Twin intimate portraits of Natalie Wood from her daughter – Los Angeles Times

Natalie Wood is a cinematic icon who had received three Oscar nominations by age 25 and whose films included Splendor in the Grass, Rebel Without a Cause and West Side Story. Since her drowning in 1981, however, her legacy has been colored by speculation and lurid tell-alls, fueled at least in part by the reopening of the police investigation into her death decades later.

None of those accounts, though, had the intimate knowledge of the actress home life afforded in both a new HBO documentary and a memoir from Woods daughter, actress Natasha Gregson Wagner. Natalie Wood: What Remains Behind and More Than Love is each a vivid portrait of Natalie Wood, the person.

Its been an organic process of my personal growth, Gregson Wagner says of why she was finally willing to share her mothers story as she knew it. The 49-year-old says she and her family had always been advised not to sustain supposition about her mothers death by responding to it, even when it included accusations that Robert Wagner, Woods husband and Gregson Wagners beloved stepfather, was involved.

Years of therapy, being in a happy marriage and becoming a mother prepared her to talk about this publicly without feeling defensive, she says. Im stronger now.

Also, she admits, Emotionally staying young or childlike, I felt was a way I could stay connected to my mom. Gregson Wagner was 11 when her mother died.

Gregson Wagner took the title for her book, More Than Love, from a phrase her parents would exchange with each other: I love you more than love. The words appear on Woods tombstone. Its a deeply intimate chronicle of life with her famous mother and how Woods death devastated the family.

She also produced and conducted interviews in Natalie Wood: What Remains Behind, directed by Laurent Bouzereau (Five Came Back). The documentary benefits from the participation of some of those closest to Wood, including Wagner. The film is more about the legendary actress and her career than the mother-daughter relationship in the book, but it too focuses on the person, not her death.I didnt want to do an investigative, reportage kind of film; this is the story of a family, says Bouzereau. This was a story of love. I never felt the pressure of having to be a reporter or a detective. That wasnt the point of the film at all.

There is likely no single definitive chronicle of any complex life, and many valid points of view can seem to conflict. These friendly portraits omit certain infamous stories associated with Woods legend true or false, such tales arent addressed and the two works come down firmly on the side that her death was an accident.

Actress Natasha Gregson Wagner today.

(Brigitte Jouxtel / HBO)

More than anything, they paint a private portrait of the public figure. Gregson Wagners book overflows with remembrances of Woods love and her own extreme attachment to her famous mother. When the author reviewed a treasure trove of Woods personal writings, she was stuck by the twentysomething Woods drive to educate herself, wanting to be deeper than just a movie star ... growing and probing and looking within.

Despite other depictions of Wood, here she is a strong personality: the boss, the engine of her family and captain of her career. She would arrange everyones daily schedules and social calendars. She was one of the first actresses in the studio system to successfully demand some control over film selection, equal pay with male costars and eventually, profit participation.

Bouzereau, who has been making documentaries about cinema for 25 years, says: In a sense, you look at her choices of her films and they become autobiographical. When you look at her trajectory as an actress, you see the evolution of cinema. She was making movies with filmmakers like Paul Mazursky and Sydney Pollack, who were just beginning their careers, making movies out on the streets for someone who had grown up on sound stages, that must have been shocking and yet she wasnt afraid of any of that. When she passed away, she was going to direct; she was going to be in a play.

I found her extremely modern and relevant. Today, shed be working with Tarantino and Spielberg and directing.

Bouzereau says the Wood film that best reflects that journey is Splendor in the Grass, the drama she made with Elia Kazan and Warren Beatty: That movie shows a journey of empowerment, which I think she went through herself.

Splendor takes its title from William Wordsworths poem Ode on Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood. The filmmakers chose the title of What Remains Behind from the same stanza: Though nothing can bring back the hour / Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower; / We will grieve not, rather find / Strength in what remains behind.

Natalie Wood, husband Robert Wagner and daughters Natasha Gregson Wagner, left, and Courtney Wagner in Hawaii, 1978.

(HBO)

Though the film and book are devoted to the person, they couldnt ignore the circumstances of Woods death. That meant getting Wagner to revisit that night on camera.

Natasha and I knew that would be the make-it or break-it aspect of the film. If it didnt have the impact we thought it should have, we wouldnt make the documentary, said Bouzereau. It was an amazing revelation, how open he could be on the matter.

Gregson Wagner says, We wanted it to feel like an intimate conversation my stepfather and I would have had without the cameras ... about a night that changed our lives forever.

This film feels like weve released this burden from our family like a balloon at the beach or a kite it goes up into the sky and its gone. Were all lighter because of it now.

I also own the fact that well never know for sure what happened to my mom, because she was alone the night she died ... But she wants us to carry on. We are what remains behind.

Trailer for the HBO documentary, Natalie Wood: What Remains Behind

"More Than Love"

By Natasha Gregson Wagner300 pgsSold by: Simon and Schuster Digital Sales IncASIN: B07Z421Y2T

Originally posted here:

Twin intimate portraits of Natalie Wood from her daughter - Los Angeles Times

Op/Ed: Dealing with the absurdity of human existence in the face of converging catastrophes – Rossland Telegraph

ByLonnie Aarssen, Professor of Biology, Queens University, Ontario, via The Conversation

Homo sapiens means wise human, but the name no longer suits us. As an evolutionary biologist who writes about Darwinian interpretations of human motivations and cultures, I propose that at some point we became what we are today: Homo absurdus, a human that spends its whole life trying to convince itself that its existence is not absurd.

As French philosopher Albert Camus put it: Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is. Thanks to this entrenched absurdity, the 21st century is riding on a runaway train of converging catastrophes in the Anthropocene.

Discovery of self

The critical juncture in the lineage toward Homo absurdus was described by evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky: A being who knows that he will die arose from ancestors who did not know. But evolution at some point also built into this human mind a deeply ingrained sentiment that one has not just a material life (the physical body), but also a distinct and separate mental life (the inner self).

Theodosius Dobzhansky. Wikicommons

Human self-awareness led to the evolution of cognitive skills that were game-changers for gene transmission success. In our degree of endowment for these skills, our ancestors had the edge over all other hominids.

But the trade-off for this was self-impermanence anxiety a recurrent fear that, in bringing eventual material death, time inevitably also annihilates all that one has done and all that one has been, and that soon it will be as though one had never existed at all.

Buffering for a troubled mind

However, natural selection also gave our ancestors primal impulses that served to buffer the worry of self-impermanence. These involve two novel and uniquely human fundamental drives: escape from self and extension of self.

Both are reflected in a prescient passage from the great Russian author, Leo Tolstoy:

For man to be able to live he must either not see the infinite, or have such an explanation of the meaning of life as will connect the finite with the infinite.

Extension of self connecting the finite with the infinite involves what I call legacy drive: the desire to leave something appreciable behind that will endure beyond mortal existence.

Delusions of symbolic immortality involve three principal domains:

Parenthood: Shaping the minds of offspring to mirror the defining characteristics of ones own selfhood (i.e. values, beliefs, attitudes, conscience, ego, skills, virtues, etc.);

Accomplishment: Earning recognition, status, or fame through talents or deeds that evoke admiration, trust, respect, or astonishment from others;

Identifying with or belonging to something larger-than-self: Membership or belief in a particular cultural world view, one based, for example, on concepts like patriotism, political ideology or religiosity/spiritualism.

Escape from self

For those less driven to produce a legacy, there is escape from self Tolstoys not seeing the infinite. Most commonly, this is achieved through distractions, deployed through what I call leisure drive, an intrinsic disposition to be easily drawn to indulgence in opportunities for enjoyment.

Typically, these involve motivations that hack into the brains pleasure modules and have deep evolutionary roots associated with meeting core needs (e.g. survival, social affiliation, mating, endearment, kinship) that rewarded ancestral gene transmission success.

Modern domains of leisure drive are manifested in many cultural norms and products designed to trigger these pleasure modules like toys, stories, games, aesthetics, social entertainment, consumerism, humour, recreational sex, yoga, meditation, inebriation and psychedelics.

The essential consequence of these distractions lies in arresting the mind firmly in the immediate present, thus temporarily but effectively shielding it from the dread of the infinite, wherein the self ceases to be.

For some, placing the mind firmly in the present may be accomplished by simply keeping busy with purposeful toil or mundane routine. As American philosopher Eric Hoffer put it: A busy life is the nearest thing to a purposeful life.

Work hard, play hard

The delusions of legacy drive and the distractions of leisure drive both help to mitigate the worry of self-impermanence. Strong selection for these drives thus propelled copies of our ancestors genes into future generations.

But self-impermanence anxiety has always lurked stubbornly beneath the surface, repeatedly demanding more and better delusions and distractions. And so, from a long history of striving for an untroubled mind, the effects of natural selection ramped up in momentum, I suggest, like a runaway train.

These drives to work hard and play even harder have fuelled the frenzied and relentless march of progress that we call civilization. With this, our cultural evolution has generated a large menu of available delusions for chasing after legacy, and distractions for chasing after leisure. And this has given us a world of environmental catastrophes that are annihilating other species and their habitats at an unprecedented rate.

Sustained genetic selection for legacy and leisure drives then has generated two dire consequences for humanity: A civilization now moving ever faster toward collapse on a global scale, and an evolved psychology that is now breeding an escalation of human despair anxiety disorders, depression and suicide.

In other words, the growing demands of these drives (resulting from biological evolution) are starting to exceed the supply rate of available domains (generated by cultural evolution) for satisfying them. It becomes harder and harder, therefore, to meet an ever-increasing need for distractions and delusions, including those needed to buffer the mounting eco-anxiety from living in a collapsing civilization.

Living with Homo absurdus

How can we manage our human predicament, now that we are Homo absurdus?

I have suggested that a new model for cultural evolution might come to our rescue involving a kind of biosocial management, based on facilitating and implementing a deeper and more broadly public understanding of, and empathy for, the evolutionary roots of human motivations, especially those associated with our responses to self-impermanence anxiety.

Homo sapiens means wise human, but the name no longer suits us. As an evolutionary biologist who writes about Darwinian interpretations of human motivations and cultures, I propose that at some point we became what we are today: Homo absurdus, a human that spends its whole life trying to convince itself that its existence is not absurd.

We must learn how to successfully regulate our frenetic drive to convince ourselves that our existence is not absurd. And this requires that we at least understand how we came to be so driven.

Read the rest here:

Op/Ed: Dealing with the absurdity of human existence in the face of converging catastrophes - Rossland Telegraph

Read. Dream. Share. Children’s Book Week is May 4-10 – Shreveport Times

Samantha Bonnette Published 1:41 a.m. CT May 3, 2020

Samantha Bonnette

These times they are a changin! Just last week, we were thinking about plans to reopen, but with the governors extended stay at home order, it looks like well be staying home a little longer. But dont worry; plans are underway to implement curbside pickup service at select Shreve Memorial Library branches beginning Monday, May 18. Youll soon be able to return your library books and check out new ones. More details are coming soon. Until then, I encourage you to take advantage of the many digital services available through the librarys e-branch.

This week, we are celebrating Childrens Book Week. The annual celebration takes place May 4 through May 10. Childrens Book Week is the longest-running national literacy initiative in the country. This years Childrens Book Week theme is Read. Dream. Share. We encourage you all to celebrate the joy of reading at home and join in the celebration by using hashtag #BookWeek2020atHome on social media.

The librarys e-branch has great resources to find childrens books online. TumbleBooks Library is one of my favorites! With TumbleBooks, you can enjoy animated, talking picture books and a different story each day with its Story Book of the Day feature. Children can see a storybook come to life, read-along with a storybook classic, or read an e-book all by themselves. You can access TumbleBooks Library through the Shreve Memorial Library e-branch or download the app to your smartphone or tablet.

Another great digital resource for childrens books is Overdrive Kids Zone. Available through Overdrive, an online resource of e-books, audiobooks, and movies, Overdrive Kids Zone is an area made exclusively for kids and teens. In the Kids Zone, you will find Overdrives collection of childrens e-books and audiobooks all in one place. Login to Overdrive or the Libby app, click Kids, and enter the Kids Zone. Once there you can download these e-books and audiobooks to your smartphone, tablet or computer.

Whatever you do, I hope that you find time to share the joy of reading with others. Be sure to follow @shrevememorial on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram for virtual storytimes, craft programs, and future updates including our reopening plans. Until we meet again, always remember to dream, discover, do!

Childrens Book Week Titles on Overdrive

In celebration of Childrens Book Week, below are titles from authors who were scheduled to be at the 2020 Shreve Memorial Library Childrens Book Festival. Unfortunately, the festival, planned for May 9, 2020, was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These titles are available on Overdrive.

Boy + Bot by Ame Dyckman (fiction, e-book)

One day, a boy and a robot meet in the woods. They play. They have fun. But when Bot gets switched off, Boy thinks hes sick. The usual remedies applesauce, reading a story dont help, so Boy tucks the sick Bot in, then falls asleep. Bot is worried when he powers on and finds his friend powered off. He takes Boy home with him and tries all his remedies: oil, reading an instruction manual. Nothing revives the malfunctioning Boy! Can the Inventor help fix him? Using the perfect blend of sweetness and humor, this story of an adorable duo will win the hearts of the very youngest readers.

Whoosh! written by Chris Barton; illustrated by Don Tate (nonfiction, e-book)

A cool idea with a big splash. You know the Super Soaker. Its one of the top twenty toys of all time. And it was invented entirely by accident. Trying to create a new cooling system for rockets, impressive inventor Lonnie Johnson instead created the mechanics for the iconic toy. A love for rockets, robots, inventions, and a mind for creativity began early in Lonnie Johnsons life. Growing up in a house full of brothers and sisters, persistence and a passion for problem solving became the cornerstone for a career as an engineer and his work with NASA. But it is his invention of the Super Soaker water gun that has made his most memorable splash with kids and adults.

