Episode 3 of the quasi-History of Las Vegas documentary aired last night on CNN.
As with the first two segments, there were many revelations and even a few surprises. I tend to be cynical about these dumbed-down, spoon-feeders for the masses. However, this CNN production has done a terrific job (so far) in capturing the evolution of Las Vegas — melding the worlds of gambling, entertainment, social evolution, crime, business, and politics.
The series is generally segmented by decades. The first show (one hour long, debuting each Sunday night–with repeats) focused on the early history up through the 1950s. The second episode featured the 1960s, often called the glory years of Las Vegas. Last night showcased the 1970s, which was an awkward era for the city and casino industry. Admittedly, I was more fascinated by this era given that it delved into the growing pains (my words and interpretation) of mass success. Moreover, Las Vegas (and casinos) faces many of these same issues today — including an identity crisis. In short, it’s tough to rise to the top, but it’s even tougher to stay there. Early on, Las Vegas was an easy bet as a gambling and entertainment mecca. But letting that bet on Las Vegas ride was a risk.
Las Vegas was at a crossroads in the 1970s. The building boom was over. The Rat Pack generation was aging. The national economy struggled. Even the town didn’t look the same anymore. Gamblers used to dress up—now they were wearing shorts and flip-flops. Comps used to be awarded with a nod or wave of the hand—now were monitored by bean counters. The evil corporations invaded, but organized crime staked its final territorial claim, and predictably lost (See the movie “Casino,” which perfectly captures this era). The house always wins.
A few takeaways from Episode 3:
— Elvis gets the most airplay in this segment. Rightfully so. But it’s remarkable (and tragic) to witness his downward trajectory, which may have mirrored that of Las Vegas. Elvis at the International in 1970 was THE event. By 1977, his act was an embarrassment. My parents saw him perform and told me stories about it (I never saw him). I loved hearing about how exciting he was, where the entire city changed when Elvis was in town. When Elvis died, Wayne Newton became the city’s most popular attraction.
— I don’t like Wayne Newton, but he does (or used to) give a great show, which I’ve seen three times. So, the following statement should be a real compliment. Newton comes across masterfully as the ultimate Las Vegas ambassador in this series. His interviews on every subject are spot on. Kudos to Newton for doing his homework and being prepared to offer unique behind-the-scenes perspectives of the entire history of Las Vegas (and he’s known everyone associated with this city).
— The program did a poor job on Howard Hughes and his influence on the city and gambling culture. Starting in 1966, Hughes became the city’s most powerful force. Unfortunately, the stories and narratives don’t do justice to this fascinating period. A rare miss here in my opinion.
— Personal bias here, but the show’s producers could have focused on the World Series of Poker (which began in 1970) and the emergence of sports gambling, which really became popular nationwide and began using “the Las Vegas line” on all bets. Not a mention of the WSOP or sports betting. This is a preposterous omission given how popular these things are today and also given their origins were largely rooted in the 1970s.
[Mini Rant: More people now bet on sports and play poker today than EVER visited Las Vegas in the entire decade of the 1970s. How about a documentary on the history of sports betting? Someone please bankroll this, contact me, and hire me to direct it—yes, I’m serious]
— The previous episode (1960s) focused partially on civil rights and the access and opportunities for Blacks in Las Vegas (which was very slow to adapt to changes). This episode focused on gays as a casino market, which was a major revelation (to me). I remember “Boylesque” (I think that’s the name of the show) which was the first open drag show and became very popular with mainstream audiences. This was a really interesting story (how Las Vegas was in some ways ahead of the times), and probably deserves more exposure.
— One final thought for now: Readers know how much I despise “VEGAS” in all its forms. I always used “Las Vegas” in all my writings. That said, this series really should be called THE STORY OF THE LAS VEGAS STRIP. That’s a relatively small zone of a much larger region. There’s NOTHING on the actual city of LAS VEGAS. I understand that would not interest many viewers, but let’s also acknowledge that this series only perpetuates he MYTH that the entire city revolves around one boulevard and a bunch of hotels. Yes, the Strip is the epicenter. But it’s NOT LAS VEGAS.
