tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg March 15, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> good evening. i'm jeff floor filling in for charlie rose trade we begin by taking a look at the gop health care bill. a budget office released its assessment of the house republicans health care proposal, known as the american health care act. the report found the bill would reduce the federal deficit $337 billion over a decade but also would leave 24 million americans uninsured during that same period. this will likely complicate a party's efforts to repeal and replace the affordable care act traded joining me from -- 20
welcome to both of you. cbo report has had more than 24 hours to marinate in washington. how is it sitting? to be especially well, quite honest. there are a number of moderate republican lawmakers whose votes will be important for getting this bill passed your worried about the fact that cbo protects 24 million americans could be uninsured by the end of the decade. that is a concern for the republican leadership trade on the other side, there are hard-line republicans who are really concerned about the fact that although the bill does decrease the deficit by about $337 billion over 10 years, is probably not enough for them, and they would like to see greater reduction in government borrowing. house knew the uninsured number would be a
great number which is why they started pushing back over the weekend. manyt surprised that so people are likely to become uninsured if this bill is enacted. republicans have been saying for a long time that they want to reduce federal spending on health care and health care isn't free. more americans will have to pay more themselves or just go without. i do think that the cbo setting it down in black and white as made the issue more real for republicans. they are having to think about it in a way that perhaps they did not before. this is a challenging thing, taking on the cbo. this would seem to be a tough road to hoe. >> it's like arguing with the refs in a basketball game or you can make cases on the margins that they are doing things that you would not have done.
at the end of the day, they are the arbiters in washington have been a long time. republicans have had several strategies for how they will counter this. the white house trying to undermine the credibility. paul ryan talked about how this is not as bad of a score as they were expecting. they all boil down to -- the fact is they are reckoning not so much with particular analysis lostcbo, but reality of coverage, whether you think it will be 24 million or 20 million or however you want to place it in the white house might produce its own. they have to reckon with the real possibility here, the likelihood donald trump will not make good on his promise to ensure more people, not fewer, and that is the central problem. bo has always had a very tough time predicting what is going to happen in the future.
>> sure. as we all do. --, health care is actually health care is particularly tricky to model. the waywas wrong about individuals and marketplaces would react to the affordable care act after it was passed. cbo did a better job than pretty much anybody on getting on the ballpark in that. i don't think we should treat 24 .illion as a hard and fast we should consider that to be part of a range, a point in a range of possibilities, all of which look very bad for republicans as they try to push a bill they say is going to improve access, not restricted. host: is that push continues, pile ryan wants to do it wants tothe president do it quickly great right now it seems like it will not happen quickly. >> i don't think so. there have been requests from some in the senate, is ashley senator tom cotton, who have asked leadership in the house to
slow things down and try to take another crack at the baseball here to address some of the concerns that cbo has raised. jim's point is a good one, it's difficult to see how republicans will be able to revise the still to avoid the fact that millions of americans would become uninsured under the republican plan. part of what republicans are trying to do, which is inuce the role of government the health-care sector, one of the most important sectors of the economy. it seems very likely that more people will be uninsured. host: who wins, if a bill like this moves forward? >> there are a few big winners. the wealthy are the biggest winner. there's a lot of tax cuts for them in this bill. this is a bill that reduces taxes mostly on the rich by $600 billion over a decade and more
than funds that by reducing spending on the poor. payou are rich, you will lower taxes and you did not need government help buying health care anyway. the sneaky other winner in this are upper-middle-class americans, people who made too much money -- if you are an individual from $50,000 to $75,000 a year, you were not getting help from obamacare to buy health insurance, but you are going to get help from this bill.. while that help will decline over time in terms of how far it goes to help you buy health care, there is still something in there for a group that i don't think we thought would be a big winner in this plan. >> sean spicer today talked about this being one of three prongs. get it comes to trying to health care legislation through, repeal and replace. what are the other prongs we are talking about here? >> the two other prongs that
