Why Is Fox News Forcing Gay Shepard Smith To Stay In The Closet?

This is not the first time I have written about Shepard Smith and his need to admit to being gay. Last fall I posted an entry that started this way.

I have said for a long time that my reading of Shepard Smith is that he is gay.  Just watching at times his afternoon show has led me to my personal conclusion.  Not a big deal at all, except that he works for a company not beating down the doors for gay rights.  In fact, often the company in question goes out of their way to make bigotry hasher and more deeply entrenched in our society.

Today comes the following that is not shocking based on what we already know about FAUX News and their treatment of gay people and the issues that impact their lives..

In the summer of 2013, according to multiple sources with knowledge of their exchange, Shepard Smith approached Fox News president Roger Ailes about publicly coming out. The newly attached anchor was eager, at the time, to finally acknowledge his sexuality. “It’s time,” he told Ailes and other colleagues. “It’s time.”

Instead, Ailes informed Smith that the network’s famously conservative audience would not tolerate a gay news anchor. Ailes’ answer was definitive: Smith could not say he’s gay.

“This came up during contract negotiations,” a Fox insider told Gawker. “Shep wanted to and was ready to come out, and Roger just said no.”

Smith, one of Ailes’s first and most loyal disciples, acquiesced to his boss’s demand, and dropped the matter. But the discussion worried enough Fox executives to prompt Smith’s removal, in September 2013, from the channel’s coveted prime-time lineup. According to a Fox insider with direct knowledge of negotiations, Smith’s desire to come out was a large factor in the dramatic move.

“They tried to play it up as a big promotion,” the insider said. “But everyone knew that Shep was getting demoted. And the coming out thing was a significant part of that.”

Lets get one thing understood about this story.

The angry white male crowd who feel that the media elites keep pushing gay marriage and civil rights down their throat are the same ones who watch FAUX News.  Roger Ailes knows this and thinks more about his profit line and partisan needs than he does the betterment of society and the needs of one of his anchors. 

In the summer of 2013, according to multiple sources with knowledge of their exchange, Shepard Smith approached Fox News president Roger Ailes about publicly coming out. The newly attached anchor was eager, at the time, to finally acknowledge his sexuality. “It’s time,” he told Ailes and other colleagues. “It’s time.”

Instead, Ailes informed Smith that the network’s famously conservative audience would not tolerate a gay news anchor. Ailes’ answer was definitive: Smith could not say he’s gay.

“This came up during contract negotiations,” a Fox insider told Gawker. “Shep wanted to and was ready to come out, and Roger just said no.”

Smith, one of Ailes’s first and most loyal disciples, acquiesced to his boss’s demand, and dropped the matter. But the discussion worried enough Fox executives to prompt Smith’s removal, in September 2013, from the channel’s coveted prime-time lineup. According to a Fox insider with direct knowledge of negotiations, Smith’s desire to come out was a large factor in the dramatic move.

“They tried to play it up as a big promotion,” the insider said. “But everyone knew
Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2014/04/is_fox_news_keeping_shepard_smith_in_the_closet.php#LuHeFeskOjxD5ZQA.99

In the summer of 2013, according to multiple sources with knowledge of their exchange, Shepard Smith approached Fox News president Roger Ailes about publicly coming out. The newly attached anchor was eager, at the time, to finally acknowledge his sexuality. “It’s time,” he told Ailes and other colleagues. “It’s time.”

Instead, Ailes informed Smith that the network’s famously conservative audience would not tolerate a gay news anchor. Ailes’ answer was definitive: Smith could not say he’s gay.

“This came up during contract negotiations,” a Fox insider told Gawker. “Shep wanted to and was ready to come out, and Roger just said no.”

Smith, one of Ailes’s first and most loyal disciples, acquiesced to his boss’s demand, and dropped the matter. But the discussion worried enough Fox executives to prompt Smith’s removal, in September 2013, from the channel’s coveted prime-time lineup. According to a Fox insider with direct knowledge of negotiations, Smith’s desire to come out was a large factor in the dramatic move.

“They tried to play it up as a big promotion,” the insider said. “But everyone knew
Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2014/04/is_fox_news_keeping_shepard_smith_in_the_closet.php#LuHeFeskOjxD5ZQA.99

In the summer of 2013, according to multiple sources with knowledge of their exchange, Shepard Smith approached Fox News president Roger Ailes about publicly coming out. The newly attached anchor was eager, at the time, to finally acknowledge his sexuality. “It’s time,” he told Ailes and other colleagues. “It’s time.”

Instead, Ailes informed Smith that the network’s famously conservative audience would not tolerate a gay news anchor. Ailes’ answer was definitive: Smith could not say he’s gay.

“This came up during contract negotiations,” a Fox insider told Gawker. “Shep wanted to and was ready to come out, and Roger just said no.”

