Upworthy's book GOOD PEOPLE, now available - take a look!

Shop
 Explore 

This blooper from 'The Carol Burnett Show' is still one of the funniest outtakes in TV history

Vicki Lawrence dropped a perfectly timed a-bomb.

carol burnett show funny

The Carol Burnett Show Official/YouTube

"The Carol Burnett Show" had one of the funniest outtakes in TV history.

"The Carol Burnett Show" ran from 1967 to 1978 and has been touted as one of the best television series of all time. The cast and guest stars of the show included comedic greats such as Tim Conway, Betty White, Steve Martin, Vicki Lawrence, Dick Van Dyke, Lyle Waggoner, Harvey Korman and others who went on to have long, successful comedy careers.

One firm rule Carol Burnett had on her show was that the actors stay in character. She felt it was especially important not to break character during the "Family" scenes, in which the characters Ed and Eunice Higgins (a married couple) and Mama (Eunice's mother) would play host to various colorful characters in their home.

"I never wanted to stop and do a retake, because I like our show to be ‘live,’" she wrote in her memoir, as reported by Showbiz Cheat Sheet. "So when the ‘Family’ sketches came along, I was adamant that we never break up in those scenes, because Eunice, Ed, and Mama were, in an odd way, sacred to me. They were real people in real situations, some of which were as sad and pitiful as they were funny, and I didn’t want any of us to break the fourth wall and be out of character.”

It was a noble goal, and one that went right out the window—with Burnett leading the way—in a "Family" sketch during the show's final season that ended with the entire cast rolling with laughter.

In the scene, Eunice, Mama, Dan (an old friend of Ed's) and Mickey (Ed's employee at the hardware store) are playing "Password" and the word they're trying to get their partners to guess is "ridiculous." Eunice (played by Carol Burnett) gives Mickey (played by Tim Conway) the clue word "laughable," and after pondering for a bit, he says "elephant."

Eunice scolds him for his bizarre answer, then Conway launches into a wild ad-libbed story about a circus elephant that goes on and on and on.

Burnett is the first one to lose it. The cast barely keeps it together through the sketch.

But that was just one take. Between takes, the director gave the actors a note: The elephant story would be different in the next filming—and good luck.

The next elephant story was even wilder than the first, and Burnett and Dick Van Dyke couldn't stop themselves from laughing. Conway himself breaks a couple of times, and even Vicki Lawrence (playing Mama), who famously never broke character, had to hide her face for a moment.

Then, just when they finally got themselves composed and Burnett was able to deliver her line, "Go on, Mama," Lawrence delivered the most perfectly timed a-bomb and the whole cast exploded:

So delightful. And for an added bonus, watch Vicki Lawrence tell the story about how that scene came about:

See the full interview at https://emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/vicki-l...

This article originally appeared on 9.14.22

From Your Site Articles

carol burnett show

Cycle for Survival

Cycle for Survival

How can riding a bike help beat cancer? Just ask Reid Moritz, 10-year-old survivor and leader of his own “wolfpack”

Every year, Reid and his pack participate in Cycle for Survival to help raise money for the rare cancer research that’s helped him and so many others. You can too.

all photos courtesy of Reid Moritz

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research

True

There are many things that ten-year-old Reid Wolf Moritz loves. His family, making watches (yes, really), basketball, cars (especially Ferraris), collecting super, ultra-rare Pokémon cards…and putting the pedal to the medal at Cycle for Survival.

Cycle for Survival is the official rare cancer fundraising program of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). One hundred percent of every dollar raised at Cycle for Survival events supports rare cancer research and lifesaving clinical trials at MSK.

At only two years old, Reid was diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma, a rare type of brain tumor.

Pediatric cancer research is severely underfunded. When standard treatments don't work, families rely on breakthrough clinical trials to give their children a real shot at long-term survival.

When Reid’s chemotherapy and brain surgery didn’t work, he was able to participate in one of MSK’s clinical trials, where he’s received some incredible results. “Memorial Sloan Kettering has done so much for me. It's just so nice how they did all this for me. They're just the best hospital ever,” Reid recalls.

And that’s why every year, you’ll find Reid with his team, aptly named Reid's Wolfpack, riding at Cycle for Survival. It’s just Reid’s way of paying it forward so that even more kids can have similar opportunities.

