>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with the conflict in syria. 51 officials signed an internal memo. calls for targeted military strikes against the assad regime. a strategy of diplomacy cannot noteed if damascus is pressured. secretary of state john kerry has advocated a more aggressive approach to syria and president obama has thus far resisted

wading deeper into the conflict. joining us now is the director of foreign relations. nicholas, a visiting professor at danford, and other great universities. here it is, the "new york times." violence, that is what the policy memo says. is this a big story? >> it is a big story and it is a big deal. we want to encourage our career diplomat to be creative and to speak up when they see something they disagree with. richard and i have both worked on this channel over many decades. but what they are speaking about is the enormous frustration inside the u.s. government. i think, in many circles, new york, washington, and many places about the president's policy in the middle east.

i admire president obama both that he has been entirely -- i admire president obama. he has been entirely risk-averse. i think they are suggest in, and i certainly believe, we have got to play the traditional role. it is mainly a diplomatic coalition role. we should try to use our influence against the malevolent forces in the middle east -- russia, syria. charlie: you are arguing that the middle east has been a failure. >> i think his policy has failed in the middle east. toe is why it is important the american people. strategically, this crisis in syria and iraq, because islamic state unites the countries in violence, it is important for our long-term political and military interests in that part of the world. because look at syria, lebanon, and jordan andq,

this war that has killed several hundred thousand people and may -- and madeians 22,000 syrians homeless. playallowed the rushes to the card, and i think that was a big mistake. charlie: this used to be under your jurisdiction. >> the idea was to encourage just that, voices that were advocating policies that were not the adopted policy of the administration. it was used a lot during bosnia. in the isg used now not a surprise because what the president has done is take american policy far in one direction. it has been extremely risk-averse and in one way, we paid a price for a president who did too much, george w. bush in iraq. i think president obama will pay

the price in history for what he has done in syria. charlie: when you say that, am i wrong in believing that i have heard you say before, we have to be very careful about our commitments there in the middle east? doing manyof risk in of the things that critics of the syrian policy want us to do. >> absolutely. one of the lessons is, you don't want to go there with a large military footprint. i don't think our policy should be people in syria reading the federalist papers in the arabic translation. that is not something the united states should commit itself to. there is not to be a connect between what you try to do diplomatically and the situation on the ground and mr. obama has paid a repeated price for this i disconnect. john kerry i don't care how many miles or hours he puts in, he

cannot succeed if there is a gap between what he is trying to create with diplomacy and what is happening on the ground. charlie: i'm not a diplomat, but at the same time, putin came in and supported assad. this death and his negotiating position because they had -- this toughened his negotiating position. >> the fact that the russians have come in has shifted the balance of power on the ground. it is no surprise that a thought has stiffened his position. -- it is no surprise that assad has stiffened his position. the united states has to be prepared to do more militarily, both directly and indirectly, in forr to create a context our diplomacy to work. that seems to be foreign policy 101. you always get into trouble when your ambitions are greater than what you are prepared to do. charlie: what where this

administration's ambitions in the first place. to get out. >> initially, it was to get assad out. for more than five years now there has in a gap -- there has been a gap. charlie: looking at today, 2016 in june, what is possible? let's assume there is a reevaluation for lots of reasons and this has impact. i'm not talking about 200,000 american forces or anything else like that. they are talking about strikes, it aims to me. what is possible? and can they achieve anything significant that will affect the balance by strikes? >> i think john kerry is right. ultimately, this huge conflict in syria, where the society has been driven apart, is going to end at the negotiating table. but i don't think it will happen this year because the negotiations have come to a

halt. this is the syrian government will not negotiate with the opposition because they want a total victory and the russians are backing them. in a think the russians are stringing us along. the united states must say, we are going to use our power in the united nations to get humanitarian quarters, food and medical supplies, into the agreed cities where tens of thousands of people are starving. number two, sometimes you have to threaten in diplomacy. charlie: but if you threaten you have to be prepared to back it up. >> you do, but i think we should threaten and say, we, the united states, turkey, arb countries, and the nato countries are going to establish savfe havens to project refugees and russia and syria will not come into that zone. charlie: and if they do, we will have more? >> no, i think the russians will

