# Prohibition; new PBS Ken Burns Series **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 2, 2011, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384 "2011-10-02T23:09:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/61 "2011-10-08T16:36:53Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > There are certainly employers who would fire you if they found out that you had engaged in certain sexual behavior (adultery, infidelity, for example). Do you have cite of that happening in the last 10 years where is wasn’t workplace behavior or involved coworkers or vendors or customers where the company didn’t get their ass sued off. In the military, adultery is a court martial offense, but in the private sector there are workplace privacy laws. > [@](#): > > As I said, if marijuana is ever completely legalized for personal use, I expect that many employers _will_ have a rule forbidding their employees from using it, even in their private time . Strawman argument. Limit your discussion to things in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2011, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/62 "2011-10-09T00:39:16Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > Ep. 2 was fascinating–I had never even \*heard \*of George Remus; now I have to go find whatever books have been written abut him. I’m glad it was not just the usual Al Capone/Izzy and Moe stories we’ve all heard so many times. I wonder why the Remus story hasn’t been made into a movie. It’s got everything: love, betrayal, murder… ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/63 "2011-10-09T00:53:47Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > If you don’t watch it you won’t know what Burns is bringing. For one thing, it wasn’t just the neo-Puritans who were for Prohibition. It was also a Progressive movement. But - as Burns and his historians pointed out - Prohibition didn’t become the law of the land under Progressivism. That movement was too focused on social welfare, too reformist, and worst of all, too woman-led. It took the Anti-Saloon League, a group of hard-line political operators - males, who knew how to pull strings and play hardball. Most importantly, they knew that they had to stir up the anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant, and anti-urban sentiment in the small cities and towns of Protestant native stock. The gambit worked, and for several years it turned us into what one of the historians called “a nation of hypocrites.” If you were a middle-class Protestant family in the midwest, you had to be seen to be for Prohibition even if you knew the evils it caused. Your social standing, friendships, even your livelihood depended on it. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2011, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/64 "2011-10-09T12:41:50Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > In the military, adultery is a court martial offense, but in the private sector there are workplace privacy laws. In the US, you are protected only from being fired for race, religion, and certain other specified suspect classifications. Other than that, your employer can fire you for anything at all, including what it consider moral standards. Any private employer can adopt the military’s rules on sexual behavior. . > [@](#): > > Strawman argument. It’s pretty clear you have no idea what a strawman is. > [@](#): > > Limit your discussion to things in the real world. It’s also pretty clear you don’t know how to conduct a civil conversation. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/65 "2011-10-09T18:28:06Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > In the US, you are protected only from being fired for race, religion, and certain other specified suspect classifications. Other than that, your employer can fire you for anything at all, including what it consider moral standards. Any private employer can adopt the military’s rules on sexual behavior. You views on US employment law are drastically oversimplified and out of date and they are also additional laws in the 50 states that provide additional protections. > [@](#): > > It’s pretty clear you have no idea what a strawman is. Let me summarize: I say that people are being fired for doing A. You say, that is okay because in the future people will be fired for doing B. > [@](#): > > It’s also pretty clear you don’t know how to conduct a civil conversation. You don’t seem to know to conduct a rational discussion. Unless you can come up with some cites to back up your assertions, I’m going to ignore what ever you post. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/66 "2011-10-09T19:03:14Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > But - as Burns and his historians pointed out - Prohibition didn’t become the law of the land under Progressivism. That movement was too focused on social welfare, too reformist, and worst of all, too woman-led. Worst of all too woman-led? What does that even mean? ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/67 "2011-10-09T20:23:36Z")
Saw him on Olbermann discussing how issues then resonate today. Best example: “liberty cabbage” v. “freedom fries”. Thought it was interesting that it boiled down to Rural WASPs v. Urban Catholics. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2011, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/68 "2011-10-09T20:33:18Z")
The balance of the parts was off. The first two parts needed to be one and the 3rd needed to be two parts. Very dragged out start then rushed at the end. You can see why FDR wowed peopled. But then again, Al Smith seemed quite similar but no wow. Studs Terkel! I thought he was dead. (He is.) If they have footage of Studs, then fill up the show. Sheesh. They give a long list of who attended the Atlantic City Conference, but no mention of the host, Enoch “Nucky” Johnson. Guess they didn’t want go full _Boardwalk Empire_. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/69 "2011-10-10T11:36:05Z")
Finally watched it…lots of “recycled” footage (I must have seen the Arrow shirt collar sign five times). Ken Burns talked a lot (mostly about himself). What I did learn : President Hardings AG (Dagherty) was totally corrpt-tool $250,000 in bribes from Remus. You could get $1000 bills back then-made payoffs easier! ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/70 "2011-10-10T12:30:04Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Worst of all too woman-led? What does that even mean? I don’t want to speak for **Beware of Doug** , but I took it to mean that the Prohibition movement acquired more mainstream credibility with the involvement of male politicians and activists. Much of the earlier temperance movement had been led by women, and the great majority of drinkers were men. ---
