Tag Archives: charlie rose

CBS This Morning: Double Dose of Charlie Rose

Posted on by
Reply

Main point (so you can ignore the rest): Charlie Rose is hosting a new morning show on CBS. It will be serious. It will be in depth. In other words, it’s going to fail.

I haven’t watched a morning TV shows for years. The main reason is there is too much fashion, cooking, weather, shallow political chatter, etc. There is a certain light feel to it that I guess people like to leave playing in the background for noise as they make coffee and leave for work.

But now, the morning welcomes the dark night of in-depth interviews: Charlie Rose. He is apparently going to be doing a morning program on CBS starting January 9th. The plan is to make it a serious news show with actual reporting but with a closer storytelling style. In other words, it’s going to fail.

I love Charlie Rose for his late night show on PBS. He is probably the best interviewer on television today in terms of creating a rich educational experience. Of course, it probably bores most people to death. And that’s why I think his new venture is destined to struggle and eventually collapse under the pressure of having to be more “entertaining” for the target audience in the morning which according to NPR is older women.

Luckily, he will still continue doing his evening interview show. However, I have to wonder how at age 70, five years after heart surgery, he is going to be able to handle two serious shows a day.

Celebrating The Only “Left-Handed Gay Jew” in Congress

Posted on by
Reply

Barney Frank announced his retirement from Congress after 45 years of service.

He didn’t shy away from speaking his mind, and usually did so in a damn entertaining way. I think it’s fair to say that there are very few people in Congress that can outdo him in witty trash talk.

The reason I’ve always respected him is that he had the guts to come out as gay on his own accord in 1987 (the first to do so) and served openly since then. As he said: ”I’m used to being in the minority. I’m a left-handed gay Jew.” But he was also a liberal, and all those factors attracted a s*** storm of vile commentary from his critics.

I always take my hat off to men and women that stand tall, with or without the approval of others, especially in political office where being different in any way is a heavy burden.

Here is a recent interview with him on Charlie Rose:

The Whispers of War With Iran

Posted on by
Reply

Main Point: Suppose Iran will eventually get a nuclear weapon. Given that, how do we work towards peace in the Middle East? And no, war should not be “on the table” (maybe under it).

In recent news, interviews, books, the drums of war with Iran are beating. Top political leaders have gone from talk of sanctions, to talk of “all options are on the table”, and finally to explicit statements that if all else fails we must be willing to invade Iran.

What is the justification for such a preemptive war? It echoes that of the Iraq war: “we must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.”

“If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” – Ehud Barak (Israeli Defense Minister) talking about Iran on Charlie Rose. For him, and many others in the Israeli government, a nuclear-armed Iran is the end of Israel. Moreover, he claims that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, and then decides to invade a small state in the region (as Iraq did with Kuwait), the claim is no one will want to do anything about it.

Even if you believe everything Ehud Barak is saying, the common sense reality it seems is that most of the countries in the Middle East will gain access to a nuclear weapon eventually. That’s the reality from which all conversation has to begin.

It seems to me that there are no comforting answers here, but the hope has to lie in the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. We have to confront the terror of a nuclear attack rationally.

I’ve asked this question before: what happens if a nuclear bomb goes off in one of the major cities in the United States? From the interview above and the many conversations I’ve had on this subject, it seems that people are not willing to even remotely consider such a possibility. It is spoken of as some infinitely horrible event that would destroy all of civilization.

Talking about it in such a way does two things. First, the fear of it is grows without bounds and leads to irrational domestic and foreign policy. Second, it increases the likelihood that the response to such an attack will lead to an even worse catastrophe than the attack itself would cause.

These discussions need to happen in the international community and every country in the world has to be heard, included, and an agreement reached.

Slavoj Zizek: The Mad Marxist

Posted on by
Reply

I used to be a bit skeptical about the praise that the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek received among the younger generation of casual armchair philosophers. After all, it’s hard not to be distracted by the man’s random movements and random composition of words into sentences that at times contradict the sentences that precede it.

However, now I am beginning to understand and admire the man. He embodies the best of what a philosopher can be in the 21st century: one who provides no answers, a few rare questions, but mostly just makes us think:

Now, my favorite part of that Charlie Rose interview is Zizek’s “analysis” of the movie Titanic. It captures brilliantly what I’ve always saw as the fundamental flaw in that love story. That love always felt to me as the kind of love that would not outlast the Titanic trip were it not to sink:

That there is what Zizek does well: reveals the absurdity of topics, events, people that somehow feel a bit sacred and yet not at all. For example, he is fascinated with Stalin and claims that the failure of communism in the Soviet Union is much more complex than, for example, the failure of fascism in Germany. Again, he provides no answers, but explains quite brilliantly that the reasons for its failure are not trivial. Again, he asks good questions, and provides no answers. That is the role of the 21st century philosopher.

I Heart Huckabee, Except on Every Single Issue

Posted on by
Reply

I watched a recent Charlie Rose interview with Mike Hukabee and was reminded of two things. First is that Charlie Rose is a great interviewer in that he remains objective (unlike most people that claim to be) but still can call the interviewee out on any obvious contradictions.

Second thing I was reminded of was that I liked Mike Hukabee for some unknown reason from ever since the 2008 campaign. I literally disagree with him on every single issue. Let me list some of the things he stands for proudly (source):

  • Women should not have the right to choose
  • Homosexuality is unnatural
  • Teacher-led prayer in public schools
  • Death penalty
  • Guns!
  • Less federal funding for health coverage
  • Do not replace oil & coal with alternatives
  • Cut taxes on the rich (opposes progressive taxation)
  • No path to citizenship for illegal immigrants
  • No public financing of campaigns
  • Patriot Act does not harm fundamental liberties
  • Opposes withdrawal from Iraq

He is running for president in 2012. That much is clear. The above is his platform. I disagree with him vehemently on every single one of those issues.

Still, I can’t help but like how down to Earth he is. Unlike most politicians with even a remote chance of winning, to me, he seems like the only one who is not saying one thing and thinking another. Just comes off as a good human being. I would love to see him win the Republican primary for two reasons. First, he would bring civility and clarity to the debates with Obama, and two, he has no chance of winning against Obama ;-)