Not sure they could make the show today. Turns out Meathead is really a Meathead.
I do not know who is prepping the nominees, but they are doing a great job.
Will some stupid Dem ask Kristi Noem about the dog incident?
AesopFan,
I hope you see this, I know you often don’t comment until later in the day.
Thank you for taking the time to type what you did about how LDS manages charitable requests. It was very informative. I guess no approach can work for 100% of individuals, but what you outlined sounds about as good as can be done.
Really impressive, clever and compassionate. And, I’d imagine, it’s also very effective.
There is a vital sense of community missing from how government aid is managed in the U.S. A direct deposit from a machine in the bowels of some government office building to one’s bank account disengages the tax payers and recipients from the process. It also diminishes a community’s knowledge of what problems exist, and how best to address them.
So many of our current woes in the U.S. seem to stem directly from the collapse of community structures over the past 60 years; church, scouting, VFW hall, Moose, Elks, Lions…, bowling leagues, community dances and dance halls, Knights of Columbus…
When my folks were young it seemed like every weekend they had a place and occasion that warranted getting dressed up and socializing with neighbors.
yeah archie had more wisdom then he himself knew, I recall watching it in the 70s, along with the jeffersons but I didn’t get the edgy parts of it, I was too figure that out,
that was yesterday, thats why all the rigamarole about Russia, leaves me kind of cold, they trained two generations of terrorists basque,
irish, italian et al,
so it turns out the cuban government has put the prisoners it said to have been released in limbo, despite the suspension of theirr terror ties by the regime,
de tocqueville told us communities were essential to America, so consequently, a combination of technology and our enemies employment of various tools, have sundered them and replaced them with artificial ones,
Federal employees are ready to “resist” Trump. Two quotations from a post and then a personal observation:
“[A]ccording to an RMG Research survey commissioned by the Napolitan Institute, 42% of federal government managers who work in the Washington, D.C., swamp intend to work against the administration.”
“While the vast majority of government employees who identify as Republicans plan to support the administration (89% “somewhat support” or “strongly support”), almost three quarters of Democrat bureaucrats plan to resist (73% “somewhat resist” or “strongly resist”). More than half of Republican managers (52%) said they would “strongly support” the administration, while 40% of Democrats said they will “strongly resist” it.”
A personal recollection is appropriate here. Shortly after I retired from the federal government (December 2016), I was contacted by a former co-worker asking if I would be interested in joining a group of people who would advise federal employees who were inclined to “resist” the Trump administration. I responded that I would be happy to advise employees of their right under the Whistleblower Protection Act to report wrongdoing in the federal government (that area of law was an expertise of mine). I added, however, that I would further advise employees that it was their duty to obey lawful presidential orders and policy directives and that, even when they thought an order or directive was improper, the ordinary legal rule, subject to very narrow exceptions, was to “obey now and grieve later.” Unsurprisingly, I was not asked to be part of the group advising would-be “resisters.”
Yes, we here in the New World with televisions and the Internet live in a state of false intimacy: we know more about people we’re never going to meet (politicians, celebrities, etc.) than we do about the people we see every day, or the folks we’ve lived with for years.
OK, here is another open thread to consider.
It’s hilarious.
Well, speaking as an ink stained desk jockey myself, from a family full of ink stained desk jockies, the problem isn’t so much the ink stained desk jockies actively disobeying Constitutional job orders from the Big Guy, it’s whether the Big Guy understands the Constitution and the job to begin with.
Like when he announced “I’m going to create a new office to collect tariffs!”
And said ink stained desk jockies sighed and said “There’s already an office for that, sir. It’s the U.S. Customs and Border Control. It’s been there for 200 years.”
Jordan Peterson of Poilievre contains actual information. According to Poilievre, Canada’s balance of trade surplus is from the large energy trade that actually sends heavily discounted oil and gas to the US. It’s his goal to build the infrastructure to process the fuels in Canada– but he sees trade beneficial to both countries.
Yes on the U. S. Customs agency. Why re-invent the wheel?
Good news about Monday – the swearing-in will be in the Capitol with people going to an arena for watching it as well as for the parade. Better security for everyone as well as safer health wise.
BJ:
I don’t know what you’re getting at. The Constitution is silent on what agency collects tariffs. All it says is that Congress is the branch that can levy tariffs. Then, later on, Congress delegated some of that authority to the president, during FDR’s administration, and that power was expanded by another act of Congress during JFK’s administration. The collection of tariffs by the Customs agency has changed over time; see this. But none of it is spelled out in the Constitution. Here’s some of the history:
Administration of customs laws was placed under the secretary of the Treasury by an act of September 2, 1789.
Fiscal administration of customs laws fell under the comptroller of the Treasury from 1792 until the creation of the position of commissioner of Customs by an act of March 3, 1849. These commissioners served as more as auditors of accounts than administrators. The position of commissioner was abolished on July 31, 1894.
In 1875, the Division of Customs was created in the Treasury Department by an act of March 3, 1875 and the position of chief was created to administer the division. Fifty-three years later, the division and the Special Agency Service of the Treasury Department were consolidated to form the Bureau of Customs in 1927. A re-envisioned commissioner of customs position was created as the chief administrator of the bureau.
The Customs Bureau was renamed the U.S. Customs Service in 1973. U.S. Customs was dissolved in 2003 with the newly created Bureau of Customs and Border Protection assuming many of its former roles and responsibilities.
As far as I can tell, the present structure for collection is not only recent, but was created by an executive order of President George W. Bush. I suppose any further reorganization could be done by Congress or the president, but the Constitution is silent on what agency it would be.
Thanks for the link to Peterson and Poilievre, Brian E.
I’m very impressed by Poilievre’s straight talk, and common sense. Such a breath of fresh air.
BJ, care to comment on whether the current occupant (only for 3 more days, thank God!) understands his job?
He’s not just reorganizing the Executive Branch, he now claims to have the power to unilaterally add amendments to the Constitution.
“Someone inside the White House is determined to humiliate “President Biden” even further on his way out the door. Whoever that may be has now engineered “Biden’s” announcement that the Equal Rights Amendment is the law of the land.”
Evidently the VP isn’t much of a Constitutional scholar, either. (I remember all the right people cheering when Pence defied Trump. I’ll wait to see what the reaction to Harris is.)
“Vice President Harris appears to take “Biden’s” declaration at face value in her statement posted on the White House site (“it is the law of the land because the American people have spoken in states across our nation”). She has no excuse. She is responsible for her own embarrassment.
A community note appended to “Biden’s” post on X injects a note of reality. The ERA had a seven-year deadline for ratification that was extended from 1979 to 1982. Only 35 states had ratified the amendment before the extended deadline for ratification expired in 1982. Purported post-deadline ratification pushed the number to 38, but five states acted to rescind their prior approval in the meantime.”
Trump’s External Revenue Service vs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
I commented on this the other day and still think it is a good idea. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can’t keep up with border protection now—whilst facing the prospect of soon having to deport millions of illegal aliens.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) collects duties, taxes, and fees on imported goods. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, CBP collected approximately $111.8 billion in total duties, taxes, and fees. This amount includes estimated and final duties, taxes, and fees paid by the trade community, accounting for adjustments such as refunds.
