Connect with us

News

Kimberly Guilfoyle leaving Fox News to join Trump Super PAC — reluctantly?

Published

on

It’d be understandable if she wanted out. She’s seeing Trump Jr and has been touted as a potential White House press secretary. If you had to pick any one person at Fox News who might soon make the very short trip to working for the White House officially, you’d pick her.

Today the news finally came that she’s leaving the network after 12 years, likely off to work for the pro-Trump Super PAC America First Policies alongside Don Jr. Presumably there’ll be a White House job for her sometime in Trump’s second term, if not sooner.

The question, though, is whether she’s jumping or being pushed:

Three sources tell HuffPost that longtime Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle did not leave the cable news network voluntarily…

A source close to Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle denies that she did not leave voluntarily.

Why might Guilfoyle have been pushed? Well, Politico reported a few days ago that even Fox News execs are starting to get weirded out by how chummy some of the hosts are with the White House. Hannity, Trump’s “shadow chief of staff,” is the most famous example but there’s not much the brain trust can do about that. He’s the network’s biggest name, he delivers its highest ratings. Confront him and you might suddenly have big shoes to fill at 9 p.m. Guilfoyle, however, doesn’t host her own show; she’s one of five co-hosts at 5 p.m., valuable but certainly more replaceable than a primetime anchor. Forcing out Don Jr’s girlfriend might be management’s way of signaling to everyone at FNC whose name doesn’t rhyme with “Shmannity” that there are limits to how pro-Trump even Fox should be. Politico:

Hannity’s coziness with the president, as well as that of other Fox News hosts with Trump, has at times discomfited the executives trying to steer the network in the post-Roger Ailes era. The channel is now led by CEO Suzanne Scott, and Fox News executives have at times pushed its hosts to distance themselves from the president, according to people familiar with their deliberations. On at least one occasion, executives asked a group of Fox personalities who had been invited to dine at the White House to decline the invitation, hoping to fend off the appearance that the network has inched too close to the White House.

You’re left to wonder if the surprising criticism of Trump this week on Fox News and Fox Business was wholly organic or if execs let it be known that hosts were welcome to criticize the president if they chose. Nothing’s going to penetrate the MAGA wall in primetime but various Fox commentators — Cavuto, Trish Regan, Melissa Francis, Brian Kilmeade, off the top of my head — spoke up about Helsinki. Maybe we’re headed towards (even more of) a two-track network in which daytime is lukewarm on POTUS to balance the cheerleading in the evening.

As for Guilfoyle, who’s going to fill the vacancy she’s creating on “The Five”? Here’s how Roger Ailes once described his vision of the show:

“Go around the table,” he told me, delighting in his own ingenuity. “Over on this end, we’ve got the bombshell in a skirt, drop-dead gorgeous.” He raised a chubby finger: “But smart! She’s got to be smart or it doesn’t work.” Next, he said, “we have a gruff longshoreman type, salty but not too salty for TV. In the middle there’s the handsome matinee idol. Next to him we have the Salvation Army girl, cute and innocent—but you get the idea she might be a lotta fun after a few pops. On the end, we need a wiseguy, the cut-up.”

Fox can do anything it wants with the format in the post-Ailes era, of course, but assume they’re sticking with the Ailes blueprint. Who’s in for Guilfoyle? Sandra Smith and Regan both qualify as “bombshells” and smart but each hosts or co-hosts her own show already. Sub one if them in at “The Five” and you have a new vacancy to fill elsewhere. The chatterati on Twitter are speculating that it’ll be Tomi Lahren, but Lahren typically works solo. She had her own show at the Blaze and is best known at Fox for delivering “Final Thoughts” commentary. Who knows if she’d work well in a freewheeling panel format.

If not one of them, who?

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Previously Deported Illegal Alien Charged with Brutal Murder of Shakopee, MN Woman

Published

on

By

Minnesota officials charged Fraider Diaz-Carbajal from Mexico with the brutal murder of his former girlfriend in Shakopee, Minnesota earlier this month.

Fraider Diaz-Carbajal had been previously deported but told the court he has lived in the are for 18 years.
Fraider does not speak English and needed a translator.

He stabbed his former girlfriend several times before cutting his own neck.

SW News Media reported:

A 27-year-old woman who was killed in Shakopee on Aug. 12 has been identified as Enedelia Perez Garcia, 27, and today prosecutors charged Fraider Diaz-Carbajal, 35, 1279 Taylor St. Unit 6, with second-degree murder (not premeditated) in her death. Police say he was in the country illegally after being deported in 2014.

At about 4:02 p.m. on Aug. 12, Shakopee police were dispatched to a fight call involving a knife at 1279 Taylor St., No. 6., and while on the way to the Taylor Ridge Towhomes, they were told a male had a knife and a female was possibly dead.

According to the charging documents, officers found a bloody scene in the upstairs bedroom: Diaz-Carbajal was lying with his head resting on the stomach and chest of a woman who was sitting on the floor with her back against the wall and did not appear to be breathing. Diaz-Carbajal’s throat was cut with a 6 to 8-inch-long laceration and there were several stab wounds in his abdomen. He was “taking occasional breaths and moving” and a large, bloody knife was at his left side.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Can AI produce fine art?

