Review: The Silent Sea on Netflix

By John Ruberry

On Christmas Eve, Netflix began streaming an eight-episode South Korean science fiction series, The Silent Sea, which is based on a short film from 2014, The Sea of Tranquility. Both projects were directed by Choi Hang-yong.

The show brings us to a dystopian world nearly all of Earth’s water is gone. What water remains is of course rationed.

Such environmental havoc hasn’t prevented the Republic of Korea’s Space and Aeronautics Administration from building an expansive base, Balhae, on the Sea of Tranquility on the moon.

Han Yoon-jae (Gong Yoo) is recruited to lead a mission to retrieve a valuable scientific sample from the Balhae base. Five years earlier 117 people were killed by a radiation leak and the base was abandoned. Han has an ill daughter whose proper treatment depends on receiving a higher water ration classification. Also recruited for the mission, for reasons no one can ascertain, is Dr. Song Ji-an (Bae Doona), a former astrobiologist, now an ethologist.

Here’s the plan: In a space shuttle-type craft, the SAA launches the 11-person crew, most of them armed with handguns, so they can land at the Balhae base, locate the sample, and quickly return home. Things don’t go well–the poorly briefed crew doesn’t know what to expect. Some crew members know more than others, the chief engineer, Ryu Tae-seok (Lee Joon), is among them.

Laying out plot twists will produce numerous spoilers, so I’ll leave them out of my review. Being the first Korean science fiction series set in outer space, The Silent Sea is understandably derivative. It owes much to John Carpenter’s brilliant 1984 sci-fi thriller, The Thing.

Although subtle, there is a Christian influence in The Silent Sea as well. Quite unlike the blatant image of a golden calf hurtling through space in another recent Netflix release, Don’t Look Up, which I only saw short segments of while I walked through our living room when Mrs. Marathon Pundit was watching.

Viewers of The Silent Sea will enjoy a suspenseful ride with compelling acting. On the flipside, the series is a bit long. It appears to be a six-episode series that has been stretched out to eight. And the ending was a bit of a letdown for me.

Amazingly, the desertification of Earth here is not blamed on human-caused climate change.

The Silent Sea is currently streaming on Netflix, it is available in Korean with subtitles with bits of English dialogue, and in dubbed English with subtitles. It is rated TV-MA for violence and foul language.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Republicans will win in 2022, but still be a party of losers

I’m not a fan of Democrats. Once the façade dropped and Democrat-led cities began letting criminals run the streets without facing any sort of charges, it was obvious that Democrats had become the party of lawlessness. Once the abortion debate took a nasty shift into infanticide, where people literally said that a baby could be born and then the doctor would have a conversation with mom on whether to ~~keep it alive~~ murder it, Democrats became the party of killing innocent kids.

But I’ll be damned if I’m excited about Republicans. I watched Republicans at the federal level own the House, Senate and Presidency, but then fail to fix health care and Social Security (you know, those programs that are going to eat us alive in the long run!), fail to fix our defense spending and actually get the quality and quantity we need for the price we’re paying, and fail to, well, really stand for anything. At the state level, things were better in some areas, but even plenty of Republican Governors and state legislatures have been complacent, allowing all sorts of silliness to run amuck in their states.

So yeah, Republicans will still be the party of losers, even if they win in 2022. After much angry thinking, I think it boils down to a few key problems:

Republicans don’t ever make progress on anything because they are the party of NO.
Republicans can’t fundraise from normal people.

Let’s start with the party of NO. Republicans seem to always fight to return to the status quo, like somehow things were so much better in the 80s under Regan, or Bush, or the 1950s, or insert your own time period here. They remind me of some of the old people at my church that only seem fit to complain about how things were so much better under a different Pope and in a different time. As you read this, can’t you hear these people talking? Doesn’t it sound like nagging to you, like something your aunt or uncle that you hate spending time with would do?

Let’s contrast that to Democrats. Everything is about “progress.” Now, I laugh at the term “progressive,” and to me its a negative thing, but Democrats are always progressing towards something, typically Communism in some other form. But I give them credit, because they are on offense. All the time. They are focused on scoring points in the game we call politics. That means they push for things like $15 dollar minimum wage, or free health care, or abortion access to everyone, or letting men compete in women’s sports. These are all terrible ideas, but that misses the point, because they are on offense, over time offense conquers defense.

