AZ Quotes: Bill Parcells- ‘This Is Why You Lift All Them Weights, This is Why You Do All That’

45577

Source:AZ Quotes– Bill Parcells, when he was head coach of the New York Giants

Source:The Daily Review

As someone who grew up just outside Washington in Bethesda, Maryland and still live there, I grew up a Redskins fan and still am, ( even though Dan Snyder makes it harder for me to remain a Redskins and NFL fan each and everyday ) it gives me great pain to say anything nice about anyone who has ever worked for the New York Giants. Especially someone who not just had great success with the Giants, but had great success against the Redskins while with the Giants. The Redskins and Giants, are great rivals.

The only team that the Giants hate more than the Philadelphia Eagles, are the Redskins. And the only team that the Redskins hate more than the Dallas Cowboys, are the Giants. Welcome to the NFC which is just one small, but great family where everyone hates each other. Which might not be that untypical of the modern American family, especially with the current political situation and division. The NFC East is one of those places that’s not that different from the modern American family. For example ( pardon my language ) you can all your brother an asshole or even make fun of your father or mother, but if someone else does especially outside of your family does, you want to kick their ass to set them straight. We don’t actually hate each other, we even respect it each other which makes it easier to acknowledge greatness from another team in your division when you see it.

When a car company makes a great car, you bet your life that your competitors will see that and respect that. Perhaps even take notes of what makes that car great and why it’s so popular. And when another team in your division does something great, or produces someone who is great like a player, or in Bill Parcells case a great head coach, other teams take note of that to see what made that coach so success with that team.

You could argue that what made Bill Parcells a great head coach was his knowledge for football and the NFL. A great ability to see talent and get the most out of the players that he had and of course that’s all true. There are maybe 10 different NFL head coaches that knew enough about football and both sides of the ball that they could’ve been either a successful defensive coordinator or offensive coordinator: Don Shula, Tom Landry, Chuck Noll, perhaps Bill Cowher, maybe Bill Walsh who gets credit for being the great offensive mind that he was, but the man had a great football mind as well and the San Francisco 49ers played his defenses and defenders were his players, not the defensive coordinator’s. But one guy who really sticks out as a great football mind at least post-Tom Landry is Bill Parcells.

But as great a football mind that Bill Parcells was in the NFL and especially with the Giants where he won 2 Super Bowls in 5 years in New York ( or New Jersey, depending on your perspective ) and his knowledge of the game both defensively and offensively is an important factor, there’s one more factor that I believe is more important and a bigger reason for his success in the NFL and that’s his honesty. Like with the Giants ball control power offense where they almost told the defense what play they were going to run, because they only had a handful of both running and passing plays, there was no deception with the Bill Parcells Giants, they were either going to power run or perhaps pull a sweep outside with Joe Morris or someone else, or QB Phill Simms would go play action and hit a post to his TE Mark Bavaro or WR Lionel Manuel and there was also no deception or bullshit ( to be frank ) in how he treated his players. They always knew where they stood with him.

The classic Bill Parcells quote where he’s on the sidelines I believe talking to his offensive line during a game and he’s trying to motivate them and get them to play harder and he says, “this is why you lift all them weights, this is why you do all that shit!” Telling them the reason why Parcells makes his players work as hard as he possibly can, is not to punish them and to wear them down, but to make them as strong as they can and to make them as great as they.

It’s that old Chuck Knox quote when he was the head coach of the Los Angeles Rams in the 1970s when they were at practice and he tells one of those players, “to be a champion, you have to pay the price.” Coach Knox, was also famous for working his players very hard. Bill Parcells, wasn’t interested in being popular even in New York, but wanted to build champions and he did that they only way he knew how to which was through blue-collar bluntness and hard work and he was very successful with his approach.

11345

Source:NFL Films: Bill Parcells- Mic’d Up– Bill Parcells, leading the New York Giants to victory in Super Bowl 25, against the Buffalo Bills.

