Latest news with #BettmannArchive
New York Post
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- New York Post
Sugar Ray Leonard reveals the one sport he's ‘not that good' at — and it's surprising
When it comes to sports, Sugar Ray Leonard may have finally met his match. After professionally boxing in the ring from 1977 to 1997 and winning 36 out of 40 fights, the retired athlete revealed which sport is harder than it looks: Pickleball. 'It is competitive,' Leonard, 69, exclusively told The Post at the 2025 Emmys Pickleball Slam Fundraiser on May 18. It is extremely competitive. I just like to participate. I don't play that well, I'm not that good but you know what? I care. I really care.' Advertisement 9 Sugar Ray Leonard attends EMMY's Pickleball Slam to benefit Television Academy Foundation and Firefighters Fund at Calabasas Pickleball Club on May 18, 2025 in Calabasas, California. Getty Images When it comes to playing pickleball or any other sport, the professional boxer has one sound piece of advice: 'It's all about the heart. Do that.' Leonard — who was inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1997 — revealed that one of his secret weapons when he competed was he 'drank a lot of coffee.' Advertisement In 2021, the Skechers spokesman reflected on his time in the ring, and the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal where he took home the gold medal in light welterweight boxing. 9 Sugar Ray Leonard on the red carpet. Getty Images 9 Sugar Ray Leonard and New York Post reporter Alexandra Bellusci. 'Words cannot describe the feeling that I had,' Leonard told People. Advertisement Traveling to Canada for the competition also marked his first time leaving home for an extended period of time. 'I was nervous as heck,' Leonard confessed. 'I was so proud of myself. I wanted to go home, but I wanted to stay to bring home the gold medal first. It was just an amazing point in my life. I was like 20 years old and when I look back, that's been like eons. 50 years ago.' 9 Sugar Ray Leonard in the ring. Focus on Sport via Getty Images 9 Sugar Ray Leonard taping his hands in Las Vegas. Bettmann Archive Advertisement It still holds as one of the author's proudest moments he's experienced. 'It's the most precious moment in my career, in my life,' gushed Leonard. 'I never forget that moment. Representing myself, representing my country. And it wasn't about fame and fortune.' That medal is now kept in a safety deposit box, but he has let those closest to him try it on. 'When some friends or just individuals come over sometimes I'll show it, let them take a picture of it around their neck, 'Here you go. You get one around your neck,'' Leonard explained. 9 Referee Richard Steele restrains Sugar Ray Leonard in the ninth round following his knockdown of Donny Lalonde. Bettmann Archive 9 Sugar Ray Leonard holds the middleweight championship belt above his head after defeating Marvin Hagler. AP The star wants those competing in the Olympic games to remember one thing: 'I tell them 100% to believe in themselves because if they don't, no one else will.' 'This is your opportunity, this is their chance for success, stardom, and accomplishment,' he elaborated. 'People can say I was a world boxing champion professionally, but when people say I'm an Olympic gold medalist, that speaks volumes. That is precious. There is no amount of money that can pay for that. You can't pay for it. You have to deserve that. You have to go for that.' Advertisement Throughout his successful career, Leonard also struggled with substance abuse. He opened up about getting sober while on 'Oprah: Where Are They Now' in 2016. 9 Sugar Ray Leonard and wife Bernadette with daughter Camille and son Daniel Ray. WireImage 'There's a part of me that is a good man, an honest man,' he shared during a sit-down. 'And there is Sugar Ray Leonard – who is ego driven. Who is a tough SOB in the ring. Who had money. Who had fame. And at some point, didn't really appreciate it and took advantage of that.' Leonard recalled his first wife, Juanita Wilkinson, whom he was married to from 1980 to 1990, saying, 'You are two different people.' Advertisement 'I would get angry about that and go and have a drink,' he said. 'But then when my present wife, Bernadette, said to me, 'There are two of you,' I knew there was a problem.' 9 Sugar Ray Leonard attends actor James Caan's Golf Tournament at El Caballero Country Club on April 25, 2011 in Tarzana, California. Getty Images He got more candid about his past infidelity, substance abuse and childhood molestation in his 2011 memoir, 'The Big Fight: My Life In and Out of the Ring.' 'Many many moments, many many nights or days I would wake up and not remember what the hell just happened at night,' Leonard said on Winfrey's OWN network. 'I always knew I had a problem, just never admitted it to myself. I never believed it. And that's deadly, that's wrong. One day I woke up — nine years ago I woke up — and life couldn't be better.'
