NO JUSTICE! Oscar Grant Killer Cop Gets 2-Year Sentence

Wow! Johannes Mehserle, the Oakland public transit officer who shot and killed Oscar Grant III on January 1st, 2009 has been sentenced to two measly years for the unarmed fatal shooting of a Black man by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge. Mehserle had previously been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter this summer but could have received a maximum of 14 years with a gun enhancement.

Judge Robert Perry threw out the sentence enhancement due to the commission of  a crime using a gun by calling the incident "an accidental shooting" AND gave Mehserle credit for time served so far, so that the killer cop could be released in 219 days.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

After the sentencing was announced, Grant's mother, Wanda Johnson, emerged from the courtroom muttering, "Nothing, he got nothing!" The family declined to talk to reporters.

About 50 Grant supporters lined up in front of the courthouse chanting, "Mehserle is guilty, guilty. The whole damn system is guilty, guilty."

In downtown Oakland, where a memorial was being set up for his grandson, Oscar Grant Sr., 65, said, “It’s a bad decision. No time can bring [Oscar] back. But [Mehserle] should have served some time. Otherwise, they’re telling the public, though he went to trial, a policeman can shoot someone and go free. These guys have a license to kill.”

But the elder Grant discouraged violent protests.

We'll see! This is really a sickening situation, especially since the original incident where Mehserle shot and killed Grant in the back while he was lying face down on the ground was captured on video!

NBJC's Out on the Hill Conference

Next week the National Black Justice Coalition will be holding it's Out on the Hill conference to be held simultaneously with the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual legislative Conference September 15-18 in Washington, D.C.

The event will bring thought leaders, faith leaders, legislative officials, philanthropists and activists from the Black LGBT community from around the country to DC for a number of seminars, trainings, receptions and workshops, including two which will be occurring at The White House itself. Sadly, since I have a day job teaching Math and Cultural Studies at Occidental College, I can not attend but here are some people who will be there:

Confirmed elected officials include Georgia State Representative Simone Bell and Detroit City Council President Charles Pugh. Both are outstanding examples of Black LGBT leadership and activism. Also in attendance will be veteran activists like Mandy Carter, founder of NBJC and Southerners on New Ground (SONG); Donna Payne, Diversity Program Associate Director for HRC; Courtney Snowden, Senior Associate for the Raben Group; and Aisha Moodie-Mills, President of Campaign for All DC Families.

Early registration for the conference ends tomorrow, and if you want to attend the events at the White House they need specific information from you at the NBJC office by 5pm EDT Friday. For more information, call 202-319-155.

MadProfessah.com will try to have coverage of what happens at the conference next week.

GOP Kills 2 API Federal Judicial Nominations

Edward M. Chen, federal district court nominee

Wow. The GOP must really care about what people of color think about their actions. What they really do care about is the (federal) judiciary. So, it is notable that they have done their best to kill the nominations of two Asian-American men to be federal judges in the 9th Circuit.

Goodwin Liu and Edward Chen were nominated to the federal judiciary by President Obama but blocked by Republicans despite having received 12-7 endorsements from the Senate Judiciary committee.

Under a rarely invoked rule, the Senate must agree to carry over pending nominations when it goes on a 30-day recess. But Republican leaders objected to carrying over several disputed nominees, including Liu and Chen.

"The Republicans are obstructing and, in effect, trying to kill these nominations," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Friday. "It is tragic because these are very worthy nominees who deserve to have their nominations debated and put to a vote."

The San Francisco Chronicle explains why the Republicans are blocking the confirmation of Liu and Chen to the bench.

Liu, a former Rhodes scholar and Supreme Court clerk, has been labeled an extreme liberal by Republican opponents, who cite his support of same-sex marriage and affirmative action.

Chen's opponents point to his background as an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer in San Francisco from 1985 until 2001, when federal judges appointed him as a magistrate.

Under procedures requiring unanimous consent, Republicans have regularly objected to holding Senate votes on Obama's judicial candidates.

They agreed to allow a handful of confirmation votes Thursday, the last day before the recess. But they blocked votes on more than 40 other candidates, and returned five who have encountered opposition, including Liu and Chen, to the White House.

If renominated, Liu and Chen will return to the Judiciary Committee for new votes after Congress returns Sept. 13. To force the Senate to consider their confirmation over Republican objections, Senate Democrats would have to muster 60 votes, which would require support from at least one Republican.

