Category: Viral

Four of the biggest stars in the NBA will collide on Friday night when the Lakers and Rockets tip off their second round series. It’s a battle between a championship favorite and the West’s perennial upset candidate. It’s a clash of the smallest team left in the NBA playoffs and one of the biggest. It’s LeBron James vs. James Harden, a battle we’ve never seen in the postseason.

Los Angeles hasn’t played in a week, biding their time in the Bubble, while Houston just gritted out a wild Game 7 win over Oklahoma City two nights ago. That also means the Lakers are the healthier team at the top, as James Harden continued to look tired at the end of the Rockets’ first round games and Russell Westbrook only recently returned from a quad injury.

Those are just the biggest bullet points. Here are some of the other factors that will decide this series.

The battle of the second stars

The last time these two teams played at full strength was just after the trade deadline in early February. That game was decided in large part by Russell Westbrook outplaying Anthony Davis. This was during Westbrook’s best stretch of the season, when he was a nightly presence on social media thanks to highlight-reel finishes against bigger defenders following Houston’s decision to go all-in on hyper smallball. Like a linebacker, Westbrook was able to put up 41 against the Lakers’ third-ranked defense by putting his shoulder into Davis time and again at the rim to provide balance to the Rockets’ half court offense.

On the other end, as the Rockets adjusted to their center-less lineup, they were aggressive sending double-teams at Davis in the post. The Lakers created an early lead because of Davis’ passing in those situations, but as has been increasingly the case in the Bubble, the Lakers’ role players stopped making their shots late as Westbrook and Harden closed the game.

Though Davis scored 32 of his own and was incredible defensively late in the game, the combination of Westbrook’s inside pressure, Harden’s perimeter play-making, and the team’s overall shooting was too much for the Lakers to deal with.

But that version of Westbrook seems far away right now. When he tried to take over late in Game 6, the results were miserable, including an air-ball and multiple turnovers. All in all, in two slugfest elimination games against the Thunder, Westbrook had nine turnovers compared to five assists and averaged just 19.5 points per game.

Yet Davis’ defense matters here, too. Much was made of Houston winning in February because of the overreaction to their trade for Robert Covington, but the game was pretty evenly matched. James missed a late three that tilted things in Houston’s favor. Davis was a monster on defense to close the game. The underestimated part of the Rockets playing small is that they usually force the opponent to do the same, and not many teams have a great option when that time comes. Oklahoma City refused to put Danilo Gallinari in at center even if it might have helped their defense, but the Lakers’ choice is much simpler. JaVale McGee and Dwight Howard combined for just 20 minutes in that February matchup, while Davis was at center almost full-time. The Lakers can size down and not sacrifice much, so long as Davis is a two-way beast on a nightly basis.

Harden and James will still be the focal points of their team’s schemes on offense, but the Lakers traded for the ultimate small-ball trump card for a reason, and this is the series where he can show his worth.

Role player matchups to watch

When these teams faced off early in 2020, Jeff Green was not on the Rockets. He has increasingly filled in as the team’s nominal center and could get a shot defending Davis post-ups early on. Because he can also match up with James on switches, playing Green more alongside P.J. Tucker or Robert Covington could allow the Rockets to help neutralize the James/Davis pick-and-roll more effectively, taking away some of those easy lobs James is so good at finding.

It might sound crazy, but Vogel could consider going to his centers a little more in the first game or two of the series. The Thunder refused to go small, but they also took Houston to a Game 7, so it didn’t hurt them all that much. So long as the Lakers can keep enough shooting and wing defense on the floor with Howard or McGee, it’s not a bad thing to see if they can turn the tide of a game with their rim protection or defense. Tucker shot 37 percent from deep in the first round but Oklahoma City decided it was fine to sacrifice those shots to him and Green so long as Steven Adams could stay on the floor. If Howard or McGee can have a better series than Adams did, that would be gigantic for the Lakers.

What happens in the half court stays in the half court

As much as the teams are defined by their stars, neither is particularly effective scoring in the half court. That’s why the secondary stars are so important, but it’s also why the team that is able to get out and run the most might walk away the winner.

