I think the fentanyl crisis is significantly worse, and the US is known for poor quality alcoholic beverages (even when that reputation is undeserved).
Alcohol I think mildly saves itself on accident too. For instance I had moonshine last night, made by a member of a local biker gang, not the stuff at the store labeled moonshine. Many of the makers charge quite a bit because it isn’t all that cheap to make unless you are mass producing. Generally that means you end up having other Alcoholic beverages with moonshine which the main issue with is methanol poisoning if not distilled properly. ( The methanol boils off at a lower temperature than the ethanol) So if they don’t distill it perfectly the methanol poisoning can set in, but one remedy for methanol poisoning is Ethenol. So if someone is drinking some moonshine and some actually produced by a legitimate company liqour on the side (shots of whiskey or such) they are actually fighting the impurity of the moonshine.
You see to have misinterpretted the opinion. They’re stating that the newspaper focuses on those things so much so that one would assume that’s the only thimg that matters. Much the same as today’s news media with their 24/7 focus on doom and gloom for the views and clicks.
That is, or course, if you’re like the others who seem to interpret the opinion as a commentary on how the world truly was.
If over the course of 100 years, nothing more newsworthy has prevailed to get people’s attention, that the doom and gloom of a century ago is the same as it is today, it’s saying something about the world in general that we haven’t changed. Should we have changed in 100 years? I’d like to think so, but as I get older I know that’s a pretty optimistic view of things.
That author’s paragraph out of context could mean a lot of different things which we can leave up to each viewer to decide.
Glad to see we’ve progressed in a hundred years time…
(/s in case you missed it)
Technically, we have made progress. The US is no longer known for bootlegging.
Yep, the bootleggers (drug sellers) are now legit.
Alcohol is a drug. Drugs dominate the markets; we export more drugs than any other country. Bootlegging never went away.
I think the fentanyl crisis is significantly worse, and the US is known for poor quality alcoholic beverages (even when that reputation is undeserved).
Alcohol I think mildly saves itself on accident too. For instance I had moonshine last night, made by a member of a local biker gang, not the stuff at the store labeled moonshine. Many of the makers charge quite a bit because it isn’t all that cheap to make unless you are mass producing. Generally that means you end up having other Alcoholic beverages with moonshine which the main issue with is methanol poisoning if not distilled properly. ( The methanol boils off at a lower temperature than the ethanol) So if they don’t distill it perfectly the methanol poisoning can set in, but one remedy for methanol poisoning is Ethenol. So if someone is drinking some moonshine and some actually produced by a legitimate company liqour on the side (shots of whiskey or such) they are actually fighting the impurity of the moonshine.
So we got that going for us I guess…
You see to have misinterpretted the opinion. They’re stating that the newspaper focuses on those things so much so that one would assume that’s the only thimg that matters. Much the same as today’s news media with their 24/7 focus on doom and gloom for the views and clicks.
That is, or course, if you’re like the others who seem to interpret the opinion as a commentary on how the world truly was.
If over the course of 100 years, nothing more newsworthy has prevailed to get people’s attention, that the doom and gloom of a century ago is the same as it is today, it’s saying something about the world in general that we haven’t changed. Should we have changed in 100 years? I’d like to think so, but as I get older I know that’s a pretty optimistic view of things.
That author’s paragraph out of context could mean a lot of different things which we can leave up to each viewer to decide.
It’s blatantly obvious by just reading that it was a condemnation of the paper covering nothing but the worst.
K