Margaret Thatcher: A Mixed Legacy?

Despite being Britain’s first – and only (so far) – woman prime minister is the late Baroness Margaret Thatcher leaving behind a mixed legacy of her supposedly illustrious tenure as prime minister? 

By: Ringo Bones 

As the former prime minister of Britain, Baroness Margaret Thatcher recently passed away back in April 8, 2013, the myriad tributes and the criticisms of her tenure as the first and only woman prime minister of the UK seems just to prove that she’s leaving behind a mixed legacy of her “illustrious” tenure as prime minister during much of the 1980s. Many a protest march were planned to be staged for her April 17, 2013 funeral for her policies that destroyed Britain’s working middle class during the 1980s. For better or for worse, love her or loathe her, anyone with more than the passing interest of the Cold War era geopolitical power-plays of the 1980s will be hard-pressed to be a mere fence-sitter when it comes to the way the “Iron Lady” wielded her power back then. 

For what she had done good, then UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher managed to will her political capital into Number 10 Downing Street back in a time when the proverbial glass ceiling was sturdy enough to withstand a 15-inch artillery shell fired from a naval destroyer. Prospects for women in positions of power were still few and far between during the late 1970s despite a global feminist movement and yet Thatcher successfully established herself in what seems to be a “boy’s only” clubhouse of Number 10 Downing Street.  Probably the same reason why she got disenchanted working as a chemist in a plant after graduating from Oxford with a Chemical Engineering degree and then decided to explore her prospects in the British political arena. 

And lets not forget during the first half of 1982, her decisive action to take back the Falkland Islands after being unlawfully annexed by a military junta then running the country of Argentina really transformed her political fortunes – as in the “Falklands Factor” that allowed Number 10 to recapture the Falklands by June 14, 1982 only secured her incumbency as prime minister for the entire 1980s. After all, before the advent of 21^st Century era social media, the only viable way to “kick military dictator ass” is via a large scale military operation. 

Compared to what she did good during her tenure as prime minister many Britons old enough to experience first hand “Thatcherism” still loather her. Margaret Thatcher had been compared to both former US President Ronald Reagan and Adolf Hitler – as both were notorious for drastically curbing the power of labor unions. While still many praised the underlying economic policies of Thatcherism that allowed scores of Britons to cash in the benefits of Reaganomics during the economic boom of the go-go 80s, many loathe Margaret Thatcher for making greed acceptable on British soil during her tenure as prime minister.  

The late Baroness Thatcher will forever be remembered by some as the one responsible for the death of Bobby Sands, an IRA political prisoner, after he died by staging a hunger strike back in March 1981. And many also blamed then PM Thatcher for driving teen age British Catholics to join the IRA during that time. Her Section 28 legislation was hard on Britain’s gay community despite a global consensus of London being seen as the world’s most gay friendly city since 1976. To Britons with more liberal politics, the late Baroness Margaret Thatcher will forever be seen as a “Tory Radical”. 

Papal Resignation: A Not So Unprecedented Move?

Even though the last time an incumbent pope resigned was almost 600 years ago, are there other popes that have voluntarily stepped down?

By: Ringo Bones

Speculations and conspiracy theories aside, the other still to be divulged reasons on why Pope Benedict XVI resigned might be reserved for posterity, but what is now considered common knowledge is that the decision for Pope Benedict XVI's resignation is not a so unprecedented move because there are other popes before him that have resigned. Though the last time it happened was almost 600 years ago, Pope Benedict XVI's resignation is still a not so common Vatican event for the rest of us who still gawk at ecclesiastical matters and the over a billion Catholics, both young and old, around the world.

Believe it or not, it was due to the Papal Decree of  Pope Celestine V that made possible for popes to resign voluntarily while their decision still respected by the Vatican's Holy See. Back in 1294, Pope Celestine V issued a solemn decree declaring it possible that a pope can resign during his tenure if he so wishes. After only serving five months as pope, Pope Celestine V abdicated but not before issuing a papal decree to end any debate over whether a pope can justify standing down during his lifetime. After his resignation, Pope Celestine V lived the rest of his life as a hermit and was later canonized. Thus he became known as Saint Celestine V and some books on the list of popes used this canonized title.

Strange as it seems, before Pope Celestine V issued his papal decree to allow incumbent popes to voluntarily step down, there are two other pontiffs who have done so. Our current outgoing pope's namesake, Pope Benedict IX, stepped down in 1045 and his successor Gregory VI the year after in 1046.

With Pope Benedict XVI resignation to fully take effect in February 28, 2013, the last time a pontiff resignation occurred was almost 600 years ago when Pope Gregory XII resigned in 1415. Pope Gregory XII stood down to end the "Western Schism" which threatened to shatter Roman Catholicism. Pope Gregory XII's resignation helped unite the Church at the Council of Constance in 1415.

Abraham Lincoln: The First Openly Gay U.S. President?