You can’t simply be the party of NO and expect people, especially young people, to be excited about voting for you. I’ll write more later about progress that Republicans should be making, but I’ll pick one here: adoption. If you’ve ever tried to adopt a US baby, it is an expensive and frustrating process, where the state is happy to charge someone thousands of dollars, let some low life state employee rummage through your home and find “issues,” and in the end only have at best a 50/50 chance of adopting a kid. If I was running for office, I’d make “Free adoption” one of my rallying points, both as a counter to the abortion culture and as a way to start dismantling some of the ridiculous bureaucracy that plagues our country and squanders our tax dollars. That puts me on offense, and if it gets repeated enough, it’ll be part of a larger winning package.

Now what about fundraising? Well, go back to 2016, where Donald Trump totally did not raise as much as Hillary Clinton. I saw this at the local level here in Virginia as well, where Democrat candidates at all levels outraised Republicans nearly two to one. Money matters. It buys you ads, gets your name out there, sponsors events, lets you send flyers and lets your candidate travel. Rallies, events, dinners, interviews with local news and shaking hands all matter. They build excitement and help the buzz about a candidate, especially by word of mouth, spread quickly.

Republicans fail here for two reasons. First, they make it hard to donate. Every Democrat candidate has a Paypal, Venmo and Cashapp donation button. Republicans? Here in Virginia they want everyone to go through some stupid WinRed website. Churches got it right when they made it easy to throw a twenty dollar bill in the collection envelope, or donate automatically online with about 3 clicks of the mouse. How are Republicans so far behind on this?

The second reason is failing to excite young voters and get small donations. One might blame this on demographics, but unexciting candidates are a bigger reason. Bernie Sanders might be crazy, but he’s damn persuasive in person. So is Donald Trump, and so was (and is) Bill Clinton. That’s why they can get young people excited to throw 20 dollars at them. That money adds up. Most Republicans seek to kiss the ring of some person working the local GOP party infrastructure, which gets some big business donations, but not the tidal wave of money we see Bernie able to bring in.

As a conservative, I’m frustrated with the party that I tend to vote for. I want to be excited to vote for Republicans at all levels, but until they start becoming a party of YES, and make it easy to fundraise, they are always going to be losers no matter what election cycle we are in.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. If you like this post, please consider supporting the author by purchasing his book on Amazon!

Seeing red over green

By Christopher Harper

Going green may end up making many of us see red, particularly since the Brandon administration plans to force automakers to make 50% of all automobiles electric by 2030.

All you have to do is look at the issue with one crucial mineral in developing a “green” car: lithium.

First, the cars will be significantly more expensive. The cost of lithium has increased as governments push for so-called “green” technology. Lithium, a mineral that is key for electric car batteries, has skyrocketed more than 250% over the last 12 months, hitting its highest level ever, according to an industry index from Benchmark Mineral Intelligence.

The average cost of an electric-vehicle battery ran $157 per kilowatt-hour, a measure of energy capacity, in 2021, the Department of Energy said. That means a typical EV battery costs between $6,000 and $7,000, a Bloomberg analysis showed.

Battery costs would need to come down to $100 per kilowatt-hour for overall EV prices to compete with traditional internal combustion engine cars, according to Bloomberg. The price of lithium will play a prominent role in achieving that goal.

Second, the United States has limited lithium resources, while China and Russia have vast amounts of the mineral. Depending on China and Russia for such minerals is a bad option in anyone’s book. Just think about how the U.S. dependence on foreign oil dominated American economic and foreign policy for decades.

Third, a big surprise: environmentalists, who say they want “green” energy, don’t want the mining industry to provide it from the United States.

Lithium Americas proposed to mine lithium on a dormant volcano in Nevada. However, the firm has yet to mine any lithium due to pushback from environmentalists and ongoing lawsuits related to allegations that the federal government approved the company’s mining permit too quickly.

But there’s more. Lithium isn’t technically what’s known as a “rare-earth mineral” because there’s supposedly enough to go around. We’ll see how that works out once the developed countries force most people to buy an electric vehicle.

China mines over 70% of the world’s rare earths and is responsible for 90% of the complex process of turning them into magnets used in electric vehicles and other “green” technologies, such as windmills.

Not surprisingly, environmentalists are also holding up permissions to mine rare earths in the United States.

Isn’t it time to realize that the movement toward “green” energy needs to pause to determine what economic and political costs are associated with such a radical change in the energy needs of the United States?