Advertisements
Posted in NFL Greatest | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PM Entertainment Group: Ice 1994- Starring Traci Lords

65822

Source:Pic Click– Traci Lords, in Ice 

Source:Action

I don’t think Ice is a great movie, but just because a movie isn’t a great movie, doesn’t mean that it’s not good, or at least entertaining and very entertaining. Typical of a lot of Traci Lords movies which tend to be b-movies anyway, ( I mean, we are talking about a porn actress ) there is a lot of cheesy writing in the movie that makes it sound like some action TV show from the 1970s or 80s, that never got off the ground, because the pilot failed. ( Ha, ha, get it ) But typical of her movies there’s also a lot of sexy scenes with her in it and I’m not talking about her porn films ( necessarily ) and a lot of good action scenes. Car chases and shootouts., where she’s either playing a tough, badass, sexy, gorgeous cop, or in this case a bad girl who gets the bad guys at the end with her husband.

11388

Source:Alamy– Traci Lords and Jamie Alba 

Even with Traci’s gorgeous, baby face, she plays a bad girl in Ice. Ellen Reed ( played by Traci Lords ) and her husband Charley Reed ( played by Phillip Troy ) are cat burglars sho steel diamonds from the mafia and the local police detectives are on to them to try to catch them. This is really not a movie about bad guys and girls versus good guys and girls, but more like a movie about dancing with the devil that you know the best with the mafia being the worst devils in this case and the cops trying to use the Reeds’s to help them bring down the local mafia there. Not that different from how the FBI an U.S. Attorney’s use informants and ex-mobsters to help them bring down the mafia in New York and other big cities in America.

The plot alone I believe makes Ice a very interesting movie. But it’s a cheap film like most b-movies and unlike Intent To Kill that did have other stars in it including Traci Lords with Scott Patterson and Yaphet Koto, I don’t believe unless you’re some Hollywood movie historian and junkie, I don’t believe that you would recognize anyone else in this movie other than Traci Lords. But considering that Ice is a movie with a lot of perhaps c-actors and not even b-actors and that Traci at this point at least is probably just a b-actress at this point, Ice is a very watchable and entertaining film. Especially considering what they had to to work with. Sort of like an NFL team that wins 9 or 10 games without any stars on the team, Ice is a good film especially considering what it had to work with.

94221

Source:PM Entertainment Group: Ice 1994– Traci Lords, in Ice 

Posted in Action Films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Foreign Affairs: U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren- ‘A Foreign Policy For All

74669

Source:The Atlantic Magazine– U.S. Senator’s Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on Capitol Hill

Source:The New Democrat

From Senator Elizabeth Warren Foreign Affairs Magazine

“ENDING ENDLESS WAR
A foreign policy that works for all Americans must also be driven by honest assessments of the full costs and risks associated with going to war. All three of my brothers served in the military, and I know our service members and their families are smart, tough, and resourceful. But having a strong military doesn’t mean we need to constantly use it. An effective deterrent also means showing the good judgment to exercise appropriate restraint.

Over the past two decades, the United States has been mired in a series of wars that have sapped its strength. The human cost of these wars has been staggering: more than 6,900 killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, another 52,000 wounded, and many more who live every day with the invisible scars of war. By financing these conflicts while cutting taxes, the country has essentially charged the costs of war to a collective credit card for future generations to pay, diverting money that could have been invested in critical domestic priorities. This burden will create a drag on the economy that will last for generations.

The costs have been extraordinarily high, but these wars have not succeeded even on their own terms. We’ve “turned the corner” in Afghanistan so many times that it seems we’re now going in circles. After years of constant war, Afghanistan hardly resembles a functioning state, and both poppy production and the Taliban are again on the rise. The invasion of Iraq destabilized and fragmented the Middle East, creating enormous suffering and precipitating the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The region remains a tangled mess—the promise of the Arab Spring crushed, Iran emboldened, Syria devastated, the Islamic State (or ISIS) and its offshoots stubbornly resilient, and a massive refugee crisis threatening to destabilize Europe. Neither military nor civilian policymakers seem capable of defining success, but surely this is not it.