respect that, just as we have wrist that did -- just as we have respected their air power. the reason i would start their, re, charlie, of the 12 million syrian homeless -- more than half the population -- 7 million are homeless inside syria. it is the most profound damaging humanitarian conflict in the world today and we have been silent on this. syrianhave taken in 2300 refugees. every republican democrat has taken at least half of global 1945.ees since >> one goal is to protect innocent people. you need air cover and ground forces. we would provide the air and the turks and arab forces would have to provide the ground. charlie: but would they? >> they have other goals, but

that is the second area, what you are going to do to change the military balance? you have to combine targeted strikes on syrian military forces, you have to send more american special forces to assist local arabs -- we have been unwilling to provide them with air defense weapons. let's provide them with serious air defense weapons. if the russians want to go over there like they did with afghanistan, they will have to take serious risk. even if it turns out that syrian, iran, and russia don't want to negotiate, we will improve these two asia situatioe ground. united states has to be prepared to help others to get a better negotiating outcome. but if not, you get a better situation on the ground, which is complementary to creating a better situation.

charlie: what is the strategy to take out assad? is it to take him out militarily, is it to have some leverage to negotiate with him? within the last 10 days, he said, i want to regain all of syria. >> i don't think we can be kingmakers in syria when we don't have any embassy there were people on the ground. but what we can do -- and this was plausible in 2014 -- targeted airstrikes to take a way assad's ability to use his air force to terrify civilians and to drive them out of major cities. that was the purpose, as i understood it, of the red line in 2013. but we should have done is not go after assad -- because then you have responsibility for the chaos. but take away his most lethal weapon, you weaken him. we never will get back to effective the home of the if

we don't build up the opposition and also go after assad's air force. charlie: but let me ask this question. these are seasoned diplomat who feel the u.s. is not using diplomacy like it has in its history. fair enough? and using it to gain leverage. where is the military in this? is their opinion the same as these diplomats? >> first of all, the most important thing to his about diplomacy in this nation is it is white house centric. state department i think, has lost a lot of strength in its voice. the military is professional. they will do what they are asked. i think they are totally comfortable with that. do a lotthey could more, which could make a lot of difference. and by that, we do not mean sending in 200,000 troops. >> they are worrying about the

readiness. to get uneasy when you ask them to do things were political reasons -- do things for political reasons. they get more nervous when you say, we want you to do more to create a coercive use of force. the military wants to have clear-cut mission. if you want us to take up 25% of assad's air force, we will do that. here is what it will take and here is the cost and so forth. that is the kind of thing i think we should be doing. it seems to me, it stabilizes the situation on the ground. it might lead people in damascus to move against assad at some point. we want to change the political copulations ideally, of some people in damascus, where they see assad as a liability. charlie: putin expressed this

today and other have said this. what do you have there and what are the possibilities? are we going to look at isis going down the main street of damascus? >> that was the argument in favor of the russian intervention. because he don't want -- because you don't want assad to go without an aftermath prepared. you need a day after plan. we have had a lot of time. assad is not going to disappear in an afternoon. we are talking about promoting a political dynamic. assad government will be -- what you, have is elections. looking is, you are not at a syria that is a national country for years to come. rather, you are looking at a syria of parts.

