself, amid allegations that he failed to report rental income on his tax returns.

 

I reserved judgment in these cases because there were some arguable factors involved, preferring to wait and let the Ethics Committee do its thing.

 

Furthermore, other CBC members who had been under investigation this year--including, among others, Laura Richardson, Mel Watt, Yvette Clarke and Bennie Thompson--have all been cleared of any wrongdoing.

 

But in the case of Texas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, it seems to be a straightforward abuse of power. The Dallas Morning News reports that Johnson used the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarship fund to awarded 23 scholarships, worth a total of $25,000, to her own relatives and an aide's children. The scholarship money was meant for disadvantaged students.

 

Johnson claims providing the scholarships to her family and a staffer's children was a mistake (oops?), and agreed to pay back the funds.

 

Unfortunately, the disclosure is also a bad look for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation--a nonprofit organization, separate from the Congressional Black Caucus--which holds its Annual Legislative Conference here in Washington in a couple of weeks. The scholarships are one of many programs led by the CBCF, whose mission is "to advance the global black community by developing leaders, informing policy and educating the public."

 

In responding to Johnson's scandal, the foundation chairman, Rep. Donald Payne, defended the organization. "Neither the Foundation nor the CBC will allow unethical behavior in the awarding of scholarships or any programs that are designed to benefit the community," said Payne in a statement explaining that an extensive audit and review is underway. "I will not allow the absence of integrity to invade the Foundation nor the scholarship program, of which we are proud and stand on our record of helping to educate thousands of African- American students across this nation."

Obama on "Turning the Page" in Iraq

user-pic

It happened two weeks ago, but President Barack Obama made it official in a Tuesday night Oval Office address: after seven and a half years, combat operations in Iraq have ended. Although 50,000 non-combat troops and contractors will remain on the ground until the end of next year to train and advise Iraqi security forces, all U.S. combat brigades--more than 100,00 troops--have been sent home.

 

"Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country," the President said in his remarks. "Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations."

 

Speaking in a somber, low-key tone, President Obama avoided giving a splashy victory lap speech, or even using the phrase "Mission Accomplished," as he acknowledged that security challenges in the region remain. Instead he focused on the idea of "turning the page"--both in Iraq, and here in the United States, where the war has been a deeply contentious issue. It has been the source of countless protests over the past seven years, and among African-Americans, nearly half of us were against the war before it even started.

 

Obama also addressed his deployment of additional troops in Afghanistan, where he says they must fight to break the Taliban's momentum. However, he vowed that it too is an operation with an end in sight. "Next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility," he said. "The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: this transition will begin--because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's."

 

The response to developments in Iraq over the past couple of weeks has been relatively muted, given that the war has been such a controversial issue for seven years. You'd think it would be a bigger deal, but many progressive activists are wary about the 50,000 non-combat troops remaining on the ground until 2011, which the President says are necessary to strengthen Iraqi troops and support its people. But I give the President credit for keeping his campaign promise to end combat operations, on his set deadline, and moving the situation in Iraq to a point where we actually are turning a corner.

Five years ago today, Hurricane Katrina roared through the Gulf Coast region, flooding 80 percent of New Orleans, killing more than 1,800 people along the Gulf, and leaving 770,000 survivors homeless. To mark this anniversary, President Barack Obama visited to underscore what his administration has done for the city and the vast rebuilding work that remains.

 

After enjoying lunch at Parkway Bakery and Tavern, along with the First Lady and daughters Malia and Sasha (he had the shrimp po' boy), the President headed to Xavier University, a historically Black school, for his speech to the city.

 

In the President's remarks, he chose not to dwell on the hurricane or the inadequate response by the Bush administration, instead focusing on the sense of resilience and community shown by New Orleanian residents.

 

"We see that at Xavier," Obama said, explaining how despite major flood damage, Xavier's president Norman C. Francis vowed to reopen the school in months. Classes were indeed in session four months later. "Less than a year after the storm, I had the privilege of delivering a commencement address to the largest graduating class in Xavier's history," said Obama, who pointed out that Near Orleans is one of the fastest growing cities in America.