Do we really want to be dependent on China for our energy?

If environmentalists want green energy, don’t they have to allow more mining in the United States?

The answers seem pretty apparent to me.

The ‘science’ isn’t working

By Christopher Harper

The “science” isn’t working!

We’ve been masked-up, socially distanced, shut down, and vaccinated. But COVID keeps winning.

Maybe it’s time to reassess our hypotheses?

The underlying “science” of masks has always been suspect because the studies are old and dubious.

The underlying “science” of social distancing also has been suspect because no one could determine what the distance should be.

The underlying “science” of shutting down was suspect and had various adverse effects, such as economic and personal depression.

Vaccinations may have reduced the number of deaths but now seem incapable of halting each new variant that occurs.

Amid the renewed calls to intensify the old policies, a few voices of reason seem to be appearing in the fog of war.

“The reality is that we are all going to be infected at some point with omicron or something else,” said Bill Hanage, a Harvard epidemiologist.

Instead of government intervention, which doesn’t seem to be working to eliminate COVID, people need to ask themselves various questions. What is my risk? If I decide to get vaccinated, am I willing to accept the risks? If I am unvaccinated, am I willing to accept the risks?

Even in blue states, politicians seem to be bowing to pandemic fatigue: Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, said this week that the public health emergency “is over.” He said he doesn’t want to impose new restrictions on vaccinated people who have done their part to control the pandemic.

The government has to stop blaming those who don’t want to get the vaccination, making them seem like some country bumpkins without ethics. The vaccines have little impact on the omicron variant.

Moreover, the government needs to provide information on just how much money the pharmaceutical companies make on these vaccines and their boosters. More and more people like me are convinced that the drug companies are far from benevolent.

Fear-mongering no longer works. Rather than following the same flawed policies, perhaps it’s time to look at other alternatives, which may include allowing the disease to run its course.

As one of my friends suggested, perhaps it’s time to recommend the tenets of the Barrington Declaration to protect the sick and very elderly. See https://gbdeclaration.org/

Hey Salon, Hollywood remaking South Korean movies is not racist

By John Ruberry

Every once in a while I come across an article on the internet that makes me want to scream in disbelief. Such as is the case with a piece on Salon by Carolyn Hinds with the headline, “Hollywood, please stop adapting K-dramas. It’s not just unnecessary, it’s racist.”

Wow, look who is woke.

While acknowledging adaptation of motion pictures from one culture to another is commonplace, Hinds, who begins one sentence with, “As a Black woman, cultural appropriation is behavior I’m all too familiar with,” unloads on the wave of Hollywood remaking South Korean movies. And she spews this awful offal, “Instead, I’m referring specifically to how Hollywood seems to be making a concerted effort to focus on South Korean – as well Japanese – content, for the sole purpose of remaking the stories to appeal to American audiences, i.e. white audience.”

But as Mark Levin so often responds on his radio show to a recording of some liberal, “Oh, shut up you idiot!”

Hinds calls the Asia-to-Hollywood artistic transfer “whitewashing.”

There are plans in Hollywood to remake the Korean thriller Parasite, a movie that I thoroughly enjoyed and one that I felt was deserving of its Best Picture Oscar. In her Salon piece Hinds brings up other movies from South Korea that were remade by Hollywood, including Oldboy, another fabulous film. The flat American version (or so I’ve heard, I haven’t seen it) was directed by Spike Lee. Il Mare was redone as The Lake House, which starred Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. Moving beyond South Korea, Hinds notes that Martin Scorsese’s The Departed was inspired by a Hong Kong flick, Internal Affairs.

No society exists in a vacuum, not even North Korea, which is it should be. Culture crosses borders, as does science as well as political notions. The modern version of democracy comes from the European Enlightenment. The greatest form of government is utilized not just in the United States, but also in South Korea and Japan.

Another South Korean film I enjoyed is The Good, the Bad, the Weird, which as you probably guessed is a remake of Sergio Leone’s Spaghetti Western, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. And weird it is–instead of an American Civil War setting, this Western takes place in Japanese-occupied Manchuria in 1939. Hinds ignores this specific cultural transfer in her Salon piece. The soundtrack of The Good, The Bad, The Weird includes an instrumental rendition of the Animals’ 1965 hit “Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood.” The original was recorded by Nina Simone, an African-American woman.

Moving on to television, do you know that there is a Korean version of the American television series, Designated Survivor?