Not sure why more people (including many of my gambler friends here) aren’t watching this series. There’s a shitload of junk out there, but this is one of the better histories of Las Vegas and gambling culture.
We’re promised a paradise. An eternal nirvana. Faith’s reward is a paid-off mortgage inside the gated kingdom of heaven, preferably on a cul-de-sac with a swimming pool.
However, I see a problem. The neighbors. What’s up with all these Christians? This is not my beautiful house. This is not my beautiful life. How did I get here? What’s this holy place called — the Jim Bakker Estates?
Questions: Who wants to spend all of eternity in a world of Bible thumpers? Christian nationalists? Evangelicals? Anti-abortion activists? People against drinking and gambling? Some of these fundamentalist fanatics even believe dancing is sinful. Dancing! Man, these block parties really suck.
Think about it. Every single day and night for the next million years, it’s all Jesus-all the time. Bible studies and choir practice. Pastors. Preachers. Priests. Church ladies. “Amazing Grace” on autoplay. Re-runs of The 700 Club on the GOD Network running 24/7. Libraries stocked with books by Father Coughlin, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, and Joel Osteen. Christian heaven.
Wait — no shore leave or liberty? No AC/DC headbanger heavy metal nights? No tequila shots? No card games? No craps shooters? No premarital sex?
Living in such a place for eternity doesn’t just sound terrible. It would bore most of us to death. It would be cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, the more I know about this placed called “heaven,” the more it sounds like holy hell.
The “Holy Bible” is packed with spite, revenge, violence, death, genocide, and even eternal torture. Bible scriptures include justifications for slavery, sexism, discrimination, and war. The Bible would be a horrible book to follow based these inconvenient truths alone.
However, what’s most puzzling are the things *NOT* contained in the Bible. For a guidebook that allegedly delivers wisdom for humanity, there’s nothing particularly new, nor revelatory. All those many chapters and pages and verses, and yet there’s nothing written about any new discoveries. The inspirational author apparently was much more concerned at the time with what people should eat on certain days of the week, or who sleeps with who, or what graven images get worshipped, rather than providing a breakthrough on germ theory or any other help from above. In fact, there’s nothing that broadens human understanding. Nothing about science. Nothing that heals pain, nor cures the sick. Nothing helpful whatsoever about what was happening across the oceans or on other continents.
Take look at this map (see above). The Bible reveals a shallow and narrow view of what was the then-known world. Consider the fact that the entire Bible (aside from a creation phase) takes place within this small circle. Not a word nor mention about other civilizations. Not a word about geography. Not a word about the cosmos, exploration, and greater discovery. Not a single word that refutes the common belief at the time that the earth was flat. Question–wouldn’t a “divinely-inspired” book include some acknowledgment of other cultures outside the Middle East? Yet, there’s none of that. Nothing.
Where’s any mention of the great civilizations in Asia? Why no mention of the emerging societies in South America? Why is there nothing about the vastness of Africa? Nothing about the open seas. There’s no message about inevitable merging of societies, of trade, and human-driven technology and advancement. It’s as though the fabricators of the Bible who were conveying the so-called “word of god” knew NOTHING of the world outside of this small circle. Strange, isn’t it? I’d hardly call this text divine, nor a revelation. At best, it’s a bad fiction.
The only thing that’s remarkable about the Bible is just how little it teaches us and how few revelations are contained therein. Is there any book with less useful information to humanity than this one? For a book that many profess to be a handbook on living, the Bible is an astonishing void and abyss of disappointment.
Meanwhile, 2,000 years later nothing’s changed. This neighborhood still sucks. The biggest hypocrisy of all is calling it “the Holy Land.” Does anyone doubt the people WITHIN THIS CIRCLE would have been much better off WITHOUT religion?
We often hear about the so-called “power of prayer.” Faith healing. God cures cancer, works miracles, intervenes and ends pain and suffering. Sounds great!