 

President Obama also acknowledged the severe problems still facing the city, such as vacant and overgrown lots, students and residents in trailers, and thousands of natives who have not been able to come home. "While an incredible amount of progress has been made, on this fifth anniversary, I wanted to come here and tell the people of this city directly," he said. "My administration is going to stand with you - and fight alongside you - until the job is done."

 

The President next ticked off a number of developments set up by his team: cutting red tape and bureaucracy to free up hundreds of millions in federal aid for housing and construction projects, "dramatically reducing" the number of families in temporary emergency housing, settling a long-standing dispute to fund a replacement for Charity Hospital, a state-run institution for the city's poor, and just last week freeing up $1.8 billion for schools. He also reaffirmed his vow to have a new fortified levee system finished by next year.


Acknowledging the BP oil spill, which this year further devastated the region and prompted criticism against the President for his slow public response, he confronted the view that his efforts were uncoordinated and weak. "From the start, I promised you two things," he said. "One is that we would see to it that the leak was stopped. And it has been. But the second promise I made was that we would stick with our efforts, and stay on BP, until the damage to the Gulf and to the lives of the people in this region was reversed. And this, too, is a promise we will keep."  
 

Obama wrapped up his remarks by again emphasizing that Hurricane Katrina's legacy will be the way the local community worked together against such an enormous tragedy. "The work ahead will not be easy," he said. "There will be setbacks. There will be challenges along the way. But today, thanks to you and the people of this great city, New Orleans is blossoming once more."



 

 

 

 

 

 

Glenn Beck Has a Dream?!

user-pic

Debate is bubbling these days over plans for an Islamic community center a few blocks away from Ground Zero. But this week another clash is taking place over what's considered by many to be a different kind of hallowed ground. On August 28, 47 years to the day that Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech there, Fox News personality Glenn Beck is holding a rally at the Lincoln Memorial. Beck insists that his "Restoring Honor" rally, for which Sarah Palin is a featured speaker, is not political, but will focus on the country's "values" and pay tribute to military families.

 

On the same day, the Reverend Al Sharpton's National Action Network is holding its own "Reclaim the Dream" rally and march in Washington, starting at a local high school and culminating in a march to the site of the King memorial on the National Mall. Leaders from a coalition of civil right organizations, including the National Urban league and NAACP, along with U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, will join Sharpton. ESSENCE.com talked to Sharpton about the purpose of his "Reclaim the Dream" event, the conservative whitewashing of Dr. King's legacy, and why marching is still relevant.

 

 

ESSENCE.com: I understand the "Reclaim the Dream" march is not meant as a protest counter-march to Glenn Becks' "Restoring Honor" rally. What are your message and goals?

REV. AL SHARPTON: Every year we try and do something to remember the dream. Two years ago during the Democratic National Convention, the DNC and NAN had a huge breakfast that the King children and I keynoted. Ironically, it was the same day that Barack Obama accepted the Democratic nomination. Last year we did it in church, and this year I announced at our NAN convention in April that we wanted to go from a school to the site where the King monument will be built. We want to show the problem with education. We had announced this before we ever heard about Glenn Beck's event.

 

The purpose is to celebrate, 47 years later, what the March on Washington helped us to get. But we're not there yet. That dream has not been fulfilled as long as you have Blacks doubly unemployed. As long as you have an education gap. As long as we continue to have criminal justice system problems like racial profiling and police brutality. Our march is to say, we celebrate the past, but we reclaim and recommit ourselves as dreamers of today because we're not in a society that's fair and equal.

 

ESSENCE.com: Beck has responded to criticism of his rally by referring to the part of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream Speech" about judging men by the content of their character. What are your thoughts on this oversimplification of King's views?

