Sitting at 8 and 2, well at the time of this video, where can the Ravens actually improve? If Ravens make the playoffs, will Greg Roman actually change things up on offense? If Ravens offensive coordinator Greg Roman was to receive an offer as a head coach, who will take over his role? These and many many more questions on this episode of NFL Questions from Subscribers. You too team keep it clean what's going on as seen Graven here with another video and another episode of NFL Questions from Subscribers. This is a series where you can ask me any NFL question you want to based off of any NFL team and we answer it in a video just like this. Now if you want to be part of NFL Questions from Subscribers just send me an email at teamkeepitcleanatgmail.com. You send me an email, you send it any other way, the question won't be on questions from Subscribers. Send me an email at teamkeepitcleanatgmail.com and we'll put your question in the video. We'll answer your question in the video and then you can get other people's responses to your question in the video just like this. Let's do it. First question came from a boy ace. You say, what's up in Graven? I was thinking if Greg Roman leaves who would replace him? Chip Kelly is out of the question. Okay, I guess he shut that down quick for anybody that was thinking Chip Kelly. I would say right now James Urban, but and this question has come up a lot recently just amongst Ravens fans because of the success that the team is having especially on offense. And it could be applied to offense and defense, but here specifically speaking about offense, I would say my immediate answer was James Urban. James Urban, James Urban, James Urban. He's the QB coach, I believe right now, but it didn't hit me. I think like two days ago, if I'm recording this, the day that I'm recording this, because I know y'all like me telling y'all is November 21st. And it's it's 420 in the morning. Anyway, there you go right there just in case nobody believed me. But anyway, I would say James Urban. That was my immediate answer. But with James Urban, I think if Greg Roman was to leave, I could see him taking James Urban and having him be his offensive coordinator. So the Ravens would and he's been under him. Well, he was he's been with the Ravens for a little has he been with the Ravens the same amount of time as as Greg Roman? I don't remember. But I could see Greg Roman taking him be like, hey, I want this new staff. I want you to come join me. Because that's what a lot of these guys do when they get their promotions and whatnot, they end up taking guys who are currently under them. And when they that they familiar that they're familiar with and bringing them along for the ride. So I could see that happening. So if that was the case, I don't know, man. I don't know. I really don't know. Ah, David Cully, David Cully, he will be the guy. David Cully, they will give it to him. He's familiar with this offense. He's familiar with the receivers. He's familiar with the tight ends as well. It will be David Cully. Next question came from a boy, Josh Hoffman. He said in Graven, happy victory over Texans week. I got another non Ravens question. This one is hard because this is Team Cuban cleaning the topic is controversial. And this one is a little long, although by my standards, maybe not. I tried hard to trim it down to the essentials. All right, here we go. He said, Colin Kaepernick. I think I see what he was trying to do with the workout and I get that. What I don't know is what is he really after just now? Some people think he wants back in the league so he can have politics and controversy take center stage and worry about football second. Now, so long as they don't overstate that case, I understand players wanting to check the league on free speech, on money, whatever. Is that actually what Kaepernick is up to? And is he the one for the job? I have no clue now, man. I don't know. I don't know. I don't think we would really know what Kaepernick wants until he actually would get signed.  They would just have to see. I think it's just one of those things where, at least for me, I have no idea where this thing is going to go. I have no clue what direction is headed in. I just, I don't know. But he said that remarked by his girlfriend when the Ravens maybe wanted to sign him about NFL owners being like slave owners. I wonder what the millions of actual slaves still in the world and billions of people in this country and elsewhere in the world grinding away every day for the equivalent of 50 bucks a day or $10 a week in some places would think when they hear celebrity millionaires and their girlfriends are just so principled, they can't manage to keep quiet about the NFL's being somehow like slavery. That's powerful. NFL players have plenty of issues to bring up.  But slavery, no. They are free to use their college degree that they got on athletic scholarship so they don't have crazy student debt like the rest of us who did college or grad school. And go find a nice career outside the NFL if they're worried about injury or any other reasons. That is a different way to think about things. I never really thought about it like that. That's me saying that, not part of his question. But anyway, more importantly, there are many, many people still today who are very much dealing with the legacy of slavery in real ways. Ways that mean they don't get to have millions of dollars, Nike commercials and their biggest problems in life are PR battles with the NFL. Does Captain Nick want to play football so he can play on a living win, get to the Hall of Fame, etc.? That's what he says. And that's why a lot of folks take his side. I've been one of them. Or does he want to make more political points? Is he just dying to break that rule the league put in about no kneeling, stay in the locker room if you want to kneel, etc.? So he can have the First Amendment lawsuit next. That's what I'm saying. We just don't know what's next for him. We don't know what he truly wants. I don't think anybody will know what he truly wants besides him. Maybe his agent or whatnot. But I don't think anybody will really know until unless he actually got signed. If he got signed, then I think we would then see, we may start to see what it is at that point. And I think it would almost be like if he got signed, it would be one of those things where people would just be waiting. Like, what's going to happen now? What's going to be that next step? But then I think more so, it would be crazier if if he got signed and then he ended up starting and then I think then we might really see something then. Anyway, back to the point or the question. Okay, there we go. Is he that guy who wants to work just so he can find reasons to sue his employer? The NFL has one of the most powerful workers unions in all the world, maybe ever in world history. They don't need his or our help. Mostly players versus owners issues are about money. I wonder how other players feel about not on social media, but really truly feel about the idea of cabinet coming back and maybe stirring up some controversy and hurting everyone's pockets in a big way. They may want him to go run for Congress if that's how it is. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this mini faceted and very deep issue. Thank you as always for handling these questions, but especially on this one. But yeah, it's very, it's hard to answer that because we just don't know, we don't know what, is he just going to just look into play and that's it? Or is he looking to play and use the platform for something else? I don't think that's the question that we can even really answer until it actually happens to where we see him play again, to where we see him have that platform as an NFL quarterback again. To where, to see how he uses it because you know, you know, um, whoever he gets signed, if he were to get signed somewhere, then all the media would follow. The interviews would follow. And he, depending on where he went, actually any way he went, he would get, he would get, he would take a lot of attention off of whoever the starting quarterback is. Whoever this star play is because it'll be capping it. Um, and especially everything that's going on for the past three years, he would, he would, he will bring a lot of attention, but he would get asked the questions from jump. The media would be all over wherever he got signed at from jump. They will be there every single day and they wouldn't go away for a while. They wouldn't go, go away for a while. And then, um, whenever his first pre-season would be, they would be there whenever his, even, even if he got signed, say, for instance, he got signed this week by somebody. He's obviously be a backup. Um, he would get a post game presser without even playing a snap. He would be, he would get a whole presser without even playing a snap. That's just how big his name is right now. In regards to if he were to get signed by somebody, he would take, take all that attention in command, all that attention because of everything that's going on. But again, I think that's when we would truly be able to answer your question. Cause that's just something that right now we just really don't know. Next question came from Eva. Shout out to Eva. She's super supportive. So she said, I remember the excitement when Jaylen Ramsey said he wanted to be traded. I know everyone wanted to cost to the signer, not everybody, but a lot of people did. I was one of them that definitely did. She said, I think there was some disappointment when Marcus Peters was signed. Do you think that maybe Marcus Peters was the cost that was playing the entire time? Maybe he never wanted Jaylen Ramsey and it wasn't a miss. From the stats, MP Juice Man and my Mark Ingram voice was the better deal. Anyway, he's just my thoughts. I hope you and the fam are doing well. Who that? Cause she's a Saints fan. She's a Saints fan, but she's a Louisville fan too. She's a big supporter of Lamar Jackson. And she said Jaylen Stats, since he joined the Rams, solo tackles, 16, assisted tackles, three tackles for loss, none, interceptions, none, touchdowns, none, yards, none. Marcus Peters, since he joined the Ravens, solo tackles, 16, assisted tackles, two, tackles for loss, none, interceptions, two, touchdowns, two, yards, 156. I don't think that, I don't think that Marcus Peters was Eric Dacosta's plan the whole time. I think once the Rams got Jaylen Ramsey, then it was like, okay, yeah, we wasn't gonna let this guy go. So I think that it was at that point when Marcus Peters became the option. And for them to get a quality corner who, they saw his struggle. I'm sure they saw his struggle. I'm sure they did their research. So they saw what he struggled with. But at the same time, they also saw what he was good at. And they were like, huh, we can bring this guy over and actually use him the correct way, unlike the Rams were doing for enough of the time. Because I know a lot of Rams fans, and not saying that he won't ever get beat, but a lot of Rams, when we first traded, oh man, he sucks anyway. He's burnt toast. I mean, X-Tem Williams. That's what he said. He's like, y'all traded my boy Kenny Young for burnt toast. But it has worked out really, really good. Like really, really good. And hopefully, I don't know if you'll see this video before or after the game, the Rams game coming up on Monday night. But it has definitely worked out very good for the Ravens. And hopefully he gets a chance to shine and show why the Ravens ended up coming out on the better end of this deal. Appreciate you, Eva. Next question came from my boy LV Super Gamer. Well, this was a little group of questions. He said, what QB do you think is better than Lamar out of all 31, 31 teams? Better than Lamar. Right now, Mahomes, right now, right now. Yeah, Mahomes, that's a very hard question. And I'm not saying that, oh yeah, he's the best quarterback in the NFL and nobody can touch him. But I'm just thinking of all the things that he does. Because I think it all depends on what we're basing it on. If we're basing it on right here, right now, I say Mahomes. See, the thing is that it's just weird. It's a weird comparison because with Lamar, like with the Mahomes, and I was thinking Aaron Rodgers too. But it's like with those guys, if you limit them in one area, they don't really have a backup that they can go to to give them help. Like if you limit their passing game, it ain't like they can just use their legs and make all these plays and whatnot. In Lamar, it's like if you limit one, then he can hit you with the other. And if you limit the other, then he can hit you with the other one. And this is special. The guys that I think are some of the best QBs in the league, yeah, Mahomes and Rodgers. Brady is falling off.  And of course, he don't have the best help in the world, but usually with Brady, the thing that we would always say is that he can do more with less. But it's been rough. So yeah, Mahomes, Rodgers. I really like Watson, but is he better than Lamar? He holds on to the ball too long, but he'll be making some plays. Who else? Who else? Who else is up there as far as the QBs? I feel like I'm missing somebody, but I can't think of nobody. Oh, Russell Wilson. He's up there too. Russell Wilson. Can't forget about him. I can't think of anybody else right now. I really can't. His next question was, should the Costa get GM of the year? If it was up to Raven's fans, then he certainly would get it already. And this season is not even done. And there's fans of other teams too that always, oh, I wish our GM would do something like that. It happens every move that he makes, not everyone, but a lot of them, especially the trades and some of the signings that he did early in the year. So right now he could, he could. Let's see how the season finishes out though. He also said, do you think Eric D'Costa can become one of the best GMs in the NFL? Yes, most certainly because he's had some great training from Ozzie Newsom. And he should have been, I mean, he was able to take some stuff that he liked Ozzy, that Ozzie Newsom did and some stuff that he didn't like that Ozzie Newsom did and take that and put his own little spin on it. And Ken Lamar be up there with Brady in the future. Yeah, if you just maintain a level of success and consistency, that's it, just that level of success and consistency, and he sure got the chance to. Next question came from a boy, John Moore. He said, when it comes to playoff time, do you think Greg Roman will tweak up the place? Example, if the Ravens play the Texans or the Patriots in the playoffs, they know what's coming at them. Me, I would show them something they've never seen before or never seen it coming. I think you would, man. I think he would have something ready because it seems like, again, and I'm so glad that they didn't bring it out again, at least not yet. I'm so glad because, and that shows something right there. I'm so glad that they didn't bring out that Heisman package again because they used that in the, I think it was the Bengals game. Was it the Bengals game? I think. Anyway, they used that and it got the world talking. Everybody, oh, it has a package, has a package, has a package. But first off, it showed that the Ravens, they got something, they got another bullet in the chamber just in case they need to pull it out. They got another trick in the bag just in case they need to pull it out. And it showed some creativity, but it showed something that wasn't too crazy as far as creativity. But it was a little crazy, but it was nice, crazy. But I think they do and I think they will actually have something. It seems like Roman actually does have a plan B and that's something, especially in that playoff game from last year, that's something that wasn't shown until late, late, late in the game.  