**Author:** ![ZipperJJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zipperjj/32/211_2.png) [@ZipperJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZipperJJ)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/71 "2011-10-10T14:56:38Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Ken Burns talked a lot (mostly about himself). What? ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/72 "2011-10-10T16:06:31Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > And another link you didn’t read said that 25% of the population is in favor of outlawing tobacco. My post referenced the list in the previous post. You spouted off like they are independent. Also companies telling their employees they can’t smoke at home? That is perfectly legitimate? What activities can companies **not** forbid their employees from doing? Anything they want, unless it’s a protected issue. And these cover things that people cannot change – their race, their sex, etc. Smokers can always quit. Companies sometimes regulate smoking (and it’s not exactly a movement – most realize that such a ban is unenforceable) because smokers raise insurance rates and the company pays for that. What gives smokers the right to make other people pay more for their insurance? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/73 "2011-10-10T16:09:48Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > What I did learn : President Hardings AG (Dagherty) was totally corrpt-tool $250,000 in bribes from Remus. > You could get $1000 bills back then-made payoffs easier! If you actually watched it, you’d have seen it was Jesse Smith who was bribed by Remus. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/74 "2011-10-10T17:03:24Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > If you actually watched it, you’d have seen it was Jesse Smith who was bribed by Remus. If you actually watched it, you would have learned that Jesse was Daugherty’s bagman!😃 ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/75 "2011-10-10T17:49:55Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > If you actually watched it, you would have learned that Jesse was Daugherty’s bagman!😃 No I wouldn’t. They very carefully avoided any claim other than that Smith took bribes from Remus. We know that Daugherty and Smith were involved in a variety of crooked schemes. We know that Daugherty was accused of looking the other way on Prohibition. You can make the inference from that that Smith gave Daugherty part of the Remus bribe money as well. But if you do the reading, you don’t find anybody making that claim. Daugherty got intensively investigated, although he was never technically convicted of anything. None of his corruption trials concerned Remus, to my knowledge. Lots of people besides Smith hit Remus up for bribe money, some of them using Daugherty’s name, but there’s no evidence that any of them were connected to him either. Certainly, Daugherty never did anything to help Remus that can be traced directly to him. It’s not exactly as if the two of them could be libeled by that claim. You can’t libel the dead, they are accused of being crooks in everything else by a million different histories, and Smith’s death is often (again, without evidence) said to have been a murder by the Ohio Gang rather than a suicide. Saying that Daugherty got a share of a bribe is trivial compared to that. But they didn’t say it. So what do you say? ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/76 "2011-10-10T17:57:42Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > What I never understood about prohibition: > -the USA has a 4000 mile border with Canada, 1800 miles with Mexico, and a 20,000 mile coastline: how did they ever think that they could stop booze imports? > -wineries, breweries, distileries, etc. employed thousands of people-what were these people supposed to do, once their employers closed down? > -all of the East Coast cities (and most of the midwest ones) were run by highly corrupt machines-did they really expect that these machines would allow prohibition? President Harding served his Whitehous guests whiskey, gin, rum,etc., ..all supplied by local bootleggers. Y’know, there’s a forum for debates. You might try stirring up some shit over there, and in the process try painting with a brush instead of a roller. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/77 "2011-10-10T18:19:51Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > No I wouldn’t. They very carefully avoided any claim other than that Smith took bribes from Remus. We know that Daugherty and Smith were involved in a variety of crooked schemes. We know that Daugherty was accused of looking the other way on Prohibition. You can make the inference from that that Smith gave Daugherty part of the Remus bribe money as well. > > But if you do the reading, you don’t find anybody making that claim. Daugherty got intensively investigated, although he was never technically convicted of anything. None of his corruption trials concerned Remus, to my knowledge. Lots of people besides Smith hit Remus up for bribe money, some of them using Daugherty’s name, but there’s no evidence that any of them were connected to him either. Certainly, Daugherty never did anything to help Remus that can be traced directly to him. > > It’s not exactly as if the two of them could be libeled by that claim. You can’t libel the dead, they are accused of being crooks in everything else by a million different histories, and Smith’s death is often (again, without evidence) said to have been a murder by the Ohio Gang rather than a suicide. Saying that Daugherty got a share of a bribe is trivial compared to that. But they didn’t say it. > > So what do you say? Isn’t that why corrupt officials insist upon cash? Cash isn’t (you know) exactly traceable. ---
**Author:** ![ZipperJJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zipperjj/32/211_2.png) [@ZipperJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZipperJJ)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/78 "2011-10-10T18:22:21Z")
**Ralph** please answer the question “What do you mean by ‘Ken Burns talked a lot (mostly about himself).’” ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/79 "2011-10-10T19:40:12Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Anything they want, unless it’s a protected issue. And these cover things that people cannot change – their race, their sex, etc. Smokers can always quit. > > Companies sometimes regulate smoking (and it’s not exactly a movement – most realize that such a ban is unenforceable) because smokers raise insurance rates and the company pays for that. What gives smokers the right to make other people pay more for their insurance? Actually it is quite enforceable. Maricopa County is using a saliva test for nicotine. [http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2011/03/15/20110315maricopa-county-smoking-test-03-15.html?source=nletter-business](http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2011/03/15/20110315maricopa-county-smoking-test-03-15.html?source=nletter-business) What they are doing is more reasonable. They don’t say you can’t smoke, but there is a $480 insurance hike if you do. I expect this to become more common, since they can’t deny insurance for preexisting conditions, they will add premiums for behavior that may lead to preexisting conditions. Smoking, drinking, hign BMI, promiscuous sexual behavior, motorcycle riding. An interesting consequence of restrictions on 3rd hand smoking is that you could end up being fired for your spouses smoking. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/80 "2011-10-10T22:00:20Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Isn’t that why corrupt officials insist upon cash? > Cash isn’t (you know) exactly traceable. I have no idea what you think you mean by this. Are you really saying that using cash to bribe someone gives you immunity from prosecution? Really? Nobody in law enforcement has ever used bank records or payment receipts or purchases to provide a trail? Nobody ever made records or documents of what they were getting? Nobody ever talked or confessed or turned state’s evidence? Using cash means a get out of jail free card? And the law is utterly helpless before its power? This makes as much sense as claiming that Ken Burns - who never appeared once - talked too much. About himself. Of course, I haven’t watched episode 3 yet. Maybe I have a big surprise coming! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384.md?page=5)