Charlie Rose

ptdavies  01/15/2012 10:47 AM Report

How can I know what I think till I see what I say?

E. M. Forster

ksjayhawk  01/04/2012 02:32 AM Report

I caught the 1/1/2012 Santorum debacle on MSNBC followed by an attempt by Brooks' attempt to clean up the mess and make it look like a win afterward. That must have been really painful. Rofl the rest of the day.

anne4444  12/29/2011 01:12 PM Report

Sounds odd, think different, but true:

The total vibration level of all human souls on earth will affect the humanity of our universe. It is the time for all individual on earth to take his/her responsibility and liberate his/her own soul towards higher frequency vibration of love and compassion.

Please do not trap your soul into low frequency vibration of money, justice, power, fame fear and any other things.

Please help yourself with liberation towards higher frequency of love and compassion, you will help us all. At end, we are all together as one earth with one vibration. The total vibration level of all souls on earth needs to match the new level vibration of earth in order for us to move forward.

It is the time for government to provide basic needs of individual to avoid the trap of soul.

It is the time for any intelligent men/women to find some ways or means to help lift human soul.

It is the time for us to watch movies, which make our heart melt with love. (any movies promote fear shall be banned).

It is the time for us to listen music which shakes our souls to higher vibration.

It is the time for us to make love with our loved one with great orgasm.

It is the time for us to do something to help all being on earth with great passion and deep love towards others.

It is the time for us to respect/honor all lives on earth through love and compassion.

It is the time for us to do anything without excuse to liberate our souls toward love and compassion.

WE CAN DO IT, WE MUST DO IT AND WE WILL DO IT. Our souls will vibrate very high. They will nurture our mother earth and whole universe instead of distressing them.

gabemydland  12/29/2011 11:42 AM Report

Terrific and thought provoking. Thank you.

ksjayhawk  12/25/2011 04:51 AM Report

So much spin, so much PR, so many whoppers, so little time to pack them all in.

ShalomFreedman  12/25/2011 01:36 AM Report

Brooks is an extremely astute commentator from whom it is always possible to learn a lot. His description of the difference between the vision preoccupied Bush and the program - focused Obama Administration is instructive. His description of why this is not the Progressive Age as we are now a late middle aged not adolescent society is also instructive. Also his rejection of the idea of class warfare in America and emphasis of American search for a respectable middle- class life makes a lot of sense. His chiding the two parties for failing to come together to face national challenges seems in place. What is troubling his that he himself is not very optimistic about( No matter who wins the elections) the U.S. meeting the present challenges.

REMant  12/24/2011 01:02 AM Report

I don't know whether Mr BROOKS will be more offended if I don't comment on his performance, or if I do, or whether he cares at all, but after some indecision regarding this meandering exercise, I'll just mention that those who made a big deal about trust and civil society during the Regan-Bush era fall into the category of those who believe that the issue of poverty and the wealth of nations hinges on the acceptance of Whig, evangelical values and like to dwell on Tocqueville's appreciation of American voluntary associations, ignoring, of course the rest of what he said, and especially his interpretation of the French Revolution, which is nearly the same.

Tocqueville, in fact, cared very little for democracy as he found it. He considered American concern for equality instead of liberty - a major theme of Democracy in America - a matter of envy, and I really don't think, Thomas Frank's thesis notwithstanding, Americans have changed any. They may not want equality of condition, but they certainly want no one to get ahead of them, not even at a traffic light or in line at Macdonald's. I would not call this a concern for fairness, either, which implies injustice. What we in fact lack is the sense of what is just. What separates us from the ideals of the founders is precisely the sense of virtue and duty. Weber made a lot of this, following I guess Rousseau, who saw a golden age of mankind somewhere between savagery and modernity.

Theorists of the wealth of nations seem to fall into two categories: those who like Banfield and the neocons see it as a matter of contract based on self-interest, and thus denigrate philosophers, the church and all manner of Utopia; and, those who see it exactly the opposite, as the result of increased rationality, and, as Weber put it, disenchantment (altho he himself felt it could go too far and like Kant divided thinking and feeling). Machiavelli for example belongs to the former, Smith to the latter. Marx, like Smith, severely criticized all manner of mercantilism seeing that wealth was appropriated from consumers and producers, and not merely a product of machines, expanded mkts and divided labor. Arguably, more than mercantilism or colonialism, the development of bank or public credit began a process by which richer countries become richer through seignorage, trading and manufacturing giving way to banking. As a couple of generations of B-school students have clearly shown finance, not engineering, has become the way to wealth here too. That tho seems to have reached its natural limit, if, nevertheless, lingering.