Late night TV circuit comedian Jay Leno may have joked about historical facts pertaining to this topic as far back as 1998, but is there any truth that Abraham Lincoln was America’s first openly gay president?

By: Ringo Bones

Tenured ivy-league historians have known facts about Abraham Lincoln’s alleged homosexuality way before the mid 1990s – the time where the prevailing social climate became more accepting of people with sexual preferences outside of the established norms given the growing popularity of gay-themed TV sitcoms during that time. But were there any historically reliable proof of Abraham Lincoln’s alleged forays into homosexuality? After all, in this politically correct day and age, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it, right?

Most of the “documented evidence” of Abraham Lincoln’s alleged homosexuality came from the diary entries of prominent socialite and Lincoln’s contemporary, Virginia Woodbury Fox. In Virginia Woodbury Fox’s 1862 diary entries, she witnessed and / or heard various men that have slept with then President Abraham Lincoln. As far back as Lincoln’s law college years, Virginia Woodbury Fox already knew of Lincoln’s “alleged” homosexual affair with college dorm-room roommate Joshua Steed. Not only that, Virginia Woodbury Fox also recorded on her diary the fact that the two eventually “broke up” because Joshua Steed is staunchly pro-slavery and has actually owned slaves despite of the growing Abolitionist movement across the United States during that time.

Virginia Woodbury Fox also noted on her diary the rather “awkward” courtship between Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd. And that despite the two of the couple actually getting married and having a son, Fox also documented the rather tumultuous relationship between the two while Lincoln became president and later on when their son died that fueled much of then First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln’s neuroses. Despite of the “reliable” documentation of socialite Virginia Woodbury Fox on Abraham Lincoln’s “alleged” homosexuality, famous movie director Steven Spielberg chose not to include the “homosexual angle” of Lincoln’s life in his recent epic movie about the late, great U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. 

The Obamas: America’s First Fashion Conscious First Family?

Despite the accolades and approvals of every top fashionista in the U.S. and the rest of the world, are the Obamas the first true fashion conscious first family that has ever occupied the White House?

By: Ringo Bones

Even though the late former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy managed to get myriads of fashion praises during her time, as of late, it seems like the Obamas are getting their own fashion accolades from fashionistas, fashion pundits and fashion bloggers on U.S. soil and the rest of the world during the run-up to the 2013 Presidential Inauguration back in January 21, 2013. Some of them even praised President Obama’s color-coordinated tie that seems to symbiotically - fashion wise – coordinated seamlessly with the First Lady Michele Obama’s evening dress and the kids. It seems as if the current first family can’t ever commit a fashion faux pas.

Well, the Clintons – together with First Lady Hillary and Chelsea Clinton seems to have never committed their own share of fashion faux pas that one wonders if there’s a branch of the Secret Service in charge of supervising the First Family’s proper fashion sense. I wonder if they previously worked with the fashion police. Well, at least if the Obama’s ever committed a fashion faux pas during the Inauguration, the public’s attention had been diverted to Beoncé’s alleged lip-syncing of America’s national anthem. 

President Barack Obama: Latest U.S. Presidential Superlative?

Even if he had lost to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, did you know that President Barack Obama can still achieve some U.S. Presidential firsts and superlatives?

By: Ringo Bones

Aside from the fact that U.S. President Barack Obama is America’s first African-American president ever elected – whether he won or lost the 2012 US Presidential Elections to his opponent, former governor of the state of Massachusetts Mitt Romney – Obama did managed to earn other well-deserved first and other superlatives in the U.S. Presidency. If he failed to become reelected, President Obama could have become the second youngest U.S. ex president at 51. Though the title of youngest U.S. ex president belongs to Theodore Roosevelt who was only 50 years of age when he finished serving his two terms in office.

Fortunately, President Obama got reelected, and with this, managed to earn other U.S. Presidential firsts and superlatives. Given that the last two U.S. presidents where two-termers – i.e. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – the last time America got a trio of two-term presidents was back during the terms of Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe. And during the time when Thomas Jefferson was elected President of the United States of America back in 1801, the country was only 25 years old! And by the end of the term of this first trio of two-term U.S. Presidents, almost all of the veterans of the American Revolutionary Wars probably lived long enough to witness that particularly rare political event.

Another first to have happened in the U.S. political landscape of President Obama’s reelection is that America now has 20 women senators – the most in any other time in America’s political history. Given that President Obama is the first black / African-American U.S. president to be elected in office, is his administration paving the way for other ethnicities / genders to be another notch closer to be voted into the U.S. presidency? Who knows, historians could probably write that President Barack Obama was the one who paved for women to be elected into the U.S. presidency. Paging Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren! 

The Fiscal Cliff Deal: Deferment Of The Inevitable?

Even despite the seemingly insurmountable partisan divide, a new short-term deal averting the Fiscal Cliff had been reached, but is this just deferring the inevitable?