sean spicer is referring to are first, the possibility for regulatory action by the trump administration. not to change the law, but to change the way the current law is implemented and try to move the health care system anymore -- direction, that is what they are planning to do. the third prong is, republicans are saying that somehow they are going to come up with 60 votes in the senate and move a bipartisan bill that will address some of the more technical questions in health care legislation that do not directly relate to the budget or the deficit and thus are subject to a democratic filibuster. who i mentioned earlier, had a good response to this trait he pointed out that it seems unlikely republicans will be able to get the 60 votes they need in the senate to pursue that third prong without a filibuster. on the second prong, we will have to wait and see what the courts say, which is likely that democrats will seek to move back
against whatever the trump administration is doing through the judiciary. host: and whether it is tom cotton or rand paul, was the white house expecting this senate resistance? >> that's a good question. they should have been expecting it. certainly the intense of republicans in repealing the affordable care act, the kind of system they wanted, has been clear for a long time. republicans describe their plans in a white paper over the summer that speaker ryan at some of his colleagues put together. it has been clear the what republicans have hoped to do -- it has always been clear that some republicans would not like that plan and this is not necessarily a plan that would unite the party. perhaps republicans have spent a lot of time -- president trump and his allies spent a lot of time saying, this process of easy. would be to some degree they have started to believe their own rhetoric on
that point. it's never been true. host: can you talk about the dynamic between paul ryan who is trying to lead this, and try to convince folks in the senate to go along? both that relationship, and the continuing long and interesting relationship between the speaker and the president. >> the speaker of the house has not been a particularly attractive job in washington for quite a while now. you're seeing why. paul ryan is caught between several different political forces. on one hand you have the tom cotton's and ted cruz's of the world who are very concerned this will is not conservative , it's not doing enough to enact these market-based solutions that conservatives believe will help americans by health care for themselves. you have a whole bunch of senators in particular and some moderate republicans in the house who are worried about his big coverage losses that have
and whohlighted by cbo probably push for more ways to guard against that coverage loss which then makes the conservative members even more upset. then you have the president who promised a bunch of things that are not possible to deliver all a once, given the bill that he is starting with. guard against that coverage loss which then makes the donald trump's big plans that everybody will pay less for , andh care and be covered you have two very different ways of looking at that in the house and senate, and paul ryan stopped trying to make all of that into a bill they can pass, and be something republicans can defend and be proud of going into future elections. do we have a sense of how similar this bill is to what paul ryan was dreaming of a few years ago? bighere are some differences between this and what paul ryan is dreaming of. this is going through the reconciliation process to avoid a filibuster.
what republicans really would like with the party base and what paul ryan really believes in is an idea of really getting the government out of health care and creating more competition, allowing insurers to sell new products, and every american who wants to can afford health care to some degree, the idea of the market will solve the problem, this doesn't really do that anywhere near the extent paul ryan or other conservatives would like if they didn't have to run through the hoop to avoid a filibuster. aboutjim talks reconciliation and you wrote about the challenges that republicans have with reconciliation right now. >> that's right. in that respect, the cbo score that was published monday did an importantans reason to breathe a sigh of relief. if the cbo said the bill will increase the deficit, if this bill is going to force the government to borrow more money,
it seems the bill would have been subject to a democratic filibuster in the senate and the whole project would have been ended at that point. you said the cbo said this bill is likely to say the government some money, $30 billion a year or so. as a result of that, republicans can move ahead with their plan to avoid a filibuster but as we have been discussing, there are serious challenges. host: what happens next? markup, a big hearing in the house on wednesday where they will keep moving this thing forward in the house. let's stop and appreciate how fast this bill is moving for something that doesn't appear to have a town of grassroots lotort and does not have a of interest groups or big players in washington behind it. it has the leadership in congress, and it appears the force of the presidency.