Smith, one of Ailes’s first and most loyal disciples, acquiesced to his boss’s demand, and dropped the matter. But the discussion worried enough Fox executives to prompt Smith’s removal, in September 2013, from the channel’s coveted prime-time lineup. According to a Fox insider with direct knowledge of negotiations, Smith’s desire to come out was a large factor in the dramatic move.

“They tried to play it up as a big promotion,” the insider said. “But everyone knew
Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2014/04/is_fox_news_keeping_shepard_smith_in_the_closet.php#LuHeFeskOjxD5ZQA.99

Lets Be Honest Why Wisconsin Republicans Will Not Take Up Voter ID Bill In Special Session

Today came the news that many expected regarding the voter ID law that was found unconstitutional by a federal judge.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said the legislature will not go back into session to fix the law.  According to Fitzgerald the court ruling left little room for lawmakers to act.

But Assembly Speaker Robin Vos had a different take on the matter just yesterday.  He noted that the Assembly passed a new voter ID bill this past session to cure potential constitutional problems identified by the lower court challenges.  Granted the federal ruling was a major blow for Republicans, but seemingly they had attempted to resolve–as best they felt could be done–the shortcomings that were made known to them from earlier court rulings.

So why not make the attempt at fixing what has been described by Republicans as a voting system that created a suspicion of fraud?

Simply because the Republicans do not want–or need–anther round of headlines showcasing their attempts to curb voting and undermine the desire of the electorate to have access to a ballot.   The Republican-led legislature does not want to have more statewide editorials decrying the partisan attack on the most prized part of being a citizen.

If it is true that Democrats are not as energized at the base as Republicans then the last thing the GOP wishes is to give another reason for election year anger to be roused.

Since Republicans know deep down what they have attempted is nothing more than a partisan game with voting means that they will now slink back from the headlines as best they can and not call for a special session.

Endia Martin Shooting In Chicago Shows Gun Culture Is A Deep Sickness

Listening to Chicago radio (WGN) means that there is never an end to the stories about gun violence.  Over the past few days another one of those sad, ‘what in hell is wrong with people’ stories about gun violence is playing out in the media.  As always there are many reasons to shake our head and wonder how deep the hole has to get before we come to terms with how to stop more bloodshed.

I will condense this news story, and in so doing make the absurdity factor more clear to my readers.

A 14-year-old girl shot her onetime friend in the back after a feud on Facebook.  Now the shooter’s Mom tell the press the girl is “so sorry” for the death, and “feels bad too.”  (It is OK to start gagging.)

“She was very hurt,” the mother said of her daughter. “Her and the little girl used to be friends.”   (This is the reaction to the murder!)

The mother states that her daughter’s life was threatened, and that someone told her daughter they would “lay her where her daddy’s at.”  (The culture of death and violence never seems to cease.)

Given that I place a load of the blame for these stories not only on the gun manufactures and dealers, but also on the family structure the next part of the story is also just plain silly.

The Mom said she didn’t know about her daughter’s juvenile court hearing Tuesday afternoon, where the teenage girl faced charges that included first-degree murder and attempted murder without any family in the courtroom. The judge said at the hearing the girl’s mother “obviously” knew about it.

What in hell is wrong when a teenage daughter has murdered someone and the parent has no idea that a court hearing was planned? Simply put this woman is too stupid to be allowed to be a parent.   Which is why I think it not such a far-out idea to make people pass a test before they are allowed to be a parent.  (There are studies that have examined this idea.)

If the bile has not yet reached your mouth…there is this.

Meanwhile, the girl’s uncle was ordered held on $3 million bail Wednesday. Cook County prosecutors said the paralyzed, wheelchair-bound man took the bus to hand her the fully loaded weapon knowing there would be a fight.

Before the 14-year-old suspect went to confront two girls about an ongoing dispute she had with them about a boy, she asked Donnell Flora for a gun, Assistant State’s Attorney Jamie Santini said.

Flora, 25, agreed with his niece’s request and got on a bus with the .38-caliber revolver Monday afternoon, Santini said.

Once at the 900 block of West 55th, Flora gave the girl the gun before the shooting, Santini said.

Hold on—there is more!

The entire crime was captured on a cellphone video taken by a witness, prosecutors revealed Wednesday.

On Tuesday, prosecutors at the bond hearing for the 14-year-old suspect said that the gun had jammed before Endia was shot, but prosecutor’s discussing Flora’s case didn’t mention the gun jamming.

Instead, Santini said that the 14-year-old armed with a gun first pointed the weapon at the aunt of the 16-year-old victim who eventually was shot in the left bicep in Monday’s incident.