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The History of Government Influence Over Universities
New York University professor of political science and presidential advisor, McGeorge Bundy, reviewing a document in his office on May 02, 1984. Credit - Bettmann Archive On March 27, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled, 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' which aims to root out the 'corrosive ideology' that casts American history in a 'negative' light. Critics have denounced this as an attempt to control ideas—part of a broader trend of unprecedented attacks against academic freedom and the independence of institutions of learning. But the truth is that the push to align scholarship with government interests is not new. Throughout the 20th century, the relationship between colleges and the state was a messy one. American universities were vital to advancing the government's power and global influence, especially through Cold War-related research and development. Nonetheless, they were also a threat to the government when scholarship challenged official narratives and agendas. Today, Americans are witnessing a resurgence of such concerns. History shows that they may lead to censorship and curtail critical research—while also proving to be self-defeating. Many of the achievements that Americans most proudly celebrate were inspired by acknowledging the brutal realities of the past. The Cold War exemplified the complicated relationship between universities and the federal government. As the conflict dawned in the late 1940s, the government quickly realized that universities could do more to help than simply provide scientific breakthroughs and defense materials: the humanities and social sciences could be just as valuable in fighting the Soviets. At a time when the nation was engaged in ideological warfare, knowledge was power. Understanding the enemy—historically, politically, socially, psychologically, economically and culturally—was a matter of national security. And the government lacked the expertise necessary to understand foreign cultures and political systems. Officials understood that universities, by contrast, were well situated to provide this knowledge, so they enacted an array of programs to empower academics through grants and research institutes. The goal was to push scholarship toward topics that could inform domestic and foreign policy. The True Story of Appomattox Exposes the Dangers of Letting Myths Replace History As a result, over 20 years, the scale and scope of state influence on scholarly research grew dramatically. The government was instrumental in creating new academic fields, including area studies, and it shaped social science research for strategic purposes. One example was the creation of the Russian Research Center, which was a collaboration between academics and the government. Based at Harvard and directed by Harvard faculty, its board was comprised of professors from various universities. It drew on expertise from different fields, including history, political science, economics, geography, law, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, and other disciplines. Sigmund Diamond—a historian and sociologist who studied and briefly worked at Harvard during this period—chronicled the extent of the alliance. According to Diamond, although the center received a grant from the Carnegie Corporation, it reported directly to the State Department and other intelligence agencies. Its mission was clear: to produce scholarly research and expert analysis useful to the government's ideological warfare against the Soviet Union. This included studies on the attitudes of Russians toward their homeland in relation to the rest of the world—the sources of Russian patriotism, attitudes toward authority, and how Russians felt about the suppression of individual freedom. With this knowledge, the government could exploit discontent, foster instability, and leverage dissent against Soviet policies. The center at Harvard was just one example; there were others at universities across the nation. In the early 1960s, National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy delivered a lecture at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He emphasized the strong connections that 'bind the world of power and the world of learning,' arguing that 'there is gain for both the political world and the academy from an intensified process of engagement and of choosing sides and of engaging in the battle.' The government, in his view, would benefit greatly from historians whose work illuminated a 'deeper sense of the realities of power and its use.' But the government's alliance with the academic community came with risks. If critical scholarship could dissect the enemy and boost American Cold War efforts, it could also be turned inward. Research disciplines that probed into the historical, political, social, and cultural vulnerabilities of other nations could also cast a critical eye on the U.S., raising sobering questions about American history and the nation's unflattering record on civil rights, social unrest, imperialism, and more. That made universities dangerous, and in the anti-communist hysteria of Cold War America, the government viewed them with suspicion. As molders of the nation's youths, educators were under scrutiny lest they indoctrinate students with radical ideas. Government officials stoked this paranoia. 