eventually it will come to a floor vote and we will see the big challenges. can they keep enough of the freedom caucus to get it through their? -- there? and then what happens? these are high hurdles, but they start with keeping it moving as quickly as they can towards some legislative outcome. host: and one of the president possibly selling points was the dealmaking campaign. what is his role right now? touch behind the scenes? >> from what we understand, it is a light touch behind-the-scenes. when paul ryan went to wisconsin to announce that the last week, president trump did not go with him. people in the white -- it does seem as though
some people in the white house are wary of associating trump to closely with a bill that could very well fail ultimately. -- it does seem as though some people in the white house meeting of associating trumpw's with conservative lawmakers straight he's trying to get them on board with this project. so far at least we're not sure if that effort will be successful on trump's part. he will besure if able to deliver on being the dealmaker he said he was during the campaign. said now it's trump care. >> is right. today sean spicer said that trump did not want this bill to be called trump care, which raises the question of how seriously trump is supporting it publicly or behind-the-scenes. host: a few both very much. -- thank you both very much. >> thank you. ♪
host: continue this evening with a look at drone strikes. president trump has reportedly loosened restrictions for the changes give greater autonomy to the cia a pentagon to conduct counterterrorism operations. joining me is greg jaffe from "the washington post." gordon, let me start with you. what is new about this and why is the white house doing this? visited the cia the
first day after being inaugurated and got briefed. hen soon thereabouts provided informal authority to -- toa to return to these continue to conduct joint strikes, which they had heretofore not been doing under the obama administration, at least in his later years. what the authority was was to give the cia permission to conduct strikes in particular in syria. we have some evidence to suggest they have also done one in pakistan as well. then we saw in syria about four or 5, 3 weeks ago they targeted an al qaeda leader in northern syria. that was the first known example of the cia's taking this authority since they got it from mr. trump. there has long been this turf
war between the cia and pentagon over drone strikes. >> right. there's always been this bureaucratic squabbling over this issue. under pressure from human rights groups and others, obama had kind of settled on getting a hybrid solution where the cia and dod work together to mount a strike. it was basically the cia providing intelligence and analysis and at the last minute, allowing the dod to pull the trigger. but thus allowing that mission to be largely, publicly accountable and transparent. that was a place where mr. obama pushed to have that happen. this is the beginning of what could be a reversal of that policy under mr. trump, who clearly signaled he wants to
accelerate the fight against islamic state and other groups. chemical how easy or complicated is it going to be to change the drone rules? >> i think it's relatively easy. guidance that president obama sent down. thank you was hoping to set a standard that would tie the hands of his successor a little bit. but there's no legal mandate the president trump has to follow those rules. was the obama administration worried about that the trump administration may not be worried about? thing president obama was worried about is you have this incredibly powerful tool that allows you to launch strikes anywhere in the world at low cost to your personnel and low cost to taxpayers dollars. he wanted some set of rules that particularly outside of active combat areas that would set a strikes. for the if you're going to use american power to kill somebody, you want to make sure it's necessary. host: president obama was not
shy about using that power. >> no, he wasn't. he has used it very heavily early in his administration until around 2013, when he looks at it and thinks, the technology is really accelerated, his administration was using it quite heavily, and felt like we need to get some rules of the road. talk about technology acceleration at how much better the drone technology has he come and how quickly it advances and how easy it can be for the military to rely on this? he came home with an addictive tool for the obama administration. you can do this sort of antiseptic way. the technology has gotten better, the number of drones, though they are still under high demand by the military, or more plentiful.
the u.s. government has eyes in the sky. it is an effective way to conduct counterterrorism andations from the sky, without getting u.s. troops' feet wet in that sense. we see mr. trump money to accelerate the fight and thinking, this is an easy and good way to do it, so why not song the cia back into it you have essentially both agencies kind of working more closely on a site. host: can you talk about how these decisions are made? >> under the obama administration, decisions were kept at a very high level. to military folks, sometimes they express frustration at what they would perceive as micromanagement by the obama white house in terms
of determining whether a target should be vetted. in some cases, in the case of one target they had in libya, in 2015 it took eight months to get the decision to greenlight that particular operation. we seeing on the military side, mr. trump's interest in delegating a lot of that authority down anyway, and now we are seeing potentially camel 's nose in the tent with the cia. the two agencies have different vetting thresholds, and the cia's is higher. is not in terms of civilian casualties, but deciding a certain target is the actual target thereafter. cia's is higher than the military's, for different reasons. it's also just kind of driven by the culture of both places being