As I noted last month, whether Goodwin Liu joins the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a key test to see whether President Obama will actually go to bat for things that progressives believe in.

The 9th Circuit, of course is the appellate court which will be hearing the appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the Proposition 8 case.

Mehserle Found Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter

2 to 4 years in jail for killing a Black man. 28-year-old Johannes Mehserle was found guilty (by a jury with no Black members) of involuntary manslaughter for shooting Oscar Grant.

Alameda County Deputy Dist. Atty. David R. Stein rejected the idea that the shooting was a mistake, telling jurors that Mehserle's holster was specially designed to prevent easy release of his firearm. The prosecutor contrasted the light, bright yellow Taser gun with the heavier black Sig Sauer handgun that Mehserle fired.

"He let his aggression dictate his conduct," Stein told jurors.

The prosecutor urged jurors to find Mehserle guilty of second-degree murder, pointing out that the officer never told his colleagues that night that the shooting was an accident.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles have not won a murder conviction in a police shooting case since 1983.

Oscar Grant Trial At Jury Deliberation Stage

A Los Angeles area jury with no African American members will decide the fate of a white former BART police officer who shot and killed Oscar Grant on January 1, 2009.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Perry rejected a defense argument that jurors should be allowed to consider only second-degree murder in the case against Johannes Mehserle. But Perry also ruled that prosecutors could not argue for a first-degree murder conviction.

Mehserle, 28, shot in the back and killed Oscar J. Grant III as the victim lay on a Bay Area Rapid Transit station platform on New Year’s Day 2009. Prosecutors have argued that the shooting was intentional. The officer told jurors that he mistakenly drew his firearm instead of his electric Taser weapon as he struggled to handcuff Grant, 22.

While second-degree murder carries a maximum sentence of 15 years to life in prison, voluntary manslaughter carries up to 11 years and involuntary manslaughter up to four years in prison. If convicted, Mehserle could receive considerably more years behind bars under an enhancement that alleges he used a firearm.

20 LGBT Group Blast Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights groups and allies join
outcry against anti-immigrant measure in Arizona

More than 20 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality groups and allies today issued the following joint statement:

Arizona’s S.B. 1070 takes the state down a path that will lead to racial profiling, discrimination and anti-immigrant extremism. We stand in solidarity with other individuals, organizations and local governments in rejecting the misrepresentation of immigrants put forth in this unjust and ill-conceived measure.

S.B. 1070 essentially declares an entire class of people to be inherently criminal on the basis of their race and appearance. The consequences of S.B. 1070 are grave and troubling: the inevitability of racial profiling and infringement of civil liberties; the strong probability of violence and harassment against individuals and their families; and the reversal of progress toward creating a more inclusive society.

We also note that this bill was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer, the same governor who last year stripped away earned health insurance benefits from the same-sex domestic partners of state employees. Brewer’s actions as governor demonstrate, at best, callous indifference — and at worst, willful malice — toward immigrants and LGBT people alike.

All Arizona families — lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and straight — have reason to be alarmed. The state’s new law threatens to tear apart families, separate children from their parents and rip apart loving couples who are building their lives together. The LGBT community knows all too well how easily people who “look different” or “act different” can be singled out for harassment and persecution. LGBT immigrants will be doubly vulnerable under this law, which gives license to discriminate.

We are united in our determination to stand for political and legislative change that will ensure just treatment of immigrants, people of color, and all people in Arizona. Such justice requires the repeal of S.B. 1070 and the passage and implementation of comprehensive federal immigration reform.

Today we join with groups such as Service Employees International Union, League of United Latin American Citizens, Asian American Justice Center, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Council of La Raza, National Action Network, the National Puerto Rican Coalition, and many others in the boycott against the state of Arizona until S.B. 1070 is repealed, overturned by the courts, or superseded by comprehensive federal immigration reform.

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund
Human Rights Campaign
GLAAD
Immigration Equality
National Black Justice Coalition
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs
Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
International Foundation for Gender Education
Family Equality Council
Two Spirit Press Room
Equality Federation
National Minority AIDS Council
National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce®
Freedom to Marry
Gay Men's Health Crisis
Lambda Legal
BiNet USA
International Federation of Black Prides, Inc.
Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
UNID@S
SAGE
Atticus CircleNational Center for Lesbian Rights

Schooling Fools: Race, LGBT Rights and Immigration

MadProfessah friend Hans Johnson has written an interesting piece in the Huffington Post which connects the dots between anti-gay purges of the past and the current anti-immigrant legislation coming out of Arizona. In it, he says:

The past is not the only guide toward greater solidarity with immigrants. One would think an entire decade of antigay ballot measures that played on stigma and bigotry to ban recognition of same-sex partners' freedom to marry would make the gay community staunch foes of anti-immigrant bias and its deployment in state law. That is mostly the case, in part because thousands of LGBT people are themselves immigrants or have partners or family members who must navigate the exploitation, suspicion, ignorance, and outright hate that greets immigrants, undocumented and otherwise.