The Lakers scored a whopping 62 of their 111 points in that Feb. 6 meeting on the fast break despite each team turning it over 16 times apiece. In the open court, Los Angeles was able to actually take advantage of the chemistry between James and Alex Caruso as well as the Lakers’ size on lobs and easy post-ups for Davis.

James lately hasn’t been able to bully players into layups like in years past, meaning the Lakers’ ace in the hole is not as effective. In order to create great offense, they will need to push Houston’s transition defense and get to the rim off of turnovers and misses as much as possible.

This is also where Westbrook is best. Apart from the cross matches referenced earlier, Westbrook still maintains the speed and strength to ram his way to layups and free throws at will when he’s healthy. James’ increasingly brilliant passing or Westbrook’s creative, overwhelming transition attacks winning out — and which team takes care of the ball best to prevent those plays in the first place — could decide which team has an easier time scoring in this series.

Is Kyle Kuzma the difference?

The Lakers have gotten a new gear from Kuzma defensively in the Bubble. That has been huge for a Los Angeles team that had no true wing defenders most of the season and is now without Avery Bradley as well. Don’t let James’ late-game stop against Paul George in the seeding games fool you, the King is not locking down on Harden for 40 minutes a night at age 35.

But could Kuzma? As Pete Zayas of the Lakers outlined in his latest video, it’s not just that the team had to rely on Kuzma or that his results were better against an equally shallow Portland wing rotation. Kuzma has genuinely improved his defensive skills as well.

As Luguentz Dort showed us in the last series, part of Harden getting tired and making mistakes is wearing him out by making him work for shots. Functional defensive strength has always been the underestimated part of keeping Harden in check, and even the rookie Dort is already one of the sturdiest dudes in basketball.

Dort was able to deny Harden’s drives and crowd his space on jumpers in a way we really haven’t seen at all during Harden’s career. And while Kuzma’s body looks nothing like Dort’s, the Lakers forward can hold his ground defensively and his length may allow him to stay with Harden, too.

In that February matchup, Lakers coach Frank Vogel did not put Kuzma on Harden at all. Their Aug. 6 contest in the Bubble is moot because James and Westbrook both missed it, but Kuzma hardly defended Harden then, either. The job was mostly left to Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, though one area where Westbrook was especially important in the winter game was forcing bad cross-matches onto the Lakers that often left Davis on an island.

Vogel has thinned out his rotation recently and Kuzma is playing more. If the Lakers want their best guys to play as much as possible, Kuzma will need to at least get a crack at Harden early in the series. Should his newfound defensive consistency prove legit, it would go a long way in limiting one of the best offensive weapons in the NBA.

For a long time now we’ve been searching for a way to combine our love of whiskey with our insatiable hunger for travel. And while a distillery tour or a dram at a local haunt is all fine and good, they just don’t scream “whisky” enough for our tastes. Which is why we couldn’t be more psyched about the whiskey-themed hotel that is coming to Los Angeles.

The Whiskey Hotel, a… (shocker incoming) whiskey-themed hotel, is slated to open in Hollywood sometime in 2022 and will feature 134 rooms in a seven-story structure with a rooftop greenhouse-style restaurant, which will surely boast amazing views of the Los Angeles skyline, whiskey-filled minibars, a whiskey fountain, and a complimentary dram for every guest upon check-in.

We’re going to call it early: someone is going to try to swim in that whiskey fountain within the hotel’s first year of opening. Lay your bets.

The hotel will also have Whisk(e)y Sommeliers on hand to guide guests through the hotel’s dense craft spirits collection. EaterLA reports that the hotel is owned by Adolfo Suaya — a bit of a fixture on the LA scene, opening the Gaucho Grill, The Phoenix, Bar Delux, Surly Goat, Dole, and The Lodge. Suaya has now fully secured funding for the $35 million dollar hotel, which is set to open in 2022.

If you’re the mid-century, whiskey-loving Donny Drapes type, this might be the place to make a booze-related travel stop whenever this god-awful pandemic is behind us.