significantly different when it comes to doing this. what the military would tell you is, using their drones, the cia's use -- these are military drones they are using, they would take sometimes months to decide and conclude on a target and execute that target, whereas the defense department, which is designed to be more results-oriented or whatever, could maybe execute that target a lot sooner. there is a disparity in the thresholds that will come into play as they decide how this new authority expands or not. host: the cia would argue they are more effective at these strikes. the argument was they made, particularly in pakistan where they have been operating for some time could you get to know the area and the terrain and the people. in yemen for a while, the cia and military were taking drone strikes. there was a perception in the
white house and elsewhere that the cia had become better at it because they had been doing it for longer. the broader point that sean spicer addressed, isis, and the briefing at least yesterday, and a lot of this information is kept under wraps or hasn't been released because they say they don't want -- the administration is fighting to figure out what is going on here. beyond drone strikes, the overall strategy, what more do we know or have we learned from the first month plus in office for the new administration? >> so far we haven't seen major changes. it is what they called in the obama administration -- we not going to commit large numbers of u.s. troops to direct combat. we are going to work through
indigenous allies on the ground. that is largely what has been done in iraq and syria. you see a small change in that -- commanders are being allowed to take more risks in terms of pushing advisors further on the battlefield. a little bit more artillery support from the ground. just not major shifts. host: if we see more troops on the ground, where would it be? >> largely what a lot of the commanders will say is that they need more advisors. we know from afghanistan that they would like more advisors and that probably will be likely true in iraq and syria. there's more openness to exposing the military which are deployed at these places, more risk. you will have a higher number of special forces say going into syria, we're seeing other
numbers of conventional versus going in there. you can't overall -- this whole strategy will stay the way it really was under obama, but you can tweak it by adding more troops here and there and just turning it up a bit. trump is probably learning there's not a magic bullet to make these things happen. host: the notion of advisors, it's always been an interesting term, right? >> right. you can drive a truck through the definition of what an advisor does. advisors up to now were supposed to stay far away from actual combat, and we had this weird term of -- rain feature behind the front line. this has been blurred anyway, under mr. obama, and it was always hard because a lot of journalists can't get in and in
bed with these guys to see what they are actually doing. embed with these guys to see what they are actually doing. i think mr. trump would like to keep most of what the military does under wraps. i don't think we will have an embedded program. it's going to be hard to assessed what they are doing. host: thank you both very much. ♪
else. ♪ take a deep breath and choose life. host: i'm so happy to have danny boyle at this table. welcome. is a of times there pressure after such big hits like "trainspotting" to do the sequel right away. this did not happen right away. danny: we could do that again, paid actors money. everybody would be happy to do it again, yeah? i don't remember any of that pressure at the time. there was so much astonishment that it had worked, and not just
in britain, but globally it transferred. i think people were just frozen, their minds were frozen. it will never happen again. she took the original book, he published the sequel 7 years later which was the "10 years later" sequel. that to go at adapting see if that could be the sequel. host: tough subject matter. not a greatook is book like the original book, in my mind, and we did not do a great job adapting it great we knew people would be disappointed. rehash of what we had done originally. the original is thought of as being very original. it would be to besmirch it, follow it was something highly repetitive. we left it. it was only when the 20 years later, the 20 year anniversary
loomed on the horizon, that we sat down around the table like this in edinburgh. two producers. we talked about it or something aboutersonal emerged managing over time. they indulge themselves as much as was possible to imagine. in what, to be caught it means to move from that boyhood to that mahood, really - - manhood, really. the film is really a study of masculinity over that time period. host: what is happened to them over these 20 years is not necessarily wild success. danny: no, it isn't. they feel like they have been treading water, at best.
sick boy is in an ever decreasing circle of scams. he is forced back by this crisis, really. >host: mark took off with all te money at the end of the original movie. everyone is still upset with him over this. danny: he runs away. 20 years later, he is still running, but on a treadmill now. wall is hit very hard and he is forced to return to where he whos from, and two friends appeared to have been -- until he gets back. he comes out of jail and they meet to relive the past or to take revenge on it. host: they were role models that
can, for sure. do you want them to be role models now? danny: no. i don't think you can apply that phrase to them anyway. i think we look to them for almost an alternative view. these were voices from the margins that had such a distinctive point of view and such a sense of humor that we are attracted despite their circumstances, despite the things they were going through which none of us would wish on our enemies. today they feel they are washed up more. no longer possible for them to endlessly try to repeat the glories of the past as they see them. i don't think you can see them as role models. but they look like people that we recognize, probably from the more extreme sides of our experience or our friends, but you recognize them as people you probably had in your own circle