U.S. troops walk outside their base in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan, July 2017
OMAR SOBHANI / REUTERS
U.S. troops walk outside their base in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan, July 2017

A singular focus on counterterrorism, meanwhile, has dangerously distorted U.S. policies. Here at home, we have allowed an imperial presidency to stretch the Constitution beyond recognition to justify the use of force, with little oversight from Congress. The government has at times defended tactics, such as torture, that are antithetical to American values. Washington has partnered with countries that share neither its goals nor its ideals. Counterterrorism efforts have often undermined other foreign policy priorities, such as reinforcing civilian governance, the rule of law, and human rights abroad. And in some cases, as with U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s proxy war in Yemen, U.S. policies risk generating even more extremism.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen up close how 17 years of conflict have degraded equipment, sapped forces’ readiness, and forced the postponement of investment in critical military capabilities. It has distracted Washington from growing dangers in other parts of the world: a long-term struggle for power in Asia, a revanchist Russia that threatens Europe, and looming unrest in the Western Hemisphere, including a collapsing state in Venezuela that threatens to disrupt its neighbors. Would-be rivals, for their part, have watched and learned, and they are hard at work developing technologies and tactics to leapfrog the United States, investing heavily in such areas as robotics, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, synthetic biology, and quantum computing. China is making massive bets in these and other areas in an effort to surpass the United States as a global technological power. Whether the United States will maintain its edge and harness these technologies for good remains an open question.

It is the job of the U.S. government to do what is necessary to protect Americans, but it is long past time to start asking what truly makes the country safer—and what does not. Military efforts alone will never fully succeed at ending terrorism, because it is not possible to fight one’s way out of extremism. Some challenges, such as cyberattacks and nuclear proliferation, require much more than a strong military to combat. And other dangers, such as climate change and the spread of infectious diseases, cannot be solved through military action at all. The United States will spend more than $700 billion on defense in the 2018–19 fiscal year alone. That is more in real terms than was spent under President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War and more than all the rest of the country’s discretionary budget put together. But even as Washington spends more and more, U.S. military leaders point out that funding a muscular military without robust diplomacy, economic statecraft, support for civil society, and development assistance only hamstrings American national power and undercuts any military gains.

It’s time to seriously review the country’s military commitments overseas.
As a candidate, Trump promised to bring U.S. troops home. As president, he has sent more troops into Afghanistan. On the campaign trail, Trump claimed he did not want to police the world. As president, he has expanded the United States’ military footprint around the globe, from doubling the number of U.S. air strikes in Somalia to establishing a drone base in Niger. As a candidate, Trump promised to rebuild the military, but as president, he has gutted the diplomatic corps on which the Pentagon relies. He promised to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation, but he has undermined a successful nuclear deal with Iran, has failed to roll back the North Korean nuclear program, and seems intent on spurring a new nuclear arms race with Russia.

These actions do not make Americans safer. It’s time to seriously review the country’s military commitments overseas, and that includes bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. They have fought with honor, but additional American blood spilled will not halt the violence or result in a functioning democratic government in either place.

Defense spending should be set at sustainable levels, and the money saved should be used to fund other forms of international engagement and critical domestic programs. The Pentagon’s budget has been too large for too long. It is long overdue for an audit that would allow Congress to identify which programs actually benefit American security and which merely line the pockets of defense contractors. Rather than mindlessly buying more of yesterday’s equipment and allowing foreign countries to dominate the development of critical new technologies, we should recommit to investing in cutting-edge science and technology capabilities at home. When it comes to nonproliferation, we should replace the current bluster and hostility toward nuclear diplomacy with a reinvestment in multilateral arms control and nonproliferation efforts for the twenty-first century, recommitting the United States to being a leader in the fight to create a world without nuclear weapons.

To achieve all these goals, it will be essential to reprioritize diplomacy and reinvest in the State Department and the development agencies; foreign policy should not be run out of the Pentagon alone. The United States spends only about one percent of its federal budget on foreign aid. Some Americans struggling to make ends meet understandably question the value of U.S. commitments and contributions abroad, and certainly we should expect our partners to pay their fair share. But diplomacy is not about charity; it is about advancing U.S. interests and preventing problems from morphing into costly wars. Similarly, alliances are not exclusively about principles; they are about safety in numbers. The world is a big, complicated place, and not even the strongest nation can solve everything on its own. As we face down antidemocratic forces around the world, we will need our allies on our side.”

A “foreign policy for all”, I guess has a real hipster ring to it, similar to Medicare For All or whatever example you want to use, but like most catch phrases whether they’re pop culture or political, when you actually get into them the first question is always, “what does that mean?” What do you mean by that? As much as President Donald Trump’s presidency contradicts this, the President of the United States and American government more broadly are actually serious things meant for serious people. This is not a reality TV show or some movie or hip sitcom or anything else. This is real-life where real decisions are made everyday effecting real people. “A foreign policy for all” might have a catch ring to it, but what does that mean and what is in that foreign policy.