The Fourteenth Goldfish by Jennifer L. Holm (fiction, e-book)

Galileo. Newton. Salk. Oppenheimer. Science can change the world but can it go too far? Eleven-year-old Ellie has never liked change. She misses fifth grade. She misses her old best friend. She even misses her dearly departed goldfish. Then one day a strange boy shows up. Hes bossy. Hes cranky. And weirdly enough he looks a lot like Ellies grandfather, a scientist whos always been slightly obsessed with immortality. Could this pimply boy really be Grandpa Melvin? Has he finally found the secret to eternal youth? With a lighthearted touch and plenty of humor, Jennifer Holm celebrates the wonder of science and explores fascinating questions about life and death, family and friendship, immortality and possibility.

Shreve Memorial Library transforms Caddo Parish lives with resources, services and support to create a better world. Focusing on service priority areas of creating and maintaining young readers, stimulating imagination, providing lifelong learning, information fluency, and ready references, and informing citizens, Shreve Memorial Librarys 21-branch system is maintained by a parish-wide property tax millage to support the informational, educational and recreational needs of its constituents. For more information, visit http://www.shreve-lib.org, like on Facebook, and follow @shrevememorial on Instagram, Twitter and Pinterest. Remember to dream, discover, do Shreve Memorial Library and you!

Read or Share this story: https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2020/05/03/read-dream-share-childrens-book-week-may-4-10/3072677001/

See the rest here:

Read. Dream. Share. Children's Book Week is May 4-10 - Shreveport Times

Westworld Never Fixed Its Villain Problem – The Atlantic

Read: Why TV is so worried about free will

That flaw had been nagging at me for each of the seasons eight episodes, which dispensed gory action with practiced efficiency but felt hollow nonetheless. The shows villain problem was crystallized in the season finale, Crisis Theory, in which the vengeful robots Dolores (played by Evan Rachel Wood) and Maeve (Thandie Newton) faced off against the trillionaire mogul Engerraund Serac (Cassel) and Rehoboam, the colossal AI that he used to impose order on human affairs. Rehoboam, a glowing red sphere that pulsated with energy and spoke in philosophical riddles, was impressive; its demise, which involved flicking a few switches to turn it off, was less so. For the most part, the threat of big data was amorphous and faceless.

The storytelling impulses that led Westworld creators Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy down this narrative path are understandable. Despite its sci-fi trappings (futuristic robots et al.), Westworld has been fundamentally concerned with human behavior from its first episode, analyzing the depravity of Westworlds attendees alongside the developing consciousness of the hosts (the robots built to populate the park). Designed only to mimic reality, the hosts ended up shattering it, rising up against Westworlds visitors and owners to assert their newly developed independence. The first season turned out to be a curious and arresting parable of how violence is a universal language.

Ever since that robot revolution, Westworld has been stuck trying to find newer angles on the same question: What happens when you combine advanced machine learning with humanity acting on its worst instincts? The second season responded to that prompt by advancing the shows world-building. It revealed that Delos, the parks corporate owner, was gathering information on visitors and perhaps looking to make robotic clones out of them, thus inventing a form of artificial immortality. But the plotting was molasses-slow, charting the further disintegration of the theme park over the course of just a few days, and only teasing any exploration of the outside world at the very end.

So Season 3 went full speed ahead with its narrative, starting with Dolores finally being set loose on society and wreaking havoc, and ending with the world descending into an apocalypse, with cities engulfed in rioting and chaos. Westworld the park was largely forgotten. Rehoboam exploded the creepy implications of Deloss surveillance a thousandfold by functioning as a global oracle of sorts. Because the machine was plugged into everyones public and private lives, Serac could use algorithms to literally shape the future, partly by murdering any humans who might rebel. Caleb (Paul) was one such human, enlisted by Dolores to serve as an ally in her quest to topple Rehoboam.

Read the original:

Westworld Never Fixed Its Villain Problem - The Atlantic

Egyptian Emeralds Slot Weaves the Magic of Scarab Beetle – TimesOfCasino

In an important development for online gaming enthusiasts, a new Egyptian Emeralds slot game has been released. The game has been released by Playtech, leading gaming software supplier in the world, and the highlight of the game is its journey that takes you back to the ancient roots of Egypt. In the game, reels are ruled by the scarab beetle, which demonstrates a range of magical powers that can help you win big.

There are a total of 10 paylines and 5 reels in the game. The combination will do its best in order to make you win, and the best part of the game is that number of symbols has been restricted to a small number a total of six only. This makes sure that one will not get overwhelmed by the huge number of symbols that are otherwise part of such games. Thats not to say that the small number of symbols doesnt mean that they are not up to the task. In fact, these are very well in accomplishing their work.

In ancient traditions of Egypt, Scarab Beetle was known for its immortality, protection, and resurrection. Accordingly, this game also uses wild scarab beetle, which plays a crucial role in helping you win big here. Once it occupies middle reel, the feature of scarab respin will come into play, and before the respin actually starts, the beetle will land on three different positions.

For another landing, you can go for another respin. Its quite apparent that beetle knows how to do its work, and while you make money as the beetle is flying, you can also try your luck in order to win big in Slot Wars. Overall if you break into the top 40 then you get paid handsomely.

Here is the original post:

Egyptian Emeralds Slot Weaves the Magic of Scarab Beetle - TimesOfCasino

Elon Musk and Grimes Named Their Baby X A-12, Which Must Mean SomethingRight? – Esquire

UPDATE 2: A few hours after Grimes provided a detailed explanation for the name of her baby, the father, Elon Musk chimed in to correct a slight error in her tweet. Grimes said the A-12 part of the baby's name, X A-12, came from the precursor to their favorite aircraft, the SR-71. Musk responded to her tweet, offering a correction: "SR-71, but yes," he wrote. To which Grimes responded, "I am recovering from surgery and barely alive so may my typos b forgiven but, damnit. That was meant to be profound."

UPDATE: Grimes has explained the meaning behind her and Elon Musk's baby, name, X A-12. As she wrote on twitter:

Original post below:

As every new parent knows, there is no greater feeling than looking into a newborn child's eyes, and then assigning it a name that reads like the phonetic spelling of the sound a dial up modem makes while connecting to the World Wide Web. Potentially, that is what Grimes and Elon Musk did in the wee hours of the morning when the couple welcomed a new child into the world. While Grimes has opted to let the child choose its gender, Elon Musk is a bit more ... well...

When asked what the child's name is, Musk also dropped this little nugget. The newest Musk heir is named X A-12 Musk. The baby looks like more of an X A-10 than an X A-12, but this is their choice to make as parents. The internet immediately began dunking on the couple, but Grimes and Elon? These are smart people. If you can build a car to space, you deserve a little more credit. One very complex Reddit theory explains that the symbol () could represent Ash, the A-12 could be representative of the Archangel design effort by Lockheed Martin, and the X is a placeholder. Meaning the actual name would be [placeholder] Ash Archangel Musk, which is quite possibly the most Elon Musk x Grimes collaboration that could ever happen.

But there could be any other number of explanations for this baby name. What if perhaps this really was inspired by the noise of a dial up modem connecting to CompuServe circa 1999? What if, in a real Muskian twist, that's not the baby's name, but just its make and model? Perhaps this is a quantum physics equation the child solved while in the womb?

What if this isn't actually the name of their child, and just a public joke they're playing to keep the actual name of their child private? We may never know. Welcome to the world, X A-12. If that is your real name, kindergarten is going to be rough.

Originally posted here:

Elon Musk and Grimes Named Their Baby X A-12, Which Must Mean SomethingRight? - Esquire

Free Will Astrology: May 6, 2020 – River Cities Reader

ARIES (March 21-April 19): According to Aries author and mythologist Joseph Campbell, "The quest for fire occurred not because anyone knew what the practical uses for fire would be, but because it was fascinating." He was referring to our early human ancestors, and how they stumbled upon a valuable addition to their culture because they were curious about a powerful phenomenon, not because they knew it would ultimately be so valuable. I invite you to be guided by a similar principle in the coming weeks, Aries. Unforeseen benefits may emerge during your investigation into flows and bursts that captivate your imagination.

TAURUS (April 20-May 20): "The future belongs to those who see possibilities before they become obvious," says businessperson and entrepreneur John Sculley. You Tauruses aren't renowned for such foresight. It's more likely to belong to Aries and Sagittarius people. Your tribe is more likely to specialize in doing the good work that turns others' bright visions into practical realities. But this Year of the Coronavirus could be an exception to the general rule. In the past three months as well as in the next six months, many of you Bulls have been and will continue to be catching glimpses of interesting possibilities before they become obvious. Give yourself credit for this knack. Be alert for what it reveals.

GEMINI (May 21-June 20): For 148 uninterrupted years, American militias and the American army waged a series of wars against the native peoples who lived on the continent before Europeans came. There were more than 70 conflicts that lasted from 1776 until 1924. If there is any long-term struggle or strife that even mildly resembles that situation in your own personal life, our Global Healing Crisis is a favorable time to call a truce and cultivate peace. Start now! It's a ripe and propitious time to end hostilities that have gone on too long.

CANCER (June 21-July 22): Novelist Marcel Proust was a sensitive, dreamy, emotional, self-protective, creative Cancerian. That may explain why he wasn't a good soldier. During his service in the French army, he was ranked 73rd in a squad of 74. On the other hand, his majestically intricate seven-volume novel In Search of Lost Time is a masterpiece one of the 20th Century's most influential literary works. In evaluating his success as a human being, should we emphasize his poor military performance and downplay his literary output? Of course not! Likewise, Cancerian, in the coming weeks I'd like to see you devote vigorous energy to appreciating what you do best and no energy at all to worrying about your inadequacies.

LEO (July 23-August 22): "Fortune resists half-hearted prayers," wrote the poet Ovid more than 2,000 years ago. I will add that Fortune also resists poorly formulated intentions, feeble vows, and sketchy plans especially now, during an historical turning point when the world is undergoing massive transformations. Luckily, I don't see those lapses being problems for you in the coming weeks, Leo. According to my analysis, you're primed to be clear and precise. Your willpower should be working with lucid grace. You'll have an enhanced ability to assess your assets and make smart plans for how to use them.

VIRGO (August 23-September 22): Last year the Baltimore Museum of Art announced it would acquire works exclusively from women artists in 2020. A male art critic complained, "That's unfair to male artists." Here's my reply: Among major permanent art collections in the U.S. and Europe, the work of women makes up five percent of the total. So what the Baltimore Museum did is a righteous attempt to rectify the existing excess. It's a just and fair way to address an unhealthy imbalance. In accordance with current omens and necessities, Virgo, I encourage you to perform a comparable correction in your personal sphere.

LIBRA (September 23-October 22): In the course of my life, I've met many sharp thinkers with advanced degrees from fine universities who are nonetheless stunted in their emotional intelligence. They may quote Shakespeare and discourse on quantum physics and explain the difference between the philosophies of Kant and Hegel, and yet have less skill in understanding the inner workings of human beings or in creating vibrant intimate relationships. Yet most of these folks are not extreme outliers. I've found that virtually all of us are smarter in our heads than we are in our hearts. The good news, Libra, is that our current Global Healing Crisis is an excellent time for you to play catch up. Do what poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti suggests: "Make your mind learn its way around the heart."

SCORPIO (October 23-November 21): Aphorist Aaron Haspel writes, "The less you are contradicted, the stupider you become. The more powerful you become, the less you are contradicted." Let's discuss how this counsel might be useful to you in the coming weeks. First of all, I suspect you will be countered and challenged more than usual, which will offer you rich opportunities to become smarter. Secondly, I believe you will become more powerful as long as you don't try to stop or discourage the influences that contradict you. In other words, you'll grow your personal authority and influence to the degree that you welcome opinions and perspectives that are not identical to yours.

SAGITTARIUS (November 22-December 21): "It's always too early to quit," wrote author Norman Vincent Peale. We should put his words into perspective, though. He preached "the power of positive thinking." He was relentless in his insistence that we can and should transcend discouragement and disappointment. So we should consider the possibility that he was overly enthusiastic in his implication that we should never give up. What do you think, Sagittarius? I'm guessing this will be an important question for you to consider in the coming weeks. It may be time to re-evaluate your previous thoughts on the matter and come up with a fresh perspective. For example, maybe it's right to give up on one project if it enables you to persevere in another.

CAPRICORN (December 22-January 19): The 16th-Century mystic nun Saint Teresa of Avila was renowned for being overcome with rapture during her spiritual devotions. At times she experienced such profound bliss through her union with God that she levitated off the ground. "Any real ecstasy is a sign you are moving in the right direction," she wrote. I hope that you will be periodically moving in that direction yourself during the coming weeks, Capricorn. Although it may seem odd advice to receive during our Global Healing Crisis, I really believe you should make appointments with euphoria, delight, and enchantment.

AQUARIUS (January 20-February 18): Grammy-winning musician and composer Pharrell Williams has expertise in the creative process. "If someone asks me what inspires me," he testifies, "I always say, 'That which is missing.'" According to my understanding of the astrological omens, you would benefit from making that your motto in the coming weeks. Our Global Healing Crisis is a favorable time to discover what's absent or empty or blank about your life, and then learn all you can from exploring it. I think you'll be glad to be shown what you didn't consciously realize was lost, omitted, or lacking.

PISCES (February 19-March 20): "I am doing my best to not become a museum of myself," declares poet Natalie Diaz. I think she means that she wants to avoid defining herself entirely by her past. She is exploring tricks that will help her keep from relying so much on her old accomplishments that she neglects to keep growing. Her goal is to be free of her history, not to be weighed down and limited by it. These would be worthy goals for you to work on in the coming weeks, Pisces. What would your first step be?

Experiment: To begin the next momentous healing, tell the simple, brave, and humble truth about yourself. Testify at FreeWillAstrology.com.

Original post:

Free Will Astrology: May 6, 2020 - River Cities Reader

Early Research on Unified Field Theory – The Great Courses Daily News

By Dan Hooper, Ph.D., University of Chicago General relativity equations use a mathematical structure called metric tensors, which Hermann Weyl tried to incorporate in his Unified Field Theory. (Image: Photomontage/Shutterstock)Weyls Metric Tensor and Unified Field Theory

The first attempt at a unified field theory wasnt made directly by Einstein himself. Instead, it was by the German physicist and mathematician Hermann Weyl. However, Einstein and Weyl were in communication during this time, and they discussed some of the aspects of this problem together. So, at least to some extent, Einstein was involved.