we can slow that down and come up with a post assad leadership. or me, that is a realistic near-term goal. charlie: my assumption is that the russians would not be necessarily against that. >> here is where i think john kerry is incorrect. this is going to end at the negotiating table. the russians would not be averse to this solution if their own interests can be protected. the is what diplomacy is all about. the way to do that is to have some weight on your side and to be physically present. that is one. two, we are fighting an air campaign against the islamic state in syria and iraq. the islamic state is a pernicious group. i support the air campaign. we are doing nothing against the syrian government, which is as least as distractive. that you are trying to

arrive at a positive conclusion in syria with air power, but you refuse to act against an equally powerful and pernicious actor, it does not make sense. that is where this administration or the next one has to go. charlie: what has this accomplished? just where it is now. this is on the front page of "the new york times." >> it has brought syria back in this campaign that we are running. it has brought syria back into the focus of the american people. there are tremendous consequences here for the night at states if this goes the wrong way from a humanitarian perspective. when you are on the front page wethe new york times, remind people that we are failing in our effort. >> the obama administration has seven months to go. you can't just run out the clock. there is still time to have a serious policy change.

so, you don't leave a total mess. based upon what i have seen in terms of his actions, what i have seen in terms of his conversations with you, what i think he wants to do is put this on a box in his desk that is "too hard" and leave it for his successor. this dissent cable puts pressure on him. this forces him and the inter-agency staff to confront this issue. it is not going to go away. ♪

charlie: we turn now to britain brexit, and the death of a member of parliament. joo cox died yesterday after being shot and stabbed in her residual and see. constituency. a man named thomas mayor was arrested in connection with the crime. the us-based southern poverty law center called him a dedicated supporter of the national lions and an american neo nazi association. police are also investigating whether the suspect shouted "writtebritain first." that is a party that favors

leaving the eu. ides the leave and remain s stopped campaigning out of respect for cox. we are joined now for the former editor in chief of the economist magazine. he is now the current editor-in-chief of bloomberg news. where was this heading before this terrible murder took place? >> it seemed to be heading increasingly for "leave." the odds, most of us still were betting on "remain." even on the morning, possibly the best professor in britain, he finally that morning had just announced that he no longer thought it pretty likely that "remain" was going to win. "leave" seem to be doing better and cameron was unable to change the discussion. and all the attempts of "project fear." they said, look, if you leave

britain, it will be a disaster. the british people seem to be saying, we have mentor this stuff, it will be ok. now, this has changed it. charlie: the people who supported "remain" were primarily of what demographic? >> the demographic is the big difference the old overwhelmingly support leaving. and the young supports taking. and so, the big question going into the vote is, everyone knows the old are going to come out and vote, they always do. but they are all these other things going on. people are increasingly worried about whether the young will come out. you do have one other thing in favor of "remain," which is likable like me generally thought it was going to do well. andof people were undecided normally come if you are undecided in a vote like this,

you, in the end, go for the status quo. that was still the best card the "remain" people had. "leave" people had a 5% lead.sen3% to there was a big problem. you had the conservatives split, but probably a majority angry wanted to leave. -- majority saying they wanted to leave. the remain party was led by jeremy corbyn, who is this mar favery far left leader. he came from that weird bit of the labour party. he has never been a great supporter. he is described as a tepid supporter. for the campaign to work, they wanted the old and the young to

come out. he tended to say, the european union is a disaster's place that is very badly wrong. placea disaster i placeous that is very badly run. that was actually not the best selling line. charlie: but they were lots of people who made powerful argument, including you, that this would have a terrible impact on the british economy, on the european economy, on the global economy. >> there he much so. an-- very much so. and i still think these arguments are there. to some extent, people exaggerated what the possibilities were, but because he never quite know what they are going to be, you are caught either way. it is entirely possible that britain will vote to leave, which is still a possibility.