Whatever. Throw out the playbook, let Lamar do his thing. And he did it and guess what? Ravens just somehow started coming back. Anyway, I do think they would definitely show something different come playoff time because that would be like, hey, this is it. And you got to pull everything out. You have to pull everything out. That's not a time to be conservative, not a time to hold back, not a time to be timid. You got to pull everything out and just really go for it. Because this is that's when I go home. That's when or go home. You ain't got time to look forward to next week. You gots to win. So you can't look forward to next week. So it ain't no in a playoff. So they know, okay, let's group and let's let's focus. And let's let's get better at that. No, no, you ain't got no time for that. Because if you don't get better at whatever it is you're struggling with in that game, then it's going to be lights out. Next question came from my boy Abel. He said, hello, I engraving. I got a quick question. Do you think that when it when the time comes, we should prioritize resigning our three tight ends over a number one wide receiver? I also it also spent like three minutes trying to figure out something to call our three tight ends, but I couldn't come up with anything. They definitely need a group nickname. So let's see what teamkeeper clean can come up with. All right, we will definitely see. So y'all feel free in the comment section to let us know a nickname for those three tight ends. I know Ravens called them the three headed monster one time. I think more than Humphrey called them something else. I forgot what the name was that he said. But anyway, well, they already resigned Nick Boyle. But I do see what you're saying with Hayden Hurst, with Mark Andrews, his contract is shorter than a Hayden Hurst. And I actually think right now the way that things are going, I know it's only been a year and a half or actually it's only been like a year. But well, actually a year and a half because Mark Andrews, he's been playing from the jump because Hayden Hurst got hurt last year. But over this last year and a half, Mark Andrews is trending up and Hayden Hurst, not that he's trending down, but for where they were selected in the draft, Andrews is trending up and Hayden is I don't want to say trending down, but Mark Andrews, it's looked like Mark Andrews has been the first round pick and not Hayden Hurst, but that's just how stuff ended up working out due to that injury. And injuries, they changed the game, man. They changed the game and Hayden Hurst, he was looking really good. And not that he's looked bad, but he's been like sort of stuck in the middle. Because it's been Mark Andrews, the number one target among the tight ends on the Ravens. He is that guy making all the plays, making all the catches. Then there's Nick Boyle. Nick Boyle is the primary blocking tight end. He makes a lot of catches in the passing game too now, especially over the past couple of weeks. They done ramped it up a lot. And then Hayden Hurst, he'll make his catch hand there, but he's like the middleman. He's almost like the middle child. Not that he's just there, but he's made his little fair share of plays, but not like the other two. But it's still nice to have all three. But I do think, oh, but basically what I was saying, when that time comes, I think Mark Andrews, you definitely get that money. And they have the fifth year option with Hayden Hurst. So they got some time. They'll have more time with Hayden Hurst than they will with Mark. Well, yeah, because his contract, as long as I believe Mark Andrews would be like a four-year deal. And Hayden Hurst would be a five-year deal because of that fifth year option. So Mark Andrews could end up getting signed sooner. And that's going to be something, man. Because do you sign three tight ends? Because they obviously already signed Nick Boyle. But he's on a three-year deal. So we'll see what happens with that. But do you re-sign three tight ends? Or do you just draft another one? I'm thinking that, especially with Eric D'Costa, I'm thinking that he would just end up drafting another. I don't see him paying three tight ends. But at the same time, you never know. You never know where the NFL will be at. You never know where the Ravens will be at with their tight ends at that point. You would just have to wait and see. But right now, I would think no. I would think they would only re-sign two and then build through the draft. Next questions came from a guy at Jarvis. He said, watching Undisputed this morning, and Mike Vic mentioned something that caught my attention. What do you think this offense goes if we lose Greg Roman because we are known for losing staff every offseason? That's true. They sure are. The thing that goes wherever David Coley goes, because that was a question that was mentioned earlier. I think they go where David Coley goes. I think they would transition because I think if Greg Roman were to leave, I think he would end up taking James Urban and having James Urban be his offensive coordinator if he became a head coach. And I think David Coley would then assume responsibility. As being the offensive coordinator. Because with the Ravens, especially on offense, defense, defense they do the same thing. But on offense, you know what? I can't even say that all the time. Because actually they don't. Usually they do it on defense. They promote from within. But for offense, they can sometimes do some outside hires. But in this case, I think that they would want somebody that was comfortable with Jackson already. Not to say that somebody can come in and be comfortable with them. But I think they will want to work with somebody or have somebody on staff that knows Lamar, knows the offense, knows the receivers, the tight ends, is familiar with a little bit of everybody on offense. So they could make the transition smoother. And my guy Jarvis, his next question, he said Ravens flock Super Bowl winners. Watching some Dion Sanders highlights and forgot that he played with us. Yeah, he was number 37. He got that pick six. I think it was against the Beals. Anyway, he said, could you imagine how dangerous our defense would have been if we had prime time in his prime? Ray Lewis, Sizzle and Ed Reid in their primes. How many championships do you think we could have won? I think the same amount that they did win, just two. Because they did have some championship defenses. They had plenty of championship defenses, but the offense didn't do nothing. So I think they would have won the exact same amount of championships Super Bowls that they won, because the Ravens have been so far behind on the eight ball with offense for so long, that all those championship defenses that they had, they ended up getting wasted away. Next question came from a boy, Isaiah. He said, what's up in Raven? Being a Ravens fan like myself, I'm sure you are beyond pleased with how our season is going so far. Yes, certainly. He said, all respect to Fleco, but I have never seen a Ravens offense worth talking about like this one. We all know this is a tough league, and we can't take our foot off the pedal. I'm worried about Tucker slightly, with the extra point two weeks ago in the Missfield goal attempt this past week. But my main question is, where can we improve? Where can the Ravens improve? Getting the Y receivers involved more, opening up their game even more with getting the Y receivers involved more. Besides Hollywood, even getting him involved a little bit more too. But I think that's what they could definitely improve. That's the biggest thing. Impinities, penalties. They don't get like a crazy amount of penalties, but one of the penalties they usually always get is 12 men on the field. They didn't get that in the Texans game though. I don't believe they did. Or did they? I don't know, but that's one that they usually get like every game or every other game. So I think that's what they can improve with getting the Y receivers involved and cutting down on stupid penalties.  The penalties that are just unnecessary. The 12 men on the field penalty, I think that is definitely coaching right there. So that's what they can improve with that, because you as a coach, if you're switching in and out personnel, you got to get these guys ready. You got to have them moving. You got to have that hustle in them, man. Until they come off the field, you go and hurry. Like you really got to be on point with that. So that and like the defense been making plays, offense been making plays. Pass rush too. Pass rush. I know they had seven sex last week. I know that. But pass rush would be another one because with a lot of those sex, had it been another quarterback that actually got rid of the ball in a decent amount of time, a lot of those sex probably wouldn't happen. But to Sean Watson, he holds on to the ball for a really long time. So that means the coverage was good up top. So good job to Marcus Peters, Marlon Humphrey, Jimmy Smith, Chuck Clark, all of them. But had the pass rush been a little better, then it would have got there a lot sooner. Because one of the sex was 10 seconds. That's crazy. Like that's crazy that cornerbacks were covering for that long. But it's even crazy that our pass rush couldn't get there for that long. And to Sean Watson, there's a mobile quarterback. So I understand that.  