From Weyls perspective, there was one central challenge that made it so hard to combine general relativity and electromagnetism into one unified field theory. This challenge was that general relativity is a theory of geometry, while electromagnetism is not. Maxwells equations described the forces that act on electrically charged particles. They dont involve any changes to the geometry of space or time.

Weyl felt that if he wanted to merge these two theories together into a common framework, he would need to find a new geometrical way to formulate the theory of electromagnetism. In general relativity, the geometry of space and time is described by a mathematical object called the metric tensor. A tensor is essentially a special kind of matrix or array of numbers.

In general relativity, the metric tensor is a 44 array of numbers, so it contains a total of sixteen entries. But of these sixteen quantities, six are redundant, so there are really only 10 independent numbers described by the metric tensor. And we need all 10 of these numbers just to describe the effects of gravity.

The problem in combining general relativity with electromagnetism is that when we incorporate electromagnetism we need at least four more numbers at every point in space. This made it hard to see how one could explain both gravity and electromagnetism in terms of geometry. There just arent enough numbers in the metric tensor to describe both gravity and electromagnetism at the same time.

To try to get around this problem, Weyl proposed a version of non-Euclidean geometry. In doing so, he argued that it was possible to construct a geometrical system that wasnt limited to the 10 independent numbers. In addition to those 10 numbers, Weyls version of the metric tensor contained other additional quantities. And Weyl hoped that these additional numbers could somehow encode the effects of electromagnetism.

The theory that Weyl ultimately came up with was very complicated. Although it was mathematically sound, physically, it just didnt make much sense. After a series of exchanges with Einstein, even Weyl became convinced that his work hadnt gotten them any closer to viable unified field theory.

This is a transcript from the video series What Einstein Got Wrong. Watch it now, on The Great Courses Plus.

Only a year later or so, another idea in this direction was proposed. This time by the mathematician Theodor Kaluza. Most people find Kaluzas idea to be pretty strange and surprising. What he proposed was a unified field theory in which the space and time of our universe arent limited to four, but five dimensions.

To see why a fifth dimension might be helpful in building a unified field theory, we need to remember metric tensor. A tensor is a 44 array of numbers, for a total of sixteen entries10 of which are independent of each other. But tensor is a 44 array of numbers only because it was formulated in four-dimensional spacetime. If spacetime is five-dimensional, then the metric tensor will be a 55 array of numbers, for a total of twenty-five entries.

After removing all of the redundant entries, the five-dimensional metric tensor contains fifteen independent quantities. 10 of these fifteen numbers are needed to describe gravity. And this leaves us with five others, which is more than enough to potentially encode the phenomena of electromagnetism.

There is, though, one immediate and obvious objection that one might raise to Kaluzas five-dimensional theory. As far as we can tell, our universe doesnt have a fifth dimension.

Fortunately, there is a way that a fifth dimension might be able to remain hidden in a system like Kaluzas. In this geometrical system, the fifth dimension isnt like the others. The three dimensions of space that we are familiar with are large, and as far as we know, they go on forever in any given direction. If there were an extra dimension like this, it would be impossible for us not to notice it.

But the fifth dimension being imagined by Kaluza doesnt go on forever. Instead, its wrapped up, or curled up, into a tiny circle. If something moved even a short distance along the direction of this fifth dimension, it would simply return to where it started. If the circumference of the fifth dimension is small enough, it would be almost impossible for us to perceive it.

It was in 1919 that Kaluza described his idea to Einstein for the first time. And despite the fact that there were significant problems with the 5-dimensional theory, Einstein liked it a great deal.

With Einsteins help, Kaluza managed to publish his theory a couple of years later, in 1921. And only a few weeks after that, Einstein himself wrote and published an article that investigated some of the aspects of similar five-dimensional unified field theories. But, despite the enthusiasm, it was pretty clear that there were serious problems with Kaluzas theory. Einstein, though, continued to work on this theory not because he thought it was a viable unified field theory, but because he thought it might lead to something more promising.

After all, while Einstein was developing general relativity, he went through several incorrect versions of the gravitational field equations before he found the right answer.

Learn more about Quantum Entanglement.

Another scientist who worked on unified field theories during this period of time was the famous astronomer and physicist Arthur Eddington. However, Eddington didnt focus on expanding the metric tensor. In fact, he didnt focus on the metric tensor at all. Instead, he focused on a different mathematical structure, known as the affine connection. In the end, Eddington didnt really get any closer than Weyl or Kaluza to building a viable unified field theory. But Eddingtons work was important because his approach was quite different, and along with Kaluza, Eddington probably had the most influence on Einsteins later efforts to develop such a theory.

Learn more about what Einstein got right: Special Relativity.

Einstein himself began to focus on unified field theories in the early 1920s. During this period of time, he remained enthusiastic about the work that had been earlier done by both Kaluza and Eddington. In fact, a lot of Einsteins early work in this area consisted of extending and building upon these earlier ideas.

Einstein was deeply enthusiastic about this program of exploration. Although in this respect, he was relatively isolated since most physicists didnt share his excitement. Quantum physics was developing rapidly, and that was occupying the bulk of the fields attention during this time.

Einstein was deeply unhappy with the developments occurring in quantum theory as it moved away from the predictive determinism. Einsteins views about quantum mechanics also served to bolster his interest in unified field theories.

In addition to unifying general relativity with electromagnetism, Einstein hoped that a unified field theory might also somehow be able to restore determinism and scientific realism to the quantum world.

Yes, its possible to have a unified field theory similar to that of James Clerk Maxwell who successfully combined electric and magnetic fields into Electromagnetic theory.

Unified field theory is an attempt to unify different fundamental forces and the relationships into a single theoretical framework. There have been many attempts at unified theories, some were successful, some failed.

James Clerk Maxwell was the first one to create a unified field theory. He also combined electric and magnetic fields into Electromagnetic theory.

The founding fathers of quantum theory are Niels Bohr, Max Planck, and, to a certain extent, Albert Einstein.

Excerpt from:

Early Research on Unified Field Theory - The Great Courses Daily News

What Is Einstein’s Unified Field Theory? – The Great Courses Daily News

By Dan Hooper, Ph.D., University of Chicago Newtons law of universal gravitation is a unified theory of gravitation and elliptical orbits. (Image: Maksym Bondarenko/Shutterstock)

A unified field theory, Einstein hoped, would combine and merge the theory of general relativity with the theory of electromagnetism, fusing them together into a singular physical and mathematical framework. The theory that Einstein had hoped to discover would be far more powerful, and more far-reaching, than either of these individual theories could ever be alone.

Unification has played a very important role in the history of physics. In fact, arguably, many of the greatest accomplishments in physics are examples of unification. By unification in this context, it means uniting two or more ideas that were thought to be as completely distinct, proving their different aspects as the same underlying phenomenon.

Learn more about Einstein and gravitational waves.

Consider, for example, what we call gravity. Prior to Isaac Newton, gravity was seen as a force that pulls things downward, and toward the Earth. And also, independently, it had been shown by Johannes Kepler and others that planets followed elliptical orbits around the Sun. But at the time, no one knew why planets followed these orbits. It was just known that they did.

But Isaac Newton changed all of that. With his theory of universal gravitation, Newton combined or unified these seemingly very different phenomena with a single overarching principle. His proposal was that all kinds of mass attract one another with a strength proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them. With this simple relationship, Newton found an idea that could explain both why massive objects are pulled toward the Earth, and why planets, and moons and comets, for that matter, follow the trajectories that they do as they move through the solar system.

This is a transcript from the video series What Einstein Got Wrong. Watch it now, on The Great Courses Plus.

Another important example of unification in physics took place almost two hundred years later, in the 19th century. Prior to this, electricity and magnetism were conceived of as unrelated phenomena. Electricity, on the one hand, was responsible for things like lightning, and static charge. On the other hand, magnetism caused compass needles to point north. They were seen as entirely different forces, which acted in different ways, and acted on different things.

But by the mid-1800s, the work of physicists such as Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell showed that electricity and magnetism were related. In fact, they discovered that a magnetic field is itself nothing more than a moving or changing electric field. In other words, magnetism is just electricity in motion. Its effects might seem different; but beneath it all, its really just another aspect of the same underlying thing. Today, physicists talk about electromagnetism as a singular aspect of nature, and from a modern perspective thats what it is.

But before the unifying work by Faraday and Maxwell, the phrase electromagnetism wouldnt have made any sense at all. Only after the unified theory of electromagnetism was discovered could one see any reason to think about electricity and magnetism as being connected to one another in any meaningful way.

Learn more about quantum entanglement.

Sometimes, when two ideas are found to be deeply connected, they reveal new and surprising things in the process. In the case of electromagnetism, the equations that were discovered to relate electricity and magnetism to one another also described the nature and behavior of light waves. We found that light was an electromagnetic wavea combination of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that move together through space.

Every time that physicists manage to successfully unify a set of seemingly unrelated phenomena, they are left with a more powerful theory. A unified theory can explain more, and do it with less. Newtons unified theory of gravity explains why objects fall down and why planets move in elliptical orbits. It explains all of this more simply than the theories that preceded it could. But in addition, Newtons theory can be used to understand and predict many things that the preceding theories simply couldnt.

From Keplers equations, one cant tell you how heavy a bowling ball will be on the moon, or predict the trajectory of a satellite around the Earth. Now, one can predict these things using Newtons theory because it unifies multiple ideas into one, it can explain more. Its more powerful.

Learn more about what Einstein got right: Special Relativity

Einstein was also looking for a similarly powerful theory. His quest for a unified field theory started only a couple of years after he completed his general theory of relativity, in or around 1918 or so. At the time, there were two fundamental theories that were central to how physicists understood their universe. One of these theories was Einsteins new general theory of relativity, which explained the phenomenon of gravity, and its relationship to space and time.

Then, there was the theory of electromagnetism, usually written as a set of four equations, known as Maxwells equations. Maxwells equations can be used to describe a wide range of phenomena associated with electricity and magnetism, including that of light. So from Einsteins perspective, there were two different facets of nature before him. Both of these theories were individually powerful and quite mathematically elegant.

Einstein admired James Clerk Maxwell a great deal, and he held Maxwells equations of electromagnetism in very high regard. Einstein also, of course, was quite fond of his own theory of general relativity. These two theories were among the greatest accomplishments in all of physics. As far as anyone could tell, the theories of general relativity and electromagnetism seemed to be basically unrelated to one another. But Einstein wasnt so sure that this was really the case.

After all, electricity and magnetism seemed to be unrelated until Faraday and Maxwell showed us otherwise. Einstein wanted to do something similar with general relativity and electromagnetism. Like many of the greatest physicists before him, Einstein wanted to make a more powerful and widely applicable theory, that could predict and explain more than its predecessors could.

A Unified Theory tries to unite in a single mathematical framework the electromagnetic and weak forces with the strong force or with the strong force and gravity.

The four main forces that can be unified into different unified theories are gravitation,electromagnetism, weak Interaction, and strong Interaction. The main fundamental forces are mediated by fields which result from the exchange of gauge bosons in the Standard Model of Quantum Field Theory.

The first successful classical Unified Field Theory was developed byJames Clerk Maxwell. He successfully combined electricity and magnetic field theory into Electromagnetic Field Theory and led the way forward for different unified theories.

Einstein, in the latter part of his career, wanted to unify the theories of general relativity and electromagnetic field into one unified theory.He wasnt able to achieve any significant success in this goal though.

Originally posted here:

What Is Einstein's Unified Field Theory? - The Great Courses Daily News

Wolfram Physics Project Seeks Theory Of Everything; Is It Revelation Or Overstatement? – Hackaday

Stephen Wolfram, inventor of the Wolfram computational language and the Mathematica software, announced that he may have found a path to the holy grail of physics: A fundamental theory of everything. Even with the subjunctive, this is certainly a powerful statement that should be met with some skepticism.

What is considered a fundamental theory of physics? In our current understanding, there are four fundamental forces in nature: the electromagnetic force, the weak force, the strong force, and gravity. Currently, the description of these forces is divided into two parts: General Relativity (GR), describing the nature of gravity that dominates physics on astronomical scales. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) describes the other three forces and explains all of particle physics.

An overview of particle physics by Headbomb [CC-BY-SA 3.0]Up to now, it has not been possible to unify both General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory since they are formulated within different mathematical frameworks. In particular, treating gravity within the formalism of QFT leads to infinite terms that cannot be canceled out within the generally accepted framework of renormalization. The two most popular attempts to deliver a quantum mechanical description of gravity are String Theory and the lesser know Quantum Loop Gravity. The former would be considered a fundamental theory that describes all forces in nature while the latter limits itself to the description of gravity.

Apart from the incompatibility of QFT and GR there are still several unsolved problems in particle physics like the nature of dark matter and dark energy or the origin of neutrino masses. While these phenomena tell us that the current Standard Model of particle physics is incomplete they might still be explainable within the current frameworks of QFT and GR. Of course, a fundamental theory also has to come up with a natural explanation for these outstanding issues.

Stephen Wolfram is best known for his work in computer science but he actually started his career in physics. He received his PhD in theoretical particle physics at the age of 20 and was the youngest person in history to receive the prestigious McArthur grant. However, he soon left physics to pursue his research into cellular automata which lead to the development of the Wolfram code. After founding his company Wolfram Research he continued to develop the Wolfram computational language which is the basis for the Wolfram Mathematica software. On the one hand, it becomes obvious that Wolfram is a very gifted man, on the other hand, people have sometimes criticized him for being an egomaniac as his brand naming convention subtly suggests.

In 2002, Stephen Wolfram published his 1200-page mammoth book A New Kind of Sciencewhere he applied his research on cellular automata to physics. The main thesis of the book is that simple programs, in particular the Rule 110 cellular automaton, can generate very complex systems through repetitive application of a simple rule. It further claims that these systems can describe all of the physical world and that the Universe itself is computational. The book got controversial reviews, while some found that it contains a cornucopia of ideas others criticized it as arrogant and overstated. Among the most famous critics were Ray Kurzweil and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg. It was the latter who wrote that:

Wolfram [] cant resist trying to apply his experience with digital computer programs to the laws of nature. [] he concludes that the universe itself would then be an automaton, like a giant computer. Its possible, but I cant see any motivation for these speculations, except that this is the sort of system that Wolfram and others have become used to in their work on computers. So might a carpenter, looking at the moon, suppose that it is made of wood.

