Charlie Rose

liyqff  05/23/2011 09:46 PM Report

Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in.

Welcome to http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com

Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35

UGG BOOT $50

Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35

Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $35

T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $16

Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34

Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15

New era cap $16

Bikini (Ed hardy, polo) $18

FREE SHIPPING

=== http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com

=== http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com

=== http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com

=== http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com

D_Thomas  02/07/2009 11:16 AM Report

If one is put off by the tone Maureen Dowd, I would advise them to steer clear of anything in the UK press. Snark it seems is the birthright of not only the Fourth Estate there, but also the bread and butter of of all discourse in politics, from the PM down.

BostonBuff  02/06/2009 06:33 AM Report

This was the first time I was truly disappointed by a Charlie Rose interview. This was more a debate than an interview. Charlie's obvious bias towards his "buddy" Maureen Dowd tainted the interview. David Denby handled himself with grace and amazing self restraint in the face of Charlie's puerile antics.

hrc  02/06/2009 01:34 AM Report

On Maureen Dowd, I think it best to forgive Denby, doesn't he hate everything. Well he simply doesn't get Dowd, anyway he brings up good subject matter in this snark business.

morgansmith  02/06/2009 01:08 AM Report

I sympathize with Charlie's loyalty to his friend Maureen Dowd, but I think he doth indeed protest too much. Ms. Dowd is razor sharp at identifying and deflating the pompous and the hypocritical, but if she has other strings on her columnist bow, she almost never sees fit to use them. Compare her with her fellow NY Times columnist Gail Collins, who also can produce cutting phrases when the occasion calls for it, but to whom it's important as well to engage in sincere dialogue and to give credit where credit is due, things seldom if ever found in a Maureen Dowd column.

TTigerX2  02/05/2009 09:50 PM Report

Maureen Dowd raised the bar on snarkyism. She created the genre, drew blood and raised the bar, because disrespectful memes mean more twitters. She opened the door to debasing political narrative. But we don't know what we're dealing with any more than nuclear power. Denby is right to challenge snark and its boundaries. Charlie, you don't have a dog in this fight.

esantoro  02/05/2009 08:23 PM Report

I tend to think that nasty behavior usually comes about in times when people from all sectors of society feel a declining sense of control over their lives. The nastiness is a grasp for some sense of control and power, no matter how small or fleeting. Dowd, in the referenced clip, alluded to something of this sort when discussing women being taken seriously in journalism.

esantoro  02/05/2009 08:18 PM Report

I was also taken aback by the extent that Rose did more than just "draw out" Denby and challenged his position. Why can't he raise such challenges with many of his higher profile guests, especially those from the financial sector, who relish giving "non-answer" answers? These individuals Rose wants to "draw out"; Denby he will challenge. Rose might just be seduced by the veneer of presumed power and prestige.

psten  02/04/2009 10:49 PM Report

This was an unusual interview for Charlie. I've never seen him defend any person, (Dowd)this way. I will have to say however that I read Dowd just today regarding Obama and Daschel. She was very Snarky! What can I say. I thought, this lady is really pissy and it is just as the guest stated, it was snarky because it did not seem to serve the column any purpose. Snarky to be Snarky.

sylvia  02/04/2009 08:28 PM Report

While the book may be a lament for ideas lost, sadly, so went the interview. Snark will always be synonymous with mean in my book, but nice to be reminded of the art of one-upmanship, thanks David Denby!

tartufe  02/04/2009 06:21 PM Report

Bought his book. (Kindle, $9.99. Apropos of nothing, Kindle ebook continues to amaze me as I have 200+ books or at least 200 lbs of books with me at all times. Makes me feel secure I guess. Love it.)

Snark certainly lends to obscuring topics. Those with differing opinions often deem holders of such as 'ignorant' or worse. Ad hominems as they're called become too easy. Supplants developing a counter point, which results in diminishing the discourse.

However, is it snarky to wonder aloud with ...Beth. If he isn't does he want to? Maureen, you interested?

She gets a whole chapter in Snark. With that kind of a reputation, CR better tip toe lightly towards that tulip.