But that would be it. So where can the Ravens improve?  Next question came from a boy Reggie. He said, I hope the fame is good. And I love the live streams during and after the games. Appreciate that, man. Thank you. He said, I have two questions for you. First, do you believe that Lamar Jackson and this team can maintain that fight and fight past this season? If we win the Super Bowl, because Baltimore will no longer be the overlooked team. I do. I do because Lamar's leadership, the way that he's been, he doesn't overlook any game. And it shows on this team that they don't take anybody lightly. They don't overlook any team. And they, yeah, it's just been showing. It's been showing that focus. That focus is these dudes are, they ready, they hungry, and they want this bad. They want it bad. So yeah, I think they can maintain that fire because I think they just, just speaking from Lamar, him as a leader, it seems like he just wants to be great. Seems like he wants to be great. And he is willing to do whatever it takes to win and willing to put the team on his back. So I think they definitely can. And he said a second, do you believe Lamar would struggle if Greg Roman was to leave to be a head coach? See, all the team keeping clean on the same page. This episode of NFL questions from subscribers because that seems to be a question that's on everybody's mind. Now, I think it would actually be fine. As long as they could just continue to let him be him. That would be my biggest thing with whoever ended up being the offensive coordinator if Greg Roman decided to leave. Because you know he's going to get office. You know he's going to get office. Wink is going to get office. But that would be my biggest concern with anybody that came in or anybody that was promoted. If they would try not to let Lamar be Lamar. If they were going to let Lamar be Lamar, let them do his thing. And I think it would again, I think it would be David Cully. But if as long as they let Lamar be Lamar, I think Ravens would be just fine.


I'm Kenzie Grant and here with me now is James Nathaniels, the CEO of ProPank. So can you tell us a little bit more about what ProPank does? ProPank is a research and development company developing a technology that targets cancer stem cells in patients suffering from solid tumors and we're looking to go into clinical trials next year. All right so with these clinical trials upcoming what are you most excited about coming down the pipeline for the company? Yeah well we're testing our drug in patients for the very first time in a formal clinical trial. We'll start off in in solid tumors and then move into pancreatic and ovarian cancers. What excites me the most is to see how this drug behaves now in humans. We've done all the formal preclinical development and if we can show now this efficacy in patients then it's something really significant and we think it could really make a difference in our patients lives. Okay can you just describe a little bit what a solid tumor is? Yes so a solid tumor is something that originates from an organ within the body so it's not a leukemia or from the bone marrow or from the lymph glands or in the blood but a solid tumor from an organ. And about what percentage of I mean if you know what percentage of all cancers are from solid tumors? Well it's about eight percent of cancers are from solid tumors so if this works in one the pathways that our drug targets means that it'll work for nearly most common solid tumors so this is what's really exciting about the potential of our drug. All right and so with this drug you know a little bit still down the pipeline you don't exactly have a source of revenue from it yet what do you do to stoke optimism in your investors? Okay what we're looking to do right now is restructure the balance sheet with some monies raised bring in some equity that could enable us to qualify to perhaps uplift to an exchange. So we've been working in discussions with investors here at this conference but also outside of that. Also what we're looking to do is initiate licensing discussions as soon as we start to generate that human data in trials which is approximately three months in we'll be looking to reignite some discussions that we've already had with top tier oncology companies of about 20 who express the desire to see the human data. So this could generate significant revenue and unlock a lot of value for the company.


Considering how famous the Battle of Bannockburn is in Scottish history, you would have thought that historians would have agreed upon the exact location of the battle decades upon decades ago. Well, think again. The exact location of the battlefield has been debated for decades, but has it been found? This is the Battle of Bannockburn Visitor Centre, just south of Stirling. A major tourist attraction today, it is home to the statue of Robert the Bruce in addition to other features. Yet despite what some may think, the battle never actually took place here. Bruce is known to have camped here shortly before the battle with his troops, a great watchpoint for the approaching English army, but this is not the site of the battlefield, according to most historians. In 2001 Stirling Council wanted to find out the exact location of the battle. The hired a team of historians, led by Fiona Watson, to dig through thousands of documents and explore various theories on the exact location, the precise location of the Battle of Bannockburn. Four possible locations emerged. Watson pinpointed at the dryfield of Balquidrock, where the playing fields at Bannockburn High School are today, is the most likely site where the Battle of Bannockburn took place. It's under a mile from the Battle of Bannockburn Visitor Centre, and it geographically matches the most features that were described in ancient texts, according to Watson. Watson noted that a ravine described by ancient chronicles as an evil ditch, where English soldiers were pushed into and slain, has been part of Bluebell Woods, a local wood nearby. Do you agree with Watson however? Please let me know your thoughts in the comments below. What was the precise location of the Battle of Bannockburn? Now that we have a better understanding of the location of the battle, what about the battle itself, and what events caused the battle to erupt? Obviously this is a massive question, but I'll try and give you the condensed version. In the period leading up to the battle, Bruce had successfully employed guerrilla warfare tactics against English forces. In 1313, Bruce had also demanded that any supporters of the ousted King John Belial swear loyalty to him or lose their lands. By 1314, there were only two Scottish fortresses controlled by England, one at Berwick and the other at Stirling Castle. In early 1314, Bruce's forces had agreed a deal with the English garrison inside Stirling Castle. If no English really for me was on its way by mid-summer, the castle would be surrendered to Bruce. Upon hearing the news, Edward II marched the largest army to ever invade Scotland up until that point north to relieve Stirling Castle. The Battle of Bannockburn took place on the 23rd and 24th of June, 1314. The epic opening exchange set the tone for the entire episode. Robert the Bruce was at the head of his troops, leading his men to battle. Henry Dubon, an English knight, spotted the opportunity for glory and charged at Bruce, leading with his lands. Just as the English knight approached Bruce, the Scottish King slipped the lands and instantly propelled himself back up, smashing his axe through the English knight's skull. Energised, Scottish forces forced the English cavalry to withdraw. As the battle progressed, English