The Wolfram Physics Project is a continuation of the ideas formulated in A New Kind of Science and was born out of a collaboration with two young physicists who attended Wolframs summer school. The main idea has not changed, i.e. that the Universe in all its complexity can be described through a computer algorithm that works by iteratively applying a simple rule. Wolfram recognizes that cellular automata may have been too simple to produce this kind of complexity instead he now focuses on hypergraphs.

In mathematics, a graph consists of a set of elements that are related in pairs. When the order of the elements is taken into account this is called a directed graph. The most simple example of a (directed) graph can be represented as a diagram and one can then apply a rule to this graph as follows:

The rule states that wherever a relation that matches {x,y} appears, it should be replaced by {{x ,y},{y,z}}, wherez is a new element. Applying this rule to the graph yields:

By applying this rule iteratively one ends up with more and more complicated graphs as shown in the example here. One can also add complexity by allowing self-loops, rules involving copies of the same relation, or rules depending on multiple relations. When allowing relations between more than two elements, this moves from graphs to hypergraphs.

How is this related to physics? Wolfram surmises that the Universe can be represented by an evolving hypergraph where a position in space is defined by a node and time basically corresponds to the progressive updates. This introduces new physical concepts, e.g. that space and time are discrete, rather than continuous. In this model, the quest for a fundamental theory corresponds to finding the right initial condition and underlying rule. Wolfram and his colleagues think they have already identified the right class of rules and constructed models that reproduce some basic principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics.

A fundamental problem of the model is what Wolfram calls computational irreducibility, meaning that to calculate any state of the hypergraph one has to go through all iterations starting from the initial condition. This would make it virtually impossible to run the computation long enough in order to test a model by comparing it to our current physical Universe.

Wolfram thinks that some basic principles, e.g. the dimensionality of space, can be deduced from the rules itself. Wolfram also points out that although the generated model universes can be tested against observations the framework itself is not amenable to experimental falsification. It is generally true that fundamental physics has long decoupled from the scientific method of postulating hypotheses based on experimental observations. String theory has also been criticized for not making any testable predictions. However, String theory historically developed from nuclear physics while Wolfram does not give any motivation for choosing evolving hypergraphs for his framework. However, some physicists are thinking in similar directions like Nobel laureate Gerard tHooft who has recently published a cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics. In addition, Wolframs colleague, Jonathan Gorard, points out that their approach is a generalization of spin networks used in Loop Quantum Gravity.

On his website, Wolfram invites other people to participate in the project although it is somehow vague how this will work. In general, they need people to work out the potential observable predictions of their model and the relation to other fundamental theories. If you want to dive into the topic in depth there is a 448-page technical introduction on the website and they have also recently started a series of livestreams where they plan to release 400 hours of video material.

Wolframs model certainly contains many valuable ideas and cannot be simply disregarded as crackpottery. Still, most mainstream physicists will probably be skeptical about the general idea of a discrete computational Universe. The fact that Wolfram tends to overstate his findings and publishes through his own media channels instead of going through peer-reviewed physics journals does not earn him any extra credibility.

Go here to see the original:

Wolfram Physics Project Seeks Theory Of Everything; Is It Revelation Or Overstatement? - Hackaday

Justin Amashs potential third-party presidential bid, explained – Vox.com

When I got on the phone with Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) the day after he announced the launch of an exploratory committee for a potential run for the White House, my first question was, Why are you doing this?

The question didnt come as a surprise to Amash, who entered Congress in 2010 as a strident Tea Party fiscal conservative only to leave the GOP last year before becoming the lone House conservative lawmaker to vote to impeach President Donald Trump. Now, five months later and staring down an increasingly impossible reelection bid hes considering a third-party presidential run as a libertarian.

Amash, 40, told me hes running because he believes hes the best person for the job. I think its important that we have someone whos honest, whos practical, who will have humility about the entire legislative process and the entire process for government and will allow us to get back to a place where we have a government that actually represents the people.

Amashs decision didnt come as a total surprise after all, he tweeted on April 15 that he was considering a presidential run. But the reactions to his announcement came fast and furious, particularly from Never Trump conservatives concerned he could pull votes away from Joe Biden and help incumbent Donald Trump win reelection.

Others noted Amashs lack of national name recognition and the historic lack of success for third-party candidates. A writer at the conservative-leaning blog Ordinary Times said Amashs 2020 campaign would be something 10 years from now you will be mildly upset for not remembering during a rousing round of bar trivia while waiting on your wings at B-Dubs:

Democrats only liked him for having the token R-turned-I to make their impeachment technically bipartisan. Trump voters arent going to give him anything but vitriol. So if your plan is for a little-known lame duck congressman with no discernible achievements in the one job he has held outside of a brief stint in the family business to revolutionize American politics, you might need to reconsider what you are pitching the American people.

Amash knows this. Hes tweeted about the angry response his announcement had received, and he told me hes well aware of his lack of name recognition. Its important to get out there, talk about the issues, talk about the approach I would take to government, talk about the practical ideas Id bring to the table, he told me.

The Congress member is making a big bet, not just on himself and his ability to reach out to Americans outside of his home state of Michigan, but on Americans in general, who he believes are far more libertarian-minded than their voting patterns indicate. Its highly unlikely to pay off. Even if voters say they want an option other than Trump or Biden, history shows third-party candidates rarely affect the outcome of an election. Amash, if he wins the Libertarian Partys ticket, probably wont be any different.

People are being left behind, he told me. They dont feel like theyre being treated fairly. They want to be treated with respect. And right now we have a government that doesnt do that, and people have an opportunity in this election to change that.

Before Amash became better known as a vigorous opponent of Donald Trump, he was a Tea Party stalwart and co-founder of the House Freedom Caucus. In 2010, a Michigan outlet described him as a throwback who preaches a gospel of old-school conservatism: less government, lower taxes and less regulation. He was known briefly as Dr. No for his penchant for voting against bills supported by his Republican allies, but some libertarians believed he could inherit the mantle carried by former representative (and former presidential candidate) Ron Paul as Americas best-known libertarian.

He argued against reauthorization of the Patriot Act (and was nearly primaried for it) and legislation aimed at prosecuting and fining websites that promote sex work. He opposed the Affordable Care Act, argued against federal support for the city of Flint, Michigan, and supported adding a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

But libertarian-leaning conservatism has lost its luster in the Trump era, and among many Republicans, so has Amash. He left the House Freedom Caucus last June, after the caucus voted to condemn him for tweeting that Trumps conduct regarding the Ukraine investigation was impeachable. As I wrote last year:

But the crackup between Amash and the HFC is indicative of a larger and growing divide between Republicans and libertarians, one with real-world implications for Congress and our politics.

The growing conservative populist movement (of sorts) that stands directly athwart libertarian values of free minds and free markets is being felt in Republican politics. Rising stars in conservative circles, like Sen. Josh Hawley, are arguing against so-called free market orthodoxy on trade and calling for the regulation of social media companies, arguing that holding big companies accountable who have amassed significant market power and are using it among other things to squelch conservative voices is a conservative cause.

But Amash isnt running as an independent in 2020. Rather, he wants to contest the nomination for the Libertarian Party, believing, as he told me, that voters value being a part of something, including a political party.

Given the current dynamic with both parties, Amash said, the Libertarian Party can pull a lot of votes from those parties and can also consolidate a lot of independent voters who are not strongly affiliated with either party.

The Libertarian Party nomination process also offers Amash the timing he needs to make an entrance into the presidential discussion. While the Libertarian Party does hold primaries and caucuses, those events are nonbinding. The presidential nominee is ultimately chosen at the national convention, currently scheduled to take place in late May. The candidate who wins the most delegates at the convention wins, period.

And while Amash is popular among libertarians, he has not previously identified with the party, leading some to feel as if the Libertarian Party is, as Reason Magazines Matt Welch said, sloppy seconds for former Republicans.

If he wins the nomination, its the fourth consecutive former Republican elected official [to win], Welch said. It kind of starts making you feel a little bit used. Daniel McCarthy, a writer at the conservative outlet the Spectator, wrote of the Libertarian Party, the fact that it doesnt even have a leadership cadre of its own, but every four years now turns to a former Republican as its presidential standard-bearer, is revealing.

But Amash offers valuable attention and a fundraising opportunity for the party, which Welch told me it badly needs. The main problem is that the natural state of affairs for third parties in this country is just misery, he said. So yes, you could try to reassert yourself and say, Lets have some home grown energy, [and nominate] lifetime libertarian types of people from within, and you will go out and you will get your 0.4 percent of the vote, which has been pretty constant over long periods of time.

The current frontrunner for the nomination, Jacob Hornberger, founder of the libertarian think tank Future of Freedom Foundation, agrees. Hornberger won primary contests in New York, North Carolina, California, Missouri, and Connecticut. And though he somewhat dismissively told the Dispatch that Amash would likely run a Republican-lite campaign, he also told Vox he welcomed the national media attention the Michigan lawmaker might bring.

Congressman Amashs entry into the race for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination provides a big benefit to the LP, he wrote in an email. It not only brings an air of excitement to the race, it also focuses the attention of the national media on the LP presidential debates. ... Moreover, whoever wins the LP presidential nomination will now be assured of national media attention.

Welch added that Amash is actually the most libertarian dude of this parade of Republicans by far hes objectively more libertarian than [2016 LP nominee] Gary Johnson in most ways, and certainly more than [2008 nominee] Bob Barr.

He certainly is. Amash voted against a proposed national suicide prevention hotline because he thought the bill lacked a constitutional basis. He voted against a bill expressing support for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. He thinks the Department of Education should be abolished. In fact, on many issues, particularly those regarding executive power and the role of government, Amash is far more conservative than Trump.

But Amash believes his views mirror those of most Americans, but those Americans arent being heard. When I spoke with him back in July, he told me:

One of the reasons Ive always described myself as libertarian and use that word repeatedly is so that people will connect the word to the work Im doing. One of the things I like to tell libertarians when I go to conferences and other places is that libertarians are not really a small minority in the country. Most Americans have rather libertarian tendencies or classical liberal tendencies the spirit of this country is very much libertarian or classical liberal.

Most Americans, in my view, fall within the sphere of libertarianism or classical liberalism. They might not call themselves libertarian, they might not call themselves classical liberals, but they fall within that sphere and could support a party that presents those ideas. And so I think that there is room for a third party presenting those, thats presenting that vision.

When we spoke, I was reminded of a conversation I had in 2016 with Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson. He also told me, I think most Americans are libertarian, they just dont know it, adding that libertarianism in his view, a combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism made him the ideal alternative to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. (Johnson won just over 3 percent of the popular vote in 2016.)

And while the Libertarian Party is growing rapidly, relatively few Americans describe themselves as being libertarian, though they might hold libertarian views. So whether any more Americans would vote for a Libertarian Party nominee for president than in 2016 is questionable, particularly in an election many see as a binary choice between Trump and Biden.

While many Americans support the concept of third parties, they dont tend to vote for them, particularly in presidential elections featuring an incumbent nominee. For example, while in 2016 third-party candidates (Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, and independent candidate Evan McMullin) received roughly 7 million votes, Johnson won just 1.2 million votes in 2012. Ralph Nader won 2.8 million votes in 2000 and received just over 465,000 votes in 2004.

As FiveThirtyEights Geoffrey Skelley detailed in 2019, while many voters identify as independents and thus might be more amenable to a third-party candidate, their voting patterns indicate otherwise:

For example, if we include independent leaners with the party they preferred, 92 percent of Democrats and Republicans backed their respective party nominees in the 2016 presidential election. And despite the 2016 election featuring the two most unpopular major-party nominees in modern times, only 6 percent of voters decided to cast ballots for third-party candidates. In fact, the last time third-party candidates accounted for more than 10 percent of the vote was more than 20 years ago, in the 1996 election.

I spoke with David Byler, a data analyst and political columnist at the Washington Post, who told me these results are due, in part, to partisan affiliation and increasing political polarization. All of that stuff has downstream effects on third-party candidates. Its just hard for them to get a lot of votes, he said. And in most scenarios, even in 2016 when we had two historically really disliked candidates, the third-party candidates, Johnson and Stein, didnt crack double digits.

Byler added that the voters who look to third parties are generally not interested in either Democrats or Republicans, contra concerns from some liberals and anti-Trump conservatives who think Amash could play spoiler. Some [third-party voters] are Republicans or Democrats who are protesting against the major-party candidates or feel like they cant vote for their partys candidate. But some of them are just libertarians, and are people whose true first preference are these third-party candidates and arent really as up for grabs as I think people might think.

And even that portion of third-party voters who are protesting the two main parties will probably shrink this year, according to Miles Coleman, associate editor of Sabatos Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. In 2020, Democrats are less disposed to a protest vote if it means Trump staying in office. Coleman told me, If Im a Democratic voter and Im not too enthused about Joe Biden, well, its more important that we beat Trump.

I dont think that were going to see as much of a third-party influence in 2020, Coleman said. Because I think compared to 2016, both sides are going to probably be doing a better job of mobilizing their base.

Its worth noting another possible factor in Amashs decision-making though he told me he felt confident I could win reelection in his district, available data says otherwise. Yes, Amash stopped fundraising earlier this spring in advance of a possible presidential run, but he faced an uphill battle in any case, running as an independent in a state that permits straight-ticket voting against both Democratic and Republican candidates (particularly as a Trump critic).

Amash told me hes not worried about accusations that his run might keep Trump in office. People should vote for the person they want to win, he said. And if someone wants me to win, they should vote for me. And if someone wants someone else to win, they should vote for that other person. Its a pretty simple, frankly, and more choices is better for the American people.

Moreover, he fundamentally believes that Trump and Biden represent equally bad choices for American voters.

If people want to vote for me, they can vote for me. And if they dont want to, theyre welcome to vote for one of the other candidates, he said. I think theyd be making a mistake. And I think they probably know that theyd be making a mistake voting for one of the other candidates. And I think most Americans would believe that, but thats up to each person and theyre allowed to do whatever they want. Theyre individuals.