In FY 2024, CBP collected $77 billion in tariffs, which accounted for approximately 1.57% of total federal revenue.
I don’t think Trump is trying to “re-invent the wheel” here, but collecting just $111.8 billion in 2022 and $77 billion in 2024 looks like a mistake when:
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collected approximately $5.1 trillion in tax revenue.
Americans paying = $5.1 trillion vs Foreigners paying $111.8 billion in 2022 and $77 billion in 2024…so to speak. Trump thinks that Foreigners should start paying more, and humble me agrees…
@Christopher B: Purported post-deadline ratification pushed the number to 38, but five states acted to rescind their prior approval in the meantime.
That’s established by the “no backsies” penumbra; you can find it in the Constitution before the “finders keepers losers weepers” and after the “whoever smelt it dealt it” emanations (which last was later amended to “whoever says the rhyme did the crime”).
See Haley vs United States (Haley 7, United States nothing).
I cannot imagine Congress accomplishing anything salutary.
Following is an excerpt from an Eric Weinstein interview with the Triggernometry guys, which I’ve watched three times, about leftism and the 2024 election. I abridged the quote a bit.
Weinstein’s observation that we’ve been through a North Korean brainwashing experiment hits hard. That’s how it feels to me.
Likewise his explanation of why our educational elites so easily accepted the brainwashing.
Nothing commenters here haven’t noticed but it’s nice to see someone with Weinstein’s intellectual horsepower summing it up.
Eric Weinstein: You know what we’re doing? We’re doing therapy. We’ve been through something like a North Korean brainwashing experiment, and we can’t believe that this happened. It’s just—it’s so bad.
Every single person with any originality of thought or independence of mind rejects it. Now, why did this ever work?
I learned a lot about the U.S. through having a podcast. It was very popular with people I didn’t expect—truck drivers who really care about physics, electricians who care about the Middle East. There are all sorts of people who solve puzzles every day: general contractors, for instance.
These people are in creative fields because every day is different. You never know what house you’re going to show up at, what trucking route you’ll take, or who knows what. They’ve got time on their hands, and they’re not beholden to anyone.
Nobody cares whether your electrician is MAGA or woke as long as they get the job done, leave your house in decent order, and don’t charge you too much. The way I see it, these people are America’s secret brain trust. They’re not having any of this [leftism] because there’s no reason to.
Now, if you compare that to the highly educated… One of the arguments the Democratic Party likes to make is, ‘All the people with master’s degrees, PhDs, JDs, and MDs vote for us.’ The answer is: because you’re an interest structure.
In woke workplaces—particularly large institutions—there are constant demands for fealty to this woke parchment. These are the institutions with over 15 employees that must follow civil rights legislation about inclusion and similar mandates. That’s what’s going to have to collapse.
On the other hand, contractors might vote Democrat or Republican, but they’re not easily taken in. Why? Because they have a relationship with the unforgiving.
An electrician who starts believing in crazy ideas is going to encounter 110 or 220 volts pretty quickly. It’s a short ride. That’s the beauty of talking to these people—exposing yourself to reality encourages a simplicity of thought.
Interviewer: You keep saying ‘reality.’
Eric Weinstein: Yeah, physics. I call it a relationship with the unforgiving… You can’t fudge something that isn’t fudgeable.
So, do something in your life. Play an instrument. Climb a rock wall. Do electrical work. You’ll very quickly figure out whether you have a positive relationship with the unforgiving.
@ Rufus > “So many of our current woes in the U.S. seem to stem directly from the collapse of community structures over the past 60 years; church, scouting, VFW hall, Moose, Elks, Lions…, bowling leagues, community dances and dance halls, Knights of Columbus…
When my folks were young it seemed like every weekend they had a place and occasion that warranted getting dressed up and socializing with neighbors.”
As noted by miguel and BJ respectively, De Tocqueville commended the variety and breadth of American community organizations shortly after the Founding, but after 200 years we seem to be drifting away from them because of the intimacies of technology (which I can’t condemn too much, seeing as we’re using them ourselves!).
AesopSpouse and I just this morning were weeding out boxes of old Boy Scouting materials and lamenting how that particular organization has devolved, and yet we have a granddaughter working her way up the ranks and hoping to make Eagle, so it hasn’t completely lost all of its vitality (thankfully, her Dad is actively involved and watching out for too much wokery, but her troop of girls is holding reasonably steady).
Another son is participating in a local amateur theater (with very professional-grade actors) and a ballroom dance club, which also has national conventions, so that is another community still functioning. There are lots of dance clubs in Denver, mostly square and Western line, but also a lot of ethnic traditional ones; we used to dance with the Welsh, but our group finally all got too old to keep it up.
Which is one of the problems: although the communities you mention are all still extant, they aren’t enrolling younger members as much as they should to stay vital. Just banning TikTok is not going to reverse that problem.
I do note that most churches, including ours, make an effort to sponsor regular activities for the children and youth, and that is filling some of the need, but they are by nature small and insular, not national or even global in scope.
But they do exist, and that’s a good sign.
“There is a vital sense of community missing from how government aid is managed in the U.S… It also diminishes a community’s knowledge of what problems exist, and how best to address them.”
We really see that in respect to welfare: the givers (taxpayers) get no uplift from being generous, and the receivers feel no need to be grateful for it. That’s spiritually and socially corrosive. And yet, we continually see people donating to complete strangers on GoFundMe etc.; our local food banks and thrift stores are full of donations; and most churches do a fantastic job taking care of their members and neighbors.
So that’s not a total lost cause yet, either!
As we’ve seen during natural disasters, the least effective agencies are the government ones. The locals do seem to know what’s needed, and collaborate to get it done (IF the “leaders” will just stay out of their way).
So, even though I agree with all three of you, I still see some rays of light shining through the dark clouds that hang over us, and will continue to hope that the country as a whole will keep creating and supporting communities of beneficial* common interest.
(*I had to add that word because there are also communities that gather for nefarious ends as well. Every sword has two edges.)
huxley:
Weinstein is basically saying what Kundera said about imagology in this quote.
Re: AI companionship
The NYT has an article related to the comment I made yesterday:
____________________________________
Now that ChatGPT has brought humanlike A.I. to the masses, more people are discovering the allure of artificial companionship, said Bryony Cole, the host of the podcast “Future of Sex.” “Within the next two years, it will be completely normalized to have a relationship with an A.I.,” Ms. Cole predicted.
The article focuses on the quasi-sexual relationship a woman develops with ChatGPT. My concern is about the more general case of AI companionship.
I agree that within a few years AI relationships will be very common and normalized as AIs improve. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it seems inevitable.
AI will be another thing weakening social bonds, apropos the discussion Rufus started above.
huxley,
I was annoyed by that segment of the Weinstein interview when I heard it. Overall I think Eric Weinstein is an important, public intellectual and I give him credit for speaking up and out. I don’t always agree with him, and there are definitely areas where he exceeds my intellectual capabilities, but there are some areas where I find his immaturity and naivety astounding. That segment on Triggernometry is one such area.