So when Senator Elizabeth Warren, argues that it’s time to bring our troops home, the first obvious question is, “bring them home from where?” If you’re talking about bringing them home from Iraq and Afghanistan, then the next question would be, “what would happen instead after America is out of those two countries?”

Senator Warren, also argues that America spends too much on national defense, OK where would you cut the defense budget? It’s hard to get official numbers from the U.S. Defense Department on this, but we’re currently somewhere between 50-100 billion dollars on the defense of Europe in NATO. We currently make up just as one country 70% of the entire NATO defense budget. Would asking or demanding that Germany, France, Italy and other European states spend more on their own defense and take a good chunk of that revenue out of our own defense budget since Europe is now spending more on their own defense? America could do a lot with 50-100 billion dollars a year that it wouldn’t have to spend on defense.

From Senator Elizabeth Warren

“FOREIGN POLICY STARTS AT HOME
President John F. Kennedy, whose seat in the U.S. Senate I now hold, once wrote that “a nation can be no stronger abroad than she is at home.” With American power increasingly challenged from within and without, we can no longer afford to think of our domestic agenda as separate from our foreign policy. A stronger economy, a healthier democracy, and a united people—these are the engines that power the nation and will project American strength and values throughout the world.

Every day, shortsighted domestic policies weaken American national strength. The United States is in the midst of a reverse-Sputnik moment, reducing investments in education and scientific research even as potential adversaries expand them. At a time when growing inequality stifles economic growth, Congress’ response has been a $1.5 trillion tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. Life expectancy in the United States is falling as overdose deaths skyrocket, and the country’s health-care system remains ill equipped to respond. Climate change poses a threat to our survival, but the government is gutting environmental regulations and subsidizing fossil fuels at the bidding of wealthy campaign donors. The educational opportunity gap is widening, while politicians starve schools of resources and saddle an entire generation with crippling student debt. And in a desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable reckoning, the president seems bent on keeping Americans frightened and divided.

Investments at home strengthen the economy, but they also serve national security. A twenty-first-century industrial policy, for example, would produce good jobs that provide dignity, respect, and a living wage, and it would reinforce U.S. international economic might. When workers and families are more secure in their livelihoods, the country is stronger on the world stage.

The needs for investment are many: Infrastructure projects to increase connectivity and expand opportunity across the United States. Educational and job-training policies to produce skilled workers, encourage entrepreneurship, and grow the talent base. Immigration policies to yield a more robust economy and a more diversified work force. Higher education to equip the coming generations for the future without crushing them with debt. High-quality, affordable health care to ensure security and productivity for every person. An economy that is fair and open to entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes. A progressive tax system that requires the wealthy to pay their fair share. A government that is not for sale to the highest bidder.

Underlying it all, we need to remain vigilant against threats to American democratic norms and processes. The 2016 election raised the alarm, reminding us that democracy is not a self-sustaining machine. We must fight for it every single day. That means protecting the electoral process and making clear that there will be severe consequences for anyone, foreign or domestic, who meddles with it.

Our democratic norms also require us to renew our commitment to justice. Fractures in society—racial injustice, political polarization, economic inequality—damage us from within, leaving us vulnerable to a toxic stew of hatred and fear. Hateful rhetoric fuels domestic terrorism of all kinds, whether in Charleston or Orlando, Charlottesville or Pittsburgh. And we must strengthen our determination to ensure that every American has equal access to opportunity in society and equal justice and protection under the law. We must do that because it is morally right—and because it is essential to our national strength.”

I agree with Senator Warren, that a strong foreign policy starts at home. A country is only as strong as it’s economy is. North Korea, is a nuclear power with a large and expensive military, but the reason why they’re not much if at all even a regional military power is because they’re one of the poorest countries in the world where most of their population that’s not affiliated with their Communist regime lives in fourth-world poverty, not even third-world. You want to even be a regional power, you have to be an economic power as well where most of your population can not only work, but has good jobs. Where instead importing a lot of goods and services like food from other countries to survive, you’re exporting a lot of what your country produces to other countries.

I think where I would disagree with Senator Warren on this is how best to go about creating a stronger American economy. The idea that you would randomly cut the defense budget to spend more on social programs, doesn’t fly with me. You want to cut defense, you need to be strategic about it. You want to spend more on social programs or defense programs as well, you need to know what you’re spending more on first, what you intend to get out of this additional investments, who they’re serving, and what they cost first and then decide it that’s the best approach or not.