Correction, May 4: A previous version of this story misstated Gary Johnsons 2016 vote total.

Support Voxs explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Voxs work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

See the original post here:

Justin Amashs potential third-party presidential bid, explained - Vox.com

Armed mobs: the grim apotheosis of libertarianism – National Catholic Reporter

The scene was the most unnerving of any in my political adulthood at least since the assassinations of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Sen. Robert Kennedy, and this scene also involved guns: Dozens of protesters armed with automatic weapons stormed the state capitol in Lansing, Michigan, demanding an end to enforced social distancing requirements made necessary by the coronavirus. Unnerving, but not entirely surprising.

The protest had some of the symbolic trappings of the Tea Party movement, for example: the prominent display of both U.S. and Gadsden flags, the latter emblazoned with the group's motto, "Don't Tread on Me." This Revolutionary-era motto was a tad excessive then, but at least the marines who hoisted it really were fighting for the principle that free men should not be disenfranchised, as the colonists were.

The crowd in Lansing is surely free to vote for the political leaders they desire, to be taxed only by their freely chosen representatives, is not required to quarter troops from abroad in their homes, nor risk being sent to London if they commit a crime. The 6% sales tax Michiganders pay exempts groceries, so there is no tax on tea either.

The mood was dark, but not the skin color of the protesters: This was a mostly all-white affair, as these libertarian events usually are.

The racist roots of modern libertarianism were well documented in Nancy MacLean's book Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, which I reviewed in two parts, here and here. The godfather of the movement, James Buchanan, was unapologetically committed to states rights and proudly fond of John C. Calhoun. Watching the protest in Lansing, I could not but recall that George Wallace won the Michigan primary in 1972.

There were the self-contradictory signs invoking freedom when the absence of violence and the peaceful transfer of power have long been distinguishing marks of Western democracy. Only a deeply inadequate political theory would not see that the defense of the freedom of speech and promotion of self-government are essential to the protection of freedom and that bringing a gun to the legislature inhibits free speech and threatens the functioning of democracy. The only freedom these libertarians are committed to is their own and, while we can perhaps comfort ourselves that the protesters in Lansing were fringe extremists, the highbrow libertarians at the Cato Institute also operate from an impoverished, in their case excessively formal, definition of freedom. For them, the rich man and the homeless man are both free to forage in the dumpster for their dinner.

There was a sense of grievance driving the emotion of the mob, a sense that was palpable at Tea Party rallies in 2010, long before any virus infected the land. To be clear, America's working class has good reason to feel aggrieved, but it is the economic structures that flow from this same libertarian attitude that have left them as so much collateral damage in the laissez-faire, globalized economy. Unwilling or unable to identify the true culprit, they are happy to find scapegoats: immigrants, union bosses, "welfare queens." This sense of grievance has been nurtured by Republicans since Reagan's time, but it has been stoked into fever pitch by President Donald Trump.

True, the political left has been afflicted by socio-cultural memes concocted in academic laboratories, all of which tend to invite Democratic politicians to traffic in condescension. Remember "deplorables?" Only an activist political left, focused on economic justice, will bring any help to those cast aside by the Reaganite-Thatcherite economic landscape of the last 40 years. How grimly ironic that such political promise may be destroyed by the penchant on both left and right for culture wars rather than for political solutions.

Five years ago, Alan Wolfe warned us of the totalitarian core of libertarian ideology in a brilliant essay in Commonweal. He followed it up with an extraordinarily well-done conference on the topic at Boston College's Boisi Center, which he then led. The fact that libertarianism is at odds with Catholicism has long been obvious, which is why the courting of libertarian guru and funder Charles Koch by the Catholic of University of America was so repulsive. With my great friend Stephen Schneck, I helped organize a series of conferences on the wrongheadedness of libertarianism that began with a speech by Cardinal scar Rodrguez Maradiaga. This video starts with the cardinal being introduced by Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO. I hasten to point out that the defeat of libertarianism in our polity and culture will begin here, in an alliance of labor and the Catholic Church.

Those "Erroneous Autonomy" conferences started in 2014, which seems like a lifetime ago. Dark as the threat of libertarianism appeared then, none of us foresaw what we witnessed last week, armed protesters storming a citadel of democracy. The rest was predictable: the abuse of symbols, the racism, the self-contradictions, the totalitarian itch. But the threat of violence, expressed so openly and in such a raw fashion, this is new. Let the condemnations be swift and loud, before it is too late.

[Michael Sean Winters covers the nexus of religion and politics for NCR.]

Editor's note:Don't miss out on Michael Sean Winters' latest.Sign upand we'll let you know when he publishes newDistinctly Catholiccolumns.

Read the original:

Armed mobs: the grim apotheosis of libertarianism - National Catholic Reporter

Have a Good Trip Review: Netflix LSD Doc Is Way Too High on Its Own Supply – IndieWire

It can be a lot of (semi-sadistic) fun to watch someone have a bad trip, and it can be a lot of (shared) fun to listen to celebrities reminisce about the bad trips theyve survived in the past, but its generally agonizing to sit down and do either of those things for more than an hour. That sad fact of life proves to be an insurmountable problem for Donick Carys Have a Good Trip: Adventures in Psychedelics, an exasperating Netflix documentary so high on its own supply that it starts to see things that arent there namely, the entertainment value in watching a bunch of famous people tell interchangeable stories about seeing the carpets move or whatever.

Want to hear Sting tell you about the time he ate some dried peyote, got higher than the notes in the chorus of Roxanne, and then watched Halleys Comet from the top of a mountain while someone smeared deers blood over his face? Of course you do. Want A$AP Rocky to regale you with a story about when he had sex on mushrooms and ejaculated the entire spectrum of light (I have no idea why there was a rainbow coming out of my dick;I dont even like rainbows). Youre only human.

But in much the same way as your ego might dissolve into the universe after dropping some good acid, all of these personal accounts soon blend together into a generic swirl of shared memories, and the films efforts to offset that problem only end up making it worse. Like most bad trips, Carys documentary is ultimately harmless. And like most bad trips, you realize somethings gone wrong after just a few minutes, and then start to freak out that its never going to end.

Positioning itself as a tongue-in-cheek rebuke to the kind of fear-mongering PSAs that helped make psychedelics taboo in the American unconscious, Have a Good Trip never tries to hide or mitigate its pro-LSD agenda. While the vast majority of the movie is devoted to celebrities bumping their heads on the doors of perception, and the whole thing would fall apart if Carys subjects were just a bit less famous, the film is ostensibly meant to promote the mind-expanding possibilities of psilocybin and its friends to further the idea that out-of-body experiences can enhance self-understanding, clarify our relationship with the planet, and even help treat anxiety disorders and drug addictions.

Kicking things off with a half-assed framing device that tries to split the difference between the films various modes, Have a Good Trip introduces Nick Offerman as the kind of lab-coated scientist who might show up at the start of an after-school special and tell his teenage audience that a single dose of LSD will leave them permanently insane. Dont get me wrong, drugs can be dangerous, he tells us. But they can also be hilarious. With the doc so quick to show its true colors, occasional asides from the likes of Deepak Chopra or UCLA psychiatry professor Dr. Charles Grob amount to little more than cheap stabs at legitimacy.

Have a Good Trip is less successful as an educational film than it is as a re-educational film; viewers wont really learn anything about the effects of psychedelics on the mind and body, but anyone without first-hand experience might gradually unlearn some of what theyve been taught. The individual stories dont add up to much, but the fact that all of these fame-os were able to get back on their feet after some pretty bad trips, well, there might be a lesson in that.

And Cary does what he can to bring those lessons to life, even if it can seem as if hes yet to glean any wisdom from them, himself. Case in point: After a handful of talking heads mock the way that movies have always depicted acid trips (e.g. fish-eye lenses, hyper-saturated colors, etc.), Cary chooses to illustrate his subjects recollections with the kind of wacky animation that feels as trite as anything else; it might be hard to compete with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but even Booksmart did it better.

Cary fares better when he relies on the talents of his cast if most of your interview subjects are comedians, you might as well use them. In one of the films amusing re-enactment sequences, Adam DeVine embodies a young Anthony Bourdain as the late chef waxes paranoid about the time he thought hed killed a pretty hitchhiker (Carrie Fisher also pops up, as the dead breathe new life into a documentary thats clearly been collecting dust for a while). Elsewhere, Paul Scheer and Rob Corddry play each other in their respective trips, while Nick Kroll true to Offermans promise hilariously recreates the time he got high at the beach and became one with the kelp.

The most extensive gag is a fake after school special hosted by Adam Scott, and starring Riki Lindhome, Haley Joel Osment, Ron Funches, and Maya Erskine as innocent high school students who get peer-pressured into doing enough drugs to kill an elephant. The parody is too stale to justify how often Cary returns to it, but it builds to a series of gags that are almost funny enough to make the long walk seem worthwhile.

By that point, however, most people will have already ditched this doc in favor of some other streaming fare; perhaps Never Have I Ever or Too Hot to Handle, two recent Netflix Originals that are respectively funnier and more hallucinatory than Have a Good Trip in every way. Theres plenty of room for a movie that tries to destigmatize psychedelics especially one that argues for personal experience, and has the presence of mind to maintain that these drugs arent for everyone but this slapdash effort seriously overestimates the value (entertainment or otherwise) in listening to famous people talk about staring at their hands.

It doesnt help that some of the anecdotes are almost too interesting: Rosie Perezs account of how LSD liberated her from a lifetime of Catholic guilt is so rich that you wish Cary had devoted an entire episode of a show to it, as opposed to squeezing it into an overstuffed 80-minute documentary that feels so long it melts time and space together without any drug enhancement whatsoever. Life is a trip, Chopra insists, and psychedelics might help to improve your ride. But theres nothing this forgettable documentary can give you that one tab of LSD wouldnt let you keep.

Have a Good Trip will be available to stream on Netflix starting Monday, May 11

Sign Up: Stay on top of the latest breaking film and TV news! Sign up for our Email Newsletters here.

Originally posted here:

Have a Good Trip Review: Netflix LSD Doc Is Way Too High on Its Own Supply - IndieWire

Netflix And Trip: Take A Psychedelic Adventure In This Star-Studded Documentary – Forbes

I dont think psychedelics are the answers to the worlds problems, Sting shares in the trailer for the new Netflix documentary Have a Good Trip: Adventures in Psychedelics. But they could be a start.

The film, out on May 11, dives into the history of psychedelics and celebrates their cultural impact while pondering hallucinogens powerful role in treating mental health. A star-studded cast of actors, comedians and musicians includes Ad-Rock, Anthony Bourdain, Bill Kruetzmann, Natasha Lyonne and Sarah Silverman recounting their own personal experiences with acid, mushrooms, peyote and ayahuasca. Nick Offerman narrates, playing a mad scientist, while many of the celebrity trips are reenacted in comedic scripted scenes with trippy animation scattered throughout.

'Have a Good Trip: Adventures in Psychedelics' official film poster.

Made over the course of a decade by Emmy winner Donick Cary, whose credits include Late Night with David Letterman, The Simpsons and Parks and Recreation,the idea for his debut documentary was conceived in his hometown of Nantucket Island following a conversation with Ben Stiller and Fisher Stevens at the 2009 Nantucket Film Festival. Slated to premiere at SXSW in March, Netflix Originals has brought it straight to streaming following the film festivals coronavirus cancellation.

Ahead of the films release, I went behind the scenes with Cary via email to talk about how he got so many celebrities to open up, advocating for psychedelics and why hes hopeful well all be able to hug again soon.

Katie Shapiro: Why tackle the subject of tripping? And why now?

Donick Cary: A serendipitous encounter on Nantucket Island at the Nantucket Film Festival 11 years ago with Ben Stiller and Fisher Stevens.We were all sharing stories about hallucinogensfunny, crazy, scary, enlighteningand I thought hey itd be cool if a whole bunch of people told these kind of stories and then we could bring them to life with animation and re-enactments.Seemed like a fun version of a movie kind of like a long extended dinner party where everyone shares what their brain revealed to them when they took hallucinogens.Unlike Drunk History which is drunk people trying to tell storieswe ended up with very sober people reflecting on what they learned sharing the good and bad, the mistakes and revelations.

Shapiro: Any personal experience?

Cary: A few.

'Have a Good Trip: Adventures in Psychedelics' writer and director Donick Cary.

Shapiro: How did you cast the celebrities featured in the film?

Cary: We asked EVERYONE we could get a request to and then anyone who said yes roughly 1 in 10! we went and interviewed.We actually talked to TWICE as many people as are in the film and hope to do a part two. We had too many great stories to fit in one movie.We still have amazing stories and revelations from David Crosby and Patton Oswalt, Whitney Cummings and Ozzy Osbourne to Bootsy Collins, Devo and the Jackass guys. And X, Ed Ruscha and members of the Doorsand on and on.Even some of the interviews in the movie had to be cut down that would be fun to share more of Jim James, Tom Lennon, Ben Garrant and Natasha Lyonne were just getting started in Part One!

Shapiro: What was the creative inspiration for the scripted scenes?

Cary: The LSD Afterschool Special was inspired by growing up in the 80s and the general mainstream take on drugs at the time: Just say noand then lets not talk about it ever again. Meanwhile, people were clearly doing drugs and experimenting, so there was a real disconnect between getting real factual information and how everything was portrayed in Reagans America.You could go to a [Grateful] Dead show OR even a Dead Kennedys show and there was a psychedelic scene happening.SO lumping psychedelics into the drug war and just say no campaigns made it something you couldnt have a rational conversation about.And this idea that we can just scare people into NEVER experimenting just wasnt reality.I have kidsI want them to have content that explores the reality of this stuff and be informed to make responsible decisions.Thats a component of this movie I hope...a response to scare films.This film is REAL stories and REAL things to consider and watch out for.Its not for everyone!You do you. ANYWAY, I thought itd be fun to make fun of that dated pop culture portrayal from the 80s and 90s.Also the brain on drugs spotsI had to make one of those.It feels like a crime to be a comedy writer for so long and never do a take on the frying pan eggs spots this is your brain on drugs!

Shapiro: What was your creative inspiration for the animated scenes?