What about Japan, which Hinds mentioned earlier. The stellar collective of writers here at Da Tech Guy is known as Da Magnificent Seven, a tip of the hat to the 1960 Western that starred Yul Brynner and many others. That film is an acknowledged remake of Akira Kurosawa’s The Seven Samurai. The first movie of Leone’s “Dollars Trilogy,” A Fistful of Dollars, is an unacknowledged remake of Kurosawa’s Yojimbo.

Kurosawa, who named John Ford as one of his major influences, filmed a Japanese warlord version of Shakespeare’s King Lear, a brilliant epic, Ran.

So now you know why I called Hinds an idiot.

Dan Bongino on his radio show often notes that the unhinged left run will run out of enemies, so it is doomed to devour itself.

Hey Hollywood: Remake more South Korean and Japanese movies.

Hey South Korea and Japan: Remake more Hollywood movies.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

The NDAA…still a joke, just 25 Billion dollars less funny

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY22 just passed this week. While there are some nice changes, like a 2.7% pay increase (sadly offset by rampant inflation) and some additional baby leave, there is a lot that is left to be desired.

Now, given looming war with China and Russia, our gaps in hypersonic technology, space, bioweapons, and cyber, and our poorly maintained “battle” fleet that seems to barely limp along from extended deployment to extended deployment, you would think anyone writing the executive summary of this bill would want to reassure the public that its going to make us stronger and ready for war with the hopes of deterring it to make peace.

And well, you’d be wrong. Here’s the highlighted portion of page one of the summary:

The FY22 NDAA builds on previous attempts to close the pay gap by authorizing support for a 2.7 percent pay increase for our service men and women in uniform, makes historic and sweeping
changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice to combat sexual assault in the military,
authorizes record funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, contains
measures to ensure our military is diverse and inclusive, and makes key investments to
address the threat of climate change and bolster energy resiliency across the Department
of Defense, and takes full advantage of our diverse talent pool to meet the complex national
security challenges of today and tomorrow.
House Armed Service Committee NDAA FY22 executive summary

What the heck is this? HBCUs? Diversity? Climate Change? Seriously?

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin have got to be laughing at this.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all about getting research money to HBCUs to support weapons and tactics development. Why not? It would be awesome to see an HBCU open a cyber center, or contribute to space warfare, or some other highly technical area. That would have long reaching benefits, encouraging young black kids to aspire to be great engineers and scientists. There is a lot to love with ideas like that, and its a win-win for the Department of Defense.

But how is that the highlight? Defense is about combating our enemies and helping our policy makers negotiate peace from the best possible position. Think about World War 2. Could we have negotiated a lasting peace with Hitler or the Japanese Emperor without being in a position of strength? I’d argue that half of the reason Hitler rose to power in the first place was that he saw weakness and pushed against it. The same could be said for Putin today as he gazes at Ukraine, challenging the US and its NATO allies to do something.

Nothing in those opening paragraphs radiate strength. As you dig through the document, the increases in equipment are buried, but they are paltry. We’re getting 13 additional ships, if they can be built on time. We really need another actual shipyard, yet that piece of vital infrastructure isn’t in the bill, since it would compete with companies that already have a lock on shipbuilding (and the Congress-people on their payroll to prove it). If you need proof of how bad it is, just check our CDR Salamander’s blog.

But most disingenuous is that military personnel are going down in numbers. Yup. Hidden away in the actual text is a decrease in manpower:

With regard to military end strength, the number of Army soldiers would drop by 900 (to 485,000) compared to this year’s levels and the Marine Corps would cut its troop numbers by 2,700 (to 178,500). That’s in line with White House end strength plans. The Navy’s end strength total would drop by about 900 (to 346,920), about 700 more sailors than the White House requested. The Air Force would see a decrease of about 4,200 personnel (to 329,220), about 1,000 more airmen than the administration requested.
From Military Times

If we’re already not doing a good enough job keeping up with China, how on earth will we do that with less people, specifically less people in the Navy and Air Force, the services that will take the brunt of any Pacific conflict?

This year’s NDAA is a joke. It’s laser locked on social justice issues while missing all the important items needed for any future conflict. Sadly, it’ll likely take a war where we lose thousands of service members before Congress will shelve the pet programs and get serious about winning.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. If you liked this article, please consider supporting the author by buying his book on Amazon, also available as an audiobook on Audible.

