Good morning everyone, or good afternoon. I'm really not sure what time it is anymore. So I'm a little bit jet lagged still. I flew in from the U.S. So my name is Byda Heate. I work as a web developer in Baltimore, Maryland. I work for a small software design studio called Friends of the Web. And I want to talk to you guys a little bit today about how I got into programming because it is probably not what you think. I have only been coding for nine, ten months, and I work as a developer. So most of the time I kind of feel like I don't know what I'm doing, which I think is pretty normal when you're starting out. So I actually used to be a teacher. About a year ago, actually, I was teaching in a low-income community in Mumbai, India. So all of this is to say, I have no computer science background. I have never coded before really before I started a year ago. And to me, the idea of programming was just really, really terrifying. So basically my attitude towards code was like, code, no. That's not a thing I know how to do. I can't do that. That's like, that's for people who are really analytical and logical. And I'm like, I'm a writer and a teacher. And that's not something that I can ever learn how to do. So when I got into code, I was actually learning HTML and CSS. So I had a website and I was like, well, I want to make it prettier and I want to make this thing blue and spin. So how do I do that? And I feel like there's probably quite a few developers out there who started out that way and it just kind of was like a rabbit hole that you stumbled into. So I got introduced to code just by Explored. And it was something that I really enjoyed. And I got introduced to Rails at Rails Girls, just like all of you. So that was about a year ago. And it was through Rails Girls that I kind of started teaching myself Ruby and Rails. The only problem with that was, it's very, very hard to learn. And I feel like there's probably people here today who kind of feel like that. Programming is very, very hard. And I decided that I need a little bit of help to learn how to code. And that's when I found the Flatiron School, which this is a picture of what an average day at Flatiron looks like. The Flatiron School is a school in New York City that exclusively teaches people how to code. It runs 12-week immersion courses in iOS and web development.  So you all kind of enter without knowing what you're doing, which is pretty fantastic.  So you're all together in that, I guess. So at the Flatiron School, the way that the curriculum works is you do a lot of lectures. And that's kind of like how you learn the syntax of the language. We work primarily with Ruby. And then we get introduced to Rails and start building applications that way. So one of the things that I loved about Flatiron is the way that they immerse you into the curriculum. And the reason that I want to share this with you is because the things that I learned at Flatiron are things that I think everybody can kind of use when they're learning programming. So I hope in the next, like, five minutes, there are a few things that you'll be able to take away that no matter how you continue with programming, and if you continue, you'll kind of have a couple of tips on how you can learn on your own, even if you end up going to a programming bootcamp or if you continue coming to meetups or something like that. So we ended up doing a lot of immersion with the language, with Ruby, and the iOS group worked a lot with Objective C. And we also did a lot of labs. So we would just come in to Flatiron school every single day from, like, 9 a.m. until 8 or 9 p.m. and just code. And, like, the thing with programming is you just have to put a lot of time into it. That's the only way to get over your fear of computers, because, like, when I started programming, I was just, like, terrified of my computer. I was afraid that I was going to break Ruby, which you're not going to break Ruby. It's going to be fine. But you kind of feel like it's very, very terrifying. And the only way to get over that fear is by just doing it again and again and again and getting comfortable with it. And the other awesome thing is we had really amazing teachers. And really, they're your resources. So you guys have the same thing here with all of these amazing coaches, right? We had teachers who had been programming for six months and some who had been doing it for decades. So they were really fantastic resources because they knew how to guide us in learning a new language. And they knew what it's like to start as a beginner, because the beginner's mindset when it comes to programming is very different than somebody who's been doing it for, like, 10 or 20 years. So all of this is to say that programming is really hard. But it's not impossible. As you can see, I work as a developer now, and that did not seem plausible to me at all a year ago. So how did I end up doing it? So what I kind of want to share with you is a few things that I learned at the Flatiron School that I think I wish I had known earlier, and I hope that you guys will be able to take away and, like, apply it to however you continue programming. A few things is programming is just a language, right? It's just a language for computers. So the same way that you would learn any language, you kind of, I think it helps to approach it the same way. Just as if you were learning a language, you want to learn how to read it, how to write it, and how to speak it. So when it comes to code, one of the great ways to learn is by reading code. And I think it can be intimidating, like, to open up the Braille source code and start reading it is very hard. But if you take it piece by piece and read small programs or small applications and just try to understand what's going on, that really, really is helpful. Also, just as if you're learning a language, you have to do it. You have to write your own programs you have to build.  And they probably won't be beautiful, but it's fine because you have to start somewhere. And the more that you get comfortable building and the more that you write code, the better you're going to get at it. And the last piece of that is talking about code. Coming to meetups and interacting with people and asking them questions, whether they've been programming a long time or whether they're just starting out, that's just going to get you comfortable in terms of talking about programming and getting used to the different syntax and terms that are used. So a couple of the things that we ended up doing at Flatiron School is building our own applications. And like I said, a lot of them were not very beautiful and I think that's okay. I've gone and looked back at my old applications and really, really felt bad about the code that I wrote six months ago. But if you don't go through the process of writing bad code, you're just never going to get better at it. So I would suggest to all of you to keep on writing code and keep building and keep exploring in whatever context that might be comfortable for you, whether it's through Rails or JavaScript or CSS. You should just not stop doing it because that's the only way to get better at it. And the other thing that we did at Flatiron School was actually create applications and deploy them. So going through the process of learning the syntax of a language, creating an application and deploying into something like Heroku and seeing it live and sending the link to people and watching people use your applications is a great process. And I think it really lends itself to if you are considering pursuing this as a career, it's definitely helpful to go through that process because if you end up working as a developer, that is ultimately what you will do as a job. And again, coming to meetups, learning about new technologies that people are using and sharing what you've been working on with other people and getting their feedback and trying to make your applications better is only going to make you better as a developer. Yeah, so I also realize that a 12-week bootcamp is definitely not the route for everyone. So there are a few things that I would definitely say to people who maybe aren't considering a bootcamp and want to learn on your own because there are a lot of developers out there who are self-taught and it's a very impressive thing to do. It wasn't the right path for me because I needed help and that's just not the way I learned. But there are a few things that every developer probably goes through. So somebody once told me this at a meetup, I thought it was really corny but I put it on the slide because I also think it's very true. Somebody once told me the paths are many but the code is the same. Do not judge me for this, okay? I didn't say it, they said it but it's very very true. Like I said, there is no one way to learn how to be a developer. There's no one way to get into programming. You can teach yourself, it can take a while, you can be very active in the community and then sometimes it happens a little faster. You can go to a bootcamp, you can go into apprenticeships and internships. There are lots of different ways to get into code. Which is to say that no matter what path you end up choosing, you should always always be curious and ask a lot of questions because it's a very very different landscape and industry and it can be really really intimidating when you're starting out and a lot of younger developers kind of suffer from imposter syndrome where you feel like you're not qualified or you're not capable but the only way to get over that is by just asking questions and learning more because if you don't know it now once you know it that's that's one more thing that you understand then you can go on to the next thing that you don't feel comfortable with.  I wish somebody told me that earlier and I wish I had asked more questions when I was starting out. Now that I know that I asked so many questions and maybe it's a little bit irritating to people but I don't care. I just keep asking questions because that's the only way that you're gonna learn and that's the only way that you're gonna know more. So don't be discouraged. I also wish somebody had told me that because when I was starting out I would get really down on myself when I didn't understand a concept but that's kind of the way that learning works right and this was something that I kind of realized when I was at the Flatiron School. If it's hard it means that you're learning and learning is supposed to be hard because you're getting something new right. If you if it's easy for you that means you probably already knew it and if it's hard that means that you're struggling through it that means you're learning something new. So it's a good thing if it feels hard because eventually if you do it enough it'll stop feeling hard and you'll have a new skill. So don't be discouraged by that and embrace the struggle as difficult as that might be sometimes and don't give up because I know way too many people who really were interested in code thought it was hard and just didn't keep going and every single developer and every single person out there who learned something new hits a wall you just have to keep being persistent keep asking questions and keep trying because that's the only way that you're going to get over that hump. And if you really really enjoy what you do here today then even if it takes a while and even if it's hard nothing is going to stop you from learning it. That's the amazing thing about code I think is that there are so many resources out there there's documentation there are people who have been doing this for years and years and years so you have the option to learn how to code even if it's really intimidating you shouldn't let that stop you. Okay so really quickly to sum up here are three B's of programming that I wanted to share with you. Blog build and present it really is supposed to be present but like two B's and one P doesn't sound as good so let's just pretend to present. So blogging I think whether you are the person who's writing a blog or whether you're using blogs they're both important when I was starting out I would read a lot of blog posts to learn concepts and really well written blog posts will explain something as a concept and also give you examples so that can be super helpful and then I would also encourage all of you to start blogging because on the one hand it'll be great for you in like five months when you're like oh yeah look at all these things I learned I wrote a blog post about this good job passed me so that'll be nice and also it's really great when you're like looking for jobs because you have this entire resume of concepts that you understand and you can send it to an interview and be like yeah I know how it works let me tell you about scaffolds I wrote a blog post about it here you go so it's a great way to market yourself as a developer and a great way to give back to the community and learn from the community as well building obviously you want to learn how to code you've got to write code and if you're writing code you can build amazing things with it that you can show to people and that you can refactor and make better and it's also adds to your resume as a developer and it's only going to be really helpful for you to work with code every day get comfortable with it and presenting my favorite one go to as many meetups and events as you can and learn as much as you can and I don't just mean like Rails and Ruby I mean all different technologies and speak at meetups because everybody I'm sure Winston will agree with me everybody wants more people to speak at meetups and it's really really good for you to like introduce yourself to the community and get feedback and meet amazing developers because you never know where those connections might be so my favorite thing about programming is that you are never ever ever going to know everything and I used to think this was really horrible and it really used to be mad because I used to feel like I want to know everything and I'm just never there's never a thing that I completely understand but actually I think it's fantastic because it means that you never stop learning so if you feel like there's a lot for you to learn today if you keep programming in five years you probably are still gonna feel like that because there's gonna be a new technology like you'll have to like learn react or another language or a framework or god forbid two JavaScript frameworks but you know that's the fantastic thing about programming is that you're always a beginner so just if you keep in mind that programming is always integrated with the beginner's mindset then it'll probably feel a little less intimidating to you and you'll just get comfortable not knowing things and in a way it's really fantastic because this field it always keeps growing and there's always new things to learn so in a way that's probably a great source of motivation because you'll never have run out of things that you want to learn and get good at so good luck to all of you and I I'll be around so if you have any questions about Flatiron school or code or not code or whatever presenting I'll be around so please ask me questions and I hope all of you keep on coding thank you so much thank you so much but if you're coming to share your experience