Cary: I spent a few seasons on The Simpsons and wrote a couple of trippy episodes Dohin in the Wind and the Mr. Sparkle episode and had SOOO much fun making psychedelic animation. Animation is a wonderful way to transport the viewer in a documentary to different eras and different head spaces.My studio, Sugarshack Animation, did the bulk of the animated reenactments in our offices in Bulgaria.I very much wanted each storytellers reenactment to have a different look and feel be its own short film so the challenge for Sugarshack was to come up with not just one animation style but 20! Each were inspired by the tone and style of the interviewee and the setting of their story.

Shapiro: How did you tackle production over the course of so many years?

Cary: Oh boy.Well as I said...11 years! This was never a full-time job for anybody involved, so it took its time falling into place.So many great people contributed over the years mostly people with one name like DPs [cinematographers] Stash and Skyler.But also people with two names like line producers Jim Ziegler and Jeremy Reitz.The first piece of the puzzle was that we had to get celebrities so we were kind of at the mercy of their schedules.Wed get a random email from our bookers (Central Talent Booking) that Sting can do next February 14th at 10 a.m. in NYC...Carrie Fisher is available in two weeks at her house...Ozzy Osbourne is available RIGHT NOW if you can get there. Haha! SO that piece of it was pretty random and took a while.We had a lot of wonderful help and support at the beginning from Ben Stillers company Red Hour (Stuart Cornfeld and team) and Fisher Stevens company who has produced everything from The Cove to The Tiger King they both really helped me chart the course to get this made.Ultimately, my producing partner Mike Rosenstein (Sunset Rose Pictures) and my own company Sugarshack 2000 ended up financing and producing this for Netflix thanks Zana and team!But as far as timelineughI was adding up all the TV shows I did over the same time periodtwo seasons of New Girl, two seasons of Parks and Recreation, three seasons of A.P. Bio, Silicon Valleyetc. I was thinking Wow, what a long, strange and then I thought I cant quote the Grateful Dead in thisits too obvious!

Nick Offerman plays a mad scientist narrator in 'Have a Good Trip: Adventures in Psychedelics.'

Shapiro: You were slated to have your world premiere at SXSW. Howd you take the cancellation news?

Cary: We cried and hugged.And then stopped hugging becauseyou know pandemic.We were so excited to premiere at SXit felt like the exact mix of music, comedy and conversation that this movie is. We were going to have a big screening and partya happening, a crazy sceneYo La Tengo (who did the incredible soundtrack with music supervisor Kim Huffman Cary) playing live! Reggie Watts and more were going to join in for convo and comedy with DJ sets and mind-blowing, crazy fun. SO anyway.First tears.BUT we get itpandemic and all.Basically we just pivoted to getting excited about sharing it with the world on Netflix. We hope it not only brings some laughs to a world that can use them, but also adds something to the bigger conversation about mental health and interconnectedness.There are so many good conversations that need to be had!

Shapiro: Any plans for future film festivities once stay-at-home restrictions lift?

Cary: Wed love to take this coast-to-coast and beyond...bring along some live comedy, music and experts in the field to do panel conversations, answer questionsdance?Hug again?

Shapiro: What is your hope for the film to contribute to the current conversation surrounding the legalization of psychedelics?

Cary: I would say personally I am not an advocate for hallucinogens for everyoneI am an advocate for rational conversation and rational use for those who are interested and might benefit (with supervision and support, ideally from a licensed source).Its an incredibly powerful tool and should be explored as a medicine in the treatments of things where we dont have all the answers: depression, addiction, end of life anxiety or trauma. The human race is up against a lot right now and we can use all the help we can get.Why not be open to solutions wherever they might come from?You can buy alcohol everywhere and it destroys so many lives. And in most places currently, you can barely have a rational conversation about even the pros and cons of psychedelics. Lets talk! Why not!?

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. Non-traditional capitalization and informal punctuation are Cary's.

Download the coloring book pageversion of the official film poster here.

Original post:

Netflix And Trip: Take A Psychedelic Adventure In This Star-Studded Documentary - Forbes

Celebrities share LSD trips in Netflix documentary ‘Have A Good Trip’ – Insider – INSIDER

When rapper A$AP Rocky did acid, a rainbow shot out of his penis. When Sting did, the grass started talking to him. And for Rosie Perez, her psychedelic trip made it feel like her body became one with her mattress.

Their stories are all part of Netflix's upcoming documentary, "Have a Good Trip: Adventures in Psychedelics."

In the documentary, which premieres May 11, celebrities recount what it was like to take mind-altering drugs like LSD and "magic" mushrooms and actors reenact the wild moments. Viewers can expect stories from Ben Stiller, Natasha Lyonne, Sarah Silverman, and others. Actors will also perform drug trips described by late stars Anthony Bourdain and Carrie Fisher.

The kooky vignettes are given a serious edge by researchers who explain the science of psychedelics and their potential to treat anxiety, depression, and addiction.

Indeed, existing research on LSD and psilocybin, the psychoactive compound in psychedelic mushrooms, suggests that the drugs could open dormant neural pathways in people's brains to help them have spiritual experiences and even find relief from mental health disorders.

Magic mushrooms have been on the psychedelic scene for decades, but they're currently gaining traction in the medical community as a potential treatment for depression, anxiety, and PTSD.

But only a handful of studies on the substance exist because of the its current status as a Schedule I drug (one withno currently accepted medical use, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration).

A small study, published in November 2016 in theJournal of Psychopharmacology, looked at29 cancer patients who reported feeling depressed or anxiousdue to their cancer diagnosis. For seven weeks, each patient went through psychotherapy sessions and received either a single 0.3 mg dose of psilocybin or niacin (vitamin B) afterward. Researchers noticed that the patients who received psilocybin had an immediate reduction in anxiety and depression, which held at the six-and-a-half-month follow-up.

An actor reenacts Carrie Fisher's psychedelic trip in "Have a Good Trip." Netflix

In another small study, published in 2006 in the Journal of Psychopharmacology,researchers gave 36 medically and psychiatrically healthy participants 30 mg of psilocybin, with dose adjustments made depending on patients' weight. The psilocybin was distributed during two or three separate sessions, and at a two-month follow-up, 50% of the participants said their psilocybin experience improved their personal well being or life satisfaction moderately. 29% said it improved their life satisfaction "very much."

One potential reason psilocybin has this effect, as Business Insider previously reported, is its ability tochange the way information moves through the brain.

Author Erin Brodwin compared the brain to a series of highways. Normally, traffic tends to buildup on some highways more than others. But when a person uses psilocybin, the brain reroutes some of the traffic onto the underused highways, freeing up space on the overused ones.

For a person with depression, overused highways can lead to more negative thoughts, self-criticisms, and overwhelming feelings, so psilocybin has the potential to help decrease those effects.

See original here:

Celebrities share LSD trips in Netflix documentary 'Have A Good Trip' - Insider - INSIDER

Entheon Biomedical CEO Timothy Ko On The Potential Of Psychedelics In Addiction Treatment – Benzinga

Among the biggest challenges faced bythe psychedelics industry is the stigma that surrounds it.

"The anti-drug marketing of the past decades was highly effective, and so now when psychedelics are mentioned, visions of tie-dye come to mind," Timothy Ko told Benzinga.

The times are changing.

An uptickin "rigorous" academic studies is underway where drugs that werepreviously viewed as dangerousare now being considered by the Food and Drug Administrationas potential treatments for addiction.

Ko is one entrepreneur working in this space. As CEO of Entheon Biomedical, he overseesthe development of psychedelic medicines to help those dealing with substance use disorder. And he's not doing it alone.

What makes Entheon Biomedical different from other companies in the space is the expertise of those involved, Ko said.

We sought the advice of the leaders in the psychedelic space who are familiar not only with the pharmacological aspects of the science, but also the patient experience."

Another differentiator is that British Columbia-based Entheonfocuseson DMT, a hallucinogenic tryptamine drug and the main active ingredient in the plant medicine Ayahuasca.

Psilocybin and DMT are both tryptamines and work on many of the same receptors in the human body, as they are molecularly very similar," Ko explained. "Much of the visual and emotional components of the experiences are similar, and it is possible to create psilocybin-like experiences with the appropriate dosing of DMT."

DMT is widely found in many plant and animal species, and even in the human brain. This makes it a safer drug, Ko said.

The molecule is very well tolerated and metabolized in humans, he said.DMT is well-known to be short-actingand intense, but if properly harnessed and administered, the experience can be elongatedand smoothed out to be less jarring, and result in a therapeutically useful experience.

People typicallyassociate the word addiction with substance abuse. In reality, the problem is much more complex, as there are many types of addictions.

Aside from substance abuse, a person can be addicted to certain behaviors, like gambling.

I define addiction as any behavior that has negative consequences that one is compelled to persist in and relapse into and crave despite those negative consequences, saidaddiction expert Dr. Gabor Mat.

With this broader definition, it is easier to understand why addiction is such a massive problem across the globe.

Still, the statistics are more focused on those with substance abuse. TheWorld Health Organization estimatesthatthere are around 31 million people who currently struggle with these issues, and around 11 million people who inject drugs. On top of that, it is projected there are 3.3 million deaths a year from alcohol abuse.

Ko'sown personal experiences inspired him to explore addiction treatments.

Psychedelics, he sais, saved his life.

Ko said his brother struggled with substance use disorder and mental illness over the course of two decades.

Personally, psychedelics, and more specifically DMT, were instrumental in helping me to reconcile my life, and come to terms with the multitude of traumas, strained relationshipsand maladaptive beliefs and behaviors that a person amasses over a lifetime, Ko told Benzinga.

Other therapies didn't work, and Ko said he found himself on the brink of a spiritual, mental and emotional collapse.

When he was finally connected with DMT, Ko said ithelped him change not only his self-perception, but his perspective about his relationships and the world.

I was a changed man, and thus proceeded with the best years of my life.

Unfortunately, his brother didnt share the same fate, as he died in March 2019.Every conventional therapeutic intervention failed, Ko said.

Following my brothers passing and knowing the transformative potential of psychedelics, I set out to assemble a team that would include those already leading psychedelic research and consult with them to develop a product to help people like my brother."

Psilocybin researchhasalready shown promise in the treatment of addiction, he said.

Psilocybin and DMT affect the same neurotransmitters," Ko said. "DMT, when properly dosed, can recreate the effects of psilocybin.

The public perception of psychedelics runs the gamutfrom oblivious, to skeptical, to overly excited, Ko said. As a result, it is often challenging to makesure that the narrativeis presented to the general population in a way that doesn't discouragelegitimate science, businessesand benefits, the CEO said

"With investors becoming more discerning to hype, and implausible stories, I think that we will see a paring down of players in the space."

An increase in FDA research willhelp move the market in the right direction, he said.

The realities are changing as drugs like ketamine and MDMA, previously thought to be of no therapeutic benefit, are now being reclassified as potential cures to diseases, he said."As these findings prove usefulness and safety, the argument of good is backed by empiricism."

Photo courtesy of Entheon Biomedical.

2020 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

View post:

Entheon Biomedical CEO Timothy Ko On The Potential Of Psychedelics In Addiction Treatment - Benzinga

Netflix Reveals Celebrities’ Wildest Drug Trips, From Anthony Bourdain to Carrie Fisher – The Daily Beast

For everyone forced by the COVID-19 pandemic into quarantineeither by themselves or with a select few loved onesNetflix has become a vital means of (temporary) escape from reality. As if to enhance that role, the streaming service has now become a de facto advocate of traveling not outdoors but inward, via two offerings that directly target the psychedelic crowd: first, Pendleton Ward and Duncan Trussells trippy animated affair The Midnight Gospel, and now Have a Good Trip: Adventures in Psychedelics, a documentary that investigates the varied experiences celebrities have had on acid, mushrooms and other hallucinogensand the potentially therapeutic role they might one day play.

That latter angle comes courtesy of Dr. Charles Grob, a professor of psychiatry at UCLA who believes that there are many conceivable benefits to using psychedelics to treat individuals suffering from depression, anxiety, PTSD and other similar ailments. The fact that the FDA has recently approved studies along those lines suggests that Grob isnt simply a counterculture outlier. Nonetheless, Have a Good Trip is at its dullest when attempting to make an actual argument for the societal benefits of mind-altering substances; no matter how promising their medicinal qualities may or may not be, the primary value of these drugs is the hysterically whacked-out stories that result from their consumption.

And thankfully, writer/director Donick Carys film has those in spades.

Premiering on Netflix on May 11, Have a Good Trip revolves around a series of interviews with well-known stars whove all tuned in and dropped out at one point in their lives, be it Ben Stiller, Natasha Lyonne, Sarah Silverman, Beastie Boys Adam Horovitz, Marc Maron, Paul Scheer, Rob Corddry, David Cross or My Morning Jackets Jim James. For some, like A$AP Rocky, who saw A rainbow shot out of my dick during sex on acid, the experience was euphoric and enlightening. For others, it was less sofor example, Rosie Perez, who was surreptitiously dosed at a crowded dance club and wound up losing her shirt while backstroking along a cascading wooden floor, and then merging with her bedroom mattress.

The traumatic and the riotous are often one and the same in these tales, as is generally true for those journeying through psychotropic realms. Thus, theres no better summation of this non-fiction inquirys outlook than that provided by Nick Offerman, whoappearing as an educational video-style laboratory scientiststates, Dont get me wrong, drugs can be dangerous. But they can also be hilarious.

Director Cary dramatizes his speakers anecdotes with Drunk History-esque recreations starring other notable comedians, and his films funniest accounts come from its two now-deceased participants: Anthony Bourdain and Carrie Fisher. The former recounts a Hunter S. Thompson-inspired road trip with a friend in which they picked up two beautiful hitchhikers, partied like crazy in a motel room, and then freaked out when one of the two women suddenly ODd before their very eyesonly to magically awaken a few moments later, behaving as if nothing had happened. For Fisher, meanwhile, an afternoon at the beach during her Star Wars heyday turned sour when, while tripping, she was photographed by a group of Japanese touristsall of whom got snapshots of Princess Leia zonked out of her mind and, like Perez, topless.

