Latest news with #Nixon
IOL News
18 hours ago
- Politics
- IOL News
Gaza Genocide: Israel's Disregard for the Rule of Law Setting a Dangerous Precedent
Shuruq Ayyad consoles her 12-year-old daughter Rahaf, who suffers from malnutrition, at a school-turned-shelter in al-Rimal in central Gaza City, on May 4, 2025. Dr Nazreen Shaik-Peremanov Nixon's Watergate scandal showcased the US fireworks cartel's militaristic capability in Christmas lighting the Vietnamese skies. Indeed, it was not a sombre, white Christmas in Vietnam. Dense bush and guerrilla tactics were promptly served to Nixon's Santa by the Vietnamese forces. Like, the world and Americans forgot the planted listening devices during electioneering. Two weeks of bombings were supposedly due to a stalemate, or so that is what we are told. Lyndon B Johnson could not say much, except probably, 'Walk on, Henry Kissinger, walk on.' No amount of evidence could bite Kissinger's realpolitik in Cambodia, Vietnam or Latin America. Mass atrocities levied against innocent civilians, non-combatants and poor governments were met with repeated condonation. Political pragmatism is a wicked term for the human auditory canal. South Africa's application before the United Nations' judicial arm, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), was brought in December 29, 2023. Citing genocide and acknowledging Israel as a nation-state amongst the world's states, the ICJ shared its decision with the international community, inter alia, interdicting Israel from committing genocidal acts, permitting humanitarian aid and assistance to Palestinians, and directing that Israel report to the world's court on measures taken. Expectedly, Israel disregarded the judgement whilst most of the world's normal-thinking nations hailed the decision, awaiting action with bated breath. Breathe easy for Israel will not do a damn thing, is what many failed to realise. With the US and Russia at loggerheads over Ukraine, some odd incidents of allegedly purported Pakistani terror attacks on India, and a few other morphed international incidents, and a falling star from the link, the Palestinian genocide has paled in significance. Like Northern Ireland, the mind's conditioning shifted into gear. Perhaps, this is precisely what the intention was. Notoriously, international relations are ridden with diversion tactics, especially when they bring comfort to those who seek to remain clandestine. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ So, it is not puzzling when the moving spotlight repeatedly scavenge new prey. Such is a diversion. It is inordinately difficult to make room for anything other than what the victors choose after a tyrannical war on the world. Victor's justice paved the way for the UN's formation after World War II, preceded by the League of Nations. Even though Nuremberg was specially established for war crimes, inter alia, the victors considered it apt to establish a world court. Thus began a litany of insanity as witnessed by none else. The UN Charter is the ICJ's founding document, and the ICJ's powers are informed by the International Court of Justice's Statute. This means that the ICJ is de facto a world court, preceded by no other. Well, perhaps the US and the State of Israel are the glaring exceptions. Like parties to any dispute in daily ruminations, states, too, can muse themselves by presenting a matter for adjudication before the ICJ. Pacific settlement of disputes may be the ICJ's ethos, but political pragmatism reigns supreme. When a dispute is brought before any court of law for adjudication, the court is duty-bound to deliver a just verdict swiftly, deftly and judiciously, without fear, favour or prejudice. Upon a court's ruling or judgment, disputing parties must comply with the court's directive. Equally, these principles of transparency, accountability, and the rule of law apply to states bringing matters for consideration before the ICJ. However, international relations is a dynamic creature which impacts international law in a myriad of ways. Swayed mostly by the UN Security Council's permanent members, the US steers the UN's coffers and its activities. Additionally, the P5's veto power is severely weighted against justice being meted out. Poorer nations, with little wielding power, yield to those that control the coffers, also driven by political hegemony and trade needs. Thus, when the ICJ delivered its ruling in the South Africa obo Palestine v Israel matter, Israel could successfully rely on its US alliance, effectively setting aside the ICJ's ruling. Despotically arrogant, the rule of law was cast to an abandoned no-man's-land shore. International relations and international law are two sides of the same coin. Israel was judicially directed to cease all genocidal activities in Gaza. Israel was directed to take immediate and effective measures to provide humanitarian aid to all Palestinians. Israel was directed to report to the ICJ on these directives. Israel was directed to report on its domestic legal willingness to bring perpetrators to justice. Israel denied having occupied Gaza, and persisted in flagrant disregard of the ICJ's ruling, permitting little humanitarian aid to the long-suffering Palestinians who have not only been stripped of their land but also are imminently facing extermination. Sounds familiar? Yes, it takes us back to Nazi Germany. International law meant nothing then; it means nothing now, except if the victors wish to confer meaning. Kissinger, we intelligently understand, acted in the US's best interests, then found a persisting dominant military centre-stage.
