Charlie Rose

liyqff  05/23/2011 09:23 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

Northern Perspective  08/18/2008 11:29 PM Report

Indeed a distressing interview in its ability to revise history but not illuminate it. The Ron Tarro comments start early and get to the (among many) core of the matter. My sense too is that Rose and his producer's ongoing efforts to discredit Iraq have backfired by using a prior world war as a metaphor.

sock puppet  08/14/2008 07:58 PM Report

Mr. Tarro - Thanks for your insight. I am reading his book. A series of admittedly cherry-picked vignettes. Bordering on the tedious as I think I got the idea. However, there's enough of them to at least consider he has a valid "narrative" as you call it. I have always, rather singly?, thought the nuking of Japan (just because we could) was a long-term MANKIND caliber/destiny? mistake. Similarly, the knee-jerk? vengeance bombing of Germany shouldn't have been done - if indeed it wasn't necessary. With hindsight does that make Churchill wrong? Well perhaps. As wisdom might be defined as the effects on future history (oxymoronic) a current decision will have. Here's a lame for-instance: If Irag was about oil hegemony, supply and thus its price, does that effect the evaluation of the decision made years ago? So my opinion of Churchill has been changed. Still a leader-of-men, but diminished. But I'm continually shocked about my historical naivety. Our text books and schooling gloss over the preemptiveness of too many of our wars. We are not as nice as I wish we were. So my opinions tend to be one of a frustated pacifist. Capped off by my belief that our species will ultimately self destruct, which probably helps skew my sentiments to not pooh-pooh Mr Bakers efforts too much.

Preston  08/08/2008 06:00 PM Report

True, there are many books that I would love to read and absorb. And I would be a better informed and wiser person for it. But lazy I am not. In fact, If you have the time and convenience to read nonsensical books like this one (and I don't have to read it to know it, just listen to the author in his own words should be evidence enough, but then again some things just fly over some peoples' heads) then I guarantee you I have already at this point in my lifetime worked harder and produced more than you will in your entire lifetime. Now stop Yawning and wake up and smell the coffee. Damn it.

Yawn.  08/08/2008 03:49 PM Report

hard to know you are right if you are too lazy to actually read - but whatever.

Preston  08/08/2008 06:49 AM Report

Thank You for the invitation, Irish. But, I only write when I know I'm right. Or just goofing off.

Irish  08/07/2008 10:20 PM Report

well you sound like a 3 year old so keep writng and we'll see.

Preston  08/07/2008 09:49 PM Report

Is that all you can say about it? Sounds like a complete waste of time to me. I think society would learn something more useful from a 3 year old. The interview was excellent, because it shows clearly that this guy is a "historian" only because he's not smart enough to be an engineer.

Irish  08/07/2008 09:17 PM Report

I just finished the book. I found it quite disturbing...not because he challenged the accepted narrative, but because he offered a perspective that seems to be forbidden in a society nearly devoid of intellectual energy. The interview itslef wasnt very good, but the book is worth the mental exercise.

Preston  07/17/2008 01:16 PM Report

Approximately 19 minutes into the interview he talks about not doing "moral equivalence" yet that's exactly what he does and he's totally unaware of it. Man, talk about a case of "denial" right in your face. His logic is, if things would happen the way I say they would happen, then that's what would happen... Just another ineffectual blowing "Human Smoke".

Ron Tarro  07/15/2008 09:48 PM Report

Hmmm. I don't remember my grandparents being "mindless" and "happily marching off to kill and die". But I'm sure if you look hard enough Allyn you'll find some evidence of that! Thanks specifically for extending Bakers analytical methods to WWI: pick a point of view and selectively build your case. For the record sock puppet, the apocalypse is an abstraction. Here's something more concrete for you: our having "negotiated" through hundreds of thousands of deaths, what are the the merits of going in a killing some people to save the remaining people in Dafur? Remember by the way, that time is not on your side Sock Puppet: every day you negotiate a third way and fail, more people die (and worse its the defenseless women and children). No pressure.

allyn  07/15/2008 12:41 PM Report

Everybody is over thinking this and missing Baker's point.

___|___

WWI- An entire generation of men put on uniforms and marched happily to be ground up on the front lines simply because cousins were having a family feud. WWI-The Cousins War.

___|___

WWII-An entire generation of people put on uniforms and happily murdered whole civilian populations simply to control resources for their Empire/Society/Corporation. WWII-The Resource War

___|___

Can anyone honestly state that our current entire generation would put on uniforms and happily march off to kill and die for the Cousins or Empire/Society/Corporation like past generations mindlessly did? That if we can see that what they did was madness, then we need to learn from that and never let those in control Spin us into another war, and another war, and another war.