Have a Good Trips goofy formal flourishes dont end with those reenactments, all of which are prefaced by swirly-colored title cards. Shouting out to the 1980s, a corny LSD Afterschool Special hosted by Adam Scott imagines a Bad Trip by a bunch of high-schoolers (including Haley Joel Osment and Maya Erskine), while The More You Trip segments educate viewers on the dos and donts of tripping. Those lessons involve the need to control your set and setting, and to avoid driving and looking into mirrorsadvice that goes hand-in-hand with other handy tips about how best to handle a hallucinatory reverie, such as making sure you dont do so when in a negative frame of mind, since acid, mushrooms and the like enhance unhealthy thoughts and emotions to possibly unnerving degrees.

Further embellishments include animation for sequences like Stings recollection of a deer blood-soaked Mexican peyote trip, and stuffy archival videos from the United States Navy about the dangers of LSD. The film has a cartoonish everything-and-the-kitchen-sink aesthetic approach that keeps the proceedings lighthearted, save for when Dr. Grob or Deepak Chopra appear to provide some drugs-are-actually-useful blather. Have a Good Trip makes a far more convincing case for the acceptability of acid and mushrooms through its loony celebrity commentary, which underlines thatcontrary to common scare-tactic wisdomsuch drugs are less apt to make you jump out a second-floor window than simply lead you on a crazed adventure thats only as dangerous as you allow it to be.

It does demystify these drugs, casting them as consciousness-altering elements that are frequently great fun, occasionally big-time bummers, but always far from the insanity-inducing menace theyve been thought of by the public at large.

Consequently, Stings ruminations on how psychedelics help him forge connections with himself, his loved ones and the universe are ultimately far less impactful than absurdist bits such as Nick Kroll being covered in kelp by his friends and then running around a beach pretending to be a Kelp Monster. Have a Good Trip doesnt take its subject matter lightly, exactlyThe Grateful Deads Bill Kreutzmann wisely cautions against dosing others without their knowledge, and A$AP Rocky is upfront about the fact that he doesnt encourage everyone to give psychedelics a try, because some simply arent cut out for them. Yet through its raft of narratives, it does demystify these drugs, casting them as consciousness-altering elements that are frequently great fun, occasionally big-time bummers, but always far from the insanity-inducing menace theyve been thought of by the public at large.

Does this mean Have a Good Trip will encourage those who are on the fence to give acid or mushrooms a try? Possibly. But the real fun of Carys documentary is the vicarious thrill that comes from hearing how others fared, for good or ill, while tripping their balls off in less-than-ideal circumstances. Although watching it while under the influence will no doubt also be amusingif, that is, such hallucinating viewers can first manage to stop staring intensely at their hands.

Go here to read the rest:

Netflix Reveals Celebrities' Wildest Drug Trips, From Anthony Bourdain to Carrie Fisher - The Daily Beast

The ‘Billions’ Stock Watch: It’s Time For Psychedelics And Subterfuge – UPROXX

The Billions Stock Watch is a weekly accounting of the action on the Showtime drama. Decisions will be made based on speculation and occasional misinformation and mysterious whims that are never fully explained to the general public. Kind of like the real stock market.

Welcome back, you beautiful, duplicitous television program. Only one episode into the season and weve already moved from double-crosses to triple crosses. And Chuck Rhoades is marching into a dimly lit bar, flopping into a booth, and just straight-up saying Its a triple cross before he even says hello. Im so happy I might explode.

Lets backtrack a little, though, just so were all on the same page. At the end of last season, Chuck and Axe worked together to trap Taylor in a murky situation that resulted in Taylors personal fund folding into Axes. But, unbeknownst to Axe, Taylor agreed to work with Chuck to ruin Axe from the inside, largely because Chuck was deeply jealous of and angry at Axe for being Wendys savior in her fight to save her medical license, and also because thats just what Chuck does. And unbeknownst to both Chuck and Axe, Taylor had a plan to play matador and let the two bulls charge wildly gore each other in the ring. It was a lot. Billions rules.

And now its even more, somehow. Taylor gave Chuck info about a Bitcoin farm Axe is helping to bankroll, Chuck busted the farm and pressed Taylor for even more info, Taylor spilled the beans to Axe, Axe attempted to play nice with Chuck by returning the first-edition Churchill works that Chuck sold last season, Chuck immediately saw through this and diagnosed the aforementioned triple cross, and here we are.

On another show, a lesser one, this could be enough plot for most of a season. On Billions, it took up about 25 minutes, total, leaving plenty of time for hallucinogenic hijinks and cameos by WWE superstars and a full-on wedding. Billions moves very fast, always, heaving people and debris out of its way as it speeds by, kind of like a runaway locomotive barreling through Mardi Gras. To be clear, this is the highest compliment I know how to give.

Also, to continue being clear, just once in my entire stupid life Id like to storm into a dimly lit bar, belly up to a table where my co-conspirator is waiting, and announce Its a triple cross. The rush you must feel as the words leave your lips my God. More powerful than any drug you can buy.

Well, hello there, Mike Prince, as portrayed by televisions Corey Stoll. Pleasure to meet you. I feel like Im going to like you. Im almost sure of it. Yes, theres the thing where youre like the flipside of the Axelrod coin, a conscientious investor who claims to be attempting to do good as hes doing well, a money man who is human first, someone who cares about the means and the ends. All of that.

But mostly I think Im going to like you because you seem like a worthy adversary who gets under Axes skin. We havent seen many of those lately, at least on the money side of the show. Its not that youre even a threat, really, except to Axes pride, as we saw when you snaked him at the Vanity Fair cover shoot for the new crew of Decas (people with a net worth of over $10 billion) (and seriously, read the room here, fictional Vanity Fair), which Axe claimed not to care about and then promptly began plotting to ruin you over. Also, I think youre probably full of hooey and I cant wait for that reveal in a few weeks.

If there are two things in this world that are very much not for me, they would be, one, the great outdoors, and two, vomiting my brains out, so ayahuasca is not something that has ever really intrigued me, alleged universal clarity be damned. But good for Axe and Wags, though. Kind of. It is a little funny that the whole office is tearing itself apart in the wake of a hastily constructed revenge merger and Axe and Wags just decided to hop on motorcycles to screw off and do psychedelics to celebrate Axes net worth hitting 10 figures, but whatever. Again, I am not intrigued by the allure of puke-inducing braindrugs and I have barely half as many figures to my name as Axe, so maybe I just dont get it.

Axe did not appear to be having fun, though. Wags was all Mother Earth and hooting owls and Axe was going on maniacal rants about kings and power, and Im pretty sure he was stalking around the fire on all fours like a prowling jungle cat, if anyone needed another Bobby Axelrod is an apex predator metaphor. Axe does not seem like a dude who is wired at all for a mind-enhancing superdrug. I think hed benefit more from, like, a weed brownie and some herbal tea. Man needs to wind down, is what Im saying.

All that said, big fan of the self-discovery beard. And the wild mane of hair. Axe looks like a straight-up Game of Thrones character here, like Damian Lewis is still annoyed that hes the one working British actor in the world who wasnt brought in for an audition on that show, like hes cosplaying as Biker Tormund to exorcise those demons. I love it. Or rather, I loved it, past tense. I was devastated to see him clean-shaven and tightened-up at that Vanity Fair shoot. I was hoping hed come back to the office holding a sword and the detached head of one of his many mortal enemies. Set the tone. Show everyone whos boss. Make Brian happy.

Thats what Im really getting at here. My enjoyment. Grow the beard back. Come on.

In addition to being on the receiving end of this absolutely crushing exchange, one that made me physically wince and realize how much I never want to get into a heated argument with a trained psychologist, this was Chucks week:

But at least he has those books, I guess.

This is where I should probably discuss the cameo by WWE superstar Becky Lynch, who is apparently friends with Wendy, in what is possibly the wildest cameo this show has seen since Axe greased the wheels of a deal by having Kevin Durant record a Bar Mitzvah greeting on a cell phone. Im not going to do that, though. Instead, Im going to highlight the fact that Bonnie responded to a very reasonable HR-related complaint by lifting both of her palms to her face and ripping off an extended fake fart that someone in the captions department had to got to? transcribe. Im so happy for everyone involved here.

Kate Sacker is the best. Shes the most competent and confident person in the room in most of the rooms shes in, she gets stuff done and takes zero of Chucks crap, and she has everything lined up for a nice springboard into Congress. From there, presumably the Senate and/or the Oval Office. Shes an impressive lady who I would never cross in a million years and when she stares at people it looks like she is trying to turn them into dust right there on the floor. One day shell probably succeed.

But this is not good. Were a single episode into this season and shes already at least two strikes into Billions Characters Headed For Personal And/Or Professional Ruin situation. The first was articulating her plans for the future, the thing about Congress. No one on Billions ever gets to see their dreams through. Every dreamer gets crushed and swept up and tossed into a trash can. Remember Rebecca Cantu and her short-lived plan to run a department store? Remember Lara Axelrods hangover recovery business? Remember Ice Juice? Saying your dreams out loud on Billions is like having two weeks until retirement in a buddy cop movie. Things are about to go sideways for you. Quickly.

Which brings us to strike two: Working with Chuck to go after Axe. If theres one thing weve learned for certain about Billions over its four-plus seasons, its that Axe and Chuck are two cockroaches who will still be left standing after the apocalypse which they probably caused while everyone else around them gets vaporized. Sacker is about to get Connertyd. I feel it coming and I hate it.

I loved everything about the scene where Axes diabolical henchmen Wags, Dollar Bill, and Victor gave him an update on the Bitcoin prosecution. I love that all three of them came to deliver a brief message any one of them could have easily delivered solo. I love that they came in strutting in a wide line like a teenage street gang from West Side Story. I love that Axe, who presumably knew they were coming, was waiting for them while sitting in a chair facing the opposite direction and staring out his penthouse window at the city skyline around him like a total supervillain.

I missed you so much, Billions. Never leave me again.

Here is the original post:

The 'Billions' Stock Watch: It's Time For Psychedelics And Subterfuge - UPROXX

Prohibition Partners Teams Up With Mazakali For Live Investor Event – Green Market Report

Prohibition Partners LIVE, in partnership with digital investment firm MAZAKALI, has launched ProCapital, an exclusive investment-focused two-day interactive forum showcasing investment opportunities across the international plant-based medicines (PBM) space that includes cannabis and psychedelics.

On June 22-23, investors, operators, and entrepreneurs will gather together on one digital platform to connect with innovative businesses operating in these rapidly developing markets. ProCapital offers operators the opportunity to attract capital and investors the ability to make real-time investments and obtain guidance from those at the cutting edge of the cannabis and psychedelics industries.

It is a turbulent time for the industry. Severe limitations are being placed on travel, mobility, and the natural operations of the cannabis supply chain. However, we continue to learn, educate, and innovate in a bid to deliver real value to delegates from every corner of the globe. With uncertainty brewing across the market, we are bringing together the global industry to help provide clarity, explained Stephen Murphy, Group Managing Director of Prohibition Partners after announcing the partnership.

The live event will be powered by MAZAKALIs Digital Capital Investment Platform, ProCapital will offer curated opportunities and broker/dealer supported investment flow within the plant-based medicine (PBM) space. Licensed Investment Advisors will provide investors with the education and tools needed to build and implement optimal investment portfolios across cannabis and psychedelics.

Against a backdrop of industry consolidation, physical distancing has also promoted exploratory travel across vast, virtual bridges of cooperation. ProCapital is born of the idea that synergistic partnerships accelerate efficiency gains, and that quality global education, networking, and investment will fuel this classic emerging market through its next growth stage. Sustainable value based on core fundamentals has replaced temporary euphoria-driven pricing, a return of rationale welcome to investors exploring what might prove to be the best performing asset class in the decade ahead, said Sumit Mehta, Founder, and CEO of MAZAKALI.

While there has been a lot of talk about tight capital, many companies have managed to raise money. Investors are still committed to the industry, but only for the most deserving of companies.

Apply to pitch at the summers most influential global cannabis and psychedelics event:

Attendees can expect to hear perspectives from leading investors, politicians, and cultural leaders. Delegates will have the opportunity to ask questions, schedule meetings, and make direct investments into curated and broker/dealer approved private companies through the MAZAKALI Digital Capital Portal.

Super early-bird tickets for Prohibition Partners LIVE areon sale now. To view the full agenda for ProCapital, as well as the other Prohibition Partners LIVE event streams,click here.

Post Views: 159

Read more from the original source:

Prohibition Partners Teams Up With Mazakali For Live Investor Event - Green Market Report

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe – National Review

Michael Flynn at the White House, February 1, 2017.(Carlos Barria/Reuters)Perjury trap was not score-settling. To investigate the president, it was a practical necessity to sideline his chosen national-security adviser.

Michael Flynn was not the objective. He was the obstacle.

Once you grasp that fundamental fact, it becomes easier to understand the latest disclosures the Justice Department made in the Flynn case on Thursday. They are the most important revelations to date about the FBIs TrumpRussia investigation, code-named Crossfire Hurricane.

The new disclosures, in conjunction with all we have learned in the last week, answer the all-important why question: Why was Flynn set up?

The answer to the what question has been clear for a long time: The FBI set a perjury trap for Flynn, hoping to lure him into misstatements that the bureau could portray as lies. In the frenzied political climate of the time, that would have been enough to get him removed from his new position as national security adviser (NSA), perhaps even to prosecute him. On that score, the new disclosures, startling as they are to read, just elucidate what was already obvious.

But why did they do it? That has been the baffling question. Oh, there have been plenty of indications that the Obama administration could not abide Flynn. The White House and the intelligence agencies had their reasons, mostly vindictive. But while that may explain their gleefulness over his fall from grace, it has never been a satisfying explanation for the extraordinary measures the FBI took to orchestrate that fall.

Concealing Information as It Relates to RussiaTo understand what happened here, you have to understand what the FBIs objective was, first formed in collaboration with Obama-administration officials. That includes President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Flynns predecessor, national-security adviser Susan Rice, with whom then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and then-FBI director James Comey met at the White House on January 5, 2017 smack in the middle of the chain-of-events that led to Flynns ouster. Recall Rices CYA memo about the meeting: President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there isany reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia (emphasis added). Rice wrote those words on January 20, at the very time the FBI was making its plan to push Flynn out.