Hamilton Spectator
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Hamilton Spectator
Carrie's voice is back. So is the show's soul as ‘And Just Like That…' grows up
PARIS (AP) — 'She's messy. It can be messy. But it's real.' So says Cynthia Nixon — not just of Miranda Hobbes, the character she's embodied for almost three decades, but of the show itself. 'And Just Like That...,' HBO's 'Sex and the City' revival, has come into its own in Season 3: less preoccupied with pleasing everyone, and more interested in telling the truth. Truth, in this case, looks like complexity. Women in their 50s with evolving identities. Not frozen in time, but changing, reckoning, reliving. Queerness that's joyful but not polished. Grief without melodrama. A pirate shirt with a bleach hole that somehow becomes a talisman of power. At its glittering European premiere this week, Nixon and co-star Sarah Jessica Parker, flanked by Kristin Davis and Sarita Choudhury, spoke candidly with The Associated Press about how the show has evolved into something deeper, rawer and more reflective of who they are now. A voice returns Season 3 marks the return of Carrie Bradshaw's iconic internal monologue that once defined 'Sex and the City.' The series has always followed Carrie's rhythm, but now it brings back something deeper: her voice. Literally. 'We've always loved the voiceover,' Parker said. 'It's a rhythm — it's part of the DNA.' The decision to restore it, producers say, was deliberate. The voiceovers return just as Carrie rediscovers her direction — offering viewers a renewed sense of intimacy and connection. That growth is echoed in her rekindled relationship with Aidan and her acceptance to step back for him to focus on his troubled son. The character who in 1998 first stopped a cab in Manolo Blahniks — and once floated through Manhattan chasing shoes and column deadlines — is now grounded in reinvention, the wounds of loss and cautious hope. The word is: grown up. 'She doesn't burst into tears or stomp out of the room anymore,' Parker said. 'She asks smart, patient questions. That's not effort — that's just her nature now.' 'People seem surprised that she is mature,' Parker added. 'But that's just basic developmental stuff — hopefully, simply by living, we get better at things. It's not surprising. It's just real.' Warts and all If Carrie is the compass, Miranda is the seismic shift. Miranda's arc — which now includes a late-in-life queer awakening — may be the show's most radical contribution to television. And for Nixon, who publicly came out as queer while still playing straight in the original 'Sex and the City,' that evolution is deeply personal. 'There's never a 'too late' moment. Miranda comes to queerness at 55,' Nixon said. 'That doesn't mean everything that came before was wrong. It just means this is her now. And it's messy. It can be messy. But it's real.' That embrace of imperfection lies at the core of Nixon's philosophy — and the show's power. On television, where characters linger in our lives for years, there's a unique intimacy and empathy that develops. 'Television puts someone in your living room, week after week. They're imperfect, they make you laugh, and eventually you say, 'I know that person. They're my friend.'' she said. 'That's more powerful than one mythic, perfect film. That's where the change happens.' That change includes how queerness is portrayed. Nixon recalled how earlier generations of LGBTQ+ characters were forced to be flawless, or two-dimensional, to justify their screen time. 'There was a time when gay people on screen had to be saints or martyrs,' she said. 'Now, we can be characters like Miranda — who've had rich, fulfilling heterosexual lives and now stumble upon queerness, and not in a tidy way. There's collateral damage. That's important.' That depth, Nixon said, comes not just from character, but from the format. Unlike film, which requires resolution in two hours, television lets people grow — and falter — in real time. 'The writers are smart' And Miranda's transformation isn't just personal. It's political. In Season 3, she's seen retraining in human rights law, joining protest movements, and wrestling with systemic questions — mirroring Nixon's own off-screen life. In 2018, the actor ran for governor of New York on a progressive platform, bringing her activism directly into the public arena. That convergence isn't accidental, she says. 'On long-running shows, if the writers are smart, they start to weave in the actor,' Nixon said. 'When I started, Miranda and I were very different. But now we've grown closer. We're almost the same person — in temperament, in values.' Season 3 narrows its scope, pulling focus back to the emotional cores of Carrie, Miranda and Charlotte. Several side characters are gone, including Che Diaz, and what remains is a cleaner, more character-driven story. 'I think one of the great things about our show is we show women in their 50s whose lives are very dramatic and dynamic,' Nixon said. 'You get to this age and there's a lot going on — if you choose to keep moving forward.' Friends, friction, and freedom Kristin Davis, who plays Charlotte, noted that those life shifts come fast and often overlap. 'She really starts to unravel,' Davis said. 'But the joy is her friends are there.' Sarita Choudhury, who plays real estate powerhouse Seema, echoed that sense of late-blooming autonomy. 'She's feeling that, if you have your own business, your own apartment, your own way, you get to say what you want,' Choudhury said. 'There's power in that.' It's a subtle rebuke to the long-held media narrative that midlife is a decline. Not just fashion — declaration Fashion, as ever, is present — but now it feels more personal than aspirational. Parker described insisting on wearing a ripped vintage Vivienne Westwood shirt with a bleach hole. 'It had to be in an important scene. It meant something,' she said. Even the show's iconic heels, still clacking through New York's brownstone-lined streets, feel louder this season. And yes, Carrie is writing again — not her usual musings, but a 'historical romance' that lets the show wink at its own pretensions. Taxis become carriages. Voiceovers drift into period drama. Her beloved blouse — vintage, shredded, almost costume — fits the mood perfectly: century-leaping fashion for a century-leaping Carrie. The protagonist, as ever, walks the line between costume and character. 'And Just Like That...' is a show that's learned to walk — loudly — into its next chapter. 'You're better today than you were 10 years ago,' Parker said. 'That's not just Carrie — that's everyone.' ___ Season 3 of 'And Just Like That…' premiered on Thursday on HBO Max