There are a plenty of reasons why the Memphis Grizzlies and their fans could’ve felt bitter about the way things played out in Orlando. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, all signs pointed to them hanging on to the No. 8 spot in the West and securing what we might all assume would’ve been the first of many playoff appearances to come for one of the league’s most exciting up-and-coming squads.

Of course, that’s not how things played out. To be fair, the Grizzlies had the same opportunity as everyone else in Orlando. The Bubble leveled the playing field, and a combination of bizarro occurrences conspired against them in their quest for the postseason — I mean, who could’ve possibly anticipated the Suns’ Cinderella run through the seeding games?

And the Grizzlies certainly earned their share of the blame. They lost four games in a row to start, digging themselves a hole they were never quite able to climb out of, despite finally rediscovering their swagger in the play-in game and giving the Blazers all they could handle before falling short.

Through all of this, rookie sensation Ja Morant took up the mantel as the new face of the franchise and staked his claim as one of the NBA’s brightest young stars. He was spectacular for Memphis this season, leading all rookies in both scoring (17.6) and assists (6.9) on better than 49 percent shooting and was one of the best clutch performers in the league, finishing sixth among all players in fourth quarter scoring at 7.3 points.

So it was little surprise that the fledgling point god ran away with the Rookie of the Year award, earning 99 out of a possible 100 first-place votes. That’s right: 99 out of 100. And don’t think for a minute that Morant didn’t take notice. In fact, he had a message for that lone dissenting voter on Friday, via Tim Bontemps of ESPN:

“I want to shoot a direct message to them and thank them for motivating me even more to do more on the floor and be better and do whatever I can to help my team in a basketball game,” Morant said. “So if anyone knows who that is, let me know.”

The other first-place vote getter? Zion Williamson. Zion, of course, was the Pelicans’ No. 1 overall pick in 2019 and entered the league as perhaps the most anticipated rookie since LeBron James. That anticipation, to be clear, was 100 percent justified. Zion is one of the most explosive athletes we’ve ever seen in the league. Even before he arrived in the NBA, his highlight package was already one for the ages, and even beyond all of the flash that the dunks and spectacular blocks provide, he is a really good, really smart basketball player.

But a truncated rookie season, due to injury, took him out of the running for ROY in most voters’ minds. And that’s taking into account his incredible run over the 19 games he played before the shutdown, during which he averaged 23.6 points on 58.9 percent shooting and showed tantalizing flashes of what we can expect from him as his career gets off the ground.

Yet as good as he was, most voters arrived at the (in my mind correct) estimation that Morant’s sustained greatness over the course of a grueling 82-game season that put his team in playoff positioning was more than enough to reward him with a first-place vote.

This is not to bash the lone media member who withheld their first-place vote. Zion’s 19-game run absolutely opened the debate about just how many games are necessary to constitute an adequate sample size for an award like this, although most voters clearly arrived at the same conclusion. It is easy to say that voters faced a similar conundrum in 2017 with the ROY race involving Malcolm Brogdon and Joel Embiid. Embiid had played 31 games before he was shut down with an injury, and during that stretch, he was the runaway favorite, averaging 20.2 points and 7.8 rebounds on 46 percent from the field and 37 percent from behind the arc.

Compare that to Brogdon’s 10.2 points and 4.2 assists on 45 percent shooting and better than 40 percent from three. In this case, Embiid’s dominance was enough to earn him 23 first-place votes. While one of Embiid’s teammates at the time, Dario Saric, finished in second, Embiid got the second-most spots atop ballots. It is not a stretch to say that if Embiid played more, he would have won the award in a walk.

That second sentence, however, doesn’t necessarily apply here. Brogdon is a good player, but Morant’s Rookie of the Year case is much less murky, as his first year in the league was legitimately sensational. Due to the mix of Williamson’s absence for much of the year and just how good he was for a team that was in eighth place at the time award voting concluded, it is a bit surprising that he did not unanimously win this award, and he would have had one heck of a case for it even if Williamson played all season.

