http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhJCTFZf03A
--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > I am enjoying the documentary. It is a complex story worthy of the time > spent. For me it seems to be a story of women's empowerment in this country. > They rose up against a social problem and affected change. Unfortunately > the solution had unintended consequences and did not solve the problem. But > that speaks more to the complexity of human nature rather than the > earnestness of the goal. And I believe some real good did come out of women > gaining more of a voice which I'll bet lead to more government protection for > family members. In the 1920s it would be unthinkable to have Health and > Human services take someone's abused kids away or protect a battered spouse. > > The issue was real for women at that time. A large number of men were > squandering the family's money on booze and there was a lot of family abuse > with no recourse. The solution seemed simple, get rid of booze. These women > were so brave. They were going up against business in a way unthinkable > today. Protesting outside of saloons in Winter they would be invited in from > the cold, doused with beer and sent outside to freeze! But they didn't back > down. In today's cynical connection between business and government, their > success would be unthinkable. > > There are so many poignant stories in this documentary. Earnest people > trying to make positive changes. Unfortunately banning a substance that > people want is just not gunna turn out well. The parallels to today's drug > war is important. How can a government be so clear about the impossibility > of banning alcohol which must be fermented and or distilled then believe that > it can ban a plant that grows like a weed? And do we have to realize that we > can't always legislate our way out of human problems caused by our nature? > > I'll stop here because I have only seen the first one. > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Tom Pall <thomas.pall@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I turned off Ken Burns' Prohibition. His sthick has been > > > copied so many times, it's no longer novel and exciting. > > > Plus, his handling of Prohibition is just so polemic. > > > Don't bother going into the history. Just slant it your > > > own way. > > > > That's what it sounded like to me just watching the trailer. > > He apparently thinks Prohibition was a ridiculous idea. Did > > he relate that in any way to the prohibition of marijuana > > and other potentially highly useful and largely benign > > psychedelics, or did he ignore that as you say he ignores > > the history of the temperance movement? > > >
