How JFK Almost Destroyed The Planet: The Cuban Missile Crisis

Lauded as one of the greatest US presidents ever, Kennedy probably had pretty much the worst presidency anyone could ever ask for. And it only lasted two and a bit years. As soon as he walked in the Oval Office he got dumped with the Bay of Pigs, an Eisenhower plan, then he helped bring the world to the brink of destruction . . . then he got shot . . . But let’s analyse the Cuban Missile Crisis further. With views from prominent historians backing us up, let’s find out exactly why JFK almost destroyed planet Earth . . .

The USSR and the US came to the brink of nuclear war in October 1962, when the Cold War was at its coldest, in a thirteen day period that saw President Kennedy making heavily pressured decisions that would change the trajectory of the Cold War itself from that moment on. A U2 spy plane photographed the secret construction of missile launch sites in Cuba, and it was discovered that a number of Soviet medium-range ballistic missiles had been smuggled into the country. This was followed by several days of stalemate while an emergency committee named ExComm assessed the US options. A message of negotiation was then received from Khrushchev proposing a compromise on both sides, the US accepted, and the situation diffused. Straight away on assuming office, Kennedy became utterly embroiled in a dangerous climate of political relations that balanced on a tender hook. As historian John Lewis Gaddis explains, the Kennedy administration was completely caught off its guard by the situation, as one of its primary aims had been to “rationalise the conduct of nuclear war”, and it had already been “shocked to discover that the only war plan Eisenhower had left behind would have required the simultaneous use of well over 3000 nuclear weapons against all communist countries.” The crisis was primarily induced by several key factors. Aggressive US foreign policy, the legacy of the 1959 Cuban Revolution, provocative actions by the USSR, and the tensions over Berlin and Germany, all played a crucial role in igniting the situation. As John Lewis Gaddis argues, Kennedy’s foreign policy, such as the Bay of Pigs, “set in motion the series of events that would, within a year and a half, bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.” Indeed, without the Monroe Doctrine, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the blockade of Cuba, and the missiles installed in Turkey and Western Europe, the Cuban Missile Crisis would never have occurred.