___|___

BTW, Charlie needs to upgrade his blog software. Not being able to format simple text makes real discussion impossible.

sock puppet  07/15/2008 01:30 AM Report

I'm not equipped to cross-swords with Mr Tarro, as he is too abstract(?) for me to handle. For instance his assertion that, "Wars can be justifiable (a point never to date directly argued by a Charlie Rose guest (prove me wrong)). Pick your world view and then line up your anecdotes!!!!" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I'm flummoxed by that. I can't pull up all the guests that lit-me-up because they were too jingoistic for my tastes. So, maybe all the generals (Patreus et al), President Bush himself, yadda, yadda. Then there's the bald-ass honesty of oil hegemony. Justification enough for those that matter, namely Bush, Cheney, enough Republicans. So if this is supposed to be a "moral" justification, I'm the wrong donkey braying. Like I say the abstraction may be eludung me. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally if the apocalyptic end-of-days scenario doesn't qualify for giving Charlie and Mr Baker a shot at least of trying to divert us from that inevitability(?), my feeble grasp of human destiny wont cut it. I defer to the better equipped. I'm so naive, I like Charlie's guests even when they turn me brain dead. Like abstract painters. Remember, I can't handle the abstract.

Ron Tarro  07/14/2008 10:28 PM Report

So as I said in prior posts, it has boiled down to two narratives regardless of the facts. 1. Wars are never justifiable (the position Charlie Rose has advocated with the selection of this guest and the idea that the Holocaust was enabled by a failure to negotiate). Versus 2. Wars can be justifiable (a point never to date directly argued by a Charlie Rose guest (prove me wrong)). Pick your world view and then line up your anecdotes!!!! For Sockpuppet; to answer your question "what could we lose" by choosing the wrong narrative? Actually we could lose everything (or at least more than we did). Would one narrative have been a better strategy. I have my doubts but I don't know. You don't know. Baker doesn't know. And Rose knows what he wants us to know by his selection of this guest. The best narratives (plural) will take more serious consideration of those decades than what Baker has provided.

Chris Peters  07/14/2008 09:33 PM Report

listen to the mans breathing, Mr Baker sounds nervous

sock puppet  07/14/2008 09:11 PM Report

Mr Levy, your heritage and thus your passion may be justified. BUT (always the but) if you reduce to the level of your tormentors haven't they won in a real sense. The final example: our species is not capable (read smart enough?) of surviving, largely because your view is so (too?) easily snapped up so (too?) readily by the majority. The last survivor of Armeggeddon may look up and ponder: "I wonder if there was a better way?" Or more dismaying even, "Damn, maybe we should of at least given Baker a chance! What (else) could we lose?"

aTypicalProgressive  07/14/2008 09:10 PM Report

I will avoid the usual primal descriptions of Nicholson Baker's outlook on war and commend Charlie Rose for managing to remain civil and pacific during the interview.<br><br>

Mr. Baker sees trees but not the forest. As ugly and reprehensible war is, it's an ingrained inherent part of human nature, not within the purview of particular political affiliations. Like it or not, we are territorial creatures. Sports, games like chess and other forms of competition are peaceful extensions of the combative portions of our nature and behavior. Combative behavior also exists in animals, cats being a prime example. Mr. Baker also misses the salient point that war isn't just about good vs. evil, it's also about survival. During our 100,000+ year long existence as humans we (most of us) moved from caves to houses and from savagery to civilization. Despite many advances, if a consistently better alternative to war was possible, it would have been established as part of our nature by now.<br><br>

All feasible peaceful alternatives should be explored before engaging war. However, peaceful alternatives to war haven't always worked. History documents many many times in which peaceful alternatives were insufficient, unsuccessful, rejected, non-existent or the attacked were ambushed and didn't even have the opportunity to defend themselves. Christ, Gandhi and MLK were exceptions not the norm. Setting a flower in the barrel of a gun pointed at you isn't guaranteed to stop bullets intended to curtail your mortality. One of the bravest men in our modern times, was/is an unknown Chinese who in 1989 defied a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square by waving his arms and refusing to move out of the way. He managed to temporarily stop that particular column but afterwards, the Chinese government managed to suppress protests and protesters for years.<br><br>

Not all pacifists were true pacifists. The Muslim prophet Mohammed was a pacifist as well as a warrior. Islamic terrorists thump the Quran and plant bombs, not flowers. Should they be dignified with peace negotiations? Should the Spartans have run and let the Persians conquer Greece? I think not.<br><br>