of friends. there is a violent one who will always be fighting. there's the chaotic one. i'm sure that's one of the reasons it appealed to people so much. it was unapologetic as well, he did not make any apology for what it was doing and saying and looking at and their behavior. it did not condone it or apologize for it. host: the more things change, the more they stay the same for those guys. danny: cliches are cliches because they are often true. this has name "t2," gotten a lot of attention. i'm curious about the genesis of this. theypeople think "t2," think of "terminator 2." you did not just want to call it "trainspotting"/ ? danny: yes, it did. we originally would not call it "trainspotting" at all. it was very important to nourish
the film on its own so we do not feel like it would be a sequel. of course it is a sequel. you're bringing back 4 actors to play the same 4 characters. but you wanted to develop its own identity and cherish and nourish that before giving in to the inevitable. admitted to the studio, we will call it, but we want to call it, not quite "trainspotting," you want to call it "t2." they said, they will balk for a james cameron dvd. we said no, if we of the characters themselves, what would you call the sequel if you are going to be in it? say, you should name it after that great sequel, "terminator 2." it is a tribute to james
cameron. that is one of the greatest sequels of all time. tered theer bet liquid robots. it was slightly annoying as well. host: you are trolling them a little bit. danny: in the nicest possible way. host: apparently it's a nickname -- danny: apparently it's a nickname, not a legally declared name for the film. the film is full of -- both films are kind of that -- full of that irreverence, as part of to behave in a disrespectful way to those who have gone before them, really. host: all the guys come back, or some had never left, they come back to edinburgh and are trying to figure out the next way to make money, to make a living, to do whatever way they can. ways, they haven't
been successful for 2 decades. danny: their nature is to scam, to con people out of money, either from individual's wallets and you see them stealing credit cards and pin numbers for people, or from the european union. and they get -- it can't be that easy, surely. host: you mentioned the european union, and this movie -- the film was being shot as brexit was playing out. now there's talk of another scottish referendum, this takes place in scotland. there are some themes of nationalism here. i'm wondering how topical ways,t you successful for 2 what it to be in how much you were thinking about that as you were making it. danny: some people choose to make films they want to be topical. i find that difficult because -- it's a serious risk, if you want
to be topical, if that's the reason for your film. people do read things into them. i was more concerned with how the characters behave. impossiblet would be . we shot while the brexit vote was happening. we all voted on the day that we filmed, one of the days we filmed. even more complicated lee, , unlike the united kingdom, voted to leave europe. scotland voted to stay in europe 62%. the thing he has led to yesterday, nicola sturgeon, the first minister of scotland, she triggered the next process you what by which there will be a second referendum about whether scotland remains in the united kingdom. a coupleked previously years ago and just decided to stay in the united kingdom.
now the question will be whether it's on the ballot paper or not, on the referendum paper or not, is do you wish to be part of europe still? the rest of the united kingdom is withdrawing from it. i'm english, and the scottish have never had really great fondness for the english anyway. if anything, i see an affinity with the french rather than the english. mary queen of scots used to keep her army in scotland ready to attack the english. there is history there. host: you are dealing with guys 20, 21, 22 years ago who were up-and-coming actors. a number of them have become directors some selves. they might have their own opinions on things. does that make things easier or more complicated for you? danny: is not so much the directing experience.
i think they were delighted not to have the responsibility for the directing and they could think about their character. what you benefit from is their experience as storytellers, the four of them. directors do maybe one film every two years. actors can tell 4 or 5 stories in a calendar year. you realize they know how to help you in a way -- it's automatic sometimes. i did notice it particularly in comparison to when we made the first one, when we were stumbling around not knowing what we were doing, and we kind of got away with it. we all know that experience of the seat of our pants and that kind of stuff. impatient because they have the performance ready and they want to give it and they don't want to be delayed by long meetings.
me and the crew, we had to really be on top marks to capture the performances from the. >> i'm curious how you push these guys now. they are comfortable in these roles. are you still trying to put them in places where they are not comfortable? danny: a little bit sometimes. they are very brave. the first film in this film, they are not like mumble core social realist performances. there are quite big and declared performances. they are always happy to have a look at the extremes of the way to perform the character. you can make suggestions like that. you mentioned that welsh wrote the sequel that came out a little less than 10 years after his original book. he also wrote a prequel to
"trainspotting. has there been any talk of doing that in any way? danny: he's very interesting. he visits these characters and other characters associated with them. ishas done a book which about their younger lives. there has been talk about a television series and the new television worldcom extended storytelling, 10 hours and maybe multiple is about their younger series. he has written an extraordinary book called "the blade artist, the most recent work he has published. and that is a wonderful book. not written like his other work, very compact. i know bobby carlyle would love to do that. not really a character spinoff like in the marvel universe. the trainspotting version of that. "bagby" is still the toughest one to watch. but don't people like him as