Update Waivers List 1969 league

I’m going to consign all 1969 baseball league here to the backup blog:

Here is the current waivers list:

Waivers

Here is the current waivers list:

Batters:

Aaron Tommie Taken Montreal Early Waivers Round 2 Pick 2
Adair Jerry Taken Chicago White Sox Early Waivers Round 2 pick 1
Alvis Max
Amaro Ruben
Baker Frank
Barry Rich
Barton Bob
Bateman John
Beauchamp Jim
Billings Dick
Blefray Curt Taken NY Mets Early waivers round 1
Bobb Randy
Boehmer Len
Bosch Don
Bowens Sam
Boyer Ken
Breeden Danny
Brinkman Chuck
Brooks Bobby
Brown Gates
Brown Larry
Browne Byron
Bryant Don
Burda Bob
Campanis Jim
Campbell Dave (Claimed by NYY off waivers)
Cannizzaro Chris Taken by Washington Early waivers round 1
Chaney Darrel
Charles Ed
Christian Bob
Clark Ron
Collins Kevin
Corrales Pat
coulter Chip
DaVanon Jerry
Davis Bill
Davis Ron
Dean Thomas
Donaldson John
Duncan Dave
Ellis John
Etheridge Bobby
Fairey Jim (Claimed by White Sox pending till 12/1/21 at 1 AM)
Floyd Bobby
Gabrielson Len (Taken Pittsburgh early waivers round 2)
Gamble Oscar
Gaspar Ronald (released into waivers by NYY)
Geiger Gary
Gil Bus
Gosger Jim
Gutierrez Cesar
Hague Joe
Hall Jimmie
Haney Larry
Harrell John
Harrison Chuck
Healy Fran
Heath Bill
Hermoso Remy
Hershberger Mike
Hicks Jim
Hinton Chuck
Holman Gary
Hriniak Walt
Hutton Tom (Claimed by Pittsburgh acquired by Chicago by counter claim)
Jackson Sonny
Jeter Johnny (Claimed by New York Yankees / Highlanders)
Johnson Lou
Jones Dalton
Kelly Van
Kendall Fred
Keough Joe
Kolb Gary
Krug Chris
Lahoud Joe
Lee Leron
Llenas Winston
Lock Don
Lyttle Jim
Manuel Charlie
Martin JC
Matchick Tommy
May Dave
McGraw Tommy
McDonald Dave
McFadden Leon
McNulty Bill
Miller John
Morales Jerry
Nagelson Russ
Nelson Dave
Northey Scott
Oliver Gene
Oliver Nate
Oyler Ray (PIcked Round 3 Cincinnati early waivers)
Paepke Dennis
Pagliaroni
Peterson Cap
Phillips Adolfo
Qualls Jim
Quilici Frank
Ranew Merritt
Reid Scott
Renick Rick
Repoz Roger
Ricketts Dave
Rico Fred
Rios Juan
Robinson Bill
Robles Rafael
Rogers Buck
Rollins Rich
Roznovsky Rick
Ruberto Sonny
Rudolph Ken
Satriano Tom
Scheinblum Richie
Shannon Mike (picked round 4 early waivers SF Giants)
Shopay Tom
Simpson Dick
Sipin John
Slocum Ron
Smith Dick
Snyder Russ
Spangler Al
Spence Bob
Spriggs George
Stahl Larry
Stanley Fred
Stephenson John
Stewart Jimmy
Stinson Bob
Stone Gene
Stone Ron
Stuart Dick
Tartabull Jose
Tatum Javis
Tepedino Frank
Tischinski Tom
Torres Hector
Valdespino Sandy
Velazquez Freddie
Vidal Jose
Ward Pete
Watkins Dave
Webster Ramon
White Bill
Whitfield Fred
Wicker Floyd
Williams Jim
Woods Ron