SHARPTON: What I think people should do is read Dr. King's speech. They quote "I Have a Dream," but read the speech. He said we came because America has given the Black man--or the Negro, he said at that time--a check that has bounced in the bank of justice marked "Insufficient Funds." He talked about having fairness and equality. If anyone reads that speech they cannot say that what Beck and them are talking about is consistent with what Dr. King said. We can have our own views and opinions of Dr. King, and share them with the world. Beck has the right to hold his march, and I don't object to that. But we can't have our own facts.

 

ESSENCE.com: Beck has said it will not be political, but about "reclaiming values." What do you think are the chances that this will actually be a non-partisan event?

SHARPTON: Well, he's got politicians speaking like Sarah Palin. Their ideas of "values" is sometimes in political. But if they're having a values march and not dealing with the civil rights and equal rights of American people, then they're not doing anything like what Dr. King did. You cannot take an anniversary of a civil rights march and turn it into what you want, and act like you're consistent because somebody was a minister.

 

ESSENCE.com: How do you respond to people who say that marches serve no real purpose in 2010, and they're an outdated approach from the 1960s?

SHARPTON: Some people in the '60s were against the march. There has never been a time that everybody agreed with marches. But marching is the way you dramatize and expose problems. Without that, the media, and the government officials that respond to media, would not focus on those issues. By raising these issues with a march on Saturday, then government officials and others will have to talk about how they're going to deal with unemployment, the gap on education and the criminal justice system. Are we naïve enough to think that, if we were not doing an action, they'd be discussing this? That is why immigrants had a big immigration march; that's why gays and lesbians march. None of them have a problem marching. Everybody in America is marching but Blacks. We are the only ones talking about, "Why are we marching?" It's crazy to me. We taught the world how to march, and now we act like we shouldn't march. It's absurd.

Here's a little history lesson for you: Today is the 45th anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, landmark civil rights legislation that outlawed discriminatory practices responsible for African-American disenfranchisement. It was the push for this act that sparked the storied Selma to Montgomery marches of the Civil Rights Movement, and the passage of this act that protects our vote to this day.

 

President Obama released a statement in honor of the anniversary:

 

"Today we celebrate the 45th Anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, one of the most historic and groundbreaking pieces of legislation in our nation's history.  For those who marched bravely; who worked tirelessly; who shed their blood and gave their lives in the pursuit of freedom for every American, the Act served as the culmination of decades of work to fulfill America's promise.  And for the members of the Moses Generation - including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, who stood alongside President Johnson when he signed the bill into law - it was an affirmation that although the arc of the moral universe may be long, it bends toward justice.
 
The Voting Rights Act guaranteed African Americans the right to vote at a time when thousands were being disenfranchised across the country.  It extended the protection of our Constitution to every citizen regardless of race or religion; color or creed.  And in the 45 years since it was passed, the Act has been reaffirmed four times - each one a reminder that we must remain vigilant in guaranteeing access to the ballot box.
 
As we pause to reflect on the anniversary of that historic moment, I encourage every American to honor the legacy of the brave men and women who came before us - from the foot soldiers to the Freedom Riders - by exercising the rights they fought so hard to guarantee.  And together let us recommit ourselves, in ways large and small, to continuing their journey to promote equality and perfect our union."

By a vote of 63-37, after a six-week confirmation hearing, the Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States. Today in a White House East Room packed with Kagan's colleagues, family and friends, President Obama hosted a reception to allow her supporters a collective sigh of relief and moment to celebrate.

 

The audience--which included Attorney General Eric Holder, the Reverend Al Sharpton, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Cecilia Marshall, the widow of Justice Thurgood Marshall--clapped somewhat reservedly when the President and Kagan entered the room. But they loosened up with cheers and laughter after the President's warm introduction.

 

"While she may be feeling a twinge of sadness about giving up the title of 'General,'" Obama said, "I think we can all agree that 'Justice Elena Kagan' has a pretty nice ring to it." He continued in his remarks that for nearly 200 centuries there wasn't a single woman on the Supreme Court, but when Kagan takes to the bench there will be three women serving for the first time.


"I relish that not just as a father who wants limitless possibilities for my daughters, but as an American proud that our Supreme Court will be a little more inclusive, a little more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before," he said.
 