“I love sharing my story to inspire other kids to PERSEVERE, STAY STRONG and NEVER GIVE UP while also raising money for my amazing doctors and researchers to help other kids like me.”

Reid remembers the joy felt bouncing on his father’s shoulder and hearing the crowd cheer during his first Cycle for Survival ride. As he can attest, each fundraising event feels more like a party, with plenty of dancing, singing and celebrating.

Hoping to spread more of that positivity, Reid and his family started the Cycle for Survival team, Reid’s Wolfpack, which has raised close to $750,000 over the past eight years. All that money goes directly to Reid’s Neuro-Oncology team at Memorial Sloan Kettering.

In addition to cheering on participants and raising good vibes at Cycle for Survival events, Reid even designs some pretty epic looking merch—like basketball shorts, jerseys, and hoodies—to help raise money.

If you’re looking to help kids just like Reid, and have a ton of fun doing it, you’re in luck. Cycle for Survival events are held at Equinox locations nationwide, and welcome experienced riders and complete newbies alike. You can even join Reid and his Wolfpack in select cities!

And if cycling in any form isn’t your thing, a little donation really does go a long way.

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research. Find out more information by checking out cycleforsurvival.org or filling out this interest form.

From Your Site Articles

best of humanity

Why didn't people smile in old photographs? It wasn't just about the long exposure times.

People blame these serious expressions on how long they had to sit for a photo, but that's not the whole picture.

Public domain images

Photos from the 1800s were so serious.

If you've ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century, you've likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there's a hint of a smile at all, it's oh-so-slight, but more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn't people smile in photographs? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?

Most often, people's serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that's true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.

Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It's surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as "smiley" aren't toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken, there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.

But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn't smile in early photographs.

1800s photographs Why so serious? Public domain

The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits

The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn't smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn't how it was done.

A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.

"Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci, painted in 1503Public domain

Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard

Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review:

"Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette."

"Malle Babbe" by Frans Hals, sometime between 1640 and 1646Public domain

In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.

Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn't lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn't work well in portraits of old.

As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn't have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.

Even wedding party photos didn't appear to be joyful occasions.Wikimedia Commons

Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture

So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.

Photos could have captured people's natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn't widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kind of emotions on people's faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person's face.

Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.

From Your Site Articles

Mom arrested for letting 10-year-old walk to town reignites Free Range Parenting debate

He was "found" less than a mile from home, and she was charged with reckless conduct.

Photo by asaf on Unsplash

Brittany Patterson's heart sank when she got a call from police about her 10-year-old son, Soren. As any parent would, she had to be in a complete panic. Was he OK? Did something terrible happen?

A deputy explained that, yes, Soren was OK, but that he'd been found alone "downtown" — in a rural Georgia town with a population of only a few hundred people. He'd apparently gotten bored at home and walked into town on his house, a distance of less than a mile.

A concerned citizen had called the police, who then brought Soren home.

And then Brittany Patterson was arrested.

This wild story has caught fire on social media and reignited a decades-old parenting debate.

— (@)

Patterson is a self-described Free Range Parent.

Her son hadn't told her that he'd left the house to go downtown, which she chastised him for, but overall she wasn't that concerned. She was used to giving her kids lots of freedom to explore nature around their home, visit nearby friends, and come and go more or less as they pleased.

Free Range Parenting is a controversial parenting style in stark contrast to Helicopter Parenting, which involves near constant supervision and intervention. Free Range Parents let their kids roam freely, often supervising very little — usually with a lot of communication about what is and isn't OK, and a lot of trust that their child has the tools to navigate situations properly on their own.

It's controversial because the line between fostering independence and pure neglect is extremely gray.

According to Parents Magazine, the term Free Range Parent gained initial popularity in response to a New York columnist who let her 9-year-old ride the subway alone. Some people thought the idea sounded ridiculously dangerous and neglectful. Others figured, if the kid has money and knows how to read the map, why not?

Anecdotally, it feels like we supervise children way more than previous generations did.

a young boy walking down a street with a backpack on Photo by Gilberto Peralta Bocio on Unsplash

It was common for Boomers and even Gen X kids to quite literally get kicked out of the house on Saturday morning and told not to come back until dinner!

Most parents I know, including me, hover a great deal more than our parents ever did.

Why is that? Has the world gotten more dangerous?