Eric and his brother Brett were raised in a family that worshipped intellectual credentialism. Nothing wrong with that, but a lot of Americans, a majority of Americans, never bought into that as an end all, be all. Most Americans don’t find the Wizard’s speech about knowledge to the scarecrow particularly enlightening. Some of the smartest, most clever people I’ve met do not have PhDs. These are the truck drivers and building contractors Weinstein discusses.
I’m glad Eric has figured this out, and I give him credit for having the humility to accept it when confronted with it, many refuse to*.
*A real life anecdote that corroborates the Eric Weinstein phenomenon.
A beloved family member with a PhD was volunteering to feed the homeless in her community with a group of fellow professors from her University. The person who ran the kitchen gave them instructions on how to prepare the food that would be served and left them alone in the kitchen to tend to other matters at the shelter.
The professors started following the instructions to the letter. They were all intelligent and had retained 100% of the instructions and were working together to prepare the meal. As cans and boxes were being opened there would be discussion on how best to recycle the containers after they were empty; which types of materials could be recycled in which manner… It was agreed that some of the empty containers would have to be rinsed prior to recycling, others broken down…
This recycling side duty began to consume a large percentage of the groups’ combined resources until my friend (who was from a blue collar family and had worked in food service to pay for her Undergrad) had to finally interrupt and speak up, “Excuse me, but the people we are serving will begin filing in her in X minutes and if we don’t finish cooking we will have nothing to serve them.”
Rufus T. Firefly:
I guess you are criticizing Weinstein for being surprised that truck drivers and ordinary folks were interested in his podcast.
I’m not particularly surprised by his surprise. I’m a bright guy with some technical interests, though only an AS degree. I learned long ago that most people aren’t much interested in what I have to say along those lines.
Not that I thought they were incapable of following me, but it wasn’t up their alley and they preferred to talk about what did interest them.
AesopFan,
I’m sure your granddaughter will make a great Eagle scout!
I don’t disagree that there are many carrying on important traditions and forming communities. And that’s wonderful! My children are living lives similar to what you describe with your children, and they have found other, similar families their age to socialize with.
I think what’s missing, however, is it used to be almost impossible to avoid such things; so most people had one or a few social groups to meet with regularly.
I’ve noticed a shift in advertising. More and more commercials marketing to middle-aged singles (mostly women) and showing them joyfully having “experiences.” Even commercials for retirement planning; it’s either an older, childless couple or an older, single person. I don’t plan Madison Avenue, they are marketing to the demographics that exist.
DeTocqueville would likely form a different impression if he were to tour America today.
huxley,
What I mean is; even when I was in my teens, I’d strike up a conversation with someone, a janitor for example, and mention a book I was reading and learn he had also read the book and had opinions on it. Things like Camus’, “The Stranger,” or Conrad’s “The Heart of Darkness.”
My father’s father had maybe(?) a sixth grade education and could take an automobile completely apart and reassemble it and could use trigonometry to machine whatever parts he needed. My mother’s father, an eastern European immigrant who came to America not speaking a word of English and also likely didn’t matriculate past 6th grade was the guy everyone in the neighborhood took their electronics to for repairs. He could diagnose vacuum tubes by observing sine wave patterns on an oscilloscope.
None of this stuff is unusual or extraordinary to anyone who socializes outside of academia. Admit it, you also knew this most all your life. Admit it, it’s odd to take over 5 decades and needing to host a national broadcast to discover there are a lot of really bright, very well read people who don’t work in academia.
I see that our demented, about to be ex-President Biden, thinks that he rules by Fiat, so he started screaming today about how–just because he said so–the never ratified Equal Rights Amendment was now the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, and “the law of the land.” *
This guy is nuts, and the sooner they take his signing pen away from him, and ship him off to “Happy Acres,” the better.
I agree most all of us prefer to talk about what interests us. I just find no difference of interest in physics, engineering, the arts, sociology… inside or outside of academia. It doesn’t require years of directed study and a credential to know the works of David Lynch, or Tom Wolfe, as you do.
Even those of us here who are credentialed have shown wide and deep interests in areas outside of our “Majors.” neo’s knowledge of ballet, for interest, or physicsguy’s knowledge of guitar. Or Eric Weinstein’s knowledge of guitar, for that matter. He knows he can listen to a podcast by a professional guitarist and comprehend the musicology and have theories and opinions on the subject, so why wouldn’t the same be true in his field, physics? Just as he has deep opinions on Economics even though his wife is the one with the Econ degree.
I worked as a short order cook alongside another short order cook with advanced degrees in mathematics and chemistry for the University of Michigan. He enjoyed earning his living as a short order cook. And I learned a lot working with him.
Admit it, you also knew this most all your life. Admit it, it’s odd to take over 5 decades and needing to host a national broadcast to discover there are a lot of really bright, very well read people who don’t work in academia.
Rufus:
I think you’re talking to the wrong guy.
I’m a college dropout (twice!) with not even a Bachelor’s degree. I’ve bussed tables, washed dishes, done stoop labor in the fields, worked in construction and factories, wore a blue-collar and been a member of the IBEW.
I am a bright, very well-read person, who doesn’t work in academia and never has. I never fit in with academia, though I tried. I haven’t been well-treated by people with degrees.
I think I’m one of the people you are defending.
huxley,
Yes, and what I’m saying is, imagine never having a conversation with someone like you who is extremely curious and well informed on a variety of complex subjects, but not degreed in any. To be in one’s 50s and not know there are truck drivers who can expound eloquently on physics, or carpenters who have read Smith’s, “The Wealth of Nations?”
How sheltered, or enamored of credentialed academia one would have to be? It’s either naivete or arrogance. Regardless, I’m glad he has figured this out.
Rufus:
Well, call me naïve or arrogant, but I would have been as surprised as Weinstein that truck drivers et al. were tuning in to Weinstein’s podcast.
I consider his surprise unsurprising, and not a matter of arrogance. It takes special effort to find one’s way to a particular blog or podcast. There are tons of blogs and podcasts I haven’t found my way to.
That’s a different issue from not knowing there are truck drivers who can expound on physics or have read “The Wealth of Nations.”
If you were Weinstein, a top mathematical physicist, and guessing who would show up for your podcast, would you expect truck drivers in your audience?
That’s not the same as assuming no truck drivers exist who could appreciate your podcast.
It’s very hard to know who will show up for anything. Hollywood gets that wrong all the time.
@ Rufus > “DeTocqueville would likely form a different impression if he were to tour America today.”
There was “no excuse” for California not to be prepared for the wildfires engulfing Los Angeles County, Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT), a former aerial firefighter …
***
Sheehy, a former Navy SEAL who founded the aerial fire fighting company Bridger Aerospace, explained that “the entire wildland fire community” has been sounding the alarm for years that “we are entering an era of complete unpreparedness” in fighting wildfires.
***
He noted that the wildfires that occurred in California were not a “Pearl Harbor moment where the first time it ever happened, nobody saw it happen.”