Yet gay people are not immune from fecklessness in the face of anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy-making. In a well-publicized essay from 2006, lesbian commentator Jasmyne Cannick from Los Angeles all but told immigrants then denouncing a hostile bill in Congress and demanding reform that provides a path to legal citizenship, to wait in line behind the native-born. "It's a slap in the face to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people to take up the debate on whether or not to give people who are in this country illegally any rights when we haven't even given the people who are here legally all of their rights," Cannick wrote.

Whether callousness or merely lack of foresight, one chilling consequence of what Cannick voiced came to life just two years later in the outcome of California's voting on Proposition 8, which eliminated access to civil marriage for same-sex couples. Many California immigrants, Latino and otherwise, ignored gay people's pleas for justice and against being singled out by the policy-making process and voted to add Prop 8 to the state constitution. Thanks to that ballot measure, it is now embedded there. The lesson may be clear in retrospect. Turning away from unfairness, and spurning a chance for coalition, can cause reciprocal injury.

It's pretty amazing that any disenfranchised group would tell another "the line to get equal rights starts behind me" but that's arguably what the short-sighted Cannick was saying (and Johnson was laudably calling her out on).

Cannick's pieces have appeared at the Black politics blog Jack and Jill Politics, but happily there are people there who see understand the importance of solidarity and coalition building. In "What Part of ‘If You Ain’t White’, don’t you understand?" rikyrah points out this disturbing response to Arizona's recent xenophobic actions:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans back Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law, which makes it a state crime for a person to be in the country illegally. The law also requires local and state law enforcement officials to question people about their immigration status if they suspect they’re in the country illegally.

Sixty-four percent favor this law, while 34 percent oppose it. But those numbers are essentially reversed among Latinos — with 70 percent of them opposing the law, and only 27 percent supporting it.

Even though almost two-thirds of the public supports Arizona’s law, nearly an identical number (66 percent) believe it will lead to the discrimination of Latino immigrants who reside in the U.S. legally.

The point here is that Americans are willing to support a law which they admit will discriminate against some people, because they don't think that law will impact them. rikyrah also points out the direct correlation between Arizona's SB 1070 and its explicit legalization of racial profiling:

There’s a Black person, more likely, a Black Man, racially profiled EVERY DAY in this country.

The only way that we’ve remotely been able to fight this, is because it was ILLEGAL.

Now, if this happens when it’s ILLEGAL, what do you think is going to happen if they make it LEGAL?

Well, I’m not willing to find out.

IS there a Black person out there that thinks that doesn’t recognize THAT WE ARE NEXT ON THE LIST?

Please point to me something in the history of Black folk and Law Enforcement in America that could make me conclude anything OTHER than this?

So, it’s opposition to SB1070 for the selfish reason of SELF-PRESERVATION for me

So, to summarize, there are clear reasons why LGBT people should support immigration reform and oppose anti-immigrant legislation (especially if we expect immigrants and non-gay people to oppose anti-gay legislation) and there are clear reasons why Black people should be interested in promoting immigration legislation and opposing xenophobic public policy (anti-immigrant furors are always based in race, and will not remain targeted at non-Black racial groups for long).

You'd think someone who is Black and gay wouldn't need to learn these lessons in 2010 but, happily, there are several people, including yours truly who are prepared to school fools on the greater good.

Poll Shows Majority Support For AZ Immigration Law

Well, isn't that special? I guess we really are in a post-racial Obama era now, right? Not.

At least two polls (New York Times/CBS and Gallup) show majority support among Americans for Arizona's new harsh anti-immigrant law even though they realize it will probably lead to racial profiling.

The public broadly agrees, across party lines, that the United States could be doing more along its border to keep illegal immigrants out. The view was shared by 78 percent of the respondents.

[...]

Although the respondents broadly agreed that the Arizona law would result in racial profiling, overburden local and state law enforcement agencies and decrease the willingness of illegal immigrants to report crimes for fear of deportation, large majorities said it would reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the state, deter illegal border crossings and, to a lesser extent, reduce crime.