"Crime rates and many risks have actually decreased over the past few decades," says psychologist Caitlin Slavens, but "we’re more aware of them than ever, thanks to 24/7 news and social media. So [while] it might feel more dangerous now, the stats don't actually show that is the case. "

Proponents of Free Range Parenting say it works wonders in fostering confident, independent children.

"We’ve taught our children to trust themselves, fostering calm and thoughtful individuals rather than chaotic and anxious ones," says Michelle Shahbazyan, a marriage and family therapist who practices free range in her own home. "This approach not only benefits them but also sets a positive precedent for how they interact with the world and for future generations they will be a part of shaping."

But there are legitimate drawbacks to a more hands-off approach too.

"There are new risks, like the online world," says Slavens, "that make free range parenting not always a safe option, especially when dangers aren't necessarily apparent."

Your kid walking a half mile alone to meet a friend shouldn't be a huge deal (even if our own anxieties say otherwise), but what if they're really going to meet someone they met online? It's cool if kids want to be alone or hang by themselves in their room — you don't need to constantly check on them — but what if they're trying their hand at the latest deadly TikTok challenge?

It sounds absurd, but these are things parents legitimately have to fear in 2024.

These hard-to-see dangers are what complicate matters and make it difficult for many parents to let go of control.

Brittany Patterson's story isn't over yet.

It's shocking to know that she was arrested in front of her children for "reckless conduct" and booked at the county jail, just because her almost 11-year-old decided to go for a walk less than a mile from home.

She was charged a fine and, far worse, assigned a case manager from the Division of Family and Children Services.

They're currently trying to get her to sign a Safety Plan and agree to download a location-tracking app on her son's phone. She says she won't sign and is disputing the charges.

Parents everywhere are outraged, and in Patterson's case, it seems clear that law enforcement has way overstepped.

But the debate between the need for independence and safety remains, and we probably won't know exactly where the line between free range vs neglect really is any time soon.

From Your Site Articles

Modern Families

Woman goes to huge lengths to adopt husband's ex-wife's baby to save him from foster care

She had lived in foster care and didn't want it for the newborn with no name.

via Christie Werts/TikTok and Christie Werts/TikTok

Christie Werts and her son, Levi

Christie and Wesley Werts have taken the idea of a blended family to the next level. When the couple fell in love five years ago and married, they brought together her children, Megan and Vance, and his children, Austin and Dakota.

As of January, the Ohio family has five children after adopting young Levi, 2. Levi is the son of Wesley’s ex-wife, who passed away four days after the child was born. The ex-wife had the boy prematurely, at 33 weeks, and died soon after from drug addiction and complications of COVID-19.

When Levi was born, he was a ward of the state with no first name or birth certificate.

“When I heard about Levi, without hesitation, I said we should take him,” Christie said, according to The Daily Mail, and her reason went far beyond the fact that the child was the half-brother to two of her recently adopted children. “I myself was a foster kid and, although for the most part, I had a great experience, I did not want him going to foster care,” Christie said.

@cjthemom5
Replying to @Journey♥️ Yes, they will always know of her and ill be there for every emotion good or bad. But im also mom, ive been to every game, every doctors appt, sat with them if they needed an ear loved unconditional . I am mom also. #adoption #srorytime #siblings #foryou #loveislove

Before the family knew of Levi’s birth, Christie had a recurring dream about a blue-eyed, blonde-haired boy.

"Before Levi, we had wanted to try to have a child of our own," she told Newsweek. "I'm in my forties, so we knew that we would probably need fertility treatment, so I thought let's just think about it and what will be will be."

The problem was that Levi was in Texas, so the family sold their house and moved to the Lone Star State to go through the arduous adoption process. The situation was further complicated because Levi’s biological father had parental rights even though he had substance abuse problems. The family couldn’t move out of Texas until his rights were legally terminated.

But after a 16-month process, in January 2023, Levi became a legal family member. Christie understands that adopting her husband’s ex-wife’s baby may seem unusual to some people. "It's a lot to process for a lot of people, but honestly, it seems a lot crazier than it was. At the time, it just made sense," she said.