The objective of the Obama administration and its FBI hierarchy was to continue the TrumpRussia investigation, even after President Trump took office, and even though President Trump was the quarry. The investigation would hamstring Trumps capacity to govern and reverse Obama policies. Continuing it would allow the FBI to keep digging until it finally came up with a crime or impeachable offense that they were then confident they would find. Remember, even then, the bureau was telling the FISA court that Trumps campaign was suspected of collaborating in Russias election interference. FBI brass had also pushed for the intelligence community to include the Steele dossier the bogus compendium of TrumpRussia collusion allegations in its report assessing Russias meddling in the campaign.

But how could the FBI sustain an investigation targeting the president when the president would have the power to shut the investigation down?

The only way the bureau could pull that off would be to conceal from the president the fullness of the Russia investigation in particular, the fact that Trump was the target.

That is why Flynn had to go.

President Trump was a political phenomenon but a novice when it came to governance. He was not supported by the Republican foreign-policy and national-security clerisy, which he had gone out of his way to antagonize in the campaign. The staff he brought into the government consisted mainly of loyalists. There were some skilled advisers, too, but their experience was not in the national-security realm.

The exception was Flynn. The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency knew how the spy agencies worked. He knew where and how they kept secrets. He had enough scars from tangles with the intelligence bureaucracy that he knew how the game was played how intelligence officials exploited information, or selectively withheld it.

Someone as smooth as Director Comey might be able to dissuade President Trump from inquiring too deeply into the Russia investigation. Trump would be satisfied as long as Comey kept assuring him not to worry because the bureau was not investigating him personally even though it was. The unseasoned Trump staff would also be easy to brush back: Just tell them that the FBI was rigorously independent, and that if the White House poked around too much, Trump staffers would be accused of political meddling. The staff was green enough to be bullied into minding its own business even about the FBIs counterintelligence mission, in which the bureau is supposed to serve the White House, not the other way around.

But Flynn was different. After 33 years in the Army chain of command, the decorated former combat commander grasped that the FBI, like other executive-branch components, worked for the president. As NSA, Flynn would ensure that Trump ran the intelligence agencies, not be run by them. If Flynn wanted to know what was going on in intelligence investigations, hed be able to find out he wouldnt take Jim Comeys no for an answer. He was loyal to Trump, not to the intelligence establishment or the policy community. And he was White House staff, not a cabinet appointee i.e., he did not have to wait interminably on an iffy Senate confirmation; he would be on the job from the very first moments of the new administration, getting his arms around what the executive branch intelligence apparatus was up to.

Collusion Narrative and the Sanctions ControversyThe eleven pages of documents the Justice Department released on Thursday are a treasure trove for analysts whove followed the collusion caper. There will be time to discuss various aspects of them, particularly the matter of how disgraced former agent Peter Strzok managed to keep open the Flynn thread of the Russia investigation (Crossfire Razor) after the FBI had seemingly closed it on January 4 the day before Comeys Oval Office meeting with Obama & Co. For now, though, lets focus on that why question.

Upon the new presidents January 20 inauguration, Flynn was the matter of most immediate urgency to the FBI. That was not because the agents were trying to make a case on him. It was because he was already starting his new job as Trumps NSA.

It was also a frenzied time, with the media and Democrats pushing the collusion narrative, creating an uproar over whether Flynn had discussed anti-Russia sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak. Flynn publicly said the subject did not come up. Vice President Pence publicly backed him. But the FBI had had surveillance coverage on the Russian envoy. The bureau knew the issue of sanctions had been discussed. Though Flynn had said nothing inappropriate on the subject, its mere mention would become a huge political problem.

We do not know for sure what Flynns conversation was with Pence. Maybe he misinformed the vice-president. Maybe there was a garble (the difference between didnt come up and wasnt discussed inappropriately could easily be confused). Or maybe Pence decided it was politically expedient to back Flynns account, regardless of whether it was true. Whatever happened, such political matters would not be the business of the Justice Department and the FBI in most administrations. Can anyone imagine the Obama Justice Department and FBI getting alarmed that the president, National Security Adviser Rice, and Secretary of State Clinton were publicly saying things about the Benghazi attack that the FBI knew to be untrue?

This was the Trump administration, however, so Obama holdover officials, such as Acting AG Yates, would pose as aghast that Pence was publicly echoing Flynns misstatement. Even though they knew the misstatement was trivial . . . which explains why the FBI moved to close the Flynn investigation on January 4, after Flynns conversations with Kislyak they plainly knew Flynn was not a Kremlin mole.

More to the point, the newly revealed documents include emails between Strzok and other FBI officials from the weekend before the FBIs January 24 grilling of Flynn.

Most of the press attention has been about the planning for that grilling about how brazenly the bureau spoke of trying to get Flynn to lie, about the renegade scheme to orchestrate an interrogation of Flynn without informing the Trump White House, as protocol required. Thats significant, but it misses the bigger picture. The January 2122 emails show that the FBI did not start out with that perjury-trap plan. They ended up with the perjury-trap plan because there was no practical alternative if the bureau was to achieve its objective the withholding of information about Russia from the incoming Trump team, in order to keep the TrumpRussia investigation alive.

No AlternativeThe perjury trap was set for Flynn out of necessity. If the Justice Department had informed the White House about recordings of Flynn and Kislyak discussing sanctions, and the FBI then asked for permission to interview Flynn, the bureau knew permission was sure to be denied. Flynn would be untouchable, and free to discover the entirety of the Obama administrations extensive but secret effort to depict Trump and his minions as Russian operatives an effort the FBI was determined to keep pursuing.

If no way could be found to sideline Flynn (the way Attorney General Jeff Sessions would later be sidelined), then Flynn was going to find out about Crossfire Hurricane. He was going to be a hands-on NSA, so that was a given.

Strzok thus started out the weekend by proposing that Flynn be given a defensive briefing. This is when an official is advised that he and his cohorts are the targets of some espionage or criminal operation. Here, it would be the purported Russian infiltration of the Trump campaign and the new administration.

Understand: It is not that the FBI wanted to give Flynn this information; it is that there was no practical alternative. Under the circumstances, the FBI would have to tell Flynn directly. But that raised the question: Could it be done in a way that would scare him off, make him feel vulnerable, marginalize him?

On Saturday, Strzok started out by proposing to Bill Priestap, the bureaus counterintelligence chief, that Flynn be given a defensive briefing . . . about CROSS WIND and [redacted]. Cross Wind like Crossfire Razor and Crossfire Typhoon, another code name in the new documents appears to have been a subset of the overarching Crossfire Hurricane probe (the latter was depicted as an umbrella; underneath it were the Cross subsets such Trump campaign figures as Flynn, Carter Page, and George Papadopoulos).

Strzok conceded he was not certain that a defensive briefing was the right approach. Maybe, he suggested, such a briefing could be floated as a pretext; it would get them in the door, then theyd use the opportunity to interview Flynn i.e., to hint that he might be in legal jeopardy over his contacts with Kislyak, then pepper him with questions, hoping hed say something that compromised him. Or maybe they could just give Flynn a defensive briefing in the usual sense i.e., put him on notice, and see what he does with that. The idea would be: share a bit of information, then keep tabs on Flynn to see if he spilled the beans to the suspects. That can be an effective way of proving a conspiracy.

While the emails are heavily redacted, we can glean that the sanctions issue hung heavily. The Justice Department seemed to want to alert Vice President Pence that Flynn had misled him. Playing this out, Strzok speculated about what would happen if DOJ decided that VPOTUS or anyone else needed to be told about the [redacted] whats redacted, I suspect, is a reference to the recorded FlynnKislyak discussions. Strzok surmised that if the Trump White House were told, the bureau would lose any chance to interview Flynn. The agents might believe they needed to take an overt investigative step, such as a pretextual defensive briefing that enabled them to interrogate Flynn; but if the Trump White House had been alerted, it could specifically direct us not to. Trump would probably keep Flynn in place, and the bureau would be powerless to keep the NSA from digging into the Russia probe.

On Sunday morning, having heard Strzok out, an official whose identity is blacked out sent a heavily redacted email to Strzok and Lisa Page (FBI deputy director Andrew McCabes counsel, and Strzoks paramour). Because of Flynns NSA position, the unidentified official acknowledged, standard procedure would call for tell[ing] him about Wind and [redacted]. Yet, the official cautioned, Id be interested in letting that play out a bit before he tells them and the whole thing goes underground. Translation: Once we tell Flynn, then Flynn will tell his administration superiors, and that will derail the FBIs Trump-Russia investigation. Then, in what may be a reference to the recorded communications about sanctions between Flynn and Kislyak, the official conceded, if we usually tell the WH [White House], then I think we should do what we normally do. But the dilemma remained: Agents need[ed] to debrief or interview Razor [Flynn], but they could be told not to if the White House were given prior notice.

As the weekend wound down, FBI officials could not square the circle. Try as they might, they could not figure out a way to brief Flynn about any aspect of Crossfire Hurricane, or to alert the White House about the FlynnKislyak sanctions discussion. When game-planned, each proposal along those lines led to the virtual certainty that the bureau would be told not to question Flynn. He would keep his job, and be poised to inquire into the full extent of the TrumpRussia investigation.

Going RogueBy Monday, January 23, the FBIs top hierarchy had concluded that the only solution was to go rogue: They would approach Flynn without alerting anyone ahead of time, not even the Justice Department and certainly not the White House. It was the same reasoning theyd used in July 2016, when Comey gave his infamous press conference about the Hillary Clinton emails investigation, in violation of Justice Department guidelines: If you ask permission to do something that is against the rules, you might be told no; but if you just act audaciously, your superiors may not like it, but theyll have to accept it otherwise theyll look like theyre obstructing the FBI.

And since this was going to be their only shot at Flynn, they had to try to make it a kill shot. Theyd do a perjury trap. Flynn would be grilled about his conversations with Kislyak that had become such a media-driven controversy. But the bureau would not play the recordings for him. They would not refresh his recollection. They would not ask him to go line-by-line to help them understand the conversation. That is what they would do in a normal investigation, if they were really trying, say, to figure out what Russia was up to. The goal here was not to advance anyones understanding.

The goal was to get Flynn to lie. Not to lie so theyd have leverage to threaten a prosecution and thus pressure Flynn to reveal vital evidence hed been concealing. They wanted him to lie for the sake of lying so they could get rid of him.

To better the odds that he would agree to talk and make inaccurate statements that could be portrayed as willful falsehoods, the FBI would not tell him the purpose of the interview. Agents would not formally advise him of his rights, as they would in a normal case, even if they were dealing with a real criminal. They would just buzz him with questions about what exactly was said, in conversations that had occurred weeks before, at a time when Flynn was having hundreds of similar conversations. They would press him about what exact words had been uttered, even though they knew the exact words because they had recordings. They would try to put him in fear that they could prove the falsity of his public statements about not discussing sanctions. They would put him in fear that he could be prosecuted for violating the Logan Act (an absurd suggestion, but Flynn is not a lawyer and many commentators were discussing this moribund, constitutionally suspect provision as if it were a real crime). In the hotly partisan collusion climate of the time, they would make Flynn understand he could be framed as a sinister collaborator with Russia.

In sum, the FBI could create a scenario in which (a) Flynn might be subject to prosecution, (b) there could be grounds for terminating him, and (c) he would surely be seen as too conflicted about Russia to be made privy to details of the bureaus TrumpRussia investigation.

CheckmateThe text messages and notes disclosed in the last week show that not everyone was comfortable with this plan. Bill Priestap, the counterintelligence chief, expressed deep misgivings. The objective of the plan seemed unclear, even improper: Were they trying to advance an investigation in good faith, or just get [Flynn] to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired? Why were they not going to refresh Flynns recollection with the recording or a transcript, as the FBI would do with similarly situated interviewees? Why did the bureau think it needed to be so aggressive with Flynn?

Strzok and Page fretted in text messages on Monday, January 23, that Priestap was not getting the picture. His protests were irking McCabe. By Tuesday morning, a few hours before the January 24 interview, the deputy director was even more frustrated because Priestap had repeated his concerns to Director Comey. If Comey wavered, the plan could be scotched.

The director did not waver. The FBIs top officials met at headquarters. Comey approved the plan to have Strzok and agent Joe Pientka visit Flynn at his office no heads-up to others at the White House would be provided. McCabe was to call Flynn to arrange the meeting, assisted by Strzok in thinking through what to tell the NSA. The idea was to put Flynn at ease make him feel like it would just be a chat between veteran national-security guys, not a criminal investigation; discourage Flynn from getting a lawyer; disabuse him of any thought of involving the White House counsel or chief-of-staff. Just a quick meeting so they could put to rest all this Russia noise in the media. No big deal.

The rest is history.

Acting Attorney General Yates was not given notice that would have triggered an obligation to alert White House counsel Don McGahn. By the time she went to see White House counsel McGahn two days later, she was in a position to say not only that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak, putting Vice President Pence in an embarrassing position; she was able to add that Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI.

Not immediately perceiving the magnitude of a revelation that the FBI had just interrogated the presidents NSA, in the White House and without getting clearance, McGahn quipped, How did he do? Yates has testified that she explain[ed] to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that General Flynn engaged in was problematic in and of itself i.e., the specious Logan Act angle that Flynn had illegally consulted the Russians without notifying the Obama administration. She also fatuously claimed that Flynn could conceivably be subject to Russian blackmail as if the Russians did not assume the U.S. government had a recording of the FlynnKislyak conversation (something theyd have assumed even if it hadnt already been leaked to the Washington Post). Yates indicated that these problems with Flynns credibility and capacity to function as NSA had not been cleared up, despite the FBIs interview. As McGahn heard Yates out, he was already asking whether she thought Flynn should be fired.

NSA Flynns days were numbered. He was frozen out of anything to do with Russia. The collusion chatter went into overdrive. On February 9, the New York Times reported, based on leaks from the usual current and former American officials, that Flynn and Kislyak had indeed discussed sanctions. Four days later, the president reluctantly cashiered his chosen national-security adviser, one of few allies he had in a virulently Trump-hostile intelligence community.

With the obstacle out of the way, the objective was achieved: Flynn was gone, and the TrumpRussia investigation continued.

The rest is here:

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe - National Review

Posted in NSA