In her remarks, Kagan reflected on the responsibility she will have as a Supreme Court Justice. "It is an obligation," she said. "An obligation to protect and preserve the rule of law in this country; an obligation to uphold the rights and liberties afforded by our remarkable Constitution; and an obligation to provide what the inscription on the Supreme Court building promises: equal justice under law."

 

With her swearing-in ceremony scheduled for tomorrow, Kagan vowed to do her best to fulfill that commitment. And Obama will have seated two lifetime Supreme Court appointments in as many years. I know a lot of us were hoping he would have selected an African-American woman this time around--and felt it all over again today when the President spoke about the Court becoming "a little more inclusive"--but it was still great to watch Kagan's supporters celebrate her truly remarkable accomplishment.  

A key pillar of First Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" childhood obesity campaign--serving healthier foods in schools--gained major traction on Thursday.

 

The U.S. Senate passed the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act," which will give millions more children access to healthier meals by creating new nutrition standards for all foods served in public schools.

 

"I am thrilled that Congress has taken a major step forward today in passing the Child Nutrition bill," Mrs. Obama, who is on vacation in Spain with daughter Sasha, said in a statement. "While childhood obesity cannot be solved overnight, with everyone working together, there's no question that it can be solved--and today's vote moves us one step closer to reaching that goal."

 

The House version of the bill, which has garnered wide bipartisan support, is still pending. But if passed, it doesn't mean that kids will be served tofu and bean sprouts--as a small minority of critics, alarmed by the bill's modest federal spending of $4.5 billion over 10 years, have tried to claim. Instead the new standards require familiar kids' food like pizza and chicken tenders to be made with healthier ingredients, and supplemented with fruits and vegetables.

 

The bill also allows more low-income children to be eligible for free and discounted meals. This component is especially vital for many poor children who both rely on school meals as a primary source of nutrition, and who have been hit hardest by the obesity crisis due to high-fat, low-cost fare in their communities.

 

Here's hoping that the House follows suit and sends the bill to President Obama's desk next!

P8030060.JPG

This week 115 young leaders from 45 Sub-Saharan African countries--activists, entrepreneurs, writers, clergy members and nonprofit leaders--gathered in the White House East Room for a town hall with President Obama. He wanted to have a discussion with them about the continent's future. The guests, all between the ages of 20 and 35, many dressed in colorful traditional clothing, greeted the President with thunderous applause as he walked in. But once the clapping faded, they also challenged him with questions about hardship in their nations and how his policies will ultimately impact them.

 

"I don't see Africa as a world apart; I see Africa as a fundamental part of our interconnected world," Obama told the young participants, invited as part of a three-day State Department conference, in his opening remarks. He went on to say that their generation's talents and imagination will steer the future direction of their societies. "And the United States wants to be your partner."

 

A True Partnership?

One Ghanaian woman was wary that a country as powerful as the United States would deal fairly with poor nations. "Is America committed to ensuring a partnership that might not necessarily be beneficial to America, but truly beneficial to the sovereign interest of the countries that we represent?" she asked.

 

"All countries look out for their interests," Obama responded, unfazed by the confrontational question. "I'm the President of the United States, so my job is to look out for the people of the United States." He continued that the United States and Africa share some common interests, such as business in the continent's growing economy and reducing the spread of AIDS. There will be conflicts and different worldviews, he said, but overall, success in Africa also enhances the United States.

 

The President further argued that when it comes to aid, both sides must be accountable--the United States must listen and make sure that plans are developed indigenously, and countries receiving aid dollars must use them effectively. "Partnership is a two-way street," he said.

 

Hard Line on HIV/AIDS

Representing Malawi, a young man illustrated the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS on development in Africa, and pointed out that some global AIDS workers have criticized Obama for not contributing enough funding toward AIDS treatment in Africa.

 

President Obama first defended his record on global AIDS. As the United States struggles from its economic recession, he said, he's actually increased funding to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)--just not as much as critics would like. "I'm sympathetic to [that], given the fact that the need is so great," he said. "But understand I've increased it."