thehis happens next week, united kingdom could well split up. it is possible, even if it the whole thing votes to stay. the english will vote to go out . the other thing that is sitting there, inside the european union, if britain goes, you begin to set out earthquakes. because you look at the germans and the attitude they have. on the one hand, they are saying, "please stay," to the british. you have the french and the dutch, already talking about having a referendum if the british leave. you have this possibility, if the british leave, the united kingdom comes apart and the european union comes apart. that is the difficulty of what

seems to be the fear factor. charlie: so, they argue too much with the fear factor? >> will come i thought that was legitimate. i think it is reasonable to point out that the other side is taking a huge step into the unknown. money market shows -- and the market shows this. the markets get very frightened. charlie: and then you have the murder of jo cox. >> tragic and completely unforeseen. this, wege thing about thought if something happens, it might involve muslim extremism, which would actually help the "leave" people. the conventional wisdom is that probably will help the "remain" side. britain has this long record of

not liking extremism. dodgy, useless americans, going off. if you look at things like fascism -- people who are at the front of the "leave" campaign, the more it looks really nasty and fundamentalist, the more the possibility that the british people will go against it. and you can see that in the markets. the financial markets have rallied a bit. the horrible thing, events like this, nobody is trying -- charlie: suspended for how long? >> i think people will start again on the talk shows tomorrow. charlie: so, people look at this and they say, this is horrible, this mp killed in broad daylight, stabbed and shot.

says, this is horrible. everything has to stop. >> one, it is very shocking, particularly with the context of orlando, this is going to come off the wrong way. dd, in this case with a bizarre homemade gun. the second side, i think it did hit politicians. mp's are used to going out, and waterinandering within their constituents these. -- constituencies. on the "leave" campaign, there was the idea that we would be flooded by migrants. theye "remain" side, ratcheted up the other side,

saying, we might need emergency budget. and so again, the fear factor. squabbling and then this thing happened and then all of a sudden, a burst of civilization. charlie: this is one of those horrific things that struck cameron's reactions. >> he in jeremy corbyn have gone off and paid tribute together. both sides are coming together, but that does not mean the "leave" people have denounced. people are united in the way politicians sometimes are when something that could happen to any of them happens to one of them. underneath, there is no doubt that the serious money and the serious people who either wanted to leave this project -- people spent years campaigning to leave the european union. now, everything has been thrown

up by this one incident. we have nothing any polls yet which take account of this. my guess is, it will probably pull it back. charlie: it could pull it back sufficiently. >> that is what people think. it is a bit like the rise of donald trump. i interviewed tony blair last week. the interesting thing there is to have a man, fantastically good at winning elections in britain. landslides.ction in inhe won three elections landslide. this has been upset. the people who are voting "leave," it is not just a small group of men in blazers. it is a lot of people who are saying, "i'm fed up with all of this, i just

charlie: why do they think that is only a european union problem? john: i think the european union crystallizes a lot of these problems in the same way as here in america. people -- trump supporters will look at issues. migration is an issue and a cipher for lots of other things. the european union is a direct tie to migration because the european union will allowed cheaper workers from eastern europe to come. they also have this image of muslim migration and the terrorist instances on mainland europe will come across. but above everything else is the project run by elites -- in quite a decent way. one of the reasons why the european union was set up, it was set up a by elites who are terrified by the problems of the 1930's. charlie: how is the difference between the way britain treats guns and the united states treats guns? john: in or miss. if you own a gun in britain, you have to register with the police

every two or three years. it is a complicated procedure. they check if your same. if i need a character reference, i could use you. [laughter] it might help. and then you have to use a repeated -- do it repeatedly. assault weapons, guns are designed to kill people are much less popular. the police do not carry guns. it is one of the oldest argument's. what is interesting in europe is that the orlando shooting seems to set that off again. it is another thing that is strange about america to date. charlie: thank you so much, john. ♪

charlie: law professor at harvard from 2009 to 2012. he worked for the obama administration as head of the office of information and regulatory affairs. he is also a prolific writer. he has authored more than 40 books and columns for bloomberg view. his latest book is a new york times bestseller. it is called "the world according to star wars, star wars, a movie." currently number one on "the washington post" bestseller list. i'm just going to begin with this page.