'Countless times,' remarked Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy—perhaps the era's most prominent red baiter—in 1952, 'I have heard parents throughout the country complain that their sons and daughters were sent to college as good Americans and returned four years later as wild-eyed radicals.' Academics who offered critical assessments of the nation's history and policies were suspected of communist sympathies; they caught the eye of the FBI and the government subjected them to surveillance and intimidation. In 1956, a survey of over 2,000 professors showed that 61% had been contacted by the FBI; 40% worried that students might misrepresent their politics; and about a quarter would not express their views for fear of the government. The FBI targeted some historians in particular. The FBI considered them dangerous because of their ability to challenge patriotic myths and undermine the accepted narrative about the nation's past. This was allegedly dangerous not only in the classroom, but also in the public square as it could raise questions about government policy. That risked stirring up public dissent and calls for reform. A Historian's Case for Protecting Even Offensive Speech on Campus C. Vann Woodward, the Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize-winning Yale historian, was one scholar who landed under government surveillance for his critical views of America's past. More than any other historian of the 20th century, Woodward's writing exposed the horrific realities of racial segregation in America. He was also a staunch proponent of free speech and civil rights. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. drew inspiration from his scholarship. When Woodward criticized the House Un-American Activities Committee—which members of Congress used to engage in anti-communist witch-hunts—and signed a petition calling for its elimination, he provoked government scrutiny. The historian would later remark that his profession offered a corrective to the 'complacent and nationalist reading of our past.' But during the Cold War, the U.S. government had no patience for potentially subversive views about the nation's past—even if they were accurate. It wanted scholars to offer penetrating insights into the history and politics of foreign regimes, but not at home. Patriotism became a litmus test, and scholars who applied their expertise to offer critical analyses of America's revered narratives were suspected of harboring a dangerous un-American ideology. Today, government anxieties about historical discourse have resurfaced. Trump's executive order warns of a 'distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.' It condemns what his administration sees as an effort to 'undermine the remarkable achievements' of the nation and 'foster a sense of national shame.' But the truth is that this directive risks undermining the potential for such 'remarkable achievements' in the future. In many cases, including expanding civil (or legal) rights for African Americans and women, progress resulted from the work of scholars like Woodward and the way it empowered Americans to grapple with the less savory chapters in the country's past. Americans acknowledged an un-sanitized version of U.S. history and worked to correct wrongs in order to ensure a brighter future. The lessons from the Cold War's record of state censorship of ideas are clear. Nuanced historical truth cannot thrive or die based on its political usefulness to the current administration. Suppressing the complexity of the nation's past to curate a comforting national story will not lead to truth, sanity, or the sorts of achievements that Trump wants to celebrate. History matters, even if it does not align with the interests of those in power. Trump's attempts to control the narrative of American history is not merely a threat to academic freedom, but also to the nation's ability to confront its past and shape better policies for the future. Perhaps the President is right to worry about institutions of learning. Because knowledge, when un-policed, threatens the status quo. In a free society, that's a virtue, not a threat. Jeffrey Rosario is assistant professor at Loma Linda University in southern California. He is currently writing a book on religious dissent against U.S. imperialism at the turn of the 20th century. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. Write to Made by History at madebyhistory@
New York Post
18-05-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Post
Mariska Hargitay reveals shocking family secret she's hidden for 30 years in ‘My Mom Jayne' doc
Her dad Nelson. Mariska Hargitay's new documentary, 'My Mom Jayne,' doesn't just explore the life of her famous mom, actress Jayne Mansfield. The film, which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival on May 17, also reveals the real identity of her biological father. For the first time, the 'Law & Order: SVU' has revealed that her father is not actually bodybuilder Mickey Hargitay. Thirty-six years ago, she found out her biological dad is a retired Las Vegas showman named Nelson Sardelli. Advertisement 'It was like the floor fell out from underneath me,' she said of learning of the truth, stating that she was 'living a lie' for decades. 'Like my infrastructure dissolved.' Mansfield had a brief affair with Sardelli, 90, before she reconciled with Mickey. She and Mickey divorced in 1964. 5 WireImage for Universal Television Productions Advertisement 5 Bettmann Archive Jayne also was mom to daughter Jayne Marie with first husband Paul Mansfield, sons Miklós 'Mickey' and Zoltán with Mickey and son Antonio 'Tony' with third husband, Italian movie director Matt Cimber. Mariska recalled seeing a picture of Sardelli in her 20s and demanding the truth. Ticket initially insisted that he was her biological father. He later died at age 8- in 2006. Mariska would go on to meet Sardelli for the first time when he performed in Atlantic City, N.J. She was 30 years old at the time. Advertisement 'I've been waiting 30 years for this moment,' the actress recalled him saying during an interview with Vanity Fair. 5 Photo 12/Alamy Stock Photo/Courtesy of HBO Although emotional, Hargitay had a difficult time with their exchange and began to act like her iconic NBC character. '[I went] full Olivia Benson on him,' she told the outlet. 