“This has been happening all the time. I mean, Paradise, California, wiped off the map; Lahaina, Maui, wiped off the map; as I said all the other fires I listed,” Sheehy explained. “This threat is not a one-time out-of-nowhere typhoon. This is something that happens every single year for decades. And there’s no excuse not to be prepared.
This effort to enact the Equal Rights Amendment by fiat is evidently not just a Biden senior moment. Jonathan Turley details extensive Democrat efforts to make this happen. The whole Democrat party is in dementia (supported by allegedly Republican senators Murkowski and Collins).
I had a major crush on Marie Osmond back in the 80s. I drove all the way on my motorcycle from Colorado to the San Diego animal park to see her perform. (was that a long way?).
I got her picture and autograph from that day. Later, I also saw her in Fremont, CA.
I think she is totes.
Art Deco, thanks for the FIB link!
I worked as a short order cook alongside another short order cook with advanced degrees in mathematics and chemistry for the University of Michigan. He enjoyed earning his living as a short order cook. And I learned a lot working with him.
I was ruined for life by having the ward clerks in medical school at U of M all being PhDs!
huxley on January 17, 2025 at 11:10 pm:
” It takes special effort to find one’s way to a particular blog or podcast.”
Actually I think my discoveries of interesting blogs or Substacks has been almost entirely accidental, based on a recommendation from a blog host or commenter, a particular hyperlink citation, or some off the wall remark. While checking out that reference I may find other entries of interest. I don’t recall how or via whom I found out about neocon, but it is now my most visited site (and cite). Some sites remain mostly unvisited but recognized, such as (for me ) Legal Insurrection, et al. often cited by folks here.
R2L
I don’t recall how or via whom I found out about neocon…
Ditto on ‘Dat…don’t remember bookmarking or visiting neo’s to bookmark it. Only recall seeing a green icon at the bottom of my blog list…for ever how long, and then checked it out one day before deleting it—which I do to blogs at the bottom of my blog list. ?!?just dunno…?!?
Here’s a little anecdote relating to Archie. Way back in 1970 when I was on leave from the AF and visiting my parents, we had dinner at their long time friends home. The friend’s niece from San Francisco, a charming woman who was then San Francisco State president S.I. Hayakawa’s secretary, entertained us with stories about him and his famous grabbing of the microphone from a war protester. It seems he also was a fan of All In The Family. When I asked her if he was a closet conservative she deferred but said Hayakawa was most definitely anti-racist and vehemently opposed ethnic studies at SF State.
She then asked me what I thought about All In The Family. I replied that it wasn’t on my list because the Air Force kept me way too busy with other things, but that my step-father, who was sitting at the table, was a big fan of Archie because he “identified” with him. Silence followed. I was such a smart-ass prick in those days.
Looked it up and it must have been 1971 I was on leave, anyway anecdote stands.
@ The Other Chuck > “my step-father, who was sitting at the table, was a big fan of Archie because he “identified” with him. Silence followed.”
So did a lot of fans.
That seems to be one of the core factors in the show’s success.
A footnote to the Wikipedia entry declares: When the show premiered on January 12, 1971, CBS ran a disclaimer before it aired: “The program you are about to see is All in the Family. It seeks to throw a humorous spotlight on our frailties, prejudices, and concerns. By making them a source of laughter we hope to show, in a mature fashion, just how absurd they are.”
The impression I have gotten over the years is that Norman Lear, who created “All in the Family,” intended for Archie Bunker to be such an outright bigoted jerk that viewers would reflexively identify with the liberal characters, feel sorry for oppressed Edith and thus support the feminism of the day, and cheer for the victimized black neighbors.
Reactions showed that many of the viewers were cheering for Archie, that they believed Edith had her man securely wrapped around her finger, and the Jeffersons were gracious enough to see through Archie’s rough words to his heart of gold.
I have no personal opinion as I didn’t watch more than a few random episodes, original or rerun; the show aired from January 12, 1971, to April 8, 1979 when I was busy with college, work, and new babies.
Watching fictional family dynamics was not high on my list of escapist priorities.
This essay is a good review of the show, its social context, and its affect on the viewing public.
Page 32 (of the pdf) specifically addresses the idea of “identification” with the fictional characters. I think the section beginning on p. 38 is perceptive.
Here’s a retrospective from left-world’s Salon which concludes that the show may have achieved Lear’s objective, demonstrating that centrist “mid-dogmatics” (neither committed bigots nor radical progressives) can become less racist through humor.
@AesopFan:The impression I have gotten over the years is that Norman Lear, who created “All in the Family,” intended for Archie Bunker to be such an outright bigoted jerk that viewers would reflexively identify with the liberal characters
This is not uncommon, that someone who’s thinking too hard about the Message in their story, unintentionally makes a case for the opposite. TV Tropes has examples of these under “Villain Has a Point” and “The Extremist Was Right”. No link because if you go to that site, you may never come back.
AesopFan:
I watched a great deal of All In the Family. I do believe Lear meant for Archie to be the semi-villain, but two things got in the way: the scripts, and Carroll O’Connor. Problem was, some of what Archie said made sense, and his bigotry was belied by his humanity. As O’Connor played him, he was not just funny, but he was invariably moving and ultimately lovable. I don’t know whether O’Connor intended that, but it’s what happened and it’s part of what made the show very great.
Re: All in the Family
AesopFan:
It’s also ironic that Carrol O’Connor, who played Archie Bunker was a strong liberal guy in his time.
I think Lear intended to portray Archie as the bigoted foil for Lear’s liberal views, but when Archie got support, Lear and the show decided to ride the horse in the direction it was going, and make Archie more sympathetic.
There was a wonderful show in which Archie is trapped in an elevator with a black attorney and an hispanic couple. The wife is going into labor. Archie, in character, is being a prejudiced ass.
However, at least as I recall the show, Archie ends up helping out in the birth and at the conclusion his eyes are wide at the miracle in which he has participated.
As O’Connor played him, he was not just funny, but he was invariably moving and ultimately lovable. I don’t know whether O’Connor intended that, but it’s what happened and it’s part of what made the show very great.
neo:
I did a bit more research on the Elevator episode. Apparently it was O’Connor’s choice to humanize Archie.
___________________________________
It could only happen to Archie Bunker: He’s trapped in a stalled elevator with a prickly black attorney named Hugh Victor Thompson III (Roscoe Lee Browne), a ditzy, neurotic, chain-smoking secretary named Angelique McCarthy (Eileen Brennan), and a pregnant, monolingual Puerto Rican woman (Edith Diaz). Things take an even dicier turn when Mrs. Mendoza goes into labor! The touching final scene was the result of on-set improvisation; star Carroll O’Connor felt that the scene as written was in poor taste, and threatened to walk off the show unless something new was added.
It would be nice if someone could update the show for a Republican and Democrat mixed family, to suggest that you don’t have to hate your relatives and neighbors just because they vote differently from you.
We seem to have lost sight of that somehow.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Not sure they could make the show today. Turns out Meathead is really a Meathead.