"the human race," he says," can be divided into three kinds of people. those who love star wars. those who like star wars. and those who neither like nor love star wars." i have read parts of this book to my wife, emphasizing those that seem to me especially fun. one night, she finally responded with some coronation of giddy and exasperation. i just don't like star wars. i knew that, i guess, but somehow i forgot. there you go. what is it about star wars? which is what this book is about. cass: that is what i spent many months all. what i think the movies got at is that there are these myths and religions in multiple coulters that spring out of

people's minds as well as traditions. and george lucas and the saga gets at them and gives them an all-american twist. charlie: right. cass: all about freedom of choice. so he makes kind of modern and something that really resonates in america, but elsewhere. that is what it is about star wars. charlie: help me understand this. have you been in love with star wars since you saw your very first frame, your very first movie? or did you come to this at some later point in life? cass: i think i was in infatuation with star wars from the first two minutes. and then a kind of fell to intense liking. the love started really within the last year. charlie: so how did the love start? cass: i have a little boy. he was five years old at the time. that's declan. at the age of five, he was a baseball-assessed little kid, and taken by star wars. so i thought, what is it about these movies? why have they become the saga of our time?

and how did this genius, george lucas of -- charlie: and why has it built such a wide spectrum of age groups? cass: exactly. for the force awakens, you see people who are four and five and six. and you see some of the 80-year-old crying from awe in their eyes and you can connect generations as well as tiny ones -- charlie: why is it magical to kids? cass: i think it is stuff of dreams and nightmares. every little kid is kind of scared of a darth vader. the image of someone who is big and frightening and potentially cruel. and every kid also has a dream, maybe a woman like leah, who will take care of you. also, if you are a child, the idea of a gentle, the all-powerful mentor like obi-wan kenobi, that is the stuff of

childhood. charlie: but there is also a dark side. cass: absolutely. every kid is scared of grown up anger and power. but also, every kid is scared even more of his or her home -- his or her own anger and power. that temptation each of us has, even at a very early age, to do bad things because it is what we want to do. that's something that is attractive, but also terrifying to a child. and to see it is cathartic in the old sense on the screen. charlie: you say fathers, freedom, detachment, retention are at the core of the saga. cass: those are the four feet -- four deepest feelings. to speak of freedom, what the movies say and even assist the

evildoers in the saga, respect, is the path you go is up to you. if you want to be a good person tomorrow or if you want to go back and save your buddy who is at risk, even though you are a robe and a smuggler, you can choose to do that. charlie: but that's biblical. cass: it is a biblical idea. i think the way it resonates in star wars is a theme that is modern and has to do with our specific culture. and the freedom idea is closely connected with redemption. even if you are the worst person in the galaxy, as darth vader almost was, you can either wander down to the force or save your soul. i think that belongs to all of us coming -- all of us, even if we've done something terrible, we can choose to make amends with someone. so the connection will between -- charlie: can i understand this

without knowing that lucas had a tumultuous relationship with his father? cass: i think you can. lucas, you mean? charlie: yes. cass: many who have seen the movies know very little to nothing lucas's struggle with his own father. it is not necessary to know the biographical background. but i think it does enrich our understanding of how the tail became possible th --e tale -- the tale became possible. charlie: you say much is destined and prophesied. there is also the power of agency. cass: the movies touch on an old theme, destiny. and that the universe is in

control. and that some of the most powerful and wise figures speak for destiny and privacy -- and prophecy. but the movie rejects that. you know says difficult to see the future is. and with his cadence. [laughter] there is the sense that the individual agent is ultimately in charge, not the prophecy. charlie: you also suggest that there are certain prisms you can look through, terrorism, technology. cass: all of them are there. charlie: and more. cass: absolutely. capitalism is there. freud is him is there. when skywalker loses his mother, he falls in love with someone who is much older. there is clearly echoes of the christ tale, both for anakin and for luke.

