That is true; you cannot have a show without artistic vision. The show was admittedly brilliant the way it seemingly used comedy to protray race relations while subtly nudging it's viewers to be open to new ideas, whether they be the right ideas or the wrong ideas.

I posted this because I couldn't disagree with it's premise, no matter how much I wanted to, and of the comments here, I've seen no one that can argue with this premise of this somewhat flawed article. They can only quibble over minor details or make wisecracks.

I truly believe that public opinion can be swayed more easily by good art than it can be by rhetoric. Rhetoric tends to back people into a defensive corner where they strike out at others who differ from their way of thinking. (I am as guilty of this as anyone.)
Just think of the impact of Charles Dickens and John Steinbeck. (I was thinking about including Ayn Rand for the other side but she wasn't that good of a writer.) But other examples abound, I am sure.

"Just think of the impact of Charles Dickens and John Steinbeck."

I used to read a lot of Dickens. It is especially informative to consider how Dickens looked at the French Revolution. He was initially inspired by it, but he later saw and recognized the brutality and violence inherent in such "causes."

Dickens knew that religion was important and wrote that the "fundamental sense of human fraternity can only exist in the presence of positive RELIGION." (emphasis added)

Steinbeck seemed to many to have promoted Socialism, but that cannot be confirmed. Left-wingers like to use his famous quote and twist and distort it for their own Marxist ends: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Left-wingers mock and disparage the idea that many Americans think that they can be rich someday: In order to further their Socialism, Liberals say that is a lie, a sham, a way of manipulating people. So, Left-wingers will pull out that Steinbeck quote and distort it for their political ideology, to support their dogma and programs of redistribution and attacking the free market. They distort DIckens in the same manner, too, conveniently leaving out this disdain for the "first communist revolution" (Marx said that), his anger at anti-papal mobs (The Gordon riots in "Barnaby Jones"), and his Christianity.

Distort, dissemble, and deceive. Welcome to LIBERAL-LAND!

Yep. This does apply here, Milieu. BTW, Archie never wore a flag pin and "All in the Family" was taped before a live audience. It was never "prompted by phony laugh tracks"

Exactly, gump.

Minor mistakes by the author aside like the laugh track, what about the premise do you disagree with? What makes it "bunch of crack. Pure empty . Nothing here but crapp?"

100% hocum. The kind of stuff Mishi makes up out of its twisted tweaker memory fuctions. Total makebelive.

I noticed that you asked a reasonable question, simply an explanation for an assertion.

But you got nothing in return. This is the way of LEFT-WINGERS. No desire to discuss, explain, or think. Just write feelings, mostly gleaned from television, and demand agreement and conformity to the LEFT-WINGER WORLDVIEW.

gump is not a bad guy. He means well, but I wasn't expecting an answer to be honest, let alone an honest answer.

I am not so sure. He appears to be a die-hard socialist, and anyone who is a confirmed socialist is basically determined to destroy our country, trash the Constitution, revise the truths in the Founding, and Europeanize us.

The TRUTH about Left-wingers lies in what you cleverly brought out: A REFUSAL to even attempt an explanation. Either they generally know or they have no idea why they mouth what they do.

If they have no idea and are just mindlessly parroting Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher, that is embarrassing.

If they DO know and the reasons, principles and rationales are explored HONESTLY, it will be revealed that they want to undermine our Founding, our Constitution, and our very history and culture. That forms an essential element of LEFT-WINGERISM. They do not want that to be REVEALED.

Again, I didn't write the piece.

I had to edit out the author's original use of "Zionist" because I have not verified whether Lear was a Zionist or not. I do however agree with author's use of Marxist, although "subversive" may be more accurate term.

On what grounds is the Marxist label attached to these two humane and non-racist vaguely liberal men, on what evidence? I think most people in the USA have no idea what Marxism really is or what Marxists really are. :)

I'm not getting roped into that debate tonight, plus people much smarter than myself have long debated what Marxisim really is. Perhaps Marxist ideology has grown into something different than it was in it's origin and refers to something completely different in today's terms.

The commonly held idea of what Marxism has come to be known is what I was referring to, and that's why I said subversive was a more appropriate term.

I saw the British one when in London. I thought it was funnier. In the one I saw, a black guy came to fix the TV. All it needed was a simple adjustment, and he charged the full amount. The husband went nuts; it was obvious that the black guy was much smarter. Later he talked about how "they" should be in the coal mines and reminisced about the "empire....."

I actually had tears from laughing so hard.

"Perhaps Marxist ideology has grown into something different than it was in it's origin and refers to something completely different in today's terms."

The Left-wingers have inherited Marxism in their culture. They rarely study Marx formally, but their premises are really Marxist. One simple example is the myth that the "rich" already have enough wealth that they are hoarding, enough to meet the needs of society - right now. Marx said that over a century and one-half ago, and Liberals today believe this. They may not have studied Marx, but they certainly have inherited his credos in their culture.

I can provide a multitude of examples if you like.

I didn't write this piece. It's merely posted for your consideration and because an "All In The Family" clip appeared on the site over the weekend.

Ah..My bad! :-)

"EVERY and ALL television is social engineering. Leave it to Beaver was Conservative Social Engineering."

I disagree. I just read a Wiki article about "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Some say it was about Communism, others about McCarthyism. The people involved in the production said it was only a sci-fi thriller and they had no political or social purpose other than entertainment.

I suspect that Hollywood simply responds to what it perceives as the demands. Notice the difference in how soldiers were depicted from post-WWII era movies, the Vietnam era and today.

I was really only generalizing, just as the article was. I agree with you and think the article's assertion is pretty ludicrous.

I do see the Leftism in some movies. Wall Street was a perfect example. Left-winger dogma (MYTHS) were present in that horrid movie. Gecko said to his protege about getting wealthy: "Hey, kid, there are winners and losers," playing right into the hands of MINDLESS LIBERALS who think that anyone who becomes rich does it at the expense of others.