#NigerianPolitics: The inter-tribal hostilities presently brewing in the south-west of Nigeria 🇳🇬 between Yoruba & Fulani people need not happen if all parties are ready to shun dishonesty & allegiance to primordial tribal sentiments. We must not allow an escalation.
We must not discount the harrowing experiences of these Nigerians in the name of politics.
1. We want all solutions to states' problem to come only from Abuja even though we run a federal system.
3. Politicisation of issues pertaining to the RESTRUCTURING question.
We didn't need to wait for a thug to begin to lead the discussion in a nuanced issue like this.
The killing/kidnapping/ herders problem in the southwest must be handled with utmost caution.
More from World
1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...
2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see
3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result
4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...
5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...
Some argue that if the Senate declines to hold a legally questionable, resource-sucking trial, Trump would be getting a free pass. That assumes criminal authorities do nothing and citizens can't be trusted to evaluate. Censure and focus important work?
— Ross Garber (@rossgarber) January 22, 2021
2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see
3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result
4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...
5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...
A few thoughts on this sad development 👇👇
20 academics criticizing an paper is fine; good science, really
10000+ hate mail for studying schools in Sweden is insane
Anonymous docs/ prof (hiding in faceless accts) on twitter smearing researchers is insane
[thread] https://t.co/QYldLD3WO0
In April 2020, @jflier and I saw this coming
We saw increasingly heated and personal attacks against scientists merely for having a range of views on COVID19 (PS there is no playbook/ right ans)
Tying science to naked politics was also bad idea, we
Yet, repeatedly that is what happened. Twitter 'experts' displayed an absolute intolerance to other views
Folks who disagreed weren't just wrong, they were malicious actors spreading "disinformation"
Really? Someone worked for 25 years as faculty to suddenly spread lies?
Disinformation has been so misused that it has lost meaning.
I recently saw an ID doc & lab researcher in the UK be accused of spreading "disinformation"
hahah, get outta here, you are trying to say "i disagree" but your keyboard is broken
Personal attacks have become so bad that I have seen a lab researcher accuse a doctor of wanting to engage in inappropriate relationships with patients due to diverging views on vaccine messaging
Seriously? It was a low point even for twitter
20 academics criticizing an paper is fine; good science, really
10000+ hate mail for studying schools in Sweden is insane
Anonymous docs/ prof (hiding in faceless accts) on twitter smearing researchers is insane
[thread] https://t.co/QYldLD3WO0
Together with @ernkrans, I am interviewed in @bmj_latest: "We need to ensure that our researchers understand the concept and value of academic freedom and the responsibility that comes with it"https://t.co/AFjtbSfgjr
— Ole Petter Ottersen (@ottersenolep) February 18, 2021
In April 2020, @jflier and I saw this coming
We saw increasingly heated and personal attacks against scientists merely for having a range of views on COVID19 (PS there is no playbook/ right ans)
Tying science to naked politics was also bad idea, we
Yet, repeatedly that is what happened. Twitter 'experts' displayed an absolute intolerance to other views
Folks who disagreed weren't just wrong, they were malicious actors spreading "disinformation"
Really? Someone worked for 25 years as faculty to suddenly spread lies?
Disinformation has been so misused that it has lost meaning.
I recently saw an ID doc & lab researcher in the UK be accused of spreading "disinformation"
hahah, get outta here, you are trying to say "i disagree" but your keyboard is broken
Personal attacks have become so bad that I have seen a lab researcher accuse a doctor of wanting to engage in inappropriate relationships with patients due to diverging views on vaccine messaging
Seriously? It was a low point even for twitter
You May Also Like
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
1/x Fort Detrick History
Mr. Patrick, one of the chief scientists at the Army Biological Warfare Laboratories at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md., held five classified US patents for the process of weaponizing anthrax.
2/x
Under Mr. Patrick’s direction, scientists at Fort Detrick developed a tularemia agent that, if disseminated by airplane, could cause casualties & sickness over 1000s mi². In a 10,000 mi² range, it had 90% casualty rate & 50% fatality rate
3/x His team explored Q fever, plague, & Venezuelan equine encephalitis, testing more than 20 anthrax strains to discern most lethal variety. Fort Detrick scientists used aerosol spray systems inside fountain pens, walking sticks, light bulbs, & even in 1953 Mercury exhaust pipes
4/x After retiring in 1986, Mr. Patrick remained one of the world’s foremost specialists on biological warfare & was a consultant to the CIA, FBI, & US military. He debriefed Soviet defector Ken Alibek, the deputy chief of the Soviet biowarfare program
https://t.co/sHqSaTSqtB
5/x Back in Time
In 1949 the Army created a small team of chemists at "Camp Detrick" called Special Operations Division. Its assignment was to find military uses for toxic bacteria. The coercive use of toxins was a new field, which fascinated Allen Dulles, later head of the CIA
Mr. Patrick, one of the chief scientists at the Army Biological Warfare Laboratories at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md., held five classified US patents for the process of weaponizing anthrax.
2/x
Under Mr. Patrick’s direction, scientists at Fort Detrick developed a tularemia agent that, if disseminated by airplane, could cause casualties & sickness over 1000s mi². In a 10,000 mi² range, it had 90% casualty rate & 50% fatality rate
3/x His team explored Q fever, plague, & Venezuelan equine encephalitis, testing more than 20 anthrax strains to discern most lethal variety. Fort Detrick scientists used aerosol spray systems inside fountain pens, walking sticks, light bulbs, & even in 1953 Mercury exhaust pipes
4/x After retiring in 1986, Mr. Patrick remained one of the world’s foremost specialists on biological warfare & was a consultant to the CIA, FBI, & US military. He debriefed Soviet defector Ken Alibek, the deputy chief of the Soviet biowarfare program
https://t.co/sHqSaTSqtB
5/x Back in Time
In 1949 the Army created a small team of chemists at "Camp Detrick" called Special Operations Division. Its assignment was to find military uses for toxic bacteria. The coercive use of toxins was a new field, which fascinated Allen Dulles, later head of the CIA