Due to the suffocating time constraints facing Kennedy and the pressure that was being exerted on him by his own people, he undoubtedly employed excessively aggressive foreign policy. The Bay of Pigs invasion had been orchestrated to spark an uprising against Castro and so eliminate the communist threat in the region, and 1400 Cuban exiles carried out the attack in April 1961. Its catastrophic failure was due to several accumulating reasons such as the preemptive imprisonment of thousands of suspects by Castro preceding the event, and Kennedy’s cancellation of the US bombing raids and the landing of the US Marines. The invasion was crushed and Kennedy was left looking not just like a weak leader, but a poor strategist and tactician, lowering him even further in Khrushchev’s eyes. As John Hughes-Wilson explains, Khrushchev “openly mocked the disastrous US-backed Bay of Pigs.” He was well aware of how he was perceived by the Soviet leader, and this only exacerbated the situation because now he felt as though he needed to prove something. He was already under pressure to be tough on the Soviets due to the legacy passed down to him by his father, Joseph P Kennedy Senior, an advocate of the policy of appeasement during the Second World War. Furthermore, the continual growth and development of US nuclear stockpiles served as a direct provocation to the USSR, particularly when intermediate-range missiles were placed in Britain, Italy, and Turkey and pointed straight at the Soviet Union in the late 1950s by the Eisenhower administration. This drastically altered the nature of US-Soviet relations from that moment on as the US had a powerful leverage over the USSR that turned negotiations into threats. The major reason for such stringent relations with Cuba was due to the fear of communist expansion from Castro’s government into Latin America, a region within the US sphere of influence under the Monroe Doctrine. And so they justified their exhaustive economic sanctions against Cuba and the blockade of its trading routes, by emphasising this threat and how it would damage the free world. The aggressive stance with regards to the use of nuclear weapons originated from the barbaric policies of Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, who argued that the missiles should be targeted at the densest areas of civilian population “with a view to causing the maximum number of casualties possible” as John Lewis Gaddis states, to guarantee Winston Churchill’s hope of “equality of annihilation” to act as the ultimate deterrent. This became known as the strategy of “Mutual Assured Destruction.” For these reasons, the aggressive foreign policy implemented by the US was the most important cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Cuban revolution in 1959 that saw the ousting of General Batista’s corrupt regime and the establishment of Fidel Castro’s communist government, was the event that created the crisis in the first place. Without it, communist interest in the area would have been non-existent. The USSR was astounded by the independent seed of Marxist thinking that had grown surreptitiously on the very doorstep of their enemy. They immediately saw it as a perfect opportunity to induce revolution in Latin America and overthrow the US government with pure force and power. As John Lewis Gaddis writes, “Khrushchev and his advisors had been surprised, but then excited, and finally exhilarated when a Marxist-Leninist insurgency seized power in Cuba on its own, without all the pushing and prodding the Soviets had had to do to install communist regimes in Eastern Europe,” proving just how oblivious Khrushchev had been to the events there, as there had been virtually no Soviet influence in the region. Fulgencio Batista had been elected into power as President of Cuba in 1942, but became dictator in 1952 following a military coup, promptly stripping citizens of all of their liberties. If Fidel Castro and Che Guevara had not organised the revolt, communism would never have flourished there, and the USSR would have had no reason to target it. Historian Robert Holmes explains how Khrushchev gradually asserted his influence over Cuba, as “Castro’s determination to build an egalitarian utopia” drove him “to rely increasingly upon the help and goodwill of the Soviet Union.” This only served to strengthen the bond between the USSR and Cuba, drastically increasing the tensions with US relations, as the US did not want to lose their lucrative trade and business interests in Cuba. Therefore, the missile crisis owes its origins to this period. However, it cannot be attributed as the most significant cause as it is tied into the foundations of every reason, especially that of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and their excitement over Cuba.

The provocative actions of the USSR leading up to the fateful thirteen days in 1962 were instrumental in amplifying tensions between the two powers. As Nikita Khrushchev himself explains, Soviet interests in Cuba were purely as a result of its communist revolution, “We had to think up some way of confronting America with more than words. We had to establish a tangible and effective deterrent to American interference in the Caribbean. But what exactly? The logical answer was missiles.” In this way, their hand was forced to finally place their own form of leverage over the US in a place that would make it most effective, as they had already been putting up with the Jupiter missiles in Turkey for several years. Khrushchev’s aim was to “put a hedgehog down Kennedy’s pants”, according to John Hughes-Wilson. Khrushchev was adamant about how important it was to support Cuba, as it was an ideal example of Karl Marx’s model of how a communist state could work, free of corruption and manipulation. John Lewis Gaddis identifies the Soviet leader’s enthusiasm as “ideological romanticism” and how Khrushchev “risked his own revolution, his country, and possibly the world as a whole . . . He was like a petulant child playing with a loaded gun.” Khrushchev himself was also facing pressure on the home front, in similar ways that Kennedy was. He had to demonstrate a strong stance against the US to appease those who questioned his resolve and allegiances in the Kremlin, to uphold his image as a ruthless and powerful Soviet leader. He had to stand up to “the hard liners in the Politburo” and assert his authority, as historian John Hughes-Wilson argues. He wanted to alter the strategic balance of the world political climate, in particular the nuclear imbalance and the “Missile Gap”, and assert the USSR’s superiority once more. John Hughes-Wilson also describes his need “to demonstrate his firmness to his fellow Communists against the principal adversary.” And he was ready “to flex his nuclear muscles”. Indeed, though the provocative actions by Khrushchev and the Soviet Union helped cause the missile crisis, the majority of them were merely retaliation to the actions committed under the aggressive US foreign policy. The primary source of Cold War tensions, however, remained around Berlin and Germany.

