Cannon refuses to demand Mubarak's resignation

While the leaders of most countries, including the US, are calling on Hosni Mubarak to step down immediately, Canada's foreign minister, Lawrence Cannon, doesn't seem to want this:

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon was pressed by opposition MPs Wednesday night but repeatedly refused to call for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s immediate resignation.

The Americans have taken a much clearer stand. U.S. President Barack Obama has called for Mr. Mubarak to step down now, dismissing his plan to leave in September as fighting escalates in the streets of Cairo.

Mr. Cannon was speaking during what was at times a very passionate debate in the Commons on the worsening situation in Egypt. Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae, who had negotiated the emergency session, led off the questioning of Mr. Cannon.

From the Globe. This might seem rather peculiar, but perhaps this has something to do with it. The confusing thing, though, is that you'd expect Obama to avoid such calls too... unless he's absolutely convinced that Mubarak is finished, in which case his current message makes sense (cutting Mubarak loose now will improve the chance of maintaining relations with the new regime).

Teabagger doesn't understand the Constitution

You'd think people who are constantly ranting about the importance of upholding the Constitution would have bothered to read it. Apparently not:

The US constitution has its quirks but it is crystal clear on one issue: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," begins the first amendment, adopted in 1791. But more than 200 years later, its meaning appears to be lost on Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party favourite running for a US Senate seat.

At a debate today for the Delaware Senate seat once occupied by Vice President Joe Biden, O'Donnell appeared to be nonplussed by the wording of the first amendment, repeatedly returning to the subject and sounding incredulous after her Democratic opponent Chris Coons attempted to explain it to her.

When Coons told her the text of the constitution prohibited government from establishing any religion, O'Donnell replied in apparent bewilderment: "You're telling me that's in the first amendment?"

From the Guardian. Rather strange. It gets better, though, because the teabaggers, for the most part, subscribe to a school of constitutional thought known as originalism, the idea that when interpreting the Constitution, every effort should be made to see what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote it. Well, in this case we have some good evidence for the intention:

Not only is the first amendment perhaps the most famous part of the constitution but the "establishment clause", as it is known, is the subject of legal precedent stretching back into the 19th century. No less an authority than Thomas Jefferson, one of the constitution's authors, declared the clause's aim to build "a wall of separation between church and state".

My emphasis. Things are going to get rather interesting for some of these people when they find themselves actually getting elected (and I suspect far to many of them will for my liking). Gwynne Dyer thinks, though, that this might not be the disaster that some fear:

If all of the retired white people vote, and only the usual midterm proportion of all the other demographics does, then the Democrats will lose both houses of Congress.

So why isn’t Obama more worried about it?

He will certainly regret that so many long-serving Democratic senators and congressmen are going to lose their seats this autumn, but it really does not much matter to him who controls the Congress for the next two years.

He can’t hope to get any more legislation even through the current Congress since the Democrats lost their “super-majority” of 60 seats in the Senate last January, so what’s the difference?

Nor does Obama actually have to get more legislation through Congress right now. It would be nice to have a tough climate-change bill, no doubt, but from a political point of view, there is no new law that he simply must pass before he faces reelection himself in 2012.

Indeed, he stands a very good chance of winning a second term in 2012, in large part because of what is going to happen this November.

From the Georgia Straight. Essentially, Dyer thinks that the teabaggers will show their true colours, yet be unable to actually accomplish anything:

Getting majorities in both houses of Congress will leave the Republicans nowhere to hide on the critical issue of cutting the huge federal deficit. They have already said that they will not raise taxes—even for those earning more than $250,000 a year—and they have pledged not to cut defence spending.

What’s left? The only other big-ticket items in the budget are entitlements: health care and pensions.

The United States has not yet gone through the painful debate about how to tame the deficit that has already happened in most European countries, but it will have to do so soon.

That poses a particular problem for Republicans, because if they will not raise taxes on the rich or cut defence spending, then they have to support brutal cuts in health care and pensions or lose all credibility as deficit-cutters.

But cutting entitlements would alienate the Republicans’ own most important demographic: older white people. They will not risk that.