Baker's POV on war underscores the importance of having adequately trained armed forces. Metaphorically speaking, "peace through strength" is only one edge of a necessary double edge sword.<br><br>

Dave Levy  07/14/2008 08:08 PM Report

Really, one of the most unusual versions of history I have ever heard of in my lifetime. I was born the year Germany invaded Russia, and ultimately murdered 25m of their people. This was after he had signed a treaty, as we all know. So much for trusting Hitler's Reich. Long before the Allies stormed Normandy (my uncles and many others I know were involved there, into France and Germany itself), and long before any bombings of German cities, Hitler and his thugs were raping entire countries, and committing genocide, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions. (See War Crimes tribunal). Germany fully intended to occupy the USA, utilizing 3rd columns within US, people like Pat Buchanan, and the America Firsters. He and his henchmen were great at pitting one group against another, based on existing hatreds and fears. He had plans to invade England and in fact, had perused their telephone books, looking for Jewish and other institutions in order to make the country Judenrein (without Jews), in a similar manner as he accomplished in France. (Using English police). Even as late as 1944, with German armies being defeated all over, 500,000 Jews were told they would be resettled, and instead were shipped or walked to Auschwitz. It is absurd to believe that Hitler, or Germany had any other intentions but to make that "New World Order" along with Japan and Italy, and their allies. Just prior to the Russian take-over of Auschwitz, those inmates were placed on a forced march of hundreds of miles. I have met a few survivors. Most died. (This to the bitter end revealed Germany's "Other" war).

This book is shameful, based on the absurdity that Germany could have been appeased. I think anyone reading and believing in fairy tales and fantasy, might be better off seeing a good

current comic movie. At least they will get something for their denaros.

To defeat Germany's war machine, England needed a Churchill type. This book is shameful., and not worth reading. But I may add, that all proceeds should be given to the survivors of the Holocaust and their offspring. Really, a disgusting piece of garbage.

Ron Tarro  07/14/2008 06:42 PM Report

To clarify my last point, critical thinking matters because both a decision for war and a decision for peace/negotiation could be EQUALLY disastrous. Both paths require reasoned assessment looking forward and looking backward. To the "war solves nothing" and "war solves everything" narratives of history I would say, well, that's a complicated question.

Ron Tarro  07/14/2008 06:33 PM Report

Nice try Lola but Baker did not ask a "question" or simply "explore" a topic. He made a argument/assertion for a particular point of view based on evidence. Alas in the world of analytical thinking, you just don't get to cherry pick the best aligned anecdotal data to drive your point and then ignore huge bodies of information that represent inconsistency. Its great that he made you think!! He's created heat. But has he really created light?

I have an aspiration for the world. I aspire for a global citizenry that examines public and political dialogues under the strict scrutiny of critical thinking. A world capable of critical thinking would be a better place if only because marginal ideas would be dispensed with quickly by the average guy on the street. Then no matter your position on WWII or future wars, the public is not easily "led" to the edge. And so I dream ...

sock puppet  07/14/2008 05:58 PM Report

The use of a definitive term does not automatically debase it. Bush and Cheney are sellers/mongers of war. To the extent Churchill carried on beyond necessity, he too qualifies. Jingos instead?

iola  07/14/2008 05:15 PM Report

regarding nicholson baker, i rarely see one of your interviews where my attention was so intense. i immediately accepted his invitation to explore the necessity of ww2, and it was a creative experience just to listen to him. i loved not being able to predict even what his next word would be. i love hearing new ideas and especially love counter-intuitive arguments and defenses of these. thankyou for letting him speak.

it seems that despite baker's compassionate manner, which to me was so easy to listen to, most people writing in were not able to question their beliefs and instead, attacked baker.

perhaps all the attacks mean that baker has touched an anti-questioning nerve that hits too close to home - easier to attack then to explore what baker is exploring.

Shaft  07/14/2008 03:25 PM Report

I have seen many programs in this show, and I have never seen such a misleading guest as Mr. Baker. I am not a fan of the English, for they have created the mess in much of the world. However, I have to give credit when its due, and the credit to Prime Minister Churchill is deserving. Prime Minister Churchill fought Fascism with determination, he did not do it for others but he did it to defend Britain along the way he freed others that needed the break from Hitler's incinerators and kromatorium. Baker does not understand the evilness of Hitler, and his intention. I am surprised, even after learning all his deeds Baker thinks it would have been possible to talk to Hitler. I can only say that Baker's ideas are nearly madness. I was flabergasted when he mentioned that Britain's attack against German cities inflamed the killing of Jews in Germany and other concentration camps. Hitler's craziness was witnessed after he invaded USSR for no apparent reason. Hitler was irrational, his fanatic followers were irrational, and discussing what could have been is just irrational.