Arguably we have far too much trust, not too little, with which I'm sure Banfield would have agreed. Undoubtedly those fellows on Wall St trusted a very great deal. And trust doesn't make the leap from self-interest to enlightenment, from mere understanding to reason, from faith or hope to the love of God. It's a difficult point, akin to the issue of grace, which would likely take another Jonathan Edwards to divine. But that there is, as Weber elaborated, a delicate balance between feeling called by God, and feeling rewarded by or due something from, Him. If you ask me it's not lack of trust that's the problem, but a failure of purpose.

Too, what we don't measure adequately with money is not trust, but productivity, esp egregious since the advent of the Fed. We no longer seem to see either, as Smith and Marx did, that there are always real costs involved in value, not just demand.

What I find humorous about the payroll tax bruhaha is that just a very short while ago Dems were complaining loudly that the GOP didn't want to pay taxes to balance the budget, or think big, and now clearly the shoe is on the other foot. I don't think anything else could have shown so clearly the bias of the liberal media (or about all of it), which has risen to en masse decry any notion that ppl pay should for their pensions and medical care, once again citing equally biased, incompetent economists on the issue, and wagging fingers at Congress. Of course, the Republicans would also like to put the president on the spot over the issue of the pipeline, but the issue does have to be resolved and not everything put off until after elections.

I think, too, this is the second time I've had to say we certainly did have big education programs nationwide in the early 20th c and had had for some decades, altho the huge pre-WWI immigration certainly brought the issue to the fore. The US Dept of Education was created only in 1979.

tabs  12/23/2011 02:05 PM Report

Here in the Colosseum we call em as we see em." Tom Waits

Jesus said, "When in Washington DC one should be as wise as a Serpent and as meek as a Lamb." To that end the Republican House (Tea Party) have marched the football down field on two different occasions now (Debt Ceiling, Payroll Tax Cut). On both occasions they were stalled out at 4Th and Goal. So what should they have done, gone for the Touchdown on PRINCIPLE or kicked the Field Goal, taking the points and field position for November 2012 election? If one were to make an analysis of strengths and weaknesses, one would come to the conclusion that the Republicans do not control the Senate nor the White House, therefore the House alone does not have the offensive line to push the ball over the goal line. Second the House Tea Party should realize that the American people understand the position that the Republicans in the House are in, and that is one where they have limited ability to rectify deficit spending and budget issues Thus the Republican House should have put PRINCIPLE aside for the moment and gone for the points in order to WIN THE GAME in November of 2012. Being able to implement the Tea Party agenda is the goal and NOT THEIR PRINCIPLES. So what has the House Tea Party done on two different occasions on 4Th and Goal, but stuck to principle and fumbled the football of public opinion away which is tantamount to the Christians being fed to the Lions. Being a meal for the Lions is not what the Tea Party members of House were sent to Washington DC to do. Strike two on the Tea Party, as they are now risking defeat in the 2012 elections by a fed up American electorate.

Richard_DeBiase  12/23/2011 12:28 PM Report

Dear David,

The most important thing that an authority figure can do is speak the truth. When people speak the truth, they gain authority. And when people tell transparent lies, they lose authority. I think there is widespread mistrust of authority figures, because there is widespread lying by authority figures.

Here is the example that bothers me the most. The cops and the teachers and the preachers are lying about marijuana. The truth is, marijuana is great, and too many Americans know it (including teenagers). I think that when these front-line authority figures falsely claim that marijuana is dangerous and highly addictive, it is very corrosive to younger generations trusting the authority of older generations. If you ever try marijuana yourself (like William F. Buckley Jr. did), you will be shocked at the magnitude of the U.S. Government's lies.

I am seriously concerned that, if we do not change our drug policy, the Mexican drug cartels will ultimately win and become the new, unelected, Mexican government. Because, certainly in regard to marijuana, the truth is on their side.

Best regards.