Dyer also points out that any ridiculous piece of legislation that they come up with, even if it passes both houses of Congress, is subject to presidential veto. The one thing he does not mention is that if the Republicans get supermajorities in both houses, they will be able to override his veto. Hopefully -- and probably -- that won't happen.

The Ground Zero mosque issue

The amount of venom that is being spewed over this issue is shocking, though not surprising. Spengler at the Asia Times has some interesting comments:

Popular antipathy to a proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero is so fierce that even President Barack Obama, the nation's Islamophile-in-chief, "clarified" his August 11 statement supporting the plan to say, "I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there." It is not just a mosque, of which there are two in the neighborhood, but a symbol of Islamic presence. The most recent CNN poll shows an overwhelming 70%-29% margin of opposition.

Yikes. Even setting aside some of the more hypocritical examples, that's worrisome. More worrisome is this:

What is surprising is how passionately Americans oppose the Ground Zero mosque. A revolt is brewing against America's liberal political elite.

If this continues to take hold, I have a bad feeling about what might happen in the midterms in the fall, not to mention the next presidential election. Huckabee-Palin 2012? Still not out of the question...

Poll suggests voters approve of Obamacare

Wonder how the teabaggers will react to this?

More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.

By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the legislation "a good first step" that needs to be followed by more action. And 4% say the bill itself makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

From USA Today.

US and Russia close to nuclear arms deal

This looks promising:

The U.S. and Russia are close to signing an agreement to slash their arsenals of nuclear weapons, officials said Wednesday, setting the stage for the two former Cold War rivals to sign a treaty in Prague shortly after Easter.

"We're very close to getting an agreement," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

He said the two countries can't finalize the deal until President Barack Obama speaks personally with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, but added that they're likely to talk within the next several days.

"The president, I think, hopes to speak to the Russian leader in the next several days, but there's still some things that need to be worked out," Gibbs said.

"The two presidents will talk soon to finalize the language, but terms have been agreed to and both sides are expecting a signing in Prague in early April," said a person close to the negotiations who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

Officials in the Czech Republic said Wednesday that the two leaders are expected to sign the START II treaty in Prague sometime after Easter, or April 4. That would be almost exactly a year after Obama delivered a major speech there spelling out his hopes for a nuclear-free world.

From the Miami Herald.

Do-or-die day for the Democrats

Who could have imagined the Democrats having trouble in Massachusetts? Well, today a by-election (or as the Americans call them, a "special election") is being held to fill the Senate seat left vacant by the death of Ted Kennedy. And it's possible that they could actually lose:

The special election being held today to fill Mr. Kennedy's Senate seat, which is too close to call, is a stinging verdict on President Barack Obama's first year in office. If Democrat Martha Coakley loses - or barely scrapes by - Mr. Obama will bear the blame and the consequences will reverberate for the rest of his term.

The Massachusetts race also offers voters across the country a taste of what to expect this fall, when midterm elections will be held for all 435 seats in U.S. House of Representatives and more than a third of those in the 100-seat Senate. Gone from the Democratic pitch is the message of hope and empowerment that fuelled Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign. In its place are eerie attack ads and warnings of the dark days that a Republican win would bring.

From the Globe and Mail. If this happens, it could cripple Obama's administration, since the Democrats would lose their 60% majority in the Senate that they need to stop a filibuster. This would mean that the health care plan would probably collapse; all that the Republicans need is to delay it until the midterm elections. Worse, it could be damaging to efforts to minimize climate change. And in any case it could seriously damage Obama's chance of reelection in 2012. Gwynne Dyer's fear that Obama could be the next LBJ might well bear fruit. How does "President Mike Huckabee" sound to you? Maybe "President Nehemiah Scudder"?

Limbaugh outdoes himself

It seems there's nothing he won't stoop to:



From MediaMatters (h/t: Curtis at Endless Spin Cycle).

So they have some kind of a deal...

It appears that the Copenhagen climate talks have produced something or other:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other world leaders — including those from the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa — are leaving Copenhagen with a compromise climate deal and a vow to work out the details.

Of course, "the details" is where one is most likely to find the man in the red suit. In this case, though, there's no need to wait for said details:

Harper called it a "comprehensive and realistic" agreement, while U.S. President Barack Obama hailed it as a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough."