No one at the top of government has showered themselves in glory during this pandemic. Boris Johnson divvied and delayed over lockdowns. Rishi Sunak pushed to reopen the economy before it was safe and Matt Hancock doled out £22 billion for a test and trace system that doesn't trace. But the government minister with the most shameful record during this pandemic and who doesn't appear to have had a single achievement to his name is Education Secretary Gavin Williamson. So, given all this, it's not a surprise that while most politicians tend to come off badly when they go up against Piers Morgan, we've shown you two screamers this week, in fact, one with Pretty Patel and one with Matt Hancock. Gavin Williamson comes off even worse. You assure us in late December that the schools would definitely be reopening. Everyone got wildly excited and everyone went back to school for one day and then they had to shut, which was one of many, many U-turns that you've had to make in this pandemic.  We had a poll at ITV two weeks ago. We asked England's teachers whether you should resign. 92% of them said you should go. And it does beg the question, given this series of abject failures that you've provided, presided over in the last 10 months, why are you still Education Secretary? Why haven't you done the right thing and resigned? And let somebody more competent take over and do a proper job because you have failed our kids. So, Piers, we are facing more disruption to our education system than we've ever seen, even during the Second World War. We are faced with a new variant of a virus that at the start of December wasn't known about and even in mid-December. We knew about the new variant on the 19th of December because the Prime Minister told us it was 70% more transmissible. And yet you said a week later the schools were going to reopen, even though many experts were saying, don't be ridiculous, that is a crazy thing to do. You then insisted on reopening them for one day and said there was not going to be a U-turn. And literally after one day, you shut them down. It is hard to conjure up a more incompetent decision-making process than that. Well, the best the advice that we're receiving as to whether we could continue to have primary schools open, we'd already delayed the opening of secondary schools in light of the new variants. Well, then when the country moved into a COVID alert level 5 and more of the data was coming through, it was a national decision that was taken in the national interest to close schools. I'm not going to repeat all of those failings because Piers Morgan did a very good job of it. I'm just going to very briefly analyse what Gavin Williams said there because his final answer there was very interesting. Could you notice there was a sentence which he started, but he didn't finish. He said, in response to this argument about why they didn't know, why they didn't sort of realise it was inevitable that schools would have to close on 4th of January until the 4th of January. And he said, well, the advice we were receiving was about primary schools. It didn't finish the sentence. And I think the reason he didn't finish the sentence is because the advice from the 22nd of December was that all schools are going to have to close if you've got any hope in hell of getting the R number below 1. He then sort of said, he talks about this alert level 5. And this is quite interesting actually. So this is, do you remember, it looked a bit like the sort of Nando's spicy gradient. And we can go from red to green alert level 1, 2, 3, 4, blah, blah, blah. And this was initially seen to be a bit of a sort of PR stunt. It seemed like a PR exercise for the government. It turns out actually it was quite useful for Chris Witte and the other chief medical officers to force something on Boris Johnson when he was so, so resistant to it that there was no other way of making it happen. So when it came to schools, what was going on inside government was you had Chris Witte and the chief scientists, the chief scientific advisor sort of saying, look, you've got to change course. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Boris Johnson's got Tsunak in his ear saying, no, we have to keep the economy going. Gavin Williamson's in his ear just saying like, I want to keep schools open because I haven't managed to buy anyone laptops yet. And so he's like, well, we'll keep them open until there's this big intervention from the chief medical officer who's like, we're going into, you know, alert level five. And then he basically took the choice out of Boris Johnson's hand. So that idea, they didn't have the advice beforehand. It's just not true. That was, I suppose, the well researched critique of Williamson's time in office. But next, he really went in for the kill. Have you offered your resignation to the prime minister at any stage of this pandemic? Yes or no? Our focus, my focus, is making sure that children get the best remote education while they're not in school. I know, of course, if you're the education secretary, I expect it to be. But have you offered your resignation? Our focus is making sure that children attend their school to be in a possible moment. And, Piers, the other thing that we're doing, and we're also... Is there a problem on the line? Can you not hear me?  Mr. Williamson, you seem to be totally ignoring me. I'm just asking you a straight question. Given the level of failure in your reign as education secretary in this pandemic, given that 92% of teachers in England want you to go, given that you're being described by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats as the worst education secretary in British history, I simply ask you, have you looked in the mirror and thought, you know what, I've done a terrible job. I'm going to say to the Prime Minister, it's time for me to step aside and let somebody more competent take over. Have you had that conversation with yourself? And have you then had it with the Prime Minister? Piers, my one focus is making sure we deliver very best for children. We know what your focus is. You're the education secretary. The problem is, your focus has not proven to be very good, has it? That, you know, we're dealing with a global pandemic where we've had to make decisions as incredible pace, decisions that none of us would have wanted to take. You've made a series of bad decisions, Education Secretary, decisions that have had huge ramifications for teachers, for students, for parents. You've been a catastrophe. Own it. So our focus is always about bringing children back into the classroom. Now, the subject matter is not funny. The subject matter is tragic. What Gavin Williamson has done over the past nine months is put teachers at risk and basically gaslit them. They've said teachers are at no more risk than the rest of the population. Not true. He's forced kids to go into school one day so that they can all, you know, share coronavirus around them, only to have a lockdown by that afternoon. The thing that strikes me more about Gavin Williamson that I think is so sort of unique about his role as a Secretary of State is not the mistakes he's made, but that he hasn't done anything positive. So there's also from the Times report, I'm about to run up to this final lockdown where apparently in one of those COVID sessions that the people at the top of government have someone said about closing schools, ah, but they don't have laptops yet for the kids about them. And Matt Hancock was like, what's Gavin Williamson been doing for the last nine months? Because Matt Hancock's made a lot of mistakes, but also the Department of Health has at least done some stuff. Unfortunately, we never get Secretaries of State on this show because I would absolutely love to grill them, but we do give the best analysis of the bullshit they talk about. So make sure you subscribe to the Navar immediate channel. You can watch this show live every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 7pm. And if you subscribe, you can see all the videos we put out as well. Dahlia, I want to bring you in on this. And in fact, there's a super chat from Dan TFT of a fiver, Michael and Dahlia, can you name a worst candidate for education secretary? It's surprisingly difficult.   Like it just was so like, oh my God, how are we here? But this is a government that just fails upwards. They figured out that this kind of moment with Piers Morgan is a bit of an exception to that, but they figured out that in general, the media treats them with such kid gloves and has such little will to hold them accountable. So many of these editors and journalists are their mates, that if you just kind of hold your nerve through each failure, it won't be long until the media just kind of back off and it becomes old news. Sometimes even worse than that, which is, you know, I just was thinking about when Rishi Sunak was creating a policy that literally caused another wave of coronavirus and he got portrayed as a literal superhero by the BBC, compare that treatment by the media to the treatment of the institutions that are actually keeping not only workers, but the broader community safe. And those are unions like the NEU, like the FBU, like the fiber gaze union, who are actually putting in the fight necessary to protect. Can you imagine if kids had been in school right now? Like, can you imagine what the infection rates would be right now? And yet for those institutions that are actually doing the work to keep us protected, they are relentlessly demonized, sidelined and sometimes outright lied about as, you know, Matt Rack outlined just earlier in the show. You know, but the absolute kind of failure that Gavin Williamson right now is not just going to be understood in the context of this pandemic. The effects are going to be incredibly long term because of how long children have been kept out of school for and how unprepared the system is to do some kind of distance or hybrid learning. You know, firstly, like the broad failure of the government to keep infections down and to use the time that we've had wisely has basically meant that we've had no option other than to keep schools completely closed for longer periods of time than would have otherwise been necessary. You know, and that's going to have like long term effects on a lot of these kids, particularly from working class backgrounds. But secondly, there's just been a complete lack of leadership when it comes to devising innovative and creative ways to deal with this new normal to prepare for, you know, equitable distance learning, whether that means, you know, using the time that we had, for example, when this in the summer, when transmit when infection rates were low, using that time to experiment with different kinds of models of education that could work in distance learning, making sure that every kid had the means to do distance learning in an adequate way. Because, you know, as someone who's who's done teaching in a hybrid setting, the main issue is that a lot of, you know, it's very, very difficult to keep kids and get to keep students engaged. But there are ways through, you know, because of uneven technological access, some students having like really bad internet connection, students not having like the space and the ability to kind of do what they need to do. So all you could have had, you know, a system whereby in the summer when infection rates were really low, having, you know, maybe more of the teaching term that would have, that's being conducted now, done back then, there was just no, and I'm not saying that any of that could necessarily work. I haven't, you know, you need to kind of look into that. But there's just been such little innovation, such little creativity when it comes to dealing with a situation that we always, we knew was a long time coming. We knew the winter was going to be hard. We knew for a long time as well that schools were super spreader sites. But instead, Gavin Williamson focuses on wasting that really precious time of doggedly like pursuing a failed strategy until the very last minute, instead of using that precious time to pursue something else or to innovate and create different ways of doing things around these conditions that are going to be with us for a while. And then not giving, and then changing at the last minute, therefore not giving teachers enough time to prepare. So now we have the worst of both worlds, which is that students are doing remote learning, but they're doing it in ways that teachers and schools have not been able to prepare for to make it a viable way of teaching. And this really does come down to a kind of total disrespect and lack of engagement with teachers and workers more generally that we have seen from this government, who, and those workers and teachers are the best placed to actually devise something that is feasible and to actually declare like what is and is not possible and what is and is not in the best interests of children's learning. And we saw that in the abhorrent treatment of the education unions by the government and the media and had more time actually been spent collaborating with the unions, collaborating with teachers to think, okay, how are we going to make the best of a bad situation in order to minimize the outcomes of this disrupted learning for children, then maybe we would have actually been in a much better situation here. But that, and that is the scandal. And I guess the thing is, you know, why should Williamson resign when this kind of approach of doggedly pursuing bad strategies until the last minute and not giving people enough time to prepare for the thing that we knew was going to be inevitable? That's kind of the substance of the government's approach across the board.