“A foreign policy for all”, might have a catchy pop culture as well as political ring to it, but to paraphrase Walter Mondale in 1984 when he was running against Gary Hart for president in the Democratic primaries when Vice President Mondale was talking about Senator Hart’s new ideas for a new generation agenda, “where’s the beef?” Meaning what does that mean. Senator Hart, was good with political slogans, but tended to come up what short when it got to the meat and potatoes of public policy. And I see a lot of that in Senator Elizabeth Warren’s foreign policy here as well.

18919

Source:Elizabeth For Massachusetts: ‘A Foreign Policy That Works For All Americans’– Senator Elizabeth Warren, speaking at American University

Posted in Foreign Affairs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sony Pictures Entertainment: The Frontrunner 2018- Hugh Jackman as Senator Gary Hart

60098

Source:Sony Pictures Entertainment– Hugh Jackman, as Senator Gary Hart 

Source:The Daily Review

I saw The Frontrunner not this Saturday, but the previous Saturday in Silver Spring, Maryland because I wanted to see it obviously, ( no, I was kidnapped and forced to watch it ) but because of the subject matter. I was 11 years old and in the 5th grade in Bethesda, Maryland in the spring and early summer of 1987. Gary Hart’s presidential campaign for 1988 was so short that I’m not sure it even made it to the summer of 87, at least officially. It made Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign look like a Breaking Bad marathon on AMC. You would have to be familiar with her very brief presidential campaign, as well as Breaking Bad and AMC to get that reference, but it was very short.

77077

Source:We Got This Covered– Hugh Jackman, as Senator Gary Hart 

So, when Senator Gary Hart was running for president in 1984 and 88, I was a very young kid and don’t remember much about his two campaigns. Both were fairly short, but at least for 84 Senator Hart made to January before falling out after finishing third, ( I believe in Iowa ) but going into 87 Democrats knew that they weren’t going to have to run against President Ronald Reagan again and the Reagan Administration had the Iran Contra scandal hanging over his head with a Democratic Congress in charge of it since they now controlled both the House and Senate and that those investigations could hurt both President Reagan and then Vice President George H.W. Bush, especially since George Bush was not only the Vice President, but was considered the Republican frontrunner for the 1988 campaign.

Gary Hart, was as very talented politician, as well as a very intelligent man both in foreign affairs and national security policy, but domestic policy as well. He was compared with John F. Kennedy for good reasons. He was very bright, good looking, and also had a tendency to tell people what he believed and what was on his mind. Very similar to Senator Joe Biden who also ran for President that year. He also had an ability to talk about serious and complicated issues, but do it in a way where you didn’t believe you needed a Russian or Chinese translator to translate what he was saying. He had a very common touch not that different from Bill Clinton, Ron Reagan, or even George W. Bush. And if his 1987-88 presidential campaign was about what he wanted to be about which was new ideas and time for a new generation, instead of what it became about, maybe he not only wins the 1988 Democratic nomination for President, but defeats Vice President Bush as well.

Which is my lead in to what The Frontrunner is about with actor Hugh Jackman playing Senator Gary Hart. It wasn’t the media, it wasn’t The Miami or The Washington Post, or NBC News that brought down Gary Hart. Only Gary Hart with his extra marital affair and his political suicidal mistake of daring the media to follow him around to see that he wasn’t having an affair. There were rumors going into 1987 that Senator Hart was a bit of playboy who cheated on his wife which was before he even meet Donna Rice the woman he had a brief affair with in the late spring or early summer of 87. And Hart was tired of getting those questions and truly believed that they were none of the media’s or the American people’s business what kind of relationship that he had with his wife and other women.

Gary Hart, perhaps in a split moment lost his cool at a local diner on one of his campaign stops having lunch with a Washington Post reporter and dared the media to follow him around to see if he was having an affair or not and that’s exactly what they did. That’s how they got pictures of him with Donna Rice on a boat together in Miami. As well as pictures of them together at his Georgetown townhouse in Washington. Because he invited the media to follow him around and didn’t just shoot himself in the foot politically, but shot his whole foot off and perhaps his brain and heart as well. Thanks to 1987, Gary Hart has never ran for political again and has never even served a Democratic President again.

