Connect with us

News

No, the wacky Green Party candidate didn’t keep Danny O’Connor from winning OH-12

Published

on

The worst part about election returns is when major party supporters decide to blame third parties for their candidate’s failure. The most recent display is the exasperation from Democrats over the fact a thousand or so Ohio District 12 voters decided to go Green, instead of supporting Danny O’Connor.

Yeah…about that…

Here’s the latest vote tally from The New York Times:

Correct me if my math is off but 99,820 + 1,127 = 100,947 which is still less than the 101,574 votes for Republican Troy Balderson. Maybe Democrats are using Common Core-style math to somehow get the idea the Greenies who voted for the kooky Joe Manchik prevented Danny O’Connor from going to D.C. There is a rematch in November so maybe that’s what they should be preparing for?

Those trying to compare L’affaire est Manchik to the 2000 L’affaire est Nader in Florida are forgetting something: Green Party supporters aren’t likely to vote for Democrats. O’Connor isn’t the left’s new democratic socialist belle of the ball, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, with Vox calling him a moderate in their Ohio 12th District explainer.

O’Connor, the Democrat on the ballot Tuesday, doesn’t support any of the newly popular ideas within the Democratic Party — Medicare-for-all, abolishing ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), and tuition-free college. He says outright, “We need to fight for capitalism.” He describes himself as a pragmatist from deep-red rural Ohio and is even engaged to a Republican.

He dismisses “Medicare-for-all” specifically as a slogan focus-grouped in Washington, DC. “Right now, people want to take away health care,” O’Connor said. “I have an opponent who wants to take away Medicaid expansion.”

Why would Greenies – who are some of the hardcore of the hardcore leftists – bother voting for someone they believed was a moderate? Especially since the party castigated Democrats in 2017 on accusations of not #resisting enough when it came to nominees by President Donald Trump with activist Laura Wells claiming “just enough Democrats are voting for Trump’s appointees to enable their confirmation…That’s not what an opposition party does.”

The Washington Post even discovered in 2016 there were plenty of Bernie Sanders fans who were going to jump back into the Green Party pool if he didn’t win the Democratic nomination.

“I’m all about who the candidate is,” said Ehrhart, 32, who left the Green Party to vote for Sanders. “If Bernie stays in, obviously I’ll stay a Democrat. If he signs up to be Hillary’s vice president or something like that, I’ll stay a Democrat. If not, I’ll probably go back to the Green Party.”

It’s not quite unlike how libertarians feel with the Republican Party. Yes, there were plenty of small-l libertarians who cast ballots for Republicans in 2012 and 2016. It probably depended on the candidate, their positions, and whether there was a Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot. It certainly did for me. There’s still plenty of frustration, especially for libertarians who prefer an extremely weak government.

There are people who are tired of – or simply not interested in – sacrificing their own principles to vote for so-called lesser evil. That lesser evil could end up tarnishing one’s own reputation or causing them to sacrifice more and more of their beliefs to make sure the lesser evil candidate gets into power. There are plenty of people who are tired of seeing candidates and parties pay lip service to a certain belief – then betray almost all the voters who helped get them into office.

It’s honestly much more likely voters are tuning out to the messages of the major parties – and deciding to skip the ballot box – instead of casting a vote for the smaller parties. There is a duopoly with Democrats and Republicans, and the rules are put together to make sure no third party candidate gets into the debates. I’m not 100% sure what the solution is – outside of convincing TV networks to demand other candidates get in – or whether people will be even interested in voting for someone who doesn’t have an R or a D next to their name.

I do know it’s foolish to blame third parties for the failure of your candidate.

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