Charlie Rose

doodah  10/29/2010 07:52 AM Report

"He "bought" nine teeth from his slaves." - That one might trump the cherry tree story. .. ah, these 'historians', what would 'history' be? without the juicy 'gossip'.

No 'gossip' in this fact, I am very proud and fortunate that one of my direct ancestors crossed the Delaware with George Washington (after deserting the Hessians), and went on to defeat the British and live a prosperous life in Pennsylvania (without slaves). God Bless America.

JohnGelles  10/29/2010 07:10 AM Report

I mentioned in comment on Gary Wills that Chernow's delivery of ideas from his book and related sources was the finest rapid content ever heard on Charley Rose in the years I've been a fan of his show. I say "rapid content" because Chernow speaks at a very fast rate. Slower delivered content on current vexing problems has been more important to solving those problems than Chernow on Washington. But, REMant mention of an awful review of "Washington -- A Life" made me go to Amazon to see what others thought. Here is thei URL:

http://www.amazon.com/Washington-Life-Ron-Chernow/dp/1594202664/ref=dp_return_1?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=bo oks

The Amazon reviews made me confident that my praise for Chernow's performance in conversation with Charlie Rose is correct. Chernow can be trusted to have spoken very fast and delivered ideas worth knowing at any time.

Which leads me to these comments posted on Charlie's conversations.

We start with the times we live in. We add a particular speakers talent and knowledge worth sharing. Then we add the reactions of people like REMant and other "regulars". And what do we have?

Nothing worth more than listening to the original program. Most of my friends don't listen to the Rose Show. I fault them for that. I say his show and Zakaria's are at the top of my list for recording the days TV.

It would be nice if these comments were on-tenth as good as the shows. But they're not. The "regulars" get in their fast response. And I have been recently among them. But are we adding value? Other than me, on the subject of recovery from the recession, NOT ON YOUR LIFE.

By having no coherent intention to connect one show to another in making use of the archive via the comments, Charlie's staff stands guilty of creating a body of comments worth close to nothing at all.

Could they have done anything about this? The comments are offered more or less in the spirit that Amazon offers publication of all its customers' nonsense. But, because the structure at Amazon is based on books that take time and effort to read, there is less need to connect one book to another. In fact, there is no need at all to do it.

But the Charlie Rose one hour show and the "regulars" who review it here presents a different challenge.

Whatever that challenge is, it is not being met. What it amounts to at best in momentary glut. Something that is at best the worst thing on the Internet.

Does that mean the "regulars" ought to be rationed? Not exactly. But they ought to be permitted to edit their hastily prepared baloney, so that the collective merit of the comments can be slightly improved. Amazon allow that to its free comment from customers--and that feature is certainly prized by me.

Of course far more is needed: the best thing the Rose Show has going, in this regard, is the actual transcript of every conversation. That is a wonderful starting place.

The problem is with the ending place -- exactly what do we want from the archive as it is? It will be a mine-able data base for scholars in future years. Is there any use for it in the near term? Not as it's presently structured!

Chernow's remarkable rapid talking performance stands alone. It may be added some day to a reading by an actor of the actual book. But what I want is a condensation -- not an even greater expansion of the time it will take to keep up with cultural change that a few of us might want to do as citizens.

I guess I'm back to my comments recently on the need for a mini issues Wikipedia. If there is such a need, it is not being served to my knowledge. The CR Show goes on the air and its audience learns something valuable every night. That alone is a giant achievement. It is, like Front Line and Nova, proof that TV is no vast wasteland.

A little patience would not hurt me. If we can survive the global recession and come out on the other side with some success in achieving the Millennial Goal of ending poverty, and China moves closer the Utopian potentials of the comments of some of the guests on CR Show and Zakaria's GPS, we will really be in clover.

So who is our George Washington? I'm still rooting for General Petraeus for president-- maybe the sooner the better. And I'm rooting for Charlie Rose to hammer into shape the debate between Cameron and Krugman over Keynes versus debt in the immediate future of capitalism.

Rose has allowed Niall Ferguson to cast gloom and doom over the debate by seeing merit in fear of money's obvious power.

Let us remember that Washington prevailed because we printed Continentals. I will have to find out how Chernow treats that whole issue.