As far as the movie, other than not looking much if at all like Senator Gary Hart, I believe Hugh Jackman did a great job of playing him. But I believe the people who played the reporters and the media officials were the real stars of the movie. As well as Senator Hart’s campaign staff including J.K. Simmons especially. Gary Hart, comes as naive when it comes to how the media reports on these stories about politicians and candidates and their relationships with women. Which is how Hart should’ve been portrayed because in real-life he wasn’t expecting the media to cover his affairs, just the substance of his campaign. Which of course is not how the real world in politics works.

Sony Pictures Entertainment: The Frontrunner 2018- Official Trailer

Posted in Political Cinema | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PM Stunt Fan: Intent To Kill 1992- Starring Traci Lords: As LAPD Detective Vickie Stewart

70935

Source:PM Stunt Fan– Traci Lords, “holy smokes, Batman!” LOL 

Source:Action

Today shows and movies featuring gorgeous, sexy big city police detectives and other law enforcement officers are very common. Just look at Law & Order SVU, CSI Las Vegas, The Mentalist, movies like One For The Money where Catherine Heigl plays a New Jersey bounty hunter and I could go on. But in the early 1990s, actresses even gorgeous and sexy actresses, even very good if not great actresses were playing the wives or girlfriends of big police detectives, or playing the victims. Perhaps they would play a rookie patrol officer or desk officer, but generally not involved in doing the legwork and dirty work of what vice cops do to bring down criminals and put themselves in serious physical danger.

83655

Source:PM Stunt Fan– Traci Lords, about to kick ass 

Whatever you think of Intent To Kill and I’m one of the first people to say that it’s not a great movie, even though I like it and have seen it several times, Intent To Kill was ahead of it’s time in a positive way, because it had a female police detective who ends up bringing down the bad guys ( to use a cliche ) almost by herself. Her partner and boyfriend ( played by Scott Patterson ) ends up being the one who dies during the last shootout in the movie, not the woman with her boyfriend trying to save her as well and the day. ( To use another cliche ) Traci Lords, is the badass, super cop in the movie who brings down the bad guys. A Los Angeles drug gang, that’s involved in other crimes like rape and murder.

Again, I’m not saying that Intent To Kill is a great movie. Some if not a lot of the writing especially for a 1990s film was pretty cheesy. Traci Lords, made a name for herself in the adult film industry not as a great dramatic or action star. But she’s great in this movie as a LAPD vice detective who is gorgeous, sexy, has the look more of an LA biker chick with the black leather biker jacket, Levi’s jeans, black leather boots, but who isn’t just a pleasure to check out, but who plays a very sharp cop as well who is always ahead of the game. Her first seen in the movie she takes out a rapist on her own, because the victim is a hooker who is simply not believable as a rape victim. Which was a very different time back then. And she ends up essentially playing the female Dirty Harry in this movie and does a great job. A very entailing movie especially if you enjoy seeing gorgeous, sexy women kicking ass.

Posted in Action Films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

David Von Pein: CBS News Special Report- Eric Sevareid: Presidents and Assassins, November 25, 1963

62655

Source:David Von Pein– CBS News Special Report from Eric Sevareid

Source:The New Democrat

This CBS News Special Report, was just 3 days after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. This was all very new with if not most Americans, but certainly a lot of them. Maybe only the oldest people in America remember William Mckinley being assassinated in 1901 and people who would have to be in their early hundreds at this point to remember President Abraham Lincoln being assassinated in 1865. And to remember President Lincoln being assassinated in 1865 and to still alive and to remember that in 1963, you would need one helluva healthy mind and perhaps body as well.

32717

Source:David Von Pein– CBS News Special Report

And since this was all so new with most Americans and with network news not being the dominate factor in America media in the early 60s that it had become by the early 70s with the Watergate coverage and President Richard Nixon’s administration, Americans weren’t use to seeing these special reports from the networks devoting so much air time to covering current affairs especially during prime time when most networks back then were showing their family entertainment like sitcoms, dramas, variety shows. Forget about 24 hour news networks not being around yet in the early 60s, network news other than the morning show and nightly news wasn’t much of a factor yet by this time.