The continuing contention over Berlin and Germany only served to heighten the animosity between the US and the USSR. As John Hughes-Wilson states, for three years Khrushchev “had been sabre-rattling unsuccessfully over Berlin to try and achieve some solution to what the Kremlin saw as the problem of an ever more powerful West Germany.” And there was an incessant belief that the West simply did not comprehend their fears. Therefore, it was essential for them to have more power and leverage over the US, not only as a retaliation to the Jupiter missiles, and a catalyst for Latin American revolution, but as a deterrent to further US interference in Germany. John Lewis Gaddis concurs with this, stating, Khrushchev “hoped to resolve the increasingly inconvenient problem of having a capitalist enclave in the middle of communist East Germany.” In terms of US motivations surrounding this area, they believed that Cuba was merely a sideshow and decoy to remove the US attention away from Berlin, suspecting Khrushchev of hatching some other scheme to seize the rest of Berlin and Germany. Tensions between the two powers could not have been greater, not only in the military arena were they pitted against each other. As John Lewis Gaddis explains, following the fiasco that was the Bay of Pigs, “the Soviet Union’s success that month in putting the first man into orbit around the Earth” and a “badly handled summit conference at Vienna in June at which Khrushchev renewed his Berlin ultimatem” exacerbated the situation in Germany and heightened the Soviet leader’s low opinion of Kennedy. Both knew that Berlin would be the setting for any combat that could potentially break out and so it was a point of unrelenting animosity and political conflict. The contention over Berlin and Germany as a whole was instrumental in determining just how close the world came to nuclear war in October 1962, but it was not the prime cause of the crisis, as again it was determined by US foreign policy.

The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 was the closest the world has ever come to global annihilation. It was caused by an accumulation of several key events including aggressive US foreign policy, the legacy of the 1959 Cuban revolution, provocative Soviet actions, and the contention over Berlin and Germany. Though the conflict within Cuba and the overthrowal of Batista’s government was essential in creating the climate for which the crisis would take place in. As Robert Holmes states, “Fidel Castro was pleased with the Soviet Union” and fully in favour of the “agreement for the deployment of abundant quantities of weapons and equipment in Cuba, together with the tens of thousands of Soviet troops and advisers to manage them.” He enjoyed full support from Khrushchev, and the further actions of the USSR only served to heighten tensions. The situation in Berlin and Germany was also very important, but would not have been as drastic without the policies of the Soviet Union and the US. The Kennedy administration, demonstrated through the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Jupiter missiles, continually clashed with the interests of the USSR and eventually provoked Khrushchev into coming to Cuba’s defence, creating the crisis.

And as John Lewis Gaddis concludes, “the Cold War could have produced a hot war that might have ended human life on the planet. But because the fear of such a war turned out to be greater than all of the differences that separated the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies, there was now reason for hope that it would never take place.” Therefore, the Cuban Missile Crisis was primarily induced by aggressive US foreign policy.

Thanks JFK.

RIP

The Passing Of A Legend: Thatcher And Her Legacy

Defeat? I do not recognise the meaning of the word

On 8th April 2013, one of the greatest figures in Britain’s political history passed away. Margaret Hilda Thatcher’s life will forever shine as one of the brightest in the annals of our history with the extraordinary things she did for our country. No previous British Prime Minister has had an ism named after them. You cannot imagine Churchillism, Macmillanism, or Attleeism, and if such an ism had been conjured up, it would surely not have been about economics. There are those that profess to loathe her with, what can only be called, a naive ignorance, displaying an exceedingly shallow depth of understanding that is frankly embarrassing. Thatcher overcame astronomical obstacles and came to power in a time when women were still treated as an inferior species. Her sheer determination and hunger to fight for what she believed in and truly make a difference to the world is part of her vast legacy. No prime minister of modern times has sought to change Britain and its place in the world as radically as Margaret Thatcher did. As she wrote in her memoirs, “The Downing Street Years”, her government was about the application of a philosophy, not the implementation of an administrative program. Of her book, the Daily Express wrote, “Some things in life are priceless. So are Margaret Thatcher’s guts. They have left their mark on the world. So will The Downing Street Years.“