I do not know who is prepping the nominees, but they are doing a great job.
Will some stupid Dem ask Kristi Noem about the dog incident?
AesopFan,
I hope you see this, I know you often don’t comment until later in the day.
Thank you for taking the time to type what you did about how LDS manages charitable requests. It was very informative. I guess no approach can work for 100% of individuals, but what you outlined sounds about as good as can be done.
Really impressive, clever and compassionate. And, I’d imagine, it’s also very effective.
There is a vital sense of community missing from how government aid is managed in the U.S. A direct deposit from a machine in the bowels of some government office building to one’s bank account disengages the tax payers and recipients from the process. It also diminishes a community’s knowledge of what problems exist, and how best to address them.
So many of our current woes in the U.S. seem to stem directly from the collapse of community structures over the past 60 years; church, scouting, VFW hall, Moose, Elks, Lions…, bowling leagues, community dances and dance halls, Knights of Columbus…
When my folks were young it seemed like every weekend they had a place and occasion that warranted getting dressed up and socializing with neighbors.
yeah archie had more wisdom then he himself knew, I recall watching it in the 70s, along with the jeffersons but I didn’t get the edgy parts of it, I was too figure that out,
https://babalublog.com/2025/01/16/cuban-dictatorship-is-keeping-freed-prisoners-in-legal-limbo-while-it-continues-to-jail-all-dissenters/
that was yesterday, thats why all the rigamarole about Russia, leaves me kind of cold, they trained two generations of terrorists basque,
irish, italian et al,
so it turns out the cuban government has put the prisoners it said to have been released in limbo, despite the suspension of theirr terror ties by the regime,
de tocqueville told us communities were essential to America, so consequently, a combination of technology and our enemies employment of various tools, have sundered them and replaced them with artificial ones,
Federal employees are ready to “resist” Trump. Two quotations from a post and then a personal observation:
“[A]ccording to an RMG Research survey commissioned by the Napolitan Institute, 42% of federal government managers who work in the Washington, D.C., swamp intend to work against the administration.”
“While the vast majority of government employees who identify as Republicans plan to support the administration (89% “somewhat support” or “strongly support”), almost three quarters of Democrat bureaucrats plan to resist (73% “somewhat resist” or “strongly resist”). More than half of Republican managers (52%) said they would “strongly support” the administration, while 40% of Democrats said they will “strongly resist” it.”
A personal recollection is appropriate here. Shortly after I retired from the federal government (December 2016), I was contacted by a former co-worker asking if I would be interested in joining a group of people who would advise federal employees who were inclined to “resist” the Trump administration. I responded that I would be happy to advise employees of their right under the Whistleblower Protection Act to report wrongdoing in the federal government (that area of law was an expertise of mine). I added, however, that I would further advise employees that it was their duty to obey lawful presidential orders and policy directives and that, even when they thought an order or directive was improper, the ordinary legal rule, subject to very narrow exceptions, was to “obey now and grieve later.” Unsurprisingly, I was not asked to be part of the group advising would-be “resisters.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/01/13/deep-state-gearing-nearly-half-federal-employees-swamp-plan-resist-trump-poll-finds/
Yes, we here in the New World with televisions and the Internet live in a state of false intimacy: we know more about people we’re never going to meet (politicians, celebrities, etc.) than we do about the people we see every day, or the folks we’ve lived with for years.
OK, here is another open thread to consider.
It’s hilarious.
https://youtu.be/THNPmhBl-8I?si=NFPaxAHICcz0lf-V
@TimK,
Well, speaking as an ink stained desk jockey myself, from a family full of ink stained desk jockies, the problem isn’t so much the ink stained desk jockies actively disobeying Constitutional job orders from the Big Guy, it’s whether the Big Guy understands the Constitution and the job to begin with.
Like when he announced “I’m going to create a new office to collect tariffs!”
And said ink stained desk jockies sighed and said “There’s already an office for that, sir. It’s the U.S. Customs and Border Control. It’s been there for 200 years.”
Jordan Peterson of Poilievre contains actual information. According to Poilievre, Canada’s balance of trade surplus is from the large energy trade that actually sends heavily discounted oil and gas to the US. It’s his goal to build the infrastructure to process the fuels in Canada– but he sees trade beneficial to both countries.
What Pierre Poilievre Thinks About Donald Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O7Y_dwA-Ns
Yes on the U. S. Customs agency. Why re-invent the wheel?
Good news about Monday – the swearing-in will be in the Capitol with people going to an arena for watching it as well as for the parade. Better security for everyone as well as safer health wise.
BJ:
I don’t know what you’re getting at. The Constitution is silent on what agency collects tariffs. All it says is that Congress is the branch that can levy tariffs. Then, later on, Congress delegated some of that authority to the president, during FDR’s administration, and that power was expanded by another act of Congress during JFK’s administration. The collection of tariffs by the Customs agency has changed over time; see this. But none of it is spelled out in the Constitution. Here’s some of the history:
As far as I can tell, the present structure for collection is not only recent, but was created by an executive order of President George W. Bush. I suppose any further reorganization could be done by Congress or the president, but the Constitution is silent on what agency it would be.
Thanks for the link to Peterson and Poilievre, Brian E.
I’m very impressed by Poilievre’s straight talk, and common sense. Such a breath of fresh air.
BJ, care to comment on whether the current occupant (only for 3 more days, thank God!) understands his job?
He’s not just reorganizing the Executive Branch, he now claims to have the power to unilaterally add amendments to the Constitution.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/01/have-you-heard-the-news.php
Quoting Mr. Johnson @ Powerline
“Someone inside the White House is determined to humiliate “President Biden” even further on his way out the door. Whoever that may be has now engineered “Biden’s” announcement that the Equal Rights Amendment is the law of the land.”
Evidently the VP isn’t much of a Constitutional scholar, either. (I remember all the right people cheering when Pence defied Trump. I’ll wait to see what the reaction to Harris is.)
“Vice President Harris appears to take “Biden’s” declaration at face value in her statement posted on the White House site (“it is the law of the land because the American people have spoken in states across our nation”). She has no excuse. She is responsible for her own embarrassment.
A community note appended to “Biden’s” post on X injects a note of reality. The ERA had a seven-year deadline for ratification that was extended from 1979 to 1982. Only 35 states had ratified the amendment before the extended deadline for ratification expired in 1982. Purported post-deadline ratification pushed the number to 38, but five states acted to rescind their prior approval in the meantime.”
Trump’s External Revenue Service vs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
I commented on this the other day and still think it is a good idea. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can’t keep up with border protection now—whilst facing the prospect of soon having to deport millions of illegal aliens.
I don’t think Trump is trying to “re-invent the wheel” here, but collecting just $111.8 billion in 2022 and $77 billion in 2024 looks like a mistake when:
Americans paying = $5.1 trillion vs Foreigners paying $111.8 billion in 2022 and $77 billion in 2024…so to speak. Trump thinks that Foreigners should start paying more, and humble me agrees…
@Christopher B: Purported post-deadline ratification pushed the number to 38, but five states acted to rescind their prior approval in the meantime.