But, there’s an inherent flaw with ancient fairy tales that contradict science. Okay, let’s say for the the sake of argument that god *does* work miracles. Maybe the sky wizard cures cancer. It’s possible the all-powerful universal deity intervenes and stops pain and suffering. Sounds wonderful!
Believers can’t prove prayer works. But, to be perfectly honest, we can’t prove that it doesn’t, either.
So instead, I’ll pose this question: If God cures cancer, works miracles, intervenes in human existence, and ends pain and suffering, then what does the sky wizard have against AMPUTEES?
Why have we never witnessed a single instance of god answering a prayer and then miraculously regrowing a limb? Not once. Not an arm. Not a leg. Not even a finger. Nothing. Seems that if god-guy can “cure” cancer, the sky wizard should be able to re-grow a limb. Grow a toe. A pinkie. Something! Even a starfish can do that.
What does god have against amputees? Does god hate amputees?
Apparently—yes.
Or, perhaps the more credible explanation is that faith is folly and prayers don’t really work and religion is all a man-made myth and waste of time.
Please explain to me why millions of people all over the world wear and display a symbol of torture and death.
Seems like a much more powerful symbol of one’s “faith” would be something positive, inspiring, glorious, and aspirational.
It’s like hanging an icon of a guillotine around your neck. Or a man sitting in an electric chair.
I may not like it, but I’m a product of the 1970s. More like–a victim of the 70s. Horrendous fashions. Musical nihilism. Bad hair. Flawed politicians. Astroturf.
Indeed, I grew up in the dead center sweet spot of the “me” decade.
One thing I remember which seems odd now, even outrageous, were “smoking areas” in schools. The high school I attended had a large courtyard where students (and I presume teachers, too–I can’t remember exactly) gathered on breaks in between classes. The bell rang, and students had perhaps 10-15 minutes to step outside, light up, smoke a cig, and get to the next class.
Since most high school students were in the 14-18 age gap, having smoking areas seems so bizarre. Kids can’t even buy cigarettes today. But back then, (many) schools provided common areas for students to smoke. I’m uncertain if any sociology studies were done, but I expect this actually encouraged more young people to smoke, or at least try it.
I can’t recall much about smoking areas since I didn’t smoke. But I do remember walking past the public area and seeing dozens of students outside puffing away. Surely, this triggered other students to experiment with tobacco. After all, if the cool kids were lighting up, we wanted to be cool, too. Oh, and right next to the smoking areas there were coke machines. Not exactly healthy choices. to us, Fast Times at Ridgemont High wasn’t fiction. It was our generation’s autobiographical statement, ala what Rebel Without a Cause was to the 50s and The Graduate was to the 60s.
Looking back on the way things were, strange as they now may seem, I’m curious as to why smoking areas were ever a thing in the first place? Did schools and educators really think it was a good idea for 14-year-olds to smoke? Was this simply a way for schools to avoid fires in the bathroom — ala “Smoking in the Boys Room?” I’m also curious as to what happened to this policy in schools later on? Did the stigma of smoking in society gradually kill off all smoking areas, not only in schools, but also in the workplace? Or, did new federal laws restricting tobacco sales including age limitations kill (officially sanctioned) smoking in schools?
I suspect that anyone under age 30 reading this won’t believe this is real and that there really were smoking areas in schools back then. But It’s true, though I’m not sure how common it was.
Did your school have smoking areas? Am I the only one who never thought much about it back then, but now it seems so bizarre?
There are times, there are stories, there are people that make us pause and reflect and be thankful.
This is one of those times, stories, and people.
Mr. Paul Alexander.
It’s 1954. Stricken down with polio at age 6, his parents had no option but an iron lung, which enabled the boy to breath. Mr. Alexander lived 70 years this way. On his back. Hooked up to a machine. But rather than feel sorry for himself, he earned a B.A. from SMU, and a law degree from the University of Texas. He worked and helped people. He wrote. He painted.
Mr. Alexander died in Dallas yesterday. He was the longest-living person in history on an iron lung.
This really puts things into perspective, doesn’t it?