 

He explained that his administration has also shifted its strategy, focusing not only on treating those infected, but also prevention and building broader public health systems. "We're still going to be funding, at very high levels, antiviral drugs," he said. "But it will be an endless effort if the transmission rates stay high and we're just trying to treat people after they're sick."

Struggle for Democracy

On the subject of good governance and democracy, a woman from Mozambique asked Obama his advice for young Africans who want these principles solidified in their countries. "Because, of course, our reality is very often starkly different," she said, describing elections that often lack transparency and lead to social conflict.

 

Obama discouraged reacting with violence, arguing that such conflict scares off investors and makes it more difficult for business people to create opportunities. He advised African youth to promote the values of openness and civil disagreements in their own organizations. "I'm going to speak to the men here, in particular--if you are part of an organization where you profess democracy but women don't have an equal voice in your organization, then you're a hypocrite," he said, to applause from both women and men in the audience. Within their own networks, he said, everybody should be heard because that in and of itself forms good habits.

 

'He's a Great Leader'

"I was really struck by the way Mr. Obama is quite informed about what is going on in Africa," said Museme Munira, 29, of Sudan, in an interview after the forum, which also touched on political conflicts in Zimbabwe and Somalia. "The way I look at it, the U.S. is prepared to engage with Africa and create a very positive partnership. The President is concerned for the development of Africa as much as looking internally into his own policies--getting to a point where the U.S. and Africa can contribute equally in a partnership of non-exploitation, respect and responsibility."

 

Koffi Nomedji, 23, from Togo, said of the town hall and President Obama, "I think he's a great leader, and I think it's great for Africa to have an African child as the most powerful man in the world. There's plenty of work to be done, but this forum showed that we will improve our societies and change mentalities as the youth takes over."

On Wednesday, President Obama honored 13 Americans with the Citizens Medal. The nation's second-highest civilian award, it recognizes both public figures and everyday heroes who have shown extraordinary service for their fellow citizens. This year the President chose to award everyday Americans, including three Black women, nominated by the public after he issued a call for submissions in January. 

 

"They are mothers and fathers; nurses and bus drivers; veterans and immigrants," Obama said of the 13 winners, selected from 6,000 nominees. "They come from different backgrounds and they hail from every corner of our country. But what unites these citizens, what makes them special, is the determination they share: to right a wrong, to see a need and then meet it, to recognize when others are suffering and take it upon themselves to make a difference."

 

Cynthia M. Church, for example, from Wilmington, Delaware. The two-time breast cancer survivor, 63, turned her personal battle into a charge to help others by founding Sisters on a Mission, an African-American breast cancer support network. The 200-member organization holds support groups for women struggling with the disease, provides resources and guidance, and gives community presentations.

 

"When I went out seeking information that was African-American specific, it just wasn't there," says Church on her inspiration to start the group, adding that by the time most Black women are finally diagnosed with breast cancer, it's in the advanced stages. "It feels really good to know that people are paying attention because we have helped quite a few people along the way," she says.

 

Myrtle Faye Rumph of Iglewood, California, also received the 2010 Citizens Medal. After losing her son to gang violence 20 years ago, Rumph became dedicated to changing the lives of children in her community. In her son's honor, she opened the Al Wooten Jr. Heritage Center, a safe haven from gang activity for at-risk youth. "Her commitment to reducing gang and gun violence in her community has steered countless young people off a dangerous and destructive path, changing and saving lives," President Obama said at the White House awards ceremony.

 

Another African-American recipient was Daisy M. Brooks of Chicago. "When a pregnant teenager with no place to stay arrived at her door, Brooks welcomed the young woman and provided her with the care and support she needed," Obama said. "What followed was a lifelong commitment to helping many of northern Chicago's young mothers and their infants." Through Daisy's Resource and Developmental Center, a dormitory and school for teen moms and other young mothers in need, she provides guidance and support to improve their lives.