However, the agreement is not binding and does not set new greenhouse-gas reduction targets. Instead, countries are to set their own emission-reduction commitments, which would not be legally binding.

So in other words, it's utterly meaningless, except as a way for the leaders to claim they've accomplished something. And yet, something good could still come of this; the leaders have in effect made a very public admission that they recognize the reality of climate change, which could force them to make some effort to actually do something about the problem. And then there are other possible spinoffs:

The US and Russia on Friday said they were close to an agreement on nuclear arms reduction after presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev met on the sidelines of the Copenhagen climate conference.

Mr Obama reported ”excellent progress” towards a replacement for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expired this month, while Mr Medvedev said a deal was “very close”, with only “technical details” to resolve.

Both leaders have pledged to sign a fresh accord leading to further reductions in nuclear arms, after cutting their respective arsenals to fewer than 6,000 warheads and 1,600 delivery vehicles under the previous Cold War-era treaty.

If only the climate talks themselves could produce such concrete results. Of course, 6,000 warheads and 1,600 delivery vehicles is still a ridiculous amount of firepower, and it remains to be seen what the new agreement will bring. Still, it's a clear step in the right direction, and there's already a precedent for agreeing to actual numbers. And if we are to face significant climate change, the fewer nuclear weapons there are, the better; things are likely to get ugly in the next few decades.

Harper shamed into going to Copenhagen

I guess the fact that the Obama and Wen are going forced his hand:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will attend the Copenhagen climate change meeting next month after all, his office said Thursday — a day after saying he would not go.

Harper decided Thursday to attend the meeting to work on a new climate change agreement after the U.S. president and Chinese premier announced that they will show up, his spokesman said.

Canada has been strongly criticized internationally for reneging on the Kyoto climate protocol and for refusing to sign on to a new deal limiting greenhouse gases unless developing nations are included.

From the CBC.

The latest anti-Obama slogan

It's a subtle but unsettling message:

There’s a new slogan making its way onto car bumpers and across the Internet. It reads simply: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8”

A nice sentiment?

Maybe not.

The psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”

Presidential criticism through witty slogans is nothing new. Bumper stickers, t-shirts, and hats with “1/20/09” commemorated President Bush’s last day in office.

But the verse immediately following the psalm referenced is a bit more ominous: “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”

From the Christian Science Monitor, via AlterNet. It may not meet the technical definition of sedition or hate speech (it isn't overtly advocating violence, unless you believe in the power of prayer to kill someone) but it shows where their minds are at, on more than one level.

The ghosts of Vietnam haunt Barack Obama

Further to this post, it seems that Obama is indeed unsure about what to do in Afghanistan:

It's a decision that is clearly the most difficult of Barack Obama's young presidency -- whether to heed the pleas of top military officials to send more troops to Afghanistan in a conflict some fear could become his Vietnam.

The president's dilemma has drawn parallels to Lyndon Johnson's deliberations about Vietnam 45 years ago as Obama grows noticeably thinner and confesses to skipping meals as he ponders the risks of escalating the United States presence in Afghanistan.

Like Johnson, Obama came to power with an ambitious domestic agenda as a controversial war raged overseas. His presidency hasn't yet been hijacked by an enormous American casualty rate in a faraway land against a stealthy enemy, but his closest advisers worry that it could be.

"The lesson of Vietnam surely is how can you get a nation engaged in it? It seems hard to imagine that Afghanistan is ever going to be a popular war," said Stephen Hess, who worked for Richard Nixon as the Republican president dealt with "Johnson's war" after his 1968 election.

From the Hamilton Spectator. He's in an awful situation; he should really pull out, but is the electorate willing to accept that they're in a fight they can't win?

Obama's last chance?

Gwynne Dyer thinks that the recent sham election in Afghanistan may give Obama an out:

As the evidence emerged that up to a third of the votes allegedly cast for Karzai had been fraudulent, the United States backed away from celebrating his “re-election”. Indeed, the fraud was so blatant and massive that even the Afghans began to choke on it, and various American emissaries threatened and bullied Karzai into accepting a run-off vote against his closest rival in the first round of voting, Dr Abdullah Abdullah.