As a strike by university lecturers in Nigeria, its entering its sixth month are the issues closer to getting resolved. National president of the academic union of Nigerian universities joins us on the program today. And Nigerian governors have advised the federal government to retire all federal civil sevens who are older than 50 years. Such a move is it feasible and is it in the interest of all concern? We'll look at this ahead on the program this morning. We'll also have in-depth analysis of some of today's newspaper headlines as Chris Kende Mwando joins us for Off the Press. We're back with the breakfast writing and plus TV Africa interesting analysis and of course our discussions coming your way on this program. We have a guest already lined up for you. Promises be a firecracker of an episode of the program. You're welcome. My name is Kofi Bartels. That's making with us trending segment right here on the breakfast where we take stories that have been generating discussions on the social space and bring them on air with some discussions and analysis in a short while. Anyway, the first one happens to be do with a reaction to a video viral video circulating on social media and on the internet. This video purportedly showing members of the National Association of Seedogs also known as a pirate's confraternity dressed in a uniform or a red head warmer. You have a white shirt, red waistcoat and black trousers. And back in the process, this video first surfaced on Sunday. And back in on the procession and singing songs and chanting what we call in local it's lingo, gyration, all right. And of course they were singing some songs. Some people feel that the songs that we're singing refer to someone, a member of the All Progressives Congress, in particular the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress. And these songs mocking the candidate, Ashwa Jubola, Tinibu. In that one minute video, you could hear them or you can hear them saying or chanting. Ami loco, ami loco. Baba we know well. Idea shout, ami loco. Hand is shake, leg is shake. Baba we know well. Idea shout, ami loco. And this is roughly translated for those who do not understand pigeon. With an unstable hand, a shaking hand and a shaking leg, a man with a frail health is sounding, is saying that it says turn to be president, dangerous president. Of course the phrase, ami loco, was sneaked into the national political lingua franca of the nation's consciousness on the 3rd of June 2022 during a meeting, Bola McTinibu, the candidate, presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, then aspirant Bola Tinibu had with delegates of the All Progressives Congress who were getting set to go to the party's presidential primary in Abuja. At that time Tinibu expressed frustration over the non-support for his ambition to win the party's presidential ticket. This he noted, having worked for the emergence of a president Buhari in 2015, you know, was enough for him to really express his feelings. And indeed he made a case for himself in that famous speech. It's now a famous speech, Mr. Tinibu said, ami loco, uttered the famous words now, ami loco, meaning that it is my time, it is my time. And of course that speech, some will say, is what maybe rescued his political future. Because at the end of that primary, as we all know, he has since gone on to become the candidate of the All Progressives Congress and this is where we stand. So though the song didn't mention his name, it is still seen as being directed to him. Now, the gentleman in question, Wale Shorenka whose name you are seeing on your screen in that lower third, is perceived to be the founder of this pirate's confraternity. He released a statement condemning the words used in the song and condemning the song itself. He described that song as distasteful. These are the words of Wale Shorenka, has a Nigerian Nobel laureate and internationally acclaimed playwright. It's now considered an elder statesman. His role in setting up this national association of sea dogs is well documented. Who leaves a statement titled interim statement on the dubious political outing. The Nobel laureate said that his attention was drawn to that video clip. He said, quote, the display of the display acidly targets a presidential candidate in their weighted 2023 elections. Since the whole world knows of my connection with this, that fraternity, it is essential that I state in clear and ambiguous terms that I'm not involved in that public performance in any way associated with the sentiments expressed in the songs. And of course, some persons have come out yesterday. Patience Jonathan was trending. If you check to see what exactly patients Jonathan did, you wouldn't find anything to lead you to that. But the reason why Patience Jonathan had a name, the name Patience Jonathan had some space on the Twitter trending list, was because some persons who said a comment on this statement by Wale Shorenka said that all. Kungi, as his fondly called to refer to, should keep quiet. Because he at some time addressed Patience Jonathan. He said to said, they said he addressed Patience Jonathan as a she-po-po-temis, as she-po-po-temis. And of course, people now went back to an article shared from that period where he said that you can take a he-po-po-temis out of the swamp, but you can't take the swamp out of the he-po-po-temis. And when he was pressed, he now used the word she-po-po-temis and the name of Patience, well, the word she-po-po-temis in his response to a question of why he talked about he-po-po-temis when referring to the first lady. So some people have gone back to that particular incident to say, hey, a guy called the former first lady, a she-po-po-temis, he should not be the one commenting on what are this song, is this tasteful or not. And but however, I think it's instructive to, or it's important to note that, and also, some have said, you know what, Olesher Inka should also have condemned Bola Metin when he said in Yoruba in that campaign in Oshun State for the governorship election that those who are laboring will labor in vain. He said in Yoruba, but it is roughly, loosely translated, those who are laboring will continue to labor till they die is what he's quoted as saying. And so they're saying, why didn't Olesher Inka also condemn a Timbu in that instance? But I think it's important to note that Olesher Inka is not obliged to comment on every national issue. He's not the Independent National Electro-Commission. Neither is he the Nigerian National Orientation Agency. He has a right to comment on whatever he wishes to comment on. And the man, the learned gentleman, the Nobel Laureate who is widely traveled, vastly experienced, highly educated, very, very eloquently gave reasons why he should, he decided to comment on this one. He said that he is connected the whole world. These are his words. Since the whole world knows of my connection with that fraternity, it is essential that I state in clear, unambiguous terms, that I'm not involved in that public performance or in any way associated with the sentiments expressed in the songs. So Olesher Inka has a local standing in this case. I mean, if he's a Nigerian, he can comment on any political issue he wants to. But in this particular instance, he's clear as to reasons why he's commenting. That his association with this group is well known. So he wants people to know that he's not associated with this in any way. And then he condemns it as well. So I do not see the logical connection between what Bolatimbo said in Oshun State and what Olesher Inka is saying today. I think those who are making these points should sit down and try to learn from people who are as erudite as Olesher Inka so that they can also get to that point where they can see the logical connections between things and not ask questions that are unconnected in situations that don't even relate to each other. The logic in all of this, say no, Olesher Inka didn't say anything when Tinibu spoke at that stadium in Oshun State, has no logical connection. They don't meet. So people are missing the point. The point is this man is speaking about a group that he's been involved in and maybe people might misconstrue his silence as he's part of this and what they're doing today. The pirates' confrontality are against Tinibu. And he's saying, look, okay, I'm a part of this group but I don't know about what's going on. He now takes part of his response to talk about the position of such groups, the history that he says, I do not interfere. He says, like any other civic group, the pirates' confrontance is entitled to its freedom of expression individually or collectively. So also is Olesher Inka in his own person, which is true. He says, I do not interfere in nor do I attempt to dictate the partisan political choice of the confrontation. So he's clear by saying, he is entitled to his own freedom of expression. You don't dictate to him what national issues he comments on. This is his choice. So whether Tinibu said something in Oshun or said something in Oyo or said something in Ogun, let's face the issue squarely and let's understand where people's rights begin and where they end. If the man said anything, that's