Some attitudes about immigration have remained stable among the public. Most still say illegal immigrants weaken the nation’s economy rather than strengthen it, and public opinion remains divided over how the United States should handle illegal immigrants currently in the country.

But American attitudes toward the law and whether illegal immigrants already here should have a path to citizenship differed markedly across regions and parties. Westerners and Northeasterners, for example, are significantly more likely than those in other regions to say the recent law in Arizona goes too far. And Democrats are much more likely than Republicans or independents to support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants now in the country.

Just 8 percent of Americans said the immigration system needed only minor changes. The vast majority said it needed reworking, including 44 percent who said it needed to be completely rebuilt and 45 percent who said it needed fundamental changes.

So, maybe we'll see a stronger push for comprehensive immigration reform this year after all? Only time will tell.

It should be noted that it is false that undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes. First of all, everyone pays sales taxes. Also, many undocumented immigrants pay state and federal income taxes. Tax collecting agencies do not share information with immigration agencies.

Immigration Equality Statement on Arizona Law

Immigration Equality, the premiere LGBT immigration rights group, issued the following statement on Arizona's new draconian immigration law:

“Immigration Equality joins immigrants, families and allies in Arizona and around the country in condemning the state’s new anti-immigrant law. The law is unjust, unconstitutional and unconscionable. Everyone of every ethnicity, faith, and sexual orientation should be concerned and appalled that a state has criminalized human beings based on who they are.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community knows all too well how easily people who “look different” can be singled out for harassment and prosecution. In addition, LGBT immigrant families are too familiar with the double burden of immigration discrimination. Now Arizona’s LGBT families have yet another reason to be alarmed. The state’s new law threatens to tear apart families, separate children from their parents and rip apart loving couples who are building their lives together. Forty percent of LGBT binational couples in the United States include a Latino family member. For them, and their loved ones, Arizona is now the most dangerous place in America.

We are confident our courts will strike down this heinous law, and stand in solidarity with all of those who are working for its demise. The need for comprehensive immigration reform that protects all families has never been more urgent, and we are working every day to make it a reality.”

Although, they do not call for a boycott of the state, several other organizations and people are doing just that.

Calls To Boycott Arizona Increase

In the wake of the enactment of SB 1070 in Arizona many people around the country are following my call for a boycott of the state of Arizona for as long as this law is in effect.

On Tuesday, seven members of the Los Angeles City Council signed a proposal for a boycott, calling for the city to "refrain from conducting business" or participating in conventions in Arizona. Councilman Ed Reyes, who coauthored the proposal with Councilwoman Janice Hahn, said he wants city officials to spend the next 90 days assessing the financial relationships that exist between various city departments and businesses based in Arizona

[...]

The leader of the California Senate, Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), called the law a "disgrace" and said the state also should consider a boycott. He sent a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asking for an inventory of Arizona businesses and government agencies with which California does business.

"The Arizona law is as unconscionable as it is unconstitutional, and the state of California should not be using taxpayer dollars to support such a policy," Steinberg wrote.

Already, several organizations have canceled planned conventions in Arizona. The American Immigration Lawyers Assn. announced that it is moving its fall convention, originally scheduled for Scottsdale in September.

Interestingly, according to Jon Stewart there is a provision in the law that if you declare that you are a citizen, then the police are supposed to take you at your word.

Obama Denounces Racist AZ Immigration Law

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the hateful anti-immigrant bill into law, which will go into effect 90 days after the Arizona legislature adjourns. As I said before, I will be boycotting the state of Arizona until this law is no longer in effect.

AZ Passes Bill To Criminalize Undocumented Status

The Republican-dominated Arizona legislature has passed a bill which would require police officers in the state to issue citations to people whom they have a "reasonable suspicion" is an undocumented immigrant, and determine their immigration status. Gee, I wonder how many blonde haired, blue-eyed Canadian immigrants are going to be cited!

Currently, officers can inquire about someone's immigration status only if the person is a suspect in another crime. The bill allows officers to avoid the immigration issue if it would be impractical or hinder another investigation.

Citizens can sue to compel police agencies to comply with the law, and no city or agency can formulate a policy directing its workers to ignore the law -- a provision that advocates say prevents so-called sanctuary orders that police not inquire about people's immigration status.