This opens another debate about whether awards voting should remain anonymous, or whether voters should have to own up to their decisions. I’m personally a believer in that. If you voted your conscience and feel strongly about it, great. I respect that, and I’d love to hear the rationale, even if I don’t agree with it.

But in the grand scheme of things, it won’t matter much. Morant will always have his award, even if it has the tiniest bit of tarnish on it. In fact, we already know that it’s given him bulletin-board material for next season, which is a scary prospect for his opponents.

The NBA’s Sixth Man of the Year award is staying within the Los Angeles Clippers organization for the third season in a row, but this year, it’s changing hands among teammates. After Lou Williams won the award for each of the last two years, Montrezl Harrell is reportedly taking it home for his performance during the 2019-20 campaign.

News of Harrell’s coronation, which doesn’t come as much of a surprise, comes via Shams Charania of The Athletic.

While official word on how the voting went down has not yet been announced, Harrell was a finalist alongside Williams and Dennis Schröder of the Oklahoma City Thunder. Any of the three would have been deserving winners, but Harrell was magnificent this year off of the Clippers’ bench. He oftentimes provided a shot of energy and interior offense that served as a good counter-balance to the steady play of Ivica Zubac, and as a result, he averaged career-highs in scoring (18.6 per game), rebounding (7.1 per game), and minutes (27.8 a night).

Harrell is the third Clippers player to take home the award in the last seven years. In addition to Williams’ pair of wins in 2017-18 and 2018-19, Jamal Crawford earned this honor during the 2013-14 and 2015-16 seasons. It comes at a great time for Harrell, too, as he is slated to become an unrestricted free agent this offseason.

If nothing below suits your sensibilities, check out our guide to What You Should Watch On Streaming Right Now.

Mulan (Disney+ film) — After multiple setbacks, Disney+ is rolling the dice with a $30 premier-access price point for this live-action reboot. There are no musical numbers to be found, nor is there an animated, beloved dragon onboard, but the story is updated for the young-adult-and-above crowd. As our own Mike Ryan writes, the action scenes are impressive enough to climb onboard, since $30 is a bargain compared to what you’d spend for a family at the multiplex.

The Boys: Season 2 (Amazon Prime series) — The first three episodes have launched with weekly installments to follow for showrunner Eric Kripke’s adaptation of the Garth Ennis comic book series. Fortunately for all involved, this sophomore effort is more depraved and also dives deeper into the inner world of the Supes as Billy Butcher marches around, plotting vengeance. Additionally, Homelander actor Antony Starr gave us some insight into why it’s so good to be a bad guy.

Away (Netflix series) — Hilary Swank stars in an epic-scaled, emotional space drama about the personal sacrifices made by humans while attempting to make incredible advancements. Swank plays Emma Green, who’s leading the first mission to Mars while leaving her family behind and enduring complex personal dynamics with her crew.

I’m Thinking of Ending Things (Netflix film) — Technically, this movie doesn’t arrive until 2:00 AM CDT, but there’s gonna be an actual Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Being John Malkovich screenwriter) movie on Netflix. As our own Mike Ryan told Kaufman, “It seems fitting in these times that you’ve come to entertain us.” Starring Toni Collette, Jesse Plemons, Jessie Buckley, and David Thewlis, this film explores regret and longing.

Raised By Wolves (HBO Max series) — Ridley Scott’s latest sci-fi project comes to streaming land, and it’s a savage, serialized tale that adopts a nonlinear structure. The show takes place on a mysterious virgin planet (where a colony of humans is divided by religious differences) and revolves around androids raising human children. It’s a little bit disturbing, as one would expect from Scott, but builds up an engrossing mythology.

Bill And Ted Face The Music (VOD) — Decades in the making, the long-anticipated threequel of the greatest damn franchise ever is here. Yes, “greatest” is a subjective term (fight me, Vin Diesel), but is anyone going to argue that the reteaming of Alex Winter (as Bill S. Preston, Esq.) and Keanu Reeves (as Ted “Theodore” Logan) is an unwelcome sight in 2020? Nope. The good news (for them) is that they’re getting the hell out of 2020 to steal music from themselves in the future and save the world. And unlike The New Mutants, they’re on VOD in addition to theaters this weekend.

