REALITYCHEX.COM - Constant Comments -

The Wires

Help!

To keep the Conversation going, please help me by linking news articles, opinion pieces and other political content in today's Comments section.

Link Code: <a href="URL">text</a>

OR here's a link generator. The one I had posted died, then Akhilleus found one, but it too bit the dust. He found yet another, which I've linked here, and as of September 23, 2024, it's working.

OR you can always just block, copy and paste to your comment the URL (Web address) of the page you want to link.

Note for Readers. It is not possible for commenters to "throw" their highlighted links to another window. But you can do that yourself. Right-click on the link and a drop-down box will give you choices as to where you want to open the link: in a new tab, new window or new private window.

New York Times: “The New York Times Company has agreed to license its editorial content to Amazon for use in the tech giant’s artificial intelligence platforms, the company said on Thursday. The multiyear agreement 'will bring Times editorial content to a variety of Amazon customer experiences,' the news organization said in a statement. Besides news articles, the agreement encompasses material from NYT Cooking, The Times’s food and recipe site, and The Athletic, which focuses on sports. This is The Times’s first licensing arrangement with a focus on generative A.I. technology. In 2023, The Times sued OpenAI and its partner, Microsoft, for copyright infringement, accusing the tech companies of using millions of articles published by The Times to train automated chatbots without any kind of compensation. OpenAI and Microsoft have rejected those accusations.” ~~~

~~~ Marie: I have no idea what this means for "the Amazon customer experience." Does it mean that if I don't have a NYT subscription but do have Amazon Prime I can read NYT content? And where, exactly, would I find that content? I don't know. I don't know.

Washington Post reporters asked three AI image generators what a beautiful woman looks like. "The Post found that they steer users toward a startlingly narrow vision of attractiveness. Prompted to show a 'beautiful woman,' all three tools generated thin women, without exception.... Her body looks like Barbie — slim hips, impossible waist, round breasts.... Just 2 percent of the images showed visible signs of aging. More than a third of the images had medium skin tones. But only nine percent had dark skin tones. Asked to show 'normal women,' the tools produced images that remained overwhelmingly thin.... However bias originates, The Post’s analysis found that popular image tools struggle to render realistic images of women outside the Western ideal." ~~~

~~~ Marie: The reporters seem to think they are calling out the AI programs for being unrealistic. But there's a lot about the "beautiful women" images they miss. I find these omissions remarkably sexist. For one thing, the reporters seem to think AI is a magical "thing" that self-generates. It isn't. It's programmed. It's programmed by boys, many of them incels who have little or no experience or insights beyond comic books and Internet porn of how to gauge female "beauty." As a result, the AI-generated women look like cartoons; that is, a lot like an air-brushed photo of Kristi Noem: globs of every kind of dark eye makeup, Scandinavian nose, Botox lips, slathered-on skin concealer/toner/etc. makeup, long dark hair and the aforementioned impossible Barbie body shape, including huge, round plastic breasts.

New York Times: “George Clooney’s Broadway debut, 'Good Night, and Good Luck,' has been one of the sensations of the 2024-25 theater season, breaking box office records and drawing packed houses of audiences eager to see the popular movie star in a timely drama about the importance of an independent press. Now the play will become much more widely available: CNN is planning a live broadcast of the penultimate performance, on June 7 at 7 p.m. Eastern. The performance will be preceded and followed by coverage of, and discussion about, the show and the state of journalism.”

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. -- Magna Carta ~~~

~~~ New York Times: “Bought for $27.50 after World War II, the faint, water stained manuscript in the library of Harvard Law School had attracted relatively little attention since it arrived there in 1946. That is about to change. Two British academics, one of whom happened on the manuscript by chance, have discovered that it is an original 1300 version — not a copy, as long thought — of Magna Carta, the medieval document that helped establish some of the world’s most cherished liberties. It is one of just seven such documents from that date still in existence.... A 710-year-old version of Magna Carta was sold in 2007 for $21.3 million.... First issued in 1215, it put into writing a set of concessions won by rebellious barons from a recalcitrant King John of England — or Bad King John, as he became known in folklore. He later revoked the charter, but his son, Henry III, issued amended versions, the last one in 1225, and Henry’s son, Edward I, in turn confirmed the 1225 version in 1297 and again in 1300.”

Page Links

Thursday

Apr142011

Republicans v. Women

Gail Collins: The Republican attack on Planned Parenthood "is a wide-ranging attack on women’s right to control their reproductive lives that the women themselves would strongly object to if it was stated clearly." It is not, as Republicans pretend, an anti-abortion crusade. And it all "makes sense, as long as you lay off the factual statements." Collins highlights Sen. Jon Kyl's Senate floor speech in which he asserted that "over 90 percent" of Planned Parenthood's services were abortions. The actual percentage is closer to three. Here's a clip from Kyl's floor speech:

wmode="transparent"

A Kyl spokesperson later put out a statement in which he said Kyl's "...remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions." Here's Don Lemmon of CNN reporting on that:

wmode="transparent"

The New York Times moderators have scrambled out my comment (see Update 2 below), so here it is, and it's probably worth reading:

Let's face it: Jon Kyl is anti-woman. Not only is he unconcerned about women's ability to obtain contraceptive and other reproductive-related services, he doesn't even care if they get proper care AFTER he makes sure they become pregnant if they're going to indulge in sex.

Second only to his fact-free attack on Planned Parenthood last week is his indifference to maternity care. During the healthcare debate, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said during a committee hearing that insurers should be required to cover basic maternity care. Kyl sneered: "I don't need maternity care. So requiring that on my insurance policy is something that I don't need and will make the policy more expensive." Stabenow replied: "I think your mom probably did." (The amendment went down to defeat anyway.) Here's the videotape:

wmode="transparent"

It isn't just Republican men who so vehemently oppose contraception that they're willing to lie about it. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) asserted on Monday, "The executive director of Planned Parenthood in Illinois said they want to become the LensCrafter of BIG ABORTION in Illinois."

This wasn't the first time she had made such a statement, either. Of course, it wasn't true, but in fact-free Right Wing World, that doesn't matter. As Anderson Cooper of CNN laid out, it turns out that the CEO of Planned Parenthood Illinois said, "I like to think of Planned Parenthood as the LensCrafters of FAMILY PLANNING."

In other words, just as Collins lays out, to Bachmann, "big abortion" and "family planning" are the same thing. And they're both really bad. (Bachmann has promised to quit spreading this disinformation, not because Planned Parenthood complained it was untrue, but because LensCrafters asked her to knock it off!)

The party that claims it wants to "get us our freedoms back" does not include a women's right to personal privacy among those "freedoms." It's hard to imagine any law that is much more intrusive than one that comes between a woman and her health provider. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Not if they in any way involve sex.

Republicans really want to make sure that girls who just wanna have fun -- don't.

Update: Rachel Maddow weighs in:

... Maddow's interview of Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, who is -- you know -- factual, is here.

Update 2: you can find my comment at #235 & Karen Garcia's at #234. The reason we were pushed off the front page? As nearly as I can tell, it's because we both used the word "sex" in our comments. Oh, horrors! And in response to a column about -- sex!

Comments Off

Permalink

Email Article