The bill cements the position of Arizona, whose border with Mexico is the most popular point of entry for illegal immigrants into this country, as the state most aggressively using its own laws to fight illegal immigration. In 2006 the state passed a law that would dissolve companies with a pattern of hiring illegal immigrants. Last year it made it a crime for a government worker to give improper benefits to an illegal immigrant.

Pity. I really enjoyed visiting Saguaro National Park outside of Tucson, but I will not be going to that state for as long as that state becomes law. Say, bye-bye to tourist dollars, Arizona!

Black, Gay and Indisputably African

Today's Los Angeles Times has an interesting op-ed titled "Black, Gay and Indisputably African" by Northwestern journalism Professor Douglas Foster. The piece talks about a gay bar named Simply Blue in Johannesburg, South Africa whose very existence belies the oft-repeated claim that homosexuality is inherent un-African, with the corollary that people who are both Black and gay are actually neither.

The theme of homophobic African politicians is that gay identity is a perversion imposed on black people by white oppressors. The historical fact is the reverse, of course: Legal prohibitions on homosexuality were originally imposed by white colonial rulers. So it's no small twist in the plot that the new wave of threats to Ugandan gays should be reinforced by American religious extremists.

The proposed legislation places in stark relief the persistence of deadly prejudice. The roots of hatred can be traced to myriad traditions -- indigenous and foreign, white and black. What's more important than identifying the sources of the poison is to find the antidote. The first step is listening to the voices of African lesbians and gay men, and taking our cues from them about how to offer the most effective support.

[...]

Most of the gay refugees from all over the continent who gather at Simply Blue once felt the same way. They were migrants to South Africa not by choice but by necessity.

And now they're part of a burgeoning mass of women and men across the continent who reject the impossible, insulting, ahistorical, cruel and utterly false choice: Are you African, or are you gay?

The piece also references the excellent work of Box Turtle Bulletin and Gay Uganda in advocating against legislation to persecute homosexuality in Uganda with the possibility of the death penalty and generally drawing attention to homophobic agitation on the African continent.

Meet The Wileys: Not All Black Pastors Oppose Marriage Equality

The above video shows Reverend Dennis W. Wiley and Christine Y. Wiley articulating the reasons why they support marriage equality for same-sex couples.

In Saturday's Washington Post the Wileys published an incisive editorial which explains for a wider audience some of the roots of black cultural opposition to same-sex marriage and race-based homophobia in general.

We are sometimes asked what accounts for the homophobia within the African
American community. This question seems to assume that the community is
disproportionately homophobic compared with other racial and ethnic groups.
We are not aware of any credible study that has conclusively proved this
assumption. However, our first-hand experience has convinced us that
homophobia within the black church and the wider community is real. And the
factors that have nurtured these beliefs over the years are complex.

When issues of gay rights and gay marriage come up, the first question many
black people ask is, "What does the Bible have to say about it?" This
seemingly innocent question doesn't acknowledge that when we approach the
Bible, our perspective has been shaped by where we were born, by whom we
were raised, what Grandma taught us, where we went to school and what our
pastor preached in church -- usually conservative ideas on matters such as
homosexuality. Therefore, we tend to interpret the Bible not objectively,
but through the lens of our cultural and historical context.

The conservative strand of black religion is evident in what Harvard
professor Peter Gomes calls "bibliolatry" -- the practice of worshiping the
Bible rather than worshiping God. It is also found in a "literal"
interpretation of the Bible that focuses more on the letter of the text than
on its spirit, and concentrates on passages about domination, oppression,
hierarchy, elitism and exclusion rather than on the major themes of love,
justice, freedom, equality and inclusion that run throughout the Bible.

A more complicated element of black homophobia is the lingering influence of sexual stereotypes that originated during slavery. According to theologian Kelly Brown Douglas, the myth of "over-sexualized" black bodies portrayed
black men as violent "bucks" who posed an ever-present threat to white
women, and black women as "Jezebels" who seduced white men.

These stereotypes served to justify the whipping, lynching and castration of
black men, and to excuse the sexual violation of black women by white men.
They were just one element of what blacks had to struggle against to gain
acceptance and respectability in white society, especially during the late
19th century and the first half of the 20th. On this matter, religion has
often been a vehicle of suppression, accommodation and control. While the
church was a refuge from the horrors of racism and played an empowering role
in African American history, it also taught black people to repress
behaviors -- especially sexual behaviors -- that might attract unwanted
attention, appear uncouth or seem threatening to white people.