attempts to outflank the Scots failed, and the Scottish infantry stood strong. Bruce had won the opening day. During the night, a Scottish noble who was serving in the English army defected to Bruce and brought him crucial intelligence, giving the Scots an edge the following day. When battle on the second day ensued, the English army failed to effectively utilise their archers, and the Scottish forces tore through the chaotic English lines as they began to disintegrate as Edward fled. Hundreds of English soldiers drowned in the burn as they desperately tried to escape the slaughter, as the Scottish force of approximately 6000 troops triumphed. The following day, English forces in Stirling Castle surrendered to Bruce. In the aftermath of the battle, Bruce ensured that the memory of the victory was preserved, and tales of the battle were composed shortly after it finished. Robert the Bruce was in complete military control of Scotland, yet on the political side it was a bit more nuanced. On one hand, victory in the battle helped to consolidate Robert the Bruce's hold on the Crown. As some followers of the ousted king, John Belial, switched their religions to Robert the Bruce, yet domestic opposition to Bruce still remained. The reality is, some Scots fought against Robert the Bruce before, during and after the Battle of Bannockburn. Bruce himself, however, remained king until his death in 1329. Before Bruce died, a short-lived peace with England was achieved, which is self-own the last eight five years. A year after Edward II was disposed in 1327, the First Scottish War of Independence was concluded when the Treaty of Edinburgh, Northampton, was signed with England, which recognised Scotland's independence and the kingship of Robert the Bruce. The Second Scottish War of Independence soon followed, but this will be the subject of a future video. Thanks for watching. If you'd like to support this work through Patreon and get ad-free content, donate through PayPal or buy me a coffee. All the links are in the description below. Please also tell your friends and family about this channel and subscribe and hit the bell. Thanks for watching and I'll see you next time.


On a recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, Tulsi Gabbard was there for her second appearance and she's already been a leader when it comes to this issue of Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and this broader issue relating to civil liberties and how little by little our civil liberties are being eroded. So she talks about it here and she makes not just a strong argument for why it was important for what Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden did, but she then says what she would do as president. So the first thing I want to show you is what she says about Julian Assange because this is incredibly strong. She is very clear in making the case as to why we should all be against the arrest and extradition of Julian Assange, not necessarily because we like Julian Assange as a person, but because this has broader implications that go beyond Julian Assange and the 2016 election. Take a look. What happened with his arrest and all this stuff that just went down I think poses a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech. We look at what happened under the previous administration under Obama. They were trying to find ways to go after Assange and WikiLeaks, but ultimately they chose not to seek to extradite him or charge him because they recognized what a slippery slope that begins when you have a government in a position to levy criminal charges and consequences against someone who's publishing information or saying things that the government doesn't want you to say. Sharing information the government doesn't want you to share. The fact that the Trump administration has chosen to ignore that fact, to ignore how important it is that we uphold our freedoms, freedom of the press and freedom of speech and go after him, it has a very chilling effect on both journalists and publishers. You can look to both those in the traditional media, but also those in new media and also on on every one of us as American. It was it was a kind of a warning call saying, look what happened to this guy. It could happen to you could happen to any one of us. So that in my view was important. If you are a leader, what you need to do is educate people because individuals in the United States, they just they don't know about this particular issue. They're bombarded with propaganda from mainstream media. And so it's just embedded in them that they have to hate Julian Assange. But this isn't even about Julian Assange. He was arrested because of the 2010 Chelsea Manning leaks. And what's really odd to me is that people have this visceral reaction. Like I actually attended a town hall just a couple of weeks ago with my senator, Jeff Merkley, and I asked the question to him about Julian Assange and Trump's administration, possibly extraditing him to the United States. And I asked what his opinion was and what he could possibly do as a U.S. senator to kind of influence the situation and protect civil liberties. He completely dodged the question. And I like Jeff Merkley. This is someone who is relatively progressive or in fact, very progressive. You could argue, nonetheless, he dodges the question. And he kind of gave me this generic response about, well, you know, this is really a balance between national security and civil liberties and how we balance that as a country. It wasn't a great answer. But one thing that also struck me is that when I was asking the question and when Chelsea Manning's name and Julian Assange's name came out of my mouth, the people in front of me, they literally scoffed as if I said Voldemort in the Harry Potter movies. Like it was so weird to me that people just instinctively are against Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning. But I think this is because they're not educated, because the mainstream media hasn't been doing their job. And you'd think mainstream media cable news shows would want to do their job because this affects them. If they were to publish leaks that were obtained illegally, they could be penalized if we set this new precedent where Julian Assange is prosecuted. So you'd think mainstream media would do their part and educate people, but they're not doing that. But with Tulsi Gabbard here, what she did and why it was so important was she educated people about this. People don't get it.  He leaked information about Hillary Clinton in 2016. He leaked the DNC emails and he didn't leak the Republican RNC emails, so obviously he's a Republican Party shield, but he's being prosecuted because of the leaks in 2010. He published the Manning leaks, which exposed war crimes that our government was committing. And that's what Tulsi Gabbard communicates here as clear as day, and she's doing a phenomenal job.  Now, she also talked about Edward Snowden, which politicians seem to not want to touch with a 10 foot pole, but she does a fantastic job explaining why his leaks were monumental. I don't think we, you know, I remember the very day that I woke up in DC, looked at my phone, started looking through the headlines and saw those headlines about how the NSA was mass surveilling all of us in collecting our phone records, collecting our cell phone records and Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile. And I was I was shocked. So that was something that Snowden uncovered and released, something that I don't know that even as members of Congress, we would have been aware of. So now that we were aware of it, then, hey, we can take action to close those loopholes, to change those policies, to protect our civil liberties, to protect our Fourth Amendment constitutional rights as Americans. But was the NSA going to disclose that information voluntarily on their own? Absolutely not. That was phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal. And it's one of these issues that bugs me because even the most progressive politicians, they won't speak out forcefully about Edward Snowden. What he did there was heroic. He is a hero for what he did. He exposed the NSA and them spying on the American people