The aunt pushed the armed girl’s hand away but then the girl took the gun and hit the 16-year-old girl in the head with it, Santini said.

The 16-year-old tried swinging a lock on a chain at the girl with the gun but missed, Santini said.

The 14-year-old suspect then fired as the victims tried fleeing into a home.

What is happening in this nation with guns and the culture of violence is not an isolated incident or one that can be labeled urban or impacting only minorities.  How a teenage girl has access to guns, the rage and anger that erupts from within, and the lack of any sense of right-or-wrong is simply staggering to contemplate.  I have no way to even process the bat-carp crazy parts of this story.

Yet it all happened.

And it will happen again and again until we come to the point in wanting it to end.

NRA Prove To Be Asses (Again)

There is no doubt that asses in the headline is the most polite term I could use on this family-friendly blog when describing the NRA.

Blood-thirsty ******* was my first thought when reading this.

During his speech at the National Rifle Association’s national convention in Indianapolis last week, Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. said he considers the law-abiding armed citizen to be “the great equalizer.”

He then told three anecdotes from Milwaukee in which legal gun owners used their firearms. The first was about Jeremy Rossetto, a Cudahy man, attacked while working at an apartment building in Milwaukee in March.

“He was being savagely beaten by three suspects, one wielding a small club,” Clarke said. “He told me afterwards he thought he was going to die. He was able to pull his firearm from its holster and deliver two shots, killing two of the suspects and saving his own life.”

The crowd cheered and whistled.

Clarke followed up with the story of how Andy Kochanski shot at three men who came in to rob his tavern last summer, killing one of the suspects before the other two fled.

The crowd cheered again.

Throw some red meat and let the savage dogs tear into it. 

One would be hard pressed to find a more pathetic group than the NRA.

State Senator Mary Lazich Markets In Creating Voter Fraud Suspicion

 

The words could not be more clear.

This morning in the newspaper State Senator Mary Lazich, Chairwoman of the Senate Elections Committee, was quoted regarding yesterday’s federal court ruling about Wisconsin’s voter ID law.

After claiming that U.S. Federal Judge Adelman was politically motivated the state senator then made a statement that revealed more about her tactics than she probably wanted to expose.

“Voter ID ensures the age-old principle of one vote for one person,” Lazich said. “My goal of transparent, open elections free from suspicion of fraud will not be deterred by judicial activism.”

Had Lazich read the ruling she might have noted that the lack of any evidence of voter impersonation was at the heart of Adelman’s ruling.

“The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin,” he wrote. “The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin.”

Since there was no actual evidence of voter impersonation to show in court, just as there was no evidence to show on the floor of the state legislature when this issue was being discussed means the only thing Republicans have left in their arsenal is the creation of suspicion.

I think it deplorable to use fear tactics–in this case that somehow the voting system is not working in the manner it should–so to further partisan political aims.  That is what Lazich is doing when she continues to use language that speaks to suspicion of fraud.

While Lazich may think Adelman was politically motivated the lack of any evidence of voter fraud, and her continual push to make people think it exists shows who is the partisan in this shameful saga.

Death Penalty Should Be Eliminated, Harms Our Moral Character As A Nation

Once again a massive controversy surrounds a  government sponsored execution.  Once again there is more secrecy than light from state officials, this time in Oklahoma, concerning what actually happened last night when Clayton Lockett lived for 43 minutes after being administered the first drug in a cocktail that was meant to kill him.

What we know is that one of his veins exploded and  witnesses saw Lockett writhe and convulse on the gurney.  No one has to be a legal scholar to know full well that the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment is not being met with these procedures.

The execution process was halted, but Lockett died of a heart attack.

I do not now, nor have I ever, thought it to be morally acceptable for the government to take the life of a prisoner.  Regardless of the crime that was committed.

There is no evidence that the death penalty prevents crime, but there is plenty of evidence to show that it is used in a way that allows for minorities and economically disadvanted people to have a higher chance of being placed on death row.

In fact I would argue the sole motivating factor behind the death penalty is vengeance.  A pure lust for vengeance.  That is not how a civilized nation should operate.

I do understand, and desire justice be brought for those who commit crimes, but I fail to understand how a government that forbids killing among its citizens should then be in the business of killing on the taxpayer’s dime.  There is just no logic to the thirst for vengeance.

Placing someone in prison for life is the only reasonable way to proceed for those who commit the ultimate crime in our society.  Then allow for God to be the final judge on the matter.  The government should not be in the business of taking a life.

What took place in Oklahoma last night, and now piled on top of other such cases of botched executions is strong evidence that a substantial number of prison volunteers and people with questionable expertise have been used to carry out executions.  From just last night alone it is clear that drugs are being used that have never been used to kill a human being, and in fact were not created for that outcome.  In addition those drugs are being used by eager-beavers who have a sickness in that they would even consent to carry out an execution.