Time of India
2 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
CDC contradicts Robert F. Kennedy and keeps advice that children may get COVID shots
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Days after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that COVID-19 shots would be removed from the federal immunization schedule for children, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued updated advice that largely countered Kennedy's new agency kept COVID shots on the schedule for healthy children ages 6 months to 17 years old, but added a new condition: Children and their caregivers will be able to get the vaccines in consultation with a doctor or provider, which the agency calls "shared decision-making."The shots will also remain available under those terms to about 38 million low-income children who rely on the Vaccines for Children program , according to an emailed update from the CDC on original pronouncement, on Tuesday, had caused an uproar among pediatricians and public health experts, who pointed out that very young children and pregnant women face high risks of severe illness from the virus. Many also worried that the new policy would prompt insurers and government programs to reduce or drop coverage of the cost of the latest changes clarify coverage for healthy children older than 6 months. But they leave those highest-risk groups -- pregnant woman and young infants who are covered by immunization during pregnancy -- without a formal Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, defended the shifts in policy this week. "If a parent desires their healthy child to be vaccinated, their decision should be based on informed consent through the clinical judgment of their health care provider," Nixon said in a CDC's determinations can be influential in setting insurance and public benefit coverage. It remains unclear how private health insurers and Medicaid will approach coverage of the COVID vaccine for pregnant women And the policy change on consultations with doctors or providers is likely to create barriers for children hoping to get a vaccine at a retail pharmacy, said Richard Hughes IV, a lawyer with Epstein Becker & Green who has advised vaccine companies. "It is problematic," he said.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Nixon-era tariff fight that could help Trump
President Trump is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to stand in court. Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the 37th president as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been. The US Court of International Trade struck down many of Trump's tariffs Wednesday (just as Nixon's duties suffered an initial defeat_ and an appeals court on Thursday allowed Trump's duties to temporarily stay in place while legal arguments continue. What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome that the Trump administration cited in court documents this week, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way. It told the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that "the Federal Circuit's predecessor concluded that the very same language that today exists" in a law used by Trump to justify his tariffs "gave President Nixon the power to impose an import duty surcharge." It was in August 1971 that Nixon imposed his temporary 10% tariff in addition to standard duties on all imported goods. Nixon said the duty was meant to help address the country's escalating deficit crisis and slow the tide of imports, as an additional measure to the administration's decision to suspend the US dollar's convertibility to gold. A Japanese zipper maker sued, saying Nixon lacked power to set the 10% tariff on foreign goods under three different laws that the government gave as justification: the Tariff Act, the Trade Expansion Act, and the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA). The most controversial of the justifications was the TWEA, a predecessor law to the 1977 International Economic Emergency Power Act that Trump cited as a basis for his multiple tariffs this year. The US Customs Court, a predecessor to the US Court of International Trade, initially sided with the zipper importer, holding that none of the three laws were adequate authority for the duty. Yet on appeal, Nixon's tariffs were upheld. While the lower court reasoned that "neither need nor national emergency" justified Nixon's tariff because Congress had not delegated such power and because the authority was "not inherent" in his office, the appeals court said the TWEA carved out enough power to regulate importation during an economic emergency. The Trump administration argued that language in the TWEA law, carried over to the IEEPA, should likewise permit Trump's tariffs. Its lawyers went on to say that the US Court of International Trade incorrectly applied the Yoshida case by distinguishing the Nixon tariffs as more limited than those imposed by Trump. In the Yoshida appeal, the court ruled that an emergency-based import duty must be appropriately and reasonably related to the emergency declared. Jonathan Entin, a constitutional law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said it's possible that Federal Circuit or Supreme Court judges will agree with the administration and conclude that the president does have broader authority than the Court of International Trade suggested. Entin said the lower court focused on two kinds of concerns related to the president's claimed authority under IEEPA. One is the "nondelegation doctrine," which says that Congress cannot give away its