Bola Mithilu now, that should be condemned. Don't drag Olesher Inka into it, all right? Let Olesher Inka decide the things he would like to comment on. It is his right, not anyone's right. Now, he goes on to now talk about the confraternity to say that I remain unaware that the association ever, this is the Pirates National Association of Seedogs, association ever engages in a collective statement of sponsorship or repudiation of any candidate is that this is clearly a new and bizarre development fought with unpredictable consequences he says. So he's talking about his own experience with association and he seems to be afraid for the future. Things is not usual that the group will take a political position in an election clearly by the songs that they're singing. That's what he thinks it means and that he feels this is fought with unpredictable consequences for the future. Now, I saw a tweet by another gentleman, gentleman on Twitter, who happens also to attract a lot of attention with his comments and a lot of stick, especially when he tries to make sense, common sense. And I understand what's going on. So he said that if this trend is allowed to continue, it might lead to another thing that we don't want to see as part of the 2023 elections. Now he was talking about, okay, you have the Pirates Confraternity of the National Association of Seedogs. Now, if you have another group that wants to align itself with another political candidate, presidential candidate, and then they come out to give sing their own song. All right, they come out to sing their own song and they support another person. And how is it going to play out between the Pirates Confraternity and the other group? Will it lead to a clash of interest? Will it lead to a clash on the streets? And we know how these associations can get. So these are some of the things that were said by the gentleman involved, Walei Sharinka, that also need to be discussed. It's an interesting time in the history of the country. Walei Sharinka also talked about Yoruba culture, where he said that it is not proper in Yoruba culture to mock anyone based on their fiscal frailties or their disability, you know. So there are two issues here. First, the question is an elderly man, all right? He's old. Secondly, he has specific to have some issues with his health. And he feels that it is not, should not be the subject of such songs. That's why he called it distasteful. We'll move on from that. Interesting times in the polity. And of course, we expect that some of these rhetorics will be heard as the election drawscore. But obviously it should be condemned and people should be reminded that there's some decency attached to the political campaigning. It's very important. All right, let's move on. Nigerian singer Kase Daniel was arrested in Tanzania for allegedly skipping a show. Now, pictures and videos emerged of Kase Daniel being led from a hotel into a waiting pickup truck. It seems this is a police vehicle in Tanzania. I looked at Kase Daniel's Instagram page and it was evident that he had some shows in the eastern part of Africa. I mean, I saw some flyers on his Instagram page showing that he was meant to be in Rwanda in Tanzania and in Tanzania, some other country stuff. The allegation is that Kase Daniel was paid to perform at that show in Tanzania and didn't show up. Interestingly, a media personality Daddy Freeze, who used to be on Cool FM back in the day. Daddy Freeze did an Instagram live with a gentleman. If you did, you have two versions of this video showing Kase Daniel being led from his hotel into a waiting police pickup. One will show the people who were filming him from the door of the hotel. It shows them. Now, if you look at those filming him and talking to him as he entered the truck, the person who took this picture, this view, you'd see one of the gentlemen holding this particular phone. Happens to be the promoter of this concert, of this show that Kase Daniel went for. You can't see him in this video, but there's another video that shows him. And he was a guest on the Instagram live feed of Daddy Freeze, a media personality. And he said that the young band, the musician, refused to perform simply because the airline forgot his bag, did not bring his bag along to Tanzania, and that he had a gold chain, some gold chains in the bags that he will not perform without those gold chains. Kase Daniel said he will not perform without those gold chains. Now, the gentleman said a certain polino, was it polo, that was instrumental in getting Kase Daniel to sign a contract to perform in Tanzania. So he is a Nigerian businessman in Tanzania. Did all he could to impress on the polo to talk to Kase Daniel. And he said polo was crying, asking Kase Daniel to please perform because he said the guy had sold out the event, tickets had been sold, monies had been collected already, money had been spent to promote the program, equipment had been paid for, the hall had been paid for, refreshments, everything had been settled. The gentleman said that he spent about $300,000 to prepare for the event and that he sold tables at that event for $5,000 and up to $10,000 per table. And this was, he was a new businessman in Tanzania and he looked really distraught. So it was quite shocking to Daddy Freeze in that particular video. And another gentleman I saw on that Instagram live feed asked why that rather Kase Daniel refused to perform simply because he forgot his gold chain or his gold chain and his luggage had not arrived at Tanzania at the time of the concert. The show promoter proceeded to say that Kase Daniel even had one chain on him and that he, the promoter of the show had offered, had offered to purchase more chains for Kase Daniel. But Kase Daniel refused saying that he wanted, he wanted to perform in his own chain. And if the chain had not arrived, the luggage had not arrived, he will not be performing. And that was what led to the police being called. Now, some Nigerians, you know, started targeting Abike Dabri and the Nigerians in the Aspar Commission asking them, her and the commission, to do something to get Kase Daniel out of detention. Of course, the investigation was going on and you expect the police to invite you to answer some questions and to take a statement. So, you know, at about 8.17 p.m. last night, Abike Dabri, the head of the Nigerians in the Aspar Commission, tweeted, always responded to some tweets and said that Kase Daniel has been released from detention or from custody and should be on his way. It's what she said, should. He should be on his way back to Nigeria as soon as possible while his legal team will iron out the final details, probably see how they can pay back the money that was paid to Kase Daniel. But the question is, if Kase Daniel's legal team are able to negotiate something, you know, is it just about paying back what was paid to Kase Daniel? Because of course, their damage is involved in such a case. The owner of the consulate promoter spent money to do other things, apart from paying you. You know, there's a profit he was meant to make, he's gonna lose that, you know, the money he collected in sales of tickets from individuals and sales of tables, he's gonna lose that. So it goes beyond refunding the money that you paid or you collected from him as your parents fee goes beyond that. But I think it's also important to wait until Kase Daniel says something, to wait until Kase Daniel say something before one can judge this matter. If indeed, what the promoter said is true, that it was just about his gold chain. But a lot of people have said, a lot of people have pointed out that this isn't the first time Kase Daniel is refusing or collecting money for a show, or is alleged, let me put it that way, to have collected money to perform in a concert and he didn't show up. And yesterday, Babcock University was trending, checked the internet, nothing special happened with Babcock University. And the reason why Babcock University was trending was because I think it said that alleged that Kase Daniel at some point in his career collected some fondos, booked for a show, let's say, and did not turn up to perform at that event. It's not the first time. He's also had some issues with his contracting, his record label and all that, it's well documented. So people are saying, is this a pattern from the man or not? Well, I think it's best to wait till Kase Daniel speaks and then we can hear his own side of the story. He's been enjoying success with his new single, titled Boogah, which has been played all over the world. In the Commonwealth games, he was played at all the athletic championships with the Nigerian athletes won gold. It was played as a celebrated around the field and all that. So it's a great time for him. He's also been featured in the biggest radio shows in America recently with See the God. So it's a great time for his career. This is the highest point of his musical career and I don't think he wants or he should want anything to scuttle that. That being said, we'll pull the plugs at this point on the top trending segment. We'll take a short break and when we return, we look at the latest headlines from today's National Dailies. Stay with us.


Everybody forced here ripping a box of 2022 Prism World Cup breakway for Paul B Paul says one of one go dolphins. Let's go Here we go Let's see if Paul called a shot with the one-on-one Friday night Almanac personals the ceiling should be higher than that illegal. I think all right two base packs so far Leva Kovic the Croatian hero from today three penalty saves That's Freakin nuts. That's crazy. I don't think it's going to block purple breakaway Utah Nakayama Rookie numbered 16 to 35 They are not for sale yet Probably go up tomorrow or Wednesday Silver rookie Carlos Rodriguez. I think it's like a pick your number again So we'll just list numbers one through 100 you choose one basically and then we'll rip that box number Oh Rookie National landmark Salam al-Dasari Saudi Arabia national landmarks. He was good man. He scored a few goals this tournament There you go Paul case hit for you. I do not know much about The country of Saudi Arabia. I do not know those landmarks Silver connections Jude Bellingham Bukhaya Osaka Those two are pretty good Dude Jude Bellingham what a beast What a beast Gakpo base rookie breakaway K. Lornavis So have one more numbered card. I think I'm in so See that one-on-one Jude to come to arsenal. I wonder where he'll go. There's an alvarez rookie. It's like a red Dussan Tariq Number 77 of 99 Dobby base There we go. Thanks again Paul solid box there. We appreciate it. We'll get it right out to you


On May 22nd, 1856, South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks walked into the chamber of the Senate. Accompanying him was his fellow South Carolinian congressman, Lawrence Kitt, and Henry Edmondson, a colleague from Virginia. The Senate session had already ended for the day and people were leaving. If you've ever visited the old Senate chamber in the Capitol, you might remember that there are galleries above the floor where people used to watch the Senators debate, and many of the people there were women, usually wives of Senators. And Brooks, being a Southern gentleman, was waiting for one female straggler to clear out before doing what he had come to do. Brooks was an interesting character, to say the least. He'd been born to a pretty powerful cotton family in South Carolina, and in 1840, Brooks had been wounded in a duel. He was shot in the hip and he walked with a limp for the rest of his life, forcing him to depend on a cane for support. Unlike many Southerners, he served in the Mexican-American War, but he spent most of the war vomiting. He later lied about his war exploits to make himself look more heroic, but people called him out for it. However, this did not stop him from gaining political office in 1853 as a South Carolina representative, and when he took office, his main object was to make sure that Kansas was admitted as a slave state. Once the galleries were clear of women, Brooks and Kitt approached the senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner. Two days prior, Sumner finished giving a lengthy speech about Kansas. Sumner had been elected to Congress in 1851, but in reaction to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which repealed the Missouri Compromise, Sumner switched to the new Republican Party. Sumner's speech was actually given over the course of two days, May 19th and 20th, and it was titled, The Crime Against Kansas. In a minute, he called people out by name. He referred to Stephen Douglas, the engineer of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, as the squire of slavery, implying that he was basically a puppet of the slave owners in the South. Sumner invoked sexual innuendo, comparing the happenings in Kansas to rape. In one part of the speech, he said, quote, It is the rape of a virgin territory compelling it to the hateful embrace of slavery, and it may be clearly traced to a depraved longing for a new slave state, the hideous offspring of such a crime, in the hope of adding to the power of slavery in the national government. Yes, sir, when the whole world, alike Christian and Turk, is rising up to condemn this wrong and to make it a hissing to the nation, here in our Republic, force, aye, sir, force has been openly employed in compelling Kansas to this pollution and all for the sake of political power, end quote. But most importantly, at least regarding the appearance of Preston Brooks, were Sumner's vituperations against Andrew Butler. Along with Douglas, Sumner referred to Butler as one of the two senators who, quote, have raised themselves to eminence on this floor in championship of human wrongs. Sumner then devoted a lengthy section of the speech to attacking Andrew Butler directly. In what is probably the most enduring line of the speech, Sumner said, quote, the senator from South Carolina, meaning Andrew Butler, has read many books of chivalry and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course, he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him. Though polluted in the sight of the world, is chased in his sight. I mean the harlot slavery, end quote. Andrew Butler was the cousin of Preston Brooks, so by insulting the honor of Senator Butler, Sumner was also insulting the honor of Preston Brooks, which I'm sure Sumner would have no problem with doing. Anyway, since Brooks was an equally strong supporter of slavery as Butler. But this is the speech that brought Brooks and his colleague, Lawrence Kitt, to the Senate Chamber on the 22nd of May. When Brooks approached, Sumner was sitting at his desk writing. Mr. Sumner, Brooks said to him, I have read your last speech with care and as much impartiality as possible under the circumstances. And I feel it is my duty to say that you have libeled my state and slandered my kinsmen who has aged and absent, and I have come to punish you for it. Sumner started to stand up, but before he could get out of his desk, Brooks bashed him over the head with his cane. Brooks's cane was narrow at the bottom and grew thicker at the top, where it was finished off with a thick gold end. Brooks continued beating Sumner with the thick gold end of his cane, while Lawrence Kitt held bystanders at bay with a pistol, profiting them from interfering. The Senate desk, which again you can see if you ever visit the Capitol in Washington DC, the desks were bolted into the ground, but Sumner lurched up so hard while being beaten that he actually ripped the bolts out of the floor. Brooks continued beating Sumner even as his cane broke in half. When Brooks was finally stopped, Sumner had suffered such severe injuries that he was unable to return to his seat for nearly three years. Though the people of Massachusetts continued to reelect him anyway. Brooks was fined a paltry $300 and he wasn't even kicked out of the House of Representatives, though he did resign. The people of South Carolina, though, held him as a hero, standing up to a northern bully, and they reelected him immediately. And many supporters even sent him replacement canes with inscriptions like, hit him again and use knockdown arguments. The governor of South Carolina even presented Brooks with a silver goblet at a banquet to honor him for his violent act. With the caning of Charles Sumner, the violence over the Kansas Controversy was no longer completely contained within the boundaries of the contested territory. I'm Chris Galton and this is the Mises Institute podcast, Historical Controversies. In the last episode, we covered the passage of the Kansas Nebraska Act, the early settlement of the New Kansas territory, and the voter fraud that took place in the election of a pro-slavery territorial government, one that the free state settlers refused to recognize as legitimate. At the end of the episode, I told of the story of the first killing of a free state settler named Charles Dow, who was killed over a land dispute, unconnected to the political controversy. However, his slaying would be politicized and Charles Dow would serve as the match lighting the fuse to the powder keg that was to finally explode in May of 1856. Residents of Lawrence, Kansas, started to prepare for a potential war with the pro-slavery settlers who had just flooded into Kansas to support Governor Wilson Shannon and the official territorial legislature of the pro-slavery politicians. The Lawrence settlers started to build fortifications, and they appointed James Lane, a Mexican war veteran, as second in command to Charles Robinson, making Lane responsible for the defense of the city. Lane decided to make his headquarters the Free State Hotel, which was effectively a fortress. At its base, the walls were two foot thick, and at the top, the walls were 18 inches thick, but they extended up past the roof by as much as six feet, and portholes were cut out that would allow rooftop militia members to fire down on people below, if need be. Pro-slavery forces laid siege to Lawrence and blocked anybody from bringing provisions into the city. Arms and ammo did make it through, though. One man was actually able to smuggle in a hoitzer, but the smuggling success was largely due to the idea of Southern chivalry that compelled the pro-slavery forces to let women through their lines, and these women smuggled supplies in under their skirts. Two of the Free State women, Margaret Wood and Lois Brown, actually smuggled in two barrels of gunpowder under the seat of their buggy, as well as led for bullets under their skirts and guns in their sleeves. Whatever sins the pro-slavery faction were guilty of committing, these details are important in recognizing the hyperbole of the Northern press that effectively painted the Southerners as barbarians who would ride into Lawrence, to quote one paper, killing every man and ravishing every woman. There would actually be many instances in Kansas in which Southern chivalry would be used against the pro-slavery men, but that is not to say that there were not also some female victims of violence in Kansas at the hands of the Southerners either. Several months after this siege in August of 1856, for example, four pro-slavery men snatched a young Free State woman, bound her arms, pulled her tongue as far out of her mouth as they could and raped her. So the deference to women was a common, but not a universal characteristic of the Southern men. But this chivalry would be apparent in some cases to the advantage of the Free Staters, even as the violence escalated. For the most part, by the way, Northern men also showed deference to women just with less naivete, as far as I can tell about women's willingness to participate in the conflicts. We don't actually know as much about the pro-slavery women, but there was one 17-year-old pro-slavery girl who was killed while she was in bed by a shower of bullets fired on her cabin intended for her husband. This was actually in a raid after John Brown's massacre of Potawatomi and one of the raiders, I think he was leading the band of men in this killing, was John Cook, who would later become John Brown's spy at Harper's Ferry. And some historians have suggested that the reason that he didn't have her husband executed was guilt over the accidental killing of the young wife, but that's of course speculation. But as Lawrence was being sieged at the end of 1855, there was yet no fighting taking place. There were only preparations for fighting as fortifications were constructed and James Lane drilled his men. The siege lasted through the end of November and ended on December 8th. It has been called the Wakarusa War, but warfare didn't actually take place. There was only one casualty of the entire affair, which came about on December 6th. Three free state settlers were on horseback, heading home from Lawrence when they were intercepted by a party of Missourians on patrol. The patrol was suspicious of the travelers because they cut off the main road to take a shortcut. So the patrols weren't apprehending anybody leaving Lawrence, but these three free state are seem suspicious. So the patrol stopped them and asked where they were going and what was going on in Lawrence. The three men were Thomas Barber, his brother, Robert Barber, and their brother-in-law, Thomas Pearson. Thomas Barber took it upon himself to do the talking. He asked what law they were breaking. Major George Clark, one of the patrol leaders, ordered his men to accompany Barber and the others to wherever they were headed, but Barber refused to allow this. So Clark drew his gun. Before leaving, Thomas had tried to convince Robert to leave his gun behind, worried it might cause trouble, but Robert refused, and when Clark drew his gun on Thomas, Robert responded by pulling his gun out as well, clumsily getting it caught in the holster as he struggled to react to Clark's weapon. So as Robert was fumbling with his revolver, Clark fired on the unarmed Thomas Barber. Once he finally had hold of his weapon, Robert returned fire.  After they had put a small amount of distance between them and the Missouri Patrol, Thomas let his companions know that he'd actually been shot in the abdomen. He was bleeding profusely and he fell off his horse. Pearson at this point wanted to surrender to the Missourians, but Robert refused, worried that they'd be executed. Since Thomas was dead, they said they couldn't help him by sticking around and seeing the Missourians in pursuit, Robert Barber and Thomas Pearson took off, leaving their dead relative behind. Now, Robert Barber justified his actions by saying that his brother was dead, which he likely genuinely believed as Thomas Barber was on the ground and unable to speak at this point, but he was not dead and he actually survived for another 40 minutes. A woman from a home nearby tried to give him some water, but he couldn't take a drink. Finally, he did lose enough blood and he died, having been abandoned by his family fleeing the Missourians who shot him. Back in Lawrence, Charles Robinson learned about Thomas Barber's death, only the next day, on December 7th. He was worried that the news of Barber's death would cause fighting to finally erupt, so he ordered the news be kept secret, but this did no good as word of the killing spread quickly throughout the city anyway. On the other side of the conflict, the territorial governor, Wilson Shannon, was also worried about the looming battle. His territorial militia had quickly ballooned from the flock of Missourians wanting to support the pro-slavery government, but he wasn't confident that they could be controlled. These were not exactly disciplined militia members. A lot of them were teenagers who were probably hankering for a fight and likely to act rashly. The same night of Barber's death, before either side's leaders knew about the killing, Shannon spoke to the Missouri leaders to try to make sure they could keep them in from committing any rash acts. The next day, Shannon and one of his military leaders, the grandson of Daniel Boone, in fact, named Albert Boone, rode into Lawrence. As the two men entered the Free State Hotel, they saw Thomas Barber's body, which had only recently arrived. Shannon and Boone, of course, had no knowledge of the killing when they decided to come negotiate peace, so their arrival was probably fortuitous. Their shock at the killing was apparent enough to convince the Free Staters present of their sincerity at not being aware of the murder, and they offered their regrets on the matter. Shannon spent the day in Lawrence, ate with Robinson at his home, and the two factional leaders agreed upon a plan for peace, which was written up as a document that night by a committee in Lawrence. By the time the document was being drafted, Shannon and Boone had already returned to inform the militia leaders of his plan. The timing of all this was crucial. Several members of the territorial militia were planning an attack on Lawrence that night, and Shannon was able to intercede in time to prevent it. Negotiations over the agreement continued for several hours the next day, but at the end of it, leaders from both sides signed a written statement agreeing to the terms. The citizens involved in the Branson rescue following Dow's killing, which I talked about in the end of the previous episode, were excused. Shannon also agreed to aid in the apprehension of criminals, which was a concern among the Free Staters because of the unwillingness from the official government to even attempt to bring justice to Branson. But any question of the legality over the issues themselves were avoided, so there was no settlement over whether or not any party was justified in their previous actions. The agreement pretty much just said that both sides would drop it, so to speak. The agreement also danced around the legitimacy of the territorial government, which Free Staters still saw as bogus because of the obvious and widespread election fraud I also talked about in the last episode. The Free Staters acknowledged the territorial militia, which was basically a practical acknowledgement of the threat it posed in forcing them to submit, but they did not actually acknowledge the legitimacy of the territorial government. In many ways, this agreement was just kicking the can down the road as it clearly avoided addressing any of the overarching issues that created the conflicts to begin with. But for the time, further violence was avoided as Governor Shannon ordered the militia to disband on the 8th of December, and the only casualty of the anti-climatic Wakeruza War was Thomas Barber. The second Kansas killing, the first that was truly and explicitly the product of the political tensions was also a Free State settler. The story of the Wakeruza War has one more element worth talking about though. Shannon's relief at avoiding a major bloodshed probably caused him to make some practical miscalculations shortly after the agreement, at least from his perspective as the official territorial governor trying to keep the peace and establish legitimacy for the pro-slavery legislature. He was still worried about his ability to control his militia for one thing, so he authorized Robinson and Lane to raise their own militia to repel invaders. They probably would have done this anyway, but Shannon gave sanction to their actions, allowing them to do so more overtly. Then Shannon decided to celebrate his diplomatic victory, which involved some alcohol. Robinson came to Shannon again while the governor was a little drunk, and Robinson told Shannon that there was a pro-slavery force outside of Lawrence that was about to attack, and he wanted permission to repel the force. Shannon granted him the permission to do so, signing the paper that Robinson gave him, authorizing his actions. The force that Robinson claimed was preparing to attack didn't actually exist, but with the signed paper in Robinson's hand, James Lane felt that was all the sanction needed to inform his men that they were United States dragoons, which was the name for a Calvary Regiment at the time. So now the free-staters believed they had official military status, though Shannon would later claim that he only gave permission for them to repel an attack, which is consistent with what Robinson told them, but wasn't what Shannon actually signed off on, apparently. Always read the terms and conditions, right? The free-state men, just like the pro-slavery militia, were themselves wanting a fight at this point. So Shannon unwittingly fueled the tensions by giving them the impression that they had official sanction to take action against the pro-slavery settlers. The free-staters did not feel like they had any justice for the death of Thomas Barber, but they also were enjoying a confidence boost from seeing the Missourians disperse. They believed they had been victorious, and the Missourians apparently agreed. They were angry at what they saw as a victory of lawlessness. The reality of the situation was that the leaders on both sides were having increasing trouble controlling their men, and they were each doing what they could to try to keep the violence from erupting, but tensions only continued to escalate. It was something of an impossible situation for the men in charge. The Wakarusa War also derailed the attempts by the more conservative free-soilers to exert influence on the convention at Leavenworth, which was scheduled for December 7th, which meant that the Wakarusa War interrupted this effort, cementing the pro-slavery agenda for the legislature. The people there called on Governor Shannon to suppress the nullifiers, as they called them. It's kind of ironic with nullification being first explicitly advocated by Calhoun in South Carolina. Accusations of nullification would be levied more at northerners and anti-slavery people. Even some of the secession documents cite nullification of the fugitive slave law as justification for secession, but I'm getting sidetracked here. Thomas Barber was buried on December 16th, and Robinson gave his oration in which he called him, quote, a martyr to principle. John Greenleaf Whittier composed a poem entitled The Burial of Barber. One line of the poem clearly aimed at the pro-slavery territorial government asserted that, quote, the law shakes hands with crime. So the peace in Kansas was temporary. The recent settlement was enough to put off the fighting until the roughest part of the winter had passed, but it would pick back up in early 1856. January 15th, 1856 was the date set for the Free State elections to decide on officers under the Topeka Constitution, which they were still pursuing as a rival to the legitimacy of the pro-slavery government in the Compton. Word about violence in Leavenworth, where the pro-slavery men dominated, polling for the elections took place in private homes. Nonetheless, Missouri border ruffians decided it was time to redeem themselves for the Wakarusa embarrassment. A handful of pro-slavery men, something between 30 and 50 of them, but the exact number isn't clear, interfered with the elections by threatening and disarming voters. They were ultimately driven off, but this was only the beginning of the contest. Stephen Sparks, his son, Moses, and his nephew were headed home from the polls at 2 a.m. On their way home, a group of Missourians stopped them. The Missourians made threats, and the Stephen Sparks tried to appeal to their history as neighbors to be left alone, but this did no good. What Sparks didn't know was that a group of Kickapoo Rangers, a group of border ruffians, had already been to his house, where they had held Sparks's other son, only 12 years old at the time, at gunpoint, while they gave a note to Sparks's wife, telling her and her husband to get out of Leavenworth. So when Sparks was trying to appeal to the goodwill of the men who stopped he and his son and his nephew on the road, he was unaware that they had already made the decision to drive him out of the community. And responding to his pleas, they fired on the Sparks's and took Stephen Sparks and his nephew hostage. Moses, however, escaped and ran to get help from the Free State Reserves, which consisted of only 15 men. The leader of the group was Reese Brown, no relation to John Brown, who was in Kansas by this time, they'll all be talking about him more in the next episode. Reese Brown had been at Lawrence during the Waukarusa War two months ago. When Moses found him, he had spent the night drinking, but this didn't stop him from taking action. He and his men freed the two hostage Sparks's, but Stephen Sparks was wounded during the 10 minute tussle. A pro-slavery man was also wounded in the gunfire, but nobody was killed and the Free State men spent the night at Leavenworth. The next day, Reese Brown and his men were ambushed by the Kickapoo Rangers, who were led by John W. Martin. He had Brown and his men arrested for shooting the pro-slavery man who was injured in the episode the night before. As he was escorting the prisoners to where they could be held before trial, Martin's men were acting unruly. One of Martin's men, a guy named Bob Gibson, took a hatchet and attacked one of Reese Brown's men, and he had to be restrained by men from both factions. Martin wanted a keyboarder, but the men were less professional. They continued to drink, and this only made them more willing to make threats against the Free Stateers. They held hostage. They finally carried their prisoners back to Dawson's store, which is where the Sparks's had been stopped on the road, and inside the store, the wounded pro-slavery man from the night before was lying on the ground, moaning in pain. While they were all holed up in the store building, Brown was taken into a room to be questioned by Martin. Twice, Martin's men broke into the room while this was happening, and the second time they did so, Gibson led a dozen of Martin's men to attack Reese Brown with a hatchet. This time, Martin couldn't do anything to stop his men, so he left the room, claiming he couldn't stand watching the torture. While his men were in the other room torturing Brown, Martin took down the names of the other Free Stateers and then let them go. Reese Brown, meanwhile, was being brutally beaten by the drunken kick-a-poos. After beating Brown pretty well, they decided that Gibson, the chief antagonist of the group, and Brown should go at it one-on-one. So they took Brown outside to fight, but Brown was already beaten pretty badly. A hatchet wound on his head was bleeding heavily, so he broke free and tried to run. He obviously couldn't get far, but eventually the kick-a-poos were tired of toying with him, so they took him home where they dropped him on the doorstep of his house. His wife and two-year-old daughter would find him there, brutalized and bleeding, but still alive. Brown's wife got a doctor, but the gash on his forehead from Gibson's hatchet was two inches long and the blood was just too much for the doctor to do anything about.  