I began a book a little while back by H.R. Haldeman called The Haldeman Diaries. Haldeman was Richard Nixon's chief of staff. His Leo McGarry if you will. the book is 850 pages long and comprised of nothing but diary entries spanning the whole time Nixon was in office. The length of each entry ranges from a sentence or two to a page and a half and it really is a fascinating account of the inner workings of the Executive Branch. Haldeman wrote each entry before going to bed each night and was candid on a whole range of topics - from bombings in Vietnam to press coverage to Kissinger being an insecure baby. I'm currently mid-way through 1970 and Nixon has dealt with some pretty hot shit that our man in the white house today couldn't even pronounce correcly.
Which brings me to an interesting point. A lot of people look at Nixon as a scumbag president but compared to GWB he is apples dipped in xanax. He was more liberal than people give him credit for and that kind of shows the revolving sphere of American politics. What was conservative then is Pelosi-liberal now. So we are fucked unless that ball starts spinning again soon.
Some highlights thus far are Nixon having white house parties with Johnny Cash and Duke Ellington as entertainment, though not on the same evening. But that would have been a killer bill. The Man in Black, the Duke and Tricky Dick all in one room. Better than Bob Marley and the Wailers and Bruce Springsteen on a double bill. Throw in some George Clinton and P-Funk and we'd be having a P-A-R-T-Y. Too bad Marley died before Bill Clinton took office because you know he'd get down and make Hill put on an apron and dish out some bi-partisan pudding. Chocolate.
Other highlights are Nixon trying to get his head around the Kent State shootings by staying up all night and going out to the Lincoln Memorial to meet a bunch of "hippies." Who he actually enjoyed talking to. And taking white house tennis court access away from his cabinet members after they stopped being useful to him. On that note, he turns the white house pool into the press room (Hunter Thompson had a theory that it was because JFK fucked M.Monroe in there but really it was to make room for a bowling alley-that's right Nixon's fav. source of fun besides bombing the asians and spoiling elections was to knock some fucking pins down with big black balls). All in all real interesting stuff.
I'll keep you all updated as I get into watergate and all that goodness.
3 comments:
fuck ira
But what about a state, who is bound by the UN Charter’s prohibition of force, retaining the right to use force in self-defense (Art. 51). Does the right of Self-Defense have the effect of overthrowing the prohibitions of the Charter? Self-Defense is limited by the requirements of immediacy, necessity, gravity and likelihood (Caroline Case). The application of self-defense serves as a useful proxy for the contemporary presence of notions of sovereignty. The US, in particular after 9/11, claimed plenary authority to use preemptive force to circumvent any threat it perceived from the ‘War on Terror.’ The change of disposition in the US in regards to IL stems from the desire to protect sovereignty, which has led the US down the very dangerous path of renouncing commonality (revoking environmental treatise, violating human rights, and behaving like a rogue-state). The purpose of sovereignty in an age where everything is considered global, may be to shape the myth of nationalism, which has proven to dangerous in IL.
Sovereignty may be essential for purposes of accountability and enforcement. Yet an interesting example in the development of sovereignty is the laws of attribution. A State can now be held accountable for acts ordered on its behalf, or in any sense controlled by them (Nicaragua Case). IL even imposes specific obligations on a sovereign to control and supersede violations of IL taken on their soil (Iranian Hostage Case). Could it be that attribution is the flip-side of sovereignty, ensuring that a state takes responsibility for its action (or inaction), or is it that without sovereignty, there would be no one to hold accountable beyond individual violators and some how this does not satisfy needs of redemption.
Modern IL has moved beyond notions of statehood by recognizing that there is a nexus between the individual and the global. IL violates principles of sovereignty by granting individuals fundamental rights they may demand of their government. US courts have even recognized that ‘international law confers [certain] fundamental rights upon all people vis-à-vis their own government’ (Filartiga Case). The UN Charter expressly makes a state’s treatment of its own citizens a matter of international concern. In Art.55, the Charter grants: “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinctions as to race, sex, language or religion.” The Charter also imposes as an obligation on individual states to “pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth.” Limitations on rights imposed by Human Rights exist only when states claim public emergency, defined as a threat to the states organization and operation as a sovereign (Lawless Case). Go figure.
but what about article 47? huh? did you ever think of that one?
Post a Comment