Prohibition

[buckweaver]

Man, I was all excited when I clicked on this thread. Hoping for a fun discussion rather than one guy who's clueless about the Prohibition era and appears not to have even watched the program.

 

[slappy4428]

Liked the first twoepisodes... Amazon dropped it to 28 bucks... trying to decide if I want to pull the trigger.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Man, I was all excited when I clicked on this thread. Hoping for a fun discussion rather than one guy who's clueless about the Prohibition era and appears not to have even watched the program.

And I put in my first post that I didn't see the show, although I would have liked to.

And I don't see why you think I'm clueless with this. Like I said, hindsight is 20-20. But it should have dawned on the drys after a few years of speakeasies, bathtub gin, moonshiners, organized crime and corrupt cops that, while their intentions may have been noble (or not), that their idea for guiding the morals of the country just wasn't working. They were the ones who were naive.

 

[Point of Order]

Man, I was all excited when I clicked on this thread. Hoping for a fun discussion rather than one guy who's clueless about the Prohibition era and appears not to have even watched the program.

And I put in my first post that I didn't see the show, although I would have liked to.

And, with all due respect, you should have bowed out then. You're crashing a book club and you haven't read the book.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Man, I was all excited when I clicked on this thread. Hoping for a fun discussion rather than one guy who's clueless about the Prohibition era and appears not to have even watched the program.

And I put in my first post that I didn't see the show, although I would have liked to.

And, with all due respect, you should have bowed out then. You're crashing a book club and you haven't read the book.

I read the Cliff Notes version. Isn't that enough?

 

[Michael_ Gee]

YF, the statement God grants rights, not man, may or may not be philosophically correct, but is certainly false as a matter of history. Men make the decisions regarding rights that matter to other men.
PS: I think it would be accurate to say that the 13th Amendment also regulates behavior, in that it abolished slavery.

 

[YankeeFan]

YF, the statement God grants rights, not man, may or may not be philosophically correct, but is certainly false as a matter of history. Men make the decisions regarding rights that matter to other men.
PS: I think it would be accurate to say that the 13th Amendment also regulates behavior, in that it abolished slavery.

I wasn't speaking for myself so much as I was speaking to a broad belief.

Unalienable rights come from (a) God.

There was debate about whether or not to include a Bill of Rights, for fear it would be assumed any rights not specifically mentioned had not been granted.

So, you (mostly) have a list of things the Government can't do to infringe upon the rights you already have.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

YF, the statement God grants rights, not man, may or may not be philosophically correct, but is certainly false as a matter of history. Men make the decisions regarding rights that matter to other men.
PS: I think it would be accurate to say that the 13th Amendment also regulates behavior, in that it abolished slavery.

I thought about the 13th, too, but to me, the bigger issue was that it banned slavery, which took away the right to freedom from a race of people. Granted, it did take another amendment to give them rights, and it can also be argued (at least back then), that it was regulating a man's "property" rights. But to me, the fundamental freedom of a person is larger than a man's "property" rights.

Like abortion for instance. It could be argued that an amendment banning it assists the fetus' right to live. And that is a valid opinion. Except then you have a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, and you can say a ban would violate her rights to freedom for her own body. Which is the larger freedom?

Banning alcohol, on the other hand, merely took away freedom from a very large group of Americans. There was no benefit to those who took those freedoms away. If they didn't want a drink, no one was forcing them to have one.

 

[JR]

YF, the statement God grants rights, not man, may or may not be philosophically correct, but is certainly false as a matter of history. Men make the decisions regarding rights that matter to other men.
PS: I think it would be accurate to say that the 13th Amendment also regulates behavior, in that it abolished slavery.

I wasn't speaking for myself so much as I was speaking to a broad belief.

Unalienable rights come from (a) God.

Not if you don't believe in God.

 

[YankeeFan]

YF, the statement God grants rights, not man, may or may not be philosophically correct, but is certainly false as a matter of history. Men make the decisions regarding rights that matter to other men.
PS: I think it would be accurate to say that the 13th Amendment also regulates behavior, in that it abolished slavery.

I wasn't speaking for myself so much as I was speaking to a broad belief.

Unalienable rights come from (a) God.

Not if you don't believe in God.

Well, again, I'm not looking to share my own opinion, or debate religion.

The idea was that rights were inherent. Is that better. They weren't Man's to grant.