'I was like, 'I don't want anything, I don't need anything from you.… I have a dad, ' ' she recalled telling him. 'There was something about loyalty. I wanted to be loyal to Mickey.' Advertisement Sardelli and his other two daughters — Mariska's half sisters — participated in the documentary, in addition to Mariska's other siblings Jayne Marie and Tony. At 61, the actress felt that there was no need to keep the identity of her biological father a secret from the public any longer. 'I grew up where I was supposed to, and I do know that everyone made the best choice for me,' she said. 'I'm Mickey Hargitay's daughter — that is not a lie.' 5 AFP via Getty Images Mariska further opens up about the loss of her mom in her doc, which she directed. On June 29, 1967, Mansfield died instantly in a car crash when the car she was riding in struck the rear of a trailer truck on US Route 90 east in New Orleans, Louisiana. Driver Ronald B. Harrison and Mansfield's companion, Samuel S. Brody, were also killed. Mariska, was just 3 years old at the time, and her siblings Mickey Jr., 8, and Zoltan, 6, all survived the crash. Mansfield appeared in more than two dozen films during her career, including 1956's 'The Girl Can't Help It' and 1957's 'Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?' 5 Natacha Pisarenko/Invision/AP Advertisement 'My mother was this amazing, beautiful, glamorous sex symbol — but people didn't know that she played the violin and had a 160 IQ and had five kids and loved dogs,' Mariska told People in 2018. 'She was just so ahead of her time. She was an inspiration, she had this appetite for life, and I think I share that with her.' Mariska, for her part, has been married to fellow actor and 'Younger' alum Peter Hermann since 2004. The couple are parents of three children — August Miklos Friedrich, born 2006, Amaya Josephine Hermann, born 2011, and Andrew Nicolas Hermann, born 2011. 'My Mom Jayne' will be released on HBO on June 27.
New York Post
16-05-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Post
Sarah Ferguson believes late mother-in-law Queen Elizabeth is ‘talking' to her through her corgis
Talk about a doggone head scratcher. Sarah Ferguson thinks her late former mother-in-law, Queen Elizabeth, is channeling her through the fallen monarch's beloved corgis, Muick and Sandy. Prince Andrew's ex-wife, 65, revealed the bizarre revelation on stage at the Creative Women Platform Forum conference in London. Advertisement Ferguson and Andrew still live together at their family home, Royal Lodge, in Windsor, despite being divorced for nearly four decades. 8 Instagram/Sarah Ferguson 8 Bettmann Archive Advertisement The exes inherited the dogs following the Queen's death at age 96 in September 2022. 'I have her dogs. I have her corgis, so every morning they come in and go, 'Woof, woof' and all that and I'm sure it's her talking to me,' Ferguson explained at the conference, posting a clip of the conversation on Instagram. Her wild claims sparked laughs from the audience. However, their laughter quickly subsided when the Duchess of York began speaking about her late mother-in-law. 8 Instagram/Sarah Ferguson Advertisement 8 Getty Images 'The real thing is that I had the greatest honor to be her daughter-in-law. You know, that's really huge,' Ferguson continued. 'When I was driving here, I saw the Elizabeth [train] line… I want everyone to remember what an amazing lady she was.' Queen Elizabeth's love of corgis was well-documented, with the former ruler of the Commonwealth owning more than 30 corgis and 'dorgi' mixes throughout her lifetime. Muick and Sandy were gifted to the Queen by Prince Andrew and Ferguson in 2021, making them her last fury friends before her death. Advertisement 8 PA Images via Getty Images 8 Getty Images After her passing, it was revealed that the exes would take ownership of her beloved doggos. 'The corgis will return to live at Royal Lodge with the Duke and Duchess. It was the Duchess who found the puppies, which were gifted to Her Majesty by the Duke,' a source told People at the time. Ferguson has spoken out about Queen Elizabeth sending signs through her pets before. 'They are national icons, so every time they run chasing a squirrel, I panic,' she said in 2023 about the corgis. 'But they're total joys, and I always think that when they bark at nothing, and there's no squirrels in sight, I believe it's because the Queen is passing by.' She also revealed her tight bond with Muick and Sandy, sharing, 'They're with me a lot, and they think I'm very funny.' Advertisement Ferguson never misses an opportunity to gloat over her animals, reminding her followers last month that she has several other dogs in the family. 8 Drew Altizer Photography/Shutterstock 8 Getty Images Dedicating an Instagram post to her cute canines for International Pet Day on April 11, Ferguson shared several behind-the-scene snaps of her seven pups at home. Advertisement 'From their wagging tails and comforting cuddles, to the calming presence and loyal companionship they give every single day, life is simply brighter with these amazing furry friends by my side,' she captioned the sweet shots. The Queen's beloved corgis stuck by Ferguson's side as she battled two cancer diagnosis between Summer 2023 and the beginning of 2024. She underwent a single mastectomy after discovering she had breast cancer in June 2023. She was also diagnosed with malignant melanoma, a form of skin cancer, in January 2024. Ferguson and Prince Andrew share two kids: daughters Princess Eugenie, 35, and Princess Beatrice, 36, who revealed in May 2024 that her mom was 'all clear' after the double health scare.