A final piece that shapes black attitudes toward same-sex marriage is the
preoccupation with racism in the black community. This obsession, although
justifiable, has led to a failure to appreciate how racism is inextricably
connected to all other forms of oppression. Those who fail to see this
connection may resent the comparison of gay rights with civil rights. But as
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere."

Last week, two black D.C. Council members voted against the same-sex
marriage bill. But five black council members voted for it. Our black mayor
signed it on Friday, and our black congressional representative has promised
to defend it on Capitol Hill. Although the bill faces the possibility of
intervention by Congress, something revolutionary is happening in this city
to debunk the notion that the black community's homophobia is entrenched.

Wow! Read those paragraphs again. They really do an excellent job of detailing the reasons for some Black homophobia while expertly dismantling them.

Celebrity Friday: Serena Williams Speaks Out

Perez Hilton has the scoop on Serena Williams' statement on the record fine levied on her as a result of her profane outburst at the 2009 US Open.

Here it is, in its entirety:

Hey Guys!

As the world seems to know or for those who don't I want to speak about my recently dubbed "outburst" and how I feel.

I have recently been fined by the Grand Slam Committee of the ITF (International Tennis Federation) over 82 thousand dollars for getting mad and using the "F-bomb" at a line Judge.

To clear things up FIRST I was NOT fined 82 thousand dollars. I was fined 92 thousand dollars! I paid 10 thousand dollars on site immediately after the U. S. Open. So for the record, I was fined $92,000 not $82,000! The biggest fine EVER in tennis.

Also for all those that don't know, I felt incredibly bad, and miserable for losing my cool, and most importantly not representing the person I really am spiritually and the role model I want to be to my young fans. I have been a very feisty player all my life, but when the time came for me to be calm and cool, I did not exercise a mild temper. How I regret not being a better role model and person to all of my fans. I apologized to my fans and even wrote a personal letter to the lines woman with my apologies. She understood as she often witnesses this as it is not uncommon in my sport, or any other sport. She was extremely supportive and said that she did not think any further actions should be taken against me.

A few years ago in a most important match being watched my millions; I was blatantly cheated and robbed of a US Open title by yet another official. I was again on the wrong side of not one or two, but several other bad calls. This incident however changed tennis. Because of what was incorrectly done to me, the whole sport of tennis adapted new technology for a player to challenge the calls lines persons make if the player feels they were wronged. I was expected to take solace in the fact even though I lost the U.S Open title (a dream I've been working for since I was 2 years old). At least others won't be wronged in the future. I am always happy for the next person. I always am. I received apologies from the USTA, the Lines Official, and the Head of the US Open. However I don't recall EVER receiving a note, a phone call, a letter even a text from anyone at the Grand Slam Committee ITF apologizing about the wrong and disastrous call one of THEIR officials made.

When I was a teenager I was booed by an entire packed stadium at Indian Wells. In my new book "On the line" I talk about how I remember crying on every changeover in the towel. Praying and wishing I could lose and the match would just be done with. When the match was over I thanked the crowd those that cheered for me, and even those that did not. Looking back I am still amazed how I remained so calm and positive, and even managed to come out on top.

The fact is every professional athlete gets wronged in one way or another. And every athlete gets upset. We have been working, sacrificing, missing out on numerous things, things we will never get back or experience for the sake of our careers. For the sake of that one moment in time where we have a chance to shine through.

Imagine for 20 years working day in, day out, sacrificing on countless things to get this job, that will make all your hard work and endless efforts worthwhile. Try to imagine having that promotion in one moment being taken away from you because of a slight over sight, by someone overseeing your work. 20 years gone away. Time to start over, dust yourself off and try again. You work harder make positive changes. It happens again.

"Dust yourself off" you say. "Try again"

You do just that. You work even harder than before, spend longer hours. Then it happens yet again. Another slight oversight.

Well this is what happened to me, and to be honest I believe I reached my boiling point. After yet ANOTHER wrong call I began to wonder- Was I being "overlooked" or wrongly judged on purpose!??? Is this being done to keep me from achieving my best? Why does this keep happening at the same place?

Throughout my career I have remained calm. But I guess I finally reached my breaking point. A point I should have never allowed myself to get to. Everything seemed to have surfaced. As you know, losing my cool cost me over 92 thousand dollars. 92 thousand dollars! This is more than most people make in a year. 92 thousand dollars! Answer this: Why is it another player who also lost HIS cool not to a line judge - like I did - but to the main officiating judge- using the same "f word" why was HE only fined 10 thousand dollars. Was what I did 10 times worse than what he did?!