Here’s the rest of this weekend’s notable programming:

Room 104 (Friday, HBO 10:00 p.m.) — The fourth season of the Duplass Brothers’ bizarre playground continues with a perpetually insecure man attempting to impress housemates with a foam party, which ends up having an unintended side effect.

Lovecraft Country (Sunday, HBO 9:00 p.m.) — This 1950s-set dark fantasy series blew away expectations, and this week, Christina’s motives grow ever more puzzling while Leti, Atticus, and Montrose head out on a search for missing pages from the Book of Adam.

Love Fraud (Sunday, Showtime 9:00 p.m.) — This critically acclaimed Sundance Film Festival limited series feels like the lovechild of Dirty John and Tiger King, as one prolific con-man leaves a decades-long trail of destruction, which tracks him down to Witchita, Kansas.

The Vow (Sunday, HBO 10:00 p.m.) — The NXIVM organization (known as the “sex cult” partially led by Allison Mack) starts to turn dark with “masters” and slaves” while Sarah struggles with her involvement in the organization.

We Hunt Together (Sunday, Showtime 10:00 p.m.) — A deadly duo (a former child soldier named Baba and Freddie) finds themselves drawn together (to commit murder), and this week, Freddie’s dark history comes to light while Lola and Jackson work to prevent the next murder.

From the outside looking in, I had the picture perfect childhood. I lived in a four-bedroom house with a dog and a fenced-in backyard. I wore department store clothes and Stride Rite kicks, and I had the latest and greatest clothes and toys. From Barbie and Cabbage Patch Dolls to a Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Gameboy, and SEGA Genesis, I had it all.

I also had two loving* parents. My mother and father attended all of my productions and plays in school. They never missed a single honors luncheon and saw me get all of my attendance awards.

But behind closed doors, things were different. They were different, and my mother was a nightmare. She mentally, emotionally, and verbally abused me for years.

Of course, I didn’t know it. Not initially. Not until the damage was already done, but that is because—like most abusers—her mistreatment began as manipulation. She loved me, coddled me, and held me close. She would say things like “Mommy loves you. Mommy needs you. You don’t want Mommy to be sad, do you? Do this and I’ll be happy.”

She made me believe I couldn’t trust anyone. My childhood was full of silence, shame, and secrets. She separated me from my friends. She told me I couldn’t go out or have playdates. I was never allowed to have company over, and then she began putting me down.

I was bad. I was stupid. I was a “disappointment” and a “failure.”

Things only got worse. Sometime between my twelfth birthday and my thirteenth, the yelling began. Both I and my house shook from the noise and fear. By my fourteenth birthday, my mother’s insults were laced with expletives. Sometimes she tried to hit me or hold me down, and because I was groomed from a young age, I felt helpless.

I was scared, isolated, depressed, and alone. I lived in fear. I walked on eggshells in my prison, aka my home.

The good news is that (eventually) I got out. When I graduated high school, I moved myself and my meager belongs 100 miles and two states away. But the damage was done. At 36, I still struggle with self-confidence. Trust is an issue, as is my reaction to criticism—actual and implied—and I have very few friends.

But my abusive childhood also taught me a lot about parenting. I know what my kids need, what they want, and what they deserve, and for that I am thankful. I consider myself #blessed.

Make no mistake: I know that sounds odd and twisted, and in a way it is, and yet it also makes perfect sense because my broken and neglectful childhood made me a mother who loves deeply and fully. I wear my heart on my sleeve. I give my children what they need most: my time, ear, patience, and support.

My broken childhood taught me to lead by experience. I, for example, have trust issues because my trust was betrayed (and because I was told to keep others beyond my reach), so I make it a point to push my own boundaries when my children are around. I want them to see what I didn’t. I want them to rely on others in a way I never could.