Pitchers

Allen Lloyd
Arlin Steve
Baldschun Jack
Baney Dick
Barber Steve (Taken Chicago W Sox early waivers wk 1 1st pick)
Belinsky Bo
Bell Gary
Bertaina Frank
Boozer John
Boyd Gary
Brandon Bucky
Buchart Larry
George Brunet LHP SEA (Released by NYY to make room for Johnny Jeter)
Carlos Cisco
Champion Bill
Clark Rickey
Corkins Mike
Crider Jerry
Culver George
Dukes Tom
Ellis Sammy
Everitt Leon
Farrell Turk
Fisher Jack
Fitzmorris Al
Foster Alan
Fuentes Miguel
Garman Mike
Geishert Vern
Guinn Skip
Hamilton Jack
Jackson Al
James Jeff
Jaster Larry
Jones Steve
Kealey Steve
Kline Ron
Koonce Cal
Kroll Gary
Lamb Ray
Law Ron
Lazar Danny
Lersch Barry
McBean Al
Miles Jim
Morehead Dave
Morris John
Nottebart Don
Nye Rich
O’Riley Don
Palmer Lowell
Pascual Camilo
Pina Horacio
Priddy Bob
Purdin John
Raffo Al
Ramos Pedro
Rath Fred
Raymond Claude
Ribant Dennis
Robertson Rich
Roggenburk Garry
Ross Gary (Taken Pittsburgh early waivers round 3)
Sembera Carroll (Taken White Sox Early Waives Round 4)
Severinsen Al (Picked White Sox Early Wavers round 3 pick 1)
Shaw Don
Shea Steve
Short Chris
Sisk Tommie
Spama Joe
Sprague Ed
Talbot Fred (Taken NY Mets early waivers round 3)
Taylor Gary
Wagner Gary
Washburn Greg
Wsahbum Greg
Watkins Bob
Wynne Billy (Taken NY Mets early waivers round 2)
Zachary Chris

I include the waviers claims in this list because these roster changes don’t appear on the regular list.

Tone deaf in Killadelphia

By Christopher Harper

One of the main reasons my wife and I decided to move out of Philadelphia was the soaring crime rate in the city.

Even so, it was surprising how bad it got this year. Philadelphia has recorded more homicides this year than the nation’s two largest cities – New York City and Los Angeles – with 528 homicides to date. New York City has recorded 443 as of Dec. 5 and Los Angeles 352 as of Nov. 27.

Philadelphia is not alone in recording a record number of murders. Eleven other cities—all governed by Democrats—have set records: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Austin, Texas; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Louisville, Kentucky; Portland, Oregon; St. Paul, Minnesota; Toledo, Ohio; Tucson, Arizona; and Rochester, New York.

What’s just as surprising is the tone-dear responses to the crime spree from Democrats.

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, a George Soros darling and recently re-elected to his post, said that the city wasn’t experiencing a crime wave.

“We don’t have a crisis of lawlessness, we don’t have a crisis of crime, we don’t have a crisis of violence,” the district attorney said last week. “It’s important that we don’t let this become mushy and bleed into the notion that there is some kind of big spike in crime.” He added that tourists should feel safe in the city.

The usually calm Michael Nutter, who served as mayor for eight years, denounced Krasner’s comments as “some of the worst, most ignorant, and most insulting comments I have ever heard spoken by an elected official.”

Nutter, who is Black, added in a column in the Philadelphia Inquirer: “I have to wonder what kind of messed up world of white wokeness Krasner is living in to have so little regard for human lives lost, many of them Black and brown, while he advances his own national profile as a progressive district attorney.”

After widespread condemnation for his remarks, Krasner, who is white, assembled a bevy of leftist political and religious leaders to announce an apology.

But it wasn’t only Krasner who didn’t understand the nature of the murder spree.

Two students from Temple University, where I teach, were murdered—a rare occurrence even though the college is located in the center of the city.

The president of the faculty, a Black woman, offered this disingenuous analysis of what’s going on.

“There are so many systemic issues at play—not just here in North Philadelphia—but in most urban centers across the nation that need to be addressed. Issues of poverty, severely compromised urban education systems, joblessness amidst a consumer culture that is always reminding us of the class divide between the haves and the have nots—complicated by COVID-19 and nearly two years of its wake—making these issues even more nuanced than they have been in previous years. But loss of life is a tragedy—no matter where it occurs or why. We have much work to do, and we need everyone to join in that struggle,” a statement said.

It’s impossible to unpack the illogical analysis in the statement above.

The facts, however, are clear: Two people died! Two or more people killed them!

The Democrats running the cities and the academy are out of synch with most people, who can easily point to the cause for rising crime rates: a lack of police enforcement and investigation. That’s because the Democrats don’t like law and order.

Man, creating stuff is hard work!

It’s tough watching people destroy things.

I remember watching the second plane ram into the Twin Towers on 9-11, eventually bringing down both buildings that had taken years to build and had created so many jobs and generated so much wealth for this country.