That’s established by the “no backsies” penumbra; you can find it in the Constitution before the “finders keepers losers weepers” and after the “whoever smelt it dealt it” emanations (which last was later amended to “whoever says the rhyme did the crime”).
See Haley vs United States (Haley 7, United States nothing).
I cannot imagine Congress accomplishing anything salutary.
https://reduxx.info/exclusive-transgender-pedophile-given-lenient-sentence-for-sexually-abusing-his-5-year-old-daughter-after-court-considers-transphobia-in-sentence/
==
75% of the mental health tradesmen are ruining the reputation of the other 25%. Same deal with judges.
Following is an excerpt from an Eric Weinstein interview with the Triggernometry guys, which I’ve watched three times, about leftism and the 2024 election. I abridged the quote a bit.
Weinstein’s observation that we’ve been through a North Korean brainwashing experiment hits hard. That’s how it feels to me.
Likewise his explanation of why our educational elites so easily accepted the brainwashing.
Nothing commenters here haven’t noticed but it’s nice to see someone with Weinstein’s intellectual horsepower summing it up.
Eric Weinstein: You know what we’re doing? We’re doing therapy. We’ve been through something like a North Korean brainwashing experiment, and we can’t believe that this happened. It’s just—it’s so bad.
Every single person with any originality of thought or independence of mind rejects it. Now, why did this ever work?
I learned a lot about the U.S. through having a podcast. It was very popular with people I didn’t expect—truck drivers who really care about physics, electricians who care about the Middle East. There are all sorts of people who solve puzzles every day: general contractors, for instance.
These people are in creative fields because every day is different. You never know what house you’re going to show up at, what trucking route you’ll take, or who knows what. They’ve got time on their hands, and they’re not beholden to anyone.
Nobody cares whether your electrician is MAGA or woke as long as they get the job done, leave your house in decent order, and don’t charge you too much. The way I see it, these people are America’s secret brain trust. They’re not having any of this [leftism] because there’s no reason to.
Now, if you compare that to the highly educated… One of the arguments the Democratic Party likes to make is, ‘All the people with master’s degrees, PhDs, JDs, and MDs vote for us.’ The answer is: because you’re an interest structure.
In woke workplaces—particularly large institutions—there are constant demands for fealty to this woke parchment. These are the institutions with over 15 employees that must follow civil rights legislation about inclusion and similar mandates. That’s what’s going to have to collapse.
On the other hand, contractors might vote Democrat or Republican, but they’re not easily taken in. Why? Because they have a relationship with the unforgiving.
An electrician who starts believing in crazy ideas is going to encounter 110 or 220 volts pretty quickly. It’s a short ride. That’s the beauty of talking to these people—exposing yourself to reality encourages a simplicity of thought.
Interviewer: You keep saying ‘reality.’
Eric Weinstein: Yeah, physics. I call it a relationship with the unforgiving… You can’t fudge something that isn’t fudgeable.
So, do something in your life. Play an instrument. Climb a rock wall. Do electrical work. You’ll very quickly figure out whether you have a positive relationship with the unforgiving.
–Eric Weinstein, “The Left Lives In a Different Reality”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAy_sGOJrPQ
@ Rufus > “So many of our current woes in the U.S. seem to stem directly from the collapse of community structures over the past 60 years; church, scouting, VFW hall, Moose, Elks, Lions…, bowling leagues, community dances and dance halls, Knights of Columbus…
When my folks were young it seemed like every weekend they had a place and occasion that warranted getting dressed up and socializing with neighbors.”
As noted by miguel and BJ respectively, De Tocqueville commended the variety and breadth of American community organizations shortly after the Founding, but after 200 years we seem to be drifting away from them because of the intimacies of technology (which I can’t condemn too much, seeing as we’re using them ourselves!).
AesopSpouse and I just this morning were weeding out boxes of old Boy Scouting materials and lamenting how that particular organization has devolved, and yet we have a granddaughter working her way up the ranks and hoping to make Eagle, so it hasn’t completely lost all of its vitality (thankfully, her Dad is actively involved and watching out for too much wokery, but her troop of girls is holding reasonably steady).
Another son is participating in a local amateur theater (with very professional-grade actors) and a ballroom dance club, which also has national conventions, so that is another community still functioning. There are lots of dance clubs in Denver, mostly square and Western line, but also a lot of ethnic traditional ones; we used to dance with the Welsh, but our group finally all got too old to keep it up.
Which is one of the problems: although the communities you mention are all still extant, they aren’t enrolling younger members as much as they should to stay vital. Just banning TikTok is not going to reverse that problem.
I do note that most churches, including ours, make an effort to sponsor regular activities for the children and youth, and that is filling some of the need, but they are by nature small and insular, not national or even global in scope.
But they do exist, and that’s a good sign.
“There is a vital sense of community missing from how government aid is managed in the U.S… It also diminishes a community’s knowledge of what problems exist, and how best to address them.”
We really see that in respect to welfare: the givers (taxpayers) get no uplift from being generous, and the receivers feel no need to be grateful for it. That’s spiritually and socially corrosive. And yet, we continually see people donating to complete strangers on GoFundMe etc.; our local food banks and thrift stores are full of donations; and most churches do a fantastic job taking care of their members and neighbors.
So that’s not a total lost cause yet, either!
As we’ve seen during natural disasters, the least effective agencies are the government ones. The locals do seem to know what’s needed, and collaborate to get it done (IF the “leaders” will just stay out of their way).
So, even though I agree with all three of you, I still see some rays of light shining through the dark clouds that hang over us, and will continue to hope that the country as a whole will keep creating and supporting communities of beneficial* common interest.
(*I had to add that word because there are also communities that gather for nefarious ends as well. Every sword has two edges.)
huxley:
Weinstein is basically saying what Kundera said about imagology in this quote.
Re: AI companionship
The NYT has an article related to the comment I made yesterday:
____________________________________
Now that ChatGPT has brought humanlike A.I. to the masses, more people are discovering the allure of artificial companionship, said Bryony Cole, the host of the podcast “Future of Sex.” “Within the next two years, it will be completely normalized to have a relationship with an A.I.,” Ms. Cole predicted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/15/technology/ai-chatgpt-boyfriend-companion.html
____________________________________
The article focuses on the quasi-sexual relationship a woman develops with ChatGPT. My concern is about the more general case of AI companionship.
I agree that within a few years AI relationships will be very common and normalized as AIs improve. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it seems inevitable.
AI will be another thing weakening social bonds, apropos the discussion Rufus started above.
huxley,
I was annoyed by that segment of the Weinstein interview when I heard it. Overall I think Eric Weinstein is an important, public intellectual and I give him credit for speaking up and out. I don’t always agree with him, and there are definitely areas where he exceeds my intellectual capabilities, but there are some areas where I find his immaturity and naivety astounding. That segment on Triggernometry is one such area.
Eric and his brother Brett were raised in a family that worshipped intellectual credentialism. Nothing wrong with that, but a lot of Americans, a majority of Americans, never bought into that as an end all, be all. Most Americans don’t find the Wizard’s speech about knowledge to the scarecrow particularly enlightening. Some of the smartest, most clever people I’ve met do not have PhDs. These are the truck drivers and building contractors Weinstein discusses.