And my broken childhood taught me what I shouldn’t say. I rarely use the words “can’t” or “don’t.” I praise my daughter on a regular basis. I focus on her achievements and not her failures or shortcomings, and when she “acts up” or makes a mistake I choose my words wisely. I seperate her feelings from her behaviors, i.e. “It is okay to be upset. I would be frustrated too. But acting out is not a healthy way of dealing with your feelings.”

I also tell her how I am feeling. Why? Because growing up I was told things like “stop crying” and “calm down” and these directives didn’t just cause me pain and anxiety, they kept me from processing my emotions.

I still struggle to say much more than “I’m fine” or “I’m okay.”

So while I am not happy I grew up in a distant home, a neglectful home, and an emotionally and verbally abusive home, I am happy that my daughter will not because my experience taught me what my children need and don’t need. My experience taught me how I can—and why I need to—break the cycle.

We all know a little kindness can go a long way. But sometimes, a little kindness can also peel back the lid on issues that are inadequately handled in our society. A generous donation to help a teacher buy classroom supplies is great, but it also points to how poorly funded our schools are. A famous athlete building a medical center for uninsured or underinsured Americans draws praise, but also shows the sad state of healthcare in our country.

Musician Mobley shared a story on Twitter about a random woman who showed up at his door needing help figuring out where she was. And after taking just a few minutes to help her, he explained how the woman fell through the gaping holes in our social safety net multiple times.

Mobley wrote:

“Something incredible just happened. My doorbell rang and I answered to find an older woman I’ve never met before. She politely said, ‘I’m trying to find a place to sleep tonight. My sister used to live here. Can you call her? I might be listed as a missing person.’

This was a little disorienting, so it took a little more conversation to get on the same page. She told me her name and her sister’s name. I live with someone at high risk so I couldn’t invite her in, but we brought her some water, food, and a fan while I started searching.

It took about 3 minutes to find her sister’s phone number. I called – went straight to voicemail. So I texted, explained the situation and she called me right back. She excitedly confirmed that it was her sister and said she was getting in her car now (from an hour away).

It turns out her sister had been on a mandatory, temporary stay in a psychiatric hospital. 3 weeks ago, she learned that her sister was somehow no longer in the hospital’s custody and was out on the street with no money/phone. She filed a missing persons report.

While her sister had spent weeks searching, the woman at my door had spent weeks trying to find a way to get back to her sister (who, remember, lives an hour away from me). First, she’d gone to the police multiple times…

The only thing she asked the cops for was ‘directions to her sister’s house’. She gave them her name and address and asked how to get there. They refused to help her.

After that she spent weeks walking across the city, looking for houses of people she knew decades ago.

She told me some of the places she had walked and one is a 45-minute drive from my house. I can’t imagine how many miles she must have covered. She’d been sleeping on the streets for weeks for want of access to information/connection that took it me 3 minutes to find/make.

I hung out with her while we waited for her sister and she told me about how much the neighborhood had changed and we talked about how big the trees had gotten. Eventually, her sister arrived and they exchanged a very excited/relieved hug before thanking me and leaving.

Anyway, the reason I share this story is because it illustrates the violent hostility of the world we’ve created for unhoused people and disabled people in this country. Where the small task of looking up a number and making a phone call becomes a weeks-long epic journey…

I deserve zero credit for the small effort it took to help this person. The ‘market value’ of my house is predicated on a system that makes housing a ‘scarce quantity’ that only people with enough money get to have (even as millions of houses sit empty).

This already tragic story could’ve ended much worse. We must ask ourselves if we’re okay with a society that’s set up to needlessly hurt/kill so many.

If we’re not, let’s treat it like the emergency it is and change it. If we are, then the path ahead seems grim.“

After Mobley’s Twitter thread went viral, he said he won’t be giving interviews and won’t divulge any information about the people involved in the experience (which is wise as far as privacy goes).

Though the musician said the only thing he wants to promote is “the end of capitalism,” we don’t necessarily have to go that far. Plenty of western democracies have managed to balance free market systems with government-provided social services. For example, the Nordic model of the Scandinavian countries, which many refer to as “socialism” is more of a “compassionate capitalist” system, according to the Foundation for Economic Education.