Thatcher experienced extraordinary successes, such as the victory in the Falklands, the privatisation program, the rescue of the economy from a crippling recession, and she did more for workers than her Leftie critics ever did. She also faced extensive and extreme opposition, among which were the Miners’ strike, the Brighton bomb, the poll tax riots, and the Westland affair, all of which she fought through with commendable tenacity and bravery. Her more controversial policies, such as the community charge in 1989, all had perfectly logical motives. The poll tax was simply a way to fund a bloated local government, as she explained in an address to the Central Council in Cheltenham, “Let’s be clear: it’s not the way the money is raised, it’s the amount of money that local government is spending. That’s the real problem. No scheme, no matter how ingenious, could pay for high spending with low charges.”

The Brighton Bombing

On 12th October 1984 at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, a time-bomb was planted by the IRA in an attempt to assassinate Margaret Thatcher. Although she narrowly escaped unharmed, five people were killed, including Sir Anthony Berry and Eric Taylor, and 31 were injured, some of whom were permanently disabled. The next day the IRA claimed responsibility in a chilling statement:

Mrs. Thatcher will now realise that Britain cannot occupy our country and torture our prisoners and shoot our people in their own streets and get away with it. Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always. Give Ireland peace and there will be no more war.

Thatcher responded in the Brighton conference:

This was an attempt to cripple Her Majesty’s democratically elected Government. That is the scale of the outrage in which we have all shared, and the fact that we are gathered here now—shocked, but composed and determined—is a sign not only that this attack has failed, but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail.

When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, Britain was a dump, “the sick man of Europe” and on the brink of total economic collapse. When she left power in 1990, it was the one of the financial capitals of the world. She is associated with her political philosophy of Thatcherism, based on low taxation, low public spending, free markets and mass privatisation. During her tenure she had to deal with mass unemployment, out of control inflation, endless strikes, a war with the Falklands and an attempted assassination by the IRA. And in February 2007, she became the first British Prime Minister to be honoured with a statue in the House of Commons while still alive; a testament to her incredible legacy. In an interview by the BBC in 1973, she actually said, “I don’t think there will be a woman Prime Minister in my lifetime.”

Margaret Thatcher led a remarkable life and a great sadness has settled over the nation in recognition of the passing of a legend. But there can be no doubt that her legacy will endure for generations to come. At a specially convened session of Parliament yesterday, David Cameron paid tribute to “an extraordinary leader and an extraordinary woman.”

So many of the principles that Lady Thatcher fought for are now part of the accepted political landscape of our country. As Winston Churchill once put it, ‘there are some politicians that make the weather’, and Margaret Thatcher was undoubtedly one of them. Mr. Speaker in the member’s lobby of the House of Commons there are rightly four principal statues: Lloyd George, who gave us the beginnings of the welfare state, Winston Churchill, who gave us victory in war, Clement Attlee who gave us the NHS, and Margaret Thatcher, who rescued our country from post-war decline. They say cometh the hour, cometh the man. Well, in 1979 came the hour, and came the lady. She made the political weather, she made history, and let this be her epitaph: she made our country great again.

Rest in peace Maggie, you are incredible.

Here are a collection of her most famous quotes:

Pennies don’t fall from heaven – they have to be earned here on earth.

No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.

Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.

My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police.

Defeat? I do not recognise the meaning of the word.

I, personally, have always voted for the death penalty because I believe that people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live. I believe that the death penalty should be used only very rarely, but I believe that no-one should go out certain that no matter how cruel, how vicious, how hideous their murder, they themselves will not suffer the death penalty.

RIP Maggie

Socialists cry “Power to the people”, and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.

There’s no such thing as society.

A man may climb Everest for himself, but at the summit he plants his country’s flag.

(To Conservative backbench MP John Whittingdale) The trouble with you, John, is that your spine does not reach your brain.

For every idealistic peacemaker willing to renounce his self-defence in favour of a weapons-free world, there is at least one warmaker anxious to exploit the other’s good intentions.

Constitutions have to be written on hearts, not just paper.

To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.

To wear your heart on your sleeve isn’t a very good plan; you should wear it inside, where it functions best.

If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.

Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.

I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.

If you want to cut your own throat, don’t come to me for a bandage.

There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.

I usually make up my mind about a man in ten seconds, and I very rarely change it.

It pays to know the enemy – not least because at some time you may have the opportunity to turn him into a friend.

It is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but the love of money for its own sake.

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

Popular capitalism is nothing less than a crusade to enfranchise the many in the economic life of the nation.

Imagine a Labour canvasser talking on the doorstep to those East German families when they settle in on freedom’s side of the wall. “You want to keep more of the money you earn? I’m afraid that’s very selfish. We shall want to tax that away. You want to own shares in your firm? We can’t have that. The state has to own your firm. You want to choose where to send your children to school? That’s very divisive. You’ll send your child where we tell you.

I highly recommend you watch it

I highly recommend you read it

Bergoglio Takes The Gold: All Hail Pope Francis

JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO!

AN ARGENTINIAN!

76 YEARS OLD!

THE FIRST NON-EUROPEAN PONTIFF FOR MORE THAN A MILLENNIUM!

Well, these are the thoughts running through my mind. Pope Francis was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, a surprise choice. I’m watching the BBC news channel right now as a panel of suited and booted men, one wearing a dog collar (as in a member of the clergy . . . not an actual dog collar), tell me that this is a hugely symbolic step, as parts of Latin America are still clutched in poverty, and age is irrelevant when it comes to the papacy (although that seems oddly ironic . . . the last guy just resigned because he was too old) . . . These three men, whoever they are, are predicting he will focus on social justice and inequality.

Oh! We’ve just gone live to Rio . . . oh . . . well it doesn’t look very exciting over there, apparently they all wanted a Brazilian pope. 42% of all Catholics live in Brazil, according to this BBC correspondent. Well, it’s safe to say the BBC obviously thought a Brazilian would be wearing the pointy hat right now . . .

When Francis/Jorge walked out on to the balcony of the Vatican, he asked everyone to pray for him, announcing to the billions watching that the world should set off on a path of love . . . unusual. This guy was also a favourite for the 2005 papal conclave, what makes him the right man now?

So, was Bergoglio the correct choice?

Argentina tonight . . .

Angels And Demons: Keith O’Brien, The Barmy Benedict, A Ghanaian Cardinal, And The Antipope

I’m sure the 1.2 billion followers of the Catholic religion were gutted when, on 25th February 2013, it became apparent that a Scotsman would not become the next Pope ruling in the Vatican. The resignation of the Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh brought embarrassment cascading on to the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, meaning he will not take part in the papal conclave that is only days away . . . He’s not even Scottish anyway. He was born in Northern Ireland.

So why was he forced to step down in the first place? Basically because he’s just another one of the complete nut jobs that are becoming increasingly more prevalent in the Catholic Church as their shady pasts are uncovered.

Keith O’Brien, more fiercely than any other religious leader, attacked gay marriage with unrestrained enthusiasm. He condemned it as a “grotesque subversion” and argued that “same-sex relations are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual well-being of those involved.” Not only is that utterly ludicrous and shameful, it ironically makes him a massive hypocrite. In 2012 he was named “bigot of the year” by gay rights charity Stonewall. And he even compared abortion to “two Dunblane massacres a day”, threatening to deny communion to politicians who accepted the procedure. Moreover, he compared sex education in schools as the “state-sponsored sex abuse” of young children and described a new bill on human embryos as “Frankenstein” experiments . . .