Aside from the murder of Reese Brown, the January elections went off without any other incident, but the news of Brown's brutal killing only reignited tensions among the Free State Settlers. Then, on January 24th, President Pierce poured salt in the wound. He blamed all the violence in Kansas on the Free State Settlers for provoking the Missourians. Now he was threatening military intervention in Kansas and he called on Congress to make appropriations to carry this out. To the Free State Settlers, this was a travesty of justice. One of theirs was brutally murdered by the men who weren't even obeying the command of their own officials and the president had the audacity to lay the blame entirely on them as provocateurs. Pierce made good on his threat. In February, he commanded all armed irregulars being the unofficial militias to disperse. This meant that he was telling the Free Stateers, from their perspective, that self-defense was now a criminal action. Governor Shannon was given control of a group of federal troops stationed at Fort Leavenworth. Rhetorically, Pierce condemned both factions for acting outside the law, but he made it clear that it was the Free State Settlers who were the primary culprits and his actions made that even more undeniable. When the Topeka legislature assembled, Sheriff Jones, who had sparked the Wakerusa War only a few months prior, showed up and took down names of everybody present. This was all after the pro-slavery presses were calling Free State Actions a revolt and condemning their leaders as outlaws. One report referred to the Free State Actions as quote, actual overt and consummate treason. Their fears of being arrested for treason, a capital crime, were not at this point unfounded. Still, the Free States asserted their moral legitimacy and rightful political authority, but despite their resolve, the Topeka legislature put off passing any actual legislation until after Kansas achieved statehood so as to avoid potential treason charges. Meanwhile, many settlers determined not to pay taxes to the bogus legislature as they called the LaCompton government. The Missourians seemed to sincerely view the Northerners as aggressors, which was a common political view where the North was constantly worried about the so-called slave power. The South was always drumming up fears about quote, unquote, Northern aggression. But Northerners traveling to or through Kansas or traveling on the Missouri River were increasingly harassed by Missourians. Residents in Lawrence, meanwhile, were taking on the expense of paying for private mail delivery because Missouri's stagecoach drivers charged with delivering the mail would simply dump the so-called abolition mail on the road. Packages were also being inspected, though Missouri paranoia about packages to Lawrence were not irrational. Most famously were packages marked Bibles that contained sharps rifles funded and delivered by Henry Ward Beecher, brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin. Sharps rifles gained the nickname Beecher's Bibles throughout the territory. Outraged by the events, Charles Sumner started to prepare his speech, The Crime Against Kansas. He wrote the entire speech out by hand, which he then had the congressional printer typeset for him. The full speech ended up being 112 pages long. He spent time rehearsing it, trying to perfect the rhythm and delivery for the greatest emotional impact. Though Sumner by contemporary accounts wasn't a spectacular speaker, Sumner delivered his speech privately for William Seward and his wife, Francis, to get feedback. Francis, while taking no objection to the tone or message of the speech, warned him about the sarcasm in the personal attacks he intended to levy against Stephen Douglas and Andrew Butler, among others. When he finally delivered the speech, he split it up over the course of two days. He spoke for three hours on May 19th. The Senate was packed with spectators, including Preston Brooks. Sumner finished the speech the next day, though Brooks did not bother to show up this time. When Douglas got a chance to respond to the speech, he said, quote, Is it his object to provoke some of us to kick him as we would a dog in the street that he may get sympathy upon the just chastisement? Of course, Douglas was not aware that Preston Brooks was already plotting to do exactly that. And sympathy is exactly what he would receive in the North, at least. Sumner only added to his vituperations against Douglas after being challenged on the speech. The two exchanged open insults. Sumner started to respond, quote, No person with the upright form of a man can be allowed. Douglas interjected, taunting him, say it. Douglas responded, quote, I will say it. No person with the upright form of a man can be allowed without violation of all decency to switch out from his tongue, the perpetual stench of offensive personality, the noisome squat nameless animal to which I now refer is not a proper model for an American senator. Will the senator from Illinois take notice? Sumner was slinging this insult directly at Douglas on the floor of the Senate. And in the 19th century congressional version of the old, I know you am, but what am I? Douglas responded, quote, I will and therefore not imitate you, sir. But Sumner won the day. His speech was celebrated by abolitionists when copies were printed and distributed all over the North. When Preston Brooks showed up to assault him on the 22nd, he was at his desk stamping copies of the speech to send to his admirers. But the day before Brooks took his revenge on Sumner for the insult to his family and state, Kansas saw another act of violence from the pro-slavery side. Back in April on the 19th, Sheriff Jones showed up in Lawrence to arrest S.N. Wood, who was the lawyer who had been part of the group rescuing Branson after the Dow killing, if you remember. Lawrence's citizens defended him, disarmed Jones and sent him packing. One paper joked that when Sheriff Jones called for help, he never specified who needed the help so the citizens of Lawrence thought he wanted them to help Wood. The next day, Jones showed up with a group of men. This was still not enough and the citizens of Lawrence stood up to him. Jones claimed he was acting on behalf of the laws of Kansas, and one yelled that they would never submit. Outmanned, Jones left quietly. Three days later, Jones finally showed up again. This time backed by a group of United States dragoons. The national authority of the dragoons, Jones assumed, would break the resolve of the Lawrence rebels. It did, certainly, test their resolve. Standing up to a territorial legislature was a far cry from standing up to the national government. This time, Jones made six arrests without resistance, though the citizens of Lawrence vocally denounced Jones in the territorial government. The six men arrested were just men who had previously refused to help Jones arrest Wood. Basically, he was arresting them for draft dodging for all intents and purposes. But the lawyer, S.N. Wood, was still free. He spent the night right outside Lawrence. Gunfire was going off, but it isn't clear what prompted it or who was firing. Jones, however, was hit in the back while he was trying to sleep inside his tent. The pro-slavery press jumped on this. One headline read, the abolitionists in open rebellion, Sheriff Jones murdered by the traitors with three exclamation marks punctuating the title. Another newspaper called it a brutal assassination, and one editorialist wrote about a clan of assassins acting against law and order. Jones was not killed. In fact, his injury wasn't especially serious, and he recovered pretty quickly. But the fuel had already been added to the fire, and pro-slavery men wanted blood. The leaders in Lawrence, including the first territorial government, Andrew Reeder, who joined the free-staters after being disgusted by the election fraud during his short tenure, denounced the actions of whoever shot Jones. They condemned it outright, insisting that they were dedicated to peace and calling it the isolated act of a single individual. Robinson actually suggested that Jones was shot by a pro-slavery man who wanted an excuse to go to war in the territory, which was obviously a bit of a stretch. So on May 5th, Judge Lacompt ordered the arrest and indictment of all free-state officials in Lawrence and the destruction of their newspaper, which was in violation of the territory's slave codes that condemned anti-slavery speech, and the free-state hotel, since it was obviously a fortress. Before these indictments were made public, the free-state leaders took their own initiative. They decided to send men east to lobby for aid from sympathetic Northerners, and in the meantime, former Governor Andrew Reeder would allow himself to be arrested to serve as a test case. Reeder initially agreed to this. I should mention that he was appointed as the free-state delegate to Congress in the Topeka Convention, but when a marshal came to arrest him, he refused to submit. The marshal left and Reeder fled, disguising himself in a borrowed overcoat and hat. He traveled at night, was smuggled to Kansas City, Missouri, by some free-staters, where he was delayed for a week because of how bright the moon was and how clear the night skies were. So finally, the free-staters helping him planted a false telegraph report claiming that Reeder had been seen in Chicago, where they mailed him a letter, and Reeder was able to continue his escape with his pursuers following this false trail. Robinson also tried to escape, but he was apprehended after he and his wife tried to travel on a steamboat on the Missouri River. They were stopped in Lexington, Missouri, and Robinson was arrested for fleeing the indictment. His wife, Sarah, urged him to resist, genuinely believing he would be murdered outright, but he submitted, and unlike the kick-a-poos who got hold of Reese Brown, this group did not kill their prisoner. But Robinson's arrest was not enough to satiate the pro-slavery people who were still calling for blood. So several hundred Missourians, estimates are generally between 500 and 700, gathered around the city of Lawrence. Citizens of the town were now sufficiently intimidated that they issued a statement saying they would submit to the territorial laws of the pro-slavery legislature. On May 21st, some arrests were made, and the people of Lawrence peacefully conceded their arms, including the Hovertzer that had been smuggled in during the Wakarousa standoff. Jones then announced that he was going to carry out his orders to destroy the Free State Hotel and the newspaper. The hotel owner was given until 5 p.m. to get his furniture and other belongings out of the building. When the time came, Jones had four cannons aimed at the building, and his men commenced to their bombardment. The Free State Hotel wouldn't crumble, so they tried to blow it up with gunpowder. This destroyed the windows, but the structure held. Next, they set the hotel on fire. Once this was done, Jones dismissed the men. No longer acting under any official orders, the men took it upon themselves to raise the city. Robinson's house was burned down. Houses were looted. The Free State newspaper headquarters was broken into, and the men dumped the press into the river. The Free State citizens of Lawrence made no attempt to resist as the sack of Lawrence continued into the night. The only casualty was one of the Missourians who was killed when a piece of the ceiling of a building being destroyed fell on his head, actually. But the sack of Lawrence did more to help the Free Staters than anybody else. Public opinion swung in their favor. The Free State press around the country was no more honest than the pro-slavery press had been previously. Reports came out that hundreds of Free State men, women, and children were killed. A speech was circulated in the North, supposedly given by pro-slavery official David Atchison, urging Missourians to quote, "'Spring like your bloodhounds at home upon that damned abolitionist whole.'" The speech was a fabrication by Northern propagandists, and Atchison had actually tried to restrain the pro-slavery leader, so this was all complete bunk. But the perception had been established, and Northern sentiment was on the side of the Free State settlers in Kansas. The next day, of course, Sumner received his brutal caning at the hand of Preston Brooks, as I detailed in the beginning of the episode. Telegraph lines had not yet reached all the way to Kansas, so word had to be delivered by foot. But news spread fast, and one person in particular who received the news of Sumner's caning was John Brown, who was already seething over the sack of Lawrence and had not been satisfied by the peace during the Wakarusa War, which coincided with his arrival to Kansas. In this episode, John Brown has been in the background of all the events I've talked about. On May 24th, John Brown would be front and center as the bloodshed would escalate with the infamous Potawatomi Massacre, which will be the subject of the next episode. For more content like this, visit mesus.org.