We can point to the various points where the system seems to have failed this woman while also acknowledging that we don’t know the whole story. However, there’s no question that unhoused people and those with mental health issues are often overlooked or dismissed, even by people who seem like they should be in a position to help them.

It’s a reminder that if everyone’s life truly does matter, we need social systems and safety nets in place that prove it.

In a video posted to her YouTube channel, actress Brie Larson discussed some of the parts she auditioned for over the years, but didn’t get. There’s Sucker Punch (she dodged a bullet there), The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, The Descendants, Iron Man 2 and Thor (and that’s the last we heard of Larson in the Marvel Cinematic Universe…), Jennifer’s Body, “untitled Wayans Bros. project,” Juno, and Halt and Catch Fire. She didn’t say which part she auditioned for, but potentially in another timeline, it’s Larson, not Mackenzie Davis, dancing to a Pixies song with Lee Pace. Something to consider.

Anyway, those are parts that she didn’t get, but Larson also discussed one that she did: the Clash at Demonhead singer Envy in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. The third best comic book movie of the 2010s is considered a cult classic now, but the actress didn’t know much about the character when it was time to audition, and she found inspiration from an unlikely place.

“The only thing that was there was a description that said, a husky non-Ramona voice. I didn’t even know who Ramona was,” Larson said. “This is the truth and it’s really crazy. So I was staying up way too late flipping through the channels, and I stumbled on the Adult Video Awards and I was watching the red carpet and I was watching these women with this like confidence… and I was like, that’s it. That’s what I’m gonna do.”

Fun fact: that’s also how Vincent D’Onofrio found his Edgar voice for Men in Black.

(Via the Hollywood Reporter)

Astronomer Carl Sagan was the original host of “Cosmos” back in 1980 and it became most watched show in public television history. Few science communicators have been able to match his talent for stoking wonder about the universe.

Shortly before his death in 1996, he appeared on “Charlie Rose” and made a dire warning about how the average Americans’ lack of skeptical, scientific thinking could lead to disastrous consequences.

Today, we can see the problems that are happening due to America’s anti-science streak whether it’s anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theories or climate change deniers.

Sagan was right, America will suffer due to a lack a lack of scientific skepticism.

Carl Sagan and Government_ Charlie Rose.wmv

www.youtube.com

“We’ve arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces,” he told Rose. “I mean, who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it?”

He then warned that our lack of critical thinking leaves us vulnerable to those who wish to exploit our ignorance.

“Science is more than a body of knowledge, it’s a way of thinking,” he says. “If we are not able to ask skeptical questions to interrogate those who tell us something is true to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious who comes ambling along.”

Sagan believes that a democracy cannot function without an educated populace.

“It’s a thing that Jefferson lay great stress on. It wasn’t enough, he said, to enshrine some rights in the Constitution and the Bill or Rights, the people had to be educated and they have to practice their skepticism and their education,” he says. “Otherwise, we don’t run the government, the government runs us.”

Genre is not something that Nana Adjoa adheres to. It might not even be possible, given her musical background: the Amsterdam-based multi-instrumentalist was born to a Dutch mother and a Ghanaian father, and got her start in music at the Amsterdam Conservatory. The music that surrounded her during her upbringing was diverse and exciting, and helped her to develop a signature style that zig-zags between elements of soul, folk, and jazz, while her lyrics focus on prevalent topics like race, gender, religion, and sexuality.

With a string of singles and EPs to her name, Adjoa is now ready to release Big Dreaming Ants, her debut solo album. It’s one of the most exciting and intriguing records slated for release this Fall, where it seems like the sky is the limit to what Adjoa can accomplish on a song. With the album out later this month, I recently chatted with Adjoa on Instagram Live to talk about the difference in approach from writing for an EP versus writing for a full-length album, how life informs her art, and our worst experiences with parking, as part of our Fall Music Preview. Check out the full interview below.

Big Dreaming Ants is out September 24 on Bloomer Records. Pre-order it here.