By the way, Charlie Rose, how about getting Chernow, Krugman and James Galbraith to your grand table to tell us how General Washington and his bosses in the Continental Congress (who gave us the money to win our freedom) would advise us today to save that freedom from destruction by our domestic Tories today. Those Tories are, as I recall, all over the archives of these comments.

REMant  10/28/2010 11:11 AM Report

I read an awful review of this in the Post last week. Washington is hardly anything at all the person ppl like Parson Weems made of him. He was as much a representative colonial man as any of the Revolutionaries, involved in frontier wars, farming, land deals, politics, trade and economic development. As Chernow says Morris and the others of what he called "his family" knew he had a temper he struggled with, and he had a sense of propriety that I think put off many who would gravitate toward the Jeffersonians. He tried to be inclusive, and above party to no avail. But most surprising to many, he had an intellect. Here's an excerpt from a 1774 letter I like to cite that most ppl do not know about, which also proves his republicanism:

"I do not mean by this to insinuate, that an officer is not to discharge his duty, even when chance, not choice, has placed him in a disagreeable situation; but I conceive, when you condemn the conduct of the Massachusetts people, you reason from effects, not causes; otherwise you would not wonder at a people, who are every day receiving fresh proofs of a systematic assertion of an arbitrary power, deeply planned to overturn the laws and constitution of their country, and to violate the most essential and valuable rights of mankind, being irritated, and with difficulty restrained from acts of the greatest violence and intemperance. For my own part, I confess to you candidly, that I view things in a very different point of light to the one in which you seem to consider them; and though you are led to believe by venal men, for such I must take the liberty of calling those new-fangled counsellors, which fly to and surround you, and all others, who, for honorary or pecuniary gratifications, will lend their aid to overturn the constitution, and introduce a system of arbitrary government, although you are taught, I say, by discoursing with such men, to believe, that the people of Massachusetts are rebellious, setting up for independency, and what not, give me leave, my good friend, to tell you, that you are abused, grossly abused, and this I advance with a degree of confidence and boldness, which may claim your belief, having better opportunities of knowing the real sentiments of the people you are among, from the leaders of them, in opposition to the present measures of the administration, than you have from those whose business it is, not to disclose truths, but to misrepresent facts in order to justify as much as posible to the world their own conduct; for give me leave to add, and I think I can announce it as a fact, that it is not the wish or interest of that government, or any other upon this continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independencey; but this you may at the same time rely on, that none of them will ever submit to the loss of those valuable rights and privileges, which are essential to the happiness of every free state, and without which, life, liberty, and property are rendered totally insecure.

These, Sir, being certain consequences, which must naturally result from the late acts of Parliament relative to America in general, and the government of Massachusetts Bay in particular, is it to be wondered at, I repeat, that men, who wish to avert the impending blow, should attempt to oppose it in its progress, or prepare for their defence, if it cannot be diverted? Surely I may be allowed to answer in the negative; and again give me leave to add as my opinion, that more blood will be spilt on this occasion, if the ministry are determined to push matters to extremity, than history has ever yet furnished instances of in the annals of North America, and such a vital wound given to the peace of this great country, as time itself cannot cure, or eradicate the remembrance of." The full letter is here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw030177))

Greene died in 1786 age, I guess, 43. He was probably the most reasonable candidate to succeed GW if necessary, but the victory over Burgoyne, led by Horatio Gates, an Englishman with a military background similar to Washington's, was, however, the Midway of the Revolution, not Trenton. Gates and Charles Lee, were the only other generals with experience in the British army, actually a great deal more. In the French and Indian War, in fact, GW had blundered badly. Altho the Congress agreed in 1775 that Washington was the logical choice to head the army, largely because he was a Virginian of standing and clearly a patriot, many felt him an amateur, an opinion that only increased as the army retreated from NY to Philadelphia in the first year of the war. Gates, however, was even more cautious than GW, counseled against the Trenton operation, and might well have failed at Saratoga were it not for his subordinates, including Arnold and Benjamin Lincoln. He was routed at Camden, SC, in 1780, largely due to poorly trained militia, but he was, however, a consistent favorite of the New Englander's despite owning a plantation in Va, which, incidentally, he sold after the war, freeing his slaves. But he was also a central figure in the continuing efforts to remove Washington. Today's pale in comparison with the intrigues of the Continental Congress. It should be mentioned that Mrs Washington was with GW at Valley Forge during the winter of '77-'78 and many other times.