George Will on Prohibition

An excellent column by George Will today. Its a bit of a review of the book Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition by Daniel Okrent. It goes over some of the events leading up to and the effects of Prohibition. And it makes me wonder just what Will’s position on our current prohibition (on drugs) is. One cannot honestly look at the previous ban and not compare it to the current ban. The only clue we have is the line “In the fight between law and appetite, bet on appetite.”

Also, Will makes a great case against universal suffrage and I want that reprinted here so I know where to find it later

Women’s Prohibition sentiments fueled the movement for women’s rights — rights to hold property independent of drunken husbands; to divorce those husbands; to vote for politicians who would close saloons. So the United States Brewers’ Association officially opposed women’s suffrage.

Women campaigning for sobriety did not intend to give rise to the income tax, plea bargaining, a nationwide crime syndicate, Las Vegas, NASCAR (country boys outrunning government agents), a redefined role for the federal government and a privacy right — the “right to be let alone” — that eventually was extended to abortion rights. But they did.


19 Responses to “George Will on Prohibition”

  1. July 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM

    Prohibition and universal suffrage took you to slavery, gangs, thugs, an Ambassador, back to slavery and some more incoherent ramblings that are loosely connected to science and science fetishism.

    Did you even read the article?

    However, I was thinking of you when I specifically grabbed the link to the George Will column over at Jewish World Review.

  2. July 8, 2010 at 8:52 AM

    Dan you never make arguments. You just come over here and try to use social norming to shut me up. Perhaps if you wanted to make a counterpoint you should have done so. If you had a point in your first post (unlikely) it was covered in so much snark that it is indiscernible. Now that you have, sort of, made a point I can address it.

    Yes, Will did indeed make the rather obvious connection between female suffrage and bloated and unconstitutional government, crime and various social ills. I did not parrot what Will wrote, rather it has been said by myself and others for several years now and it is worth noting because someone in the “mainstream” is saying these things, tho in a circumspect manner as a small blurb in a column dealing with something else. To speak out against the culture which places women upon a pedestal brings people like you out of the woodwork to try to bring everybody back in line with your ideas. The reason that it is significant that Will wrote this is that the position would have previously been unthinkable to speak aloud, much less state in a nationally syndicated column. It wouldn’t surprise me to see him get more reaction from this column than all the rest of his columns for the entire year.

  3. July 9, 2010 at 12:04 AM

    Seems you have been browsing through the web and came across a page listing logical fallacies, yet didn’t quite grok it. But alright Professor Dan. Show me just where it is I made an appeal to authority.

  4. July 9, 2010 at 6:23 AM

    Women struggle with the concept of “unintended consequences” primarily because, in my observation and experience, most women fail to think beyond the immediate need or “crisis”.

    You could substitute “liberal” in there. Or “average American” too.

    Which just goes to show how appallingly feminized our society has become.

    It is the nature of women to seek security above all else. We want to have a stable home, a consistent income stream, etc. And we will work exceptionally hard in an attempt to secure it. We will also fight just as hard to maintain something which we believe meets that need.

    IMHO, men generally aren’t as concerned with security but are more prone to seek success. Men are also willing to undertake the risk and the responsibility to get there. Well, men who aren’t feminized to the point that they look more like women than men.

  5. July 9, 2010 at 9:39 AM

    Dan, are you psychic? How did you know about my sewing circle? Or was that just a gross generalization to antagonize someone with an opposing viewpoint… You must be right. Of course you must.

    You made a comment on the internet.

    Let me stop and re-evaluate my entire existence based on an argumentative comment on a blog in teh interwebs.

    I don’t “need” a man. Unless of course I want children. Then an XY chromosome is needed, at this point in societal evolution. And I do have children. Boys. Who need a dad. And they have one. And I’m blessed to have a Man who doesn’t need me to be the man for him. He walks on his own two feet quite well.

    Thank you for telling me I don’t represent the whole of women. From what I’ve seen, that’s a compliment. Of course, you are basing “all that I’m not” on a 12 line comment.

    Are you sure you’re not pcychic? Quick. Tell me what I’m wearing!

  6. July 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM

    So, I’m stupid, a slacker, lazy and, what was that again… Stoopid?

    I am the -X on the Gaussian curve…


    Could you please make a point now. A cogent observation instead of just calling names?

    I make anecdotal observations on female behavior and desires based on experience with and discussions among a varied group of individuals within my own gender (not just Murrican’s… Did I spell that right, can you spell-chek fer me, Dan?) and other stuff… Being a girl I AM uniquely qualified to talk about them and their desires and perspectives. Being a boy… You are, well, not.

    I was attempting to engage in a conversation with DMM, who actually has the intelligence to refer to the subject at hand instead of making subjective and irrelevant personal accusations.