allyn  07/14/2008 03:25 PM Report

Baker is right. An entire generation of people were wiped out for the personal gain of an elite few.___|___ Japan was an Imperial Power trying to protect its divine right to resources. Germany was a National Socialist system trying to provide full employment by taking over other peoples territories. America was, and still is, a Fascist system where Corporations are successfully turning the whole world into customers not countries.___|___Definitions: Fascism - a system where the banks and the military run the country. i.e., the military industrial congressional complex. Patriotism - Corporate spin used to get you to fight for their profits.___|___The Corporate model won WWII, and soon there will be no more countries only customers, deeply in debt to the company store. Welcome to MacWorld. May I take your order.

Ron Tarro  07/14/2008 02:40 PM Report

I would just observe that the use of emotionally laden words like "warm monger" do not help an argument. Such expresssions actually establish that the argument is likely not based in reason and that its part of an effort to place facts into preferred narratives.

To be clear about Taleb, he didn't invent the idea of the narrative fallacy. He aggregates the work of many academic and philosophical sources into his book. The core argument of the narrative fallacy holds water (no matter the messenger). The lesson: narratives help us understand the past and make sense of the present. But their risk is that they can be profoundly wrong and completely misused.

Roy Fassel  07/14/2008 01:10 PM Report

Nissam Taleb received a lot of notoriety with his published book…… The Black Swan. He had some mystic intrigue which captured the imagination of many. In a later interview, he stated that he made almost all of the money he ever made in his life in one day…during the 1987 stock market crash. In one instance, according to his interview, he said his bosses came in to ask what he did to make some money on that day, and he didn’t even know he had made any money because the market that day broke the "matrix". Brilliant trader? Get serious. One can use his term “narrative fallacy” if one wishes. We see that every day with news coverage or with guests of Charlie Rose. I called it “framing” the issue. Human beings, even Charlie Rose’s audience, are quite gullible. "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.".......... Mark Twain. That reminds me of Taleb. We see this every day with the news presentation and we see this quite often with Charlie’s guests. One can call it "misleading", "dishonest", "framing" or ever “narrative fallacy.” It’s all the same.

sock puppet  07/14/2008 12:15 PM Report

Mr Tarro - one more thought. Your assertion: "I still think it illustrative that Rose has chosen to air one narrative and not the other)." In a senese, all the war-mongers he's had on belies this as they are the "other narrative," in my view.

Ron Tarro  07/14/2008 08:41 AM Report

Also an intellectual critique. I have watched the Baker interview and have scanned the book. Nissam Taleb wrote a book called the Black Swan a couple years ago.( I just checked and he was a guest on the Rose show last year). In that book he discussed something called the "narrative fallacy". The book indicts the intellectual habits of our world. I would subtitle the book "how not to be an intellectual chump". His narrative fallacy describes our tendency to draw a single path backwards in time to understand events where in reality the people back then were moving forward in time and were faced with imperfect information and infinite choices. There are infinite historical narratives. One can hang large numbers of facts on any one narrative. And interesting most/all historical facts can be attributed to many different narratives. My assessment of Baker's work is that he seems to have established a narrative and then surrounded it with facts. That can be dramatic. But does that really get into the mind of Churchill et al and the infinite complexity he and the governments faced? Here's a thought experiment. I've seen another narrative over the years. That narrative is "wars solve everything". There are classical historians who will say that the world has changed only when there are winner takes all conflict and a completely vanquished party. They too have hung facts around that idea (but probably won't get a Charlie Rose interview). The corollary to this narrative is that "pacifists cause wars" by letting problems fester (Middle East?). I don't have a strong affinity to any one narrative but look at the contrast. Does anyone doubt that both narratives can be completely underpinned by facts? When it comes to narrative views of history, enjoy, but buyer beware. (By the way, to my earlier posts, I still think it illustrative that Rose has chosen to air one narrative and not the other).

Ron Tarro  07/14/2008 08:10 AM Report

The Baker narrative is hard to intellectually defend. Actually any single historical narrative is an oversimplification of the world and hard to defend. But regardless of that, the hard reality is that Mr Rose and his producers knew the Baker narrative and chose to put Baker's message out there. I am not a believer in the idea that a guest's views are "not those of this program". Of course they are. The Charlie Rose show is not an open microphone. Guests are granted access. Charlie Rose and his producers carefully vet many possible guests. They choose what's to be heard. More importantly they choose what's not heard. The Rose team thinks this narrative serves a purpose.

Shalom Freedman  07/14/2008 04:53 AM Report

I am surprised Charlie Rose chose Nicholson Baker and his misleading and disgraceful anti- Churchill exercise in newspaper- quotation- culling for a segment of his show. This cheap work of intellectual trickery includes an attack on those who saved Western Civilization, and places a question- mark on the heroic Allied War Effort.

The world has so many remarkable people and so many interesting subjects- and Charlie Rose ordinarily gets many of them on his show- Here he missed the mark entirely.

TABS  07/13/2008 09:38 PM Report

Dear Mr Inconvenient:...................I don't read books I am too busy watching Charlie Rose. All this talk of Der Fuhrer has perhaps left me feeling a bit of megalomania and in a demagogic frame of mind. This is in reference to my "fantastical delusion" rhetoric. Other than that I think that you should be aware that the "Pragmatic" and "Last Innocent Generation" piece were written on different occasions. The syntax and grammar if you notice on the "Innocent" piece is a bit more idiosyncratic. That was on purpose. The point of the piece is to illuminate the psychological reason why Liberals so hate America. Actually it is not hate, but a neurotic idealism that America should live up to a standard of perfection that is impossible to achieve and gets angry when America can't live up to that standard. Instead of realizing that America is limited by the resources and constraints of time and place in its actions.......Otherwise with regards to Mr Baker I have merely presented historical fact to counter Mr Bakers argument. I have not used inuendo to discredit him, but let the facts speak for themselves. Perhaps Mr Baker has another agenda in mind when he presents an argument that is so incredulous.

jacqui  07/13/2008 06:57 PM Report

Charlie, you referred more than once to how this book is driving reviewers "CRAZY," as though critical responses have been irrational. But this is not true. To take one example of an outstandingly reasonable, documented critique (aside from a couple of sneers at Baker's previous,fictional topics), please look at the Andrew Robert's review in New Criterion, June 2008. The errors and distortions Nicholas Baker perpetrates are gross:

http://newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Up-in-smoke-3866

Inconvenient Truths  07/13/2008 06:44 PM Report

Mr TABS...... You're spewing opinions about a book you've never read. Your derisions about the Baker delivering first person facts and the using Hitler as as a bellows to justify your opinions are very disturbing to me..... This is my last message to you until you choose to lift yourself out the muck of disillusion and debate the book's content.

TABS  07/13/2008 03:52 PM Report

Let us use Adolf Hitlers OWN words to consign Mr Bakers words to the realm of fantastical delusion. Words he spoke in the early 1930's before he even ascended to power..........."Nature is cruel; therfore we are also entitled to be cruel. When I send the flower if German youth into the steel hail of the coming war without feeling the slightest regret over the precious German blood being spilled, should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin."...............

Hitler Gesprache..Herman Rausching..pg. 129

Inconvenient Truths  07/13/2008 03:22 PM Report

"Nation states are run on pragmatism, as that is how food, clothing and shelter are provided."

Since I'm not on welfare as aren't the majority of Americans, "pragmatism" seems like a cloak to justify immoral or illegal actions of government men or elected officials.

Preaching about morality and idealism is best left for church.

So we can't have any public debate unless it's in a religious building?

..When we was growin (sp) up, we was (sp) all told by our teachers in school that America was the GREATEST, that we represented everything good in the world and everybody loved America and Americans for it. That America was honest as the day was long...Then something happened that started to change our opinions. That was the death of JFK, we didn't quiet (sp) believe what our HONEST, NEVER TELL A LIE government told us about it. We started to examine and question what we was (sp) told in school and found out a different truth about America. That it had blemishes and warts and all. That we were not always on the side of right and always wore white hats . Some of us got so angry that we was (sp) lied to by our teachers and government that we never forgave those little white lies we were told. Some keep pointing out the flaws and get(sp) angry when our government can not live up to the ideals that we were told about by our teachers in school when we were young. Today them (sp) people are called America Hating Liberals.

Dude. You just contradicted yourself. You said that teachers told us lies but then you said that "we" found they were lies (little white lies to soften the blow) and then "some of us" (which you profess wasn't you) got angry and never forgave those lies. Wow. How can you read all these millions of people's minds to know that they didn't forgive? A truism that Bush botched and then corrected himself on is "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Many of us are trying to not get fooled again. Is that absurd?