If anything, it was their duty to protect the rights of Man, and as such, the Bill of Rights limits the Governments rights.

 

[Point of Order]

YF, you are really growing on me.

 

[YankeeFan]

YF, you are really growing on me.

Sarcasm, or should I be honored?

 

[YankeeFan]

YF, you are really growing on me.

You should be honored. Our mystified as I am. Generally, your politics are still dead wrong though.

Sarcasm, or should I be honored?

You should be honored. Our mystified as I am. Generally, your politics are still dead wrong though.

Eh. Same basic understanding of facts. Same goals. The arguments are about how to achieve them.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Burns did a far more extensive job on George Remus than the BBC did . . . of course, there's no doubt
Burns has viewed the BBC version, and knew he had to clear that bar.

On the other hand . . . has there been a Joe Kennedy sighting, this week (had to visit the little boy's room, occasionally . . . )? If not, shame on Burns.

 

[Brian]

The special fascinates me because I went through 16 years of schooling and so little got mentioned about the era. We'd gloss over the 1920s as a go-go era of economic boom and flow straight into the Great Depression. Prohibition was rarely even introduced into the narrative, and if it was it was mentioned as a mere footnote of the early part of the century overshadowed by Woodrow Wilson and flappers.

Ah, the crappy education I received as a public school and university student....

 

[dreunc1542]

The special fascinates me because I went through 16 years of schooling and so little got mentioned about the era. We'd gloss over the 1920s as a go-go era of economic boom and flow straight into the Great Depression. Prohibition was rarely even introduced into the narrative, and if it was it was mentioned as a mere footnote of the early part of the century overshadowed by Woodrow Wilson and flappers.

Ah, the crappy education I received as a public school and university student....

I agree with that. I was thinking about something similar as I've been doing a good amount of research on eugenics of late. Try to find a high school classroom in the U.S. that actually discusses in-depth our despicable eugenics policies, especially in the 20s and 30s. Hitler invited U.S. scientists to Germany to get information on our programs and wrote a note to the scientists thanking them for all the books they gave him about the subject.

 

[finishthehat]

Burns did a far more extensive job on George Remus than the BBC did . . . of course, there's no doubt
Burns has viewed the BBC version, and knew he had to clear that bar.

On the other hand . . . has there been a Joe Kennedy sighting, this week (had to visit the little boy's room, occasionally . . . )? If not, shame on Burns.

FWIW -- I caught a bit of it and saw David Okrent being interviewed, so obviously his book is source material, and as I mentioned earlier in the thread he's pretty much convinced that "Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger" is based on very little actual evidence.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Burns did a far more extensive job on George Remus than the BBC did . . . of course, there's no doubt
Burns has viewed the BBC version, and knew he had to clear that bar.

On the other hand . . . has there been a Joe Kennedy sighting, this week (had to visit the little boy's room, occasionally . . . )? If not, shame on Burns.

Why?

Kennedy was rich before and during prohibition -- because of other interests. He may have MAY made some money bootlegging - but he made a lot more after prohibition. He might merit a mention, but he's not worth a chapter in the story of Prohibtion.


Per Wiki

During World War I, he was an assistant general manager of Bethlehem Steel and developed a friendship with Franklin D. Roosevelt, then Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Kennedy made huge profits from reorganizing and refinancing several Hollywood studios, ultimately merging several acquisitions into Radio-Keith-Orpheum (RKO) studios. After Prohibition ended in 1933, Kennedy consolidated an even larger fortune when his company, Somerset Importers, became the exclusive American agent for Gordon's Gin and Dewar's Scotch. He owned the largest office building in the country, Chicago's Merchandise Mart, giving his family an important base in that city and an alliance with the Irish-American political leadership there.

Fish beat me to it. ...

 

[Greenhorn]

Okrent was quite adamant in his book that there was no evidence supporting the claim that Joe Kennedy Sr. was a bootlegger.

Kennedy then used his connections with FDR to become the first head of the Securities and Exchange Commission followed by an utterly awful stint as ambassador to the UK.

 

[Double J]

I grew up with the family story that my father's father was a small-time gangster in the '20s and '30s who hung out with the likes of Alvin Karpis. Never knew if it was true or not, but it was pretty clear that at the very least he operated on the fringes of the law in that era. Someday I'm going to see if he had criminal records here and in the U.S.