without a warrant. Our civil liberties can be eroded willy nilly and nobody will really care. And part of the problem is that you can't care if you don't know what's at stake and people genuinely are not educated, which which is why I think it's so important for someone like Tulsi Gabbard to speak about this because nobody knows what's at stake and why the Snowden leaks were so important and why the Manning leaks were so important. So what Tulsi Gabbard is doing here as a public service, she is educating people. Now, education is one really important component. But what really matters is the policy prescription that she's offering. Now, Joe Rogan asked her what she would do in the event she were elected president with regard to Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. What she says here is fantastic. What would you do about Julian Assange? What would you do about Edward Snowden? As far as what would you do? Once you dropping the charges, president of the world right now, dropping the charges. You drop the charges, but they're still going after him for something from Sweden in Julian Assange's case. And so Edward Snowden would be the only one that you would be able to write because unless you would influence the charges that the Trump administration is putting on Julian Assange. Right, exactly. And it remains to be seen whether or not they will push for extradition. Edward Snowden. What he's doing right now is essentially living day to day hold up in Russia and hiding. And the charges against him stem from, again, this illegal operation that he in many ways is very patriotic. I mean, he let us know and at great cost. Yeah. So you would give him a pardon. Yeah. Yeah. And I think address we've got to address why he did the things the way that he did them. And you hear the same thing from Chelsea Manning, how there is not there is not an actual channel for whistleblowers like them to bring forward information that exposes egregious abuses of our constitutional rights and liberties. Period. I mean, there's there was not a channel for that to happen in a real way. And that's why they ended up taking the path that they did and suffering the consequences. That was great. That was absolutely great. She would drop the charges against Julian Assange and pardon Edward Snowden. That's fantastic. She is the first politician besides Mike Ravel to unequivocally say I would pardon Edward Snowden. I would drop the charges against Julian Assange. We wouldn't opt for extradition. She can't control what the British government does. But as US president, she can control how we respond to Julian Assange. And since he's not a US citizen, she can't pardon him. She doesn't have that authority, obviously. So what she can say is we're not going to pursue him. She can also say we're not going to pursue Chelsea Manning. She is pardoned. I mean, Obama already commuted her sentence, but she can choose as a leader to not pursue Chelsea Manning and she can pardon Edward Snowden just full stop. This is really strong. This is incredibly powerful. So this goes to show you what type of president she would be when it comes to this issue of civil liberties, civil rights. And I'm going to link you to the full clip in the description box because she goes on to talk about the FISA court and how this is basically a rubber stamp to violate civil liberties. This was a phenomenal portion of the Joe Rogan podcast. I haven't watched all of it yet, but I did see this particular clip. It's about 13 minutes long. I want to say she does an amazing job here at laying all of this out and she's someone who even if you don't support her as your number one, you want to build her up because in the event Bernie or Warren becomes the nominee, I would like to see Warren or Gabbard, excuse me, in the future administration, because if she's in the next Democratic Party administration, then we know that the standard that she would be pushing for is to protect whistleblowers, is to uphold the Constitution and American civil liberties. And people may not care about this, but regardless, if you like it or not, or want to acknowledge it or not, if you want to live in a democracy, then if we don't abide by the Constitution and we don't protect our civil liberties, that doesn't just mean that the Constitution is being eroded, but democracy itself is being eroded. And for whatever reason, there's only one person that seems to get that and it's Tulsi Gabbard. So kudos to her phenomenal interview here. Great portion of the podcast. I look forward to watching the rest of it because this here is really strong. She is coming out swinging on this issue and it really sets her apart from everyone else who is unwilling to speak about this issue or is saying things that aren't great about this issue. There's been other presidential candidates who are basically just siding with the establishment narrative when it comes to Julian Assange, at least, and will remain silent when it comes to Edward Snowden. But what she's saying here is that we need to reverse course. It's time we actually protect whistleblowers. And that's incredibly powerful. Girlie Mike Fettuccine needs your support on Patreon.  Visit patreon.com slash humanist report to support the low ratings humanist report. Sad. My views are much higher.


This is Think Tech Hawaii, Community Matters here. Okay, we're back, we're live, Global Connections at the 2 o'clock block here on a given Wednesday with our friend in Puebla, in the University of Puebla, which is I think east of Mexico City and he joins us by Zoom. And we are happy to talk to him today on Global Connections about the new populism in Latin America. Welcome back to your show, Carlos. Well, thank you, Jay, and then actually I'm joining you today from Mexico City. I've trekked over here for the day, joining you to really reflect on some important changes happening in Latin America, the region that sometimes gets so neglected, given all the drama in the Middle East and Russia and China, such an important plaiter for the world. Latin America has just reached Mexico and Brazil 10 days ago, because it was so narrow, a new populist leader, a right-wing populist, and obviously a variation that will say more about a closely connected to his interests with Donald Trump and a very interesting ship from a traditional leftist orientation of their politics for the last decade or two towards the right. And in Mexico now, 40 days ago in December, they've inaugurated a new president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, another populist from the left, a leftist leader who both of these have some similarities in that they reflect a desire to really move away from the traditional political elite of government that are very different, one from the left in Mexico and one from the far right in the case of Brazil. So I want to maybe just reflect on these two and get a sense of what implications they're going to have for regional and global affairs, but also for the countries themselves, these two important Latin American countries. Yeah, we have a million questions. So how does this populism, the left and the right, differ? And how does it differ from Trump's populism? And I suppose I would also throw into that question, how are they affected by Trump's populism? Is this some sort of cause and effect here? It's an interesting question. I mean, on one hand, you could say, for example, the case of the Brazilian new president, he brought many of the tactics of Trump, but effective use of particularly social media and very aggressive against the establishment of a map fighter. And it does reflect a trend beyond even Trump. We've seen in some European countries a rise of populist leaders, primarily on the right, that are challenging the democratic ideals and then pushing more authoritarian tendency. And so the Brazilian case kind of follows us a bit. The leader Bolsonaro, he's been a long time politician, so he's not really outside of the system, even though that's how he came in. But he, in some ways, he campaigned bringing a very hard line anti-immigrant stance in many ways. He has said some outlandish things, saying that the military rule that Brazil left about 30 years ago didn't go far enough. And so he's made some initial moves that are rather on one hand, bubbling or addressing alerts to the far right. I'll articulate some of those in a moment. But the case of Mexico, also a populist leader who is taking on the establishment, but in this case from the left, a leftist leader because Mexico, long governed by a one-party rule, also experienced a brief temporary shift to sort of a right-wing party for about 12 years, but just now finished a president who came from the traditional party, Pena Nieto. He left office, and so a different case of the leader in Mexico, a leftist populist leader. But again, interesting to see parallels, but also real differences. Well, you know, this does raise the question of what exactly are we dealing with in Mexico these days? I mean, very interesting. Next hour, the next hour, we're going to be talking to somebody who's involved in an energy conference, a global energy conference in Mexico City. Who knows? Maybe it's down the block from where you are. Anyway, Mexico is arising somehow. People think of Mexico as a developing country, maybe a third-world country. But in fact, Mexico has a lot of first-world country attributes these days. Otherwise, you wouldn't be there, would you? And so what I'm saying is we need to understand more about Mexico, to understand what's his name, AMLO, AMLO, the president now, to see how populism could surface this way. And how Mexico reacts to what Trump and Trump's wall are doing. So what kind of a place, in that context, Carlos, what kind of a place is Mexico these days? Is it advanced? Or does it have poverty and shortages? Is it dangerous? Or does it have a rule of law? Well, all of you, Bob, except the last one, the rule of law is a bit weak. But it is a very mixed place. On the one hand, a very dynamic and burgeoning high tech and manufacturing sector. And the NAFTA agreement now 25 years in place has really been a boom, primarily to the north and parts of the central Mexico. Again, a steep level of integration and loss of economic growth. So that's unquestionable. And yet the criticism of that process of liberalizing the economy now about 30 years ago has also further deepened the divide there. There's an inequality that's quite substantial. So the southern part of Mexico and many parts of the urban areas, I mean, you have a large population, half the population, it remains very poor, very sort of outside of even the formal economy, a large informal sector. So that divide has been a source of frustration. And indeed, part of what's pushing for this new shift to the left is a desire to address that, the inequality and injustice. Now, add it onto that. And it's interesting because, yes, there is violent, highest rates of murder. And obviously, these organized criminal organizations, we know the Narcos cartels, even Netflix, a popular show and all. It is here. It's very real. There are parts of Mexico where clearly the state does not have effective control. But then, having said that, there is still a very dynamic, modern, you know, and I would say, while there is crisis, in fact, in some ways, it's more of a country that's in flux. It's going through the motions of trying to address these challenges. Now, this new leader is, of course, on one hand, supporters, as addressing a lot of this corruption and incompetency and inefficiency and social injustice, some of his critics and attractors obviously fear that he might be lurching, maybe comparing him to Venezuela, Zubo Chavez, more state intervention, reversing many of the market reform. It remains to be seen. But certainly, he is bringing some change. Some of it needed, some of it important, but his own particular style is also called into question. He's very impulsive. He doesn't have a lot of detailed plans but tends to kind of lurch one way or the other. But clearly, he's taking on some very powerful vested interest, and that's not easy for any politician. So it's been sort of a mixed bag so far. He's been making important changes, trying to address even maybe a, he represents kind of a very different kind of leader outside of the traditional sort of politicians we've seen in recent decades. He's a more plain talking, frugal living. He cut his salary in half. He moved out of the presidential palace and turned it into an open sort of cultural, museum for the population to see. He's trying to stamp out corruption, but it's also one of those things you can't do overnight and it takes on some powerful interest. So beyond that, so again, AMLO represents this shift for Mexico. His focus is clearly more domestic. He hasn't been particularly interested in foreign affairs. He hasn't, at this early stage, he still remains, I think, fairly cordial in the relations with the US. He hasn't taken it on as a big issue. He's addressing more domestic issues understandably. But nevertheless, the relations with the US remain still very delicate. This came to office, we've seen a very tense situation given the crisis over the caravan, the migration, the wall, all of that. Mexicans, obviously, look with a lot of disdain at the very critical of the words that have come from President Trump. So they're also puzzled with how much further than that go. When will it change? So we're still in a period of US-X relations but it's down from where they had been in previous years. But their importance for the countries are deeply interconnected and certainly in terms of trade and commerce. I mean, there's a lot that connects the two countries and that will continue. But Mexico, again, has a particular complex interdependence of US that doesn't exist with Brazil. Brazil is a bigger country, bigger industry, like Mexico, again, very similar. Complex, deeply divided society, a large population that's marginalized but also a very dynamic, industrial, high-tech industries, major exporter. Both of these, we would consider them emerging powers. They are regional players, Brazil in particular, part of the Bricks Club, the Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, sort of a leader among the developing world. But these terms, we hear, third world development, they're not always accurate because again, you can go to Palo or to Rio and have a very modern first world experience, turn the corner, just like in Mexico City and suddenly you're hit with the reality of injustice, poverty, in efficiency. So it's a real mixed bag on one hand. But very important, these are countries that have a profound trade relationship with the US, with Europe, and they are not going away. They're gonna continue to be evolving, more urbanized, large growing middle classes. I think because of these changes going on now, they reflect a lot of disenchantment with corruption that's happened in recent years, both on the left and right, and just a bit higher for change. So there's some parallels with understanding phenomenon, part of it is the individual, part of it is this sort of changing global economy where obviously some people are being left out and maybe the story of a generation or two ago is suddenly not the same and there's a lot of anxiety there. Well, what I get is there's a common denominator here between Mexico and even though the populism is in the one case left and the one case right, the common denominator is that people are dissatisfied, there is a big divide, and they're looking for a solution and they don't mind, in fact, they will vote for somebody who's selling populism in each case, which is sort of repressive, autocratic, not necessarily rooted in the rule of law, a complete change, and as one fellow put it to me the other day, disruptive. They're looking for something that will disrupt the status quo and I think it sounds from what you say that that's a common denominator in both places and other places too. Yeah, absolutely. And again, taking on the establishment now and what that means is that while they both receive very substantial support, Amlo has a majority now in the Congress with his own new party. He received the overwhelming majority, the same in the case of Brazil. I would say we have to understand it's not so much the excitement about them as individuals, although they each have their core base, but as much a frustration with the political establishment and the protest vote, let's say you could say with Trump's base, he's got a core base, but there were many who simply wanted to send a protest signal to the traditional political elite. That is there. Again, as we speak to in Brazil and Mexico, it's just fascinating to see that you've got one model in Mexico pushing to the left, addressing social justice, trying to root out the corruption, but in a way that kind of also opening space, giving a voice to those who traditionally have been voiceless, so that on one hand is good, but it also means trying to rule by, you know, in some way by popular decrees and that can be messy. Democracy, obviously are supposed to be where you elect officials and let them make decisions, but in the case of Mexico, this new leader has already embarked on a lot of what he calls a consultation, like a referendum, but they're not necessarily done very well. A small percentage actually show up to vote and then you're suddenly making decisions rather, you know, impulsively by very complex ones. For example, a very large new airport that's being built here in the outskirts of Mexico City, a massive project, $10 billion, 30% of it's done. The new president comes in, calls a referendum, the people who support him overwhelmingly say, no, we don't want that. So now they reverse that and it's a very messy process. Wow, that's messy, yeah. And you know, if it had been at the earlier stage, you might understand, okay, they're deciding against it, but it's more than 30% done and now the decision has been made to just stop it. Well, you can be assured that the business interests, you know, have contracts that they're gonna get paid with and it's been kind of sending mixed signal to the business community about what the new regime means. So that's one of the challenges, you know, trying to rule in ways that are giving voice to the voices, but often if it's not done well, it can also, you can lose credibility and legitimacy by just, you know, moving forward with these referendums as a way of making public policy. But, you know, again, in the case of Brazil, a different side, what we've seen is more alarming, initial move, you know, restricting indigenous rights, the LGBT rights have now been also taken away, eradicating a labor ministry. So eroding what had traditionally been maybe rights of different groups in society. A couple of days ago, the president of Mexico decided not to join a large group of other Latin Americans to criticize Venezuela, in many ways, taking the position that, well, if they're sovereignty, we don't wanna, you know, interfere with their domestic affairs. But meanwhile, Colombia, Venezuela, other, I'm sorry, other neighboring countries, Chile, Peru, have all been very critical of the case of Venezuela because of its assault on the press, on, you know, human rights, on, you know, a range of issues. These are tough issues and, you know, I can't be optimistic, but I'm hopeful that, you know, in this age of media, we also bring out more transparency because we can see more and more of what goes on and it's a pretty ugly underbelly once we open that up. Well, you know, years ago, I remember the Organization of American States was at OAS. And of course, it was supported by the U.S. and as I recall by the United Nations as well. And the idea was to bring South America together and to make it a powerful and moderate, you know, economy and a political society that was easy to live in and that would be collectively a force in the world. Sort of the United States of sorts where everybody cooperated, state by state. That hasn't happened and in fact, so many governments have failed in South America and in fact, American policy, to the extent there has been policy from president to president to try to help countries in South America, that's failed. It's gone off the side. It's had a 180, you know, effect of what it was intended if it was intended to do anything. What can the United States do? What can a leader, I mean, a continental leader, if you will, in South America do? Maybe it would come from, he would come or she from Mexico. But what can we do to make South America, Latin America the kind of OAS that it was hoped to be years ago? Yeah, OAS, you mentioned organization, but it still exists. It's, you know, obviously critical theater, the relatively weak, it brings together all of the America, Latin America and Canada and the U.S. But here a quick answer I would tell you is that the U.S. has a lot of baggage and it's seen from Latin America as having had a long history of intervention, military intervention, the Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, hey, the on and on, you know, overthrowing governments in Chile, supporting right wing authoritarian governments in the season 70. So there's a lot of baggage that quite often Americans don't realize, Central America, I mean, a deep entanglement there and supporting repressive regimes, et cetera. Somewhat less with Mexico. Mexico always a bit more autonomous at least after the 1920s. But that legacy has meant there's always a healthy skepticism about the U.S. Some thought has gone, get the later in some power and falls out to Mexicans as rapists and murderers and it hasn't gotten much better since then. And so it's not a pretty, you know, fin- You know, that's one, we're almost out of time on this and I just want to ask you one more question that is sort of an elephant in the room question.  In fact, Latinos in the country too, but that's not the issue right now. And he's trying to keep Latinos out of the country and claiming that they're, you know, they're not adequate human beings.  But what about you? What about the people in Mexico? What about Amlo?  Are people irritated about that? Oh, they are. It's insensitive and so it's vulgar and so yes. And yet seriously, Amlo, for example, he has just kind of not bothered to waste his time on that. He's looking internally domestically and doesn't want, I mean, he doesn't speak English, which is also rare for a Mexican person. In the last 30 years, we've had these more sort of technocratic sort of English educated. So he's kind of a different leader in that regard. But overall the population looked at Trump and just shake their head like, you know, if this is not somebody who speaks well about us. And so there's a lot of disdain. I mean, let me finish with the final thought and that ultimately the solution and the answer to the challenges here has to come from Latin Americans and there is a growing regionalism effort to address these challenges. Maybe in Venezuela again, regional pressure is coming from them. They want the U.S. to be maybe a constructive engagement, not intrusive, not calling the shots, not dictating the terms. And yet at the end of the day, the U.S. has always had an asymmetric relationship. It is always the bully pushing this away with Mexico, with Central America. So there's an asymmetrical relationship there that won't go away. But the hope is that maybe Mexico, I'm not going to, the U.S. doesn't, you know, in fact maybe stay out of the, you know, affairs more. And that's not already happened. I mean, ever since 9-11, the U.S. has looked elsewhere and Latin America has largely been neglected in U.S. foreign policy. I would say too, it's unfortunate because the cultural and economic ties are so important and they will continue to be. So there needs to be an awareness and an acceptance, but also maybe more sympathy and support. We're not getting it today from Donald Trump. We'll have to see hopefully post-Trump that there might be an ability to rekindle, you know, long-standing U.S.-Latin American relations. Well, we can only hope, you know, I'm right along there with you and hoping, and I actually wish I could attend your classes at the University of Puebla, so I could hear this stuff coming from, you know, you and your class on a regular basis. Well, I'll have to settle for this show, Carlos. That's Carlos Juarez. Global connections for years and years. We do global connections. We are so delighted to be able to talk to him about all kinds of things. And two weeks hence, we'll do it again. Thank you so much, Carlos. Excellent. Aloha. Thank you and aloha. Take care.