That vote would have been held this Saturday (November 7), but Abdullah knew that he would lose again. He belongs to the Tajik ethnic group, and there are twice as many Pashtuns (Karzai’s ethnic group) in Afghanistan as there are Tajiks. So Abdullah complained that the election officials conducting this run-off would be exactly the same men who had rigged the first round—which was quite true—and demanded their resignation.

Karzai refused to remove them, Abdullah used that as an excuse to withdraw from the election, and last Sunday (November 1) the run-off was cancelled. Karzai was proclaimed president once again on the basis of the discredited first-round vote, and the whole sorry mess was abandoned. But there is a silver lining: if Obama wants to bail out of Afghanistan, he now has an excellent excuse for doing so.

From the Georgia Straight. The question is, will Obama take advantage of this opportunity? Dyer makes no predictions, except for what will happen if he doesn't:

If he misses this opportunity, he may never get another, for it will inevitably, inexorably become “his” war, and the Americans who are killed there from now on will have died on his orders. Once that kind of burden descends on a politician, it becomes almost impossible for him to change course and admit that those deaths were futile. In that case, the Afghanistan war will eventually destroy him.

I'm inclined to think Dyer's right. But does Obama?

Harper boycotts Ahmadinejad's speech... and Obama's

We've all heard by now how our illustrious PM wants to show how enlightened he is by boycotting the address to the UN General Assembly by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ostensibly based on the latter's comments about the Holocaust. Well, as pogge points out, he's undermining this by not showing up at Obama's speech either:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, travelling in the United States this week, will be a no-show during U.S. President Barack Obama's address to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday morning.

The White House press office says Mr. Obama's speech starts at 9:15 a.m., but the Prime Minister's Office says Mr. Harper is scheduled to be back in Canada for an event in Oakville, Ont, at 11:30 a.m.

The reason? Mr. Harper's making a stop at something called the Tim Hortons Innovation Centre.

Source. I hope he enjoys the donuts... Well no, actually I hope he chokes to death on one, but whatever.

Kansas Republican calls for "great white hope"

A rather unfortunate choice of words, don't you think?

A Republican congresswoman from Kansas is issuing a great big apology for saying the GOP is searching for a "great white hope" to stop President Obama's policy agenda.

Rep. Lynn Jenkins "apologizes if her words have offended anyone," her spokesman, Mary Geiger, said. "That was not the intent in any way, shape or form."

During an Aug. 19 forum, Jenkins attempted to reassure the crowd that that the Republican Party has promising young leaders.

"Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope," Jenkins, who is white, said. "I suggest to any of you who are concerned about that, who are Republican, there are some great young Republican minds in Washington."

Later, at an event at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Jenkins denied she was using racial terms. She said she meant only that the GOP needs "a bright light."

Source. Uh... sure. "A bright light". Yeah, we believe you, Lynn.

U.K. health system hits back at ‘untruths’

Further to yesterday's post, the Brits aren't taking this lying down:

LONDON - Britain's health care service says it is sick of being lied about.

Pilloried by right-wing critics of President Barack Obama's health care plan, Britain's National Health Service, known here as the NHS, is fighting back.

"People have been saying some untruths in the States," a spokesman for Britain Department of Health said in a telephone interview. "There's been all these ridiculous claims made by the American health lobby about Obama's health care plan ... and they've used the NHS as an example. A lot of it has been untrue."

Source. Meanwhile, as pointed out by a poster here, our own government is strangely silent on all the lies and half-truths being brought forward about our system. But then, when you look at the shite that our esteemed Prime Minister spewed back when he was with the National Citizens' Coalition, it's no surprise. He's just learned not to express such opinions now that he has to answer to the public.

What the heck is with these "birthers" anyway?

No doubt you've heard of these people. They are absolutely convinced that Obama was not born in the US, and nothing will satisfy them. Here's some in action:

Via mesyn191 in this iTulip thread. Scary, no? And doesn't it occur to them that if there were any serious reason to believe that Obama was not qualified for office, that John McCain or Hilary Clinton would have dug it up? I mean, wouldn't you, if you were in their position? No doubt the birthers would say they're in on the nefarious scheme too, though.