As a nation we need to seriously examine not only the legal procedures that need to be in place to make sure constitutional guarantees are not abandoned for prisoners, but also the working of our moral compass.    We need to accept that there is no way for the government to take the life of someone without it harming our moral character as a nation.

Plain Words, Correct Words From Attorney General Candidate Jon Richards Regarding Wisconsin Voter ID Court Ruling

This afternoon Attorney General candidate Jon Richards released a statement concerning the decision by U.S. Federal Judge Adelman that ruled Wisconsin’s voter ID law is unconstitutional.  The words were the ones I wanted to hear.

“I am pleased a federal court invalidated Wisconsin’s voter ID law. Wisconsin has a proud tradition of high voter participation, and we should work to protect the citizen’s right to vote, and increase voter turnout, not make it harder for people to exercise their constitutional right to cast a ballot.

“As Attorney General, I would not appeal today’s ruling. I will work tirelessly to ensure that every citizen who is eligible to vote is able to exercise their rights.”

With a strong campaign, and a powerful get-out-the vote effort Wisconsin can again have someone in the attorney general’s office we are proud of; an elected A.G. who looks out for the greater good of our state instead of the narrow partisan interests.

Wisconsin Voter ID Law Ruled Unconstitutional

Anyone who has followed the debate in Wisconsin and around the nation when it comes to voter identification laws know this has far more to do with partisan moves by Republicans who seek a solution in search of a problem. There was no evidence of voter fraud that necessitated the draconian move of enacting a voter ID law in our state.  Instead the sole purpose of enacting  the voter ID law was to undermine the rights of citizens, especially certain demographics from having easy access to a most basic right.

One could smell the legal problems with the law, and most knew it was only a matter of time before a federal judge declared it unconstitutional.

That happened today when United States District Judge Lynn Adelman in Milwaukee ruled the law requiring voters to show one of a narrow set of photo IDs at the polls violated the federal Voting Rights Act and furthermore the law established an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

Judge Adelman wrote in his ruling “Act 23 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it has a disproportionate impact on the voting rights of Blacks and Latinos.”

What Wisconsin Republicans can not come to grips with are the facts about voting in this state.  There is not now, nor has there ever been, a long list of offenders when it comes to election fraud in the Badger State.

No Republican was able to stand up in the legislature and produce any court cases, judge’s rulings, or names of those who cast fraudulent votes.  If there was such rampant voting abuses  why did the attorney general not intervene?

The reason is that the GOP spun voter fraud as a means to undermine Democratic voting, not due to any voter fraud problem that needed a remedy.  The lack of any court records or media reporting of such events around the state underscores the lack of credibility for the Republicans with this issue.

Adelman even wrote in the ruling, “The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past.”

Data shows that nothing nefarious was happening at the polling places in Wisconsin.  NOTHING.  There were no streams of voters pretending to be someone else, or voting twice.  There were no throngs of folks using fake aliases to cast a ballot, and there were no elections that were wrongly decided by all these wild claims.  The only voting drama taking place regarding elections are when Republicans breathlessly try to gin up their base with false-hoods about voter fraud.

That is why the decision today is such a correct one.

There is no way not to feel pride about the strong underpinnings of our constitution when reading the words written by Adelman.

Further, the right to vote is a fundamental right protected by both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992) (“It is beyond cavil that ‘voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.’” (quoting Ill. Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979)); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787 (1983) (the right to vote is one of the liberty interests protected by the due process clause); Harper, 383 U.S. at 665 (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”). Thus, states may not enact laws that unduly burden the right to vote.

###

The next question is whether the evidence adduced at trial shows that Wisconsin’s photo ID requirement creates a barrier to voting that is more likely to appear in the path of a voter if that voter is Black or Latino. The photo ID requirement applies to all voters, regardless of race. However, as explained in Section II.B, above, the requirement places a unique and heightened burden on those who must obtain an ID if they wish to continue voting in Wisconsin. These individuals are more likely to be deterred from voting than those who obtained their photo IDs for other reasons, such as driving. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrates that this unique burden disproportionately impacts Black and Latino voters. As the defendants concede, the plaintiffs’ evidence “shows that minorities are less likely than whites to currently possess qualifying ID.” Defs.’ Post-Trial Brief at 1. Because the defendants concede that minorities are less likely than whites to currently possess a photo ID, it is not necessary for me to discuss the evidence adduced at trial in support of this point and make explicit findings of fact. Nonetheless, because the parties presented substantial evidence on this question at trial and explicit findings might prove useful in the event of an appeal, I will explain how the evidence adduced at trial leads to the conclusion that, in Wisconsin, Blacks and Latinos are less likely than whites to possess a qualifying form of photo identification.