MotherLodeBeth  02/04/2009 05:09 PM Report

I agree 1000% that Maureen Dowd is as snarky as they come. And listening to Mr Rose defend her as hard as he did, made me wonder if they arent dating or connected in some way. Guess Mr Rose didnt think Maureen Dowd was being snarky when she wrote all those horrid pieces on Governor Palin. I expect Mr Rose to be FAIR!! Unbiased. No favorites! Its shows like this one that makes me not want to renew my local PBS membership. Much less want $1 of federal money sent to PBS. Snobs!

soulfulady  02/04/2009 04:23 PM Report

Snark. Snarky. Snarkiness. I didn't know there was a name for the kind of nasty, mean behavior described by Mr. Denby. I've experienced it. Now I can call it what it is when it happens again. I like it. The name, not the feeling. Which leads me to Maureen Dowd. Now how do I say this without sounding snarky? Well, some things are better left unsaid I was taught, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." What I wasn't taught is how to say something that needs to be said without hurting, without being mean, without undermining another's right to life. Ah, the consciousness it takes to live in an evolutionary world. Bring it on!

RWillis  02/04/2009 03:05 PM Report

I was surprised Charlie spent so much time and energy defending Maureen Dowd in this interview. It seemed that Mr. Denby was trying to point out that Ms. Dowd tends to be snarky in her columns, which is true. Just read her most recent article on the president's missteps. She says, "It should have been a harbinger of doom when Daschle began sporting those determined-to-be-hip round red glasses." That's a snarky comment. There was no reason for her to have mentioned his choice of eyewear in that piece. It serves no purpose other than to tear him down.

I think this is what Mr. Denby was trying to point out, but Charlie was intent on defending Ms. Dowd. The premise of his book seems to be that the tone of discourse has taken a turn for the worse in recent years. For some reason, snarkiness attracts people's attention though. Ms. Dowd is a very good example of someone who seems to revel in it. I read her columns because I think she is a good writer and has a unique view on what goes on in Washington, but there are times when I cringe at the way she resorts to mean-spirited attacks.

REMant  02/04/2009 02:27 PM Report

I'll be damned; snarky is in the OED, with the meaning "sharply critical." I'd guess he is referring to the Rush Limbaugh's of this world. I have never read Maureen Dowd and had to Google the name to spell it. I'd say tho that the theme of celebrity notoreity - "there's no such thing as bad press," etc. - has been exhaustively examined and I'm not sure it deserves anything more said about it. I'll buy the Web as part of the reason for it, and also that the Web has become mostly opinion, sound-video bites and ads or other self-promotion, but I'm sure this started long before that with the TV magazines and commentators, tabloids and some columnists. Blagojevich has been playing this game as well as anyone.

My general feeling is that we have been declining steadily in manners and ethics since at least the 18th c, with the exception of the period of 1930-1960, when Depression and serious war sobered us up some. You can see the decline pretty clearly in the other media. Comedy, for instance, has moved from mishap to self-deprecation to pure skepticism. Even when traditional society celebrated misrule, it was to make a point.

I think the only ppl who would be interested in this stuff must be either social climbers, sadists, or, possibly, divorce lawyers. I detest the "gotcha" sort of journalism in particular. And I see no point in it, because I am only interested in ideas, not in what ppl ate, or should have eaten for breakfast. I am not interested because I evaluate ppl by their character, ideas by principles, and events by history, not what anyone opines about them at any particular instant. If they are not outright libelous, most such opinion reminds me of Shaw's encounter with a lady who proffered that while she didn't know art, she knew what she liked. To which, he replied: "Madam, so does a cow." Tho I doubt there are many like me, I do think, in any case, that very few ppl in actuality read the editorial and op-ed pages, or even listen to Limbaugh, so I wouldn't worry about snarkiness excessively, but as your jobs are at stake, it is understandable. They did come after Imus for "hate" speech, tho it is possible that was merely an indication of hypocrisy. It does seem the Pulitzer committee has lost its way entirely, like the Academy.