Published

on

By

We don’t normally cover the fine art beat here for obvious reasons, but there was a sale of a painting to a French collector in February which drew some attention. Another work by the same artist is going on sale at Christie’s presently. They works are going for some impressive amounts of money, but that’s not what makes the story interesting. The artist is an Artificial Intelligence program from a company named Obvious. (Time)

Hanging inside a gold frame on a pristine white wall in Christie’s Central London Gallery is a dark, moody portrait of a man in Puritan-style black clothes—the work, it seems, of some Old Master. But scrawled in the bottom right corner, there’s an unexpected signature: a mathematical equation.

This is Edmond de Belamy by French art collective Obvious—or, more accurately, by an algorithm designed by Obvious.

“The whole process is about humans having as little input as possible in the finished piece,” says Gauthier Vernier, one of three 25 year-old French men who started Obvious in April 2017 out of their apartment in Paris. Since then, by teaching a computer about art history and showing it how to make its own work, Obvious have produced 11 artworks with the help of artificial intelligence.

I’m not going to go into great detail about the technical particulars behind this since you can read them all at the article and at the Obvious Art website if you wish. The short version is that they developed an algorithm that scanned a vast number of paintings taken from classical art. It uses something called Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) which randomly generate images meeting certain criteria (a face has two eyes, one nose, one mouth, etc.) and the program “tests” each image itself to see if it can tell whether it’s original art or a computer generation. The results do indeed resemble portraits.

Here’s the real question: Is this art? Allow me to offer the definitive answers (plural) because it works both ways.

First… Yes. This is art.

But that answer comes with a caveat. Anything can be art because art is in the eye of the beholder. You can walk down the beach, find a particularly interesting looking piece of driftwood, take it home, clean it up and mount it on a wooden base. If you find it attractive, if it brings you pleasure, if your friends come over and compliment you on it… it’s art. And that’s only good art I’m talking about. Some of the crap put out by human beings as “modern art” is total garbage. If a crucifix in a jar of urine or three basketballs shoved into a broken fish tank (I actually saw that one in a gallery in New York City some years ago) qualify as art, then anything this robot spits out can certainly bear the name.

Second… No. This is definitely not art.

What they are presenting is a painting. But it didn’t come from an original thought or moment of inspiration in a mind, human or otherwise. They fed a bunch of examples into a program and had it randomly place zeros and ones corresponding to random colors until it generated something which matched certain test criteria that the programmers defined as being “art.” There was no feeling, no intent nor even any knowledge in the “mind” of the program of what it was doing. It was solving a math problem by randomly guessing combinations until it arrived at some solutions which met those design criteria.

It also wasn’t “painted” in any way that requires effort, training or involves risk of messing up a brush stroke. I had to search for a while to find out how the actual, physical paintings are created, but the AI only generates an image file. It’s then fed into a fancy laserjet printer which is set up to print on canvas instead of paper. Then a human being took it out and mounted it in a frame. An artist could never reproduce one of their painting precisely by hand. There would always be at least minute differences. Obvious could crank out the same portrait a thousand times and they would all be the same.

This isn’t even artificial intelligence as near as I can see. And it’s certainly not fine art. You could switch out the canvas for paper and it would be making interesting posters. If some rich collector wants to go to Christie’s and lay out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for one of these creations, that’s up to them. But save up your money, because Obvious can produce thousands more for you in no time at all.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

President Trump Responds to Manafort Conviction “Nothing to do With Russian Collusion” (VIDEO)

Published

on

By

“NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIAN COLLUSION” – President Trump

President Trump responded Tuesday afternoon after a jury found his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort guilty on 8 felony counts.

The President spoke to the press shortly after he landed in Charleston, West Virginia as he headed to his rally.

“It doesn’t involve me but I still feel really sad…you know it’s a very sad thing that happened. This has nothing to do with Russian collusion. This started as Russian collusion…this has absolutely nothing to do…this is a witch hunt and it’s a disgrace,” Trump said.

President Trump also said that he feels very bad for Paul Manafort. “He worked for Bob Dole, he worked for Ronald Reagan…” Trump continued.

The President didn’t answer any questions about his former lawyer Michael Cohen who just pleaded guilty to 8 counts; his plea deal includes 3-5 years jail time.

VIDEO:


After four days of deliberations, the jury reached a verdict on 8 counts and could not make a decision on 10 counts in the tax evasion and bank fraud case against Paul Manafort.

Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on 10 counts. The jury found Manafort guilty on 8 counts.

Both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort were hunted down by Mueller and his thugs because of their association with Donald Trump.

We currently have a two-tiered justice system because AG Sessions is AWOL.

One set of laws for Trump and his supporters and another set of laws for Democrats and Clinton-Deep State cronies.

H/T: Zero Hedge

Leave a comment

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Close