Forbes
16-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
What A 19th-Century Economist Can Teach Us About Today's Trade Wars
The original painting is by Thomas Phillips. Bettmann Archive In a competitive marketplace, businesses need to know their advantage over others. Is it lower prices? A differentiated product? A service that targets a particular type of customer? This is the theory of competitive advantage. To win in business, developing and using that competitive advantage is critical. While this notion works in the world of business, commerce between nations has been built on the concept of comparative advantage. First set out by the English economist David Ricardo in the 19th century, comparative advantage demonstrates that even if one country is better at producing all goods than another, they both still benefit from trade. Ricardo's textbook example shows a simplified world economy consisting of two countries (England and Portugal) producing wine and cloth. In Ricardo's example, Portugal could produce both more efficiently than England could. However, Portugal was superior to England at producing wine, so it made sense for England to produce cloth and trade it for Portuguese wine. If each country focused on producing the good for which it had a comparative advantage, then overall production of both wine and cloth would go up, leaving both countries better off as a result. The critical difference between competitive advantage and comparative advantage is this: competitive advantage increases wealth (wins) by outperforming others; comparative advantage increases wealth (wins) by working with others. One is a zero-sum game; the other offers the chance for both parties to prosper. Ricardo's new ideas came at the ideal time in world history. Mercantilism had been the predominant economic model of the prior two centuries, advocating for trade surpluses with all nations. The fallout from the Napoleonic Wars had turned the geopolitical landscape of Europe upside down. And the Industrial Revolution was rapidly reshaping national economies. More recently, comparative advantage has had a real-world impact over the course of the last century. In the current discourse on trade and tariffs, competitive and comparative advantages are being confused. Countries are not the same as companies – international trade is not a zero-sum game. It is important, of course, for one's own country to increase wealth. Greater wealth provides opportunities for economic mobility. Economic mobility provides hope for the future. Countries that build comparative advantage in critical growth industries – for example, artificial intelligence, robotics, medical innovations, and services for aging populations – provide that hope and will succeed over the long term. The countries that invest considerable capital in R&D, scientific and engineering talent, and ecosystems that support entrepreneurialism will maintain their comparative advantage, even if other countries also benefit. For companies, competitive advantage can manifest in the form of a price war, driving profits down for all parties. At the end of the day, one of those businesses may be the 'winner' – having put most of their competitors out of business. They may have won, but they only won because the others lost – all parties have weakened their businesses and their future prospects. When a disruption or new entrant comes along, the 'winning' business is unlikely to stay a winner for long. Countries can do the same with a trade war, like the one taking shape today. While other countries may lose out, when trade and wealth decline across the board – comparative advantage in reverse – we have a 'lose-lose' outcome. Each country still has to make the goods it needs, but they are less efficient at making them because of a new lack of supply. That diverts resources from building for the future and lessens the chance that the next generation will be better off than the last. It should go without saying that short-term gain for long-term pain is not a good strategy. Good long-term capital strategies for countries to follow are investments in scientific research, education, critical infrastructure, and building effective savings and investment systems for retirement and education needs. Two hundred years ago, David Ricardo put forth the idea that trade can be a win-win for countries of varying skills and specializations. It's critical that we do not forget that lesson now. Global trade in goods, services, and capital can increase wealth for all – done right, it is a win-win, not a compromise.