I think you may be saying that some people use past lies to illustrate how that current government has done it yet again and that "they" should just "forgive" the "little white lies" and just chat among themselves while the plate is being passed during church. How nice for you. You "people" can say what you want just not around me because it may cause me to question my hardened database of known truths, though I'll use those to justify my position on blockades and ending WW2. You can't have it both ways TABS.

I forget who said that a true Patriot is one who loves his country enough to question the actions of current men in power. These Patriots were attacked by Bill Riley et. al during the early go-go war years and now others regret that they didn't back and join them to stop the debacle occupation. I for one protested in Washington DC to stop the invasion which now has finally shown its true Bush head when the State Department helped his cronies grab oil fields for their own exploitation. The oil exploitation is now in full gear as multinational oil barons line up to extract the oil our US soldiers died to provide them. Makes me ashamed because that's what Europe and the World said as we were invading in 83 and it's come true smack in our faces like bugs in the radiator.

But Mr. TABS, your missive really motivated me to write this when you called patriotic dissenters "America Hating Liberals. In fact it is because we love America and are sickened by the transformation by Bush of a country that we could be proud of to one that we are ashamed of, that we are showing up at the voting booths in unprecedented numbers to right the wrongs enacted under his rule.

I just bought Baker's book-Human Smoke. It's name is derived form a quote by a German General who called the gray dust flakes spewed out by Auschwitz's human cremation ovens.

This book has no chapters and is a chronological collection of relevant words and actions by people which starts at WW1 and ending at 12.7.41. So far it is gripping. Read it TABS and then criticize Baker's choices. He merely is chronicling stories from first hand sources.

Since when did that make Baker a "natural born slave" as proffered by C. Carroll?

sock puppet  07/13/2008 01:12 PM Report

Have started Mr Bakers book. It's a definite page turner. Two points jumping out: Churchill seemed to excell in promoting mass killing (justifiable or not) and he had no use for Ghandi; and a big deal was made by many about the book and movie "All Quiet on the Western Front." If I've seen it I've forgotten it, so will have to revisit. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Afterthought for all you "tough take no prisoners kinda guys," give it a chance then tell us how indifferent you are to us CS pacifists. If we can't handle it, that's our problem, right? But let us have it armed with the same background of (common) knowledge, which will add credence/heft to your assertions.

TABS  07/13/2008 02:09 AM Report

Nation states are run on pragmatism, as that is how food, clothing and shelter are provided. Preaching about morality and idealism is best left for church. Now that is not to say that honesty is not a essential virtue in a Democracy as it builds trust among people and that is the glue that holds a Democracy together...............Anyway........

The Last Innocent Generation.............06/17/2008 - 13:01 — tabs.....When we was growin up, we was all told by our teachers in school that America was the GREATEST, that we represented everything good in the world and everybody loved America and Americans for it. That America was honest as the day was long...Then something happened that started to change our opinions. That was the death of JFK, we didn't quiet believe what our HONEST, NEVER TELL A LIE government told us about it.

We started to examine and question what we was told in school and found out a different truth about America. That it had blemishes and warts and all. That we were not always on the side of right and always wore white hats . Some of us got so angry that we was lied to by our teachers and government that we never forgave those little white lies we were told. Some keep pointing out the flaws and get angry when our government can not live up to the ideals that we were told about by our teachers in school when we were young. Today them people are called America Hating Liberals.

TABS  07/13/2008 01:05 AM Report

The goal of the strategic bombing campaign in WW2 was to destroy the enemies industrial capacity to wage war. The Brits tried to do precision daylight bombing but found that their bombers were vulnerable and easily shot down by the German fighters. So the Brits started bombing at night. Since one cannot see their targets in the dark the Brits resorted to Area Bombing of the German cities (civilians). It was the Americans with more robust bombers that finally made a go (after the introduction of a long range fighter) of daylight precision bombing. Dresden was bombed day and night in March of 1945, by that point in the war Germany was already collapsing and the bombing campaign was virtually over for lack of targets. Dresden was an old German city that was virtually untouched to that point as it really had no strategic industry other than as a transportation center. The reason why the US and Britain bombed Dresden was to placate Stalin who was asking for some sort of Allied help in the final days of the war......Two reasons speak against a blockade of Japan the first, it might have taken years to accomplish and the American people might have become war weary. Second was the USSR, America had always pushed on the Russians to enter the war, but at this stage of the war in the Pacific the US was not really wanting Russian involvement. Especially in Manchuria, China, Korea and the Home Islands. The Japanese even after the dropping of 2 Atomic Bombs still were not ready to surrender. It was the Russian declaration of war and the rout of the Japanese Army in Manchuria that finally convinced them to surrender. For as long as Japan was holding Manchuria they had hope.

sock puppet  07/13/2008 12:55 AM Report

Hey c'mon, ease up with the Incovenient Truths. Guys like you that disparage the heritage of 'Our-nation-right-or-wrong,' have got to wave the flag and affix the jingo bumper stickers. Our text books can't indulge in your 'truths.' If we omitted preemptive wars (working backwards) no mention could be made of Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Spanish-American, Mexican yadda, yadda. Next you're going to try telling us that we aren't as nice as advertised. Shiish!

