I call bullshit on this guy. He is confusing different eras in women's quest for equal rights. I disagree that any women's equal rights' initiatives were driven by the government making them their pawns. Early education for kids is not driven by a cynical desire of the government to wean them away from family allegiance. It is to make them better able to face the jobs they will be doing that haven't even been invented yet. This sounds like home-school propaganda.
While it may be true that many special interests have exploited the many movements, trying to sum it up as if this is all that it is misses the reality of the need for society change. I'll get off my soapbox here and let John take it away: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asf4InKVo8k --- In [email protected], obbajeeba <no_reply@...> wrote: > > 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? > > > > > >