i think there is a political fame about republicanism. of course, the warriors republic, about the need for vigilance against authority -- the word is republic, about the need for vigilance against authority. they are also in genius. art often lends itself to multiple interpretations. somehow, this cartoonish saga is able to have sufficient richness that, like shakespeare or james joyce, you can go to a lot of places with it. charlie: have you talked to jj abram to about this? cass: i put him on notice that there is a book coming. but i think the last thing he needs is to be questioned by a law professor about what his intentions were. charlie: and what about george? cass: i have talked with him about american foreign-policy. i haven't talked to him about this book.

charlie: how can you resist? cass: he goes about his life and a lot of people as kim -- what did you mean -- ask him, what did you mean? i told him i was writing a book on star wars. that did not make them extremely excited to talk to me. but i worked on the obama administration and some of the surveillance issues and he wanted to talk about that here he is a person of great focus and kind of presence. that probably helped him produce these amazing movies, but also keeps in a very curious person. charlie: he is a great friend of mine and he is endlessly fascinating. he loves formula one racing. he's one of the most fascinating

people. and when you walk around any city, any country, they bring these pictures out. some of them, they are going to sell because he is such a huge figure. cass: i went to taiwan in 2015 to meet with a constitutional court and the then president, this was a policy and law. but everyone wanted to talk about star wars. this is taiwan. a big bookstore in taiwan, the first thing i saw was star wars characters. so the global reach of the saga attends to the power of the tale. culture often produces scripts that create kind of background

music for behavior. so if we have a culture that has tales of heroism of a particular kind or heroism of particular kinds, our behavior will be responsive to those scripts. not that we determine what we do. the scripts are our own. but the tale of the american revolution is obviously important factor in the behavior so many americans of multiple different kinds. martin luther king, much more, has the background for many of the things that happened in the united states even in the last 10 years. charlie: does the nation need myths? cass: it's only does it in needs stories, something iconic to organize aspects of reality that are otherwise potentially chaotic.

so you need something that makes that disorder recognizable. and whether it is a myth or a historic fact or religious conviction or a novel or a set of movies, cultures greatly benefit from those. there is always a degree of interpretation. as with the star wars movies, which are subject to maybe five reasonable interpretations and five zillion unreasonable ones, so how exactly we understand the american revolution or what we think the cold war was really about, how to understand mccarthy's and even, where we have a pretty good consensus on that being a dark tale. but there are multiple, different renditions. so facts can be turned into two or three or a dozen narratives. charlie: how did george lucas change as he went along writing "star wars"? cass: i think he changed most

interestingly in the prequels, which i think are underrated. he got, it seems, more in history's arc and the individual character tales remained important to him. but the prequel's have a lot to say about how democracies fall into authoritarian systems. and while that is in the original stories, that kind of global, political tale is something that lucas seemed to be seized by. i think they are an interesting and in some ways very shrewd though cartoonish picture of what sometimes has happened. charlie: there is a lot of christianity here. cass: no doubt about it. the beautiful scene at the end of "return of the jedi" is a

scene of salvation. i think it had some biblical resonance. after that, luke says, "i will leave you father. i have to save you." and anakin says, "you already have." in the end, you see his ghost in the star wars equivalent of heaven. he gets there. the movies are intriguing about that. there is a theme that the wisest person in the film is that the fear of loss is the past of the dark side. if you are afraid of loss, then you are going to be full of hate eventually, and then you will go to the dark side. and i think that has psychological truth, both for individuals and for tyrants, that fear of loss is often a source --

charlie: also loss of power. cass: or loss of someone you love or loss of status. all of these are in the saga. but what is actually the creative star wars is the opposite of that. that the fear of loss is part of what it means to be a fully human being. and if you fear loss because you care about a friend or a sibling or, in the end, a family member, that is the way to the light side. so in the end, the saga is deeply non-stoic. it says the depth of attachment is the thing that is going to make you do things that will get you to the right place. charlie: we talked about mccarthyism. could we look at the prequels and could we see strings in america that would impact -- would in fact give the nomination to someone unlikely?