Inconvenient Truths  07/13/2008 12:43 AM Report

From the bookcover of Bakers new book- "Human smoke: the beginnings of World War II, the end of civilization" : "Bestselling author Nicholson Baker has created a compelling work of nonfiction bound to provoke discussion and controversy - a wide-ranging perspective on the political and social landscape that gave rise to World War II." "Human Smoke delivers a closely textured, deeply moving indictment of the treasured myths that have romanticized much of the 1930s and '40s. Incorporating meticulous research and well-documented sources - including newspaper and magazine articles, radio speeches, memoirs, and diaries - the book juxtaposes hundreds of interrelated moments of decision, brutality, suffering, and mercy. Vivid glimpses of political leaders and their dissenters illuminate and examine the gradual, horrifying advance toward overt global war and Holocaust."

Read the book and then attack the message.... not the messenger. Until then, keep quiet, try to be open minded and then unleash your diatribes if you feel so compelled.

I chose Inconvenient Truths because Baker has gone to original sources and not just regurgitated accepted drivel which inconveniently avoids the notion that we may have been better off not entering WW2. Shocking that thought, that treasured myth isn't it?

Inconvienent Truths  07/13/2008 12:10 AM Report

Tabs says: "Harry Truman ultimately decided that if and when the American people found out that the US didn't use the best weapon available and one that would minimize US casualties there would be he11 to pay. We know which option he chose.... Both decisions ultimately cost a lot of lives for better or worse, however at the time they were deemed to be the best decisions possible."

One of the things you forgot to notice (or note)in the interview was Baker's comment about how the bombers flew right over the troops and bombed the civilians. The firestorm bombing of Dresden was emblematic of the Allies wanton killing of innocent Germans: the old, the wives and the children...but not the soldiers. This decimation of innocent civilians continues with the Hiroshima & Nagasaki travesties where American Generals wanted to see just how many civilians they could kill with their new toys. Dropping the bombs 150 feet in the air at the height of rush hours with everyone outdoors makes me ashamed of America's actions. The 1 million number is wrong. We would have bombed and blockaded them into submission with low loss of life.

The continuing farce that we were better than our evil enemies in an inconvenient thought that Baker has unleashed. Look at the abuses that we have foisted upon the Iraqi people and engaged in torture right out of the 1955

sock puppet  07/13/2008 12:08 AM Report

The naysayers mostly do so with ad hominem venom, which validates that our species will not survive its own inclinations for violence. Just considering non-violence makes us violent. Tee hee! Dante's inferno awaits with pacifists stacked like cordwood for our eternal mouth slobbering delight. Whoops! Indeed, maybe it's our heaven. Their hell.

AP   07/12/2008 10:35 PM Report

Why don't we get it? It's not about morality, ideology, or which is the better god. It's about trying to share this real estate on earth without so much bloodshed and extreme hardship. Mr. Baker addresses that. He is a most valuable thinker. Good to see people like him on the Charlie Rose program.... for a change.

Jonathan Charles  07/12/2008 10:28 PM Report

I can honestly say that while I don't agree 100% with almost all of the guests on the show, I have never thought any guest was delusional or just plain nuts. This guy is nuts! 'Half-truths' and 'what ifs' make for some interesting fiction, but it has nothing to do with reality. I applaud Charlie for having such a guest, but the guest value is questionable.

S. Weissman  07/12/2008 09:53 PM Report

It was most enlightening to watch the interview with N. Baker. I was very impressed by Mr. Baker's efforts at inviting people to learn about the complexities involved in significant acts of violence. He does not minimize the dangers of psychopathic leaders. On the contrary, he suggests that intelligent approaches should be explored in dealing with them in order to diminish their power instead of enhancing it.

Mr. Baker doesn't dictate policy nor does he have armies and weapons at his disposal. And he doesn't talk about pacifist morality either. He is actually being very practical. It is therefore interesting, and also very bewildering, to find that individuals who, like him, merely suggest the value of that kind of exploration, are often met with angry disapproval. Haven't we learned enough already about the cycles of mass violence? Is there anything wrong or dangerous with attempting to think about better, if not perfect solutions?