There is another HE who was fined less than half of what I was fined after someone in his camp actually physically ATTACKED an official!!!!

What about the famous HE who made arguing with officials "cool". Cool for "MEN" I guess.
Is it because they are all HE's and not a SHE like me?

It is indeed a massive difference. Being American I guess the 1st amendment, freedom of speech, does not apply to a SHE in this case? In any event the Grand Slam Committee, ITF and its staff did not hesitate to call, send a note, text, nor write letters after this incident. Ironic is it not?

I don't mind being fined. If I did wrong I accept the repercussions. All I ask for is to be treated equal.

When I was fined the 92K, I asked to see if I could donate some of it to different schools, and programs I'm involved in. My request was denied. So, I decided to match the fine by raising money and donating an additional 92K to my 2nd school that I am opening up in Africa, as well as to schools that I am helping here in the United States. I also want to educate women about what I learned from this whole experience. How we as women are still treated as less than equal. I am going to turn this 92K into a positive!!! And I have decided to call it Serena's 92K mission!!! Go to Serenawilliams.com to learn more about my 92K mission.

Xxxx,
Serena Williams

What do you think? I like her attempt to use the fine to raise money for her charitable causes. I still think that she should also use the attention on the fine to highlight the need for instant video replay on foot fault, double-bounce and "ball-touch" calls made by the umpires. There should be no call made by a human that is not verified by technology. I like the fact that she points out that the electronic line calling system we have today was a direct result of the egregious line call that she received against Jennifer Capriati and that "the powers that be" in tennis have never acknowledged that.

Celebrity (Black) Friday: Tyler Perry Donates $1M to NAACP

Tyler Perry has donated one million dollars to the NAACP, the largest individual donation the venerable African American civil rights organization (which celebrated the 100th anniversary of its creation this year) has ever received.

It's pretty shocking that with so many Black multimillionaires and billionaires in this country (hello, Oprah and Mr. and Mrs. Johnson?) this is the first 7 figure gift the NAACP has ever received.

If it weren't for the work of the NAACP it is exceedingly doubtful that they could have had the opportunities for extraordinary financial success that they have achieved.

NAACP leaders say Perry's donation will be used to support its Second Century campaign, which targets equality in education, health care and criminal justice heading into the next 100 years. The money will be distributed over four years, according to the NAACP.

Perry said in a statement that he credits the work of past NAACP leaders as helping pave the way for his success in the entertainment industry. He made his film debut in 2005 with "Diary of a Mad Black Woman," which he wrote, directed and starred in.

I wonder if this is his mea culpa (Latin for "my bad") for Big Mama!

Obama To Sign Federal Hate Crimes Bill Wed

President Barack Obama will sign the federal hate crimes bill into law on Wednesday and deliver remarks at a reception to which members of the LGBT community are invited.

The president plans to pen his name to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, which includes a provision known as the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The measure would make illegal hate crimes based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity, among other categories, and would allow the Justice Department to assist in the prosecution of such crimes.

The legislation has languished in Congress for 12 years, and with strong support this congressional session, lawmakers put the finishing touches on the bill this month.

The House on Oct. 8 voted in favor of the defense conference report with the hate crimes measure, 281-146, and the Senate on Thursday approved the same report, 68-29.

I wonder how long the (white) LGBT community will give Obama credit for signing the first piece of federal legislaation ever to include civil rights protection based on gender identity as well as enacting a bill which has been on "the Gay Agenda" for over a decade. Don't hold your breath!

VIDEO: Mormon Leader Comparing Their Homophobia To Racial Oppression

Here's the video of Mormon Elder Oaks saying his crazy mess comparing protests of church efforts on passing Prop 8 to racism against African-Americans in the 1960s.

Utah Governor Doesn't Understand Basic Civil Rights

The new Governor of Utah Gary Hebert doesn't even realize how offensive he is being (or maybe he does and just doesn't care?) with the following statements:

In his most definitive comments yet on gay rights, Herbert told reporters he doesn't believe sexual orientation should be a protected class in the way that race, gender and religion are. "We don't have to have a rule for everybody to do the right thing. We ought to just do the right thing because it's the right thing to do and we don't have to have a law that punishes us if we don't," Herbert said in his first monthly KUED news conference.

In Utah, it is legal to fire someone for being gay or transgender. The gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah has been trying to change state law for several years but has always been rebuffed by the Republican-controlled Legislature. Last year, the group got Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman's support for extending some rights to gay people, although none of the bills it backed became law.

