--- 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?
>
Here we see, gentle readers of FFL, another example of of the censorious editor
living up to the stereotypes often used to characterize her behavior. That and
her being, once again, really really stupid. Note that she is criticizing a
movie she has never ever seen. Had she seen it she would realize that not only
does it not ignore the temperance movement, it explores it in great depth and
show the many linkages to the suffrage movement. Had she viewed the film she
would realize that relating prohibition of booze to prohibition of marijuana,
in the context {one of her favorite words and one she often misuses} of the
historical nature of the film, would be highly inappropriate. Namely, alcohol
was already legal, used extremely widely, and an already an integral aspect of
the wider culture, and continued to be legally readily during Prohibition by
prescription. If that angle is explored, it would be most appropriately done in
the final segment which has not yet aired. But no, dear readers, she could not
know this because she criticizes before viewing and is, thus, really really
stupid.
Perhaps this conclusion is harshly drawn and she is simply in need of another
cigarette or still combating her anxiety over encountering Mr. Doughney once
again.