 

Obama Signs Cocaine Sentencing Bill

user-pic

The sentencing difference between powder and crack cocaine is widely recognized as one of the government's most racially unequal laws. Possessing five grams of crack will get you a mandatory prison sentence of five years, while it takes 500 grams of powder (the form of cocaine more prevalent among the wealthy) to get the same penalty. This 100-to-1 disparity partly explains why African-Americans disproportionately fill our nation's jails, yet for 24 years the policy has remained on the books--until now.

 

Last week Congress passed a bill to narrow the powder-crack sentencing ratio to 18-to-1, and today President Obama signed it into law. Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott, who led the effort in the House of Representatives, talked to ESSENCE.com about what the new law means for the criminal justice system, how the current rule "makes no sense," and why the fight around this issue is far from over.

 

ESSENCE.com: Why is changing this law such a big deal?

CONGRESSMAN BOBBY SCOTT: I don't know anybody who thinks the present law is fair. Crack is the only drug where possession only can get you mandatory jail time. About 80 percent of the people convicted of crack offenses are Black, and only about 20 percent of those convicted for powder are Black. A kingpin dealing in powder gets a lesser offense than the guy on the street who deals it when it's converted to crack. And there is no pharmacological difference between the two. It makes no sense at all.

 

ESSENCE.com: What's your response for people who say the bill doesn't go far enough, and that we shouldn't accept an 18-to-1 disparity?

SCOTT: They're absolutely right. There should be no differential at all, and no mandatory minimums, but the progress is a step in the right direction. They're advocates, and we're legislators. As legislators the choice we had was to either get 18-to-1 now, or keep it at 100-to-1. We decided to take 18-to-1 now, and then continue to fight to equalize it at 1-to-1 and eliminate the mandatory minimums. This bill is better than what we've got, but there is no suggestion that we're satisfied with this as a final result.

 

ESSENCE.com: On the other hand, some critics argue that the penalty should remain just as harsh because crack has caused so much damage in Black communities. Were there discussions about instead raising the punishment for powder to match?

SCOTT: If it's a bad policy to begin with, you don't make powder worse. Most of the experts will tell you that the criminal justice system has virtually no impact on drug use. The only place you hear the rhetoric of higher penalties deterring drug use is in political debates. You don't see any research in favor of longer penalties for drugs. Rather than giving a five-year mandatory minimum to a person with a weekend's worth of crack--spending $150,000 to $250,000 of taxpayers' money--we could use that money to fund rehabilitation and prevention programs to keep people off drugs to begin with.

 

ESSENCE.com: Looking at the history of the current law, harsher penalties for crack were actually supported by Black lawmakers concerned about the impact of the 1980s crack epidemic. At what point did they start thinking it was a mistake?

SCOTT: Charlie Rangel was one of the leaders in the legislation, and when it came by the committee the sentencing difference was 20-to-1. By the time they finished debating it on the floor it was 100-to-1. You can go back through the history, but I don't think there's any constructive purpose to try to assign fault for what happened 30 years ago. Whatever the motivation was to begin with, what we know now is that the disparity is absurd. It does not reduce crime, and it is discriminatory.

 

ESSENCE.com: With all these insights, why has it stayed on the books for so long?

SCOTT: The problem with crime policy is that people are so busy being so-called "tough on crime" and trying to find slogans and sound bites, most do not want to vote to reduce any penalty. In talking to people who have been around in Congress a long time, no one can remember a single mandatory minimum being repealed or even reduced. So this is a major victory, but we don't want to celebrate because we still have a significant disparity and the mandatory minimum. We made it clear during the negotiations that after this bill we will continue to fight.

Customer Service | E-mail Newsletter Sign-up | Try 2 Issues Risk Free | Give a Gift of Essence | Change Your Address | Renew Your Subscription | Pay Your Bill | Questions & Comments

Site Map | Our Company | Media Kit | Press Room | Bios | Writer's Guidelines | Internships | Essence Cares | Job Opportunities | Contact Us

© 2010 Essence Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use