http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avt-5cfb3ng
--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > 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? > > > > > > > > > >