I’m glad Eric has figured this out, and I give him credit for having the humility to accept it when confronted with it, many refuse to*.
*A real life anecdote that corroborates the Eric Weinstein phenomenon.
A beloved family member with a PhD was volunteering to feed the homeless in her community with a group of fellow professors from her University. The person who ran the kitchen gave them instructions on how to prepare the food that would be served and left them alone in the kitchen to tend to other matters at the shelter.
The professors started following the instructions to the letter. They were all intelligent and had retained 100% of the instructions and were working together to prepare the meal. As cans and boxes were being opened there would be discussion on how best to recycle the containers after they were empty; which types of materials could be recycled in which manner… It was agreed that some of the empty containers would have to be rinsed prior to recycling, others broken down…
This recycling side duty began to consume a large percentage of the groups’ combined resources until my friend (who was from a blue collar family and had worked in food service to pay for her Undergrad) had to finally interrupt and speak up, “Excuse me, but the people we are serving will begin filing in her in X minutes and if we don’t finish cooking we will have nothing to serve them.”
Rufus T. Firefly:
I guess you are criticizing Weinstein for being surprised that truck drivers and ordinary folks were interested in his podcast.
I’m not particularly surprised by his surprise. I’m a bright guy with some technical interests, though only an AS degree. I learned long ago that most people aren’t much interested in what I have to say along those lines.
Not that I thought they were incapable of following me, but it wasn’t up their alley and they preferred to talk about what did interest them.
AesopFan,
I’m sure your granddaughter will make a great Eagle scout!
I don’t disagree that there are many carrying on important traditions and forming communities. And that’s wonderful! My children are living lives similar to what you describe with your children, and they have found other, similar families their age to socialize with.
I think what’s missing, however, is it used to be almost impossible to avoid such things; so most people had one or a few social groups to meet with regularly.
I’ve noticed a shift in advertising. More and more commercials marketing to middle-aged singles (mostly women) and showing them joyfully having “experiences.” Even commercials for retirement planning; it’s either an older, childless couple or an older, single person. I don’t plan Madison Avenue, they are marketing to the demographics that exist.
DeTocqueville would likely form a different impression if he were to tour America today.
huxley,
What I mean is; even when I was in my teens, I’d strike up a conversation with someone, a janitor for example, and mention a book I was reading and learn he had also read the book and had opinions on it. Things like Camus’, “The Stranger,” or Conrad’s “The Heart of Darkness.”
My father’s father had maybe(?) a sixth grade education and could take an automobile completely apart and reassemble it and could use trigonometry to machine whatever parts he needed. My mother’s father, an eastern European immigrant who came to America not speaking a word of English and also likely didn’t matriculate past 6th grade was the guy everyone in the neighborhood took their electronics to for repairs. He could diagnose vacuum tubes by observing sine wave patterns on an oscilloscope.
None of this stuff is unusual or extraordinary to anyone who socializes outside of academia. Admit it, you also knew this most all your life. Admit it, it’s odd to take over 5 decades and needing to host a national broadcast to discover there are a lot of really bright, very well read people who don’t work in academia.
I see that our demented, about to be ex-President Biden, thinks that he rules by Fiat, so he started screaming today about how–just because he said so–the never ratified Equal Rights Amendment was now the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, and “the law of the land.” *
This guy is nuts, and the sooner they take his signing pen away from him, and ship him off to “Happy Acres,” the better.
* See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/01/biden-screams-tyrannical-rant-about-unilaterally-declaring-28th/
huxley,
I agree most all of us prefer to talk about what interests us. I just find no difference of interest in physics, engineering, the arts, sociology… inside or outside of academia. It doesn’t require years of directed study and a credential to know the works of David Lynch, or Tom Wolfe, as you do.
Even those of us here who are credentialed have shown wide and deep interests in areas outside of our “Majors.” neo’s knowledge of ballet, for interest, or physicsguy’s knowledge of guitar. Or Eric Weinstein’s knowledge of guitar, for that matter. He knows he can listen to a podcast by a professional guitarist and comprehend the musicology and have theories and opinions on the subject, so why wouldn’t the same be true in his field, physics? Just as he has deep opinions on Economics even though his wife is the one with the Econ degree.
I worked as a short order cook alongside another short order cook with advanced degrees in mathematics and chemistry for the University of Michigan. He enjoyed earning his living as a short order cook. And I learned a lot working with him.
Admit it, you also knew this most all your life. Admit it, it’s odd to take over 5 decades and needing to host a national broadcast to discover there are a lot of really bright, very well read people who don’t work in academia.
Rufus:
I think you’re talking to the wrong guy.
I’m a college dropout (twice!) with not even a Bachelor’s degree. I’ve bussed tables, washed dishes, done stoop labor in the fields, worked in construction and factories, wore a blue-collar and been a member of the IBEW.
I am a bright, very well-read person, who doesn’t work in academia and never has. I never fit in with academia, though I tried. I haven’t been well-treated by people with degrees.
I think I’m one of the people you are defending.
huxley,
Yes, and what I’m saying is, imagine never having a conversation with someone like you who is extremely curious and well informed on a variety of complex subjects, but not degreed in any. To be in one’s 50s and not know there are truck drivers who can expound eloquently on physics, or carpenters who have read Smith’s, “The Wealth of Nations?”
How sheltered, or enamored of credentialed academia one would have to be? It’s either naivete or arrogance. Regardless, I’m glad he has figured this out.
Rufus:
Well, call me naïve or arrogant, but I would have been as surprised as Weinstein that truck drivers et al. were tuning in to Weinstein’s podcast.
I consider his surprise unsurprising, and not a matter of arrogance. It takes special effort to find one’s way to a particular blog or podcast. There are tons of blogs and podcasts I haven’t found my way to.
That’s a different issue from not knowing there are truck drivers who can expound on physics or have read “The Wealth of Nations.”
If you were Weinstein, a top mathematical physicist, and guessing who would show up for your podcast, would you expect truck drivers in your audience?
That’s not the same as assuming no truck drivers exist who could appreciate your podcast.
It’s very hard to know who will show up for anything. Hollywood gets that wrong all the time.
@ Rufus > “DeTocqueville would likely form a different impression if he were to tour America today.”
Very much agreed.
1) ‘No Excuse’: Former Aerial Firefighter Sen. Tim Sheehy Details What CA Got Wrong Ahead of Wildfire Disaster
2) Sen. Tim Sheehy Ushers in Bold New Era of MAGA Leadership: ‘This Country Was Not Founded by 65-Year-Old Bureaucrats’
https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/17/its-crazy-federalist-ceo-torches-fbi-cover-up-of-first-trump-assassination-attempt/
==
If we did not live in clown world, Kash Patel’s mission would not be to reform the FBI, but to dismantle it.
This effort to enact the Equal Rights Amendment by fiat is evidently not just a Biden senior moment. Jonathan Turley details extensive Democrat efforts to make this happen. The whole Democrat party is in dementia (supported by allegedly Republican senators Murkowski and Collins).