thinking of donald trump. cass: i think we have some great things in our culture that are tremendous safeguards against authoritarianism. one, we have a constitutional structure, which has proved robust across multiple challenges of individual persons and global. so we have a framework, which is very tough on would be authoritarians. we also have a deep cultural commitment to individual liberty on the one hand and to self-government on the other hand. and to overcome these is really hard. i think it is fair to say that, whether you are hopeful about mr. trump or very skeptical about mr. trump, he does pose a challenge to long-standing traditions. charlie: so he may appeal to some straining you, but at the same time challenge some values in your.

cass: in terms of american values, as we have come to understand them, and this is pretty universal now in our country, some of the things mr. trump has said are, let's say, somewhere between fatal inconsistency and severe tension with those values. i think that is not unfair to him. charlie: where's the tension? cass: the idea in our culture that you do not discriminate people based on their religious convictions, that is kind of bedrock now. of course, national security is also bedrock. but we typically resolve that tension a way that is respectful of religious pluralism, even when it comes to control of our borders. and we respect our legal system. the fact that someone had a parent who came from another country, that's not in our culture indicative of bias or prejudice.

charlie: you have someone who has banned political reporters from "the washington post" from his rally. cass: it is not normal. it is fair to say that this is challenging some of our commitments. charlie: you quote yoda, "difficult to see. always in motion is the future." cache: ain't it the truth? both for our individual lives as well as for the country. charlie: it is the biggest adventure you can have making up your own life. and it is true for everybody. it is infinite. possibilities. cass: kasdan was the co-author of several of the star wars movies. and his emphasis on infinite possibility and choice on the spot and the absence of planning is at the heart of the tale that lucas and kasdan tell.

charlie: here's the contents, the table of contents. episode one, i am your father, the hero journey of george lucas. number two, -- episode two, the movie no one likes and expect to flop becomes a diet -- the defined work of our time. episode three, was star wars awesome or just are looking? episode 4, 13 ways of looking at star wars good we talked about politics, religion. policy of sons, you can reform if your kid really likes you. policy of choice, it is not about destiny. it's about agency. why rebels failed. why resistant fighters rise. constitutional episodes, free speech, sex equality, and

same-sex marriage. the monolith of god and humanity. episode 10, our myth ourselves. why star wars gets to it. there it is. that's the book right there. what is it that makes you tick? cass: well, -- charlie: is it the law? cass: ilife like thinking about how her legal system can be improved and how it got to the majestic place it now is. is it up there because of the genius of james madison and

alexander hamilton? did he get there because of the constant work of we the people? that's something that helps make me take at least. i like thinking a lot about how our government can be made to work better within our constitutional framework. how can we make our institutions thrive. charlie: i want to show a couple of clips here. one is george lucas, twice it is my friend here. i want to look at clip 2. this is george lucas on this show talk about religious beliefs in the story of star wars. here it is. george: the whole thing and star wars was to take, again, ideas, psychological ideas, from social issues, political issues, spiritual issues, and condense them down into an easy to tell story of those stories. the force basically came from, you know, distilling all of the religious beliefs, spiritual

beliefs all around the world, all through time, finding their similarities, and then creating an easy to deal with metaphor for what religion is. charlie: smart man. cass: he put a lot of that material in a form that could be accessible and be appealing to people who have very different convictions about religion and the human spirit. charlie: as of early 2016, the star wars franchise had earned about $30.2 billion. $2.56 billion came from box office, $2 billion from books. the book is called "the world according to star wars." thank you.

thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> you are watching bloomberg west. let's begin with a look at the news. the fbi has released the transcript of the orlando shooter talking with 911 and crisis negotiations. >> he identified himself as an islamic soldier and he was intent on killing americans. >> the bureau says that he was radicalized in the united states and not i-84 in terror group. -- not by a foreign terror group. the campaign manager for donald trump had been let go. -- has been let go. testing a zika vaccine on