Someone has to help me out here. Am I missing something? Can anyone genuinely provide a comprehensive answer to the following question?

How do these sick lunatics actually get in power?

The catalyst of O’Brien’s resignation, was, as per usual, the dramatic discovery of allegations regarding sexual misconduct, this time to priests across a period of three decades. So folks, no Briton will take part in the conclave of cardinals to elect a successor to the barmy Benedict. Tragic. We should mainly be glad though. At least it’s now ensured that no one associated in any way with our little island will be caught up in the whole pointless charade that will take place in Rome in mid-March. Everything to do with the Catholic Church these days seems less and less about fellowship, love, and belief, and more and more about sexual scandals, resignations, and cover-ups. It’s stupid.

So who are the other candidates for the 266th pope?

Well, the world’s eyes are on Rome right now as the leaderless Roman Catholic Church begins the 2,000-year-old (thankfully not year-long) process of choosing a new guy to wear the big pointy hat. Sadly, there are no ladies in the line-up yet. Maybe one day. Meanwhile, cardinals from around the world started gathering on Monday in the Vatican. They basically all take part in long boring congregation meetings before the conclave where they stay in a big fancy hotel and go back and forth from the Sistine Chapel for the voting. It’s no longer as dramatic as it once was, they aren’t all locked inside together to fight it out, disappointing I know. That would be interesting wouldn’t it? I suppose the tallest, strongest, youngest cardinal would win. The guy with the biggest biceps and meanest left hook.

Anyway, the front runners range from 68-year-old Canadian Marc Ouellet, to 63-year-old Brazilian Odilo Scherer, to 62-year-old American Timothy Dolan, to popular 55-year-old Filipino Luis Tagle, to 64-year-old Ghanaian Peter Turkson.

Turkson would be the first African pope of the modern age. In his career so far he has called for radical economic reforms to deal with the global economic recession, and heavily criticised the IMF. As well as condoning condoms and joining Twitter, with regards to homosexuality, he has stated, “Just as there’s a sense of a call for rights, there’s also a call to respect culture, of all kinds of people”. He seems all right to be honest.

However, there have been fascinating allegations over a “two-pope problem” as many rise up in outrage over Benedict’s resignation. Two distinguished Italian theologians have demanded that he should withdraw his resignation, one arguing he ought not to resign, the other claiming a pope cannot resign. In the latter case, when the cardinals proceed to elect a successor they are, according to Enrico Maria Radaelli, electing an antipope, an impostor on the chair of St Peter. Let’s take a journey back into the past. It’s always fun.

The last resignation was 600 years ago. In 1294, the hermit, Pietro da Morrone, catupulted to the giddying heights of the papacy as “Celestine V”, mainly because the cardinals couldn’t actually agree on anyone else. Old Celestine then realised he felt the same way six months later, and “gave up”. He walked away. All he wanted was just to return to his hermitage. However, Boniface VIII (yes . . . it is a funny name, and no . . . I didn’t make it up), his successor, thought it much wiser to lock him up in a convenient castle for the rest of his life. This was obviously an effort to squish any possibility of a rallying legion of Catholics who would try to reinstate him. But Boniface didn’t get his wish, and there was a large surge of outrage at the pope. One of the arguments marshalled by Boniface’s many enemies was that, because popes could not resign, he wasn’t the legitimate heir to St Peter.

This can evidently be compared to the current situation. And the Vatican has chosen to make the matter hilariously more complicated. Benedict will actually stay on living there, in a quiet life of prayer, and will dress in white, be called the “pope emeritus” and be addressed as “Your Holiness”. Can anyone see the logic in this? The reason you can’t is because there is none.

So how did other leaders around the world view the resignation? Here are a couple of reactions . . .