And as others have pointed out, no previous president has faced scrutiny of this type. Nobody spread rumours about JFK actually having been secretly born in Ireland. But to a lot of people, Obama doesn't look like a real American. And an awful lot of elected officials are reluctant to discuss their views on the matter:

Via Blaque. Oh, and by the way, the birth certificate is shown here.

The coup in Honduras

The overthrow of President Manuel Zelaya has flown under the radar, thanks to the death of Michael Jackson. Despite the fact that Obama says he opposes the coup, there are more than a few folks who think this might be the work of the Yanks. With the miracle of Babelfish, it seems clear that this blogger believes the timing is not coincidental; she believes that the death of Jackson provides a convenient smokescreen, and in this babble thread it is pointed out that the coup was the work of a graduate of the infamous School of the Americas (now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). Plenty more commentary here.

Let the dominoes fall!

A left-wing wave seems to be sweeping across parts of the Americas. It would be stretching things to say Obama is part of this except in a relative sense (I'd call him a centrist, or even centre right) but consider: Not only do we have Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Lula, but it looks like they may soon be joined by Mauricio Funes, the FMLN's candidate for the presidency of El Salvador. Indications are that he's ahead in the polls:

Former leftist rebels in El Salvador appear poised to accomplish at the ballot box what they were unable to accomplish on the battlefield: win power.

In the 1980s, the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front drew the U.S. into a bloody Cold War conflict in Central America.

Now, as a political party known by its acronym FMLN, it has been leading in public opinion polls for presidential elections slated for March.

If the party's candidate wins, he would be the first leftist president in El Salvador's history.

At an FMLN rally in the capital, San Salvador, supporters call Mauricio Funes — despite his white skin — "El Salvador's Barack Obama."

A former journalist, Funes once hosted a television talk show for which he had a reputation for holding government officials' feet to the fire. He has electrified the left in El Salvador in a way that previous FMLN candidates haven't.

From NPR. Meanwhile, back in our own country, Gary Doer may soon have some company in Canada again:

Nova Scotia should get ready for an NDP minority government, pollster Don Mills told a business luncheon Tuesday.

"The strength of support for the NDP has been constant and consistent for almost two years, and there seems to be very little that will disturb that in an election," he told reporters after his speech to the Halifax Chamber of Commerce.

"Any time in the last year, we would have predicted an NDP government. The reason we are predicting now is because we believe we are close to an election. We’re probably two months away from an election."

Mr. Mills, of Corporate Research Associates in Halifax, said the only thing that could derail an election call in the near future is if the Liberals decide they want to give leader Stephen McNeil, who was chosen in 2007, more time.

The pollster said the most recent survey showed the NDP was the top choice of decided voters with 36 per cent (down from 37 per cent in November), the Liberals were in second with 31 per cent (up from 27 per cent) and the Conservatives were third with 30 per cent (down from 33 per cent). Another three per cent chose the Green party (unchanged from last quarter). Of those surveyed, 37 per cent were undecided.

From the Chronicle Herald. This could get interesting.

Will Afghanistan be Obama’s Vietnam?

You have to wonder, don't you? Gwynne Dyer certainly does:

You aren’t really the U.S. president until you’ve ordered an air strike on somebody, so Barack Obama is certainly president now: two in his first week in office. But now that he has been blooded, can we talk a little about this expanded war he’s planning to fight in Afghanistan?

Does that sound harsh? Well, so is killing people, and all the more so because Obama must know that these remote-controlled Predator strikes usually kill not just the “bad guy”, whoever he is, but also the entire family he has taken shelter with. It also annoys Pakistan, whose territory the United States violated in order to carry out the killings.

It’s not a question of whether the intelligence on which the attacks were based was accurate (although sometimes it isn’t). The question is do these killings actually serve any useful purpose. And the same question applies to the entire U.S. war in Afghanistan.

For those who would say, "But Obama didn't get America into Afghanistan", it's worth remembering that Lyndon Johnson, who gets the lion's share of the blame for Vietnam, didn't get America into that mess either:

The parallel with Vietnam is not all that far-fetched. Modest numbers of American troops have now been in Afghanistan for seven years, mostly in training roles quite similar to those of the U.S. military “advisers” whom presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy sent to South Vietnam from 1955 to 1963.