@cjthemom5
Our adoption is official !!! after 17 months!!! #adoption #son #loveyou #ourstory#foryou #fyp

Even though Christie knew in her heart that she must adopt Levi, she wasn’t without reservations. “'If I said I did not [have concerns beforehand], that would not be honest,” she told The Daily Mail. “This was different—I was going to walk into a child I never met and was worried the circumstances would hinder this instant love. But [...] he stole my heart. I also felt this intense need to protect him.”

These days, Levi fits right in with the family, and the rest of the kids are happy to be back to living an everyday life without any caseworkers or inspections.

“He's great, he is the king of the house! We are all very close. He won't understand the journey right now, but someday, I will let him know we fought for him!” Christie said.

This article originally appeared 1 year ago.

From Your Site Articles

Grieving mom hopes to prevent others from experiencing heartache by stressing glucose test

"You using your voice here might just save a life."

Photo credit: Canva

Grieving mom stresses importance of glucose test during pregnancy

It can be easy to get caught up in being a "crunchy mom" when you're trying to do what's best for your baby. Most parents want to be as healthy as possible while they're pregnant to make sure they're nourishing their growing baby with the healthiest things. Spending days going down rabbit holes online researching all the different stages of pregnancy and natural options for things that seem unsafe.

Over the last couple of years there has been incorrect information shared in online spaces about the glucose tolerance test given to pregnant people between weeks 24-28 of pregnancy. This high sugar drink is designed to help child birth professionals determine if the mother is likely to have gestational diabetes. The first glucose test is done over the course of an hour, if it comes back outside of normal range another glucose test will be performed over a three hour timeframe.

If the second test returns an abnormal result, doctors are likely to diagnose the pregnant person with gestational diabetes, which requires a change in diet and sometimes insulin. The condition can be well managed with proper care, but if left untreated gestational diabetes can be dangerous for mother and baby.

closeup photography of pregnant woman wearing blue panty Photo by Ignacio Campo on Unsplash

Untreated gestational diabetes can lead to an abnormally large baby, shoulder dystocia, excessive weight gain in the mother, increase likelihood of a cesarian and in some cases, death. But some pregnant people on social media have been refusing to take the glucose tolerance test or trying to "hack" it by drinking a non approved sugary drink incorrectly assuming it will result in the same outcome. Several doctors, midwives, nurses and nutritionists have warned against this trend attempting to put a stop to it.

Unfortunately, a new voice joined the chorus of people warning of the dangers of skipping out on the glucose test during pregnancy. Cora, who goes by the name, Weylyn's Mama on TikTok recently posted a video sharing why pregnant people should take the glucose tolerance test.

a doctor talking to a pregnant woman in a waiting room Photo by CDC on Unsplash

"I was having a planned home birth and my son died. And let's talk about why I think you should never, ever, ever decline the glucose test," Cora says before continuing. "I was having a planned home birth, so I had a midwife and she did tell me, you know, still offered the test. But I also don't think I properly educated myself or was properly told what could happen besides just a 'big baby.'"

Cora explains that her son was large, weighing over ten pounds which caused him to get stuck in the birth canal, though they were able to safely maneuver him out. Sadly, Weylyn was deceased prior to his birth due to the undiagnosed gestational diabetes.

"But the reason is, I had undiagnosed gestational diabetes and we have no idea for how long," Cora shares before adding that she had sugar in her urine and a test showed elevated blood sugar at 24 weeks, but since her midwife didn't seem concerned, she didn't see the need to worry.

a bottle of juice sitting on a green surface Photo by Piero Nigro on Unsplash

"But I do think it's super important, you know you could take the Fresh Test, you could take, honestly, the glucose test now don't even have food dyes in them anymore so if that's a problem, it's like unless you're so, so, so, so, so crunchy you've genuinely have never eaten a single from a fast food place or a restaurant, the glucose test is not worse than anything else you put into your body, I promise you. I promise you. And there is a huge increase in stillbirth with gestational diabetes. I am aware of that now," the woman warns.

Cora is now expecting again and due to her experience with gestational diabetes was screened early. Her screening showed signs of gestational diabetes so she is having to monitor her blood sugar, which has gone well thus far. The grieving mom hopes her story helps to educate expectant people on the risks of declining the glucose testing and she's advocating for better education around gestational diabetes. People rally to support the mom and thank her for being vulnerable enough to share her experience.