Mario Monti (Italian PM): “I will treasure the touching memory of the personal and close dialogue with which the Holy Father has consented to accompany my commitment with the government.“

Angela Merkel (German Chancellor): “He is and remains one of the most significant religious thinkers of our time.“

Barack Obama (I assume you know who he is): “The Church plays a critical role in the United States and the world, and I wish the best to those who will soon gather to choose His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI’s successor.“

David Cameron: “Pope Benedict has worked tirelessly to strengthen Britain’s relations with the Holy See. He will be missed as a spiritual leader to millions.”

Justin Welby (Archbishop of Canterbury): “In his visit to the UK, Pope Benedict showed us all something of what the vocation of the See of Rome can mean in practice – a witness to the universal scope of the gospel and a messenger of hope at a time when Christian faith is being called into question.“

Most of this is misguided to be quite frank. See: The Pope, His Sins, And Why We Should Be Happy To See Him Go.

So will the next old guy in the papal chair be an anti-pope? Some may think so. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter.

In conclusion, go watch “Angels and Demons”. If you’re interested in this kind of stuff you’ll love it. If you’re very Catholic, you should still love it, or may be mildly offended I suppose. If you have no interest whatsoever in the Catholic Church or the pope, you’ll love it anyway. And if you’ve already seen it, go watch it again. (The book is also brilliant.)

PETER TURKSON FOR THE WIN!

Did Gideon Cry When We Lost Our Triple A Rating?

It’s very embarrassing isn’t it? A couple of days ago the city of London was viewed as the financial hub of the world, the ultimate destination for investors and speculators, utterly confident in Britain’s bulletproof economic superiority. And then . . . oh dear. Gideon had to rub his eyes and blink several times as he stared in abject horror at the poor soul who had to deliver the news. Or perhaps it was a phone call. Or maybe he saw it on the news itself? Or got a visit from Ed Balls who promptly laughed hysterically in his face and danced around Number 11 with his shirt over his head.

To be honest, will it mean a great deal economically? Probably not. The main upset will be over the political consequences.

But firstly so everyone knows, what is the credit rating? Well, they are determined and issued by agencies like Moody’s, private companies who sell their financial analysis to investors. They mark potential investments using a scorecard system, Moody’s ranges from Aaa to C. In the case of countries, agencies are assessing their creditworthiness, basically, their ability to pay back money lent to them. The less likely a country is to be able to pay back its debts, the lower the rating. So the UK has been downgraded from the coveted triple A, to the inferior Aa1 . . . cringe.

Why has this happened do you ask? Mainly because Moody’s decided our economic growth will be very “sluggish” over the next couple of years, and with the current ugly recession they deemed it time to dash Gideon’s dreams. What this means for him is that it will take longer to wrestle down the budget deficit because growth will flop, less will be brought in by tax, and more spent on benefits and the likes. Yes. Depressing. And because the debt problem will take longer to get under control, there will be a deterioration of the country’s “shock-absorption capacity”. Which means it will be harder for us to cope with any external problems, such as the wild, rampaging beast that is the Eurozone crisis. Or maybe it’s more like a bleeding, dying, weary creature with poisonous puss leaking out of its deep wounds and creeping across the Channel.

So in terms of economic repercussions? Well, there will be a slide in the value of sterling (and there are even rumours that the pound to euro exchange rate will drop to 1:1, so get your holiday money now). This helps exporters (as their goods become cheaper for those in other countries), but for us miserable importers, there are dark days ahead. The price of petrol has already climbed over the past month, and other cruel increases like this will put pressure on household incomes, company profits, and overall growth.

And politically? Poor Gideon, is all I can say. He’s hurriedly trying to backtrack and steam ahead with his austerity plans while Balls and the whole Labour clan are snapping at his heels and labelling him as a failure. Stay strong Gideon.

Let’s face it. It can’t get much worse.

(Well . . . it can, but let’s keep that on the DL).

Should The Blade Runner Have Been Given Bail? Cast Your Vote Today

Innocent?