And congratulations Devon Dennis. You are the water man of the match Devon. They call you messy and need to know the meaning behind that name. Well, group in my place. I play ball. Family. I'm bouncy. Just calm messy. So from that time they always calm messy. Well, you're following so much of Messi's footsteps today and you scored some goals for your team. Tell me about you guys moving on to the round of 16. How do you feel? Well, from do a court say everything I got record. We'll just coach and just do it for you. Okay, congratulations and thank you. Thank you. And now we welcome Edwin Ali High School.


Good evening, everyone. Welcome to dedicated financial literacy. Welcome back to the channel. Want to tell everyone, please hit the subscribe button. Thumbs up if you like the content. Not telling you, not trying to force you to do it. But a lot of things going on. I wanted to just have a little chat. I just wanted to have a little chat about what's going on with the stock market right now. As everybody knows, this group on Reddit, Wall Street Bets, YOLO. You only live once. YOLO. You only live once, baby. These young people are doing it. And just to kind of give you a little background of what's going on. The institutional investors, Wall Street, the big boys, many times they will short stocks, particularly with companies that are not doing well. Or, you know, if they see that, okay, this company is not producing or it's on its way down or it looks like it's heading toward bankruptcy. They'll say, hey, look, let's get them there faster. And just to give you a brief definition of what it really means to short a stock where a person will basically, they want the stock to go down. So they'll borrow from the brokerage firm. They'll borrow stocks. They'll borrow a thousand shares and promise to pay them back at a later time. Okay? Then what they'll do is sell those shares at the current price. Because remember, they're borrowing. They sell it at the current price. But here's what happens. Then what happens is, if the stock drops, it shorts, right? Say their stock is at $20 a share and it drops. Remember, they borrowed it. So they owe the brokerage what it costs at the current price. Say it was $20. But it drops to $5. Okay? At that point when it drops to $5, they buy the shares. They make up and they make up $15. They profit $15. The brokerage just wants their shares back. So they give the shares back and they keep the money. Does that make sense? I know that sounds a little confusing. They borrowed it. I'm borrowing money from you. Okay? I owe you $20. But then, or I owe you this material, whatever, I owe you this material. I borrowed the material for $20. But you just want the material. But then I go and I sell it. But when it drops in value, I pick it up at that price and I give you what I owe you and I keep the rest of the money. That's basically what happens with shorting. Okay? Well, that's what the institutional investors are doing. That's what they do. And Reddit, this small group of young people, they said, hey, this is not right what they're doing to GameStop. They're shorting it.  GameStop had a chance to survive and resurrect. And so they had a group that said, you know what? We're going to change this. We're not going to let GameStop die. And what they did was they bought shares and it started shooting up. When it started shooting up, guess what happened to the shorters? The shorts, they lost money because they borrowed it at $10, but it went up to 40. 50. Let me tell you what happened with GameStop. In one week, that stock increased 750%. Can you imagine what happened to the short? They're not even talking about it. I heard today that possibly two firms went under as a result. Billions and dollars were lost. And then they got AMC, BlackBerry, cost. They're just looking. They're looking now for where shorts, where the institutional investors are shorting stock. And they are going after them. So that's kind of where we're at. But I want to give you a little background of why this is happening. I've heard, you know, if you go on the Reddit site and read some of the stories, the background, you got to remember when the 2008, the 2008 housing crisis happened. Many of the kids now that are in this Reddit group were around eight, seven, six years old, eight years old, nine years old. Many of them, their families lost their homes. You've heard stories of kids, families in cars losing everything and living out of the car. Stories where a father was so devastated for his family, because the house, they had a fixed mortgage, but after five years, I believe it became an adjustable mortgage. And the way it flipped, and the houses were under water, they owed more than they could afford. In many homes, many families were affected. Heard of a story where a man, his family, they lost everything.  And can you imagine a child in the bedroom hearing the gunshots to run down there and see his dad dead?   I always tell him if he falls down, I say, get up and don't give up. I drill that in him. So I believe in that. But some people, I mean, you got to remember, these people were devastated. And what makes it bad, really bad, is our government, instead of bailing out the people, bailed out the banks, bailed out Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Borg and all the banks, Wells Fargo. Look at all the craziness that Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo did to their customers. And these kids are mad. They're angry. They're hurt. They're bitter. And they're going after them, whether it's right or not. But here's the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy that I see is now, all of a sudden now, Congress is like, we got to do something. We got to do something about this. We need to get the SEC involved, regulators involved. Robin Hood basically shut down all these stocks this morning. They shut them down. And I think that backfired on them. This is just going to make these young people really angry. Got my wife's cup. Here's the thing that I've observed in checking this out. Number one, this is going to affect the fund managers, asset management, Wall Street, the financial big boys, so to speak. Because now they're going to be reluctant to short stocks. They're going to be looking over their shoulder. Where's Wall Street bets? Where's YOLO? YOLO meaning one of my friends texted me, what is YOLO? You deal with all these stock trading stuff. Russell, what is it? What is YOLO? Basically, it's an acronym. You only live once, they say. Here's the number two, what's scary. These young people, they're on a mission. Wall Street is motivated by greed and financial power controlling with finances. These kids, I read one of the posts on Reddit and one of the kids, several of them said, look, I don't care. His account went from like 150, 200,000 in one week to like 5 million. And he said, I don't care if I lose it all. I'm making a statement. We're making a statement. We want to talk to Wall Street because you didn't hear me when I was eight years old. You didn't hear me when my parents got a divorce when I woke up in the morning. You didn't hear when I woke up in the morning and my mother had left, left us. And I haven't seen her since. Number three, you know what is really concerning me? Who was our president at that time? Now, we could say that he inherited it. He inherited the issue. He inherited the great recession. But why haven't we heard from Barack Obama? Janet Yellen, she's on, she's part of the leadership of Biden. Wasn't she around? Wasn't she over monetary policy at that time? Why haven't we heard from them? They were behind supporting and bailing out the banks. That's why we have not heard from them. Maybe they're feeling a little guilty right now. Families suffered and you bailed out the banks. And look what's happening now. Here comes the government wanting to bail out Wall Street. Wanting to bail them out again. The hypocrisy. Do you know what I would like to see the SEC and the regulators and Congress do? I would like to see Congress and the Senate investigate themselves. Just this year, the pandemic, four senators were accused of insider trading. How is that possible? Well, the senators, the Congress, they have access to a lot of information concerning companies. Major companies. Fortune 500 companies. The Dow 30, Nasdaq 100. They are privy to a lot of information that's vital in whether a stock goes up or down prior to us getting it, the retailers, the retail investors. So think about that for a second. Here they are in a meeting and say, for example, ATT is involved in a merger and the SEC sends over documents to Congress or whoever, a regulator in, or they have friends over at the SEC. You know they know each other and they find out that AT&T is going to have a merger and it's been approved and they know about it before it goes public. How many times have our congressmen and congresswomen having prior information, prior knowledge went and got on the phone and called up Uncle Joe, Auntie Lane and said, you need to buy stock and get me some shares too. Let's find a way to get you the money. Here's another thing they can do. They know there's going to be bad news concerning a company. They're in some kind of, they're inside of some kind of intel meeting and they hear about it. They hear about it. And they know, oh boy, I got a lot of stock in that company. I've got to sell it while it's at a profit. So they go out and call husband or wife and say, sell all the stock. In a few days, information's coming out. That's going to be very damning and that stock is going to tank. But here's what they can also do. They can play options and purchase options, put options, buying a put option, meaning I'll make money on that stock going down. So not only do they sell the stock at a profit, they buy puts against the stock. So when it does, the information does come out. And the information comes out in the next few days. The negative information, they make money on the stock going down. So they double, they double their money. Do you see the hypocrisy? You didn't think about the families. Now, whether this is morally right, I'm not going to get all off into that. I'm not doing it. I'm not jumping in. I'm not doing that with the Reddit group. But I'm neither am I mad at them either. These kids were heavily, these families were heavily, now I wasn't, I wasn't, I didn't own a home at that time. And I had a pretty good job that was pretty stable. I wasn't laid off. I didn't feel the pain that most families do, but I feel it. And I was sitting here thinking, as I've been reading about all this stuff, and I'm like, wow. Nobody thought that these kids that were affected to that degree would one day grow up with retaliation on their mind. America does not forget when you hurt America. May that be a lesson to the 76 million that voted for our prime president.