Apparently, Albert Einstein came to an interesting conclusion on this subject. In the famous letter he wrote to the FOR (an organization that promotes non-violence) he said: "Your goal is, in my opinion, the only reasonable one and to make it prevail is of vital importance." Perhaps, Einstein, Gandhi, L. King, N. Baker and others have a point. Their kind of thinking may be, above all, very smart and practical.

Roy Fassel  07/12/2008 09:27 PM Report

I watched the interview of Nicholas Baker and then saw the second part about the tragic story about the gorilla murders in Africa. It is my view that the gorillas have/had more common sense than Nicholas Baker. If anyone really believes that one can combat real evil with pacifism lacks the common sense that even gorillas have in the wild. We can be assured that either Obama or maybe Ralph Nader will be getting Baker’s vote in November. Thanks, Charlie for this interview. I thought I had seen it all. I was mistaken. He writes novels, doesn’t he? Baker has an expanded imagination. I would rather listen to the gorillas! More wisdom.

TABS  07/12/2008 08:38 PM Report

The consequences of Mr Bakers book maybe the exposing of the fact that US support for the state of Israel is guilt over the fact that the US and her Allies didn't care and did nothing about about Hitlers Final Solution for the Jews.

TABS  07/12/2008 08:31 PM Report

The "he11 to pay" is that the American people would not like the fact that the US government would not use the most effective means at it's disposal to defeat the enemy which in this case was Japan......Some people might argue that the dropping of the bomb was letting Pandora out of the box. However at Potsdam in July 1945, Stalin was fully aware of the US having an atomic bomb, due to his spy network in the US nuclear laboratories. Ole Harry thought he had a secret.

sock puppet  07/12/2008 08:15 PM Report

TABS - quite a history lessen. Just a thought - the "hell to pay," mentioned at the end of your post may be amassing itself for an apocalyptic climax. Markers still outstanding perhaps?

TABS  07/12/2008 07:54 PM Report

Even some 60 years on the decision to fight Hitler instead of trying to contain him is still the only correct decision. Hitler ALWAYS intended to expand the Reich for Lebensraum through the use of aggressive warfare. The German Officer Corps signed off on it, when they signed an oath of allegiance in 1934. The German Generals planned on the commencement of war in 1942, as that was when they felt Germany would be fully armed...... The thought that the Germans would have overthrown Hitler is ludicrous. Even after 1943 when it was obvious to the German officer corp that what lay ahead for Germany was complete and utter ruin, they continued to have loyalty to Hitler. With regard to the assassination of Hitler, German General Heinz Guderian of Panzer fame said about the dilettante nature of Hitlers would be assassins, "That any staff officer could have just shot Hitler as they all carried their side arms when in confrence with him." Even under the most onerous bombing campaign by the Allies, the German people rallied around their Fuhrer, and in 1944 German military output was higher than ever before....With regard to the Jews, FDR and Churchill disregarded the plight of the Jews under NAZI occupation even though they were fully aware of the death camps. They felt that defeating Hitler was more important than saving Jews. This is clear evidence that the Jews were not a consideration in fighting the war. It was all about stopping Hitlers insatiable megalomania and ruthless determination to achieve his ends......How apros this was posted in comment to the C Rose interview about John Mccain's campaign....................

Comment by TABS on Thursday, Jul 10 at 08:06 PM.....................

One can only determine if a decision is the "correct" choice from the advantage of hindsight. In the field (or WH) one doesn't have the luxury of having all the information, or perhaps the time to process it, this is called the "fog of war." One just has to make a decision based upon the best information one has under the circumstance of the time, and hopefully one makes the right one for your cause....Sometimes not doing something will cause the death of hundreds of thousands as well. During WW2 FDR and Churchill knew about the existence of Auschwitz and what its purpose was. They made the decision not to bomb Auschwitz nor the rail lines leading to it. Their reasoning was that they didn't want to give NAZI propaganda a reason to say that the Allies were fighting the war for the Jews. Harry Truman had several alternatives in August 1945, One is that he knew the Japanese were willing to surrender if the Allies would permit the Emperor to remain the titular head of state, which was opposed to the Allied doctrine of Unconditional Surrender, Two, invade Japan at the estimated cost of 1M US casualties. Three, blockade Japan into surrender. Four, drop the bomb. Harry Truman ultimately decided that if and when the American people found out that the US didn't use the best weapon available and one that would minimize US casualties there would be he11 to pay. We know which option he chose.... Both decisions ultimately cost a lot of lives for better or worse, however at the time they were deemed to be the best decisions possible.