On 22nd February 2013, Oscar Pistorius was granted bail after a four-day hearing by the South African court. Do you think this was just? That this maniac who was so uptight he shot his girlfriend through the door of his bathroom has been allowed to walk free? Do you think it’s perfectly logical that, thinking she was a burglar, he didn’t bother checking if she was still in bed, waiting for the door to open to see who it was, or realise that she might have just needed the toilet? Cast your vote below . . .

Corruption and Economic Decimation: What’s Really Going On In Spain?

Rajoy looking at the unemployment figures

Mariano Rajoy has undoubtedly been a painful disappointment to the weary people of Spain. He has wasted precious time, lacked ambition, and failed to convince his people that he holds the solutions to their extensive problems. He became Prime Minister in December 2011, Leader of the People’s Party (Conservative). Even with various incidents like the illegal financing scandal in 2009 with off-shore accounts and undercover monthly payments: the Gurtel scandal, the party retained a majority. Their political views are Reformist Centre, apparently encompassing all the ideologies it holds at its heart: conservatism, Christian democracy, and liberalism. The individual is the axis of its political action with social progression as its objective, defending human rights and equality of opportunity. This all sounds very nice but how is Rajoy really doing?

A buffet apparently

Well, since Spanish unemployment has actually reached 26%, it can’t be very good. And recently, evidence of further illegal financing has surfaced as leaked handwritten account-books show the party’s leaders have been receiving payments of €25,000 a year from a slush fund whose donors are construction magnates. This is particularly outrageous because these construction companies are what inflated the housing bubble to bursting point in the first place. These accounts were recorded by the People’s Party’s former treasurer, Luis Barcenas, a man utterly embroiled in such scandals. There have even been protests against him. He had to resign from the Senate in 2010 but has yet to be tried for the Gurtel case. Investigations inflamed once more just last month and it was uncovered that he held a Swiss bank account containing €22 million. In relation to the fraud accounts, the free-flowing slush money was also used by Barcenas. However, like Rajoy, who has brushed off opposition calls to resign over the matter, he denies all involvement.

Tired?

Though the Prime Minister’s majority was absolute 15 months ago, he has now lost a fifth of his diminishing public support. So what are the alternatives? The Socialists? They are even less popular. Rajoy is now relying on an economic recovery before the next election in 2015. Spanish corruption may not yet be on par with Italian corruption, but his plans for this magical recovery are worthy of a whole lot of scepticism. In the midst of a suffocating recession, crippling housing bust, extensive corruption, and leeching bank bail-outs, the picture is grim indeed. The country’s metamorphosis to one of democracy in the 1970s has ended up giving too much power to the two main parties (which now only have 46% of the vote), and the only people who can possibly clean up this mess are those who created it. Even the King’s son-in-law, Inaki Urdangarin, is being investigated for corruption as it is revealed that he defied direct orders from King Juan Carlos himself to stop his business dealings. A former Olympic handball medallist, Urdangarin embezzled almost €6 million of public funds through the Noos Institute, merely adding to the long list of Spain’s embarrassments.

And how is Catalonia doing these days?

Rajoy thinking about Catalonia

Unrest kicked off in this heavily indebted, nearly autonomous region, when Rajoy’s attempt to rein in spending rekindled its dormant nationalism. A shockingly large rally in Barcelona in September saw banners proclaiming Catalonia as the next member of the EU. And last month, its parliament passed a sovereignty declaration, stating its people have a democratic right to decide on their fate within Spain. This growing separatist movement represents a considerable headache for old Rajoy, because if Catalonia holds a referendum, the Basque Country would probably follow, potentially shattering Spain and leading to its swift death. He has stated that he will fight on constitutional grounds any attempt to hold such a referendum on secession from Spain in 2014. This recent declaration, is admittedly, only symbolic. It doesn’t really mean anything to be honest, but it is an exacerbation of the situation and I’m sure Rajoy has shed at least a few tears over it by now.

So is there anything good happening in Spain? Anything?

Perhaps the only thing they have left to be proud of at the moment is their top spot on the FIFA world ranking . . . And that really isn’t saying much at all, is it?