By: Ringo Bones

From a political standpoint, the signing of a new short-term deal – i.e. “The Fiscal Cliff Deal” – averting the supposedly inevitably looming Fiscal Cliff seems like the proverbial kicking of the can down the road. Even though the newly reached short-term deal on the Fiscal Cliff have created a rather bullish and euphoric market rally back in Wednesday, January 2, 2013, it has since inevitably petered out. And while the up to the last second partisan brinkmanship of the U.S. Republican Party controlled House of Representatives have some wonder whether “Dictator of the House Boehner” should really get his well-deserved defenestration off the Fiscal Cliff, at least America’s middle and lower income families won’t be facing an increased tax burden – for now. But the question now is, is the new Fiscal Cliff Deal nothing more than a deferment of another inevitable partisan showdown on Capitol Hill during the next two months?

Even though the U.S. government will reach the 16.4-trillion U.S. dollar Debt Ceiling in a few weeks time, by March 2013, there will be another partisan Congressional showdown over the raising of the Debt Ceiling and the negotiation on the U.S. Republican Party’s proposed unreasonably steep Spending Cuts on President Obama’s socio-economic safety net programs. Given that President Obama is unlikely to have a repeat of the very heated reaching across the partisan divide type of negotiations that the GOP controlled Congress played last-second brinkmanship in establishing the Fiscal Cliff Deal, a deadlock on the Debt Ceiling and Spending Cuts in a few months’ time could spook the global markets yet again.

As both the Debt Ceiling and Spending Cuts still need Congressional approval, the U.S. Republican Party had since become clueless on what initiated the “Clinton Era Economic Expansion” of the latter half of the 1990s in the first place. Given that the very generous Bush era tax cuts on America’s richest 1% have yet to trickle down, it seems like a suicidal act of fiscal insanity for the Republican controlled Congress to extend it further. Even though Republicans tend to look down on new immigrants, it was the venture capital investment of naturalized Balkan conflict era refugees / émigrés that funded the internet / dot com boom of the mid 1990s despite capital gains taxes being 30% higher during much of President Clinton’s term compared to that during the first term of President Obama. 

Is The Unregulated Second Amendment Destroying The Social Fabric Of America?

With the recent shooting of 6 to 7 year olds by a deranged gunman that broke into Sandy Hook Elementary School, is the largely unregulated Second Amendment slowly destroying the social fabric of America?

By: Ringo Bones

Despite the very tragic set of circumstances that lead to the senseless shooting and deaths of 20 6 to 7 year olds in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, it seems that Second Amendment advocates in the United States seem to be clinging harder and tighter to their political stance – and the right to bear arms – even if innocent bystanders have to suffer. But why do a significant number of Americans clung on to the oft misguided belief that private gun ownership is all that it takes to keep the United States of America free from tyranny?

Sadly, in spite of the Second Amendment reminding and reiterating the Federal government that the establishment of a “Well-regulated militia shall not be infringed…the right to bear arms….” It seems that the “well-regulated” part of the Second Amendment is often the oft ignored stipulation of the Second Amendment whenever these “rednecks” exercise their Second Amendment rights and establish their own “not-so-well-regulated-militia”. A case in point is the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma back in April 19, 1995 where a misguided unregulated redneck militia led by Timothy McVeigh decided to dispense their own brand of justice on Federal workers who are only tenuously related to their grievances with the Federal government.

Assuming if the Second Amendment advocates are right when they oft “romantically” depict private gun owners as holding back a tidal wave of violence and crime in their neck of the woods, how come not a single Al Qaeda inspired sleeper cell was ever subjected to a Citizens Arrest action by a group of card carrying National Rifle Association (NRA) members since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks? More often than not, over eager white-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant Second Amendment advocates only hassle Americans of Muslim faith with no connection to Al Qaeda whatsoever. And does this make a significant number of card-carrying NRA members / private gun owners who don’t know how to well-regulate themselves more a liability – rather than an asset – when it comes to America’s over-burdened national security apparatus?

As of late, President Obama mentions of a “meaningful action” to prevent the tragic shooting deaths of schoolchildren in Sandy Hook Elementary School from ever happening again. By meaningful action mean tighter gun controls and oversight of the sale and private ownership of handguns and semi-automatic assault rifles by private citizens in America. And even though the top brasses at the NRA may be right about gun violence statistically on the decline in America since 1990 and gun ownership the lowest it has been in 40 years despite of a surge of purchase of handguns by pro Second Amendment advocates during Pres. Obama’s election into the White House back in 2008, tighter gun control and regulation could be the only meaningful action the President can act on in the foreseeable future to avoid a repeat of the tragic shooting deaths in Sandy Hook Elementary School. Even though gun related violence is on the decline since 1990, America’s children need not to suffer the country’s Second Amendment / private gun ownership obsession.