But, wait, there's more!

Herbert stopped short of condemning Salt Lake City's proposed anti-discrimination ordinance during his first appearance on the governor's monthly news conference on KUED Ch. 7, but said a fair-housing and employment law for the state's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community would unnecessarily create a new "protected class."

"Where do you stop? That's the problem going down that slippery road. Pretty soon we're going to have a special law for blue-eyed blondes," Herbert said, adding "we get bogged down sometimes with the minutiae of things that government has really no role to be involved in."

The very first follow up question should be whether Governor Hebert supports the current classes protected against employment discrimination under state and federal law in Utah, which are age, race, religion, sex, national origin, color and disability (by virtue of state and federal law) and pregnancy, childbirth or pregnancy-related condition (Utah law only. An esteemed reader wrote in to make sure I made it clear that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is illegal under federal law as well, but I do believe that Utah's statute goes even further in prohibiting discrimination in this area than under federal law).

If he does not support those laws, then he should be called out for the anti-historical bigot he appears to be. If he does support those laws, but doesn't see any need to expand them to cover sexual orientation and gender identity, he should be educated as to the vast amount of discrimination which openly LGBT workers face all over the United States (and I expect, in Utah) unlike the mythical history of discrimination against blue-eyed blondes the Governor seems so worried about.

And isn't it shocking that it is a wealthy white male who is making these statements of how unnecessary llegal protections for minorities are. Color me surprised. Not.

Obama Clarifies Remarks on Gates Arrest Incident

Pam Spaulding over at the Blend has the full text of remarks the President made at the Daily Press briefing clarifying his remarks from Wednesday on the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. incident from last week:

THE PRESIDENT: If you got to do a job, do it yourself. (Laughter.)

I wanted to address you guys directly because over the last day and a half obviously there's been all sorts of controversy around the incident that happened in Cambridge with Professor Gates and the police department there.

I actually just had a conversation with Sergeant Jim Crowley, the officer involved. And I have to tell you that as I said yesterday, my impression of him was that he was a outstanding police officer and a good man, and that was confirmed in the phone conversation -- and I told him that.

And because this has been ratcheting up -- and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up -- I want to make clear that in my choice of words I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically -- and I could have calibrated those words differently. And I told this to Sergeant Crowley.

I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, that Professor Gates probably overreacted as well. My sense is you've got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved and the way they would have liked it to be resolved.

The fact that it has garnered so much attention I think is a testimony to the fact that these are issues that are still very sensitive here in America. So to the extent that my choice of words didn't illuminate, but rather contributed to more media frenzy, I think that was unfortunate.
What I'd like to do then I make sure that everybody steps back for a moment, recognizes that these are two decent people, not extrapolate too much from the facts -- but as I said at the press conference, be mindful of the fact that because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, you know, African Americans are sensitive to these issues. And even when you've got a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity, interactions between police officers and the African American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding.

My hope is, is that as a consequence of this event this ends up being what's called a "teachable moment," where all of us instead of pumping up the volume spend a little more time listening to each other and try to focus on how we can generally improve relations between police officers and minority communities, and that instead of flinging accusations we can all be a little more reflective in terms of what we can do to contribute to more unity. Lord knows we need it right now -- because over the last two days as we've discussed this issue, I don't know if you've noticed, but nobody has been paying much attention to health care. (Laughter.)

I will not use this time to spend more words on health care, although I can't guarantee that that will be true next week. I just wanted to emphasize that -- one last point I guess I would make. There are some who say that as President I shouldn't have stepped into this at all because it's a local issue. I have to tell you that that part of it I disagree with. The fact that this has become such a big issue I think is indicative of the fact that race is still a troubling aspect of our society. Whether I were black or white, I think that me commenting on this and hopefully contributing to constructive -- as opposed to negative -- understandings about the issue, is part of my portfolio.

So at the end of the conversation there was a discussion about -- my conversation with Sergeant Crowley, there was discussion about he and I and Professor Gates having a beer here in the White House. We don't know if that's scheduled yet -- (laughter) -- but we may put that together.

He also did say he wanted to find out if there was a way of getting the press off his lawn. (Laughter.) I informed him that I can't get the press off my lawn. (Laughter.) He pointed out that my lawn is bigger than his lawn. (Laughter.) But if anybody has any connections to the Boston press, as well as national press, Sergeant Crowley would be happy for you to stop trampling his grass.

All right. Thank you, guys.

Hat/tip to DailyKosTV for the video.