Funny how a lot of people forget Kennedy's role in that tragedy, but that's another issue. What matters is what it might mean:

We already know how this story ends. There was not a lot in common between presidents Kennedy and George W. Bush, but they were both ideological crusaders who got the United States mired in foreign wars it could not win and did not need to win. They then bequeathed those wars to presidents who had ambitious reform agendas in domestic politics and little interest or experience in foreign affairs.

That bequest destroyed Johnson, who took the rotten advice of the military and civilian advisers he inherited from Kennedy because there wasn’t much else on offer in Washington at the time. Obama is drifting into the same dangerous waters, and the rotten advice he is getting from strategists who believe in the “war on terror” could do that for him, too.

Yes, LBJ actually did have pretty progressive domestic policies, at least by American standards. Most of the civil rights advances happened under his watch (even though Kennedy often gets the credit because there's footage of him talking to Martin Luther King or something like that).

As for us, the message we as Canadians should take from this is that we need to elect a government here that will get us the fuck out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. We've done enough of the Americans' dirty work already.

Be wary of gift cards

Just another sign of the times:

Experts are issuing buyer beware warnings advising consumers to avoid buying gift cards this year.

With a growing number of retailers going under from the strain of the recession, holiday gift cards run the risk of not being honoured with companies in the midst of “restructuring.”

“We’re not crazy about them in general, but, particularly this year, until merchants become serious about protecting their funds, buy a real gift,” said Anthony Giorgianni, money advisor for Consumer Reports.

It’s a warning that also stems from an e-mail that’s gone viral in cyberspace. The e-mail, of unknown origin, advises consumers to avoid buying gift certificates at several major retailers because they’ve either filed for bankruptcy or are on the brink of going under.

From the Portage Daily Graphic. Makes a certain amount of sense, for sure. The stores singled out in the email will no doubt be desperate to suppress this story, because it will further cut into their revenue stream, but likely to no avail. I say it serves them right for introducing expiry dates.

Regarding the economic crisis in general, I don't know enough to say whether this will be the next Great Depression or just a nasty recession like we've had a number of times in the postwar era. I also don't know if anything good will come from this, but it's possible; the public works programs that have been announced in the US were overdue already, for instance, and if they spend a lot on developing clean energy sources, the world could come out ahead on the deal. George Monbiot thinks that the environment might also benefit simply from the decline in industrial activity, though others think that the lack of availability of credit might hamper the development of green energy by the private sector. But this is a perfect example of why we need a public sector. Thank goodness that Manitoba Hydro, for instance, is around to do stuff like this.

And then there are the more unpredictable benefits. Consider what happened in the last Great Depression:

On Dec. 5, 1933 — nearly 75 years ago to the day — America was buried in the Great Depression. A quarter of the workforce was unemployed, industrial production had halved, and the Dow was more than two thirds below its 1929 peak. There was, however, something to celebrate.

At 7 p.m. that evening president Franklin D. Roosevelt declared the ratification the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, which nullified the Eighteenth, making drinking alcohol legal once again. The event was celebrated in New Orleans with a 20-minute cannonade, and in New York cargoes of premium spirits owned by Joseph Kennedy, Sr., were unloaded from ships that had been waiting for the announcement just offshore. Prohibition — what Herbert Hoover in 1928 had called a “great social and economic experiment, noble in motive and far reaching in purpose” — was over. The writer and social commentator H.L Mencken compared its effects, in terms of the suffering it had caused, to the Black Death in Medieval Europe and marked its passing with a glass of water — “my first in 13 years.”

From the New York Times. Curiously, the story doesn't discuss the new prohibition that the US introduced a few years after and then forced the rest of the world to agree to (though several of the posted comments bring this up), but one has to wonder if the legalization of some prohibited drugs (at least marijuana) might finally be possible. Massachusetts just decriminalized it, after all, and some jurisdictions are likely to recognize that they could collect an awful lot of badly needed tax revenue if they went a step beyond and actually legalized it. Are you reading this, Barack?