well? he's funny. you laugh, you have a good laugh. you never want to be caught alone with him in a bar. it's very tender at the end. host: he was. after being un-tender for a long time. they can be difficult to watch him, because -- they are all self-destructive in a way. he can be self-destructive and violent. danny: he's the most destructive of all of them. he's an interesting actor. he can access that in a terrifying way and yet is a sweetheart. he doesn't go home to his family when he is performing "bagby." he thinks he is still in his clothes, how he expresses it, there might be elements still around him that he's not aware of and he will brush against his
host: another example of "bagby" being willing to put himself in danger to hurt someone else. it did surprise me that you did this a little bit. aroundcause you jumped so successfully into different genres and never sort of been taken to one movie are one film, right? seems like you would almost -- like your wanderlust would want to carry you somewhere else and you would want to go back --
would not want to go back, necessarily? became the biggest challenge of altered once you broached the idea, could you return to it? and make something decent that would stand beside it? it wasn't like you are going to repeat something you knew you could do or were familiar with. studios often want to hire you because they think you can do a certain genre. it was, could we move it on. in 20 years, such an extraordinary time span. it's a perfect time span for that telescope of time, depending on which way you look on the telescope, it's either almost out of reach -- movies. this is one of the things i learned doing it. it was wonderful to do it. movies are about time. when we got in the editing, you
realize that movies are, and it's the ultimate art form, is the study of time. you compress time or you extend it or you make it vanish or you stop it or you start it again. it is this control of time, over time, over the audiences two hours of time that they give you. it's the perfect art form for it. they have an image of a favorite film, and for some people, "trainspotting" is an and affectionate feeling. they have lost those actors in time. i know the actors make of their films and they are aging over here but i have this image of them there. then you can go back to that image and just say no, they are not mythologized. you are just like us, the answer time like we all do. men especially deny it for so long and so often and so vigorously. we tried to keep our backs turned to it.
you realize ultimately, time doesn't care about you. you have to make your peace with it somehow. there was nothing that i wanted to do more than that -- more than that once we began working on it. host: you mentioned the studios and how they want to push you a certain way. you've always resisted that. i think you don't what the stories to go a certain way or you want them to go the way you think you can tell that story the best way. you made a couple hollywood movies, a couple american films. you'd rather keep the budget lower and keep the independence than take the bigger money and get told what to do. danny: yeah. films for a large amount of money. host: compared to the other "t2." danny: but he's a genius at
handling bigger budgets as well. i love watching the bigger budget movies, especially james cameron ones. obvious, if a studio gives you $50 million, they are going to be worried, but not as worried as the guy they are giving $200 million to. you inevitably think, there's a bit of cunning there. question of -- they are not the great evil one straight you want to work with them and you work with really good people in the studios as well. the financial concerns, if you ease them for as long as possible, it gives you freedom to express yourself in the way you want to do. it is provocations, and elements within this that are really tough choices that you make, which in a mainstream film cost $100 million, you probably would not be wise to include. host: probably not.
was the case in the first one, is thundering and prominent. this is just a movie, it's a soundtrack. when you're -- what kind of care, and this election goes into figuring out what makes it in? danny: it's everything. i'm a product of music. many of us are. the pulse war, music. by that i mean hot music, really, ispop music, a liquid architecture that runs throughout lives backward and forward traded has defined us and smeared us often by high culture as low culture, but actually for me it's all culture. his characters -- the first movie, this movie, the music is as important to them as the dialogue, the scenarios in the scenes.
the stands beside them is an equal character in the film, really? it sets off different emotions in people, which is one of the extraordinary things about it. we try to trigger a number of times, that muscle memory you have of the first movie. you hear chords you recognize from that first movie, and it has been reemerging. we did not just want to copy, repeat the music. they have been reimagined or remixed. they do trigger emotions in you which are in movie terms, it's wonderful to do that because that is not a conscious thing you're in control of with music. it's to do with your memories, to do with those tracks, or you complement or contradict a scene you are watching. had you had you frankie goes to hollywood, which is a great gay anthem, really. there's a character in it, bagby, who is taking a considerable amount of viagra by
the time that scene happens. you clearly see his blood loss is excited be the fighting rather than the way he would conventionally challenge, as you think. you can have tremendous fun with the choice of music as well, and trigger lovely connections with people. for him, pop-culture is our culture. we live through music. -- younger generation look how important it is for their lives and why girls, the importance of that music in their lives, it's huge, really. cherished as be true culture even if it is only 3 minutes long. host: a pleasure to see on screen and a pleasure to have you here, danny boyle. thanks so much. danny: cheers. ♪
♪ >> stocks are rising as janet yellen confirms the worst kept secret. the fed sees two more hikes this year. plunge, expectations happen for more action through the coming months. >> delivering the verdict on nationalism area -- and nationalism. mark rutte pushing for victory. >> trump's new travel ban is blocked.