@weylynsmama Passing it should also never be the main goal - the main goal is trying to catch the red flags on if you may have gestational diabetes. I see so many crunchy facebook groups trying to get moms to decline it or pass it with things doctors would NOT recommend. #crunchy #homebirth #lossmama #weylyn #fulltermstillbirth #stillborn #37weekspregnant #glucosetest #pass #fail #gestationaldiabetes #thefreshtest ♬ original sound - Cora | Life after Loss

"My OB said it doesn’t matter how healthy you are or how healthy you eat. EVERYONE needs to take a glucose test because ANYONE can get GD. It all depends on your placenta," One person writes.

Dr. Jennifer Lincoln, OBGYN, shares encouragement, "I’m so sorry this happened. You using your voice here might just save a life. I hope you know how powerful that is."

"Thank you for spreading awareness. I’m an l&d nurse and have seen SUCH extremely bad outcomes from undiagnosed/untreated gestational diabetes & hate how much SM has demonized the test," another commenter says.

couple hug GIFGiphy

"I just wanted to thank you for sharing this because I was about to try the protein hack after failing my 1 hr and had no idea how dangerous it was," an expectant mom shares.

When it comes to being extra healthy and watching what goes into your body while pregnant, listening to your medical professional is best. Hopefully Cora continues to have a healthy pregnancy that leads to a smooth birth and a healthy baby. Nothing will replace Weylyn but sharing her story is already proving helpful in stopping someone else from experiencing the same tragedy.

From Your Site Articles

glucose test hack

Dating expert says to 'stop chasing the spark' and ask these 8 post-date questions instead

Dating "like a scientist" can apparently save you a lot of headaches and heartaches. Here's how.

Photo credit: Canva

Dating is hard. But this can help make it easier.

Sure, it’s amazing when we go on a date and instantly hit it off with another person. But let’s be honest, that doesn’t always happen. And that can be for myriad reasons which don’t necessarily indicate a lack of romantic potential—nerves, having an off day, feeling self conscious, etc.

This is part of what can make dating, especially frequent dating, so frustrating. It’s easy to know what to do after a terrible date—never see that person again. Done. But those somewhere-in-the-middle dates, the ones that don’t rise to rom-com level but still manage to be pleasant enough…how do you effectively assess those?

According to one expert, it all comes down to eight simple questions.

While appearing on the Diary of a CEO podcast, behavioral scientist Logan Ury (who also happens to be the Director of Relationship Science at Hinge) shared how so many people approach dating by doing what she called “relation-shopping.”

Ury likened it to shopping for a pair of bluetooth headphones, saying, “you log onto Amazon and you say ‘okay I want ones that are this color, this weight, this battery life.’ And you start to think ‘oh, I can shop for a partner the same way.’”

But that strategy doesn’t work, Ury noted, because it doesn't focus on how both partners interact together, and it enables a person to make judgments based on assumptions. Ury used the example of not wanting to date someone whose parents were divorced because they “must not know how to be in a great relationship.”

Instead, Ury encouraged people to “date like a scientist.” Which of course means testing theories, remaining open to being wrong, and of course, asking questions.

With that, here is the “post-date eight” checklist you can use to evaluate whether or not a person is right for you:

1) What side of me did this person bring out?

2) How did my body feel during the day? Stiff, relaxed, or somewhere in between?

3) Do I feel more or less energized than I did before the date?

4) Is there something about them that makes me curious?

5) Did they make me laugh?

6) Did I feel heard?

7) Did I feel desire in their presence?

8) Did I feel captivated, bored or somewhere in between?

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Part of what makes the post date eight so effective, according to Ury, is how it “trains you to tune into your experience” and treat the date as though it were a “job interview.” Ury also notes that the first question is particularly important, because "whoever that person brings out in you is who you will be for the rest of your life in that relationship and don't you want to be the happy, secure, desired, hilarious version of yourself?"

Fair point, Ury. Fair point.

Lastly, Ury encouraged folks that feeling an instant “spark” truly isn’t everything. In fact, they often burn out. “Slow burn” connections, on the other hand, often denote secure, long lasting partnerships.

The post-date eight can therefore act as a “new barometer,” retraining your brain to stop chasing “initial chemistry,” (and therefore avoid the “anxious-avoidant loop” that comes with it) and instead gauge whether or not "interest is gaging upwards.”

This new way of dating might not work as a movie plot. But for real life…it does sound promising.