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/11/amendments-by-acclamation-democrats-move-to-simply-declare-the-equal-rights-amendment-as-ratified/
I had a major crush on Marie Osmond back in the 80s. I drove all the way on my motorcycle from Colorado to the San Diego animal park to see her perform. (was that a long way?).
I got her picture and autograph from that day. Later, I also saw her in Fremont, CA.
I think she is totes.
Art Deco, thanks for the FIB link!
I worked as a short order cook alongside another short order cook with advanced degrees in mathematics and chemistry for the University of Michigan. He enjoyed earning his living as a short order cook. And I learned a lot working with him.
I was ruined for life by having the ward clerks in medical school at U of M all being PhDs!
huxley on January 17, 2025 at 11:10 pm:
” It takes special effort to find one’s way to a particular blog or podcast.”
Actually I think my discoveries of interesting blogs or Substacks has been almost entirely accidental, based on a recommendation from a blog host or commenter, a particular hyperlink citation, or some off the wall remark. While checking out that reference I may find other entries of interest. I don’t recall how or via whom I found out about neocon, but it is now my most visited site (and cite). Some sites remain mostly unvisited but recognized, such as (for me ) Legal Insurrection, et al. often cited by folks here.
R2L
Ditto on ‘Dat…don’t remember bookmarking or visiting neo’s to bookmark it. Only recall seeing a green icon at the bottom of my blog list…for ever how long, and then checked it out one day before deleting it—which I do to blogs at the bottom of my blog list. ?!?just dunno…?!?
Here’s a little anecdote relating to Archie. Way back in 1970 when I was on leave from the AF and visiting my parents, we had dinner at their long time friends home. The friend’s niece from San Francisco, a charming woman who was then San Francisco State president S.I. Hayakawa’s secretary, entertained us with stories about him and his famous grabbing of the microphone from a war protester. It seems he also was a fan of All In The Family. When I asked her if he was a closet conservative she deferred but said Hayakawa was most definitely anti-racist and vehemently opposed ethnic studies at SF State.
She then asked me what I thought about All In The Family. I replied that it wasn’t on my list because the Air Force kept me way too busy with other things, but that my step-father, who was sitting at the table, was a big fan of Archie because he “identified” with him. Silence followed. I was such a smart-ass prick in those days.
Looked it up and it must have been 1971 I was on leave, anyway anecdote stands.
@ The Other Chuck > “my step-father, who was sitting at the table, was a big fan of Archie because he “identified” with him. Silence followed.”
So did a lot of fans.
That seems to be one of the core factors in the show’s success.
A footnote to the Wikipedia entry declares: When the show premiered on January 12, 1971, CBS ran a disclaimer before it aired: “The program you are about to see is All in the Family. It seeks to throw a humorous spotlight on our frailties, prejudices, and concerns. By making them a source of laughter we hope to show, in a mature fashion, just how absurd they are.”
The impression I have gotten over the years is that Norman Lear, who created “All in the Family,” intended for Archie Bunker to be such an outright bigoted jerk that viewers would reflexively identify with the liberal characters, feel sorry for oppressed Edith and thus support the feminism of the day, and cheer for the victimized black neighbors.
Reactions showed that many of the viewers were cheering for Archie, that they believed Edith had her man securely wrapped around her finger, and the Jeffersons were gracious enough to see through Archie’s rough words to his heart of gold.
I have no personal opinion as I didn’t watch more than a few random episodes, original or rerun; the show aired from January 12, 1971, to April 8, 1979 when I was busy with college, work, and new babies.
Watching fictional family dynamics was not high on my list of escapist priorities.
This essay is a good review of the show, its social context, and its affect on the viewing public.
Page 32 (of the pdf) specifically addresses the idea of “identification” with the fictional characters. I think the section beginning on p. 38 is perceptive.
https://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/fe08b910-bae3-438c-80b2-df2357b106e4/content
Here’s a retrospective from left-world’s Salon which concludes that the show may have achieved Lear’s objective, demonstrating that centrist “mid-dogmatics” (neither committed bigots nor radical progressives) can become less racist through humor.
https://www.salon.com/2015/09/08/archie_bunker_actually_helped_race_relations_how_all_in_the_family_led_to_key_and_peele/
@AesopFan:The impression I have gotten over the years is that Norman Lear, who created “All in the Family,” intended for Archie Bunker to be such an outright bigoted jerk that viewers would reflexively identify with the liberal characters
This is not uncommon, that someone who’s thinking too hard about the Message in their story, unintentionally makes a case for the opposite. TV Tropes has examples of these under “Villain Has a Point” and “The Extremist Was Right”. No link because if you go to that site, you may never come back.
AesopFan:
I watched a great deal of All In the Family. I do believe Lear meant for Archie to be the semi-villain, but two things got in the way: the scripts, and Carroll O’Connor. Problem was, some of what Archie said made sense, and his bigotry was belied by his humanity. As O’Connor played him, he was not just funny, but he was invariably moving and ultimately lovable. I don’t know whether O’Connor intended that, but it’s what happened and it’s part of what made the show very great.
Re: All in the Family
AesopFan:
It’s also ironic that Carrol O’Connor, who played Archie Bunker was a strong liberal guy in his time.
I think Lear intended to portray Archie as the bigoted foil for Lear’s liberal views, but when Archie got support, Lear and the show decided to ride the horse in the direction it was going, and make Archie more sympathetic.
There was a wonderful show in which Archie is trapped in an elevator with a black attorney and an hispanic couple. The wife is going into labor. Archie, in character, is being a prejudiced ass.
However, at least as I recall the show, Archie ends up helping out in the birth and at the conclusion his eyes are wide at the miracle in which he has participated.
Here’s a bit of the show on YouTube:
–“Archie Get To Know Strangers In A Elevator”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lcra55ob4I
As O’Connor played him, he was not just funny, but he was invariably moving and ultimately lovable. I don’t know whether O’Connor intended that, but it’s what happened and it’s part of what made the show very great.
neo:
I did a bit more research on the Elevator episode. Apparently it was O’Connor’s choice to humanize Archie.
___________________________________
It could only happen to Archie Bunker: He’s trapped in a stalled elevator with a prickly black attorney named Hugh Victor Thompson III (Roscoe Lee Browne), a ditzy, neurotic, chain-smoking secretary named Angelique McCarthy (Eileen Brennan), and a pregnant, monolingual Puerto Rican woman (Edith Diaz). Things take an even dicier turn when Mrs. Mendoza goes into labor! The touching final scene was the result of on-set improvisation; star Carroll O’Connor felt that the scene as written was in poor taste, and threatened to walk off the show unless something new was added.
https://all-in-the-family-tv-show.fandom.com/wiki/The_Elevator_Story
Thanks for the additions to the AITF lore!
It would be nice if someone could update the show for a Republican and Democrat mixed family, to suggest that you don’t have to hate your relatives and neighbors just because they vote differently from you.
We seem to have lost sight of that somehow.