I watched in similar dismay as riots broke out last year and scores of businesses were looted and burned, putting hundreds if not thousands of people out of work and out of savings.

I think its hard, especially for me, to watch this destruction because I know first hand just how difficult it is to create something. It took me years to build my own home, having to wade through mountains of paperwork and battle the elements, city bureaucrats and even my own builder at times. I could never stand by and let someone destroy it needlessly because they had some imagined offense in their head that somehow justified their actions. Destruction is far too easy, especially when destroying someone else’s property.

Once you’ve put in the sweat and tears to build something, you immediately learn to place value on the building process. It’s only the truly lazy among us and those that have never had to build anything who can stomach the wanton destruction of private property.

In a similar fashion, its easy to complain that the media is a basket case of loser, left-leaning literature, but are most of us doing much about it? This blog here, and others like Instapundit, are a good start. It’s not cheap though, and I’d encourage you to donate to DaTechGuy so that he can keep it running.

And if you’ve liked the content I’ve produced this year, why not get my book? It makes a great Christmas present for that hard-to-please person. If you’re not into reading things on paper or a Kindle, you can now get the Audible audiobook version here. Sharing the link with your friends and having at least a few purchase it really helps me out.

Remember that creation is hard. Give your favorite creators some love this Christmas season.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. Please check out my book on Amazon, its the easiest way you can directly support me!

Liars figure

By Christopher Harper

Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

Mark Twain’s quotation couldn’t have described Dana Milbank of the Washington Post any better.

Milbank, one of the most-biased political analysts in Washington, set out to prove that Joe Biden is getting worse press than Donald Trump.

“After a honeymoon of slightly positive coverage in the first three months of the year, Biden’s press for the past four months has been as bad as—and for a time worse than—the coverage Trump received for the same four months of 2020,” Milbank writes. “Sure, Biden has had his troubles, with the delta variant Afghanistan, and inflation. But the economy is rebounding impressively, he has signed major legislation, and he has restored some measure of decency, calm, and respect for democratic institutions.”

Milbank bases his analysis on artificial intelligence evaluation of news sources, providing a “sentiment analysis” in which Biden does not do well.

But Milbank doesn’t list the usual caveats researchers have about such analysis. The simple, one-dimensional sentiment model from negative to positive yields rather little actionable information for a client worrying about the effect of public discourse on one’s reputation. As a result, the AI analysis should be put through the hands of actual humans.

These misgivings would stand in the way of a good story. So, Milbank, the liar, uses his illicit figures. Here is the fog of journalistic war against Trump:

“

FiscalNote, combed through more than 200,000 articles from 65 news websites (newspapers, network, and cable news, political publications, news wires, and more) to do a ‘sentiment analysis’ of coverage. Using algorithms that give weight to certain adjectives based on their placement in the story, it rated Biden’s coverage in the first 11 months of 2021 and the coverage President Donald Trump got in the first 11 months of 2020.

“Sentiment analysis ranks coverage from entirely negative (-1.0) to entirely positive (1.0), and most outlets are in a relatively tight band between -0.1 and 0.1. Overall, Biden was slightly positive or neutral for seven months, ranging from 0.02 to -0.01. That plummeted to -0.07 in August – a lower number than Trump hit in all of 2020 (or 2019) – and has been between -0.04 and -0.03 ever since. Trump never left a narrow range of -0.03 to -0.04.”

As noted earlier, a human has to sort through these data—an expert human rather than a journalist who’s often guilty of confirmation bias, which basically means he sets out to prove his point rather than interpreting the actual information.

I’ve done what is known as content analysis, where two analysts sift through the news to determine its bias, a system that has its flaws but is far more time tested than what Milbank uses.

But the liar doesn’t let these problems stand in his way as he pontificates on.

“How to explain why Biden would be treated more harshly than a president who actively subverted democracy? Perhaps journalists, pressured by Trump’s complaints about the press, pulled punches. Perhaps media outlets, after losing the readership and viewership Trump brought, think tough coverage will generate interest….

“Too many journalists are caught in a mindless neutrality between democracy and its saboteurs, between fact and fiction. It’s time to take a stand.”

Milbank’s argument doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s difficult for anyone to believe that Biden is getting worse press than Trump. It’s simply a way to try to turn the conversation back to blaming Trump for everything that has gone wrong in the world for the past century.