For instance, it seems as though Okrent never has anything positive to say about the Drys, he never applauds their political successes, nor does he look at the potential goods that prohibition could have given us. He really tries to paint the picture that all prohibitionists were religious nuts, all without outright calling them religious lunatics. Even when looking at the Epilogue, where he looks back at prohibition to see what came from it, the only that the only good thing that prohibition brought, according to Okrent, was that it lessened the amount we drink. Another issue from the book is the success of the bootleggers. I get this feeling that Okrent only really showed the success stories, non of the failures, such as the Bronfams, but we don’t see those importing from Canada who were either caught or did not make any money. In this book, there seems to be only positive things to say about the
For instance, it seems as though Okrent never has anything positive to say about the Drys, he never applauds their political successes, nor does he look at the potential goods that prohibition could have given us. He really tries to paint the picture that all prohibitionists were religious nuts, all without outright calling them religious lunatics. Even when looking at the Epilogue, where he looks back at prohibition to see what came from it, the only that the only good thing that prohibition brought, according to Okrent, was that it lessened the amount we drink. Another issue from the book is the success of the bootleggers. I get this feeling that Okrent only really showed the success stories, non of the failures, such as the Bronfams, but we don’t see those importing from Canada who were either caught or did not make any money. In this book, there seems to be only positive things to say about the