legislative authority, including its Constitutionally vested power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" to the president or executive branch officials. A broad reading of IEEPA like the one that Trump suggests, he said, would raise real questions about whether Congress had essentially given away that authority. Another concern before the court is the "major questions doctrine," which has been recognized by the current Supreme Court to require Congressional approval for executive branch actions of 'vast economic and political significance.' "Those arguments clearly resonated with the court, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court would agree on this," Entin said. The administration also hinted at its strategy in citing a federal appeals court case in its request to pause the US Court of International Trade order. In Florsheim Shoe Co. v. US, it said, the appeals court ruled that the president's motives, reasoning, findings and judgment in his decision to remove duty-free status on imported buffalo leather were exempt from judicial scrutiny. Seth Chandler, a constitutional law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said he expects the dispute to end up before the Supreme Court. 'Obviously this issue has huge economic consequences, one way or the other,' he said. 'It will probably get there. So it's just a question of when.' Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Nixon-era tariff fight that could help Trump
President Trump is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to stand in court. Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the 37th president as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been. The US Court of International Trade struck down many of Trump's tariffs Wednesday (just as Nixon's duties suffered an initial defeat_ and an appeals court on Thursday allowed Trump's duties to temporarily stay in place while legal arguments continue. What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome that the Trump administration cited in court documents this week, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way. It told the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that "the Federal Circuit's predecessor concluded that the very same language that today exists" in a law used by Trump to justify his tariffs "gave President Nixon the power to impose an import duty surcharge." It was in August 1971 that Nixon imposed his temporary 10% tariff in addition to standard duties on all imported goods. Nixon said the duty was meant to help address the country's escalating deficit crisis and slow the tide of imports, as an additional measure to the administration's decision to suspend the US dollar's convertibility to gold. A Japanese zipper maker sued, saying Nixon lacked power to set the 10% tariff on foreign goods under three different laws that the government gave as justification: the Tariff Act, the Trade Expansion Act, and the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA). The most controversial of the justifications was the TWEA, a predecessor law to the 1977 International Economic Emergency Power Act that Trump cited as a basis for his multiple tariffs this year. The US Customs Court, a predecessor to the US Court of International Trade, initially sided with the zipper importer, holding that none of the three laws were adequate authority for the duty. Yet on appeal, Nixon's tariffs were upheld. While the lower court reasoned that "neither need nor national emergency" justified Nixon's tariff because Congress had not delegated such power and because the authority was "not inherent" in his office, the appeals court said the TWEA carved out enough power to regulate importation during an economic emergency. The Trump administration argued that language in the TWEA law, carried over to the IEEPA, should likewise permit Trump's tariffs. Its lawyers went on to say that the US Court of International Trade incorrectly applied the Yoshida case by distinguishing the Nixon tariffs as more limited than those imposed by Trump. In the Yoshida appeal, the court ruled that an emergency-based import duty must be appropriately and reasonably related to the emergency declared. Jonathan Entin, a constitutional law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said it's possible that Federal Circuit or Supreme Court judges will agree with the administration and conclude that the president does have broader authority than the Court of International Trade suggested. Entin said the lower court focused on two kinds of concerns related to the president's claimed authority under IEEPA. One is the "nondelegation doctrine," which says that Congress cannot give away its legislative authority, including its Constitutionally vested power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" to the president or executive branch officials. A broad reading of IEEPA like the one that Trump suggests, he said, would raise real questions about whether Congress had essentially given away that authority. Another concern before the court is the "major questions doctrine," which has been recognized by the current Supreme Court to require Congressional approval for executive branch actions of 'vast economic and political significance.' "Those arguments clearly resonated with the court, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court would agree on this," Entin said. The administration also hinted at its strategy in citing a federal appeals court case in its request to pause the US Court of International Trade order. In Florsheim Shoe Co. v. US, it said, the appeals court ruled that the president's motives, reasoning, findings and judgment in his decision to remove duty-free status on imported buffalo leather were exempt from judicial scrutiny. Seth Chandler, a constitutional law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said he expects the dispute to end up before the Supreme Court. 'Obviously this issue has huge economic consequences, one way or the other,' he said. 'It will probably get there. So it's just a question of when.' Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