    Besides, I was wondering… Do the women in your life appreciate your white knight status? Have you now appointed yourself the Champion of All Causes Feminine? Does that make you feel good? All warm and fuzzy inside?

    Now, quick. Insult me. Make it a good one. Pick on my kids and my family. Tell me I’m stoopid again.

    And while you’re at it, try to remember what the actual topic of this discussion was?

  7. July 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM

    Dear Dan, you have yet to actually “argue” anything… You are able to, right? I mean you don’t suffer from conversational dysfunction, do you? I don’t find anything in your statements to disagree or agree with…

    I mean, I don’t love being called stupid, but it’s not like you have any grounds for that assumption. Other than your own prejudice against *gasp* people with a different world view and perspective than your own.

    Why do you even bother to come here? Especially since it means you are reduced to fraternizing with “retards” and “slackers”.

    And why perpetuate a conversation about something that “doesn’t bear repeating”?

    You are entitled to your opinion. And I would gladly defend your right to have an opposing opinion.

    You just have so very little to say that matters.

    Real life beckons. And playing with little brown haired, elitist trolls who can’t seem to find a critical thought with both hands and a GPS does get in the way.

    Now, go ahead, and have your last word. Be brilliant. Flash your education and use of tags.

    Someday you’ll figure out that education and intelligence are not synonymous. It’s glaringly obvious today.

  8. July 9, 2010 at 2:08 PM

    Translation (and do I really need to translate your own ramblings back to you?): “For years it’s only been fringe retards who have been saying this. Now a fringe non-retard who has a column in a real newspaper said it, so we MUST be right”. Sorry, honey. No dice. Next you’re gonna say “Well, Obama is really a Kenyan Communist…. look, Glenn Beck said so!!!”

    I’ve been upgraded to honey now? Or is that downgraded? whatever
    I see that you truly have failed to grok the various logical fallacies. The Nizkor Project gives us the following under the definition of an appeal to authority:
    An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

    1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
    2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
    3. Therefore, C is true.

    This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

    This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

    So Person A would be George Will. Mr. Will is not, nor is claimed to be an expert or authority on the subject. Therefore I did not appeal to an authority and you failed once again.

    As for your comments about Heidi, it shows once again that you have nothing to say beyond insults, and while it is mildly entertaining to read your comments, knowing that they contain absolutely zero substance it also becomes somewhat tedious. Please add to the conversation here with actual ideas, or go find a blog where you will be happier. Might I suggest Pandagon?

  9. July 9, 2010 at 2:42 PM

    In the initial post I stated that I wanted to be able to find what he had written. Then you came along. So i further explained in comment #5. Try reading it.

  10. July 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM


    I just got a great laugh when I found out that my esteemed commenter Dan is either staff or student at one of the more well known Universities. If you are a student, it might not be too late to get your money back ya know!

  11. 11 Giraffe
    July 9, 2010 at 2:49 PM


    if you keep missing the point and have to ask to have everything explained to you, perhaps you should rethink calling everyone else stupid.

  12. July 9, 2010 at 10:57 PM

    Well Dan, since you are staff perhaps they can hook you up with a discount on some courses in logic or debate? As for the name of the school, I wasn’t going to out you, take note that you did so yourself.

  13. 13 Arielle
    July 10, 2010 at 4:50 PM

    Feel special, DMM, you seem to have procured a troll with all the general characteristics that Vox, an internet superintelligence, manages to get!

    If he were female, the only thing left would be for him to screech about how he’d never sleep with you. =)

  14. July 10, 2010 at 6:33 PM

    Well, he does keep calling DMM “honey”…

  15. 15 Will S.
    July 12, 2010 at 8:29 PM

    ” I seem to be in the exclusive “wouldn’t sleep with DMM” club along with every other human being on the planet. Curiously enough I didn’t see DMM’s right hand at the last meeting…”

    Oh, so Dr. Dan the professor sees DMM as a masturbator! Great use of shaming language there, Dr. Dan. Perhaps Dr. Dan the professor can explain how being a masturbator or not makes a difference, being a university professor and all.

  16. July 12, 2010 at 9:31 PM


    ” I seem to be in the exclusive “wouldn’t sleep with DMM” club along with every other human being on the planet. Curiously enough I didn’t see DMM’s right hand at the last meeting…”

    Exclusive, meaning it excludes people… But I am quite grateful that you are in that club Dan. Tho I have no control over the membership of that group, I prefer all men to be a part of it. And as I am a parent, I’m not too overly worried that the “exclusive” club includes all women

  17. 17 Will S.
    July 12, 2010 at 9:38 PM

    Amazing, DMM, how you had offspring without the help of a woman… Perhaps Dan can explain how this happened.

  18. July 13, 2010 at 5:54 AM

    You really are grasping aren’t you Dan?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 95,636 hits

%d bloggers like this: