Saturday Learning Series - Geography (Guyana)

This week, the South American country of Guyana.


And the flag:

Friday Musical Interlude - Somebody To Love

Queen's 1976 hit Somebody to Love.

Quick Hit: Factual History vs. Frantic Hysteria on Military Border Patrols

CNN is no doubt definitely panicking over president Trump's decision to treat the Mexican border as a national security issue and use the military to patrol the border.  One analyst went so far as to describe it as the military taking to the streets.  Um, no.  Military at the border is a real thing.  Not just on the Mexican border, but throughout history. The Berlin Wall.  The DMZ in Korea.  Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.  Countless other examples exist.

When faced with factual history, apparently left prefers frantic hysteria.  But that's not news, and neither is CNN.

Quick Hit: Mueller has nothing, but you wouldn't know it

The Mueller investigation apparently doesn't currently hold the president as a criminal  target of it's investigation.  The media hasn't really mentioned that much. In fact, the Washington Post which reported it yesterday, are holding out hope that he could still become a target.

Nevertheless, there are some important considerations as Johnathan Turley at The Hill points out:

That Mueller does not believe there is “substantial evidence linking [Trump] to the commission of a crime” would seem to merit some, albeit grudging, recognition. However, there has been a disturbing lack of objectivity in the coverage of this investigation from the start. Throughout it, some of us have cautioned that the criminal case against Trump was far weaker than media suggested. Fired FBI Director James Comey himself told Congress that Trump was not a target of his investigation. Indeed, Trump was reportedly upset with Comey largely because Comey would not say that publicly.

When Trump fired Comey, I supported the call for a special counsel, and I still support Mueller in completing his investigation. However, the case of criminal conduct by Trump has not materially improved over the last year. Last October, Mueller brought the first indictments against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Richard Gates. Notably, none of the indictments were linked to the campaign, let alone Trump. When that obvious point was raised, we were told that it meant nothing and Mueller was likely holding back the really damaging indictments while pressuring Trump aides. Commentators continue to announce “bombshell” disclosures against Trump on a daily basis, with experts alleging clear cases for treason to obstruction to witness tampering and other crimes.

But time and again, evidence continued to indicate that chances of president trump becoming a target were evaporating.

Then, in November, came the disclosure of plea agreements with former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. However, these pleas were for making individual false statements to federal investigators. Neither the charges nor the narratives in the filings tied Trump or his campaign to any criminal act. Later indictments involving lawyer Alex van der Zwaan and internet operator Richard Pinedo involved a false statement and a single count of identity fraud, again unrelated to Trump or his campaign. Nevertheless, commentators insisted Mueller was just laying the groundwork for his major filing.

In February, Mueller handed down indictments of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations for election-related crimes, from hacking to identity fraud. Not only did these charges not implicate Trump or his campaign, but the filing expressly stated that no one in the Trump campaign knowingly engaged Russians in these efforts. Now, Mueller reportedly has said he does not consider Trump a “target” of the criminal investigation. Looking at each of the prior filings, the disclosure would seem consistent with a lack of compelling evidence of a crime by Trump. Indeed, it would indicate Trump’s status has not changed from when Comey told Congress that Trump was not a target.

And yet, the mainstream media continues to be purveyors of self-deluded Trump-prosecution porn:

Still, some analysts immediately denied that Mueller’s disclosure was anything but bad news for Trump. On CNN, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin insisted that “being a ‘subject’ is a very serious thing” and a “very significant designation” because it is clear “the FBI is investigating the president.”

The only outstanding question is when will Mueller wrap up his investigation.

Quick Hit: Youtube is the master of it's own fate

With recent news of a demonitized Youtube-hater going to Youtube and trying to kill people, it's time to ask a few questions of the non-transparent behemoth.  While the shooting was terrible and violence is not justified Youtube has treated it's content creators very poorly and if it doesn't change it will lose them, and then eventually it's audience.

Megan Fox at PJ Media expounds on this:

...While there is never an excuse for shooting innocent people, Aghdam's frustration with YouTube highlights ongoing problems that must be addressed by the company: mass deletions, loss of livelihood, and censorship. They seem to think they don't have to answer to anyone, including the press, about the asinine business decisions they keep making that suppress the First Amendment and oppress their own content creators.

Most people, like O'Brien, (who are sane and normal) take their content elsewhere, like to Vimeo and Bitchute, but the psychological games YouTube plays with them are maddening! Deleting videos, then reinstating, demonetizing then remonetizing...this goes on and on with no reasonable explanation...

YouTube has a terrible business model that treats its content creators (and the Constitution) like garbage. It should be abandoned en masse and investigated.

Her article is spot on and really worth the read. Her suggested solution, is definitely the better way to go than Aghdam's shooting rampage. 

Sunday verse