5269

Source:Assassination of John F. Kennedy– CBS News Special Report

The JFK assassination changed America a lot as far as how it operated and changed both our government and culture as well. The President got a lot more security with the Secret Service now becoming a major factor not just in the President’s life, but his family as well, and ex-president’s and their families. Americans started becoming more interested in current affairs with the networks newscast moving from 11 minutes a night to 22 minutes a night ( not including commercials ) and with nightly newscasts expanding, special reports and documentaries that were produced by the network news divisions themselves like CBS News for CBS, because a regular part of TV network viewing in the 1960s.

This CBS News Special Report by Eric Sevareid, is something that today you would probably see from PBS, CNN, perhaps MSNBC or FNC, but probably coming from a real slant. C-SPAN or one of the 24 hour documentary networks like National Geographic Channel today because the broadcast networks don’t want to donate even a hour of their time at night to showing a current affairs or history documentary and take that time away from one of their hit sitcoms or dramas, especially when there’s PBS, one of the news networks, or the documentary channels like History and others that show this type of programming all day and all night everyday and every night. But post-JFK assassination up until really the 1990s or so documentaries and Special Reports about one particular subject that was going on in the country at the time were shown by the networks on a regular basis back then.

David Von Pein: CBS News Special Report- Eric Sevareid: Presidents and Assassins, November 25th, 1963

Posted in JFK Assassination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jayne Mansfield Diamonds To Dust : A Guide For The Married Man 1967- Jayne Mansfield

3902

Source:Jayne Mansfield Diamonds To Dust– Son of a beach!

Source:The Daily Review

I’ll be the first to say, actually I would run to make sure I was the first person in line to say that A Guide For The Married Man is not a great movie. It’s also not a horrible movie, but perhaps I wouldn’t make the same effort to say that. It’s a good, funny movie with a great cast: Walter Matthau, Robert Morse, Inger Stevens, Lucile Ball, Phil Silvers, Art Carney, and someone named Jayne Mansfield. ( Perhaps you’ve heard of her as well ) Except for the bit part or cameo A Guide For The Married Man is right up Jayne’s dress, I mean ally for her. Comedy especially romantic comedy was her shtick and it would’ve been nice if she had a bigger role in this movie. Perhaps playing one of Robert Morse’s 10 girlfriends in the movie.

14996

Source:Movies Ala Mark– Hollywood Babydoll Jayne Mansfield and comedian Terry Thomas, in A Guide For The Married Man 

By 1967, Jayne Mansfield was doing most of her work and making most of her money outside of Hollywood. She literally was on the nightclub circuit and doing comedy and music all over America. Think about that for a second: one of the most popular Hollywood Goddesses from the 1950s reduced to singing and doing comedy at nightclubs by 1965 or so. She was also doing films in Britain and Europe, including in Italy. She was tired of doing comedy in Hollywood and by the early 1960s, wanted a newer role and do other things and expand her acting resume.

96931

Source:Flickr Via Podie– Hollywood  Babydoll Jayne Mansfield, in A Guide For The Married Man 

Which is sort of like saying that Michael Jordan or Larry Bird is tried of shooting the basketball and scoring points, so what they’re going to do instead is just rebound and play defense, pass the ball when they have it instead of leading their team in scoring and leading them to victory. Comedy for Jayne Mansfield, was like the passing game for the New England Patriots, it was her bread and butter, her go to offense and what made her famous and popular to go along with her goddess body and little girl adorable appearance. And ironic that her last trip back to Hollywood for work was to do another comedy which is what she was doing in the late 50s with movies like Will Success Spoil Rockwell Hunter and The Girl Can’t Help It.

If you want a full post or report on A Guide For The Married Man, I suggest you go somewhere else for that, because I’m really just interested in Jayne Mansfield’s role in it. She plays the comic relief in a movie that’s pretty funny to begin with but is so good at it playing the mistress of a man who is married and her wife catches them together in their bed and he and Jayne play it off like nothing is going on at all and the wife is completely imagining what she’s seeing. And the guy and Jayne just get out of bed, make the bed, get dressed while the wife is in the room and has already seen everything and Jayne leaves the room and house as if nothing had just happened. And they do it so perfectly that the wife starts actually believing that she’s imagining everything that she just saw. Great scene with Jayne just making a pretty funny movie even funnier.

Jayne Mansfield Diamonds For Dust: A Guide For The Married Man 1967- Trailer: Jayne Mansfield

Posted in Baby Jayne | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment