Mollyycolllinss Categories For later read
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
Thanks for tagging me, @BartMLL.
I basically never use FB, but I'm on my (very old) laptop today.
Let's get some screen shots.
"Today I decided to head up the Oldman to see what the coal companies have been getting up to. I forgot, however, that the forestry trunk road is closed at Dutch Creek each winter, ostensibly for wildlife protection. So I parked at the locked gate and started hiking."
#ableg
"Newly gouged test pit for coal wayyyy up on the mountain ridge. Note coal dust deposited downwind on the snow."
#ableg #DefendABParks
#FiretheUCP
"Same ridge, for scale. That whole mountain is meant to disappear, if Atrum gets the okay to mine this lease. Which they will if the UCP stay in charge of things. The new exploration pit is on the right. The rest of their work is out of sight from this angle."
#ableg #FiretheUCP
"The moose shared my opinion, evidently."
#ableg #DefendABParks
#WaterNotCoal #NoToCoalAB
I basically never use FB, but I'm on my (very old) laptop today.
Let's get some screen shots.
https://t.co/FHWkaHrqUj @youseepeeYYC @Dave_Khan @RachelNotley - They already started
— Bart (@BartMLL) January 17, 2021
"Today I decided to head up the Oldman to see what the coal companies have been getting up to. I forgot, however, that the forestry trunk road is closed at Dutch Creek each winter, ostensibly for wildlife protection. So I parked at the locked gate and started hiking."
#ableg
"Newly gouged test pit for coal wayyyy up on the mountain ridge. Note coal dust deposited downwind on the snow."
#ableg #DefendABParks
#FiretheUCP
"Same ridge, for scale. That whole mountain is meant to disappear, if Atrum gets the okay to mine this lease. Which they will if the UCP stay in charge of things. The new exploration pit is on the right. The rest of their work is out of sight from this angle."
#ableg #FiretheUCP
"The moose shared my opinion, evidently."
#ableg #DefendABParks
#WaterNotCoal #NoToCoalAB
I find this a really interesting point because to me it seems demonstrably true but also symptomatic of why the West Ham board are never going to turn around their reputation without a sea change in their thinking. (Thread, mute as appropriate)
“Win more” is the footballing solution of taking a painkiller for toothache. The pain goes away for a bit but ultimately you still need a painful root canal. And West Ham have needed that for a long time. This current limited success is *despite* the Board, not because of them.
Lest we forget, Moyes did a fine job first time around and was let go so we could pursue a bigger name, waste tens of millions and undo his good work. They’re lucky he was still available and willing to work for them again. They don’t deserve him.
But winning is helpful because a lot of the time, fans struggle to articulate what needs changing. So if the team is doing well it’s easy for the media to say “You’re fourth - what more do these West Ham fans want!” and for fans not to have an easily digestible answer.
But we know that a losing streak will arrive, we’ll suffer some bad luck and some injuries and then it won’t seem so rosy. And at that point we’ll be accused of being fickle, when the reality is that the underlying problems have been present for the entirety of the GSB reign:
A few years ago I was called into a boardroom and asked: \u201cHow do we turn around the headlines for our team?\u201d \u201cWin games,\u201d was my answer. Hugely simplistic and it doesn\u2019t solve deep rooted problems that require greater surgery and strategy from creative brains, but it helps.
— Lee Clayton (@LeeClayton_) January 30, 2021
“Win more” is the footballing solution of taking a painkiller for toothache. The pain goes away for a bit but ultimately you still need a painful root canal. And West Ham have needed that for a long time. This current limited success is *despite* the Board, not because of them.
Lest we forget, Moyes did a fine job first time around and was let go so we could pursue a bigger name, waste tens of millions and undo his good work. They’re lucky he was still available and willing to work for them again. They don’t deserve him.
But winning is helpful because a lot of the time, fans struggle to articulate what needs changing. So if the team is doing well it’s easy for the media to say “You’re fourth - what more do these West Ham fans want!” and for fans not to have an easily digestible answer.
But we know that a losing streak will arrive, we’ll suffer some bad luck and some injuries and then it won’t seem so rosy. And at that point we’ll be accused of being fickle, when the reality is that the underlying problems have been present for the entirety of the GSB reign:
Here the big people you requested. Now delete your tweets:
1. Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “I asked my Shaikh Siraaj ud deen al-Balqayaanee about Ibn Arabee and he replied quickly he is kaafir (disbeliever)”{Leesaan ul-Meezaan(4/319), another edn (5/213),
…Tambiyyatul-Ghabee Ilaa Takfeer Ibn Arabee (pg.159)}
2. Muhaddith Baqaa’ee wrote our teacher Haafidh Ibn Hajr and another man called Ibn al-Ameen had a mubaahilah concerning Ibn Arabee. The man said, “If Ibn Arabee is upon misguidance then curse me.”
Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “Oh Allaah if Ibn Arabee is upon guidance then curse me.” After a few months the man became blind and died during the night.
{Tambiyyatul-Ghabee (pg.136-137)}
3. Haafidh Ibn Daqeeq al-Eed asked Abu Muhammad Izz ud deen Abdul Azeez bin Abdus Salaam as-Silmee ad-Damashqee (660H) about Ibn Arabee and he replied, “Dirty, liar and far from the truth, he opined time was old and he did not consider other peoples private parts to be…
…haraam.”
{al-Wafaa Bal-Wafyaat (4/125) with an authentic chain, Tambiyyatul-Ghabee (pg.138)}
1. Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “I asked my Shaikh Siraaj ud deen al-Balqayaanee about Ibn Arabee and he replied quickly he is kaafir (disbeliever)”{Leesaan ul-Meezaan(4/319), another edn (5/213),
Not a reason to takfir great ulamaa for. Just a reason to shut up and go back to playing ps5 and leave the big stuff to the big people.
— Emin (@AReminder0) January 13, 2021
…Tambiyyatul-Ghabee Ilaa Takfeer Ibn Arabee (pg.159)}
2. Muhaddith Baqaa’ee wrote our teacher Haafidh Ibn Hajr and another man called Ibn al-Ameen had a mubaahilah concerning Ibn Arabee. The man said, “If Ibn Arabee is upon misguidance then curse me.”
Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “Oh Allaah if Ibn Arabee is upon guidance then curse me.” After a few months the man became blind and died during the night.
{Tambiyyatul-Ghabee (pg.136-137)}
3. Haafidh Ibn Daqeeq al-Eed asked Abu Muhammad Izz ud deen Abdul Azeez bin Abdus Salaam as-Silmee ad-Damashqee (660H) about Ibn Arabee and he replied, “Dirty, liar and far from the truth, he opined time was old and he did not consider other peoples private parts to be…
…haraam.”
{al-Wafaa Bal-Wafyaat (4/125) with an authentic chain, Tambiyyatul-Ghabee (pg.138)}
I’m retweeting this one not because I agree with it, but because I want to emphasize that all of this is so speculative. What does the exclusion of the president’s inability to pardon in cases of impeachment mean?
Is it only limited when the president is impeached and removed? Clinton’s pardons were allowed to stand, after he was impeached by the House—but the impeachment cause was so trivial—& they were also unrelated to the causes of his impeachment.
I actually think that allowing Clinton to grant pardons after impeachment was a big mistake, one that went against the intention of the Constitution, & one that helped to create the current mess. But that narrow precedent stands. What about the longer history & larger question?
After impeachment, President Johnson gave at least two pardons but they were reversed by President Grant immediately afterwards. How many did he give once impeached? Can other historians pipe in?
The revised edition of Joseph Story’s textbook of constitutional interpretation, published in 1868, said that presidents cannot pardon after impeachment as such a power “might become ... a protection against political offenses...the party accused might be acting under ...”
6. What about the exception for \u201ccases of impeachment\u201d?
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) January 19, 2021
Some argue that this means that no pardons can be issued *while* the President is under impeachment or for offenses by others that are *related* to the basis for an impeachment.
I (and most scholars) strongly disagree.
Is it only limited when the president is impeached and removed? Clinton’s pardons were allowed to stand, after he was impeached by the House—but the impeachment cause was so trivial—& they were also unrelated to the causes of his impeachment.
I actually think that allowing Clinton to grant pardons after impeachment was a big mistake, one that went against the intention of the Constitution, & one that helped to create the current mess. But that narrow precedent stands. What about the longer history & larger question?
After impeachment, President Johnson gave at least two pardons but they were reversed by President Grant immediately afterwards. How many did he give once impeached? Can other historians pipe in?
The revised edition of Joseph Story’s textbook of constitutional interpretation, published in 1868, said that presidents cannot pardon after impeachment as such a power “might become ... a protection against political offenses...the party accused might be acting under ...”
